Talk:Boston Massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old

David McCullough's John Adams has a completely different take on the event. From this vantage, it appears that the mob was armed, the soldiers were attacked, and that the soldiers did indeed act in self-defense. JSeer

but in the involvement of ordinary working Americans in an important revolutionary event.

I don't see how this chucking of ice at sentries constitutes an important revolutionary event

Well they shot them so yah,go figure. See also: propaganda -- Susan Mason Kyle mccrossan It was important because John Adams used it for propaganda and turned the unruly drunken mob into a band of patriots. --mav

So basically a drunken crowd attacked a small group of soldiers and the soldiers defended themselves

that depends on whether u think their usage of force was appropriate to the situation. two soldiers were convicted of manslaughter. Susan Mason

I somehow doubt it's possible to get a balanced account of what really happened. But I'm sure Boston police today wouldn't be very pacifistic if attacked by a drunken hard-object-lobbing crowd

---

I'd like to remove the Kent State reference. There are a significant number of differences between the events. I know Wiki isn't a Usenet group, but thought I'd ask for objections first since the phrase has been in this article for some time. If there are no objections, I'll remove the reference at the end of the week.

---

I hought the debate over Crispus Attucks was wether he was African American, not whether he was the first victim. Rmhermen 17:09 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

That's a different debate. --mav

---

Because of this The Problems against Britian and America would start up .

Revere incorrectly depicted the event as happening during the day, in close quarters, and with the British commander behind his troops

Unless there's an eclipse going on, it looks like there's a moon in the top left of the engraving...

fvincent 07:10, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

And the moon is only out at night? --mav 07:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think fvincent makes a good observation. Artists generally include the moon as an indication that it is night. Artists generally include the sun as an indication that it is -- Nunh-huh 07:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And a bright blue sky is often an indication of day. day.[1] --mav

Indeed. This is not a particularly photorealistic rendering, so it's best not to assert that it is "erroneous" because we think the blue sky is a "better" indicator than the moon, especially when we know the event was at night. - Nunh-huh 07:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Many people thought that the massacre was a change for the better.

OK - the image has been updated and so has the text. --mav

As it works out, Revere did the engraving and the publishing, but not the colorization. This is an early case of Ted-Turner-gone-wrong. Though Revere, as publisher, still must bear a bit of responsibility for the blue. - Nunh-huh 07:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)~ The Boston Massacre want really a massacre

A couple things to keep in mind: the style of the time was not to create large black areas, and colors were generally washed-out-looking compared to to what we expect (not least to save on ink expenses). So the fact that the sky is bright blue rather than pale blue could be the artist's indication that the sky should be seen as really pretty dark. But I doubt that the colorists spent as much time thinking about it as as has been spent writing about it here. :-) Stan 08:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I agree that our "expectation" of a photographically realistic depiction is anachronistic. Besides which, the engraving was propaganda, not journalism! :) - Nunh-huh 08:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking at a different coloring of the picture in my American Pageant book, and the sky is a darker blue and actually appears to be depicting night. Also, in this version, the dead/wounded man in the bottom left corner is colored white instead of black.

British troops' defence

The British troops thought they were being pelted by rocks.

    Geez, i mean why would they be afraid of that?   Robinhood754 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Already in the roman era, rocks were not really seen as an effective weapons thingy. If a stone fails to kill, sue the manufacturer. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm if you saw a group of soldiers fully armed and you started to throw stones at them, form a large crowd, whack one of the soldiers, and yell for them to fire on you, then what do you expect? Czarcalvinsk (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

POV

Since I can't figure out what the problem is from reading this talk page, I'm removing the POV tag. If anyone feels like reinstating it, please explain what your specific beef with the article is. 82.92.119.11 17:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where's my beef? What is meant by 'military occupation'? If it is with respect to the indigenous peoples, then that needs to be clarified. If it's with respect to the nonindigenous colonials, then is it really the correct phrase? mat_x 11:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's something too heroic with the text. My gut feeling says it's factually correct, and that Adams actually stopped it and played exactly the role the text says, but something's missing – such as an opposing POV (which would be hard to find, politically), or details that are unexplained, things that makes one wonder. "Gut feelings" are not reason enough to POV-tag it (that would be bad discipline, IMHO), but piquant details would make no harm, I think. Rursus 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I want to know why this article hasn't spoken about all the gross inaccuracies in Revere's engraving. Such facts include: The fact that Crispus Attucks, an african-american is not pictured, the fact that there are too many deaths, the fact that the British are in battle formation when they were actually unformed when they were attacked and that the scene is pictured in broad daylight when the event occured at night (the only sign of this is the crescent moon in the top left)

• Apparently you didn't read this part of the article:

" The event was illustrated by an engraver named Paul Revere who lived nearby. Revere incorrectly depicted the event as occurring in close quarters, with no snow on the ground, with Crispus Attucks as being white, and with the British commander behind his lined-up troops. With irony, the sign over the Customs House was made to read "Butcher's Hall."

Christian Remick, who colored the engraving, incorrectly depicted the event as happening during the day by adding a bright blue sky (although a quarter moon was present)." Rmhermen 15:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)Also people died for no reason. I'm wondering, why in the darn world would the British soldiers be afraid of being pelted by rocks, by far, they must have been through much more than a few pebbles slung at them, anyway!

You have clearly never been hit in the head by a stone. I can fully understand why they would have fired. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so that we know who you are. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some sources say that the troops were hit with snowballs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.216.96 (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

why people died for no reason

the first thing i don't like is the fact that people were killed for no reason what so ever. also i would like to say that it just pisses me off so much i want to go back in time and kill those people that killed the settlers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.201.3 (talk • contribs)

Wow... you're kind of ignorant, huh? Ever heard of native americans? Or don't they count as important cos of their lack of essential "whiteness"? WookMuff 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what the first guy said sounded a little naive and out of context, I agree with that. But what does what he said have to do with Native Americans or "whiteness" at all? Why does everything have to be about race? For all you know, the first guy could be just as mad about the slaughtering of Indians as he is about the slaughtering of the Bostonians. He may even be a Native American himself. Besides, one of the people kill in the Massacre was black, so how does his anger towards the event have anything to do with "whiteness?" 5 March 2006

please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so that we know who you are. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to the fact that many of the settlers killed thousands of Americans just so they can have space to expand. That doesn't justify killing them, but their sufferings are incomparable to the sufferings of a race that was nearly wiped out from colonization. Czarcalvinsk (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I read, a while ago, that the British soldiers were nervous and scared. Could this be the reason that they fired into the crowd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.91.94 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

car peaple are perple meatbawls with rabit eers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.23.13 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the British troops were attacked. According to a high level study text book I have, the people shot were: Sam Gray - A renowned fighter who the previous day had exchanged insults and been involved in a series of brawls with soldiers of the 29th Regiment. Crispus Attucks - Escaped slave, now sailor, who was well known for his expertise with the cudgel. Patrick Carr - a seasoned Irish rioter James Caldwell - a ship's mate Samuel Maverick - a random bystander (not attacking, from what sources indicate). Now this material also states: "A British soldier was struck and knocked to the ground, slipped, scrambled to his feet and was knocked down again. The pushing escalated and vitriolic abuse rained down." That sounds like self-defence to me. If you want someone to hate, check out the Sons of Liberty; a terrorist group if I ever saw one. 220.253.187.92 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for where they are getting their information?? If you have a "high level study text book" could you cite it please? Your quotes and info mean nothing without it.

