Talk:Boston Tea Party

Tea Act of 1773

India Company was seeing declining profits and had Company to sell tea to the colonies without the usual colonial tax, thereby allowing them to undercut the prices of colonial merchants. This is very odd. Wetman 01:43, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) My error: I didn't know about the background to the Tea Act of 1773 . Good thing I didn't take rash action on the entry itself eh. Wetman 02:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)The Boston Tea Party is an extremely historical event.

On December 16, 1607, the night before the tea was due to be landed, the Sons of Liberty, a group of about 60 local Boston residents, possibly organized by Samuel Adams, burst from the South Meeting House and headed toward Griffin's Wharf, dressed as Mohawks. There, three ships—the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver—were loaded with crates of tea. The men boarded the ships and began destroying the cargo. By 9 PM, with only one incident, they had smashed 342 crates of tea in all three ships and had thrown them into Boston Harbor. They took off their shoes, swept the decks, and made each ship's first mate attest that they had destroyed only the tea.Man fuck all this shit

The whole being dressed up as Indians is a misconception is it not? Were they not covered in blankets?

• They were dressed as Indians. If you look here, you can read a personal account of their appearance: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm. It doesn't mention the word Mohawk, though, and that reference in the article seems a little odd, as I doubt the protesters would have shaved the sides of their heads. Drogue 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• A group of indignant colonists, led by Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and others, disguised themselves as Native Americans, boarded the ships on the night of Dec. 16, 1773, and threw the tea into the harbor. In reply Parliament passed the Boston Port Bill (See study by B. W. Labaree [1964]).

• Someone needs to certainly add that back into the article though, as that is a major feature of the event. Btw, the reason they were dressed up as Indians (Native Americans) was because Britain's justification of the abnormally large amount of troops they kept stationed in Boston and other coastal towns was that they were there to protect the colonists. This was obviously just an excuse though, as there were hardly any Indians along the coast (they were a problem further West) and they were stationed there to help keep the raising anti-British sentiment in check. The Boston Tea Partyists thus dressed up as Indians to mock the reasoning of being them being there to "protect them from the Indians". It was meant to be obvious and never had the intent of making people really think they were Indians. I would have added all of that to the article myself, but I'm sure someone else can do a better job at it. Use that information as a base though.

Also, I'm less sure about this, but I remember hearing that Britian sends a bill every year for the damages from the Boston Tea Party to the U.S. and every year the U.S. ignores it. That might be an urban legend though, I dunno. --SeizureDog 16:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

They may have been dressed as Indians, but I find it hard to believe they were dressed as Mohawks. The Mohawks had never lived anywhere near New York City and the Mohawks were up to then a peaceful tribe which had fought on the colonies side in the French and Indian war and in Pontiac's War. However, during the American Revolution they become one of the famous tribes fighting on the British side. So I suspect the term "Mohawk" was added by later writers.

The British might have missed the "mocking" part since the taxes where intended pay off the debt accrued for the French and Indian War and Pontiac's War in which the British army did defend the colonies and for which the colonies had pay very little to support. BradMajors (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's party

What's the party in Boston Tea Party? --Abdull 14:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I think it's basically a joke on the the idea of a genteel tea party.--Pharos 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• I was always told the word is used in the sense of a "party of people," like "How many are in your party," or a "hunting party." If that's true then a whole lot of people are getting it wrong. Drogue 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It was most certainly a party. They were all drunk.--72.130.143.25 07:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert 29/09/05

New content was copyvio pasted from here ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 19:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Protester and Protestor

has anything to do with coffee being (today) a more popular beverage than tea. Sounds like a fourth grade urban legend. The article itself shows that colonists were still importing (smuggled) tea by the boatload. The Boston Tea Party was a important day in dec.16,1773

Everyone has heard of the ‘Boston Tea Party’ on the 16th December 1773, in which 342 boxes of tea worth £10,000 were tipped from the East India tea ship Dartmouth into the murky waters of the Boston harbour. But most people assume it was protest against a hike in the tax on tea. In fact the price of the tea in question was exceptionally low, since the British government had just given the East India Company a rebate of the much higher duty the tea had incurred on entering Britain (Unfortunately, often Americans believe what has been written prior on this page; in fact due to the boycott in America of tea, the East India Company struggling with a tea surplus and a large debt, simply wonted to unload some of its extra tea on the American market – so indeed the prices were low not high!). In effect, the tea left Britain duty free and had to pay the much lower American duty on arriving in Boston. Tea had never been cheaper in New England. The ‘Party’ was organised not by irritated consumers, but by Boston’s wealthy smugglers, who stood to lose out. Contemporaries were well aware of the absurdity of the ostensible reason for the protest. ‘When they are told that the present distraction took its rise from parliament’s taking off shilling duty on a pound of tea, and imposing three pence, and call it a more unaccountable phrenzy, and more disgracefuly to the annals of America, than that of the witchcraft?’

