Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wikipedia Politics

Palin Fans Deface Paul Revere Wikipedia Page 767

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the you-can't-make-this-up dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Fans of Sarah Palin were found to be changing the article on Paul Revere to make it fit their idol's view that Paul Revere was not warning the American colonists that the British were coming, but rather warning the British were not 'going to taking away our [guns]'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Palin Fans Deface Paul Revere Wikipedia Page

Comments Filter:
  • how they know (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Yorban (1442959) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:16AM (#36349820)
    how they no it was sarah palin "fans"? could have been opposite
  • by kalpol (714519) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:17AM (#36349830) Homepage
    because, seriously. Wikipedia is not the reference to end all references. If some dummy changes it and it's wrong, either someone will change it back, or (hopefully) the avalanche of other sources on Paul Revere will remain correct.
  • Uhhhh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gregarican (694358) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:18AM (#36349836) Homepage

    Besides the poor English in the summary if you check Wikipedia's history for this entry you probably won't find much to indicate what is claimed...hmmm...act reactionary very much?

  • Supporters? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ogar572 (531320) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:21AM (#36349880)
    I have $20 that says it was opponents that did this. Why? Because this is how politics is played.
  • Re:how they know (Score:3, Insightful)

    by flyingkillerrobots (1865630) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:22AM (#36349898) Homepage
    Mod parent up. That was my first instinct as well.
  • Re:how they know (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:28AM (#36349984)

    There's even a third option: Trolls with no strong feelings toward or against her that are doing it just for laughs.

  • by dave420 (699308) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:32AM (#36350036)
    It's not about describing what you did, it's about how silly what you did was. All the information you want is in the discussion page, obviously. That's what it's there for.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:35AM (#36350064)

    LOL. There's nothing Orwellian about this. I'm nearly certain Palin has no ulterior motive here. She's not trying to rewrite history on purpose. She did it accidentally due to stupidity. She knew a few vague details about a story and simply filled in the gaps with the first thing to come to her mind. I see people do this sort of thing all the time. The difference is, for some reason, this moron gets a media spotlight to show off her ignorance to the entire world instead of just the 3 people that happen to be standing around at the time.

  • Re:hey editor guy! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dave420 (699308) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:41AM (#36350130)
    But that was not the purpose of his ride, which Palin claimed. She's retarded. Absolutely retarded.
  • by blueg3 (192743) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:44AM (#36350174)

    That's only one step worse than most Slashdot readers, who apparently have only read one book.

    I won't keep you in suspense. It's 1984. Although a few real bookworms have also read Atlas Shrugged.

  • Re:hey editor guy! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rbollinger (1922546) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:47AM (#36350206)
    You also know that Palin never said she could see Russia from her house right? It was just an SNL Skit.

    Actual quote from Palin: "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."

    I'm no fan of Palin but please try to separate her real gaffes from the ones the media made up.
  • Re:hey editor guy! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nadaka (224565) on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:54AM (#36350294)

    I don't have enough faith in humanity to assume that Palin winning the primary would be enough to get a democrat into the white house in 2012.

  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:55AM (#36350312) Homepage Journal

    Why do people pay so much attention to her? Her coverage is way out of proportion to her actual influence. Ignore Sarah Palin. If she polls highly, then go and cover her, but look:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rudy-giuliani-leads-republican-field-cnn-poll/ [outsidethebeltway.com]

    Giuliani, Romney, Palin, Paul, Cain... 16%-10%

    How much coverage is Giuliani or Romney getting? Paul or Cain? In proportion to Palin? Why is this also-ran attracting the same media attention as if Queen Elizabeth and the reanimated corpse of Michael Jackson and Xenu toured East Coast tourist spots?

    It's bizarre. Palin is an also-ran. Please try to ignore this media virus.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, 2011 @10:59AM (#36350364)

    "In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."

    Boston Herald [bostonherald.com]

    But Palin's quote was that he was "ringin' the bells and firin' the guns" when he warned them. It seems unlikely that after Paul Revere's capture by the British they still allowed him access to bells and guns during his interrogation.

  • But she is crazy (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, 2011 @11:00AM (#36350370)

    In one breath she says the government shouldn't make decisions that individuals can make for themselves (like gun ownership), and then in the very next breath she says that only the government should decide who you an and cannot marry, and when it is ok to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

    Despite this obvious contradiction, she insists that her religious views do not rob her of her objectivity.

    She frightens me.

  • by Viewsonic (584922) on Monday June 06, 2011 @11:17AM (#36350632)

    He just said the same people who contribute to Palin pages positively are the same ones editing the Paul Revere page. This rules out people trying to screw her reputation, this rules out trolls. This does not rule out supporters and random lunatics, though.

  • No they don't (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, 2011 @11:24AM (#36350726)

    The Boston Herald is a notorious right-wing paper. Even the article in the Herald says if you stand on your head and cross your eyes she "sorta coulda" be correct. His comment to the British came AFTER he was captured, when the jig was up. It wasn't why he was riding in the first place. These are the kind of arguements you got from OJ Simpson's murder trial defense.

