Palin Fans Deface Paul Revere Wikipedia Page 767
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]'."
Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (Score:5, Funny)
Or perhaps Paul Revere himself will change to conform to Wikireality.
Who among us hasn't heard the story of his famous Midnight Ride, where he rode up to the British screaming "You're coming! You're coming!"?
Re: (Score:3)
I think I saw this once on a movie, I believe it was called the Sexual Revolutionary War. Starring Seka and Rocco Siffredi.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure it wasn't in the movie "Up Paul's Revere" ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's kinda more accurate than what really happened actually. Paul Revere warned almost no Americans. Dude got picked up by the Brits almost before he left.
But many years later, his name fit well into a song, and so everyone now knows about his midnight ride.
Yeah. Palin was more right than wrong, but everyone thinks she's wrong -- and the reason for that is *people have been dumb for centuries*.
Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (Score:5, Informative)
That's kinda more accurate than what really happened actually. Paul Revere warned almost no Americans. Dude got picked up by the Brits almost before he left.
If by "almost no Americans" you meant "The militia at Charleston, Lexington and Concord who went on to fight the battles of Lexington and Concord" and by "almost before he left" you meant "three hours later, after doing what he set out to do" and that "picked up by the British" means "picked up and then released", and you ignore all the other guys who were doing the same thing and weren't stopped then... yeah, you're absolutely right.
And if you interpret "Seeing the signal lights up in the church tower then quietly passing on the message to Samuel Adams and John Hancock in person that an attack was coming and that they had best be ready for it" as "Warning the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms by ringing bells firing warning shots", then Palin was spot on.
But many years later, his name fit well into a song, and so everyone now knows about his midnight ride.
It was about eightyfive years later, in the poem "Paul Revere's Ride". It was a fictionalized account and got quite a few details wrong, such as leaving out the other riders like William Dawes, but was still more accurate than that embarrassing sound-bite was.
I will freely admit that Palin has demonstrated that she attended history class in High School at least once, but I am still unconvinced that she was awake at the time.
Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
He warned the Brits in the same way I worn the people I play poker with that I'm about to take all their money... with a bluff. He didn't set out to warn the Brits. He was captured and saw an opportunity to gain freedom and buy time for the militias to assemble.
-Rick
Uhhhh? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I think poor grammar and inverted senses in a summary article about anything Palin related is entirely appropriate. In fact, one would be remiss not to not muddle the metaphoricals and mix the waters when that to which refer is being discussed.
Hilariously orwellian (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hilariously orwellian (Score:4, Informative)
Well, yes it did. The early manuscript had Winston writing "1+1=" on the wall, leading scholars to believe that the original intent was to have had him crack by that time. The later version has "1+1=2", indicating he was still resisting. So, yes, there ARE versions of 1984.
Re:Hilariously orwellian (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
The other difference being that a large number of people think she is not a moron and what she says it taken as gospel.
Re: (Score:3)
Au contrare. This revised version will sell well with the NRA, and they're a very large voting block. People generally don't win without their support. Having this wannabe hero be sticking up for US gun rights improves Palin's credibility rating with them. Never a bad thing, politically. It will doubtless be followed in the next few days by claims that the left will be involved in some effort to control guns (despite this claim having been repeated since the Dems won office and no evidence of such a bill ev
Re:Hilariously orwellian (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - Doctor Who
Re:Hilariously orwellian (Score:5, Informative)
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
John Rogers
What are they doing on Wikipedia? (Score:5, Funny)
i've only been around for 23 years.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect you'll find most Republicans remember Gingrich from the 90s. I can't see that he has a hope in hell of getting nominated.
And most Republicans I know only like Palin because she pisses off liberals so much; they probably wouldn't vote for her either, but so long as liberals are concentrating on attacking Palin the real candidates can get on with preparing for the election.
Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (Score:4, Insightful)
Gingrich. Pro: Took on Bill Clinton. Con: Lost
Re: (Score:3)
The 22nd Amendment disagrees with you:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Bush cannot run for a third term as President. He can run as Vice President and replace the President; however, he can only hold the Office of President for 2 years.
Re: (Score:3)
I take it that the foolishness that is Barack Obama wasn't obvious to you then? This point is especially painful to me as I'm in the market for a used car.
