Talk:Crispus Attucks

First killed?

This selection from the article sounds dubious:50 cent shot Crispus Attucks

Recent evidence points to the fact that Crispus Attucks was not literally the first man to be killed, but that he was struck by a bullet deflected from another person.

I think we need to have that recent evidence adduced in the article. Ortolan88 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

it was added by Nichalp [1]. I put a note on his talk page. but does it really matter how he was killed (whether by a delflected bullet or not; wasn't it inaccurate musket fire) as much as that he died first? Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but Attucks is famous for just one thing and we ought to get it right. First killed? or First to die? or One of the dead? We need the evidence one way or the other. Did the person off whom the bullet was deflected die? Did he die before Attucks? Was there an autopsy or something to prove this point? Without this alleged recent evidence, I think the paragraph should be deleted. Ortolan88 00:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence showing which of the three men who died that day was shot first or had died first. All we know is that three of the five who were shot that day died that day and the other two died later. Attucks could have died first or he could have died second or he could have died third. The only reason he was famous at all was due to the writings of an abolitionist who was seeking out unsung black heroes to hold up as examples. It is my understanding that he attacked an armed sentry who defended himself and that Attucks actually got what was coming to him. He should be nothing but a foot note in history not have a starring role in it. In other words, his deeds do not justify a Wikipedia article. His sole reason for being named is a part of a list of the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsolved History

Last Monday I watched this program Unsolved History -- on Discovery Channel. It detailed the Boston Massacre and mentioned that the autopsy revealed that the bullet passed entered his body and deflected in another direction while in his body. While a normal bullet passes a body in a linear fashion (a straight line), the only way that a bullet would deflect, was if it passed wholly through another person on its way so as to slow down the velocity. They said that the most likely candidate (at this moment I can't recall his9;åḽṗ | ✉]] 20:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

The articles not about science, it's more likely about American history. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Image caption

The caption wrongly identified both the date and artist. The old caption was taken directly from a grade school project, but I have used the information made available by the National Archives, in conjunction with other sites:

http://www.archives.gov/research/american-revolution/pictures/

http://nfo.dodmedia.osd.mil/CGI-BIN/om_isapi.dll?clientID=214552&infobase=wandc.nfo&softpage=Document

Ken Albers 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed Stub

Not a tub anymore. --Banana04131 18:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

actually black ?

The assumption is based on a notice concerning a runaway slave named Crispus, listed about 20 years before the Boston Massacre. There is nothing in particular to link the two Crispuses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

This article is folk history -- not history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

There is some evidence, Paul Revere's woodcut for one. Attucks is a Natick name, which supports the geography (the Natick settlement neighbored Framingham). There is other circumstantial evidence, including the "folk history" which you apparently completely dismiss as viable. One thing I don't understand about your conspiracy theory is, what would anyone's motive be for revising Attucks into a black-Indian, were he not? Please elucidate, and present alternative evidence. Thanks in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute 1 4 u (talk • contribs)

Abolisionists were the first to describe Crispus as a black or part black person...their motivation would have been to show that a black man was the first to die for this country and that black folks were just as worthy of freedom as anyone else in america

Someone can research this further but I remember reading one time that the Boston massacre wasnt so much brought on by men protesting but by men throwing rocks or snowballs at British troops. One of the troops either fired as a warning or accidentally and the rest followed.

• These issues are all addressed in the current revision -- House of Scandal 04:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Revere's woodcut depicts Attucks as white.[2] This, along with Attucks's being buried in a white cemetery, suggest he was white. HedgeFundBob (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Again, these issues are all addressed in the current revision -- House of Scandal (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, although I do think the article is relatively balanced. Can you establish a precedent for mulattoes and whites being buried together in this place and time? The logic in this article runs to "blacks and whites could NOT be buried together, but mulattoes and whites COULD." Such evidence would be powerful. Also, it would be interesting to see some sources for the discussion of the various prints. HedgeFundBob (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See revised text. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, this passage is often associated with Crispus Attucks of the Boston Massacre.

Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, people claim that the pyramids were built by space aliens. I'm rewording this sentence.

--Wechselstrom (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

@Cute 1 4 u (talk), seriously let's not be racist, because I don't want words of black or any color, maybe African American.

