Talk:Paul Revere

Reminder: Please sign all comments. Thank you

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pharylon (talk)

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jds (talk)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redsquareblack (talk)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanW (talk)

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)

Whoa! As it stands right now. Honest people don't rewrite history to fit a demagogue's faulty rhetoric. Cristiana55 20:45, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Okay, well you're entitled to your opinion, but we have no interest in your rants. DMorris 20:49, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Does it matter to you if your article is truthful? Cristiana55 20:52, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Yes it does, but ranting like you're doing is not helping anything. Try this on Wikipedia and see what happens. Same will happen here if you continue to rant. DMorris 20:55, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

They were resisting "Big Government bullying"?!?! Conservapedia - "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". You've got to be f'ing kidding me. Enough said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Lj485 (talk)

Please, vent your spleen, liver, hate and bigotry elsewhere. Rob Smith 22:00, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) User:Lj485's comment is rude but true. It would be well to bear up under abusive language that bears a message worth hearing, imho. Clearly the "Big Government bullying" is not an accurate portrayal of the event. The complaints against the British crown enumerated in the Declaration of Independence do indeed constitute a kind of bullying by a big government, but the term and context are anachronistic while the analogy is inexact. I am unhappily surprised at the hostility displayed to newcomers by those I assume to be established editors. Cristiana55 22:44, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Are youi addressing User:Lj485's trolling or the substance of this article? The cites & sources I just reviewed say Palin articulated Revere's ride accurately. Granted, the idiom "big government" is non-contemporaneous or not in vogue parlance of that era, but CP s an educational resource for the youth of today and that language or narrative is quite effective. I don't see why it cannot be used without giving credit to Palin for her clarification of the facts in this instance. Rob Smith 22:58, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Reversion

Is there a reason this mateial was reverted:

• weapons, and that they would exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms to resist their Big Government bullying .

Rob Smith 22:41, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

See my comment above. I'm happy to answer any further questions. Cristiana55 22:44, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Oh, I didn't quite understand that when viewing from the edit page. The CSM and USM&WR are reliable sources and I didn't intentionally delete them. However, I see nothing in the brief paragraph on Revere that draws from them. Please note that the CSM maintains, "She remains kind of wrong," and USN&WR offers an odd opinion at variance with a quote it highlights smack in the middle of the page: ". . .where he had stopped to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock of the impending attack. . ." The other reference is a blog I myself do not consider a reliable source. You may feel differently and wish to restore it. What confounds me is the effort demonstrated here to adjust the facts to fit Palin's story, which is obviously not spot-on. Cristiana55 22:58, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

See my above comment on a non-contemporaneous phrase. "Big government" can be used without mentioning Palin's name in the mainspace. I don't see where this would be a problem, at all. It nails the historical issues quite effecively, irrespective of whatever an ideological persepective anyone is coming from, then, now, or in the future. Rob Smith 23:05, 7 June 2011 (EDT)