LA Times and Boston Herald say Palin was right (Score:3, Informative)
LA Times backs up Sarah Palin:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html
And so does Boston Herald:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
Paul Revere's own words... (Score:4, Informative)
You're all being more idiotic than Palin... Here's Revere alerting the British (though no mention or arms):
"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." -Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, First Series, Vol. V pp. 106ff.
Re:Paul Revere's own words... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
From transcript:
(Revere)“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.”
If somebody told me I was about to encounter several hundred armed opposition, I would take that as a warning. Advice, at least.
The horror of it all! (Score:5, Funny)
I just checked the Paul Revere page and there don't seem to be huge sections devoted to:
- Paul Revere in Animé.
- Paul Revere in Manga
- Paul Revere in Western Animation
- Paul Revere in Comics
- Paul Revere in Graphic Novels
Truly, an e-atrocity. I assume the Palinistas deleted them all.
Palin is a media virus (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why do people pay so much attention to her? Her coverage is way out of proportion to her actual influence."
You're kidding, right? She is a media wet dream. An attractive, okay, generally attractive woman with a big mouth. It is not that she says anything substantive or influential to the majority, it is that in her elevated position (thanks be to McCain) she feeds treats to the media dogs who hope beyond hope she'll utter a comment that they can pick apart for 24 hours. All media (LSM and Fox) love the
Re:Palin is a media virus (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Jeez... (Score:3, Interesting)
How the hell is this news for nerds? How many times has the Palin or Bush or Wikipedia pages been defaced? Don't recall it being trumpeted here...
At least a pretense of impartiality would be welcome...
Not going to taking away our guns.... (Score:5, Funny)
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]'."
In AD 1775 War was Beginning.
John Hancock: What Happen?
Paul Revere: Somebody set us up the cannon!
British: All of your forts are belong to us! Ha ha ha ha!
Samuel Adams: Take off every HORSE!
Paul Revere: For great justice!
This is not a Palin fan. It's an anti-Palin troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at the contributions of this user [wikipedia.org]. He describes the Revere comment as Palin's "gaffe". Clearly he does not actually think that Palin's comment was true. He put it on Paul Revere's page because he decided to have a few laughs at the expense of Palin by abusing the reliable sources policy (by claiming that since Palin said it, Wikipedia has to, under its reliable sources policy, treat it as truthful). There were other people who did mistake him for being serious, but he himself carefully worded his comments in the talk page; he didn't say Palin's remark was true; he said that it needed to be put in as a reliable source.
The idea that this was put there by some guy who's a fan of Palin and (presumably) is stupid enough to think the statement was correct, is wrong. This was an anti-Palin troll, put there by Wikipedia editor who most probably is anti-Palin, and at a minimum was certainly aware, by his own words, that Palin's statement was a gaffe.
Did they 'edit' Britannica too? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the POINT that he was announcing the approach of the British "to take away privately-owned guns" is entirely reasonable.
I found it fascinating that she was actually right in essence but so far off and/or vague in facts and so tongue tied that she managed to maker herself sound like an idiot.
However, history has shown quite clearly that sounding like an idiot is, at worst, only a minor setback in a Presidential campaign.
The interesting question of Wikipedia's policy (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm more interested in the problem on the discussion page dealing with authoritative sourcing.
The issue seems to be:
Wikipedia wants to be a neutral source and just report what is asserted by trusted sources. The Palin-camp wants to include quotes from her, cited in mainstream media, on this page (same as you would quote and source a historian on this same page who wrote something in a published book).
This is interesting as it puts horns on the dilemma for wikipedia about authoritative. I can't just write a blog article on my personal website, post a link in wikipedia and call it a source. But if the LA times quotes my blog, I can use that as a source. But when someone who is not an expert is quoted in the media b/c they are sensational (in the sense of worth quoting right or wrong, in terms of newspaper sales), the notion of authoritative source kind of goes out the window.
Not sure how wikipedia will cope with this - or whether it's just a corner case that we can ignore most of the time?
You can't cram... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Paul Revere - Full History (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone knows Revere from his famous ride. Except, even that, is a historical whitewashing.
Revere was better known at the time for his arrogance and incompetence that led to America's greatest naval disaster until Pearl Harbor: The Penobscot Expedition of 1779.
The British were helping defend colonists who wanted to remain loyal. The Americans couldn't let them secure the area.
The Americans turned up on July 25th with 40 ships, almost 2,000 seamen and marines, 100 artillerymen and 870 militia with the fleet mounting 350 guns. Against them stood 700 men and three sloops mounting 50 guns. The British didn't even have proper defenses: the earthworks had only been built waist high when the Americans turned up.
