This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've tried to clean this article up a bit, moving some stuff around, removing some pictures, changing some odd formatting (like excessive quotations in italics!), etc.
Thus I was interested in this article. The research I've looked at seems to indicate that the racial identity of Fraunces is still up in the air. Kym Rice and the folks at the Fraunces Tavern seem to believe that he was white, hands down, but other research I've seen indicates that he was—and even in the eighteenth century—described as black or mulatto. I have thus added BOTH sides of the historical argument to make the article more NPOV (remember NPOV, guys?), neutral, and informative. The reader can decide based on the evidence we present. (As to the portraits, I've moved the Trumball drawing to the top, as that seems to be better sourced than the portrait—though the portrait is prettier.)
I think it is best to present both sides of the argument and not just push one view here on Wikipedia. TuckerResearch ( talk) 05:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
PS - I think this quote from Jennifer Patton says it best: "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure." Which is why I've presented both sides and had this quote as the kicker-conclusion. TuckerResearch ( talk) 05:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
PPS - Today I redid some of the references, put some things in a better format, added notes for the digressions, fixed some things here and there, noted that the oil portrait is said by the Fraunces Tavern Musem to be "attributed to Samuel Fraunces," and uploaded a better quality version of the Sam Fraunces engraving. TuckerResearch ( talk) 17:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Samuel M. Fraunces was Samuel Fraunces's younger son, and served as co-executor of his father's estate, 1795-96. This is documented in multiple sources, including a Philadelphia newspaper – "All Persons indebted to the ESTATE of SAMUEL FRAUNCES, late of this City, INNKEEPER, deceased, are requested to make payments to the Subscribers... Samuel M. Fraunces, Acting Executor, South Water Street, No. 59." – Gazette of the United States, October 28, 1795.
The son was listed as an "Inn keeper" at "No. 59 South Water-Street" in the 1795 Philadelphia Directory, [1] and the 1796 Philadelphia Directory. [2] His late father's establishment, the Tun Tavern, was located at No. 59 South Water Street.
Samuel M. Fraunces died intestate in 1799, leaving a widow, Susannah, and two young daughters: Susan (b. 17 June 1796) and Hariot (b. 8 September 1797), per Christ Church baptismal records. On July 30, 1799, Susannah Fraunces was named administratrix of her late husband's estate – Letters of Administration, Estate of Samuel M. Fraunces, Philadelphia Will Book K, page 12, No. 265 of 1799.
There may have been a sailor aboard the USS Constitution (launched 1797) named S. Francis who drowned, but there is no evidence that he was Samuel M. Fraunces. == BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor named User:GramereC has recently made a huge number of edits (more than 100 by last count!) over just the past few days. This is troubling. Not only are there a huge number of spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes in this user's edits, some are just plain silly. The "Portraits" section moved to the top? I've counted numerous instances were past events are described in the present tense. I've seen several extraneous spaces between quotation marks and quoted text, or between sentences and citations. Some sentences make no sense. My favorite, thus far, is an original research attack on a secondary source author: "Rice also listed his memberships in groups (such as the Masons) then stated erroneously, membership was restricted to whites only.[3]:27 Who was Prince Hall?" Huh? Or delightful non-sequiturs, like the unsourced: "This narrative is in reference to information passed to Jane Tuers." Says who? And, no, the preceding "narrative" quote has nothing to do with Tuers. I know, I put that quote in.
What's worse is this editor is violating the Wikipedia:No original research policy. There are several footnotes now to primary sources like census records. Assumptions and guesses and interpretations are made here that should not be made on Wikipedia. Like: "It should be noted that Samuel Jr. does not appear as a tic mark unless we count him as the enslaved individual, the rest of the unmarried children are accounted for." Pure, unreferenced speculation. Or: "Samuel Fraunces had a maternal grandfather Oliver, who was noted in the Christ Church Philadelphia baptism records of 31 Nov 1766, as one of Hamilton's Negroes." Says who? It is a standalone primary source, who says this "Oliver Francis" has anything to so with Samuel Fraunces? Or, how about this, an 1880 Florida census record is cited for this sentence: "A closer look at the family reveals that sister and mother lived in Santo Domingo now Hati, as indicated on census records for John Frances, a descendant of Louis Francis and nephew of Fraunces." Who says these people are related to the subject of this article? Nobody. It is out of bounds supposition that violates Wikipedia policy. This is why Wikipedia demands the use of solid, reliable SECONDARY sources and frowns upon the use of primary sources.
