Talk:Boston Massacre

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

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)