The Americans artillery under Revere refused to attack without the ships attacking first. The ships refused to attack without the artillery going first. The 870 militia, despite initial successes, then got pinned down without support from their artillery while the British finished building their earthworks.
On August 13th, three weeks later, a six ship British relief force, bringing the British up to 9 ships and around 250 guns to the American 40 ships and 350 guns, arrived. The armed American ships proceeded to flee as fast as they could, leaving the transports to be destroyed. Even then, they didn't get away. Those that weren't destroyed ran aground and were set on fire by their crews.
In the aftermath, the commodore was blamed and stripped of his command. Revere was not officially reprimanded but was so heavily criticized by the other officers for his difficult personality and how his attitude caused much of the defeat that he actually requested his own court marshal to try and clear his name - a request that was denied.
Keep in mind that this was 1779. Revere's reputation wasn't rebuilt until Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride." Longfellow wasn't born until 1807, 28 years after the event. The poem was written in late 1860 and first published in 1861, almost a century later.
So, Palin can claim Revere all she likes. The reality of it is he's a man who died in relative disgrace having, through his incompetence and difficult personality, contributed to the deaths of hundreds of American troops and America's most crushing naval defeat for over 150 years. It was only through historical reconstruction - the writing of a poem a century later and the near total removal of the Penobscot Expedition from US history books - that he gained his fame. If Palin wants to do more of the same, how's that any different?
Re:Link to Wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Link to Wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
Why don't you check the revision history [wikipedia.org]? Find on page? Really?
Re:Link to Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is no more a good example of "Wikipedia working" than people cleaning up after graffiti vandals is a good example of society working.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The title to the linked article is 'Palin Fans Trying to Edit Wikipedia Paul Revere Page' Being fans of Palin it is perfectly understandable and likely they got confused and gave up.
Not their fault. Over centuries liberals intentionally decreased the readability of English texts by introducing foreign words.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing wrong with hating people who try to falsify history, nothing good can come of it.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it hard to believe... on the one hand, out of millions of idiots, it seems that sure that a few could go off the edge and completely sink their own candidates campaign (not that it's even started yet).
This sort of thing happens on both sides. And I think it really DOES happen. The down side of making Wikipedia easy to edit is that it's easy to edit.
Re: (Score:3)
Good points... the sad part is that wikipedia is actually a very good reference when looking up non-political stuff (and even most political stuff). But then incidents like this make it look like you can't trust it at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, but do we need to feel quite so superior?
Re:Dubious... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually right now she is blowing PAC money from donations to drive around and being an media whore. IT's the idiots that donated money to her that are flitting the bill, not News Corp .
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I was thinking. It's an easy way to discredit someone. Jump onto an anonymous service like Wikipedia, make a bunch of dumb edits, then claim it is on the behalf of someone you want to make look bad.
Re: (Score:3)
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.”
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 whe
Re:how they know (Score:4, Interesting)
job killing policies of Obama
Sources? When Obama took office we were loosing 750,000 jobs 'a month'. We're now growing, albeit slowly. And that's with a completely obstinate GOP senate who won't pass anything that might help the economy unless the very rich get tax cuts too. Seriously, this is Obama's fault how exactly?
I don't need to call him an arrogant, socialist, constitution trashing person
Of course not, that's a subtle way to do so without actually having to do so. If you mean the same level of constitutional trashing as Bush I will agree. Bush started this really dangerous precedent and Obama hasn't refuted (or refudiated in Palin 'speak') it and brought him up on trial.
As for dependency producing, is unemployment comfortable? Hardly, nobody *wants* to stay on unemployment. But in terms of the effect on the economy, giving people something to tide them over until the economy recovers is pretty positive. Something like $1.60 return for every dollar spent. Those people spend money creating additional demand in the economy - which by definition, a recession economy doesn't have enough of.
It isn't 'permanent' but when both big business and the consumer stop spending because the economy tanked, you can either wait for the economy to recover on it's own, i.e. a full blown depression, or you can ramp up government spending to keep the economy moving and mitigate the worst of the downturn. This does cost money, but as the return on unemployment shows, it is short term cost for long term gain.
26 states sueing the federal government over health care
Most of the GOP. The same GOP who opposed Social Security and Medicare when they were created. As we're seeing now, a vast majority of americans actually believe these are good and useful programs. But keep arguing they are bad for us if you like.
