Talk:Paul Revere/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Paul Revere's Warning On The Midnight Ride

Hythem

Contrary to popular belief, Paul Revere's warning on the Midnight Ride was not "The British are coming!" The majority of the colonists were British themselves, so it would not have made any sense. His warnng was, however, either, "The Redcoats are coming!" or, as the article says, "The regulars are coming out!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.253.9 (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We're doing the man down here.... the version we're all referring to is based on the poem by Longfellow published in 1861 - "Paul Revere's ride". In reality, the raising of the rural population was the work of many messengers riding out from Boston - including Revere (who sadly was caught by British officers). Paul Revere's greatest feats were earlier in the revolution - for example, September he rode from Boston to Philadelphia informing the First Continental Congress that the Massachusetts country-side had erupted in rebellion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.234.2 (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC) r.

Revere's work for the revolution, as part and party can be taken as fact (to many sources are in agreement that were contemporaries of this period, while the exact wording uttered by the riders is going to be always in question)The ride of Revere and others in the warning of troop movement by the Regular army is without question for the purpose of warning the populace of probable action of a negative military value for the Rebels (i.e, Detrimental to the militia, its leaders and sympathizers to the cause of self rule). The page as it now stands is as factual as can be expected, and any changes must be on the basis of historical work done by those who are peered reviewed and substantive, not utterances made over two hundred years after the fact without supportive historical evidence. I place this here to add my opinion that the article is within the bounds of history, and that such is not myth. While history has been proved to be 'changeable'by those whom wish to do so for many reasons (good or bad)it then leaves the science of history and becomes something else entirely, a disservice to mankind, the title of which i'll leave to others. (Wildancrazy159 (talk))

The poet Henry Longfellow inserted Revere's name in place of Israel Bissell. Paul Revere was a well-known colonial artist and silversmith. It was not his job to warn American colonists of dangers. Source: The True Story of Paul Revere by Charles Gettemy http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/revere/

WP:COPYVIO redacted - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

From "The Real Story of Revere's Ride" http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.236.234 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, can we remove that ridiculous "the colonists themselves were British" line, even if yes, we all know and it's historically sourced they were legally British subjects/citizens at the time? Just because they were legally British subjects, does NOT mean they would have been "confused" by being told that the British are coming, and the source cited does not support THAT claim. They clearly understood the difference between themselves, as colonists, and the British, and Revere himself referred to the loyalists as "Americans" and to the British, as, well, "British." Saying they would have been confused by it is like saying that Canadians and Indians, prior to 1950s, would be confused by mentions of "the British" because they themselves were British subjects at the time. Come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.94.157 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The citation of Fischer, p. 110, does indeed address the issue of British citizenship of the colonists, but nowhere on that page does it make the claim that Paul Revere did not shout the warning because the mission depended on secrecy. The statement that "largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols, appears to have been added in the 16:17, 28 January 2007 edit without any citation being given to support it.

The first citation for that sentence was added 14:4, 6 June 2011, but that citation only supports the claim that the "British is coming" would not have been used because the colonists were British. Although it certainly makes sense that Revere would not have shouted the warning because of secrecy, the cited source says nothing that supports that claim. Priodontes (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

About his silverware

IIRC, his work in silver are considered to be desirable collectibles. I don't know if this is solely due to historical connections, or if they are works of art in their own right. Are there any reliable sources which discuss his silverware as pieces of art/why they have value? -- llywrch (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Any good quality 250-year-old silver is likely to be valuable. Here is an example of a Revere piece for sale for only $800,000: [1] and another selling for 1.25 million euros: [2]. Art musuems and dealers claim that his silverwork was quite good[3] but certainly much of the value comes from the famous name. Rmhermen (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My family has in its possession a collection of revere spoons which were worth $710,000 USD however I would no know where or how to cite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.186.81 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The weapons in Concord were safe

This sentence needs some explanation if it is to be included:

They did not worry about the possibility of regulars marching to Concord, since the supplies at Concord were safe...