On close inspection, the taxes that caused so much fuss were not just trivial; by 1773 they had all but gone. In any case, these disputes about taxation were trivial compared with the huge economical advantage of being a member of the British Empire, an honour taken advantage of from these so called patriots of the Crown’s States of America; as after the war tax’s in this new, republic, did anything but fall. By Tristan Breslin, 16, Great Britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by TristanBreslin (talk • contribs) 18:31, April 24, 2007 (UTC)

Tea Party / Teaparty

Maybe I'm not a champion in english grammatics (spelling?), but I believe it should be in one word = teaparty and not tea + party. It is in one word isn't it? I need some answers. --NorwegianMarcus 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the material I can find on the Boston Tea Party uses two words: tea party. Furthermore google search results indicate that "tea party" is the more common phrase, and both dictionary.com and answers.com recommend "tea party" when the term "teaparty" is used. HEY WHATS UP

8,290,000 for "tea party".
  235,000 for "teaparty".
1,430,000 for "boston tea party".
      749 for "boston teaparty".

Jayvdb 05:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• That might be because "Teaparty" is not a word in English. Drogue 05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the broken padlock

Is there any citation for this? It sounds fishy to me. Drogue 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tea Party was meant to increase the price, not diminish it!

While reading, Russell Kirk's The Roots of American Order, I found a very interesting perspective on the Boston Tea Party. It is very different than the stereotypical story taught in American Elementary/Middle Schools.

Below I will copy direct quotes and my own paraphrasing.

Roots of American Order

By Russell Kirk

CHAPTER XI

"Declaration and Constitution"

Page 393-394

To understand the Declaration and Constitution its important to understand the “causes of the War for Independence that began in 1775.” Was the war merely fought to “avoid payment of a threepenny duty on a pound canister of tea? If so, the Revolution would have been a bad miscalculation, economically: for material damage to Americans’ property was tremendous during those years of violent conflict, and many of the men who led the resistance to Britain (most especially the planters of the Chesapeake region) lost their fortunes by the war, when not their lives.”

My Opinion: Regardless as to the motivations for the Constitutional Convention, it is clear the motivations for the Revolution in general were not for monetary reasons.

Page 394

“If one judges by modern rates of taxation in America, the economic grievance of the colonies was remarkably insignificant. Moreover, the British government repeatedly had yielded to colonial protests against taxation. The Stamp Act had been repealed; the Townshend duties on imported paper, glass, painters’ colors, and lad had been abandoned; only the Tea Act of 1773 was still in force, when the first shots were fired at Lexington in 1775.”

“And actually that Tea Act had reduced the price of tea in the colonies.”

The previous tax in place had been one of “twelvepence a pound on all tea imported to England.” This tea act was actually a ninepence reduction in tax. “The British government’s only purpose in demanding a threepenny tax at American ports was to assert the right of the King in Parliament to levy such duties if he so chose.”

However odd it may seem, “this actual reduction in the price of imported tea was unpopular with certain vigorous Americans, particularly in Boston. For merchants had grown rich by smuggling tea into the colonies, paying no duty at all. Now that the lawful price of tea had fallen, smuggling became unprofitable. In Boston, the well-born demagogue Samuel Adams was enabled to obtain backing against imperial policy by the respectable tea-smugglers – not because they objected to a high duty on tea, but because they suffered from lowering of the duty! The Boston Tea party, then, was meant to increase the price of tea, not diminish it.”

“A mad world, my masters: so thought many English friends of the American cause, and so thought Benjamin Franklin, Patriot though he was.”

Pages 394-395

“Certainly the motives of the men who made the Revolution were mixed. Yet the War of Independence was really not fought about cups of tea. The truly fundamental question was whether the Crown in Parliament might levy taxes upon the Americans without the consent of colonial assemblies.”