Some argue...

• Recently there has been a debate over the naming of the events in boston as a "massacre". Dictionary.com defines the word "massacre" as:
  • "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly."
• Some argue that the perception of the deaths of 5 colonials as qualifying as a "massacre" is proof of America's skewed and "self-centered" interpretation of history. et cetera

Could we please get the names of these "some" who make this argument? Where has this debate occurred? -Will Beback 12:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends when the term was first used. it's possible that it may have been used as part of the propaganda surrounding the event. - --80.41.25.151 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the world "massacre" used to inflate the incident so that Americans would take more action? If it was the "Boston Accident" it wouldn't form near as hostile emotions towards the offenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.99.223 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

World Series

I don't feel that the reference to the 2004 World Series is appropriate here, so I am going to take the liberty to remove it. Anyone else have strong feelings about this?--Pepper2000 00:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That reference was only included because of this discussion. It probaby isn't necessary. No Guru 00:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

John Adams

Is it worth noting that John Adams later became President of the US?--Lepeu1999 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Edward Garrick or Gerrish

I returned this to the Garrick spelling which is far more common on Google. I suspect that this originated in a misreading of a handwritten name but can't say for certain which is correct. Rmhermen 03:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the "Event" section uses both spellings in a way that seems confusing if one does not realize "Garrick" and "Gerrish" are alternative spellings of the same name. 206.53.197.12 (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the student thing about?

I don't know why we have to have a separate section about a High School student's research an important page like the "Boston Massacre" page. Jay Kay 21:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Seider and other details

I went on one of the Freedom Trail tours yesterday, and I learned something I didn't know before: The first person killed in the revolution wasn't one of the Boston Massacre victims. Instead, it was a boy named Christopher Seider. Seider was killed at a riot around the house of Ebeneezer Richardson (a customs official and a loyalist). After a rock thrown through his window hit Richardson's wife on the head, he fired into the crowd. Seider's death became a major piece of propaganda for the revolutionaries (playing a major role in the lead-up to the massacre). His funeral was the largest in MA up to that point (as usual, organized by Samuel Adams and paid for by John Hancock). This ties into some things already mentioned in the article: Seider's name is the last name mentioned on the headstone for the massacre victims (although they misspell it "Snider"), and one of the embellishments on Revere's engraving ("another musket shooting out of the window of the customs office") is meant to allude to that incident.

Other points from the guide's telling of the massacre:

• Hugh White was the soldier originally on guard duty. A small crowd was hassling him and pelting him with snowballs. When a teenager named Edward Garrick insults his commanding officer, White responded by smacking him down with the butt of his musket, then smashing him again in the back of the head. The kid manages to get up and tears down the street screaming bloody murder, with predictable results.
• An angry mob arrives, and White calls for reinforcements. He can't be heard over the crowd.
• Preston, the commander, noticed the situation and grabbed six of his men. With bayonets affixed, they made their way through the crowd to aid White.
• Once they got there, they tried to work their way back to the barracks (where they could barricade themselves in). However, at this point, they were blocked in by the crowd.
• Preston stands in front of his men so he can be heard over the crowd. He orders his men to load their muskets. The soldiers made a big show of doing so in the hopes of intimidating the crowd. Some loaded their guns multiple times (overloading a musket could cause it to explode when fired).
• Someone in the crowd asks Preston whether he intends to order his men to fire. Preston responds, "No! I'm standing in front of them; I'd be the first one to be killed!"
• At this point, Kilroy is hit by a stick thrown by someone in the crowd. Unfortunately, the thrower is someone who got in a fight with Kilroy a week earlier, beating him badly. Kilroy shouts, "Damn you, making me fire!" and fires.
• Preston leaps behind his men to get out of the line of fire as the other soldiers shoot. He then draws his sword and starts hitting muskets upwards while ordering his men to stop.

I need to find some good sources to verify the details of that story... --L33tminion | (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. Even if you can't verify the historical details, or if some of this turns out to be embellishment, it might be possible to add some of this into the article anyway, if clearly separated from the main account; retellings and later inventions are a critical part of the cultural significance of an event like this.

Incidentally... while you're looking for sources, it would be nice if you can find some sources for the rest of the article, too. :) — Haeleth Talk 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Political repression?

Someone just added the category "Political repression in the United States". Is this really relevant? I see nothing in the story that's particularly about politics or repression; it's not like the soldiers were breaking up a pro-independence rally or anything; the riot that led to the massacre was started by a dispute over an unpaid bill, not a dispute over politics or patriotism or freedom of assembly or any of the other things generally associated with "political repression".

It seems to me that it's been added merely because it's a historical event that was used in pro-independence propoganda before the revolution. But to indiscriminately describe everything that led to the revolution as "political repression" is blatant anti-British POV.

I shan't remove the category without checking: am I missing something? — Haeleth Talk 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has explained what this event has to do with political repression, I am removing the category. I remain open to persuasion if anybody wants to explain where political repression comes into the story. — Haeleth Talk 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Having a standing army occupy a colony obviously was considered political repression, both by contemporary commentary and by the fact that prohibitions against its worst effects were written into the U.S. constitution. Cf. Adam's quote in this very article. Calling political oppression is always "anti-" the oppressor. Considering this complaint was written by someone who uses the word "shan't" and is thus most likely British, we once again see someone crying bias because they themselves are biased. 76.118.229.114 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Massacre?

This article calls a provoked shooting into a threatening crowd by foreign soldiers which kills five people a massacre. Is this wikipedia policy for all such shooting or should we do this only if the rock throwing crowd are Americans?

Herne nz 05:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "massacre" is similar to terrorist. It is as much a political and propagandic definition as an reality. This is the most common designation of this incident so this is the name of this article. Other incidents will be named differently. Rmhermen 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC

Nononono! 1. The term "massacre" is NOT similar to terrorist, 2. A massacre need not be intentional, all the less an evil konspirassy, to be called a massacre. It's just a term and if it gets negative connotations – that honors you in my eyes, but nonetheless it's a factual description of many X:es killing many Y:s. Rursus 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If the term is being used in its 'political and propagandic definition' rather than on reality, should this be noted in the article? The term 'massacre' is accepted without question.