Unless it's speaking to their state of mind, i.e., they thought they were safe. Ileanadu (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The supplies in Concord had been hidden after a previous rumor of army movements. Revere was aware of this, and may have been the messenger on that occasion as well. source Magic♪piano 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can some one please revert SM8900's edit? The cites he has, numbers 20 and 21, are spurious as can be seen here http://books.google.com/books?id=-r6sNI9dUfYC&q=133#v=snippet&q=john%20greenwood&f=false

There's nothing on those pages about being captured or even Lexington for that matter. 12.200.40.250 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Declined. Try looking at the proper source. Magic♪piano 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we make our replies to the anonymous traffic we're receiving for this article a little more friendly and helpful and a lot less rude, like this reply is? Keegan (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My Apologies. I thought the cite was from Paul Revere and the World He Lived in. Sorry to have been a bother 12.200.40.250 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Caption to image of Boston Massacre print had a false attribution

In what could very well have originated as an act of vandalism, the illustration using the classic depiction of the Boston Massacre was falsely described as an engraving by Revere based on a drawing by "Paul Walker (1735-1818)". Well, of course those dates are Paul Revere's dates. There is no "Paul Walker". "Walker" is the surname of Revere's second wife. Revere did copy a drawing, and the person who made the drawing was named Henry Pelham. Dale Chock (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read this in an article on the net. I actually think it is interesting and the whole of the story very pertinent to this article!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR Possibilities during "Palin Incident"

I'd like to point out that a few editors are within an edit of breaking 3RR on 6 June. This is no doubtingly going to continue for awhile, which is why I figured it worth a talk page mention. Exemptions can be seen at WP:3RR, and generic edit warring certainly isn't covered. In fact, it's basically why 3RR exists. The only thing close to justification could be argued as "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)... for which this isn't. 3RR is usually a "no exceptions, ever, except vandalism, period" thing. Removing sourced information or adding dubious sources isn't vandalism by our definition. Report edit warring through dispute resolution if 3RR becomes an actual "issue" (I use the term very loosely). ♪ Tstorm(talk) 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

More to the man than just the ride

Let's try to remember this is actually the article about the man, Paul Revere and not just the ride on the 18th of April. We can expand other sections as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Brand new section deleted — how and why? Edit record of this Talk page corrupted

Within the last 24 hours, I followed up an article edit with a new Talk page section. That section is now missing. Apparently, in the tumult of the controversy over edits by Palin supporters, some material — like mine — not pertaining to the controversy got deleted. I repeat, my new section had nothing to do with the controversy. What the hell has happened to it? Thank you. Dale Chock (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted without explanation within minutes of posting; quite likely the victim of an edit conflict. Restored above in roughly correct chronological position. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Occupation

{{edit request}} Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere#Places_and_institutions_named_after_Paul_Revere there is a beach named after him too Revere Beach, one of the first public beaches.

His occupation is listed as "silversmith, patriot". I have little doubt that patriot could describe Revere, but is it really an occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.127.34 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no federal government to be employed by, it would seem appropriate to call those who sought to create one partiots.

3goner (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence Revere sought to create an American federal government, at least not in the 1770s. The colonies were at most a loose and weak federation until 1789. rewinn (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Is Partiot a portmanteau with idiot? In any case, the correct word is "traitor", since he did have a legitimate government against which he was in rebellion. The Tories were "patriots".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.2.189 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's an "occupation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oort1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere was a subject of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the King of England and rebelled against them both. 'Rebel' would therefore be more appropriate than 'Patriot'. Stil not an occupation as he was not paid to do it. --filceolaire (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC

If you actually click on the link, you'll see it takes you to Patriot (American Revolution). Throwaway85 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Patriot" IS an occupation. An Occupation is "an activity in which one engages". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiukadan (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That definition is not relevant to this discussion. In context, "occupation" refers to the primary means by which one earns a living. If Revere's occupation is listed as "patriot", then so much be that of hundreds or thousands of others, which would pretty much make the information useless. You might as well list his occupation as "breathing oxygen". rewinn (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be more apt to say Patriot is not an occupation, I would say the better idea would be to have silversmith be his sole occupation. I would say him being a Patriot, Rebel, (traitor) would be more in line with a Category such as Faction or Affiliation rather then occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delerain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word patriot under occupation or even to characterize Revere generally at all immediately hit me as odd. The British, the only legitimate government at that time in that area came to consider him a traitor. I suggest the more neutral and accurate phrase American Revolutionary. That is an occupation and descriptive of Revere's other vocation. I am going to stick my neck out here and try this minor edit. I won't fight if anyone objects but I think it is more accurate and more salient. --Michalchik (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

NPR: Sarah + Paul, ...