1 in 7 americans on welfare (because he reversed clintons welfare reform)
which is a direct result of the recession we're in. What should we do, just tell them to suck rocks instead? If people need help, you don't help 'only if you can'. We're America, we help out the needy regardless. Or do you disagree?
tax uncertainty
Seriously, the uncertainty is being caused by the GOP who won't let Obama implement his policies. You may disagree with him on those policies and that's fine. But the 'uncertainty' is solely due to the GOP who won't do anything unless the rich get tax cuts too.
more and more bailouts
Just about 'all' of which actually returned money on the investment. Would you rather GM and Chrysler went under? Do you really understand the vast economic impact that would have had? Makes today look like a picnic with literally another 2-3 million people out of work.
Criticism of actual policies with actual facts is fully welcomed. But what you've said so far is nothing but right wing talking points that don't hold up to scrutiny.
Re:how they know (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Both the senate and house were under democrat control for a long long time, until the awesome election in 2010, did they pass a budget, nope.
You mean like from 2000-2006 when the bulk of this deficit problem was created? How much did the GOP do to fix Medicare then hmm?
2. Sure, our welfare is very comfortable compared to lots of other countries
Riiight. One quote from a clear asshole and you're ready to throw out hundreds of needy children on the street. How very charming. I'm willing to suffer some fraud if it means health care for all. And I said 'some', no system is perfect.
3. I am 27, i will never ever see SSN or Medicare. According to the democratic plan, medicare ends in 13 years anyways
And I'm 40. Ask your grand parents how much it would cost to insure them through private insurance. Trust me, it's not economical for people to buy private insurance. You know what Ryan's solution was to that? Exchanges. The very same exchanges that Obama's plan will set up. Oops.
4. Will you give charity away to able bodied people who refuse to work. If they can work, they should do something for the money.
Who said money should be given away. Unemployment is paid for out of the taxes you paid in while you were working. It's called 'insurance'. You don't pay in the amount of life insurance that you get at pay out. You pay in with the plan that you won't need it but the security that it will be there if you do need it. Unemployment is no different. Not everybody needs it but everybody *might* need it someday.
How do you conclude that 9.1% unemployment means these are lazy bums living high on the hog? Seriously how?
5. As for the GOP, yeah, lets out alot of them tooo, they tend to just be socialism light, the answer is smaller government all around.
Again, ask your grand parents if it's 'socialism' lite. Trust me, they won't agree. Modern America was built on the capitalist system, but harnessed to provide the benefits of socialized risk. Best of both worlds with hopefully a minimum of the ills of both. That 'compromise' thing the GOP seem to misunderstand so much.
6. LOL, GM will go bankrupt again, eventually. Do you know how many Americans will never ever buy GM again?
About the same number as will buy Toyota? I'm sorry you shit all over America, but hey it is your opinion. Remember, GM is a glorious private company...that ran itself into the ground. Private enterprise isn't by default any smarter than anything else. It sure isn't the savior of the poor and disadvantaged.
You preach about sources, but site none yourself
Google 'Bikini Graph'. Clearly shows the number of job losses per month quite quickly turning around as Obama took office.
Food Stamps the best economic stimulus [cnn.com]
3 million jobs lost [factcheck.org] - this is a worst case scenario and FactCheck says it would likely be closer to a million. Still a massive hit to the economy that we didn't have *because* of Obama's policies.
Your turn for sources...
Re:how they know (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing you're a fan...In fact, you may actually be her, judging by your meticulous grammar and extraordinary vocabulary.
Re:how they know (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how they know (Score:5, Funny)
You're not allowed to bring researched facts into a Palin discussion!
Re:how they know (Score:5, Informative)
It goes a bit beyond that. The changes to Paul Revere's article are based on direct quotes from Sarah Palin and the editions to Paul Revere's article are being discussed in Sarah Palin's talk page. Among the people committing the changes we find this guy [wikipedia.org], who on his user page includes the following quote:
So, it's pretty obvious that there is more at play than mere correlation.
Re:how they know (Score:5, Informative)
There are so many misconceptions about Paul Revere's ride because of that romanticized Longfellow poem. Paul Revere was a good enough guy, but he didn't even make it all the way. He got detained by the British, and his riding partners were the ones who rode the rest of the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Fans of Palin, opponents of Palin looking to screw with her reputation, trolls who think this is funny, random lunatics... could be any or all of the above.