Herne nz 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is reasonably explicit already: "The Boston Massacre is the name commonly given to the killing of five civilians" (first sentence), "Samuel Adams and his Whig colleagues dubbed the killings "the Boston Massacre" and used it for propaganda purposes" (opening of "historical significance" section). However, that's just my opinion: if you feel the wording could be improved, please do be bold and try to improve it!

Note that a "massacre" does not have to refer to a large number of people in any case. See Massacre of Braybrook Street, for example, where only three people were killed, and where (since the killers and victims were the same nationality) it is clear that the name was not chosen for political propoganda purposes, but merely in its descriptive sense of the murder of more than one unarmed person. — Haeleth Talk 10:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I started looking at this page in connection with another incident, to try to establish what is considered a massacre in American history.

From what I can see:

The deaths of five people by soldiers shooting into a crowd is enough to constitute a massacre

Provocation and intimidation by the crowd, including throwing of stones and pieces of wood or the presence of men armed with large sticks does not give the soldiers the right to defend themselves with gunfire.

Even when all the accused soldiers are acquitted on murder charges, by a judical system and jury drawn from the local community, it can still be considered a massacre.

Indeed as long as it is 'commonly called' a massacre it is a massacre. (Do the British commonly call it a masssacre - or is it enough for one side to "commonly call" it a massacre?)

A massacre it has been called for over 200 years. It has caused such anger it caused an uprising against foreign troops so I have no problems calling it the Boston Massacre.

I think it sets a very useful reference point for other incidents.

Herne nz 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your conclusions are correct: particularly that the main reason the term "massacre" is used is simply the force of habit.

As far as what the British "commonly" call it goes, basically we don't. American history is taught very little in British schools; what little we do learn mostly covers issues like colonisation and slavery, rather than specific events. The American Revolution is taught only in the most general outline, so I think it likely that the majority of Britons have literally never heard of this incident, and those who have will probably have learnt about it from American sources, and will hence use the American name.

You will probably run into problems if you attempt to use it as a precedent for other incidents, however. It must be borne in mind that the term "massacre" was originally chosen for propoganda purposes; while the word does not require a large number to have died, it is generally only used by people who consider the killings to have been wrong. In this case, for example, even though the soldiers were not convicted of murder, I don't think you will find many people who think that the victims deserved to die.

To take some more recent examples:

• You would probably get away with referring to the Haditha killings as a massacre, because even those who support the US military have generally accepted that those Marines did something unacceptable.
• It would be controversial to refer to any of the instances in which Israeli troops have shot dead stone-throwing Palestinians as massacres, because supporters of the Israeli military believe that those killings are justifiable as self-defence.
• It is unlikely that anyone would call the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes a massacre, even though he was an unarmed civilian, because the common view is that the police who shot him genuinely believed him to be about to carry out a suicide bombing attack -- even though they were wrong.

Whether there's any real logic to all this is unclear. There probably are double standards at work. The key thing to remember is that Wikipedia should always describe what people believe, rather than trying to correct it. — Haeleth Talk 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Thats exactly what Wikipedia is AGAINST, it should never be about belief and only refer to FACTS, otherwise you will see every shooting by an american soldier described as a 'massacre'. Also, double standards need to be urgently dealt with or the piece will invoke ridicule. I think its in editors interest to refrain from black propoganda terms like 'massacre' and perhaps put the word massacre from the header in quotes so as to signify its emotive origin for one party but not factually? ie: Boston 'Massacre' Twobells (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I now gather the originally the word 'massacre' was in quotes but has been removed, to avoid accusations of double standards Haditha Killings ( 'killings', yes I couldn't believe it either)I suggest that the quotes are replaced around the word to identify that the usage was to dessiminate indoctrination, also see meme Or perhaps the slaughter of non-american little children in modern life is considered 'killing' and not a 'massacre'? (especially when the culprits end up charged with Negligent homicide ) Twobells (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As per Herne nz and Haeleth above, the incident has long been referred to as a massacre, without need to qualify the meaning or impose quotations which suggest an ironic usage. Comparisons to other murders or military slaughters for the purpose of establishing whether this deserves to be called a massacre are beside the point. A google search reveals no instances of quotation marks around the word, nor does Britannica question the usage. Unless scholarly precedent can be cited, the addition of quotation marks is at issue with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. JNW (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if there is a consensus among editors that quotation marks be added to any part of the title, would these marks not also be included at each and every subsequent use of the title, except when quoted directly from other sources, within the article? JNW (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of term in baseball referring to Yankees vs. Red Sox

I removed an insertion in the first paragraph about the Yankees vs. Red Sox rivalry. If someone wishes to write an article on this use of the term (which refers to a 4-game series sweep of the Red Sox by the Yankees in September 1978, and a 5-game series sweep of the Red Sox by the Yankees in August 2006, both series having been played in Boston), they should write a separate article, and make a disambiguation page for Boston Massacre. MayerG 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is already some sourced content on the "Massacres" in the article Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry, and any further material is probably best placed there. MayerG 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed it once myself. This is certainly not material that belongs in the lead section of this article. Rmhermen 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

References and Citations

I created a references section to the page and started creating a few web references. I hope this will get the ball rolling. --Jmpcronin 14:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrepency

There is some discrepency about when fourth and fifth victims died, at first it says that the fourth victim died "a few hours later" then 2 lines down it mentions the name, "Samuel Maverick" saying that he died the next day. Also the fifth, Patrick Carr, is said to have died "several days later" and then "two weeks later". Due to the wording of these statements, both could be true in both situations considering the fact that the event took place sometime at night and the lack of definition of "a few". But what is seen as correct? --Cheesdude 02:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

Having reviewed this article, I cannot support it as a good article candidate, but since good progress has been made, I am mentioning the criticisms here so that the article may be improved to GA status. Specifically, I have a minor concern and a large concern. The minor concern is sourcing. While there are some inline citations and a "bibliography," I think a wider survey of sources would be important. This is a widely-discussed historical event, but only 3 published sources (plus 3 website articles) are used as references.

The major concern is that while the event itself and its direct consequences (what happened to the victims and perpetrators) are well-covered, the only coverage of the event's historical context is a sentence in the lead that the event "helped spark the American Revolution." Surely, this is an important aspect of the subject that is left out of the article. (Good articles are required to have broad coverage.) This omission is probably why another editor had assessed the article as only B-class, which I agree with. Anyway, whoever nominated the article hadn't left a note here, so the editors of this page may not even be aware that a nomination was made. But if this is to be a good article, these two points should be addressed. Mangojuice^talk 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A well written artricle, but I would like to see more sources/refrences. Chaldean 17:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since no one seems to be working on the concerns at the moment, I've failed the article as a GA candidate. If someone does address them, feel free to nominate again. Mangojuice^talk 03:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pelham painting

The "Depictions" section discusses a painting by Henry Pelham, but there's no wikilink to Henry Pelham (there is an article, but it's about someone else with the same name), and the painting isn't shown. Is this it? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h3147b.html --76.81.164.27 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism and Impact

