Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Boston Massacre/1

Boston Massacre

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept No convincing reason given why this article fails any of the Good Article criteria. Mainly hinges on whether it should be described as a riot, but that is essentially up to the sources. Overall the article seems balanced enough to meet our understanding of neutrality AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As highlighted in the talk page, this article is not neutral...

There is a blatant anti-British tone. 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. The alternative viewpoints need to be made clear in this article. 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)

I can see why your edits were reverted and it wasn't anything sinister.[1] We rarely cite youtube so you will need a better reference. Your edits look like original research, or at least opinion, were not presented neutrally and contained misleading edit summaries. It is too soon to jump to a good article reassessment without a proper discussion at the talk page. I made a few edits and looked for sources citing Boston Riot [2] and nothing jumps out that makes me think it is justified as a bolded title. I think failing some more obvious issues this should still be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, although the source was hosted on Youtube, it was actually a documentary from History.com which was presented by several academic historians. However, I shouldn't have cited Youtube as my source, and should have explicitly cited them directly. There are a vast range of sources describing the incident as a riot, and later on I will provide them and other sources to backup my edits. Due to your feedback I will henceforth ensure my edit summaries and clearer. H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC) I had cited Youtube since it provided the video, and people could therefore watch it and check it.

This GAR feels like forum shopping on a content dispute which feels icky to me. However a claim about lack of NPOV is a credible reason for a GAR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User H.A.W.C 101's account is brand new. The user page displays a large flag of England and a userbox announces they speak British English. Their talk page is made up largely of corrections for their mistakes. All this indicates lack of experience and possible national bias. Perhaps this review request is misguided and should be shelved. YoPienso (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... And I was told, "do not cast aspersions as to other editors" by Iryna Harpy. Yes, my account is relatively new, however I have made 142 edits as of now, with 98% of them being live (which is dwarfed by your number of 8080 edits, but this isn't a competition). My talk page is indeed largely made up of rejections of my articles, and when I mistook the license for an image that was actually copyrighted. But people have claimed you have made mistakes on your talk page too, although I don't find this too relevant, and have only brought it up since you have tried to unfairly discredit me. The claim that I'm biased is quite silly actually after looking at your page. A user box announces that you're American, and the killer is that you have a user box claiming that one of your ancestors fought Cornwallis in the American Revolution, so you're obviously far more biased than I am. So according to your approach, your comments are irrelevant and you should be ignored (which I wouldn't argue but it's what you implied with my comments).H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Moderator, please note H.A.W.C. 101's comment just above: "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." Is his conclusion of bias justified? That's the reason I pointed out his own potential bias.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article (written by an American) calls the incident a skirmish, not a riot, and notes the crowd was aware the British did not read them the Riot Act. The alternate name, the "Incident on King Street," is referenced in our current WP article (to a journal review I can't fully access) and is also given here. I can't find an RS for calling it the "Boston Riot." Does user H.A.W.C. 101 have one? YoPienso (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There are no moderators here. Just regular volunteers who take an interest in what is a good article. All that really matters at this page is whether the article meets these simple criteria. An editor being bias either way does not essentially matter, what matters is whether the article itself is biased (Criteria 4). While describing five deaths as a massacre does not appear particularly neutral, it is its common name. To provide alternate viewpoints we need reliable sources and I would have no issue with them being described or attributed as "riots" with a suitable source. All in all I am not seeing too much that causes this to fail the neutrality criteria. Keeping in mind that being neutral for this purpose is within a spectrum and does not have to be an exact point. The description of the event appears factual and it does not to my mind lean too far either way regarding blame or otherwise. My only issue is with the categories, as it does not fit in with the other "massacres" represented there. AIRcorn (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As highlighted via several sources, the protesters were indeed aware that they had not been read the Riot Act. The protesters' courage was largely based on the assumption that a British soldier could not fire on rioters before a magistrate had read the Riot Act, which authorised the army to restore the King’s peace. At this point, the magistrates in Boston weren’t going to risk their safety by reading the Riot Act.

You can find several sources referring to the massacre being likeable to riot:

http://www.bostonmassacre.net/alternative.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-SwXEifHHo&feature=youtu.be&t=13m49s (I am aware Youtube is not a reliable source, however it is just being used to host a previously presented series by the History network, so it is available to viewed readily. During the series, John Hall, a military historian, highlights how the incident was more similar to a riot.

Also, I never called the incident the "Boston Riot", but only highlighted the incident was "arguably more like a riot"; and this the only edit I made in regards to the incident being likeable to a riot.H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)