Palin Mangles Paul Revere

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    Sarah Palin was not right.  End of story.

    So she got every detail right but she's not right. That's a head-scratcher.


    Boston Herald articles or conservative bloggers try and defend her

    And the two historians that the Herald article quoted are, what, conservative shills?


    Her word salad was a joke, and doesn't even really work grammatically, to say nothing of historically.

    You're unable to understand what she said so it must be a joke. Got it.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]Sarah Palin was not right.  End of story.  If you asked Obama how many states are in the U.S., he wouldn't say he right, he would say he misspoke.  And if Sarah had copped to saying British instead of colonists, I wouldn't make much of it. But she completely bungled it, and no matter how many Boston Herald articles or conservative bloggers try and defend her, she still was wrong.  If you can't see how what she said was wrong, then you're intellectually dishonest and a blind partisan.  Saying Obama said 57 states doesn't take away from the fact that she is clueless and she won't admit when she was wrong. Maybe history experts can parse her statements to pull out a "British", a "warning", some bells being rung and shots fired all stretched to fit a broad context of Paul Revere.  Her word salad was a joke, and doesn't even really work grammatically, to say nothing of historically.
    Posted by greymouser[/QUOTE]

    Come on!  You have a president that doesn't even know how many states there are, and you are saying that is a mis-statement?  Maybe Obama is unclear as to whether Canada is part of the U.S.?

    Then you have Palin, bungling her way through a statement that is factually correct?  To tell you the truth, I'm surprised she knew that Revere warned the British.  That is generally an unknown part of the story.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : Come on!  You have a president that doesn't even know how many states there are, and you are saying that is a mis-statement?  Maybe Obama is unclear as to whether Canada is part of the U.S.? Then you have Palin, bungling her way through a statement that is factually correct?  To tell you the truth, I'm surprised she knew that Revere warned the British.  That is generally an unknown part of the story.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Don't be silly.  Both Obama and Palin misspoke.  But Palin is too stubborn to admit it and seeks to defend her initial statement.  Revere never intended to warn the Redcoats (not "British", as we were all British at the time) because that would mean he intended on getting captured as opposed to warning the militias. She stumbled into a truth and acts like that was her plan.  Stubborn and dumb are not good qualities.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ProfessorPain. Show ProfessorPain's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : Don't be silly.  Both Obama and Palin misspoke.  But Palin is too stubborn to admit it and seeks to defend her initial statement.  Revere never intended to warn the Redcoats (not "British", as we were all British at the time) because that would mean he intended on getting captured as opposed to warning the militias. She stumbled into a truth and acts like that was her plan.  Stubborn and dumb are not good qualities.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. She got it wrong on several fronts. First she jumbled her delivery. It was an awful articulation of events (regardless of accuracy). Second, the ride was not intended as a warning to the British to not take our arms (as she framed it) but to warn the Colonists about the British---that he was interogated by the British and exagerated the size of the local militia doesn't fit what she said---she framed it as he set out to give  warning to the British about us wanting to keep our guns). Third, she clearly didn't know about Revere being interogated. As Reubenhop said, that came out and she clumsily tried to fit it into her narrative later.

    Does any of this preclude her from serving in office? No. But for god's sake, republicans need to get a  grip on this Palin issue. She could say the most insane, untrue thing in the world and people would rush to her defense griping about the "lamestream media".
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ProfessorPain. Show ProfessorPain's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]But she completely bungled it, and no matter how many Boston Herald articles or conservative bloggers try and defend her, she still was wrong.  ------------------------- Other than Mr Revere's own words, you are on very solid ground
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    Except that isn't the case. She 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."

    The isn't what happened. People found an incident later on that could, maybe, possibly, be argued to say she was right in a way, but it is really a stretch. None of what she said happened. And what Revere did actually was more bluff than warning.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : Don't be silly.  Both Obama and Palin misspoke.  But Palin is too stubborn to admit it and seeks to defend her initial statement.  Revere never intended to warn the Redcoats (not "British", as we were all British at the time) because that would mean he intended on getting captured as opposed to warning the militias. She stumbled into a truth and acts like that was her plan.  Stubborn and dumb are not good qualities.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    She keeps stumbling into the truth, and the left keeps on retracting their claims...