I added the section on the Impact of the Boston Massacre. It was deleted during the recent wave of vandalism. This paragraph isn't perfect, so I would like help beefing it up a little. This Impact section, which places the event in larger context, is one of the required elements in achieving Good Article status. --Jmpcronin 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Eight Soldiers

According to Capt. Preston's account, he dispatched twelve men and a non-comissioned officer. This, in addition to the one sentry, puts the total at 14 or 15 (there was mention of a British Sergeant who chased off the boys who were harassing the sentry). These numbers are reinforced by the number of wounds sustained by the various members of the mob. In fact, the number of killed and the number of wounded adds up to eleven. This is simply impossible with eight men loading a single ball (which, presumably, they did, as there is no evidence to the contrary). Why, then, were so few taken to trial? There were obviously more involved in the event than were tried. Any notion as to the logic behind this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.224.235.34 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Trial Date

For the Trial portion, wouldn't it be good to have the date of the trial? Is it even known? Thanks. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.145.93 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

yes, i think that should be included. however, i don't know the date myself...if anyone knows, please add it.-MLYF360 22:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A Better Paul Revere engraving Pic

I found the following picture of the Paul Revere engraving: http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/images/massacre2a.jpg It's much more clear and brighter whereas the current one is very dim in comparison. I'm not yet familar with the image use policy, so I'm not sure if it can be used or not. This picture is A LOT better though --CommonSense101 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and put in the new picture of the engraving which is brighter and more clear. Let me know if you object, but I feel that it is an improvement --CommonSense101 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks for doing that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dog

Why is there a calm dog in the middle of the crossfire? (look at the picture)

because the loves death...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123abcdoreme2 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Event

This section has been distorted and dumbed down per the book by Zobel.Halpaugh 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More Changes

"Preston arrived with four other soldiers: Hugh Montgomery, Thomas Weems, John Carroll, and Mathew Kilroy." Has been moved to just after the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Event" subsection. It has also been edited to read "Among these soldiers were Hugh Montgomery, Hugh White, Corporal William Weems, John Carrol, James Hartigan, William McCauley, William Warren and Matthew Kilroy." These have been edited to repair the grammatical errors in their names, present a more complete list of the known soldiers involved, and to give the article more flow. It has also been cited.

In the following paragraph, "DO NOT FIRE!" has been changed to "Do not fire!" to eliminate the overly dramatic effect of having been written with all capital letters.

"Almost everyone fired into the crowd except one of the soldiers," has been changed to "All but one of the soldiers fired into the crowd." This statement was not specific enough to the soldiers.

"...three died instantly, one a few hours later, and a fifth several days later," has been removed, and this paragraph has been merged with the last paragraph in the section.

"The soldiers were later tried in Admiralty Courts and two were found guilty of manslaughter. The punishment for this was a short jail stay and the letter "M" branded on their hands just above the thumb. This would alert anyone whom they shook hands with while not wearing gloves that they were guilty of manslaughter," has been removed entirely because it is overly dramatic and is addressed in the "Trial" section later on.

The pamphlet quote has been moved to the depictions section because it is more appropriate to place it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, people keep changing the mention of Preston dispatching twelve soldiers and an NCO to six soldiers and an NCO. That is not what his account says! Read the source material before posting, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC) The book by Zobel says that six grenadiers (which he lists by name) and one NCO (Wemms) were sent to relieve White. Preston and his subordinate followed alongside. Halpaugh 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The primary source document of Preston's report refutes this and does not list grenadiers. The myth of the soldiers being grenadiers came from a civilian deposition, only one of the dozens. The accounts are all varied and list many, many different and often conflicting details. While the soldiers may very well have been grenadiers, they could just as easily have been light infantry, or line infantry. We cannot make assumptions about a topic with which there are so few solid details. Zobel is a historian. A generally good historian, but a historian nonetheless, and it would be more prudent to rely on primary source documents than the word of a modern interpretation of those documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.235.34 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article (which I can't seem to edit for some reason) incorrectly reads that "4 civilians were killed at the scene, and one died after the incident..." In fact, two were killed after the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wemms versus Weems=

The book by Zobel consistently spells the corporals name as Wemms. Where does the name Weems come from?Halpaugh 11:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The soldiers

There were six soldiers and three officiers sent to relieve White. The additional names were the 'civilians' in the custom house, who did not play any role in the massacre.Halpaugh 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC) The name Wemms appears on the original trial transcipt http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/soldiers1.html Given the fastidious nature of the legal profession, especially with names in legal documents Wemms must be the correct spelling.

Is the image cited above in the public domain? It would be an appropriate addition to this article.Halpaugh 20:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Six soldiers and three officers does not add up. It takes very simple math to realize this. There were eleven casualties. This is decidedly impossible with a mere six soldiers. Even if two of those officers were carrying muskets (which is unlikely in this Pre-War period), that's still but eight. Again, relying on modern interpretations is a folly. Granted, the names given on the indictment may have wrongly named civilians rather than actual soldiers, but that still does not excuse the bare-bones fact that there were more than seven soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Six soldiers plus Wemms plus White at his post makes eight muskets.Halpaugh 07:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

from the note on page 347 of Zobel book: "the evidence is overwhelming that the group which formed in front of the Custom House contained not twelve soldiers, but eight. That the two officers most closely involved should both mistake the size ... seems incredible. But no other available explanation suffices" Perhaps this belongs in the Controversies section Halpaugh 07:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Any idea how long it takes an experienced soldier to reload a musket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.95.243 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Four rounds per minute see musket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.95.243 (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I encourage you to read the source material rather than Zobel. No witness, either civilian or military, states that there was more than a single volley fired. I highly disagree with Zobel's statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC) None of the original sources say that the shots were in unison. Most say that there were several separate sets of shots.Halpaugh 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Granted. The volley was not ordered, which accounts for the nearly random discharges. But reloading and firing takes at the very least 15 seconds. Nobody, either civilian or military, states seeing anybody reload their muskets until after the firing had stopped. It seems unlikely that Preston would have simply sat by while his men reloaded, when he was obviously so opposed to them firing in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See reference 8 "Benjamin Frizell... declares that the first discharge was only of one gun, the next of two guns ...the third discharge was of three guns ... and immediately after were discharged five guns, two of which were by soldiers on his right hand; the other three, as appeared to the deponent, were discharged from the balcony, or the chamber window of the Custom-house..."

