Talk:Boston Tea Party/Archive 2

Error in "A fourth ship"
(A fourth ship, the William, sank off the coast of Cape Cod before arriving to Boston Harbor).

How can a ship sink and then arrive in a harbour? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.14.198.60 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).


 * By sinking before it's able to arrive in the harbour. --Ihope127 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fourth ship ran aground, the tea was salvaged, and the tea arrived safely in Boston. BradMajors (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party!!!!
This is allot of material!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.150.208 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Date of Ship Arrival Seemingly Incorrect
In the final paragraph of Background, it is stated that "HMS Dartmouth arriving in late November 1765" Based on the BTP occurring on Dec 16, 1773, it seems the correct arrival year of the Dartmouth would be 1773 rather than 1765. 76.173.241.224 12:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)unboy

--Ziwhtam 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It says something about Wikipedia's users
When the article on Cartoon Network is longer than the article on the Boston tea party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.19.13.102 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Don't curse the darkness, turn on a light! That's what the partygoers would have said.  If you don't help improve the article, you can only blame yourself.72.78.179.244 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

typos
should it be casks not cask.. in "The cask were opened" under "event" unless it be an intentional instance of piratical tone ;) yarr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * If you see a spelling error on a Wikipedia article, you are most welcome to fix it yourself and not bother mentioning it here. Only for major or controversial edits are you recommended to discuss first on the talk page. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe not just a misspelling. Whereas the pronunciation of the captian's name is correct, it should be Captain Rotch, not Roach.

Origin of the term
When did the term "Boston Tea Party" first come into use? Was it contemporaneous with 1773 or did it date to a later period? --Kynn 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Protest
It is currently labelled as simply a protest and, while the attempts to have it labelled as a 'terrorist' action above are wrong because of the inherent view that brings into it, to simply label them as a protest when several criminal acts were committed in the run up to and the committing of this act. Criminal protest? Protest by illeagal means? Something. Narson 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "civil disobedience"? 141.156.242.198 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The correct modern term is "direct action". BradMajors (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The colonies had no freedom of speech, so all actions of free association and speech would have been illegal. Hence the need for the protests.72.78.179.244 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "direct action protest", but I feel some nod towards illegality should be made in the intro. To call it terrorism would be a bit over the top. On a seperate point, neither Freedom of speech nor Freedom of Association were illegal in Boston at the time of the tea party. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine the way it would normally be done would be ...a direct action protest, which the British considered to be illegal though then that has to be sourced, I imagine. I might go on a cite hunt tommorow. Narson (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right, through it might be better to use the term "British Goverment" or "British authorities" or even just "authorities". There were a number of leading Britons who would have cheered on the Tea Party, and as far as a I can tell British public opinion was fairly neutral, bordering on indifferent. There were also many in the American colonies who would have called it illegal. Just plain "authorities" would probably be best in in my opinion, but I agree with the suggested phrasing. I will also try and look for some sources, this whole page could do with expanding. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Masonic connection
The article states... ''The Tea Party was also one of the events at which Freemasonry can be seen playing a part in the Revolution. The local chapter met at the Green Dragon Tavern, which was said to have been a location where the Tea Party was planned. Members of the lodge included Paul Revere, John Hancock, and Joseph Warren. The night of the Tea Party, the Masons' meeting did not occur, and the written minutes said simply, "We were involved with tea." (ref to a History Channel documentary)''

I have several issues with this... first, I don't think the History Channel is all that good a reference. They tend to sensationalize things. Second, and the History Channel got their facts wrong... the Lodge in question is St. Andrew's Lodge in Boston (it is still in existance)... but the minute books do not say "We were involved with tea".

The minutes for the night of the Tea Party itself simply state: "Lodge closed on account of few members present." On that page, however, there is a mark that could be a capital letter "T" (on the other hand it could just as easily be a stray mark)... and upon this simple mark hangs the entire idea that the Masons were involved in the Tea Party. In fact, most Masonic historians now think the whole thing is essentially a myth (one that is often repeated by well meaning, but missinformed Masons, which tends to lend false creadance to it).

What the myth tellers often leave out is the fact that the Sons of Liberty (who are known to be heavily invovled in the Tea Party) ALSO met at the Green Dragon... and it is known that several of the members of St. Andrew's Lodge were ALSO involved with the Sons of Liberty. Thus, there is a connection... but it is one of coincidence only. It is like saying that the Boy Scouts invaded Iraq because some US servicemen happened to be Scout leaders.