This editor has been blocked before ( User_talk:GramereC#3RR) and has admitted to being one C. R. Cole ( User_talk:GramereC#SOCKPUPPETRY). Cole is the author of a self-published book on Fraunces (Cole, C. R. [2009]. Samuel Fraunces: "Black Sam". Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4363-9104-7.). Books from a vanity press like Xlibris should hardly be considered reliable sources, but there are two footnotes to the work in question. It appears that this editor, GramereC/Cole, is filling up this article with suppositions from their own work. Cole also appears to be the co-author of a children's book about Fraunces published through another vanity press and mentioned in the article. This is troubling as it rubs up against the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy.
Now, User:GramereC/Cole is making these edits in, what I hope to be good faith, with no ulterior motives. But the sheer number of edits (over 100), many of them minor edits, makes it hard for other editors to correct, smooth, or discuss the alterations. The large number of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors are hard to make sense of. The recourse to primary sources, iffy and subjective interpretations of those sources, and questionable self-published books mean that these edits are of little value.
I suggest this page be rolled back to a version before User:GramereC/Cole began their "edit marathon" and any changes the editor wants to make should be hashed out in the talk pages first. I'd hate to bring in an outside editor/administrator, but that may have to be done, as so many edits may smack of ownership behavior.
In good faith. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok section by section from your link here. Section 1: If you want a copy of Samuel Fraunces Will the current file # is the one I placed in the article. The other reference takes an in person visit and possible overnight to even get a microfilmed copy. The form for the Registrar of Wills to obtain documents has a file # and it is #W-219-1795. Section 2 That material has to be added it is accurate and appropriate. That which was taken out was placed later. Lossing Why he was not the only one telling the story it grew with progression of time. Section 3 That info is included back in, in chronological order. Section 4 That statement about Richmond Hill is referenced where???? Added info is sourced. Section 5 The progression to the Scribner's article is important as the whisper down the lane tale grows. The information removed was placed after the new added look down to section 7. Section 6 The same thing sources added in chronological order only thing removed were not sourced statements of opinion. Section 7 Same thing added chronological info and removed not sourced statement of opinion added others back in chronologically. Section 8 9 and 10 add back in all the sourced info again in chronological order. GramereC 13:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe this article needs to be rolled back to before User:GramereC started making a gazillion changes. Then we can decide on the talkpage if anything she has added should be added. Like, I really like this picture at right. But the suppositions and unsupported primary sources; the attacks on authors and the Sons of the Revolution/Fraunces Museum people; and the bad formatting and grammar - these all tell me we need to go back and start from scratch. I get it, GramereC/Cole believes that Fraunces was black. Other people say he was white. GramereC/Cole is trying to prove he was black. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. You take reliable, printed secondary sources and give the info they have. As far as the reputable printed material says, we don't know if Fraunces was black, white, mulatto, and/or passing. Some of our secondary sources say one thing, some say the other. (As an aside, I think he was probably a passing mulatto of some sort, and I just find the Tavern portrait fishy.) But, the article as it was a week ago was good and fine, as it stands now it is a pile of mess. TuckerResearch ( talk) 01:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Samuel Fraunces bought a property he had rented in 1792 on Filbert St transferring it later that year to his son Andrew. It is three blocks from the Presidents house.There are deed references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
User:GramereC put this in the article, clunkily cited to a 1885 article in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register: "The name Fraunces is seen with one family from England dating back to Henry VIII, and that is the family of Edward Fraunces who died in 1741. The french extraction so often referred to is that of the Jaquelin family from Vendee France and the grandmother of Edward Fraunces." But the document in question (linked here: https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhistorv39wate#page/n681/mode/2up/search/fraunces) is a transcription of Edward Fraunces's 1740 will. No source is given to connect this Edward Fraunces to the subject of this article, Samuel Fraunces. This is the type of supposition, the original research in primary sources that does not belong in Wikipedia. What proof is there that this Edward Fraunces is an ancestor or relative of Samuel Fraunces? None. All such unsupportable, extraneous stuff should be removed from this article. TuckerResearch ( talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
There are a few little things in other sections to change or add.
If we change the household to Washington's there could be the addition of the correspondence back and forth about glassware, dishes, madeira and the like. Showing there are more than a couple of letters between Washington and Fraunces. Include the Hector and Andromache from Tudor Place with reference to the letters about it and that it is one of the only personal items that survived. Debated still is was the bible Washington sworn in on the bible belonging to Sam?
Origins should just come out. If the vanity press source of the Baptism is unacceptable then we have no idea where he is from or who his parents are. There is DNA and it matches to English descendants but no authorization to share that info. We can include what others like WEB Dubois said but no actual primary source is available. I have photos of the baptism but they are UK records and I have no authority.