Where can we access these original source documents?Halpaugh 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

      You can find the original documents at several places across the internet:
      http://www.bostonmassacre.net/trial/index.htm
      http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/bostonmassacre.html

A possible explanation is that there were shots fired from within the customs house. Many witnesses do state seeing but seven or eight soldiers, but this does not account for the wounds. Many witnesses also said that there were shots fired from within the house, though this is a matter of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for 11 wounds there is the possiblity that 1 musket ball hit more than one person so even with 8 men it would be very possible to inflict multiple wounds at close range. I shoot my replica brown bess musket with ball regularly and at close range it is 1 oz of lead comeing out of .75 cal. barrel at a pretty good rate of speed unless it hits bone to slow it down passing trough one person and into another can not be ruled out. Marc29th (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a possibility, they were certainly at point blank range. But why, then, does Preston list 14 soldiers in his deposition? Most witnesses report seeing eight soldiers, so where did the other six or seven go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.16.5 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

British spelling

This article refers to a British topic, a rebellion in the British colonial city of Boston. Therefore, it is best to have this article in British English spelling. So, all American English spelling should be transferred to British English spelling.Daanschr (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic is of local interest in America and is American history as much as it is British history. American and British citizens were involved on American soil under British sovereignty. At that, the conversion to British English would accomplish little. The written languages are easily understood by both the British and Americans. It is an unnecessary edit.

Daanschr, that is the most idiotic argument for the use of British spellings on a page that I've ever heard. This even is quite minor in British history -- it isn't even mentioned on the British history pages -- however it is considered to be one of the most important events in American history, more important than the Civil War or World War Two, even. akulkis 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I read this article with huge amusement, but this last comment is just in too much bad taste, since you risk actually being taken seriously. A joke is a joke, but this is perhaps the most insignificant event I have ever seen a Wikipedia article on (seriously? a scuffle in one fairly-minor-at-the-time town, ending up with a minute group of soldiers killing 5 - I mean 5! - people when surrounded by a mob outnumbering them vastly?). To even humorously compare this to the second world war is a crass treatment of the lives of the tens of millions who died. I would suggest that more care be taken when, even for comic effect, making such provocative and offensive statements as this. —Kan8eDie (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Kan8eDie: I believe akulkis was referring to the importance of the event on America. WW2 was much more important than the Boston Massacre, yes, there is no dispute there. But the affect WW2 had on America was minimal, while the Boston Massacre was a catalyst in the American Revolution. I think America's seperation from British rule is more important then whatever affect WW2 had on America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.187.92 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite pronoun problem

This sentance in the first paragraph of the "Event" section REALLY needs a lot of work.

"He exchanged insults with Private Hugh White, who left his post and challenged the boy, then struck him on the side of the head with his musket."

1. The pronoun "He" is undefined, and not easily deciphered from the preceding text. "He" needs to be replaced with a reference to a specific person -- I don't know enough about the subject to make definitive edit...someone who is more knowledgeable needs to do this.

2. The subject of the sentence appears to be one person in the first half of the sentence, and another in the final half. So, the latter half of the sentence needs some work -- splitting it off to a separate sentence if need be.

CLARITY people!

akulkis 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotations around title

Is there any reason why the title is in quotations (in the introduction). I mean, I understand it's supposed to tell you right off the bat it wasn't a real massacre, but I looked quickly at a bunch of the other massacre articles and it seemed even disputed ones don't have the word massacre in quotes. I'd change it, but I'm afraid it'd get angrily and swiftly reverted as pro-US progaganda blah blah. Thanks! General Epitaph (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Who shot first?

The article states that Private Hugh Montgomery shot first. In truth, no one will ever know who shot first, as every textbook states. THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED, so perhaps the thought-Nazis can unlock.

Uncertain, maybe, but Montgomery's testimony to his lawyers, published in 1949, as cited in the article and here [2], implicated himself as firing the initial shots. The article is mercifully semi-protected because of chronic vandalism. JNW (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

'Heavy' British soldier presence

Shouldn't the reason for the heavy british military presence be stated? Ie: protecting the Indian Territories [re Treaties] and stopping land-grabbers from stealing North American Indian land and formenting yet another Indian War? Twobells (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be relevant if we were talking about British military presence in the colonies as a whole, but not so much for Boston. The soldiers were stationed in Boston specifically to pacify the Patriots. Nobody even pretended that soldiers in Boston were to protect the American people from Native Americans or vice versa. If they were there for the Native American, they would have been on the frontier, not a major city on the waterfront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Text going off the page

I happened to be on this article to help me study for my AP U.S. history final and stumbled upon a little vandalism in it. That's been removed, but I have no idea why one of those paragraphs is stretching the page and going underneath the picture. I figured I should point that out to the people who know how to fix such things, though I'm not sure if it's supposed to be there in the first place, as it was right below some of the stupid phrases shoved in there and in a box resembling /code in BBCode... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinujutsu (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read that the colonists were not throwing snow balls, but ice chunks, wood, and rocks. Does anyone know if this is true? I'm trying to use this as a sorce for a debate I'm doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.234.232 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: In recent developments, I've noted the text in the dashed box is visible on the page but not in it's editing page. It's at the end of the Events section, rather hard to miss. Sinujutsu (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Ah, someone got it methinks, though maybe as I was editing. Sinujutsu (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Background

The "Background" section in the article needs to be stricken. In the current state of this article, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the event. This seems to be a very small incident gone out of hand, without any particular meaning or cause. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Prose quality in the preamble

"A tense situation because of a heavy British military presence in Boston boiled over to incite brawls between soldiers and civilians and eventually led to troops discharging their muskets after being attacked by a rioting crowd."

My apologies to the author, if it was one person, but this is quite awkward. "Boiled over" at least works properly with "A tense situation..." but "boiled over to incite" seems near meaningless. A situation can't properly speaking incite anything, and "boiled over to incite" compounds that. Then it drags on with the tacked on "eventually led to..."

I'm loath to wade into what might be a sensitive part of an article with different points of view, but I would suggest "Tensions resulting from a heavy British military presence in Boston led to brawls between soldiers and civilians, and a discharge of muskets upon a rioting crowd." That tacks all the same information in without any change in pov and without quite as much awkwardness. (Although it'd still probably sound better as more than one sentence.) 142.167.180.221 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Phillis Wheatley

Phillis Wheatley, the first afroamerican poetess, as I have just read, witnessed the massacre firsthand and wrote a poem "On the Affray in King-Street, on the Evening of the 5th of March". Probably this could be mentioned. Best regards, --CopperKettle 15:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Separatists vs. Patriots

I don't see the problem with describing those people as separatist: see separatism. I'm not against the use of the term "Patriot", but what I regard as its current over-use strike me as more than a little US-centric, as well as a tad Orwellian. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the term separatist is rarely used in the context of the American Revolution -- especially in the case of Boston in 1770 when revolution was not the goal. I have reverted it, pending some consensus that it is a proper term. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean rarely used in US books on the subject, or do you include those from other countries? Separatism does not mean revolutionary; those seeking even limited autonomy can also be classified as separatist. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My familiarity is with books by American and British authors. Are you aware of any reliable sources who refer to the folks in Boston in 1770 as "separatists"? Wikipedia articles should use the same termnology as the majority of reliable sources do -- that seems to be pretty basic. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, Seperatists might be valid for events after 1776, but here it doesn't work since there weren't trying to seperate, and I've seen no sources using the term this early. I've also never heard people fighting for limited autonomy called seperatists. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 13:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you don't have a problem with it being used for events after 1776. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I said it might be acceptable. Quite frankly I don't think it is, but that's not the issue at hand. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the term "separatists" as an appropriate term until someone establishes that it is a commonly used term by historians of the era. If the historians don't use it, then wikpedia should not use it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not? They were clearly separatist. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not true. There are implications in SOME definitions of "separatist" that are inconsistent with who the American revolutionists actually were. The real question, however, is why YOU feel it is necessary to use a term that EXPERTS on the subject don't use. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Riot on King Street