@House of Scandal (talk), snowballs were not available at the time of the Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre took place in March.Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Major Revision/expansion

I just completed a major revision/expansion of the article. I made an earnest effort to enable readers to clearly understand that relatively little is known for sure about Attucks, while simultaneously treating the folk history and sentiment surrounding Attucks with the importance and gravitas it deserves by merit of the significance his person holds as one of the few well-known and much-discussed people of color from this era of United States history.

I made a small reduction in the amount of general info about the Boston Massacre as that can be found in the Boston Massacre article itself. I did, however, replace it with a greater amount of material that deals specifically with Attucks in relation to the massacre.

This is probably my largest and most carefully-worded Wikipedia article so far. I hope it meets the approval of many, or even most, readers.

-- House of Scandal 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

INTRO

The intro paragraph of the article states:

Crispus Attucks (circa 1723 - March 5, 1770), was one of five people killed in the Boston Massacre. He has been frequently named as the first martyr for the cause of American Independence and was the only person killed in the event whose name is commonly remembered.

"was one of five people killed in the Boston Massacre" and "was the only person killed in the event whose name is commonly remembered" are drastically incongruent. Obviously, one of them is bull. I just don't know which one...

~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a conflict in those statements...he was one of five killed, and is the only one whose name is commonly remembered or known...Whats the incongruence? Engr105th 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Served in the Army ??

The first line of the article states Attucks served in the Army for 20 years...I can find no evidence for this - a slave would not have been eligible, and anyway the "army" was British, so militia is the only option for a runaway slave, but that's also unlikely.
Anybody have a source for his military service?
Engr105th 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears someone removed the line about his "20 yrs in the Army"....Thanks ! Engr105th 18:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a bit of vandalism that stayed in the article way longer than it should have. --House of Scandal 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crispus Attucks.jpg

I found proof that Image:Crispus Attucks.jpg is public domain. See the image page for details. Thus, I put it back in the article. Superm401 - Talk 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This picture, where is it from? Who produced it and when? I'm guessing it is mid-19th century? Drutt (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Coin

There was a commemorative coin released by the US Mint in 1998 with Attucks' bust on the front. Here is a link to it, but I'm unsure of exactly where to place this in the article and how much information to give; if anyone would like to add it, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahcambron (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the information. I have incorporated it. -- House of Scandal (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Birth Year

The article gives Crispus Attucks' birth year as c. 1723. From reading the article, I'm guessing the year was backdated based on the runaway slave advertisement. If that's the case, it would be more appropriate to say possibly rather than circa. Circa (c.) implies that we know his birth year within plus or minus 5 years. In reality, though, he could have been born in 1753. We simply don't know. I would prefer doing away with the year entirely, unless there is a better source for it. Any thoughts?

--Wechselstrom (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Crispus Attucks had any offspring?TorridTitan (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Made famous by Death

I have long felt that there ought to be a category called "People made famous by their deaths"; there was an article in either The People's Almanac or The Book of Lists and Attucks was among them, which is why I bring it up here. There are many other such individuals to populate this category for someone with the skill and inclination! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChainsaw77 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Entire paragraphs without sources

I've just stumbled over this and it's really atrocious for a wikipedia entry: "Little is known for certain about Crispus Attucks beyond his death in the conflict => end of paragraph" Not one single source in the whole leading part. Plenty of unsubstantiated quotes though - if anyone can find a historically verifiable source for this introduction, for the love of man, please legitimize it. Can someone put in the freaking beginning how we even know that this guy existed? The first source does not get noted until the next to last sentence of paragraph 3. Apparently we have more original sources to prove that DAvid Bushnell was the original inventor of the submarine than we do to even entertain the idea that Crispus Attucks was once a living human being.97.87.13.82 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are doubting one of the most famous person in American history, you should comprehend that American researchers understand little of Crispus Attucks’ life since he was part of Boston Massacre and was with the other colonists that were killed by the Regulars, and do not doubt and question Wikipedia sources unless you intend to vandalize Wikipedia’s articles. Just to answer your question though, how do we know Crispus Attucks was once a living human being? Well, how do we know if the triceratops’s color was gray, it could’ve have been purple right? Yes, I’m not saying it’s purple but our technology isn’t accurate in the past. Crispus Attucks was caught in the spark to the American Revolutionary war, and he had siblings during the time of the war, but not even our human ancestors (the weird and inaccurate ape humans) didn’t live in the time of dinosaurs, so there is your answer.

And just a memo, when you edit in the future on Wikipedia, don’t use reckless words since you used the word “freaking”.

And what does David Bushnell have to do with Crispus Attucks unless… YOU’RE COMPARING HIM WITH CRISPUS ATTUCKS! Allied Rangoon‧talk 23:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased Article

I'm sorry, but it seems that a large portion of this article deals with the issue of Crispus' racial identity. This is the type of thing one would expect from revisionists who seek to diminish the role of African Americans in U.S. history. Crispus Attucks race should be a footnote compared to the man's accomplishments, not a major focus of his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.59 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Response:Ideally, Crispus Attucks race should have no significance since the concept of race is not scientific and is simply a social construction. But as the Thomas theorem says, it doesn't matter if it is true, if people believe something is real it has real consequences. It became important to the abolitionists that Crispus Attucks be thought of as African. Even the writer, who claims that it is revisionists who are trying to diminish African-American accomplishments, has anemotional/intellecyual investment in this controversy. But what I came here to say is that I once read a late 19th Century article that claimed Crispus Attucks was a Natick Indian, and a sailor. It was written to try to eliminate Attucks as part of the African American heritage. By the way, "ottucke" is Wampanoag for "deer". Louis Fallert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.31.150 (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Prince Hall?

The statement regarding Prince Hall ("He was a good man and a warrior.") seems to be personal opinion and has little, if anything, to do with the subject of Crispus Attucks. Indeed it seems to come utterly out of left field. I feel it doesn't belong here.Beetfarm Louie (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bas Relief?

In the brief section about the memorial sculpture, "bas relief" is glossed as the "raised portion". Bas relief is actually the "lowered portion". I haven't seen the sculpture and have no idea whether it is bas relief, as it's termed, or the opposite, alto relief, as described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.240.97 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you kindly place a hyperlink and a source? Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing something?

Um, why does the article body go directly from Attucks' influences and baptism at the end of the Early life section to John Adams arguing that "the soldiers fired in self-defense" in the Reactions and trials section??? Reactions to what? The Massacre? There's no mention of it in between these two sections! The very event for which Attucks is most notable is not explained or detailed in the article body?? What the hell? Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither Crispus Attucks nor any Boston Massacre victim was first to die in Revolution

Please see the Wikipedia article about 11 year old Christopher Seider who was murdered by a British Official in Boston two weeks earlier in a similar protest as the one that is called the Boston Massacre. The so-called Boston Massacre was one in a series of protests that took place in response to the death of young Christopher Seider. Even his headstone states this fact. The trial records prove this fact. That British official was convicted of murder and later pardoned by the British government. Christopher Seider is buried in the same location as is Crispus Attucks and the other four who died as a result of the Boston Massacre. Will someone with better skills than I please at least rewrite this article to reflect that it is absolutely disproved that Crispus Attucks was the first dead of the American Revolution? Speaking of headstones, all five Boston Massacre victims AND Christopher Attucks share the same headstone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing unsourced claims about heritage

I've made some substantial edits to the intro and body. It was full of weasel words and phrases, editorial speculation, whole repetition of content in the body in the introduction, and unsourced claims. Questions around Attucks's ethnicity and heritage, given their volume, great variety of possible answers, and lack of consensus - have been moved to their own section.