Death Fraunces stayed in Philadelphia through the Yellow Fever and one of the household members died from the fever. It is iffy about why he did not return to the household but certain he owned the "Golden Tuns" at the time of death.GramereC 00:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop placing supposition into the article. Address race with race.
The family has records at both Christ Church and Trinity just because Kym Rice did not use them does not make them invalid.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
These citations of MASS ARREST ORDERED BY WASHINGTON????? false the citation does not say this. You have also posted erroneous citations for Will's. We had replaced them all with primary documents but you insist on placing erroneous citation to document your argument which is not what we are trying to do her.
Boring History Guy Says:
1. This poisoning attempt – if it occurred – would have taken place in late June 1776 at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in Manhattan. WHO SAID THIS WHEN????
2. The housekeeper there was a widow named Mary Smith,[82] MRS SMITH WAS THE HOUSEKEEPER BEFORE ELIZABETH THOMPSON (NOT PHEBE) Mrs Smith was also the owner of the house used as headquarter before Richmond hill. That citationn identifes she was a housekeeper at Richmond Hill although there were other female servants.
3. Fraunces's tavern was about two miles away, and provided catered meals for the general and his staff. The map shows us where his tavern is.
All of this is just supposition. Stop putting it back.GramereC 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
4. Samuel Fraunces also was arrested, and held until he was released for lack of evidence. In his 1785 petition to Congress, Fraunces swore that he had thwarted an assassination plot against Washington, but the petition contained no mention of poisoning.[12] How do you get that from the congressional record????? It is not what it says at all again it is some kind of supposition for your argument. IT is coming out reword it and cite it with a correct citation if it is true.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
5. At the time of Hickey's June 1776 hanging, Fraunces's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, was a 10-year-old child.[15] But thirteen years later she married Atcheson Thompson,[16] and – coincidentally – became another "Elizabeth Thompson."[note 2]HMMM how many Elizabeth Thompson's and Mrs Smith's are we up to now. Usually someone gets a nickname at that point to avoid confusion. So was it hei daughter or wasn't it???? you added it??? WHO SAID THIS??? Taking it out.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Scribner Times is there own reference we get it that the Fraunces Tavern Museum wants the history one way and no other but their history is BAD replaced with the primary source of Scribner's.
Why do you keep on putting tertiary at best references in when there are primary and secondary sources available??? It is an article about Fraunces not the Tavern Museum. GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
7. SR, writes that "The use of ' black' as a prefix to a nickname was not uncommon in the 18th century and did not necessarily indicate African heritage of an individual. For instance, Admiral Richard Lord Howe (1762- 1799), one of Britain’s best known and respected seamen – and a white man – was commonly called 'Black Dick,' a nickname his brother Sir William Howe gave to him as descriptive of the Admiral’s swarthy complexion."[70] Patton concludes that, "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure."[70] two citations same source that little PDF for the kids if that is not a block quote what is???? GramereC 22:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
I am asked where these numbers are coming from, 20 household servants??? are there pay records in Washington's papers? The number of the enslaved traveling with is much less. Any answers?GramereC 19:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
The response from Mt Vernon was Don't know have to look. Where did they come from???????? GramereC 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
So the email I got from Mary Thompson at Mt Vernon (my summation) says, that there are three sources to use to describe the size of the household but no known source where they are all added up nice and neat in a chart to quote.
Most recent would be Ed Lawler's Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 29; no 4; but from another Lawler article the total list is only 15 at Philadelphia.
There is a Tobias Lear account book at Yale maybe somebody has done a chart from that????
Then there is Stephen Decatur Jr. Private Affairs of George Washington: from the Records and Accounts of Tobias Lear, Esquire, hie Secretary (Boston MA, Riverside Press for Houghton Mifflin Company 1932) where he comments on records retrieved from June 1795, but his list totals 20. If we want to keep these numbers in they should correspond with the references available. GramereC 19:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
Here we go again: "Early Americans at Ehrich's," American Art News, vol. 7, no. 32 (June 12, 1909), p. 6. This is a bad reference. It is a simple fix as far as the reference goes just put American Arts News... first then the description at the head of the column or the column #. I wish that solved it but once again the wording does not match the statement, it says, "Among the paintings by unknown artist are portraits of August Washington, the father of George and his first wife, Jane and of Samuel Fraunces, the proprietor of the famous New York Tavern".
