Talk:John the Painter

message: "Eventually, through the help of Sir John Fielding, a description of Aitken naming him John the Painter and a reward for his capture were posted. Soon after, Aitken was arrested while travelling through the country.[1]"
vs.
"British authorities hanged John the Painter on 10 March 1777 from the mizzenmast of HMS Arethusa for arson in royal dockyards after he was caught setting the rope house at Portsmouth on fire."
So what is true?
176.199.211.148 (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly contradictory information 

message: How, where and when was he caught?
There is nothing in the article. It goes from his acts of terrorism to his death without explaining how he was apprehended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.105.232 (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capture? 

message: Since when are acts of sabotage by undercover operatives targeting military stores during a war with two uniformed armies fighting a declared war count as terrorism? Is everything terrorism now? If so, the word has become utterly meaningless. He is more properly a saboteur.
 -Response (K. Borecki) - According to Warner's book, Aitken could barely qualify as an "undercover operative."  A better term would be a delusional criminal, who sought a quick and easy way to elevate his station to a life of fame and fortune.  Though he did secure an appointment with American diplomat in France Silas Deane (himself later branded largely as an incompetent), he really left the meeting with little more than a pittance and no official orders; Deane likely thought Aitken a lunatic.  
  Likewise, Aitken was not a regular employee of the shipyards, nor a resident of the cities that he targeted.  He wasn't even a native Englishman, but instead almost a second-class citizen as a Scot.  
  To support him as a "saboteur," Aitken did not dream up the scheme by some cold calculations; he allegedly overheard a conversation theorizing that destruction of the dockyards would cripple the ability of the Royal Navy to support war.
  While one could argue the semantics on both sides, his campaign certainly produced a great amount of terror among the British population, and the government, who went so far as to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in an effort to combat what they believed to be an organized effort.  Remember too that the British themselves merely considered the American as colonies in rebellion.  There was no declared war, and qualifying American soldiers of the revolution as either "uniformed" or even a proper "army" prior to 1777 is generous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.179.154 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one source describes him as a terrorist (the Journal of Psychiatry article linked on the page); but i agree that sabotage seems  more credible description for what he both did and intended to do, and in the spirit of WP:BRD i've gone ahead and changed it. Views welcome, and if there's strong disagreement from anyone please feel free to revert and we can continue this discussion here. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism? 

message: So... did he commit "a rape" unto the girl, or the sheep?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.155.80 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape 

message: Substituted at 20:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment