Talk:Paul Revere/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Sarah Palin-related material

To maintain version control and keep discussion on track I have organized under one first level heading all of the sections about, and inspired by, Sarah Palin's June 2011 comments about Paul Revere. I'll leave to others the question of whether or how the discussion should continue or any of these things should be closed or archived. If anyone would care to mind the page please remove any copyvios or completely impertinent material, and move any redundant new comments to the archived or unarchived section where the discussion is already taking place. If edit volume stays high it's best to tidy up periodically. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dajames, 5 June 2011

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clear not to add Palin comments to Paul Revere article --CutOffTies (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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 ( 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 (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 rung 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)

The Lexington church apparently was one which rang its bell. [[1]]. Is all this of any great import at all? Collect (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Sarah Palin-related discussion: do not continue

Misc. misplaced material

Actually, she got it correct... Yahoo News Would one of you nice, honest wikipedians care to fix it? Maybe even clear out all of the automatic insults from the left leaning 'editors'...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, the IP that keeps editing info showing that Revere did warn the British at some point, is from... wait for it... yep... NBC.... shocking, I know... and a biased journalistic edit at best. ~~ -- (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source

It is not appropriate to add controversial material simply because it is in the current headlines or is a temporarily controversial subject as this one has become. I remind editors that just because a public figure mentions a subject...regardless of whether the remark is accurate or not, does not mean we need to mention it here in Wikipedia. Is it noteworthy in the overall history of Paul Revere? I think not. Is it something that might be appropriate in Sarah Palin's article? Perhaps, but even then, due weight must be taken seriously. Thank You.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's army needs to go away

Your version of history is NOT what really happened and I refuse to allow you guys to twist the truth to fit your ideology. Sarah Palin is the dumbest politician in American history. Not only does she lack the ability to retell history correctly (like Paul Revere's ride) but she can't even name specific magazines and newspapers she reads. All of them? Really, Sarah? Biden makes gaffs but he's certainly not stupid. Sarah is the perfect example of stupid. THIS IS A TALK PAGE, STOP CENSORING ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azwe (talkcontribs) 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You're being "censored" because the purpose of this talk page is the improvement of an article on Paul Revere. If your comment actually said something germane to to that subject, rather than politically charged rhetoric, it wouldn't be censored. (Keeping opinion of Ms. Palin to self.) Magic♪piano 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Telling Sarah Palin's grizzly-robots to stop vandalizing an article is improving it. (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, often it's somewhat nicer to archive than to outright 'remove', so perhaps next time, folks could do that instead.
Note that nothing is ever truly lost, check the "view history" tab to recover comments or information that you feel has been redacted in error.
However, Magicpiano has a pretty good point here. Please don't recover stuff that doesn't have anything to do with editing the article, because, hey, this is an Encyclopedia, and the discussion here should be about just that. If you want to have a more general discussion, use reddit instead: direct link --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC) (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC) And no I don't feel guilty about telling *smarter* people about reddit :-P
Kim, I'm "smarter people" and I didn't even know Reddit had forums. :) Never feel guilty about spreading info. Black Max (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Black Max
All Reddit *is* is "forums", it doesn't "have" anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps just leaving it now to illustrate what the talk page IS NOT FOR is best at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted however, that any comment found to extremely inappropriate can be requested by any editor to a Wiki Admin for permanent removal that can not be recovered. Let's hope things do not get to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest locking this page until the Palin controversy blows over and her supporters lose interest in trying to rewrite the page to conform with her erroneous version of Revere's ride. Black Max (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Black Max

Doesn't look too bad right at this moment. It has been permanently semiprotected since november as it stands (eeeuw). Should that prove to be insufficient, we can always raise the protection level later. Hopefully we can actually unprotect in a few days. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I would certainly agree with locking the page for a little while until the controversy dies down (which has been entirely blown out of proportion by both sides). However, Wiki rules apply to Palin fans the same as anyone else; they are free to add material to the page as long as it is reliably sourced. IIRC, it does look like Palin's supporters have a published source that partially agrees with her version of events, although the concept of relating Revere's ride to gun control or 2nd Amendment rights is nonsense. However in her defense, I think Palin herself was using that as a metaphor - not a literal interpretation of this event. In any case, Palin doesn't claim to be a professional historian so her words don't belong on this page.BuboTitan (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone editing the page to conform to Sarah's version of events should be warned or banned. The page really should be locked. This is a key moment in US history, and people are tweaking it to advance the reputation of a possible presidential candidate. (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, try to edit the article right now, and see what happens. ;-) When you get back to this talk page, note that we're happy to incorporate any suggestions you might have, provided that they are encyclopedic, and you can back them up with sources. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you mention Sarah Palin you're doing it wrong

