Slashdot Mirror
Palin Fans Deface Paul Revere Wikipedia Page
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]'."
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.
12:50 - press return.
Unfortunately those fans don't seem to read books. The 1984 parallel of editing the past to fit the political 'truth' of the moment is lost on them.
There's stuff about it on the discussion page
Don't they know that Conservapedia is their home on the internet, free of the lies and corruption of the liberal filth?
Why don't you check the revision history? Find on page? Really?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I'm guessing you're a fan...In fact, you may actually be her, judging by your meticulous grammar and extraordinary vocabulary.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Have politics ever really focused on social issues, rather than the people(be they bonehead or genius) who support or dismiss them?
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?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
From reading, it appears that based on the edit history, the same people trying to edit the Revere page are frequent (positive) contributors to the Palin page.
today is spelling optional day.
But that was not the purpose of his ride, which Palin claimed. She's retarded. Absolutely retarded.
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/
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.
that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.
From The Boston Herald:
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?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
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 .
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
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/
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.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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."
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Well, why not look at the article's list of changes? If you do that you will stumble on User:Tomwsulcer, , 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. He also posted comments on Sarah Palin's talk page 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?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
You're not allowed to bring researched facts into a Palin discussion!
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.
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, who on his user page includes the following quote:
So, it's pretty obvious that there is more at play than mere correlation.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
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!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Look at the contributions of this user. 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.
I presume you must know that Palin was rightly mocked for her actual quote as well. The "I can see Russia from my house!" bit was a hyperbole meant to ridicule the actual statement for its stupidity.
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.
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
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.
-Styopa
Gingrich. Pro: Took on Bill Clinton. Con: Lost
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
The whole thing is silly. Paul Revere never actually said, "The British are coming!" because that makes no sense......they were all British. He more likely would have said, "The regulars are coming."
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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 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
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?
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.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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
3 million jobs lost - 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...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Actual Transcript:
"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.