There is absolutely nothing that says this is the portrait Drowne purchased in 1913. It is yet another reference to another portrait by an unknown artist with NO DESCRIPTION. Is this your original research find that it is the same portrait purchased by Drowne? Do we really have to get the old newspaper article again where folks are searching for a portrait of Samuel Fraunces among other because there is still no portrait. Then Drowne comes up with one from Auction. There are also listing which say there is a portrait of his mother and sister. Those turn out to be the mother of Samuel Mifflin Frances and her grand daughter. It has also been said that the portrait referred to in 1909 was the one of Samuel Mifflin Frances.GramereC 01:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
There is absolutely no citation that attributes this to Trumbull other than the fact he has Washington Paintings while in Philadelphia. This is soo out of line. There is absolutely no citation for it.
There is a pretty good argument that it was done by Patience Lovell Wright who was a wax sculpture and artist that displayed at Vaux Hall but you can not say that either. We are limited in the identification done by Alice Morse Earle. GramereC 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
It is BUNK to present Elizabeth Fraunces as the (likely fictional) character "Phoebe Fraunces". Elizabeth Fraunces was a 10-year-old girl in June 1776, rather young for an affair with Thomas Hickey, or to have been an accomplice in an assassination plot against George Washington.
Dr. Kym S. Rice has documented that none of Fraunces's children were employed at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in June 1776. (Kym S. Rice, A Documentary History of Fraunces Tavern, 1985, p. 72.) No evidence has been presented that supports the THEORY (not fact) that "Phoebe" was Elizabeth Fraunces's nickname.
It is unconscionable to steal the burial record of an obscure black woman, Phoebe Thomson, [3] and try to pass her off as "Phoebe Fraunces". [4] Thomson died in 1836 at age 60, which means that in June 1776 – the time of the Phoebe Fraunces legend and the supposed "poisoned peas" incident – Thomson either was an infant or hadn't been born yet.
Find-A-Grave, like Wikipedia, relies on the honesty and good faith of its contributors. I hope Wikipedia will not be duped by bogus genealogy. == BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 15:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
About 10 days ago I had suggested to the two major writers of this article that they each write out a full version of the article as they would like to see it. I did this because it was clear that they simply weren't communicating with each other and the differences were deep-seated. As I understand it the 2 versions are ready.
I'll suggest that readers take their time and review each - they are pretty long and detailed. Then we should select one version as the base article to be used here. At that point we can discuss whether sections can be replaced into the base article from the non-selected article. Given that we can find 2 or 3 folks to read both articles, we should be back on track with an article acceptable to the majority within a few days. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
TuckerResearch,
Carptrash,
Smallbones,
7&6=thirteen,
Do you folks see anything of value added to the article by
GramereC that should be retained? ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
TuckerResearch,
Carptrash,
Smallbones,
7&6=thirteen,
"I do not get it, is William Finck working on this?" —
GramereC is asserting that we're Neo-Nazis, like
William Finck (who I'd never heard of). ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 15:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"
BoringHistoryGuy is working overtime to exclude any references to his African Heritage or any one or anything that references this. GramereC 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)"
User:GramereC: If there were legitimate evidence that Samuel Fraunces had been of African descent, I'd be shouting it to the hills! As I wrote in my
6 April 2017 complaint on the
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard:
"
User:GramereC – a.k.a.
User:Coroinn, a.k.a.
User:CRCole; a.k.a.
User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a.
User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a.
User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a.
User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a.
User:71.58.105.199 – has flagrantly used the
Samuel Fraunces article to disseminate her theories about Fraunces’s parentage, ancestry and descendants; to discredit the documentary record and legitimate scholarship on Fraunces; to promote conspiracy theories about and imply racists motives to those with whose work she disagrees; and to promote her self-published Fraunces biography."
Calling people Neo-Nazis just because they disagree with you is not going to convince anyone. ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Really is this necessary then almost every statement is Kym Rice citation. Certainly makes it concise.GramereC 18:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
User:GramereC, if you feel that the sources used in this article are not reliable, you may challenge them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck. TuckerResearch ( talk) 21:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A big chunk of this Talk page's What is happening? section, above, disappeared on Thursday afternoon, but the change doesn't show up in the
diff
I just re-added it, but don't understand what's going on. The discussion involved
TuckerResearch and
GramereC. Is this some sort of vandalism, or an action by an administrator? ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 14:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
TuckerResearch. A glitch masked most of the What is happening? section above on May 4. I re-added the missing discussion on May 6: diff This glitch seems to have been cause by an editor accidentally erasing part of a bot's signature.
I just corrected the bot's signature, and the masked section reappeared. Since it was redundant, I deleted the part I re-added on May 6. == BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've tried to clean this article up a bit, moving some stuff around, removing some pictures, changing some odd formatting (like excessive quotations in italics!), etc.
