Talk:John the Painter

Seemingly contradictory information

"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)

I spy with my little eye a category that might not fit.

Does this person qualify as an American spy? A spy is someone who seeks information. This guy seems to be a terrorist or saboteur, with only his own claim to have official sanction. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence agencies employ operations personnel to carry out paramilitary operations (ergo, "black ops") both during peace and war. So, yes, intelligence agents, in addition to gathering intelligence, do conduct sabotage operations, etc.

Capture?

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)

Terrorism?

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) 

Completely agree that this is better categorised as an act or sabotage rather than an act of terror. The wikipedia page linked to states that "terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim." The point about terrorism rather than other forms of violence is it is indiscriminate. He intentionally destroyed a Naval facility to reduce the operational capability of the Royal Navy which was playing a major part in a cause he cared about. Although this may have lead to 'terror' in the general British population, this was not as a result of 'indiscrimate violence' - his violence (or at least the violence which he was hung for) was discriminating. If he had burnt down Portsmouth Grammar School I would go with you for terrorism, but not for a Naval facility. The fact of him being uniformed or not, or in receipt of orders or not doesn't really make a difference to what his intentions were; likewise the fact he may not have been the sanest, best organised or most upstanding saboteur in the world, doesn't distract from that was what he was. I think this should be changed. DistractionActivity (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

Rape

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John the Painter/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Looking for feedback. Thanks! Historymike (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)