User talk:MCB in Boulder

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you'll stick around and contribute more in the future. It's always nice to have more people who know a thing or two about history, and even better, people who are willing to engage is reasonable discussion. Don't be afraid to add back in some historical context to the Tea Party protests article; if done well and neutrally, that kind of thing can be a big improvement to this kind of article. Happy editing!--ragesoss (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your withdrawal of your comments
I've restored your comments to the Talk:Tea Party protests page. I'm afraid you no longer have the right to withdraw them (in the sense of deleting them). Once you posted, you irrevocably agreed to release your contributions under the GFDL.

We delete talk-page comments only in a few specific circumstances: a personal attack on another Wikipedian, a violation of the policy concerning living persons, or some silliness that's not directed at improving the article. Your comments were thoughtful and perfectly proper. Furthermore, other editors have already responded to them, so removing your comments would leave a gap in the recorded conversation.

If you don't want your comments to stand as reflecting your current views, the practice is to do a strikeout. The comments are still legible, for purposes of making sense of other editors' responses, but the strikeout is understood as meaning that you as the author no longer want those comments to stand. It produces text that looks like this. For example, suppose you wrote:
 * Wikipedia is wonderful.

You could now add tags before and after, like this:
 * Wikipedia is wonderful.

Your comment would then appear as:
 * Wikipedia is wonderful.

By the way, I hope you didn't want to withdraw because of the tone of the discussion. Things often get overly rambunctious here -- it's not academia -- but that's part of the process. I thought your insights were worth sharing. I hope you'll continue to participate in the project. JamesMLane t c 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: While I was typing the foregoing, you re-removed your comments, this time leaving a placeholder (which you hadn't done before). With the placeholder, there's an argument that your action technically complies with the rules, but it's really inappropriate. Your comments weren't thoughtless and stupid. That text is used when someone loses his temper and writes something like, "Only a moron would quote Newt Gingrich on this point." Then the editor who quoted Newt Gingrich responds in a somewhat heated fashion. The first editor cools off and wants to repent, but deleting the first comment without a placeholder would remove the provocation and would make the second editor look like the heavy.

In this case, however, you didn't call anyone a moron. You presented a thoughtful and knowledgeable discussion of the Boston Tea Party. (I certainly learned something. I consider myself more knowledgeable about the American Revolution than most nonhistorians, but I thought the colonists were protesting the imposition of a tax on tea, not the removal of a tax.)  Other editors responded by considering the extent to which the historical background was appropriate for this particular article. I really think the whole discussion ought to stay. If you've had second thoughts about what you wrote, strikeout would be the best remedy. I won't rever your deletion, but I strongly urge you to consider restoring the content, with strikeout if need be. JamesMLane t c 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not reinserting my comments. Even if you thought they added something to the discussion, my comments were still thoughtless and stupid, and *I* was the moron to post them.  I will be entering the job market soon, and I don't need this stuff coming back to haunt me.  The discussion has taken a scary tone, and I don't want to be associated with some of the views expressed in it.  (Nor do I want anyone from either side blocking my employment opportunity.)  I wish I could just walk away from Wikipedia and pretend I had nothing to do with this. MCB in Boulder (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the tax on tea, the product was taxed by a long-standing tax on tea coming from India to Britain. A second tax, collected only in America, was created by the Townshend Act in 1767. The Tea Act of 1773 eliminated the first tax (to help the near-bankrupt East India Company sell more tea), but it did not change the second tax that was applied only in America. Colonists, who had been boycotting tea since 1767, were afraid that the elimination of the first tax would encourage people to ignore the boycott, even though the second tax was still in effect. So, the Boston Tea Party was, in effect, a protest of the lowering of taxes. I'm sure most participants last week don't realize that. Most of them thought the Boston Tea Party was in protest of a tax increase. Although the Tea Act was not passed with the colonists in mind, the colonists were convinced it was done to trick them into paying the tax passed by the Townshend Act.


 * I wish I could assure you that no one would try to affect your off-Wiki employment because of what you wrote here. Unfortunately, I can't do that.  Your comments deflated a cherished myth of the teabaggers.  Although it's unlikely that any of them would go to the effort of tracking you down and retaliating, it's not inconceivable.


 * Best of luck in your job search! JamesMLane t c 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)