Talk:Paul Revere

Actually, Revere was captured early on. Other riders sent out the warning, but Revere had a name that was easy to rhyme. Czolgolz 14:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

need to cite source for recent edit

Can someone supply a citation or reference for the statement that Revere's intent was to warn the British? RustyR 13:02, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

It's been all over the news the past couple of days, and Palin did produce a historian who agreed with her. I'll see if I can find a good link on it.

I am having trouble understanding the need for the bottom part. Wikipedia already has the liberal version of events. Does Conservapedia need to cover the same ground?

=> Agreed. I just removed it. It was in the wrong section anyway, it clearly wasn't a reference.

Is it acceptable to have totally fabricated history on conservapedia, just because it differs from the "liberal version of the events"? Here is what Revere said *himself* about his ride: "On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets."

He set out to warn Hancock and Adams, not to affirm the 2nd amendment rights against BigGovernment. Don't we look like fools if we just make things up?

Is Paul Revere really the hill on which we want to tussle over political ideology? I reverted it back to the 2009 entry because it seems silly to sacrifice legitimate history in the name of politics.

No offense, but you sound like a conservative in name only to me. Sarah Palin did not "fabricate" history just because the liberal MSM said she did. Facts are facts, and there's an actual historian who agrees with Palin.

I just learned two things about Conservapedia:

• Anybody can join; I'd thought only scholars could.
• It is utterly unscholarly. The Paul Revere article as it stood yesterday and this talk page convince me it is not scholarly, not reliable, not Christian. (Christians are honest.) I'm appalled. Cristiana55 20:43, 7 June 2011 (EDT)