    I'll give you this, she stumbled through the comment, but made no facutal error.  This is the unpardonable sin that the left has foisted upon her:  she did not state the facts boldly enough.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : Don't be silly.  Both Obama and Palin misspoke.  But Palin is too stubborn to admit it and seeks to defend her initial statement.  Revere never intended to warn the Redcoats (not "British", as we were all British at the time) because that would mean he intended on getting captured as opposed to warning the militias. She stumbled into a truth and acts like that was her plan.  Stubborn and dumb are not good qualities.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    As far as whether or not Revere intended to warn the British:  irrelevant, because he did.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : As far as whether or not Revere intended to warn the British:  irrelevant, because he did.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]
    And Palin never said he did intend to! But facts are lost when PDS is involved!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : He wrote another great book on Washington's Crossing  of the Delaware.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the recommendation, I just picked it up.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from lawboy. Show lawboy's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    I find it funny that SP supporters went to Wikipedia to rewrite the "ride of Paul Revere" to match what she said....but this is very typical of the right they always have to rewrite history to cover their lies.





     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    I find it funny that SP supporters went to Wikipedia to rewrite the "ride of Paul Revere" to match what she said....but this is very typical of the right they always have to rewrite history to cover their lies.

    SP supporters went to actual historians and Paul Revere's own words to prove that accuracy of what she said. Palin detractors went to a poem barely remembered from grade school. This is very typical of the left, they always think they know better than anyone else.

     
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]I find it funny that SP supporters went to Wikipedia to rewrite the "ride of Paul Revere" to match what she said....but this is very typical of the right they always have to rewrite history to cover their lies.
    Posted by lawboy[/QUOTE]

    Funny.  If you bothered to look, which you obviously didn't, the wikipedia post was sourced from David Hackett Fischer's book, Paul Revere's Ride, the authoritative book on the subject for anyone interested in knowing the truth.  
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lawboy. Show lawboy's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : Funny.  If you bothered to look, which you obviously didn't, the wikipedia post was sourced from David Hackett Fischer's book, Paul Revere's Ride, the authoritative book on the subject for anyone interested in knowing the truth.  
    Posted by Hingmarsh[/QUOTE]

    Never ASSume Jfred mugg...

    Here's a discussion between Wikipedia editors and Palin fans in the Wikipedia forums:

    In the article on Paul Revere, someone has added false information in an effort to support Sarah Palin's FALSE claims about Paul Revere.

    "Accounts differ regarding the method of alerting the colonists; the generally accepted position is that the warnings were verbal in nature, although one disputed account suggested that Revere rang bells during his ride.[8][9]"

    This must be removed as it is a LIE designed to mislead. dj

    Dajames (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    A lie? If you follow Wikipedia's rules, we must maintain a WP:NEUTRAL position, representing the mainstream position as well as disputed versions. I think the addition represents this fairly -- the mainstream position is that Revere's warnings were verbal, but there are differing accounts that the warnings were done with bells -- with two sources: WDHD television plus a live interview, with a highly influential US politician relating these facts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Yes Done. Thank you, I removed the content not backed by a reliable source. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    I kindly remind people that it's not our job here at Wikipedia to decide what's true, but to report what reliable sources say, such as the LA Times, WDHD TV in Boston, numerous others. And they quoted an American politician saying that bells were used. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

     

    Tomwsulcer - You should be kindly reminded that it’s not your job to debase Sarah Palin’s wiki page with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin) your version of the occurrence for political reasons. The left leaning bias on Wiki is well known, but these types attacks are over the top. Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

     

    It's not the LA Times that's questionable as a reliable source, it's Palin herself. Even if the Times (& others) quoted her accurately, her off-hand, poorly-informed view doesn't belong here, per WP:UNDUE, and I have reverted. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Sarah Palin is a former governor of Alaska as well as a presidential candidate of one of the two national parties in the United States. Her account of Paul Revere's famous ride has achieved national attention from most mainstream media -- LA Times, CNN, you name it. There are numerous reliable sources quoted her exact words on this subject. This article has HUGE attention (55K readers in one day) as a result. Clearly, there should be some mention given its obvious importance. And I remind people, kindly, that it's not up to us contributors to determine who is and isn't a "poorly informed view" and to try to determine truth. Rather, Wikipedia is about verifiability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Here's Palin's remark via the LA Times & CNN: Sarah Palin on Paul Revere's ride
    It doesn't tell the reader looking for information on Paul Revere anything useful. Vice Presidential candidate, please. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with Hertz's edit, also please read wp:RECENT for yet another reason why this has no place here. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

