Talk:Boston Massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.64.253 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This passage needs editing

In the section on "Trials" I find this:

The government was determined to give the soldiers a fair trial so that there could be no grounds for retaliation from the British and so that moderates would not be alienated from the Patriot cause. Several lawyers refused to defend Preston due to their Loyalist leanings, so he sent a request to John Adams, pleading for him to work on the case.

Two problems. First, there is no clear antecedent for the "he" who sent the request. It would appear to be "government" but government cannot be a "he". Perhaps the initial phrase "The government" should be changed to "Hutchinson"? Or did Preston himself send the plea? If it was Preston, that represents enough of a change from the preceding sentence that he should be named, for the sake of clarity.

Second, it says that some lawyers refused to take the defense because they were Loyalists. This seems contradictory. It would be more understandable if pro-Patriot lawyers declined the case, because of their lack of sympathy for Preston and the other soldiers. Should "Loyalist" be changed to "Patriot"? Alternatively, if "Loyalist" is correct, then it needs to be explained. I suppose that a lawyer who was a well-known Loyalist might fear that he could not provide the best possible defense, because anything he said would be discounted as a product of his pre-existing allegiance. Something like that is too convoluted to be simply assumed, though. If Loyalist lawyers did decline the representation, then there should be an elaboration. JamesMLane t c 18:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No links to the British Army

I was surprised to see there are no links to the British army given the large number of mentions. I would like to add a link to the "(British Army)" already located in the infobox. I'm new and not sure if it would be appropriate to add to the first use in the article, but I also dont know if its necessary if its in the infobox.

 Done. Even though the link to the 22nd Regiment is there too, I think it's not an unreasonable link. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Boston Misunderstanding" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Boston Misunderstanding. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#Boston Misunderstanding until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Leader??

I’m not really sure if Crispus Attucks was a “leader” in the Boston Massacre. He technically lead the crowd. But this is my personal opinion. If someone agrees, I guess you can add Crispus to the leaders… IceCreamCrusher50 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of "so-called"

@Humphrey Tribble: Sorry to undo the edit, it's not something I normally like to do. It seems to go against MOS:DOUBT: "So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others." I don't have an opinion on the motivations for your edit, although it might warrant a more careful approach. I'm a relatively inexperienced user with little time to edit, so feel free to reinstate your edit if you disagree. —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the guideline on DOUBT. I wasn’t aware of it and it is indeed helpful.

My intention was not to cast doubt that an incident took place. Most Americans know it as the “Boston Massacre”. But that label is a relic of revolutionary war propaganda and was never an accurate description. Contemporary accounts differed widely.

The real story isn’t unique. A mob harrases some soldiers. A gun goes off. The other soldiers fire believing either that an order was given or that they are defending themselves. Eight soldiers and four civilians were tried and two soldiers found guilty of manslaughter on grounds they had fired directly into the crowd. The other 10 were acquitted.

Some people want to sustain the hatred of the revolution. I think Wikipedia, in the 21st-century, ought to be beyond that.

I sincerely appreciate your considerate explanation of your revert and will let it stand unless I can come up with a better way to improve the article. What do you think of “The incident known as the Boston Massacre…”?

I am also a fairly new editor and have noted the brusque way that some experienced editors react when a newbie puts a foot wrong. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page! I don't know enough about the history of this event to have an informed opinion on the matter, but it seems your main concern is with the title. I'd consider adding a subsection under "Legacy" on the controversy surrounding the name, but only if that debate comes up in reliable secondary sources. Sections like that are some of the hardest to write, and Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on how to write them from a neutral point of view. (Funny enough, those guidelines list this page as an example where a prejudicial name has been accepted due to its widespread use: WP:POVNAMING.) I don't think the first sentence would necessarily be the place to mention it, unless there's an alternative name that a number of sources use (in which case it could be included in a parenthetical). —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias in illustrations

This article includes three illustrations which are essentially identical: Pelham’s original, Revere’s color copy, and the engraving emphasizing Crispus Attucks. I propose that two of these be removed. The most logical to retain is the original engraving by Pelham.

There are no illustrations by Loyalist pamphleteers. Are any known?

There is also the less biased depiction of a chaotic scene by Alonzo Chappel in 1868. This is a more accurate illustration of the events, so I suggest it be the leading illustration in place of the Revere copy.