I believe loyalists and anglophiles referred to this event as the "Riot on King's Street." I actually think a riot is a closer description to the event than Adams and Revere's depiction of it as a massacre. Since history is written by the victors and the colonists won the larger revolutionary struggle, this event has been named a massacre. Students of history should be able look beyond the name of the event and understand how the revolutionaries manipulated this event to drum up support for their cause. It does not excuse the actions of the soldiers, but they were not the sole instigators of the event. -Matt C. 26 January 2006

Actually this was called a "massacre" before there were any victors; in fact, before there was any war. It is an example of propaganda, not of victors writing history. I don't know the British name for the event though. Rmhermen 03:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Riot on King's Street" doesn't return any google hits, "riot on King Street" only one using it as an alternate name. Rmhermen 03:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the event was referred to as a "massacre" before the conclusion of the American Revolution. I apologize because I think I represented a "Riot on King's Street" as an official name. What I meant was that Loyalists and British authorities would have seen the colonists gathered that evening as a mob. John Adams, in his defense of the soldiers even describes the colonists as a mob. I do not find it unusual that there are few references to a "riot" on King Street on the good old interweb. Since it is in the interest of the revolution and later the United States to classify this event as a massacre (e.g. It portrays their actions in a more noble light), there would be little motivation for them to portray them as rioters. Had Britain been able to maintain control over the colonies (which I don't think they would have been able to do), I think it would be doubtful that they would have named this event a "massacre." I think it is an example of the propaganda being incorporated into (American) history. I believe the word "massacre" inaccurately describes the event and misleads people who may only view this event superficially. -Matt C. 28 January 2006

You would be amazed how little even comparitively well informed Britons know about the Boston Massacre, or for that matter the War of Independance. The War of 1812 , a foundation of American folklore, is a footnote in British history (in the case of the 1812 war, rightly, it was in the overall scheme of things, irrelevant, although I wouldn't suggest that about the Revolution). However, taking a British angle does throw some light on the use of "massacre". The Peterloo Massacre was roughly contemporary, had only a few more deaths, and the victors (if you can call them such) wrote the history, but it was still known as a massacre. Mind you, Tianmen Square was undeniably a massacre, and see how quickly we seem to have forgotten that.

My view, which maybe has a place here, but I wouldn't infringe on the main article, is that early US history was driven by propoganda which became folklore which has become sacred. This is not unique to America, but it isn't always good history either. Epeeist smudge 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a British person, I'd not heard of this incident before reading the wikipedia article. I don't think British people generally are aware of the event and so I'd say it would be called whatever the international academically accepted term is. As noted by others, rightly or wrongly it is probably seen as a minor incident from the British perspective. Certainly The American War of Independence as a whole wasn't taught to me at school and I don't think that's likely to have changed much. I pity the poor history teachers trying to work out what to cover in limited time! On the other hand the Peterloo Massacre does get covered: this is seen as more central to the democratic development of our country, and with due respect, my impression of the scale of the Peterloo event was that it was larger, and being local, more immediate for people in Britain. As User:Epeeist smudge notes, people seem to remember events in their own countries than others more readily.--mgaved 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also speaking as a British person, I have to point out the infeasibility of teaching about every incident in history lessons in which five people were shot. To people from the US, it might be an important incident in your history, but compared to the massacres that occurred in colonial India, perpetrated by British troops, the Boston 'massacre' pales in comparison. 81.155.139.46 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

the difference is that the Americans acted promptly, went to war, and defeated the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the lead sentence, there are many citations for "Boston Riot" to be found if you search google books for "boston riot" and 1770. At least some of these books are by Americans. I'm not claiming that this is the primary name of the event, but it is certainly a frequently used alternative. Other citations confirm King Street rather than King's Street. Is it really necessary to include a citation here? I think the CN notation should be removed, and "riot" be capitalized in Boston Riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atannen (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Benefit of Clergy

The benefit of clergy details are clearly wrong. You could not claim benefit of clergy for murder, but you could for manslaughter. I suspect the correct story is that they were convicted of manslaughter, claimed benefit of clergy, and then the technicality was that their punishment was to be banished to North America. I have no references, so I won't fiddle with the article, but it's clearly wrong as is.  Randall Bart   Talk  07:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings hatnote

If you have any sources at all that support the nickname "Boston Massacre" for the 2013 bombing event, go ahead and add this information to the bombing article. At that point, and only at that point, would it become appropriate to add a hat note here. -- Fyrael (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the best I for one can do without a better idea of what "sources" in particular we are looking for. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Boston+Massacre%22+Marathon&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-nightly . Clearly, this isn't exactly a oneoff mention or connection, so the question I have to ask is what source(s) would you deem suitable to prove this? Furthermore, why is the burden of proof so severe when it doesn't affect the substance of either article in the least? 75.36.161.208 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I personally deem suitable. Please read WP:OR for an explanation of wikipedia policy regarding unsourced material. There is also a section there that explains what types of sources are considered reliable sources. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As for me, I chose to add it for convenience, thinking that one of the goals of Wikipedia is be as useful as possible to someone who doesn't remember the complete name. I'm sorry if that's a bad idea here. --Sbluen (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible that I'm being too inflexible here, although maybe not. The policy on hat notes (WP:HATNOTE) says that we really only use them when topics have the same name. So, if we think that the nickname 'Boston Massacre' is really being commonly used for the bombing, then we should probably add it. However, if the topics are simply related or, as Sbluen said, if readers simply aren't coming up with the right name, then the hat note doesn't belong. I just would've thought that if the nickname was so common, it would've at least gotten a single mention on the marathon bombing article. -- Fyrael (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the important test is what is in the best interest of our readers. Our hatnote guideline says "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking." A hatnote costs nothing and doesn't impact the quality of this article. I would suggest having one for now and reviewing the need for it in a year. --agr (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the Riot Act

During the 1700's-early 1900's, there was an important law in effect in Great Britain known as the Riot Act. According to the Riot Act, any crowd of more than 12 people could be deemed an "unlawful assembly" at the local authorities discretion. In order to be legally invoked against the gathering in question, the law's transcript had to be read aloud to the group. If the gatherers did not disperse within one hour of its invoking, the authorities could use deadly force to break up the protests.