Anyone who tries to score political points based on anonymous Wiki edits is as big an idiot as Palin herself.
You didn't read the post you replied to... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:how they know (Score:5, Informative)
Well, why not look at the article's list of changes? If you do that you will stumble on User:Tomwsulcer [wikipedia.org], , a user who authored a set of editions which includes adding the aforementioned changes to Paul Revere's article, where he explicitly quotes Sarah Palin as the source [wikipedia.org]. He also posted comments on Sarah Palin's talk page [wikipedia.org] expressing his intention and motivation.
Yet, this is just an idiot wasting his time posting stuff he came up with on a wikipedia article. There are literally hundreds of this sort of edits being committed every single day on wikipedia, adding crap that is later removed. Why is this particular idiot being singled out for shovelling crap onto that site?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was a speech. IIRC there are some articles on Gawker about it and her subsequent attempts to justify her historical fiction of the event.
Either way I agree with some of the posts on Gawker, concerned for her brain damage, as most people would be embarrassed by such gaffes, but she seems to have no shame.
One of the comedians or shows (can't remember which) had a fake Palin for 2012 Republican Nomination ad, with "Paid for by Barack Obama" line at the end... This kind of thing of gaffe on her part just r
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hey editor guy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I love watching you guys squirm as you carry water you really don't want to be carrying. Please, by all means, keep defending Palin. It's hilarious, and it doesn't make either of you look any smarter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not a digital clock.
Re: (Score:3)
Leaving leap units aside, there are (24 x 60 =) 1440 minutes in a day. Twice in those 1440 minutes the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/1440 (0.138888...)of the time.
If it has a second hand, there are (24 x 60 x 60 =) 86400 seconds in a day. Twice in those 86400 seconds the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/86400 (0.0023148148...%) of the time.
Re:hey editor guy! (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
False. After his capture Revere told the British that the country was raised against them. Not one word about taking away the colonist's guns.
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those, nor the dozens of other things you could reasonably infer from what Revere reported telling them, which was not "you can't take their guns" but "the country is raised against you."
Re:hey editor guy! (Score:5, Informative)
Her actual statement was trying to lend legitimacy to herself. As if being close to Russia meant she was somehow an expert on it. She was conflating seeing it with being informed and knowledgeable about it.
And that's logically asinine. I live next door to a physician. That in no way qualifies me to treat anyone medically and gives me no expertise in the medical field. And if I were trying to claim medical expertise by mentioning proximity to a doctor, I'd rightly be thought a fool for it.
Re:hey editor guy! (Score:5, Informative)
"GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
The leading question to her response was actually asking how her close proximity of Alaska gave her insight into Russia. On careful read she mangled the response to how being close to Alaska gives her insight, she could have talked about cultural and trade ties between Alaska and Russia. But its also not a response that she came up with to legitimize her foreign policy knowledge. Once again you are talking about a misinterpretation of the real interview based on the SNL representation.
And let me state this again, I am not a Palin fan, and think she is clumsy in press engagements. However I think the majority of people in this country falsely attribute the Tina Fey parody to the politician.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We try... Lord knows, we try... but when you can't tell parody from reality, that's its own special kind of gaffe.
Re: (Score:3)
Palin was wrong, no doubt, but that characterization is also misleading... she didn't say Revere was "warning the British," she said he was "warning the British that they're not going to be taking away our arms." She wasn't characterizing Revere as a British sympathizer.
Not that she wasn't wrong... she was... I would like to think that republicans are smart enough NOT to make her the GOP candidate, but there's so many people trying that a split vote could lead to someone like Palin winning the nomination..
Re:hey editor guy! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.
From The Boston Herald [bostonherald.com]:
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
and
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 University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
and
Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic Party held a thin blue line on the issue, insisting on mocking Palin despite a brief historical review of the matter. State party chairman John Walsh wise-cracked that the region welcomes all tourists, even those with “an alternative view of history.”
“If you believe he was riding through the countryside sending text messages and Tweets to the British, still come to Boston,” he said. “There are a lot of things to do and see.”
But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”
I believe that last statement could refer to you. You should be careful of who you call "moron". You know the old saying about glass houses, right?
Re:hey editor guy! (Score:5, Informative)
Nice selective editing just like the conservative blogger. This is what she said:
âoewarned the British that they werenâ(TM)t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as heâ(TM)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.â
That just didn't happen. He didn't ring any bells, he didn't shoot any guns, and the purpose of the ride was not to warn the British. In the process of warning the militia he was captured and gave an inflated count to the British as a warning.