Attuck's being called a mulatto does not necessarily imply African or European heritage, as it was commonplace in the colonial era to refer to Native Americans as mulatto based on skin tone. Moreover, there may be more reliable-source-cited instances when he was referred to as an Indian, than there are that call him a mulatto. As other editors have pointed out, the prior intro seemed strained and overloaded with racial speculation, and I've tried to make it more fact-based and essential, and move the ethnic speculation - which deserves to be included given his historical role - to its own section. In spite of the single picture that some may associate with Africans - which is admittedly a 'Speculative posthumous portrait of what Attucks may have looked like' - there is significant debate around Attuck's actual heritage, including a multitude of primary and secondary pieces of evidence. It is not in controversy that Attucks was a slave before being freed or escaping, but Native Americans from the 17th to late 18th centuries were also chattel slaves in New England and surely intermixed with other chattel slaves in some frequency. There may well have been significant African intermixture in his background, but the article should stick to the facts, and not try to bend them to fit legend. The facts are that he and his relatives were variously referred to as Indian, negro, and mulatto, which as the Fisher source notes and Forbes notes profusely, were also terms used during that period for some Native Americans with no black African or white European admixture. The popular cultural understanding of Attucks - which has been taken from an admittedly fictionalized, youth-adapted biography by Millender, and a children's book by Simon and Schuster based on Millender's story - should have no bearing on the article's content. Any feedback welcome. Psmith85 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Racial speculation" my foot. We got reliable sources claiming he's at least part African (or black). I don't care for your personal analysis of verbiage for race in this time period; you're not going to whitewash this guy without a decent set of arguments. Yes, I just reverted you. If you remove that paragraph again I will template you for removing verified content and POV editing, since I question your motives (perhaps incorrectly, but whitewashing has that effect). I don't know a person here, white or black, who doesn't regard Attucks as black, so you better not remove that from the lead again. As for Millender--surely you noted the academic books listed in footnote 5. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Psmith85, this is not the way you want to go. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is speculation. Most of the secondary sources and primary content they discuss call him a Native American who has the appearance of a 'negro' and likely has African heritage, though it is unknown from where. You're misinterpreting it as whitewashing when it is the opposite. As Forbes has noted in thousands of cases, many Indians, especially in the eastern parts of the Americas, were thought of as black and perhaps would be called black today. They also may have had some African mixture, since in New England until the mid-to-late 1700s, and in the South until the mid-1800s, they were chattel slaves and lived with other chattel slaves for centuries. Slave does not equal African, in spite of simplistic pop-cultural understandings. This is not a conflict or contest over his ethnicity, it's just an airing of factual historical secondary sources. There's no consensus and may never be, there are no reliable images of Attucks, and people can decide for themselves what to make of him. It's an extremely complex issue that cannot be put to rest in a WP article. Since you seemed to considered it whitewashing, the intro has been edited to acknowledge his likely dual African and Native American descent. Psmith85 (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh really--he was blackwashed? Given blackface? Yes, it's a complex issue, and scrapping information serves no purpose. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
      • There's no whitewashing. All that was done was take a neutral position, since there's no consensus. Since when does neutral = white? You appear to have a bias here. There is substantial controversy so discussion about his origins has been moved out of the intro. Since there are a number of reliable sources who understand him to be African-American, it has been included in the intro. It is also undeniable that he had considerable Indian heritage, and countless reliable secondary sources claim this to be the case. The intro now states he had African heritage. Additionally, the part that questions whether he was a slave has been removed, since there is really no controversy that he was a slave, only whether he was a runaway or freed, though there are no reliable sources that indicate he was ever freed, and several that refute this. All indications are that he was an escaped slave. The sources you claim are removed can be found in the second section. Psmith85 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Psmith85, please use edit summaries as it is difficult to parse the intent of each of your edits. I think you should build toward consensus here, on the talk page, before making further edits. Maybe you two work toward starting a Request for Comment so that other editors can get involved. At the moment, you have broken one of Wikipedia rules for excessive reverting, so that's a problem. El_C 01:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have been IP banned and user banned; happened within about 15 minutes, no chance to make my case. Since when did I revert three times? Actually, it was Drmies who reverted my edits first. Coffee (who did the IP ban) and Drmies refuse to acknowledge controversy in certain fields (e.g. Goree, where most historians agree nothing happened) or Olaudah Equiano (who the leading biographer and historian claims was born in the US, which is backed up by multiple primary sources) and want a children's book version of history. History and ethnicity are complex. Non-African people with dark skin and kinky hair who would be described as black can be found on all continents except Europe (see Aeta, Semang, Papuan, Batek, iTaukei, Kanak, Jomon, Xia, Funan, Champa, Gond etc etc). There is vast evidence of people who would be today called black existing in the pre-Columbian Americas. There were also non-black Indians, and black Africans. What I am doing is finding the reliable secondary discussion of primary evidence, and putting it out there. People can make their own decisions. Do I think Attucks would be defined as black today, based on his physical appearance? Yes. Do I think he was necessarily African in descent? I'm not sure. No one is whitewashing anything.199.122.112.244 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't evade your block. Ask for an unblock on your talk page, instead. El_C 02:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• So, the now-blocked editor had a strange fascination: throughout their edits (logged in and logged out) they seem to be preoccupied with removing "black" or "African" (in various permutations) while retaining or inserting "slave". I don't quite understand it, but it is frequent. Anyhoo, Malik Shabazz, we should really try and get this article in better shape; I know that many readers of color have taken offense at this article and it behooves us to make it better. This is not my area of expertise (as you know--I've asked you for advice often enough), but I'll do my best. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced, inaccurate content in header

