Talk:Boston Massacre

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Definition in first sentence

"The Boston Massacre ... was an incident " was recently changed to "The Boston Massacre ... was a riot". When you can count the dead on one hand, the word "massacre" may be somewhat exaggerated, but it would seem that the deaths are an important part of the incident. Also, "The Boston Massacre ... was a riot" might suggest that it was the rioters killed people. I have, therefore, reverted the change. --Boson (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that editors are unaware of WP:BRD, and of the simple art of discourse and consensus on the talk pages of articles in lieu of trying to edit war their preferred version in. I've just reverted yet another unexplained restoring of 'riot' over 'incident'. A section has been opened by Boson right here with his/her (IMO valid) rationale as to why 'riot' is not an acceptable descriptor, yet there's been serial changes made without so much as the courtesy of an edit summary for changing the complexion of the sense of the lede. I would ask that other editors bring the rationale to this thread and leave the article content alone while discussions take place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2018 (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)