I know I can come up with very good sources for all this (I will need to hit the books to find the best)... but two that I can point to right now are "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry" and "Freemasonry for Dummies". While both the "Idiot's Guide" and "For Dummies" series do not have the highest reputation as accademic sources, both books were written by well regarded Masonic historians... and they are significantly more reputable than the History Channel! Blueboar 13:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see this website, run by the Philalethes Society ... one of the most respected of the Masonic research groups in the US. The debunking of the tea party myth is about halfway down the page. Blueboar 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is an interesting take and can one at least hint about it in the main article? Also, I have heard that it is due the events of the Boston Tea Party that Americans prefer coffee over tea. If true, then I think the reasons are economic and not "occultish" as alluded by most freemason sites. bandishhh 9: 35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... most Masonic websites that repeat the myth do not discuss "occultish" reasons for Masonry's supposed involvement... they tend to be US based sites that want to portray Freemasons as being "Patriotic Americans" and use the connection to demonstrate that the Freemasons were supporters of "Liberty and Justice for All" and "No Taxation Without Representation" (and other such Junior High School history catch phraises.) Note that this myth is not repeated on the websites of Freemasons from other countries). The "occult" stuff tends to come from anti-masonic sites who want to show Freemasonry as a Grand Conspiracy (ie they want to demonstrate that "The Freemasons have been secretly influencing history for their own nefarious reasons since the time of the Revolution, and they are still doing so!  They control everything, and are beaming thought controle rays into our brains").
 * But mostly the myth is repeated by relatively harmless pop-historians and authors of pseudo-histories who know that people are curious about Freemasonry, and that any tie to the fraternity will help sell books.
 * As for economic reasons for the tea party... there you are on much firmer ground. There are a lot of reliable histories that have discussed this.  One theory, for example, is that the price of tea in the colonies actually went down due to the Tea Act (as it gave the East India Company insentive to import more Tea directly to the colonies)... which upset smugglers such as John Handcock because that meant "official" tea was cheaper than their smuggled tea.  Some of those who propose this theory have claimed that the Sons of Liberty were essentially a unification of rival smuggling gangs, who saw "approved" tea as a threat to their economic survival.
 * Finally... I would love to see a study of import and sales of tea vs. coffee... I suspect that the shift started far earlier than the Tea Party, occured more gradually than most people suppose, and that what really tipped the ballance was the opening up of coffee producing states such as Brazil to American markets. But we could not put this in the article based on my suposition (it would count as "Original Research".) Blueboar 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of boxes of tea destroyed
90,000 boxes of tea were dumped in the harbor by the colonists at the Boston Tea Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.132.251 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious problem due to lack of references
I find it completely unacceptable that this article has only one reference (and that is a bio of Ben Franklin of all things) and two external links. There are TONS of books, academic papers, and other reliable sources that discuss the Boston Tea Party (and probably many devoted solely to that topic). Surely some of them can be used to back what this article says. I have tagged the article as needing references and citations in general... the next step is to tag individual sentences (which is very ugly... but often gets more results). I am willing to help, but can't do it all myself. Blueboar 18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Old South Church
The protest meeting was not held at Old South Church (which wasn't completed until 1873), but was in fact held at the Old South Meeting House. Feliciapatch 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ecological Impact
Tea washing up on the coast for weeks? They were lucky Greenpeace wasn't around yet! Guille 12:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, American tea drinking?
"This social protest movement away from tea drinking was not, however, long-lived."

Over 230 years later, Americans still don't drink tea. They drink coffee. Surely there might be a connection? Huw Powell 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Source of name
This article does not state who originated the practice of describing this incident as the "Boston Tea Party", and when. (A newspaper?) Someone who knows really ought to fix that. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting question, and so I've tried to research it. This link suggests that the term was not common until the fifty years after the fact and the "rediscovery" of George Robert Twelves Hewes— he's likely referring to A Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party (a biography of Hewes published in 1834), but I don't have the book, and Young's specific arguments, on hand.  I couldn't find a good place to put this in the article, though; perhaps we need a new section on Historical appreciation.--Pharos 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Franklin disapproved?
Where's the source that states that Benjamin Franklin disapproved and/or offered to pay out of his own pocket? 24.87.3.137 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a tag to the statement requesting a source. I'll look if I get a chance.  Thanks,  Morphh   (talk) 12:43, 04 October 2007 (UTC)