Thus I was interested in this article. The research I've looked at seems to indicate that the racial identity of Fraunces is still up in the air. Kym Rice and the folks at the Fraunces Tavern seem to believe that he was white, hands down, but other research I've seen indicates that he was—and even in the eighteenth century—described as black or mulatto. I have thus added BOTH sides of the historical argument to make the article more NPOV (remember NPOV, guys?), neutral, and informative. The reader can decide based on the evidence we present. (As to the portraits, I've moved the Trumball drawing to the top, as that seems to be better sourced than the portrait—though the portrait is prettier.)
I think it is best to present both sides of the argument and not just push one view here on Wikipedia. TuckerResearch ( talk) 05:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
PS - I think this quote from Jennifer Patton says it best: "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure." Which is why I've presented both sides and had this quote as the kicker-conclusion. TuckerResearch ( talk) 05:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
PPS - Today I redid some of the references, put some things in a better format, added notes for the digressions, fixed some things here and there, noted that the oil portrait is said by the Fraunces Tavern Musem to be "attributed to Samuel Fraunces," and uploaded a better quality version of the Sam Fraunces engraving. TuckerResearch ( talk) 17:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Samuel M. Fraunces was Samuel Fraunces's younger son, and served as co-executor of his father's estate, 1795-96. This is documented in multiple sources, including a Philadelphia newspaper – "All Persons indebted to the ESTATE of SAMUEL FRAUNCES, late of this City, INNKEEPER, deceased, are requested to make payments to the Subscribers... Samuel M. Fraunces, Acting Executor, South Water Street, No. 59." – Gazette of the United States, October 28, 1795.
The son was listed as an "Inn keeper" at "No. 59 South Water-Street" in the 1795 Philadelphia Directory, [1] and the 1796 Philadelphia Directory. [2] His late father's establishment, the Tun Tavern, was located at No. 59 South Water Street.
Samuel M. Fraunces died intestate in 1799, leaving a widow, Susannah, and two young daughters: Susan (b. 17 June 1796) and Hariot (b. 8 September 1797), per Christ Church baptismal records. On July 30, 1799, Susannah Fraunces was named administratrix of her late husband's estate – Letters of Administration, Estate of Samuel M. Fraunces, Philadelphia Will Book K, page 12, No. 265 of 1799.
There may have been a sailor aboard the USS Constitution (launched 1797) named S. Francis who drowned, but there is no evidence that he was Samuel M. Fraunces. == BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor named User:GramereC has recently made a huge number of edits (more than 100 by last count!) over just the past few days. This is troubling. Not only are there a huge number of spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes in this user's edits, some are just plain silly. The "Portraits" section moved to the top? I've counted numerous instances were past events are described in the present tense. I've seen several extraneous spaces between quotation marks and quoted text, or between sentences and citations. Some sentences make no sense. My favorite, thus far, is an original research attack on a secondary source author: "Rice also listed his memberships in groups (such as the Masons) then stated erroneously, membership was restricted to whites only.[3]:27 Who was Prince Hall?" Huh? Or delightful non-sequiturs, like the unsourced: "This narrative is in reference to information passed to Jane Tuers." Says who? And, no, the preceding "narrative" quote has nothing to do with Tuers. I know, I put that quote in.
What's worse is this editor is violating the Wikipedia:No original research policy. There are several footnotes now to primary sources like census records. Assumptions and guesses and interpretations are made here that should not be made on Wikipedia. Like: "It should be noted that Samuel Jr. does not appear as a tic mark unless we count him as the enslaved individual, the rest of the unmarried children are accounted for." Pure, unreferenced speculation. Or: "Samuel Fraunces had a maternal grandfather Oliver, who was noted in the Christ Church Philadelphia baptism records of 31 Nov 1766, as one of Hamilton's Negroes." Says who? It is a standalone primary source, who says this "Oliver Francis" has anything to so with Samuel Fraunces? Or, how about this, an 1880 Florida census record is cited for this sentence: "A closer look at the family reveals that sister and mother lived in Santo Domingo now Hati, as indicated on census records for John Frances, a descendant of Louis Francis and nephew of Fraunces." Who says these people are related to the subject of this article? Nobody. It is out of bounds supposition that violates Wikipedia policy. This is why Wikipedia demands the use of solid, reliable SECONDARY sources and frowns upon the use of primary sources.