    Paul Revere may have rang some bells on his ride, but does any mainstream historian believe that Paul Revere had any intent to warn or scare the British in any way? I have never heard this, except from Palin. All accounts I have read say that Revere and Dawes were trying their best to avoid being noticed by the British, who would likely capture them immediately if found. --Westwind273 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : Never ASSume Jfred mugg... Here's a  discussion between Wikipedia editors and Palin fans in the Wikipedia forums : In the article on Paul Revere, someone has added false information in an effort to support Sarah Palin's FALSE claims about Paul Revere. "Accounts differ regarding the method of alerting the colonists; the generally accepted position is that the warnings were verbal in nature, although one disputed account suggested that Revere rang bells during his ride.[8][9]" This must be removed as it is a LIE designed to mislead. dj Dajames  ( talk ) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC) A lie? If you follow Wikipedia's rules, we must maintain a  WP:NEUTRAL  position, representing the mainstream position as well as disputed versions. I think the addition represents this fairly -- the mainstream position is that Revere's warnings were verbal, but there are differing accounts that the warnings were done with  bells  -- with two sources: WDHD television plus a live interview, with a highly influential US politician relating these facts.-- Tomwsulcer  ( talk ) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)   Done . Thank you, I removed the content not backed by a  reliable source . -- CutOffTies  ( talk ) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC) I kindly remind people that it's not our job here at Wikipedia to decide what's true, but to report what reliable sources say, such as the LA Times, WDHD TV in Boston, numerous others. And they quoted an American politician saying that  bells  were used. -- Tomwsulcer  ( talk ) 15:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)   Tomwsulcer - You should be kindly reminded that it’s not your job to debase Sarah Palin’s wiki page with ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin ) your version of the occurrence for political reasons. The left leaning bias on Wiki is well known, but these types attacks are over the top. Mk  71.228.77.211  ( talk ) 20:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)   It's not the LA Times that's questionable as a reliable source, it's Palin herself. Even if the Times (& others) quoted her accurately, her off-hand, poorly-informed view doesn't belong here, per  WP:UNDUE , and I have reverted.  Hertz1888  ( talk ) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Sarah Palin  is a former governor of  Alaska  as well as a presidential candidate of one of the two national parties in the  United States . Her account of Paul Revere's famous ride has achieved national attention from most mainstream media -- LA Times, CNN, you name it. There are numerous  reliable sources  quoted her  exact words  on this subject. This article has HUGE attention (55K readers in one day) as a result. Clearly, there should be some mention given its obvious importance. And I remind people, kindly, that it's not up to us contributors to determine who  is  and  isn't  a "poorly informed view" and to try to determine truth. Rather, Wikipedia is about  verifiability .-- Tomwsulcer  ( talk ) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Here's Palin's remark via the LA Times & CNN:  Sarah Palin on Paul Revere's ride It doesn't tell the reader looking for information on Paul Revere anything useful.  Vice  Presidential candidate, please.  Hertz1888  ( talk ) 15:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC) I agree with Hertz's edit, also please read  wp:RECENT  for yet another reason why this has no place here. -- CutOffTies  ( talk ) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Paul Revere may have rang some bells on his ride, but does any mainstream historian believe that Paul Revere had any intent to warn or scare  the British  in any way? I have never heard this, except from Palin. All accounts I have read say that Revere and Dawes were trying their best to avoid being noticed by the British, who would likely capture them immediately if found. -- Westwind273  ( talk ) 15:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    Posted by lawboy[/QUOTE]

    The part I referenced from Wikipedia was posted there from Fischer's book.  If the editors removed that, they really don't know what they're doing.  Plus there's plenty of Palin haters in that conversation you posted.  

    Try actually reading the book or going to Mass Historical society and look at Revere's letter to Belknap.  The only thing Palin actually got wrong was part of the reason for his ride was to warn the British.  Other than that, she had a fairly accurate gist of what happened.  Revere was captured by British Regulars and did warn them the colonists knew what the British' plan was (1 to capture Hancock and Adams, 2 to confiscate the munitions in Concord) and there were going to be 500 armed colonists waiting for them.  Revere was full of * and vinegar and was doing some 18th century trash talking that no way they were taking their guns and powder without a fight, which he really probably wanted to avoid.  The thing that psyched them out was they didn't really know what their mission was and here was this 'peasant' taking over the conversation telling them why they were really there.  Most thought it was one of Gage's training missions.

