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]'."
Hilariously orwellian (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:how they know (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hey editor guy! (Score:3, Interesting)
i've only been around for 23 years.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hilariously orwellian (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
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...
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.
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.
It was the usual ignorant hit job (Score:2, Interesting)
She said Paul Revere on that night warned the British that an armed militia was forming, and to back off. The leftist media slammed her as ignorant. Then it turns out that yes, Paul Revere did warn the British that night, it's right there in his memoirs.
Just like recently she said not to "party like its 1773" just yet. She was slammed for her ignorance that the revolution happened in 1776, one well-known blogger writing "WTF happened in 1773?!" But she was referencing the Boston Tea Party, which indeed happened in 1773.
They want to nail her so bad they show their own ignorance in trying. They are just trying to hard to perpetuate the "Palin is dumb" meme. This is almost as bad as them deriding her for saying she can see Russia from her house, which she never even said.
Not that I like Palin, I could never vote for a religious fundamentalist Intelligent Designer, but it's funny to see this rabidly mad group trying to show its superiority, and in the process showing its inferiority -- to her no less.
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?
Re:Did they 'edit' Britannica too? (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.
Re:I'll take her over this non-achieving political (Score:2, Interesting)
As ill-qualified as Palin is, she's still far better than Obama.
Though she also believes superstition should be taught in science classes, that rape victims should be forced to bear the rapists children and that the US army is on a direct mission from God. This qualifies her for a padded room and not presidency.
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: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...