Talk:Boston Massacre

Individual reassessment

This article doesn't meet these criteria: ◉ Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ◉ Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

On the talk page it has been highlighted that there is an 'edit war', see 'Definition in first sentence'.

"Edit war": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boston_Massacre#Definition_in_first_sentence

Community reassessment

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)

References

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)

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)

The fact that riot has been edited in frequently is simply because the incidence was vastly more like a riot than a massacre. 'Massacre' was coined by the revolutionists as propaganda. The argument that a riot 'might suggest that it was the rioters killed people' is quite pathetic, and not remotely true. As highlighted by the Oxford dictionary, a riot is 'a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd', which is exactly what happened.H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

there are many RS on what happened in Boston. Wiki is based on what they say and they generally use the term 'massacre' not 'riot'. What do the British say? Sir George Trevelyan, 2nd Baronet was a leading British politician, cabinet member, & historian who who wrote a multiple volume history of the American Revolution. To quote from his The American Revolution part I 1766-1776 (2nd ed. 1899) page 119: "there came a short and sharp encounter between a handful of soldiers and a small crowd, voluble in abuse, and too free with clubs and snowballs. There was a sputter of musketry , and five or six civilians dropped down dead or dying. That was the Boston massacre. The number of killed was the same as, half a century afterwards, fell in Saint Peters Fields at Manchester. It was not less certain that American Independence must result from the one catastrophe than that English Parliamentary Reform would result from the other." full text at George Otto Trevelyan (1899). The American Revolution. p. 119. Trevelyan is referring to the famous Peterloo Massacre in England in 1819 that launched the reform movement (and killed 15 civilians) and the only term he uses for 1770 event is "Boston massacre". Rjensen (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful between what its common name is (clearly the Boston Massacre in the US) and what historical consensus is about the level of what happened are two different things. You can certainly find support, going back to John Adams, in calling it a riot and if I can correctly recall my undergraduate studies from half a life-time ago which focused on this time period, this would not have been a controversial position among the historians at that time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with Barkeep49. I think its undeniable that the incident is primarily referred to as a massacre. But wouldn't it be suitable to include the view point that the incident was much like a riot? H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with core policies WP:V, WP:NPV, and WP:NOR. We go by what reliable sources say, not by our own research or opinions. YoPienso (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I always use references, and there are several sources which I have listed several times...H.A.W.C 101 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Americans call the event a "massacre" due to point of view, and that's how national identity and national history work, but perhaps its called something else in British English due to not just point of view, but because they have a state language and not a natural language. Without American independence, the British point of view would dominate, and there would be no American point of view, and no freedom of speech to call such incidents massacres. Britain has a long history of both putting down and losing rebellions, as with the eleven year anti-aristocratic rebellion in England which they just call the "Interregnum," perhaps this event is a part of a category along with other similar incidents, the articles of which can all be categorized with the same category tag. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

British scholars call it the Boston Massacre -- including Trevelyan (1899) p 119, Simon Schama Rough Crossings (2005) p 10; Stephen Conway The War of American Independence (1995) p 13; Jeremy Black Crisis of Empire: Britain and America in the Eighteenth Century (2008) p 109. Niall Ferguson Empire (2004). p. 433 Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2020 (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)

Sentence about naming as “Massacre”

We should add a sentence about how the definition of a massacre does not fit what actually transpired, with the mob being neither helpless nor unresisting. I did this, and User:Rjenson reverted my edits, providing the reason “victims had no guns or cannon --they had snowballs” which I would like to contest. Simply because the victims had no guns or cannons does not mean they were unresisting or not intimidating. I would like to hear both the community and Rjenson’s thoughts on this. sam1370 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia follows the reliable sources on Boston in 1770, not a 2020 dictionary that defines words according to 2020 usage. It's not easy to "intimidate" a trained body of combat soldiers with loaded guns. Note that the standard British scholars use the word "massacre" and esp Trevelyan's comparison to the Peterloo Massacre of 1819--the most momentous massacre in British history Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

True. If I can find a reliable source that states that by today’s standards, this shouldn’t be considered a massacre, then would you consider that suitable for inclusion? sam1370 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

no. the importance of the event is not the number killed--it was a spark that helped cause a major world event just like Peterloo Massacre. It fit the 18th-19th century definitions of "massacre" and has been very widely accepted as a major 18th century event. To try to minimize its importance in terms of deaths is to misplace the emphasis which has always been on the political dimension. Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: The usage of the term massacre does not have to do with the number of deaths, it has to do with the crowd being riotous and resisting. The word "massacre" has different connotations today than it did back then, which can lead to people having a biased view of the event, which is why I think we should include a sentence about how by today's standards it should not be considered a massacre. (If a reliable source that says that can be found, of course). sam1370 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no problem with using modern sources, in fact they are usually preferred. However they need to be reliable and reference the Boston incident. The ones you are presenting are not good enough. If you do find a reliable source that says by modern definitions it would not be considered a massacre or something similar then it would be a relevant inclusion. AIRcorn (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Alright, thanks. sam1370 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"riotous and resisting" needs comment. There was no attempt to arrest demonstrators so they did not "resist" arrest. To have a riot the authorities had to read the Riot Act and give demonstrators an hour to disperse. They did not read the Riot act so the soldiers fired illegally----the SOLDIERS were immediately arrested by the governor and put on trial for murder. (John Adams defended the soldiers and won acquittal). None of the crowd were ever arrested or charged with a crime for the events that day. Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Thanks for the information. Also, if you're going to further reply, can you please mention me with {{re|Sam1370}}? It gives me a notification so that I don't have to come back here to check this. sam1370 (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

hello