If you mention Sarah Palin you're doing it wrong. This article is about Paul Revere, a historical figure who died nearly two centuries before Sarah Palin came to prominence. She has absolutely nothing to do with the article. I would expect to see contemporary sources and theories proposed by modern historians, but Sarah Palin is neither here nor there. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Been there, discussed that, got the T-shirt. (see 2 threads up) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Her views on Revere are irrelevant. However, the fact that some politicians throughout history have made a demagogic appeal by referring to the founding fathers is of some interest, although perhaps not relevant to this article. TFD (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not relevant to this article. Any erroneous comments about Revere are relevant to HER page, or better yet a page devoted to Palin's historical errors. The page should be locked to prevent vandalism by her supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarah Palin is intent on destroying wikipedia, isn't she? First we had huge wars over the blood libel article, now this. But Obama's supporters do not support claim that there are 57 states! Amazing!--Milowenttalkblp-r 01:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Bottom Line: YOU CANNOT TWIST FACTS TO MAKE SOMEONE LOOK BETTER!! Palin. Was. Wrong. You do NOT get to rewrite encyclopedia articles to fit her mistake. I can't believe that we are even having this conversation. What is this, North Korea? SemDem (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that depends. Does Sarah want it to be? :-) --Milowenttalkblp-r 12:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A humble suggestion for Sarah Palin fans

If you want to find a source to work into the article, you should search for sources that agree with what Palin said BEFORE she said it. Sarah Palin doesn't belong in this article, because it's an article about Paul Revere not about Sarah Palin, but if you want to bolster her position retroactively you just need to go back to anything released a week ago or more that counts as a RS and bring that to the forefront. --Opcnup (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hang onto those sources that are quoting Palin about this Revere comment. They could come in handy in creating a well sourced article on Palin's verbal missteps. They've certainly received sufficient in depth coverage in reliable 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Somebody PLEASE lock this article! SemDem (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Why? NW (Talk) 01:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a historical report on what Revere did/said: (A Discovery Company) "The British patrols were quite pleased they'd captured the famed Paul Revere, and they questioned him at gunpoint. Revere remained calm and told the troops their plans would be foiled, that the whole countryside was marching at that very moment, ready to fight. The troops escorted Revere back to Lexington, where they heard gunfire. It was just militiamen testing their rifles but it unnerved the British. Realizing they could move faster without prisoners, they released Revere but kept his horse." "My name is Revere. What said he, Paul Revere? I answered Yes. The others abused much; but he told me not to be afraid, no one should hurt me. I told him they would miss their aim. He said they should not, they were only waiting for some deserters they expected down the road. I told him I knew better, I knew WHAT THEY WERE AFTER (emphasis added); that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were caught aground, and I should have 500 men there soon. One of them said they had 1500 coming; he seemed surprised and rode off into the road, and informed them who took me, they came down immediately on a full gallop. One of them (whom I since learned was Major Mitchel of the 5th Reg.) clapped his pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, and if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, and made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid. He then asked me the same questions that the other did, and many more, but was more particular; I gave him much the same answers. " Sam Donald (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Don

Very good, you're only the third person to bring this up. See above. Magic♪piano 02:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking of the versions that were being questioned as being a children's book? This isn't a children's book excerpt. Sam Donald (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Don

I believe the book being referred to is "John, Paul, George and Ben" by Lane Smith. It is a tongue in cheek book about John Hancock, Paul Revere, George Washington and Ben Franklin where Paul Revere is portrayed as the bell ringer in a tower whose hearing is damaged so he yells constantly, often embarrassing his customers by yelling out the size of the underwear they are purchasing in his shop. If you read the back of the book, where Smith states what parts are fact and what parts are fiction, then you see those two pieces are fiction. I would suggest more reputable sources on Paul Revere (obviously). Even the right-leaning editorial perspective in "American Tempest" by Unger is a pretty well written account of the political environment and players in Boston during the revolution years. I would also suggest that those who are still wedded to the whole "British are coming" perspective remember that, at the time, people in America saw themselves as British citizens. The Declaration wasn't signed until *after* Lexington and Concord, so we were still British colonists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikagirl (talkcontribs) 11:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts of the letter are linked in the section preceding this one. Magic♪piano 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In reading through this history, I'm looking for the version where Palin said Revere rode through Boston saying "The Americans are coming" ???? Sam Donald (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Don Sam Donald (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)D