Re: (Score:3)
You really need to clean up your quote. It's quite difficult to read.
But, in response, I'm sure that Sarah Palin thinks that Paul Revere stopped at every church, hopped off of his horse, ran inside and rang the bells before heading off to the next church.
Her quote may be a bit convoluted, but that doesn't give you the right to make up your own unrealistic interpretation of what she meant.
But, hey. Don't take my word for it:
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
I'm sure that you know more than a guy with a Ph.D. from Brown University. Please
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, yeah. The original complaint was that she said that Paul Revere warned the British, which was fact. Here are some links:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-gaffe.htm [about.com]
As any elementary school student can probably tell you, Paul Revere was not attempting to warn the British when he rode around crying, "The British are coming." Nor was he ringing bells and trying to protect gun rights.
Apparently Palin learned nothing at any of the five colleges she attended.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-warned-the-british/ [forbes.com]
This certainly gives us an entirely new point of view to consider when examining our nation’s founding.
While I had been led to believe that Revere’s historic ride was actually for the purpose of warning our forefathers that the British were coming, it turns out that his midnight ride, complete with ringing bells and warning shots, was really all about letting the English know that we were armed.
http://www.huliq.com/3257/sarah-palin-paul-reveres-midnight-ride-warned-brits [huliq.com]
Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin has never been accused of being a brain surgeon, but her latest gaffe is another cautionary example of why she is, many say, unqualified to be a Presidential candidate: Paul Revere's ride was not to warn U.S. Revolutionary War patriots, but instead to warn the British.
The old tactic (Score:3)
Pick apart regular speech as if you are opposite someone defending a thesis so you can ignore the larger truth.
For some reason, partisans never seem to do it with the speech of their own.
Been to the 57th state lately?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/06/looking-for-honest-man-palinrevere-flap.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Palin was right (Score:4, Informative)
That article is about conservative apologists trying to backfit what she said into history. Paul Revere didn't fire gunshots and ring bells on his horse ride - that happened AFTER he was captured and gave inflated numbers to the British. His ride wasn't about warning the British - that was an unintentional side effect of getting capture. He rode to warn the militia and ultimately get to John Hancock and Sam Adams.
Even the experts in that article don't really back her up - they says she basically lucky that some part of the store could be backfitted to match what she said.
To be fair, I don't believe she is as dumb as she appears. I think she intentionally puts on that stupid accent and plays dumb to win over the fly-over states.
Re: (Score:3)
So she says people are free to carry guns, that words should be well defined and mean what they are meant to mean, and that murder is wrong. Seems like a pretty good consistent stance to me.
Re:Palin was right (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a flat out lie. Paul Revere's own words contradict your position.
She said "warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms"
Paul Revere said, from his letter describing it, "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."
In her case she has him with a specific agenda and message. Paul's own account lists no such message nor agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
On the one hand, it's possibly Palin supporters who are trying to promote Palin's mistakes. This makes Palin look stupid. On the other hand, it's possibly Palin detractors who are trying to publicize Palin's statements. That makes Palin look stupid.
Whoever is doing the edits, one thing is clear. Palin's statements make her look stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no Palin supporter, but this isn't news, it's just sensationalism.
And this is Slashdot. This whole article is a troll.
This site has swung so far to the left that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
This site has swung so far to the left that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
Agreed! Good grief people...can't you manage to at least suspend the disbelief that a conservative might just possibly be right about something long enough to consider the facts of the arguments? We have to do that every day, since we're bombarded with your position from all sides. It can't ALL be wrong, so we must discern the truth therein. How come so many of you can't manage this?
This site has swung so far to the left that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
There's such a thing as "Young Republicans" (Score:3)
Demographics are meaningless in this case. Let's say you're right (I have no idea whether you are or not) that, "a majority of conservatives seem to be a bit older (40s and up); a lot of them probably don't even know how to edit a Wikipedia page. . ."
How many people does it take to deface a Wikipedia page? So, even if it's true that most the Repubs have no idea how to change a Wikipedia article, it only takes 1. Or maybe a small handful.
It's sort of like arguing "The majority of muslims aren't radical terro
The ages go with the old truism (Score:3)
If you're 20 and conservative, you don't have a heart.
If you're 40 and liberal, you don't have a brain.