Since the colonies were part of Britain, I would imagine that the Riot Act was enacted there as well. Does anybody have any information about whether it was invoked against the Boston protesters? Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall offhand, but it seems unlikely. Given that civil authorities (e.g. a sheriff or the governor) were not involved, I doubt that the Riot Act was read. If anyone would have done so, it would've been Captain Preston. Of all the sources, Zobel would probably say if it was. Magic♪piano 02:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The colonies had their own riot acts (to deal with real riots, not snowball fights)-- see Pauline Maier (1991). From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776. pp. 24–25. but I don't think it was invoked in the Boston case. Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013

A faint image of John Adams can be seen to the left of the Butcher's Hall. The area where John Adams is seen, is highlighted, and a copy of John Adams was added for easy reference. As John Adams was involved deeply in the Boston Massacre, it only makes sense that Paul Revere, a well known activist, would have Jon Adam's face in his engraving.

ReworkedScripts (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are suggesting the caption of the image be altered. If so, it is rejected: it focuses on one minor detail of the image, rather than the more relevant background on its creation that is currently presented. Magic♪piano 04:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

- No, I added a highlighted region to that image to show that John Adam's face appears in the image in a hidden way. View the image full size and you'll see what I mean. I want the picture added to the page in a different area so people will be able to clearly see his face. I'm not sure that anyone has made public mention of the face even being there before and I feel that it's an important piece of his engraving. It's not just there for nothing.

If no public mention has been made of this, then it would be considered original research and as such is not permissible in a Wikipedia article. You would need to provide one or more reliable, published sources to substantiate your claims for it even to be considered, and even then I tend to agree with Magicpiano as to the relevance and significance (or lack thereof) of this particular detail. --ElHef (Meep?) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

- I always took Wikipedia as way to get information out instead of withholding information or propagating misinformation. Just because someone is not a rich an famous publisher, does not make their findings insignificant. I strongly advise YOU to research this on your own and see what you find to be true. I've seen people citing NBC, CBS, Fox, and other sources that are known to publish misinformation with that qualifying as perfectly legit. So you're telling me that a free thinker cannot possibly be legit simply because of lack of money? Look at the picture yourself. What do YOU see? Would you like to be told your findings are insignificant simply because you're not a massive news corporation spouting propaganda, or a some famous company who published an article online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.128.215 (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• As has been stated, WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE are the relevant policies. JNW (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

POV

This entire article is heavily biased towards the Patriot point of view. For instance the words "Christopher Monk, the boy who was wounded in the attack and died in 1780, was paraded before the crowds as a reminder of British hostility" - it was the crowd who were hostile, and provoking the soldiers. It should be written by a non-American.203.184.41.226 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If that's the best example you can come up with to support the idea that the entire article is biased, you'll have to try harder. The section you quote is clearly talking about later propagandistic uses of the event. Magic♪piano 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"provoking soldiers" -- is it not odd there were all these soldiers standing around in downtown streets?? They were not there to protect the citizens but to overawe them and to humiliate common citizens by demonstrating the power of the government to shoot anyone who complained. The point is that it was a very dangerous and risky move by the Royal Government to do that, and in so doing it lost much of the Loyalist support it needed to win the war that soon followed. Rjensen (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd? No, pretty common. It happens today as well. As for Loyalist support, the main factor in the loss of the War was quite simply foreign (mostly French) money and military support. You have to take the War in it's global context, ie the French threatening the much more lucrative sugar producing colonies in the West Indies. 135.196.157.83 (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) FW

File:Boston Massacre high-res.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Boston Massacre high-res.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 5, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-03-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A depiction of the Boston Massacre, an incident on March 5, 1770, in which British Army soldiers killed five male civilians and injured six others in Boston, Massachusetts. Eight soldiers, one officer, and four civilians were arrested and charged with murder, though all but two were acquitted; two soldiers were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to branding. During the era of discontent that led to the American Revolution, this event was used for anti-British propaganda.Engraving: Paul Revere

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Needs to mention that someone in the crowd fired a pistol (possibly an accidental discharge) resulting in the soldiers firing back. 86.163.53.223 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You know that it was someone in the crowd? You know it was a pistol? Who was it? Do you have any reliable sources to back up these claims? I grew up in Boston and am unaware of any sources that have that level of detail, and I'm aware of some that claim a soldier fired first. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Innacuracies of the painting "The Bloody Massacre"

The day after the Massacre, tempers flared throughout Boston. After the event Paul Revere decided to draw a painting of the incident with many major flaws. He made the colonists all look very innocent while he drew the British soldiers eager to kill. he made the soldiers in line as if it was a planned attack in the painting, where in real life they were in a bundle firing just to protect themselves from the riot outside of the customs house. This painting turned lots of loyalists in Boston and throughout the colonies into Patriots. This huge decrease in Loyalists left in the colonies really hurted Britain's chance of winning the war. This is why the inaccuracies in the painting "The Bloody Massacre" are so important and must be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmorri5332 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources discuss the inaccuracies? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

they were protecting themselves from snowballs. Why were armed soldiers standing around--to subdue & terrify the colonists. Recommend: watch TV these days to see how tyrants handle crowds in Cairo, Damascus and Kiev. Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014

1st paragraph, second to last line of text:

They fired into the crowd, without orders, instantly killing three people and wounding others. 

Is incorrect. According to A SHORT NARRATIVE OF THE HORRID MASSACRE IN BOSTON. PERPETRATED IN THE EVENING OF THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH, 1770, BY THE SOLDIERS OF THE 29TH REGIMENT, WHICH WITH THE 14TH REGIMENT WERE THEN QUARTERED THERE; WITH SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE STATE OF THINGS PRIOR TO THAT CATASTROPHE (published in 1849)numerous depositions in the appendix from people on the scene state that there were two "fire" orders. No soldier responded to the first, but shots were fired after the second order of "fire" was given. So saying that the soldiers fired into the crowd without orders is incorrect.

Should be changed to: After twice being given the order to fire, with the first order being ignored, they shot into the crowd, killing and wounding inhabitants of Boston. Penepenep (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2014

ghghgjgjgyg

213.225.101.132 (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see where this text would fit into the existing article.  Not done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Random

My history book says the 2 soldiers convicted of manslaughter had there THUMBS branded. Can someone fix it? I would but its semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.53.184 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

174.109.212.56 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Eleven men were hit by a single volley from eight soldiers?

The officer Preston didn't fire. Pvt. Montgomery fired first into the crowd, then the other 7 all fired once. But 11 people were hit. So the musket fire of three shots passed through a person to hit another? I guess it's possible but sounds odd. Walterego (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

13 British soldiers were initially arrested, only 9 were brought to trial. Only two were proved to have fired. Still remarkable accuracy considering the weapons used. Rmhermen (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

when a crowd is very thick you'll hit somebody, tho maybe not the one you aimed at, unless you fire over their heads. Rjensen (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral POV: State terrorism???