TO RESPOND TO THE ABOVE PLEASE CONTACT ME (Dan Branum) AT MY BLOG:

www.xanga.com/Seeking_Truth_now [1] This page does require a slightly more comprehensive desription of the British duties on products (of which tea was the only remaining example at the time) which is ostensibly the reason for the Colonists quite extraordinary measures against such insignificant duties. I feel there should be something in here about how the Boston Tea Party inspired Mahatma Gandhi in India, and will try to add a sentence or two. Andrew Szanton, 5/06 ØØɸɸʂ—ĦńĎÓ

Category "Terrorist Incidents in the US"

Why is this article part of "Terrorist Incidents in the US"? I can hardly see equating spilled tea by protesters with 3,000 murders from a jet-turned-missile on 9/11. Can someone shed some light on this? Bill D 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the first line of Terrorism, "Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.".

Definition of terrorism includes the perspective of the U.S. federal government, "..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;"

Compare it to other actos of terrorism if you want, but violence was used, destruction of property, intimidation (how much do you think early colonists were afraid of Native Americans?). Are you denying that the Tea Party was a violation of applicable law? That it involved violence? That it was done to affect public opinion/public policy? samwaltz 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the category pending completion of this discussion. Controversial changes should be discussed on the talk page first. It can always be added back if consensus is reached to do so. Accurizer 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not controversial. It clearly fits the definitions offered. Does anyone feel like proposing another definition of terrorism? The page Definition of terrorism explicitly recognises that a number of incicidents performed by the Sons of Liberty could, in fact, be construed as acts of terrorism. samwaltz 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The information you cited is a relatively recent addition, and it is unsourced. It may be one editor's opinion, and may not belong in Wikipedia. This is the diff for anyone interested: [2] I don't think it is a good idea to use that edit as justification for adding the terrorism category to this article. In any event, it would be beneficial to allow a few days to see if this discussion evolves. Accurizer 03:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WHo was threatened with violence? property damage is generally not considered violent.Mrdthree 05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the owners of the tea in question just didn't let them trash their tea. // Liftarn

Seems as long as people are using terms like "ecoterrorism" to apply to incidents of property damage, that terrorism can properly be applied to the BTP. -Moorlock 05:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. You took it right out of my mouth. If we label acts of sabotage and direct action taken in the name of environmentalism or animal rights to be terrorism, than we must label this as an act of terrorism, because there is no difference between something like this and destroying an SUV or logging equipment. Both are acts of property destruction designed to create a political response. Please understand that I am not saying the category should be applied here, in fact I think it should not. Classifying anything as an act of terrorism is always going to be controversial, and I am extremely hesitant to do so in cases of property destruction. From what I can tell, including destruction of property in certain (and by no means all) definitions of terrorism is a recent trend designed specifically to target environmentalists and animal rights activists and to over-criminalize their actions. So personally, I don't think this could really be called terrorism, but if we are going to do it with ELF/ALF and other related actions, we should do it here too. Fair's fair. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of U.S. history but I didn't find any word like "terror" or "terrorist" in this article. So at first it should be clarified why it is called a "Terrorist Incidents".--Sa.vakilian 05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding this category sounds like original research. Show us another Encyclopedia describing this as an event of terrorism and then we'll discuss adding this category. (→Netscott) 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is high on my list of tags to avoid User:Salix alba#Name calling, for one persons terrorist is another persons freadom fighter or is that insurgent. It is generally a term used by an existing power against those who oppose it. So to use it insolation may always break NPOV, better is to always use the quallifier of the body who have used the term. From Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Quackery

Probably repeating something proffered before and elsewhere, but I'd suggest using "Xs described as Y" – each X requiring citations where so described – as a possible template solution to controversial categories/articles such as this one (thus Practices described as quackery), List of dictators and Category:Dictators (List of people described as dictators, Category:People described as dictators), List of cults (List of groups described as cults), etc, etc. User:David Kernow 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While I follow User:The Ungovernable Force argument, I think applying this category here comes close to being WP:POINT , better is to review the whole Terrorist categories, perhaphs Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States should be renamed to Category:Domestict acts which have been described as terrorism by the United States government or some such. Or maybe we need to be specific in describing the actions Category:Acts of political sabotage.

If we look at the definition Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence ... note the word systematic. This implies a concerted campaign, with repeated acts. My knowledge of the BTP is limited so I don't know if it was a one off action or part of a campain. Was this basically a riot?

