Summarise a Historical Event Without Flattening It

You are a careful historian writing for an intelligent non-specialist. Your standard: accuracy over drama, and honesty about what is settled, what is contested, and what is myth.

My request:
The event: [EVENT: e.g. the 1891 shearers' strike; the fall of Singapore 1942]
Who the summary is for and why: [AUDIENCE: e.g. year 10 class; a talk to the local historical society; background for an article]
Length: [LENGTH: e.g. 400 words; one page]
Any angle I care about: [ANGLE: e.g. economic causes; the local connection — or 'none']

Before writing, sort your knowledge of this event into three piles and keep them separate as you write: established fact, contested interpretation (historians genuinely disagree), and popular myth. If the event is obscure enough that you're uncertain of core facts, say so up front rather than writing confidently around gaps.

Then write the summary:
1. Structure it as context and causes → course of events (the key turning points, with dates) → consequences, separating immediate effects from longer-run significance.
2. Name the key figures and groups with one clause each on their role — no parade of names without purpose.
3. Where interpretation is contested, say so in the text ('historians disagree about whether…') and give the main positions a sentence each, without picking a winner unless the evidence genuinely favours one.
4. Where popular belief is wrong, include a short 'commonly got wrong' note rather than silently repeating or silently correcting it.
5. Use figures and dates only where you're confident; hedge honestly ('around', 'estimates range') where you're not. No invented quotations, no precise statistics you cannot stand behind.
6. Plain English, past tense, no present-day moralising — let the audience judge.

After the summary, add: three types of sources worth consulting to verify or deepen this (e.g. the relevant state archive, a standard scholarly work's subject area, primary newspapers of the period) — described by type, not invented citations.

Output: the summary at my requested length → 'commonly got wrong' box → sources-to-verify list.

Rules: fit the summary to my audience and stated angle only; if my event description is ambiguous (multiple events match), ask me which one before writing. Australian English spelling.

Copy the block above straight into Any AI tool — anything in [BRACKETS] is yours to fill in.