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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
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
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."
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.