So if I'm understanding this correctly, Paul Revere gave military intelligence to the enemy, and Sarah Palin not only knew about this obscure footnote to history but thought it was admirable and not at all treasonous. Is that about right? Then I guess the only question left is, can we please stop trying turn this into an article about Sarah Palin? She's already got her own! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It's a piece of information that we can source. Whether Palin got it (nearly) right on purpose or by accident is not our problem. Evil tongues (well, keyboards) might claim that a stopped clock is right two times a day. Wiser tongues - or keyboards - might point out that wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and we don't really mind what inspired this search through sources. The point is to make sure the contents of the encyclopedia are correct. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the various discussions above that any discussion of Sarah Palin's comments belongs on her page rather than here. As for the truth of what she said, I'm willing to believe that, after being captured, he goaded his captors by telling them he'd roused his countrymen against them and if they tried anything, they'd be resisted - there's original contemporary material for that. It's manifestly obvious that Palin misstated his purpose, however - he didn't set out to warn the British, and his eventual statements to them were only a "warning" in the same sense as a gang member saying "If you don't leave my turf, I'll shoot you" is a warning. He set out to warn his fellow patriots, and to describe it any other way would be as misleading as describing George W. Bush as a baseball team owner or Barack Obama as a candidate who lost a US House of Representatives election in 2000. (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs protection?

This page may need protection as it looks like it may in the middle of being edited promote a political agenda per but I dont have that sort of power. Belgarath TS (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, imbeciles made it to the Slashdot home! (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes the news Hilarious. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it's sad to see her — and her fans — trying to literally rewrite history. Scartol • Tok 17:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this is a good time to point out WP policy. Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, not venting your personal frustrations. BuboTitan (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Even though your commentary is outside the norm for NPOV, it should be noted that now others do think she had it mostly correct, and Wiki will just show its bias to those that follow the story. One would think that the user/editors of Wiki would learn that bias degrades an otherwise good site. Here is one source of many - Boston Herald Mk (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Please reread the article you cite. The article includes both her comments and the supposed historical justification for them (*after* Revere's capture). They do not match. Trying to claim Palin had any historical basis for her comments remains either dishonest or ignorant. Aside from that, it is also a true statement that Palin "fans" are literally trying to rewrite history, as can be seen from the edits to the Paul Revere page. This of course does not imply that they have Palin's approval, even implicit, for such Orwellian tactics. It would be nice, however, for her to admit her mistake and ask that they cease. Cerberus (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
While that source does say that the part about Revere "warning the British" could be taken with a bit of truth, it certainly didn't happen the way Palin originally described. He only "warned the British" after he was captured, and did so to mislead them. The purpose of his original mission was to warn the colonists that the British were coming, and his covert ride certainly didn't include any bell ringing or gun shots. On another note, does anyone know what drugs Palin uses? They must be good. WTF? (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia should have a strong bias against rewriting history with out good RS's to meet the temporary political needs of any politician. Why wasn't this important to anyone two weeks ago? My guess is that two weeks ago no RS said it. Why isn't it important now? Because no RS seems to have said it. --Opcnup (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Fischer's book (a highly respectable source) was first published in 1994, and it's hardly the first one to detail these events. The fact that it (and other reliable sources on Revere's life) haven't been used to populate this article with verifiable statements doesn't mean they didn't exist. And yes, it apparently wasn't that important to any WP editor two weeks ago, although I've thought for some time that the section on his ride was fairly weak. I thought it was important that a well-sourced version of the relevant events appear here once the kerfuffle started, mainly to forestall the introduction of poorly-sourced misinterpreted versions of those events. (This is irrespective of my opinions of Ms. Palin.) Magic♪piano 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems Paul Revere documented his exchange w/ the British in a letter. But, still laughing at Palin's lame recounting of events. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This has got to be one big joke (and I think Chris Cillizza got the punch line when he wrote the article). I just can't believe that even Palin's supporters would try and add this stuff. We should perhaps consider these edits acts of vandalism. David Straub (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