error in dates
I was just reading this article, and noticed that one of the dates is incorrect. It says..“The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 17, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution. And then later in the article it says ..“On Thursday, December 16, 1773, the evening before the tea was due to be landed, the Sons of Liberty thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, left the massive protest meeting and headed toward Griffin's Wharf, where lay Dartmouth and the newly arrived Beaver and Eleanour.” I think the event really happened on December 17, 1773. Some of the people that partiicipated were, John Hanckok, Joseph Warren,Paul Revere, and other members of the "Sons of Liberty". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.59.64 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The 16th and 17th can’t both be a Thursday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.202.192 (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the date was incorrectly changed on October 11th by Af1master692. I have corrected it.   Morphh   (talk) 0:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Tea Party
Why is this not discussed on the boston tea party page? not that 99% of the people going to the page won't know about it anyways, but still, put in in there. . . The article states that Ron Paul has designated Dec. 16th as a fundraising day. However the source sited says explicetly that it is not connected with the campaign and that it is a grass roots movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarofTroy (talk • contribs) 10:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to reword it to address this. Thanks  Morphh   (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the paragraph on the Ron Paul reference to have a lot of "POV", such as stating it as a long shot campaign, especially since that does not have a parallel to the success of the colonists in the American revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.61.174 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The POV additions were made yesterday, which I have now reverted. Thanks, I had missed the edit.   Morphh   (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Why on earth would someone's choice to fundraise using this day be included in the article? I'm sure scads of politicians have used the Boston Tea Party name, date, or other referents in their campaigns. Undue and non-notable. --Lquilter (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference in question should not be to some politicians choice to fundraise on a particular day, as I am sure, as you say, many have. The fundraising event in question is significant in that it could be the biggest surprise of this election year, and definitely a record breaker if it meets it's goals. Furthermore, it is significant in that it was created and promoted by thousands of people completely independent of the campaign. I do not think it should be put on here as a future event, but after the fact. If the goals of the fundraiser are met it should be given adequate reference to as it will not be trivial (at least not any less trivial than the Ghandi statement in the same section). And further in the future, this fundraiser will be known the pivotal point if Ron Paul should win the Republican nomination and/or go on to be elected POTUS. It is not a joke, but I agree that it should not be included, yet. Let history play it's course, then report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.5.229 (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we don't speculate as to "could be" notable. If it turns out to be notable then an article should be written about it, and if it also turns out that the connection with the Boston Tea Party is notable, then that can be mentioned in the article. But Wikipedia is not going to be some kind of viral marketing for a Ron Paul fundraising event. --Lquilter (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dartmouth
I belive the ship in question should be called Dartmouth, not HMS Dartmouth, as the HMS prefix denotes a military ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that's right; nice catch! Fixed. -Lquilter (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Favored Treatment
What was this favored treatment the East India Company received? The article does not seem to note any. BradMajors (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Tea Parties
What about the New York, Philadelphia, Annapolis, and Charleston tea parties? --24.74.36.191 (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reaction
I put a quote by Mercy Otis Warren in the Reaction section. I think the quote is great but might not belong in the article. Should it be removed? I would like some opinions on this please. - Epousesquecido (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it might be better to talk about the quote, and how it was typical (if it was) of her contemporaries' reactions to the tea party. The only problem with it as-is is that giving primary sources without the interpretation of reliable secondary sources encourages OR in the mind of the reader. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I will remove it, I have been working on improving the article about Mercy Warren, maybe then come back to this and do some more research about the Tea Party, unless you do it first. Thank you - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like you did it. Thanks for taking care of it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Tea Party
The Americancolonists dumped 365 craters of tea into the ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexskatedeck (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging
Is Turtyl going to give us any suggetsions as to which sections he thinks are copyvios that require the cleanup? Narson (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe typo
"arrived safely in Boston and into Bostonian's teapots."

Should be "Bostonians' teapots", but I can't edit as the article is locked. Please fix.

Tea Party, Ron Paul, and Relevance
In the section on “Influence” there is a statement that the Tea Party is a symbol. It then talks about the Ron Paul moneybomb, but nothing is given to show how the moneybomb relates to the Tea Party in any meaningful way. Whoever added that bit needs to further explain what it has to do with the tea party. (And no, this is nothing against Ron Paul, just a request to clarify something that was poorly connected to the article topic. (I commented out the portion in question, so it will be easy to uncomment it and add what is needed.) -Fenevad (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I note this was addressed above, but the resulting text was useless because there was no explicit connection for how the moneybomb related to the Tea Party. I presume the date is the connection, but this should be spelled out in the text. -Fenevad (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is relevant enough to be included. It appeared to have been written almost as an advertisement for the event, possibly by a Ron Paul supporter. If it is included it should probably be cut down to a single brief sentence excplicity linking it because of the date, but I would support removing the text as it is a fairly marginal connection. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)