There are also two photographs of the site where the incident took place. The close up is redundant because if the words are included in the article. Therefore, I propose to remove it, retaining only the photograph of the building with the memorial in the foreground. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Point of View

I have removed the insertion of "perceived" in describing the mob. It's not an action I take lightly. I think the intention was that the soldiers might have thought the crowd was a mob. What then did the civilians think? Were they, albeit a little early, exercising their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly?

I'd summarize the article as one civilian acting aggressively towards one sentry. Later about 50 people harassed the soldier. Eight more soldiers attempted to relieve the sentry and the crowd grew to 3 or 400. The crowd's actions escalated from verbal abuse to throwing various missiles. As has happened many times in history, a gun went off and others followed.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a mob as "A large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence." Is there any doubt that the crowd was large, that it was disorderly, and that it was intent on causing trouble? So I think it is correct to call it a mob. It certainly wasn't a church picnic!

We can't know anyone's perceptions at the time. I suspect what was uppermost in the minds of the soldiers was simply getting out of a riot alive. But we can't know that for sure either, and later statements don't have the qualities of a perception. The civilians were attempting to provoke the soldiers. So maybe their thought was that the sentry personified unpopular government regulations.

Everything about the incident, and the article describing it, has a point of view. We could apply neutral POV and excise the word 'massacre' since that was the viewpoint of radical patriots, or at least the perspective they promoted. If we start down the slippery slope of strict neutrality, that overused word should go first. Once we have eliminated every hint of a point of view, we'll have a fairytale.

I hope I have worked around the perception issue by providing enough information that readers can make up their own minds. What do you think? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Excerpts from depositions

I think it would be useful for readers to see the two excerpts side-by-side. Such a placement would also give them equal weight, thereby enhancing a neutral point of view. I don't have the experience to tinker with the placement of boxes. If someone agrees and knows how, could we give it a try? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The hand-colored prints

I have added the name of the artist to the caption for Paul Revere's engraving. Technically, I am incorrect because no name is attached to the image file. So it is an assumption that this particular image was hand-colored by Christian Remick. But I think it a reasonable assumption. If we can't say that, it puts the entire reference to hand coloured prints in doubt. Please tell me if you disagree. (The article says that some images copies showed a man with a dark face. So there are at least two versions.)

The part which concerns me is the final sentence of the paragraph. It states 'The image of bright red "lobster backs" and wounded men with red blood was hung in farmhouses throughout New England.' The reference to "lobster backs" is fine if that sentence is an exact quotation, in which case it should all be in quotation marks. If it isn't a quotation, they should be called soldiers. Further, given that we are speaking of the printing technology of 1770, it seems unreasonable to say that a colored image "was hung in farmhouses throughout New England"? Revere's engraving, or more likely an image cut from the newspaper, might have been widely spread, but nothing which displayed "red blood". So there might be a little too much poetic license in the sentence. I have been unable to read the reference given (Early American Life magazine) because it requires a subscription. Is someone able to investigate the source? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Legacy: Contribution to revolution

Hello Winner. I think there's a problem with tenses in this paragraph:

"The Boston Massacre is considered one of the most significant events that turned colonial sentiment against King George III and British Parliamentary authority. John Adams wrote that the "foundation of American independence was laid" on March 5, 1770, and Samuel Adams and other Patriots used annual commemorations (Massacre Day) to encourage public sentiment toward independence.[78] Christopher Monk was the boy who was wounded in the attack and died in 1780, and his memory was honored as a reminder of British hostility.[35]"

I noted the first sentence doesn't say who considers it most significant. That sentence uses the present tense, so we need to say who considers it most significant TODAY. The second sentence identifying the source of the opinion as Adam and company applied more than 200 years ago. We can fix it by saying the Boston massacre WAS considered significant at the time. Or, come up with a few modern historians who say so. Does that make sense to you?

(The last sentence about the boy is completely past tense. So his memory was honored at sometime, but there is no longer honored.) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Incident on King Street

This is a good addition to the article. It would be useful for the reference to be to the original paper rather than a subsequent citation. I would be interested in whether it says more about the viewpoint of people in Great Britain (as it was at the time) and the many people in the colonies who didn't agree with the radical element.

Note that "Great Britain" is a correct term four 1770 but when referring to the opinion of people today it should be called the United Kingdom. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Number shot

I have replaced the word "killed" with "shot" to get around confusion of the number who were killed. The full description of the shooting explains that three people were killed instantly and two or more later died of their wounds. It is noted in the text that someone was believed to have died many years later as a result of a wound.