This editor has been blocked before ( User_talk:GramereC#3RR) and has admitted to being one C. R. Cole ( User_talk:GramereC#SOCKPUPPETRY). Cole is the author of a self-published book on Fraunces (Cole, C. R. [2009]. Samuel Fraunces: "Black Sam". Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 978-1-4363-9104-7.). Books from a vanity press like Xlibris should hardly be considered reliable sources, but there are two footnotes to the work in question. It appears that this editor, GramereC/Cole, is filling up this article with suppositions from their own work. Cole also appears to be the co-author of a children's book about Fraunces published through another vanity press and mentioned in the article. This is troubling as it rubs up against the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy.
Now, User:GramereC/Cole is making these edits in, what I hope to be good faith, with no ulterior motives. But the sheer number of edits (over 100), many of them minor edits, makes it hard for other editors to correct, smooth, or discuss the alterations. The large number of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors are hard to make sense of. The recourse to primary sources, iffy and subjective interpretations of those sources, and questionable self-published books mean that these edits are of little value.
I suggest this page be rolled back to a version before User:GramereC/Cole began their "edit marathon" and any changes the editor wants to make should be hashed out in the talk pages first. I'd hate to bring in an outside editor/administrator, but that may have to be done, as so many edits may smack of ownership behavior.
In good faith. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok section by section from your link here. Section 1: If you want a copy of Samuel Fraunces Will the current file # is the one I placed in the article. The other reference takes an in person visit and possible overnight to even get a microfilmed copy. The form for the Registrar of Wills to obtain documents has a file # and it is #W-219-1795. Section 2 That material has to be added it is accurate and appropriate. That which was taken out was placed later. Lossing Why he was not the only one telling the story it grew with progression of time. Section 3 That info is included back in, in chronological order. Section 4 That statement about Richmond Hill is referenced where???? Added info is sourced. Section 5 The progression to the Scribner's article is important as the whisper down the lane tale grows. The information removed was placed after the new added look down to section 7. Section 6 The same thing sources added in chronological order only thing removed were not sourced statements of opinion. Section 7 Same thing added chronological info and removed not sourced statement of opinion added others back in chronologically. Section 8 9 and 10 add back in all the sourced info again in chronological order. GramereC 13:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe this article needs to be rolled back to before User:GramereC started making a gazillion changes. Then we can decide on the talkpage if anything she has added should be added. Like, I really like this picture at right. But the suppositions and unsupported primary sources; the attacks on authors and the Sons of the Revolution/Fraunces Museum people; and the bad formatting and grammar - these all tell me we need to go back and start from scratch. I get it, GramereC/Cole believes that Fraunces was black. Other people say he was white. GramereC/Cole is trying to prove he was black. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. You take reliable, printed secondary sources and give the info they have. As far as the reputable printed material says, we don't know if Fraunces was black, white, mulatto, and/or passing. Some of our secondary sources say one thing, some say the other. (As an aside, I think he was probably a passing mulatto of some sort, and I just find the Tavern portrait fishy.) But, the article as it was a week ago was good and fine, as it stands now it is a pile of mess. TuckerResearch ( talk) 01:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Samuel Fraunces bought a property he had rented in 1792 on Filbert St transferring it later that year to his son Andrew. It is three blocks from the Presidents house.There are deed references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
User:GramereC put this in the article, clunkily cited to a 1885 article in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register: "The name Fraunces is seen with one family from England dating back to Henry VIII, and that is the family of Edward Fraunces who died in 1741. The french extraction so often referred to is that of the Jaquelin family from Vendee France and the grandmother of Edward Fraunces." But the document in question (linked here: https://archive.org/stream/newenglandhistorv39wate#page/n681/mode/2up/search/fraunces) is a transcription of Edward Fraunces's 1740 will. No source is given to connect this Edward Fraunces to the subject of this article, Samuel Fraunces. This is the type of supposition, the original research in primary sources that does not belong in Wikipedia. What proof is there that this Edward Fraunces is an ancestor or relative of Samuel Fraunces? None. All such unsupportable, extraneous stuff should be removed from this article. TuckerResearch ( talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
There are a few little things in other sections to change or add.
If we change the household to Washington's there could be the addition of the correspondence back and forth about glassware, dishes, madeira and the like. Showing there are more than a couple of letters between Washington and Fraunces. Include the Hector and Andromache from Tudor Place with reference to the letters about it and that it is one of the only personal items that survived. Debated still is was the bible Washington sworn in on the bible belonging to Sam?
Origins should just come out. If the vanity press source of the Baptism is unacceptable then we have no idea where he is from or who his parents are. There is DNA and it matches to English descendants but no authorization to share that info. We can include what others like WEB Dubois said but no actual primary source is available. I have photos of the baptism but they are UK records and I have no authority.