NPR has weighed in on her statements -- http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere

Starting a new section hoping to contain the uproar. The article needs to improve, she's not a historian, and barely historical. But we need to be encyclopedic regardless of our opinion of her. htom (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Might belong on the Sarah Palin page, but it doesn't belong here. RxS (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that Sarah Palin's opinion on Paul Revere has absolutely no place in this article, regardless of the amount of coverage it gets. Numerous policies support my assertion...NOTNEWS, NPOV... Isn't there an article on Sarah Palin's bus tour? If there is, this controversy belongs there. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

He was referring to what she said two days later on Fox not her comments that started this controversy. Qunniq

Not sure it matters, either way it's the wrong page. RxS (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already here Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Paul_Revere_controversy 24.241.241.10 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia looks at all things from an encyclopedic, meta historical perspective-- rather, always asking the question "is that encyclopedic content?" ...In the scope of Paul Revere's history, this "controversy" is meaningless. The Palin page (a BLP, which is a fluid article where change is continuous) is the proper place for it. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In the News

NBC is talking about this controversy in terms of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.241.10 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The ride section needs to be edited down

I've got three degrees, but this article is so verbose, with so many unexplained names and situations and unfocused detail that I can still barely understand what the ride was really about.

The section about the ride needs severe editing, and the point of it needs to be summarized in one or two sentences near the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhD (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's much too long and its grown simply to get Palin inspired "details" in, not because the added details improve understanding or clarity. Gcherrits (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for handling the vandalism

I noticed that there has been a flood of edits to the Paul Revere page in the wake of Sarah Palin's gaffe. I understand the page is now semi-protected but rather than go through the edits one at a time, why not revert the page to its June 3 status, delete any accounts that made their first edit to the Paul Revere article after June 3, and then unlock the article in a month or so when this settles down?

I, by the way, am probably a terrible example of Wikipedia user, being a minor vandal on occasion. But I have great respect for what you people do. Keep up the good work. And as I am sure this doesn't conform to proper posting procedures I expect it will be deleted very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverZero (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was autoprotected since november, so the number of first edits to this article since then = 0 --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposal above suggesting just that...to rv to June 3 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE L O C K T H E F R E A K I N G A R T I C L E!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.27.220 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We've had it semi-protected since November. Don't trust everything the newspapers say. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles about this era of American history are prone to vandalism, probably by bored school children. Some uncontroversial articles are on long-term semi-protection due to puerile vandalism. I'm sure this was one of them.   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the main page in edit mode, yes, it was locked due to excessive vandalism. The comment there shows as: 16:28, 19 November 2010 Courcelles changed protection level of Paul Revere [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (link). I think people who are *today* saying "lock the page" are overreacting. The page as a whole is clearly improving from the attention it is receiving. Kudos to all involved. Eddiekuns (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

This article has some extremely serious problems with historical accuracy. I'm not a fan of the wiki format and don't allow my students to use it as a reference. The fact that this article remains online as morphed to meet the odd narrative of Ms. Palin means countless students from other classes may be accessing faulty history. Please take down this page until the confrontation passes. A new page can then be developed when the politicos have moved on to other issues. Thank you. A degree-holding Ph.D. in Colonial America. --50.90.176.215

Sir/Ma'am, that's excellent, can you help us fix it? We're looking for more sources to help correct any remaining inaccuracies. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the article is better for the recent attention. I appreciate the extra details on the midnight ride. --Nowa (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that this tempest-in-a-Revereware-teapot illustrated brilliantly to students the malliable nature of history? People have always tried to re-write history, but now wikipedia enforces the documentation of the rewriting. This is an improvement over the former method, by which the owners of printing presses (or, earlier, colleges of scribes) did the re-writing in secret. Please "degree-holding Ph.D." use this as a teaching moment! rewinn (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

-- The additions are veering well away from the topic. They are clearly added to support the Palin narrative othwise there would be no reason to insert tangential stuff about bells that belong in a book or very long form media. Such detail does not belong on a wikipedia page. Why add the bell details and not a hundred other details? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcherrits (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

-- REVERT TO JUNE 3 AND LOCK Gcherrits (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually they were not added to support the Palin narrative. (I should know, since I added them.) They were added to give a reputable account of these events, so that disreputable accounts would not have a place to flourish. People can now argue (in a different forum, please) about how well Palin's account of things squares with reality. If you think something presented here is inaccurate, please detail exactly what you think is inaccurate, and explain why you think it to be inaccurate. That way we are more likely to be able to fix it. (And yes, I am adding a hundred other details.) Magic♪piano 01:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch for MagicPiano, hes written dozens of high class (GA and higher) articles on colonial history. Though i could care less about the current controversy, it is interesting to note that technically everyone in British North America was a British subject and people in the United States were still considered by the UK government to be British subjects until 1783 (hence why so many loyalists were allowed to be resettled in the maratime canadian provinces). From a degree holding political scientist.XavierGreen (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I will further vouch for MagicPiano as the one who removed all unsourced information originally and was slowly returning it with references when he speed up the process immensely! The references are reliable, published sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Attention Wikipedia has received on Wikipedia