    The author of the LA Times article (Andrew Malcolm) is also a baiting conservative writer. Like most writers of his ilk he was brought in to upset readers and to feed conservatives appetites and show they have both sides in their editorial pages. Right-wing media like Fox News doesn't do this so I guess the left doesn't have the same desperate need to be pandered to.

    If you honestly believe Revere was out to warn the British soldiers then you really need to try reading actual history books.

  • by radtea (464814) on Monday June 06, 2011 @11:42AM (#36350952)

    What Palin said:

    "He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

    What Revere said:

    "I observed a wood at a small distance, and made for that. When I got there, out started six officers on horseback, and ordered me to dismount. One of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me where I came from and what my name was: I told him. He asked if I was an express: I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston: I told him; and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the river, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the country all the way up."

    Really, does anyone recognize Palin's account as being remotely based on Revere's?

    Palin: Revere was riding his horse through town ringing bells and firing guns to (somehow) announce to the British that Americans were going to be free and armed.

    Revere: after being captured on his stealth mission to raise American troops he informs the British that they are facing a prepared countryside.

    What exactly do these accounts have in common? Palin doesn't mention Revere's capture. She does mention him firing guns and ringing bells, which there is no documentary evidence for and which would be weird for someone on a clandestine mission to do. Palin seems to be aware that Revere rode a horse, so there is one point of factual agreement at least.

  • by argStyopa (232550) on Monday June 06, 2011 @11:53AM (#36351128) Journal

    Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the British missions to Lexington and Concord in fact *specifically* to seize supplies in those towns, in particular military supplies?

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338392/Battles-of-Lexington-and-Concord [britannica.com]

    So I don't know what stupid edits were done 'reinterpreting' what he said on wiki - Paul Revere was most definitely just announcing their method of advance - but the POINT that he was announcing the approach of the British "to take away privately-owned guns" is entirely reasonable.

  • by RingDev (879105) on Monday June 06, 2011 @11:55AM (#36351148) Homepage Journal

    LOL, he didn't "Warn" them. He made up a bogus story to try to scare them. By claiming that there was a 500+ man strong militia defending Lexington, it forced the smaller forward units to double back to the main army and warn them (and slowing them down) and allowed Revere to go free and bought time for the rebels to assemble. The brits were walking a ~700 man army into the region, expecting little resistance. To find out that there was a 500+ strong militia defending their target would be a significant set back.

    Paul Revere was playing poker, he bluffed, and his captors bought it. But to call that "warning" is just rediculous.

    -Rick

  • Re:hey editor guy! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArcherB (796902) on Monday June 06, 2011 @11:55AM (#36351150) Journal

    Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.

    And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.

    You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.

    Let me try to quote to make life easier:

    “...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”

    That's like saying I didn't post this message; my computer did. Fact is that bells were rung as a result of Paul Revere's ride. It is true that he did not ring the bells himself and it would have been more accurate if Ms. Palin had said, "“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by having those bells rung..." But to call Sarah Palin a "moron" over this after Obama's "57 states"* comment is a bit one sided.

    Although, as I understand it, the original complaint was not that Palin had said that Revere was ringing bells, but that she said he had warned the British. I'm not aware of anyone trying to update the Wikipedia page saying that Paul Revere was actually ringing bells. Truth is, he was probably trying to remain as stealthy as possible as he rode, notifying others to ring the church bells, fire guns or whatever local methods were agreed upon to signal that the British were coming.

    * Obama said he had visited 57 states while campaigning. Of course, I'm sure he meant 47 and just slipped. Some people tried to make Obama look like an idiot over the statement, but no one took them seriously. To try to make it seem as if Palin truly believes that Paul Revere was riding around ringing a bell would be same as those saying that President Obama truly believes that there are 57+ states.

  • by edremy (36408) on Monday June 06, 2011 @12:23PM (#36351574) Journal
    The best summary came from The Economist's quick take on the Republican candidates

    Gingrich. Pro: Took on Bill Clinton. Con: Lost

  • by phantomfive (622387) on Monday June 06, 2011 @12:40PM (#36351868) Journal
    No, it's not Palin who's Orwellian. It's the idiots editing Wikipedia to match her mistake.....changing history books to make her look good.
  • You can't cram... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bmo (77928) on Monday June 06, 2011 @12:56PM (#36352108)

    You can't cram for New England history and come here and spout what you know and try to bluff your way through it with word salad. There are 391 years of it here, and we know all of it.

    You either admit you don't know or we're going to ridicule you until you cry yourself to sleep.

    And the next person who says that somehow this is a Christian nation like Sarah is wont to do, I am going to take a copy of the Touro Synagogue letter from George Washington *and* a copy of the Bloudy Tenent, roll them both up, and shove them down his neck.

    --
    BMO

  • Re:how they know (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:06PM (#36352264)
    She said the 'reason' for his ride was to warn the British. That's patently false. Why did he have to ride through the countryside to warn the British? They were in a nice military column he could have just ridden towards.

    That he warned the British after the ride and being captured doesn't say a damned thing about why the ride took place.

    So all it means is that Palin latched onto a single iota of fact and proceeded to weave a story around it that bears no resemblance to actual history. Hmmm where have we heard this before? oh yeah, 'Death Panels'.

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray

Working...