Talk:Boston Tea Party

British reaction

we should include more on how britian reacted to the boston tea party as well as how the people of america reacted in the reaction page. Britina was actaully trying to fix thing with america with tea not make things worse. they were upset first but then they were furious with the colonists they shut down the boston harbor. Smith, George F. "Forgotten Lessons from the Boston Tea Party." Boston Tea Party Historical Society. 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.boston-tea-party.org/essays/essay4.html>. (Adilos8589 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Influence of tides

Shouldn't there be some mention of the role of the extreme tide that night? For instance, Sky & Telescope once had an article about this. --Mortense (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No Taxation without Representation

The second paragraph in concludes with this sentence:

"He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented."

The ending of the second sentence seems like a smug allusion to the old rallying cry of 'No Taxation without Representation'. 'Pay the tax' would be a more accurate description of events.

It is also something of a sourceless conjecture, but new as I am to this game I'm not sure on wiki policies regarding this.

Also my auto-correct is insisting the word is spelt protesters.

Rieper42 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a little smugness. I corrected the spelling of protesters however. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. E says that is a slogan like a presidential slogan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.237.255 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

In the third paragraph, it is written, "...ended local self-government in massachusetts and closed Boston's commerce." "Massachusetts" is a proper noun in English and should begin with an upper-case M. Shoalcreek5 (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out! SQGibbon (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

df[koghfporewi' tsr

[koeWt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.175.100 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC) 

Wikipedia

Hello, this is how the Boston Tea party started. People got angry and just got on board and dump the tea. The end. For more info contact this pages : oops no page! Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.48.31 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Destruction of the tea

I made a large revision to the section Destruction of the tea. The previous version of the section was based on late 19th century secondary or tertiary authors who in most cases were copying earlier authors and in some cases making up incorrect things and false facts. The authoritative source for the event is Gordon's 1784 text which I have cited and blockquoted in the article. This is the text on which virtually all subsequent authors based their information. For example, Gordon specifically says there were 17 "Indians". A later author, an Italian named Botta, changed this into "20". Then in 1828 Snow in his history of Boston, based his text on an English translation of Botta's Italian, and went further, changing this into "30" on no authority except his own imagination. Later authors then read Snow and made even further non-authoritative changes. The bottom line here is that Gordon is THE source.

The location of Griffin's Wharf is not in question. Whoever wrote the "study" previously mentioned in the article was an idiot and his claim that Griffin's Wharf was at the end of Pearl Street is just completely wrong. The well-known map of Boston in 1775 "A Plan of The Town of Boston with the Intrenchments of His Majesty's Forces in 1775, from the Observations of Lieut. Page of His Majesty's Corps of Engineers and from those of other Gentlemen." as I CITED in the text plainly shows the location of Griffin's Wharf with no doubt whatsoever as being at the end of Gridley Street. If you do a search on this map and view it you can convince yourself of this. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith before resorting to name calling. The site identified by the study's author, after examining various 1769–1800 maps and other material, is within about 100 feet of the end of Gridley Street, i.e., essentially identical. Because of the angle of the wharf shown on the cited map, the maximum difference is even less. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess you could consider the end of Pearl Street to be near the end of Gridley Street, so the study authors made an understandable error. However, if they had studied the literature and history of Boston thoroughly they would know that Gridley Street today is actually identical in both name and location to its position in 1753 and that the boardwalk of Griffin's Wharf was located right at the foot of Gridley Street. John Chamberlain (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Leading Image Caption

I have not made any edits to the leadoff image caption to the Currier & Ives engraving in the text which reads, "Contrary to Currier's depiction, few of the men dumping the tea were actually disguised as Indians.", however, this statement is wrong and should be revised. As Gordon and other contemporaneous sources wrote, the dumpers were all disguised as Indians. According to Gordon there were 17 men. The hundreds of citizens present were merely watching the proceedings and did not take part, just as the engraving shows. These men were waiting for the word from Rotch outside the meeting hall, and after Rotch came and announced that clearance had been refused, they all immediately ran to the docks and started dumping the tea. That all the men should be disguised was necessary, because they were English masters and seaman of the ships, and if any of them were recognized, the owners of the tea back in England could have had them prosecuted when they returned. John Chamberlain (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Various Scholarship Errors

In reviewing this article I notice there a bunch of serious scholarship errors in the text. For example, it says that the term "The Boston Tea Party" did not appear in print until 1834 according to historian Alfred Young. I have no idea who this Young character is, but he is completely wrong and obviously has not bothered to do even casual review of contemporaneous sources. For one thing, in Snow's history--a very derivative source--there is an entire chapter called "The Boston Tea Party" and this was published in 1826, so right off the bat Young has no idea what he is talking about. Furthermore, there are I am sure much earlier print notices, and in fact, I know of at least one newspaper "interview" dating around 1810 I think that uses the term. My own impression is that the term was a common usage among vulgar people and Boston regulars going back to the event itself and I am sure you could probably dig up print notices from around 1800 testifying to this. I do not have the time to correct this and other errors in the article, but I strongly suggest somebody get some better sources and go through this article again. 209.117.122.226 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)