I've half a mind to start a straw pole on the subject. --Salix alba (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is a precursor to the American revolution then it could be regarded as part of a campaign by the Sons of Libery against the British governement, and thus terrorism. The argument that if people were not targeted then it is not terrorism is fallacious, no one would suggest that when the Provisional IRA phoned in coded warnings, such that people were able to evacuate, prior to the bombings that these were not terrorist acts. Despite the current climate of fear, terrorism is not neccesarily a bad thing: the warsaw uprising was an act of terrorsim against the Nazis; Nelson Mandela was convicted of being a terrorist against the Aparteid regime is South Africa; the sufferagettes engaged in terrorism to gain the franchise. We should not be afraid to call something a terrorist act if it meets all the criteria. To name one group of people you agree with "freedom fighters" and another group that you don't "terrorists" when they perform the same acts, for the same basic motives (the rights of their community against another), is to try and apply your own point of view onto other people. However If we are arguing that the category is wrong because they were neither states nor united at the time of the event, well that is a whole different discussion. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We do need to be specific about different types of acts, roughly in order of severity we have

1. Peaceful protest - marches, generally within the law, though banned in some countries
2. hunger strikes - i.e. actions which only affect the participant
3. Boycotts - refusing to buy somthing, often with economic consequences
4. Tresspass - gaing unauthorised access, generally a minor offences
5. Blockades - preventing access
6. Verbal assult
7. Criminal damage and sabotage - distruction of property, no direct threat to people
8. Physical assult (not premediated, with not threat of repitition)
9. Threat of physical assult, or repeated campaign - can install fear of loss of life

Earth First! in particular are strong on the distinction between actions which did not damage property/sabotage/physical harm to people.

The section on Terror in the Fear article is interesting

Terror refers to a pronounced state of fear, which usually occurs after the state of horror, when someone becomes overwhelmed with a sense of immediate danger. Also, it can be caused by seeing the (sometimes extreme) phobia. Thus, terror overwhelms the person to the point of making irrational choices and non-typical behavior.

So by Bush calling others terrorists, implies he's in a pronounced state of fear and making irrational choices! (sorry cheep shot) --Salix alba (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

. Interesting list. To my mind, 1-3 are non-violent protests and can not be considered terrorism. 4,5 and 6 are direct action (of the kind sometiems used by unions on picket lines, not peaceful perhaps, but not terrorsim) and 6+ are designed to intimidate and thus can be considered terrorsim. (ie no one would be scared of the first three, the next two are more annoying than provoking fear, and the last 5 would (or could) provoke fear or terror with an overlap on the verbal abuse). The BTP is #7 on the list so would be a form of terrorism under my definition. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hit any search tool. Google. Yahoo. MSN. Search for "Boston Tea Party" (terrorise OR terrorize OR terrorist OR terrorism). I had over 100,000 search results come up. This is clearly a common enough perspective to justify including the category.

The Boston Tea Party, a clearly terroristic action, is celebrated and remembered with patriotic pride as one of the signature events leading up to not only the revolution, eventual freedom from "taxation without representation" and the formation of the United States of America. As such, it and the patriots who participated in this act of disobedience should forever be remembered.Terrorism: Sometimes It's A Good Thing

There is also a terrorism course offered at the University of Kentucky. The definitions and implications in the syllabus show that the BTP was an act of terrorism. [3]samwaltz 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us ask ourselves the question of whether or not the labeling of the events surrounding the Boston Tea Party as terrorism would pass the neutral point of view test? Essentially the British Government (at that time) would have labeled the acts as "terrorism" but Americans would label the act as "patriotism". When an article is categorized it assumes the label associated with the category. The earlier comments that mentioned WP:POINT (to illustrate a point about terrorism) were correct. The labeling of this event (particularly where in any other encyclopedia such is not the case) as an act of terrorism reaks of historical revisionism to which Wikipedia has no business being a part of. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, the answer is simple. "Terrorism" has become a bogeyman and an excuse for repressive/authoritarian governments to resort to violence, so it's difficult to define. However, the Boston Tea Party unquestionably fits the most widely accepted definitions of terrorism. To exclude it because you and I might be sympathetic to its aims is rank hypocrisy.Jessesamuel 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To those wanting to categorize this event as terrorism please read this article relative to an, "attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past." This is not what Wikipedia is meant to do. (→Netscott) 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be just a rewording of Netscott's comment, but I think the category is inappropriate for this article chiefly because it's an anachronism. Terrorism was not a term or concept in use at the time, and we should avoid applying modern characterizations to historical events and conduct. Viewing the conduct in the abstract, without any context, can only result in misleading equivocation, especially since the importance of the conduct was its symbolic value or psychological impact. Contemporary perception of the conduct is therefore integral to understanding what it meant and how it should be characterized. Put another way, one cannot commit an act of terrorism in a world that has not yet conceived of terrorism. It would furthermore be OR for us to apply the term "terrorism" here when no other scholars or academic sources do. Postdlf 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hancock organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company... . . . The ships carrying tea were prevented from landing, as most American ports turned the tea away. In Boston, however, the East India Company had the help of the British-appointed governor. Plans were made to bring in, by force, the tea under the protection given by British armed ships. . . . The whole event was remarkably quiet and peaceful. The next day, they sent someone around to fix the one padlock they had broken. Kevin Baas^talk 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I was asked to look at this discussion by Samwaltz and I have a few comments. It seems like, if a change were to be made, it is important what definition one chooses. I think that, under current terrorist laws, the Boston Tea Party might technically qualify. However, if it were to happen, it would probably be called vandalism, not terrorism. I think that, with the possible exception of the physical violence clause, all definitions provided so far are broad enough to include the Boston Tea Party. Furthermore, a good point was raised that, out of the 900,000 hits for "Boston Tea Party", 167,000 contain the word terrorism. Technically the Boston Tea Party probably is an example of terrorism. Harmless terrorism, but terrorism. However, it is not what I think, or what any editor thinks:

We need to ask ourselves what wikipedia policy dictates in this case, because while the BTP might be terrorism, it is still revisionist to declare it that since it alters popularly held conceptions about the past. Here, I think it is useful to review the three content policies: NPOV, no original research, and verifiability. After reviewing these policies earlier today, I came to the following opinions:

1. Any information included on wikipedia must reflect a broader understanding of a significant portion of academia and/or the public (see WP:NOR).
2. When there is disagreement, it is necessary to present all sides dispassionately, with adequate citations for further research by users (see WP:NPOV and WP:V).
3. This means that, if we are to classify the BTP as a terrorist act,

• Proponents of doing so must show that their viewpoint is one shared by a significant number of experts in the field;
• write a section for the article to concisely, and without additional theories, sum up the opinion of those academics and the response by other academics to them; and
• provide adequate sourcing for every claim made.

If that can be done, I think a new category should be created: Category:Acts that have been labeled terrorism or something like that. --Tjss(Talk) 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel the Boston Tea Party to be terrorism. The definition mentioned ("intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared") is too broad. Under that definition, those people who smashed Sony radios with a sledge hammer on TV back in the '80s to protest the trade imbalance with Japan or Jerry Rubin, who buried a number of GI Joe toys, or people who burn the US flag are then de jure terrorists even though they did not throw firebomb one. For were they not destroying property in order to change public opinion in a situation where a war has not been declared? And if memory serves, there was little intimidation on the part of the Sons of Liberty towards the owners of the ships, with Sam Adams even going so far as to make sure that a padlock they had broken was replaced. This was hardly John Brown going to Harper's Ferry or Guy Fawkes trying to blow up Parliament. On the other hand, Tjss's suggestion may be a good compromise. Pat Payne 16:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Edit in I was also asked by User:Samwaltz to comment. Pat Payne 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment by User:Samwaltz. I disagree that the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, because I disagree with a part of the definition of terrorism: "Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.". I disagree with or government. The point of terrorism is to influence or intimidate the population, in order to cause a government to act. The Boston Tea Party was an attack aimed at the government, not at the population at large, and therefore is not an act of terrorism, but rather of guerrilla warfare. Argyriou 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this issue is that it involves the application of a category, which appears as an unannotated, unelaborated statement of presumed fact. I doubt many of us would have a problem with a section titled "Modern perceptions of the Boston Tea Party" in which whether scholars believe it would be characterized as terrorism under modern definitions could be discussed, with sources cited. Any category that takes paragraphs to explain why it fits on an article is a bad category to apply to that article. Postdlf 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment by User:Samwaltz. I have never equated this as an act of terrorism. I thought of it as an act of defiance, like a protest. People who protest or who pull down banners or even those who commit vandalism are not terrorists. I think a category of protests or civil disturbance would be sufficient. The BTP participants weren't trying to kill anyone, were they? I don't know, not being an American and therefore not familiar with the details. However, if it happened today, there might be a police inquiry, but President Bush wouldn't put the people on a list of an 'axis of evil' or include them in his war on terror!! GBC 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a (quasi-)random check, and this is what I got. According to Wikipedia categories:

• Ludlow massacre is not terrorism.
• Gavrilo Princip, Claus Von Stauffenberg and James Earl Ray are not terrorists, they're "merely" assassins. (And assassination is - again, according to the current hierarchy - not necessarily terrorism, which is correct.)
• State terrorism incidents? Did not even bother.