Death Fraunces stayed in Philadelphia through the Yellow Fever and one of the household members died from the fever. It is iffy about why he did not return to the household but certain he owned the "Golden Tuns" at the time of death.GramereC 00:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop placing supposition into the article. Address race with race.
The family has records at both Christ Church and Trinity just because Kym Rice did not use them does not make them invalid.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
These citations of MASS ARREST ORDERED BY WASHINGTON????? false the citation does not say this. You have also posted erroneous citations for Will's. We had replaced them all with primary documents but you insist on placing erroneous citation to document your argument which is not what we are trying to do her.
Boring History Guy Says:
1. This poisoning attempt – if it occurred – would have taken place in late June 1776 at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in Manhattan. WHO SAID THIS WHEN????
2. The housekeeper there was a widow named Mary Smith,[82] MRS SMITH WAS THE HOUSEKEEPER BEFORE ELIZABETH THOMPSON (NOT PHEBE) Mrs Smith was also the owner of the house used as headquarter before Richmond hill. That citationn identifes she was a housekeeper at Richmond Hill although there were other female servants.
3. Fraunces's tavern was about two miles away, and provided catered meals for the general and his staff. The map shows us where his tavern is.
All of this is just supposition. Stop putting it back.GramereC 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
4. Samuel Fraunces also was arrested, and held until he was released for lack of evidence. In his 1785 petition to Congress, Fraunces swore that he had thwarted an assassination plot against Washington, but the petition contained no mention of poisoning.[12] How do you get that from the congressional record????? It is not what it says at all again it is some kind of supposition for your argument. IT is coming out reword it and cite it with a correct citation if it is true.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
5. At the time of Hickey's June 1776 hanging, Fraunces's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, was a 10-year-old child.[15] But thirteen years later she married Atcheson Thompson,[16] and – coincidentally – became another "Elizabeth Thompson."[note 2]HMMM how many Elizabeth Thompson's and Mrs Smith's are we up to now. Usually someone gets a nickname at that point to avoid confusion. So was it hei daughter or wasn't it???? you added it??? WHO SAID THIS??? Taking it out.GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Scribner Times is there own reference we get it that the Fraunces Tavern Museum wants the history one way and no other but their history is BAD replaced with the primary source of Scribner's.
Why do you keep on putting tertiary at best references in when there are primary and secondary sources available??? It is an article about Fraunces not the Tavern Museum. GramereC 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
7. SR, writes that "The use of ' black' as a prefix to a nickname was not uncommon in the 18th century and did not necessarily indicate African heritage of an individual. For instance, Admiral Richard Lord Howe (1762- 1799), one of Britain’s best known and respected seamen – and a white man – was commonly called 'Black Dick,' a nickname his brother Sir William Howe gave to him as descriptive of the Admiral’s swarthy complexion."[70] Patton concludes that, "The issue of Samuel Fraunces’ racial identity is still a passionate topic of discussion to this very day. As debate rallies on for conclusive evidence, the actual truth is that we may never know for sure."[70] two citations same source that little PDF for the kids if that is not a block quote what is???? GramereC 22:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
I am asked where these numbers are coming from, 20 household servants??? are there pay records in Washington's papers? The number of the enslaved traveling with is much less. Any answers?GramereC 19:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
The response from Mt Vernon was Don't know have to look. Where did they come from???????? GramereC 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
So the email I got from Mary Thompson at Mt Vernon (my summation) says, that there are three sources to use to describe the size of the household but no known source where they are all added up nice and neat in a chart to quote.
Most recent would be Ed Lawler's Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 29; no 4; but from another Lawler article the total list is only 15 at Philadelphia.
There is a Tobias Lear account book at Yale maybe somebody has done a chart from that????
Then there is Stephen Decatur Jr. Private Affairs of George Washington: from the Records and Accounts of Tobias Lear, Esquire, hie Secretary (Boston MA, Riverside Press for Houghton Mifflin Company 1932) where he comments on records retrieved from June 1795, but his list totals 20. If we want to keep these numbers in they should correspond with the references available. GramereC 19:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
Here we go again: "Early Americans at Ehrich's," American Art News, vol. 7, no. 32 (June 12, 1909), p. 6. This is a bad reference. It is a simple fix as far as the reference goes just put American Arts News... first then the description at the head of the column or the column #. I wish that solved it but once again the wording does not match the statement, it says, "Among the paintings by unknown artist are portraits of August Washington, the father of George and his first wife, Jane and of Samuel Fraunces, the proprietor of the famous New York Tavern".
