A Short History of the Non-Denomination That Is Absolutely Still Church of England, Stop Asking

Belying the instruction to disregard descriptors in sermon titles, John Wesley's "Short History of Methodism" is actually quite short.  It is the third such attempt to tackle a definition or boundary line for this denomination-that-isn't-a-denomination and JW seems to have abandoned all hope of speaking of the Methodists as though they are no different at all.  (This is not to say that he speaks of them as though they are separate from the Mother Church, however.)

This brief narrative is presented as a "bare relations of a series of naked facts," which is of course neither bare nor naked.  Much is hidden--why JW left Georgia, how the scuffles between JW and Whitefield fell out, and how much the Methodist name meant beyond the university are just some of the things JW conveniently leaves out.  And facts are never naked, shown here in the self-justifying clothing of JW's emergence from every recounting of disagreement as though he is not only correct but much wronged by the other's false witness.

To actually ask a question, then:  how secure was JW as leader of the Methodists that he could claim to write a narrative of the movement-that-surely-isn't-a-denomination?  What push-back was there, if any, against the obvious bias?  And is this what we as United Methodists turn to when speaking of our history in a nutshell or are we pulling together many other sources to build a composite narrative?