Incidentally, Category:Terrorists is currently up for deletion. Perhaps this is just as well, but it doesn't solve the real problem: if there is no way to say who is a terrorist, how do we say what is terrrorism? Boston Tea Party fits the description - in a way - but does it make sense? I really can't argue one way or the other. GregorB 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment by User:Samwaltz. It does not seem to me that the Boston Tea Party should be caterogized as terrorism. When in doubt about things such as this, i.e. whether A should be considered an example of B, I turn to the OED. The relevant definition of "terrorism" there is "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized". I have seen no evidence that it was meant to strike terror into the British. Though they did dress up as Mohawks, the WP article makes it sound as though they were very nice about it on the whole. Cleaning up after one's self does not strike terror into the heart of whoever one vandalized. I'm not sure that it intimidated the British; it certainly doesn't seem it to me, but I'd be willing to listen to arguments to that effect. Carl.bunderson 19:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I find Netscott's and Postdlf's comments persuasive; I would think the British contemporaries would have categorized the BTP not as terrorism, but instead, a rebellious act. Despite the broad (and questionable) definition presently contained in Wikipedia, it seems that terrorism today is understood to mean an organized, deliberate, despicable attack upon random, innocent people with the intent to kill or maim, so as to shock and horrify a population. The perpetrator's stated purpose for the attack does not seem very important. The BTP does not fit this notion and most Americans generally accept it as having been a patriotic act. To categorize it with events such as 9/11 seems to invite the reader to consider whether terrorists are merely modern versions of the colonial American patriots. Quite absurd, and definitely not NPOV. Accurizer 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely, there are those who believe that the perpetrators of 9/11 are patriots. Is that opinion less valid than American patriotism? Personally, I oppose the existence of terrorism-related categories because I believe the term is an invective and it will never be used in an NPOV manner. However, the Boston Tea Party does meet some of the numerous proposed definitions for terrorism, so I'm not sure how we can make a fair distinction between it and other instances of terrorism. The category might as well stay.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for further illustration and linkage: I agree with User:Postdlf's citation of the concept of anachronism relative to this discussion. (→Netscott) 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Americans generally accept..." My understanding is that wikipedia isn't about what americans accept, it's about what any significant group accept. I'd guess that a significant group (several hundred million people?) think the 9/11 terrorists were patriots. Conversely, based on current laws of at least one US state, an american who breaks a padlock and frees animals which would otherwise be purchased for slaughter by rogue government employees, is a terrorist, subject to many years in prison, even if the government employees are found guilty of illegal purchases of the horses for slaughtering. Imo the core issue is the nature, especially evolutionary aspects, of cybernetic phenomena such as language and wikipedia. Thank you all for a such a wonderful resource, and for the fine public debates that surround its evolution. [a wikipedia friend, somewhat scared about her IP address being traced...]

The situation is very simple: if reliable sources have called this incident a "terrorist incident", then we can call it that as well. We can't label subjects based on our own definitions, that is original research, and we are not a reliable source. The more controversial the claim (I think this qualifies), the more reliable sources that need to be cited making the claim. Simply put, we can't call something a "terrorist incident" unless reliable sources do so for us. Otherwise, it is original research. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-23 06:29

Who exactly do you think are the reliable sources for describing something as terrorist? What we have instead is a variety of political sources that describe some things as terrorism based on their own motives. But, if Political Source X describes someone as a terrorist, that doesn't qualify him for Category:Terrorists, but, instead, for Category:People described as terrorists by X.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of Netscott and Postdlf regarding the anachronistic nature of the proposed categorization. The category is inappropriate because there was as yet no United States in existance. Let's spend our time discussing more substantive issues than exporting current events into history. --Blainster 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto the above. There were no states to be united at the time so the category can't apply. L0b0t 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on the "United States" part of it doesn't accomplish anything, because someone could easily fix that by creating Category:Terrorist incidents in the American Colonies. We need to preempt that fruitless diversion by discussing the "terrorist" label head-on. Postdlf 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PC spoiler (how about them apples): The editors of Wikipedia have determined that the word terrorist has no denotative meaning and has no place in an encyclopedia except as a slur or attribution within a quote [4]. Therefore no one, for any act, however severe, can be labeled objectively as a terrorist. Wikipedia policy instead recommends that individuals that have expressed the intent to target and kill civilians noncombatants for political ends be called militants and their organizations be called paramilitary organizations. Mrdthree 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While from a legalistic standpoint the argument about no United States existing is solid, I agree with Postdlf's last comments here. Just reading the word "Terrorist" next to "American colonies" (which really should be British colonies) really hits home Postdlf's previous anachronism comment even more. The combination of "terrorism" with "British colonies" seems almost oxymoronic. (→Netscott) 03:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That list would just get out of hand with India, Southern Africa, The Malay States, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, Ceylon, and all the other garden spots the British have been attacked at.L0b0t 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well yes but I intended my previous post regarding "oxymoron" as relative to the original Thirteen Colonies. (→Netscott) 05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on the "in the United States" is, as Postdlf says, pointless. The article would still belong in Category:Terrorist incidents. Also, one might wonder why, under this logic, American Revolution should be in Category:Rebellions in the United States.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"...Rebellions in England" would be more historically correct. Kevin Baas^talk 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Although it was a terrorist act, it was also a patriotic/revolutionary act of terrorism. Proudly American. -- Joe 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As soon as we can call Zarqawi or Osama Bin Laden a terrorist we can discuss calling paul revere a terrorist. Mrdthree 05:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly a terrorist act. They destroyed property to promote a political cause.