There is no direct evidence of any kind that any such Crispus Attucks was even present. The man killed was a sailor of color named Michael Johnson who was known by that name for over twenty years. The concept that this man was in fact an escaped slave known as Crispas (sic) was purely speculation. Perhaps claiming the body to be Attucks caused authorities to stop looking for the real Attucks. The name appeared in the Revere engraving but no record of who told him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:431A:5200:C921:CDA8:D109:2BBD (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If you read the actual court transcript he is identified by witnesses by name. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"[Attucks was] widely regarded as the first person killed in the Boston massacre and thus the first American killed in the American Revolution."

Widely regarded? By whom? The first American killed in the American Revolution? This seems to be a fierce point of contention; if we take this as the political upheaval as a whole and not the war, then arguably those who died in the War of the Regulation were the first to die in the American Revolution. There are numerous other contenders, such as the alleged death at the Battle of Golden Hill, or the murder of Christopher Seider in Boston by a customs official. A quote which is related to this is, if you're a loyalist you can say "Sit back, relax, and stay loyal."

This smacks of original research.(TheDarkFrontier (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC))

Crispus Attucks wasa real person.Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.136.28 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

This should say "thus the first American killed in the name of American Independence." Not "thus the first American killed in the American Revolutionary War" The War had not begun, and did not begin for another 5 years. The massacre happened in 1770, Lexington and Concord in 1775. Drahgoone (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. Up until recently, it had "American Revolution" rather than "American Revolutionary War", so I restored it to the former, as a term pertaining to a broader time period. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020

Change,

"Historians disagree on whether he was a free man or an escaped slave, but most agree that he was of Wampanoag and African descent."

To,

"Historians disagree on whether he was a free man or an escaped slave, but most agree that he was of Natick Indian and African descent."

References for this correction,

Reference 1: https://www.biography.com/military-figure/crispus-attucks Reference 2: https://framinghamhistory.org/biographies/crispus-attucks-1723-1770/ Reference 3: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Crispus-Attucks Marcokaltofen (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources vary. PBS states Nantucket or Natick. Nantucket would be part of the Wampanoag Confederacy.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2p24.html

The Crispus Attucks Museum records him as Wampanoag through his mother Nancy.

http://www.crispusattucksmuseum.org/crispus-attucks-family/

The Zinn Educational Project records him as Wampanoag however it is not sourced.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/crispus-attucks-killed/

He is a descendant of John Attucks however, who was killed during King Phillips War and many historians consider him to have been Narragansett. So it's complicated. Perhaps we could just state that he was of Native American and African descent? Indigenous girl (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: The Manual of style for Biographies says: The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. Attucks's ethnicity is certainly ...relevant to the subject's notability in the historical context so the question becomes, are the common descriptions in reliable sources "Wampanoag," as the previous cite claimed, or "Natick", as Marcokaltofen requests?

In favor of the former, we have citations to the African American Trail Project at Tufts University and the Crispus Attucks Museum (thanks to Indigenous girl). These are both reliable sources. In favor of the latter, we have citations to Biography.com and Framingham History, neither of which are generally as reliable as the previous sources, and Britannica and PBS, which are.

Mitch Kachun, professor of African American history at Western Michigan University in his recent biography First Martyr of Liberty: Crispus Attucks in American Memory states Attucks's ancestors were "probably of the Natick tribe", sourcing this back to Frederick Kidder's The Boston Massacre of 1870 and earlier sources. So "Natick" seems to have the preponderance of reliable sources supporting it.

The discrepancy probably stems from the fact that "Natick" wasn't a tribal ethnicity in pre-colonial New England. The settlement of Natick, which then also included places now in towns such as Needham and (importantly to Attucks) Framingham, was a Praying Indian village organized by Puritans. These Praying Indians were "converts" from the local indigenous peoples, and drew not only from the Massachusett of the area around what is now Boston but also the Nipmuck from around what is now Worcester and the Wampanoag from what is now Southeastern Massachusetts. There is some apparent evidence that Attucks's mother's family may have come from around Buzzard's Bay, but any oral tradition about pre-colonial genealogies is rather iffy.

