User talk:Ncaggiano8
| This user is a student editor in Iona_College/The_Age_of_Revolution_and_Historical_Memory_(Spring_2022) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Ncaggiano8, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Some thoughts about the Boston massacre
[edit]Hello Ncaggiano8
I don't know if it's in order for me to suggest anything to a student editor, so I am going to follow the Wikipedia guideline "be bold"!
I have done a lot of the work on the Boston Massacre article over the past six months. I have learned a lot about history and raised a several questions. My first debate was over whether the title violated neutrality. I lost that one on grounds that the incident is best known as the "Boston massacre".
I have a few outstanding concerns about illustrations. The early engravings were designed to arouse Americans; simply put, they are propaganda. So is the inclusion of several versions without a good reason improperly representing a point of view? My discussion on that has just been archived so I will append it for you at the end of this discussion.
When I began to study the history of the illustrations more, I learned a few things. Firstly, Paul Revere plagiarized the work of Henry Pelham! When I learned more about him I concluded Revere was more opportunist than Patriot, but that's another subject and I am already prodding other sacred cows of the revolution. But I began to wonder about the distribution of the illustrations. Exactly how was Revere's illustration printed, distributed, and displayed? See my discussion "The hand-colored prints"
Most recently, I looked up the article about Crispus Attucks. It contains an illustration of a painting which I find quite interesting. It is a modern representation of his death. The usual elements are there: muskets with bayonets fixed pointing at a mob in Boston Square, a couple of wounded on the ground, but without showing the soldiers and other overt propaganda elements. It is a more abstract image of the event which puts it in the realm of memorial rather than propaganda. Also, by putting the focus on a man of color, it is both more accurate and more inclusive.
So, getting back to illustrations in general, I have contemplated replacing Revere's print as the lead. It is propaganda, it is not shown as most people probably saw it (B&W), it is plagiarism, and it doesn't represent the real mix of people in colonial America. The question, then, becomes what should replace it: Pelham's original, Pelham's 1856 lithograph, Chappel's more realistic 1868 version—I haven't studied it but I think the headgear is incorrect—or the abstract Crispus Attucks memorial.
Have a look at the two discussions I've mentioned. I welcome your opinion, and if you want to tackle these questions go ahead.
Bias in illustrations
[edit]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) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Boston massacre
[edit]I moved your draft back to your sandbox. Instead of creating a duplicate article, you need to make improvements to the existing Wikipedia article. Please review this training module if you need a refresher on this. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)