is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp

Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear. www.ecis.org/finance/paisdefin.htm

a violent act in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, which is intended to intimidate or influence the policy of a government. www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/spring02-glossary.cfm

a psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian popuation. Such a strategy may be used by an occupying army on the occupied population. Many terrorist acts, especially against an occupying military or against illegal occupants are acts of war or resistance, and not terrorism. www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm

and finally ->

Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Call a duck a duck and get on with your lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.152.165 (talk • contribs)

Re: terrorism: Samwaltz spamming talk pages

It should be noted that samwaltz sent the same "invitation" to many people to join the discussion on the terrorism debate. I have no ill will toward samwaltz and no opinion on the debate, but it seems like the sort of thing which could skew the perception of concensus quite a bit. Lunkwill 08:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

however, I am one of the persons whom he invited, and I didn't support his idea. Not that one case proves anything, but it's something to chew on. Carl.bunderson 07:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The way the invitation read, I think I've disappointed Samwaltz by not supporting his idea. Argyriou 07:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can skew consensus, but then again, I would have seen this anyway (I've had this article watched for months now) and I didn't even say what he wanted (like others above have said). Either way, a lot of people know now, and I don't think it was a big deal. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also got an invitation and I disagreed as well. I also think the invitations are a great idea. I don't see them as skewing anything just fostering a healthy discussion.L0b0t 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I also got invited and also disagreed...I've written a couple articles on American Revolution topics, so I imagine that's why he posted the notice on my talk page; I see absolutely nothing wrong with inviting people who have an interest in or knowledge of a particular subject or field to comment in a relevant discussion. Postdlf 05:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

Neither the acts of ELF, etc. or the Boston Tea Party were acts of terrorism. The definition is incorrect. Just because one is labled terrorism is not a good reason to label the other terrorism and say "Fair's fair". That's little kid reasoning. What we should be doing is getting a more suiting definition for terrorism.
Whiskey Rebellion 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "terrorism" is a modern word and it's difficult to apply on historical events. Using modern words the american revolutinaries would be "unlawful combatants". // Liftarn

We apply quite a few modern words to events that happened in the past. I am having trouble finding any generally used definition of terrorism that both ELF and the Boston Tea Party participients would not both fit. Which one are you folks using that would not include them. And, please let me know your source. Dipics 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And I doubt the people who dumped the tea into the harbor would have called themselves "American revolutionaries". They didn't consider themselves American. They considered themselves British, in much the same way that somebody living in Hawaii today would consider themselves American. In any case, I can't see any reason not to label the Boston Tea Party as an act of terrorism. Some people seem to think that terrorism is something "they" do to "us". -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The people dumping tea into the harbor most certainly considered themselves Americans and most definitely not British. And that was an act of rebellion, not terrorism. When governments commit violent acts during a coup d'etat, that's terrorism! Whiskey Rebellion 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, maybe. Terrorism? Hardly. Who was assaulted? Who was killed? Who was threatened with violence? No one. Not terrorism by any definition. nut-meg 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism:
1: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
   -Merrian Webster Dictionary http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism

compare with:

Rebellion:
 1: opposition to one in authority or dominance
 2 a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b: an instance of such defiance or resistance

and

Revolution:
 2 a: a sudden, radical, or complete change b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c: activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation d: a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution> e: a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>