The best way to describe him in the lead that complies with these policies and sources, therefore, is to say ...but most agree that he was of Natick (or possibly Wampanoag) and African descent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

The posting for the website "Africa Within" under External links "Crispus Attucks", AfricaWithin should be removed as spam or a dead link and replaced with

"Crispus Attucks", The Humanity Archive with the external link pointing to the article below:

https://www.thehumanityarchive.com/history/crispus-attucks

JermaineDaniel (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. Dead link removed, but new one not added. There seems to be more than enough already. I'm not sure what's gained by adding another; this one seems a tad promotional. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

This ...published in 1770 did not refer to him as "black" nor as a "Negro" should be ...published in 1770 referred to him neither as "black" nor as a "Negro" 100.6.81.19 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

In the 3rd para, headed as "Early Life and Ethnic Origins," at the 4th word in the 3rd line from the bottom of the paragraph, please change "sreaming" to "screaming." It is a misspelling because "sreaming" is not a word. Harold3Ho (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Harold3Ho (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The possible typo is included in a quotation. Someone with the source at hand needs to first check if this is a transcription error that needs to be corrected, or if the spelling error is in the source. If the misspelling is in the source, the [sic] template (formatted as: {{sic}}) should instead be added after the misspelled word. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Source for verification not available at the moment ~ Amkgp 💬 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. race

Currently, the article uses the word 'ethnicity' where I would expect 'race.' Race, though discredited by many in the scientific community, has to do with appearance, whereas ethnicity has to do with either race (i.e., as sort or synonym or euphemism for 'race') or cultural identification. By using the word 'ethnicity,' the article is less clear and/or implies things for which there is no given evidence. 213.109.220.252 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry, "African-American-ness", False Dichotomies.

While Attucks' true ancestry will likely remain an enigma, the language used to discuss it could be chosen more carefully. The article's current wording implies a historic and/or current contradiction between Attucks being described as "African American" and his potential background as a "Mulatto", by saying that "Though he is commonly described as African-American in popular culture, two major sources of eyewitness testimony about the Massacre, both published in 1770, did not refer to Attucks as "black" nor as a "Negro," but rather as a mulatto and an Indian."* While the latter classification, Attucks as "Indian", would warrant a distinction between his popularly supposed "African-American-ness" and his potential factual ancestry, the former does not; appeals to the fact that contemporary accounts described him as neither "Black" nor "Negro" do not change this, as both terms were used differently at that time than later in history (as was the term "Mulatto", a term whose contextually unique application is already gone over in the text). More appropriate wording may be as follows: "Though he is popularly referred to as African American, Attucks' parentage may be wholly American-Indian. Contemporary sources do not describe Attucks as 'Black', or as 'Negro', but as 'Mulatto', and as 'Indian', meaning he was likely either Bi-racial or completely Indian in parentage. This, however, is complicated by the fact that, at this time, the terms 'Mulatto' and 'Indian' were often used interchangeably, the former word often being not an allusion to literal parentage or ancestry, but to skin color and its associations." Improved citation on discussion of interchangeable usage of 'Mulatto' and 'Indian' is also warranted. As of now, it simply links to a note that no longer exists on the article it links to.

• One a side note, one could note the selective use of quotations around the terms "black" and "negro", but discussing this in more detail would derail the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2703:3c00:cd9f:2d83:7153:9f26 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate link in header

The mention of "New Providence" in a period source is hot-linked to an article for a township in New Jersey by that name. However, the reference to New Providence applies to the major populated island in the Bahamas (Attucks' connection to the Bahamas is noted later in the article), not to anywhere in New Jersey. The link should be fixed.

Done, thanks. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Portrait?

Interesting choice of portrait being used in infobox. Does it really suit the article's theme? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2024

Change “first” American killed in American Revolution to “second”; 12YO Christopher Seider was tragically killed first on February 22, inciting unrest a la the mob that led to the killing of Attucks/the Massacre which happened happened on March 5. 2600:1009:B065:15B0:1C4C:B0D5:F085:68E0 (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 15:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2024 (2)

The article linked to Christopher Seider states his ages as 12, while the Attucks article states Seider’s age as 11. That needs to be ironed out. 2600:1009:B065:15B0:1C4C:B0D5:F085:68E0 (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion but not a proper suggestion for edit requests. I recommend simply leaving a note on the talk page rather than making a request. Thank you!
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)