There is absolutely nothing that says this is the portrait Drowne purchased in 1913. It is yet another reference to another portrait by an unknown artist with NO DESCRIPTION. Is this your original research find that it is the same portrait purchased by Drowne? Do we really have to get the old newspaper article again where folks are searching for a portrait of Samuel Fraunces among other because there is still no portrait. Then Drowne comes up with one from Auction. There are also listing which say there is a portrait of his mother and sister. Those turn out to be the mother of Samuel Mifflin Frances and her grand daughter. It has also been said that the portrait referred to in 1909 was the one of Samuel Mifflin Frances.GramereC 01:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
There is absolutely no citation that attributes this to Trumbull other than the fact he has Washington Paintings while in Philadelphia. This is soo out of line. There is absolutely no citation for it.
There is a pretty good argument that it was done by Patience Lovell Wright who was a wax sculpture and artist that displayed at Vaux Hall but you can not say that either. We are limited in the identification done by Alice Morse Earle. GramereC 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
It is BUNK to present Elizabeth Fraunces as the (likely fictional) character "Phoebe Fraunces". Elizabeth Fraunces was a 10-year-old girl in June 1776, rather young for an affair with Thomas Hickey, or to have been an accomplice in an assassination plot against George Washington.
Dr. Kym S. Rice has documented that none of Fraunces's children were employed at Richmond Hill, Washington's headquarters in June 1776. (Kym S. Rice, A Documentary History of Fraunces Tavern, 1985, p. 72.) No evidence has been presented that supports the THEORY (not fact) that "Phoebe" was Elizabeth Fraunces's nickname.
It is unconscionable to steal the burial record of an obscure black woman, Phoebe Thomson, [3] and try to pass her off as "Phoebe Fraunces". [4] Thomson died in 1836 at age 60, which means that in June 1776 – the time of the Phoebe Fraunces legend and the supposed "poisoned peas" incident – Thomson either was an infant or hadn't been born yet.
Find-A-Grave, like Wikipedia, relies on the honesty and good faith of its contributors. I hope Wikipedia will not be duped by bogus genealogy. == BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 15:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
About 10 days ago I had suggested to the two major writers of this article that they each write out a full version of the article as they would like to see it. I did this because it was clear that they simply weren't communicating with each other and the differences were deep-seated. As I understand it the 2 versions are ready.
I'll suggest that readers take their time and review each - they are pretty long and detailed. Then we should select one version as the base article to be used here. At that point we can discuss whether sections can be replaced into the base article from the non-selected article. Given that we can find 2 or 3 folks to read both articles, we should be back on track with an article acceptable to the majority within a few days. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
TuckerResearch,
Carptrash,
Smallbones,
7&6=thirteen,
Do you folks see anything of value added to the article by
GramereC that should be retained? ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
TuckerResearch,
Carptrash,
Smallbones,
7&6=thirteen,
"I do not get it, is William Finck working on this?" —
GramereC is asserting that we're Neo-Nazis, like
William Finck (who I'd never heard of). ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 15:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"
BoringHistoryGuy is working overtime to exclude any references to his African Heritage or any one or anything that references this. GramereC 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)"
User:GramereC: If there were legitimate evidence that Samuel Fraunces had been of African descent, I'd be shouting it to the hills! As I wrote in my
6 April 2017 complaint on the
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard:
"
User:GramereC – a.k.a.
User:Coroinn, a.k.a.
User:CRCole; a.k.a.
User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a.
User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a.
User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a.
User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a.
User:71.58.105.199 – has flagrantly used the
Samuel Fraunces article to disseminate her theories about Fraunces’s parentage, ancestry and descendants; to discredit the documentary record and legitimate scholarship on Fraunces; to promote conspiracy theories about and imply racists motives to those with whose work she disagrees; and to promote her self-published Fraunces biography."
Calling people Neo-Nazis just because they disagree with you is not going to convince anyone. ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Really is this necessary then almost every statement is Kym Rice citation. Certainly makes it concise.GramereC 18:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC ( talk • contribs)
User:GramereC, if you feel that the sources used in this article are not reliable, you may challenge them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck. TuckerResearch ( talk) 21:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
A big chunk of this Talk page's What is happening? section, above, disappeared on Thursday afternoon, but the change doesn't show up in the
diff
I just re-added it, but don't understand what's going on. The discussion involved
TuckerResearch and
GramereC. Is this some sort of vandalism, or an action by an administrator? ==
BoringHistoryGuy (
talk) 14:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
TuckerResearch. A glitch masked most of the What is happening? section above on May 4. I re-added the missing discussion on May 6: diff This glitch seems to have been cause by an editor accidentally erasing part of a bot's signature.
I just corrected the bot's signature, and the masked section reappeared. Since it was redundant, I deleted the part I re-added on May 6. == BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)