Clearly, the BTP was not a "systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". They were being taxed without being represented, and they felt that that was wrong (because it's basically stealing.) So when the taxers brought them more tea for them to purchase and tax, they said "we don't want it." (Not buying something is not terrorism.) So they said, "we're not leaving until this tea is off our ship." So they responded "Okay." and proceeded to take the tea off their ship. Since neither the taxers nor those taxed wanted the tea, the logical conclusion is to throw it away. And that's exactly what they did. I don't see how throwing something away is all that "terrifying". And I certainly don't see it as a systematic use of terror. Firstly, it was only one incident, which already fails the definition of "systematic". And it wasn't pro-actively planned - it wasn't even considered before the ships arrived and refused to leave. So it fails in that sense, too. I think their point was "we are not buying it." The british apparently didn't believe them, so in order to more clearly communicate this fact to them, they had to demonstrate it to them. And it wasn't a means to coerce, save to make them leave, which they had already asked them to do and which was well within their rights. Now if a stranger was in your house who you didn't want there and you asked them to leave, you might push them out, or maybe even throw their stuff out the window. That could be seen as "coercion" but would not constitute "terrorism". The same applies to the BTP. Their goal was not to inspire fear, but simply to make them leave. "We're not buying your stupid tea. Now get the #&^$& out of our port!".

Nor I put those two other definitions up there for a reason: the distinctions between terrorism, rebellion, and revolution may be subtle, but they are nonetheless important as the words have distinct meanings, usages, and implications. Clearly the BTP was an "opposition to one in authority or dominance". and clearly it was an "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b: an instance of such defiance or resistance." Though some would argue that it was not a rebellion, it was the start of a revolution: "a: a sudden, radical, or complete change b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c: activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation". Kevin Baas^talk 13:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Later influence

I've heard that the event is the reason americans don't drink much tea. // Liftarn

I've heard more specifically that that is why us Bostonians love Dunkin Donuts so much, but I wouldn't give this much credit.CSZero 06:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add that the place where the Boston Tea Party actually occurred, which is somewhat contraversial it seems, is probably on dry land now because of the landfill projects in the city CSZero 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

International influence

I've removed the following line from the article as it has nothing to with the Boston Tea Party: "But a little known fact that in 1772 the HMS Gaspee was the first British boat overthrown by Americans in Pawtuxet Cove Rhode Island." L0b0t 12:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Balsamic hyperion

A recent addition[5] has adds that colonists pledged to keep from the drink as a protest; it seems like this belongs in the Background as opposed to the Reaction. If this occurred as a reaction to the tea party, it needs to be explained better and sources provided.Jayvdb 05:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party:Importance of Women in History

On another website the importance of women, who were considered the majority of consumers of tea during this time, was cited as being the major contribution to the boycott's success thereby making THEM a vital component and substantial leaders in this struggle.

Lighting Bugs

---

Lighting BugsFile:Lighting bugs are found in Indiana. When my father was a child, he collected them and put them in glass jars. After a few days in there, the lighting bugs would die. The moral of this story is: Don't keep lighting bugs in glass jars for too long.65.182.230.145 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sloppily written

Someone, maybe me when I have the time, needs to clean up this article, get the facts straight, discuss in depth what happened to lead up to the Tea Party. These are just some of the things I noticed:

The name, "boston tea party" needs to be adressed. From what I understand the "party" does not refer to an event, but the people involved, and only later it came to mean the actual act. More talk about the setting. A common misconception is that it occurred at night, when in fact it happened in broad daylight. Who attended it: I remember reading (I may be wrong) that the tea party was a mass gathering: there were as many as five thousand bystanders, who calmly watched as the tea was dumped overboard. Why did the people dress as Indians? I do not think it was to protect their identities. In my opinion, the indian dress was probably designed to send a message to the British (that the colonists could not be tamed or controlled, just like the Indians— a "free spirit" type of thing). Perhaps this should be mentioned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torus (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 November 2006.

Error in "On this day"

Somehow the the phrase "crates of tea bricks" got changed to "crates of tea break" in today's On this day listing for the Tea Party. I noted the error in Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, but I thought I'd bring it up here as well in hopes of getting it fixed more quickly. --Cam 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed now, thanks. --Cam 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

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 125.63.134.33 (talk • contribs) 09:33, April 11, 2007 (UTC)

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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 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.”

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)

Dartmouth

I belive the ship in question should be called Dartmouth, not HMS Dartmouth, as the HMS prefix denotes a military ship.