Talk:Boston Massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBoston Massacre has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 6, 2011Good article nomineeListed
July 23, 2018Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 5, 2004, March 5, 2005, March 5, 2006, March 5, 2007, March 5, 2008, March 5, 2009, March 5, 2012, March 5, 2015, March 5, 2017, March 5, 2019, and March 5, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Wiki Education assignment: Early U.S. History[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wesleymuse (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ZlangePSTCC, Acpalladino.

Wiki Education assignment: The Age of Revolution and Historical Memory[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ncaggiano8 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gcocucci2.

Names for the Incident. Great Britain - misleading[edit]

The opening says it is 'known in Great Britain as the Incident on King Street'. While not wrong, this is very misleading. Can someone change this to 'historically known in Great Britain as...' or 'formerly...'?

It was historically referred to that way nearer the time, when newspapers were still reporting on it and it was a matter of controversy in Britain, but this is not a name virtually anyone in Britain would recognise today and one that none would use as its primary name - which, from the BBC to British high school and major univerisity curricula to the major encyclopaedias, is simply 'the Boston Massacre'. Which is unsurprising - it hardly has a separate legendary status in the UK to maintain its own separate name there, so when it come up, it will be overwhelmingly known about through an American lens and media. Harsimaja (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How sad! I’ve failed to find a purely British source for information about the event, to verify what it is currently called in the UK. One possibility turned up: Boston’s massacre. (Note the possessive and the lowercase M.) Can anyone provide a source indicating what it is called in British schools? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here is a bit more about names: two net pages with additional information. While they are part of a blog, they include references for the original source.
https://historyofmassachusetts.org/boston-massacre-site-gets-a-makeover/
“The name ‘The Boston Massacre” is only a recent nickname. Paul Revere nicknamed it the Bloody Massacre in King Street (the former name of State Street) after the deaths and during the early 1800s it was known as the State Street Massacre.”
NOTE: Paul Revere plagiarized that nickname from the work of Henry Pelham.
The following source contains more background on why it became was called a massacre at all and when it acquired the name Boston massacre. I think it worth a sentence or two in this Wikipedia article.
https://historyofmassachusetts.org/why-boston-massacre-called-massacre/
‘The British called the Boston Massacre the “unhappy disturbance” and the “incident on King Street” and other words to that effect.
In Captain Thomas Preston’s account of the event, which was published in a British newspaper called the Public Advertiser on April 28, he referred to it as “the melancholy affair” and as “the affair” ‘
I’ve got my hands full at the moment so I can only leave the suggestion here for someone interested in following the chain of sources. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

benefit of clergy[edit]

I began looking for information about what happened to the two soldiers convicted of manslaughter. They were, apparently, branded as specified by the law. But what else? What were the other consequences? What happened to them after that? Were they still around when the war began?

I wasn’t able to find details of benefit of clergy in this case. However, the article contains the following statement. “Quincy risked raising in the jurors' minds the prevalent notion that such a conviction entailed hardly any punishment…[He] tried to check them by cataloguing the civil disqualifications attending a convicted manslaughterer and emphasizing that a man could claim the benefit of clergy only once in his life.” What were those disqualifications?

I think the details would be a worthwhile addition to the article and it sounds as if the transcript of the trial would be the easiest source. I’ve got my hands full at the moment so I am just posting it here for anyone who cares to follow up. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers[edit]

This point was tagged for clarification 2 1/2 years ago. It seems to say that Loyalist lawyers would not defend a British soldier. This doesn't make sense without further explanation. I am tagging it anew as non sequitur. If it hasn't been explained a month from now, I will delete the portion of the sentence which doesn't make sense. Humpster (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]