The article is tagged as "attack-type: state terrorism", but according to the article the "terrorism" accusation is propaganda, and it is much more a case of "undisciplined troops using excessive force when under threat".

82.2.125.2 (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. (I removed it once already, but was reverted without an edit summary or source to support the addition.) AlexiusHoratius 00:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@82.2.125.2 and AlexiusHoratius: I just asked User:StjJackson, who seems to have been the user you're talking about, what the deal was. Because yeah, without a source, this seems like a pretty bad WP:POV issue. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: By the way, IP addresses cannot be pinged. Pppery (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: I kind of figured as much, but the reason I still do it is because I don't want to have a message/reply that seems to disregard an involved IP editor. If the reply I made up there to 82.2.125.2 and AlexiusHoratius started with a ping only aimed at Alexius, the IP editor might feel excluded from the conversation. I wouldn't want that, especially since that person caught the problematic edit here. RunnyAmiga (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012023020/http://www.bostonhistory.org/sub/bostonmassacre/ to http://www.bostonhistory.org/sub/bostonmassacre/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

Remove "state terrorism" from infobox, as neither the contents of this article, nor of the linked one fit the definition of state terrorism. 95.91.249.31 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

207.229.156.174 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

vvev

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

The fifth sentence of the first paragraph incorrectly reads as follows: "...who were subjected to verbal threats and repeated hit by clubs, stones and snowballs."

The sentence should be revised to read (revision in all-caps): "...who were subjected to verbal threats and repeatedLY hit by clubs, stones and snowballs."

Thank you. Reallywhatfor (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

A British soldier named Hugh White struck a boy named Edward Garrick with the butt of his rifle for insulting a British soldier named Captain John Goldfinch. Fouskkamisiimo (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

I want to make good edits for my freiends and family. I also want to make it appropriate for all ages. SKECHERZKID4 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

SKECHERZKID4 (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. We can't accept blank requests. GAB^gab 14:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125211125/http://www.thefreedomtrail.org/visitor/boston-massacre.html to http://www.thefreedomtrail.org/visitor/boston-massacre.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

1776 not 1770 82.28.219.69 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

1770 is correct. AlexiusHoratius 17:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

POV Check

I flagged this for POV check. It seems this page has had some problems with vandalism. I don't object to including different viewpoints, but the tone of the entire article seems to treat the American Revolution as an "unlawful rebellion" and the British acted in "self-defense" - I have absolutely no problem including the work of historians who take this position as long as that work is clearly cited, and there is WP:BALANCE for other viewpoints, including more thorough discussion of the background of tensions in Boston which right now says "Amid ongoing tense relations between the population and the soldiers." I think the position that the British acted in self-defense is a minority view, and should not be presented as authoritative in the article, and must be very thoroughly cited as a critical view. Seraphimsystem (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

good point. I rephrased the lede somewhet. Rjensen (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am adding some new sources and info as well. Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The pro-British bias is appalling. This is far from neutral. The BBC propagandists seem to be at work here, whitewashing history. Similar massacre, albeit with a slightly more bloody outcome, happened in India, Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Are they going to whitewash that too. British crimes denial is much like the Holocaust denial by the bloody Neo-nazis. Jevrejin (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I saw a documentary where forensic scientists used evidence to debunk the "usual" story of the Boston Massacre, but I think the widely held view is still that the reasons for it were complex. I think the background section could be improved, and this would improve the balance of the article overall. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge Patrick Carr into Boston Massacre; dated: July 2018. Proposer's Rationale: Other than being the last fatality of the incident, no evidence of notability. Most of the article talks about his testimony in the subsequent trial before his death and the few critical information needed can be added to the massacre article. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - His notability is directly related to this event - ergo this article - and without merit as a stand alone bio (despite the article creator's assertion that he was "...an important US Historical figure who should have a page." in their ES. I see no justification for having spun it off in the first instance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

1931 "Short title"?

This article appears with the short title "Incident on February 13, 1931". I can't find this date in the text and suspect it's a Wikidata glitch. The 13th in February 1931 lists nothing at all related. Can anyone fix this? I'm on phone only for a few days so can't do much. PamD 06:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

this seems to be a comment on the Revere illustration per the Chinese Wikipedia. at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Boston_Massacre?uselang=zh-cn This article uses File:Boston Massacre high-res.jpg with no mention of the 1931 false date. Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The Boston massacre did occur!

The Boston massacre did occur, and not just along King St, but also the Boston Rd. Hence the British army dirge at the time "The Boston road". Which the revolutionaries countered with the battle song "When the queen comes back to new Bedford again". Not the first time British troops executed women and children, and most certainly, not the last time either. 120.154.206.169 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

On the side panel where it says the date, it says 248 years ago. I believe it should say 249 years ago. 172.75.211.153 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: its still january, so it has only been 248 years DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does the infobox says 248 years ago? It's now 249 years ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

In the boston massacre 5 people died because one of the soldiers opened fire. 208.38.246.11 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The incident was more like a riot than a massacre (POV Check)

The incident was much more like a riot than a massacre, I added this appropriation, adding how some attest the incident was much more like riot. However this was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.A.W.C 101 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to be partial to the typical patriot viewpoint, that the incident was a massacre. H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page it seems that a lot of people have edited this claiming of 'pro-British bias', in the process this article comes across as rather anti-British, rather than staying neutral. H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In fact this blatant anti-British tone is appalling. Its ridiculous... "The BBC propagandists seem to be at work here, whitewashing history". The BBC has been rated most accurate and reliable TV news, says Ofcom poll, and is considered extremely neutral and accurate. And is there is nothing here to imply this article was written by the BBC. "The position that the British acted in self-defense is a minority view". This is definitely wrong and the view that the incident was a massacre has long been debunked. The fact that this article has been dominated by these anti-British viewpoints is terrible and needs to be reviewed.

My neutral edits which provided alternatives viewpoints were removed by a user who 'lives near Boston, Massachusetts', where the alleged the massacre occurred. I doubt this is just a coincidence. This is a sign that this Wikipedia article is being dictated by patriots and that it is extremely biased.H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC) In fact when this article was originally approved as a good article it included that the Boston Massacre was described by some as a riot, however since then this has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.A.W.C 101 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@H.A.W.C 101: Please stop using this talk page as a soapbox, and do not cast aspersions as to other editors and their positions based on your own personal preferences. I would also suggest that you read WP:BLUDGEON. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yet YoPienso is allowed to blatantly discredit me? Their comments cast far more aspersions than I ever apparently did. I didn't even mention the user's name. The user's comments and my response can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Boston_Massacre/1#Boston_Massacre H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

H.A.W.C, the article states that the incident was a confrontation, and it is called the Boston Massacre because that is what it is commonly called. I believe your edit was removed because Wikipedia is not a place to write opinion pieces. If you wish to include it, find a source or a historian that has this viewpoint and put that in the article, e.g. “Some historians have said that this was less of a massacre, and more of a riot...” and then link source Sam1370 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)