    As far as the colonists alarm system goes, no Revere didn't actually ring bells but within minutes of him or the other riders warning each town's Whig leader, the alarms were going off in the form of guns, drums and bells and could be heard for miles. It was that alarm 'system' that brought all the militia running to muster. So it was his and the other rider's warning that set off the alarms.   



     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]The only thing Palin actually got wrong was part of the reason for his ride was to warn the British.  Other than that, she had a fairly accurate gist of what happened.   ------------------------ Ding! I've sasid she got lucky, and I've also said that when you call the blind squirrel wrong on the one time its right, your dumber than the luck squirrel. And they keep drillin' Its fun to watch
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    It is, isn't it?  The 'stupid' Sarah Palin knew something most of them didn't and they can't stand it.
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from lawboy. Show lawboy's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    I don't care if SP was accurate or not I was pointing what her supporters were doing on Wikipedia. 





     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]I don't care if SP was accurate or not I was pointing what her supporters were doing on Wikipedia. 
    Posted by lawboy[/QUOTE]

    Talk about being at the train station when your boat comes in...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere : It is, isn't it?  The 'stupid' Sarah Palin knew something most of them didn't and they can't stand it.
    Posted by Hingmarsh[/QUOTE]

    They should be used to that by now.


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Big_Bad_Jim. Show Big_Bad_Jim's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]Now they go to, "he didn't ring bells". Ya think? The guys with bells rang them. Can I get a duhhhhhhh!!!!
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    Boy do you and some of the other posters sound ignorant about American History...scary because this is a site in Boston.  Never bothered to go over to Old North  and learn a few things...eh?  Palin was right and when I heard her I admired that she tried to summarize Paul Revere's history and link it to her politics.   Here is a link to the Vicar of Old North who says Palin was right:
    http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1344806 PS  Wiki is fun but it is not considered citable by any reliable source.


     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Big_Bad_Jim. Show Big_Bad_Jim's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    lawboy and others insult America by distorting its history.  Palin was right.  Here is a link to an interview with the chair of the Hist. Dept at Suffolk U. (those in Boston should know where it is located).  He says Palin is right and gives a good summary of the history.  Uh, lawboy, this is on NPR....hardly a 'right' source.  Note Prof says that there was no interest in subject until Palin....Disgusting that the Media and posters know so little about this subject.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    In Response to Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere:
    [QUOTE]lawboy and others insult America by distorting its history.  Palin was right.  Here is a link to an interview with the chair of the Hist. Dept at Suffolk U. (those in Boston should know where it is located).  He says Palin is right and gives a good summary of the history.  Uh, lawboy, this is on NPR....hardly a 'right' source.  Note Prof says that there was no interest in subject until Palin....Disgusting that the Media and posters know so little about this subject. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere
    Posted by Big_Bad_Jim[/QUOTE]

    If you think that Palin knew that Revere was captured and told the British of the alarm going out then you really are either overly charitable, dim or an ideologue.  She mumbled and stumbled her way into a historical truth. There is no way she knew this history ahead of time. She clearly thought that Revere's PLAN was to warn the British of the alarm and that is far from the truth.

    I also think the Professor was far too charitable to Palin.  Revere's job was to warn the colonists of the coming of the regulars. He had no intention of warning the regulars of the coming of the colonists: such a goal would obviously intefere with the first effort.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Palin Mangles Paul Revere

    She mumbled and stumbled her way into a historical truth.

    And yet Sarah was accurate in her off the cuff remarks about Revere and her critics, who had the benefit of time to research the matter, were wrong. If you think that she somehow accidentally hit upon a historical truth that is completely counter to the common knowledge of the matter then you are being incredibly partisan to such a degree that your credibility in this matter is completely compromised.


    He had no intention of warning the regulars of the coming of the colonists: such a goal would obviously interfere with the first effort.

    Now who is garbling history? No one has said the Revere "warned the regulars of the coming of the colonists." According to Revere himself he told the regulars that the colonists had been warned and that there were 500 armed colonists waiting for them. He doesn't give his reason for doing is but I would guess that it was in an effort to keep them from executing what he thought was their plan to arrest Hancock and Adams and possibly avoid bloodshed.





     

Share