Incidentally, the word shooting fits with the modern practice of describing events in which a number of people are shot. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

<!- British soldiers shot five people of a crowd of three or four hundred who were abusing them verbally and throwing snowballs .[2-> 117.96.194.167 (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Cited source notes other objects, specifically a cudgel at one point, were thrown. Cannolis (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

removed source

I removed a source from the lede as it has nothing to do with this article - links to the entry for Hutchinson-Tay Choroiditis in an ophthalmology text. Looks to have been mistakenly added by a student editor here, and from their sandbox it appears they were attempting to cite this - Boston Massacre. (2018). The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide, The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide, 2018. I don't have access to this source so can't confirm. Statement seems to be sourced to Zobel in the body anyway. Cannolis (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of edit by Kafoxe

I have reverted this edit because the changes appear to be simply synonyms for what was already there. There was no edit summary so I don't know the reasoning.

"Shouting" and "verbally" mean much the same thing, so having both words doesn't make sense to me. "Verbal abuse" is a commonly understood description of what occurred. A "projectile" is most often thought of as something from a weapon; I don't think that applies in this case and it might mislead some readers. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

change 'Henry Knox took Preston by the coat and told him, "For God's sake, take care of your men. If they fire, you must die"' in lower paragraph two to'Henry Knox took Captain Preston by his coat, warning him to control the men under his command, saying, "For God's sake, take care of your men. If they fire, you must die"' SmorkyGenius (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling this loose end, smoky genius (talk · contribs). I see that request for clarification has been there since 2013! To me, "take care of your men "is reasonably clear and doesn't need to be specifically defined as controlling them. I suspect the words which caused uncertainty are the statement "if they fire, you must die". That could be interpreted in more than one way. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging you again under the correct name smorkygenius (talk · contribs). See talk. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why this ping isn't working. One more try, SmorkyGenius (talk · contribs) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Closing out edit request procedurally as a discussion is taking place. —Sirdog (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

I found a typo on the Boston Massacre page. Enough.liz (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make your edit request in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Confusion of numbers

I have replaced the word "killed" with "shot several" to avoid the uncertainty over the number who were killed. This fits with the modern practice of describing events in which a number of people are shot. Also, the phrase “opened fire” suggests the soldiers acted simultaneously as a group rather than firing individually without orders. I think it’s better to say simply that they killed three people that evening. That was sufficient to stir the populace.

The full description of the shooting, in paragraph 2, expands on the number of soldiers, the objects that were thrown, and the number of people shot. In particular, it explains that three people were killed instantly and at least two more later died of their wounds. This helps keep the first paragraph short.

It is noted in the text that someone was believed to have died many years later as a result of a wound. So we can’t say for sure how many were killed. The other two or three, and perhaps an unknown number who didn’t live as long or as happily because of wounds, sadly didn’t make a difference. What’s known is that three people were killed that evening, and that is what prompted the propaganda and caused the immediate outrage. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources and citation

There needs to be more inline citations. 12.36.233.231 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Perspectives

The perspective section needs to go. It has little to do with the wider article. 12.36.233.231 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. She gone. Seasider53 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello seasider53 (talk · contribs). You have reverted my addition of:

- an article about the Boston massacre by Jeff Wallenfeldt, manager of Geography and History for Encyclopedia Britannica

- a quote from American historian Howard Zinn about the Boston massacre

calling them “personal commentary”. I don’t know what you mean by that.

Please clarify your objection. Granted, the citations aren’t there yet because I had trouble including them; my attempt to do so is in the edit record. I see a talk topic in which some unknown person said they weren’t relevant, and you agreed. I don’t think two people who think alike makes a discussion. A ping would’ve been courteous.

Until AI takes over, every word in Wikipedia is a thought from some person. My intention was to improve the article by putting the Boston massacre in context. How do the ideas of Wallenfeldt and Zinn differ from, say, Cumming and Rankin’s “The fate of a nation: the American revolution through contemporary eyes eyes“, York’s “Rival Truths, Political Accommodation, and the Boston 'Massacre”, or “Discovering the American past” by Wheeler et al. ?

I did the “be bold”, you did the revert, the next step is the discussion. Over to you. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

In the side panel, "Caused By" section, the mention "Siege of Boston" should probably be removed. The siege started 5 years after this incident so it can't have caused it. 188.213.139.129 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Changed it back to "Occupation of Boston" Cannolis (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"Give killed"?

There is a minor typo under "casualties and losses". 76.22.2.43 (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Names for the Incident. Great Britain - misleading

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)

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)

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)

benefit of clergy

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)