Since Friday Wikipedia has gotten heavy traffic on its Paul Revere page, including (reportedly) people going in and changing the entry to match what Sarah Palin said about him. I read what was on there just now, seems pretty straightforward. Nothing about "warning the British."
I thought I'd then have a look at Conservapedia, the web-site set up to be the counter balance to what somebody decided was the liberal bias of Wikipedia. Maybe they'd come up with something "creative" to back up Sister Sarah. When I looked I had to laugh. I guess that site doesn't want to be taken seriously.
Here is the entire entry:
Paul Revere (1734-1818) was a silversmith in colonial America who was very active in Boston-area revolutionary groups such as the Sons of Liberty. He is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, Massachusetts with William Dawes on the night of April 18, 1775 to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were coming to arrest them. Revere was captured before he could reach Concord, but managed to escape.[1][2] His midnight ride was immortalized by a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.[3][4]
Wikipedia has seven full pages. I will say this for the Conservapedia entry: I don't see any bias. So what was their point?
Clearly both sources need amends. We know full well that NRA memeber Paul Revere was on a gun dealers call to action, the British were about to install a 10 minute waiting period on gun show sales, and this wasn't right to deny to gun sellers the right to profit from the ensuing havoc caused by selling to moral and mental miscreants and scofflaws.
ReplyDeletenotacynic:
ReplyDeleteI can just hear Sarah Palin's advisors sitting around a table trying to figure out how to modify the Paul Revere historical account to win gun lobby support for her Presidential aspirations.
Maybe Sarah's true calling is in the classroom. Or maybe she could write a history book. Sarah Palin's History of the United States. Take THAT Howard Zinn!
ReplyDeleteThe woman has no credibility at all and constantly reenforces my view of her with all that she says.
ReplyDeleteShe is unworthy of being given but more than a scant notice - Palin is of no consequence.
Sarge
Unfortunately some 20 million or so of our fellow Americans think she IS consequential, and will vote accordingly. Either for her (if we're lucky, because she can't win) or for whomever she endorses.
ReplyDeleteThe 2012 campaign will certainly be interesting; possibly for it's inanity.
I see Palin and perhaps Trump as third party candidates - maybe even Gingrich.
ReplyDeleteKevin, let the baggers demand she be on the ticket. The first time she says anything - she is history...
Ron
Palin's version no doubt came from David Barton, the same self-styled historian who said the Founding Fathers debated and rejected Darwin's Theory of Evolution some 83 years before he published his work - and 33 years before he was even born.
ReplyDeleteI heard Palin's full comment tonight for the first time. An amazing lack of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Glenn Beck is right to "fear for America," (though for the wrong reasons).
ReplyDelete