New references

Primary: [2], Secondary: [3]

Seems to support the British being, in some sense, "warned". --Kvng (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Each source listed, and(I've now had to read) the three books cited as well as accounts by Revere and others, state that he was captured and trying to prevent the British from going into Lexington to capture Whig leaders Hancock and Adams. This whole thing is ridiculous. Let's stop trying to re-write history because of a political flub. Dave Dial (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's consistent with what these new sources say - note my scare quotes. The sources give a first hand account of the nature of this "warning". These details would not normally be notable but recent events clearly have changed that, at least for the short term. --Kvng (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a couple more: Boston Herald, LA Times --Kvng (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be an interesting idea to add a short section about sarah palin's claims followed by the view of most historians to finally put her ignorant comment to rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debunker. Plenty of those exist. Jonathunder (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarah Palin is one of America's most famous politicians, however her views on American history are non-notable since she does not count as an authority on this subject. I suspect that her version of Paul Revere's history might be better put on her own page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This incident may be worth a mention on Palin's page or - were it to be more than this week's crazy story - its own article, but let's not litter every article with all the nonsense spouted on the subject - otherwise many articles would grow to a size unwieldy. rewinn (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hilariously, now reliable sources are reporting on the content of this discussion page. <scratches head> Now what? :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We could take the opportunity to suggest those reliable sources reading this page find some real news, so we can get back to the subject of this article, which has nothing to do with current events. Jonathunder (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be a source of refs for the article about Wikipedia in culture? (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Devil's advocate: How do we know it's "Sarah Palin's army" behind the recent edits?

It could very well be nothing more than anti-Palin pranksters. Somehow, I get the feeling that "Sarah Palin's army" really doesn't give a cuss about Wikipedia. (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No these people who support Palin are a right-wing group of extremist who will stop nothing short of altering history in order to vindicate her inane statements. Also if we are going on "what if"s about who altered the webpage than maybe your right about these "anti-Palin pranksters" because the individual who realistically supports Palin is too inept to operate a computer let alone alter wiki. Cheers! Reddevil1421 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's not forget WP:NOT#FORUM. It doesn't matter who is making the edits except maybe if you are considering Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls. And personal attacks go against WP:Civility anyways.--Jorfer (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, this only started after Palin's remarks, and so it is clearly dependent on the accuracy of her claims. It doesn't depend on who's making the edits, but it would be stupid not to see what is the cause of these edits. - Atfyfe (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No these people who support Palin are a right-wing group of extremist who will stop nothing short of altering history in order to vindicate her inane statements.
There is nothing right-wing about modern American "conservatism". It's just a lagging version of progressivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Experts opine on the Palin stuff

I don't think the Palin stuff belongs in the Revere article, but just for the sake of quelling the argument here - the Boston Herald interviewed some historical experts and they say Palin was correct. Kelly hi! 22:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly relevant for Public image of Sarah Palin#Paul Revere gaffe. Please discuss the issue at Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin#Gaffes. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sarah Palin has about as much to do with a Paul Revere article as Jimmy the Greek does in a slavery article. Just because one person commented on it does not render it worthy of being included on THIS page. As for the saying Palin was correct, two historians said that she might have accidentally gotten one of the facts right, but probably not intentionally.
Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British.
“I suppose you could say that,” Leehey said. “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.”
McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.
“I would call her lucky in her comments,” McConville said.
In other words, just because Revere might have "warned" the British ominously after being captured, didn't mean he rode through the streets "warning" the British of anything. THAT is what Palin said, and THAT is wrong, period. Bill shannon (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No, what she said was wrong. warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’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.” She said he warned the British BY ringing the bells and firing warning shots while riding the horse. Specifically that the warning was in this form, which is totally incorrect and it is laughable that people are defending her ignorance. (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Information on the Sarah Palin event itself

Information on what Sarah Palin said as a media event seems to have found a home at Public image of Sarah Palin#Paul Revere controversy, so for those that are interested in the story itself, there you go. That page also needs to be closely monitored too.--Jorfer (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)