As was suggested earlier on this talk page, I have started a section on the Wikipedia in culture page about the coverage of Wikipedia in this media event: Wikipedia in culture#Political battleground. Though I said this earlier, the Sarah Palin part of the event is covered at Public image of Sarah Palin#Paul Revere controversy.--Jorfer (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

One might want to take it easy. It was portrayed as a battleground in the media, but I have a feeling that the excitement was slightly overblown. Want to help with analysis, to see what actually happened? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

From a check of the page history (ironic, isn't it?), I think it was overblown too. I have definitely seen much more contentious debates on Wikipedia. I am just reporting it as portrayed in the culture, since the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth WP:V). A thorough analysis of the issue at this point would be a violation of WP:OR.--Jorfer (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. And you're not allowed to use wikipedia as a source anyway <grmph>. That said, OR doesn't apply to talk pages or the project namespace, so we're still allowed to do an analysis; and we probably should, too. Negative news isn't a Good Thing: maybe we can even get said analysis published as part of a retraction in the newspapers, at which point, you could list it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the signpost will post an article on the media attention; it would be useful to Phoebe and those editors if we've already done some analysis. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It was rather overblown and for whatever it's worth I offered my own take on another site, the Daily Kos, however I am not sure that it's even notable enough for them to pick up. Just a diary of events.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Now Palin fans are messing with the article

There has been much discussion on this page about Palin fans twisting this article to fit her political flub, and make it seem as if she did not get the obvious facts wrong about Paul Revere's ride. Which,of course, she did. The removal of sourced material(1,2,3,4) is an obvious attempt to make it seem as if Revere was 'warning' the British, when in fact by every reliable source in the article he was bluffing the British and trying to direct them away from Lexington, and more precisely away from Whig leaders Hancock and Adams. Which was part of one of his missions. I quote from the source in this article.

“ Paul Revere had a particular objection in mind.Everything, without exception, that he said and did to his captors was consistent with a single goal. He was trying to move their men away from Lexington - away from Hancock and Adams. Revere had reason to believe that the mission of the patrol was to arrest those two Whig leaders. He warned the British officers that if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington Green, they also would be in extreme danger, and he hinted that the expedition coming after them could start a war unless it was warned of the trouble that awaited them at Lexington center. In fact, trouble was gathering for them in many places that night, but Revere stressed only one place in particular-Lexington, where he had left Hancock. and Adams.

It was a remarkable performance. The soldiers listened carefully to Paul Revere, increasingJy quiet and pensive. Then they withdrew' a little way and began to talk among themselves. Suddenly they returned to Revere, and ordered him to mount. Another officer went to the captive Sanderson, who remembered that they "ordered me to untie my horse (which was tied to a little birch) and mount."

”

There was absolutely no valid reason to remove the sourced material, other than it contradicting the version of events being currently propagated by those sympathetic to Sarah Palin. Grasping at straws, I would guess. In any case, this is unacceptable for a Wikipedia article, especially an article that is being used by many people all over the world to gain information about one of America's legends. Could some rational editor please restore the removed, sourced material? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, there's also a case to be made that others have come to this page specifically to refute Palin. Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the Boston Herald article I linked above, about Brendan McConville and an historian at the Paul Revere House agreeing with Palin. Kelly ^hi! 00:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Sarah freaking Palin and her distorted, obviously wrong, views on Paul Revere's ride. It has to do with YOU, and a couple other editors, removing sourced, cited material from the article for no reason other than to try to minimize Palin's flub. What possible reason do you have for removing the SOURCED material that has everything to do with Paul Revere's ride? Other than you didn't like what the source states. Dave Dial (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also curious about people removing sourced content here. That's the only thing I have any interest in. I'd cool it. I'd say that anyone removing content had better come here first with a pretty good reason. RxS (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin may be a bubblehead in a lot of ways, no question. But I try to remain objective and honest (traits lacking in most of humanity I notice...like Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, etc). According to drones like Maher, Revere never warned the British at all. Because he is so used to hearing it as Paul warning the colonists, etc...with "the British are coming!" The problem is that if he just did a little further checking (even on this very Wikipedia article itself...BEFORE it was edited or elaborated supposedly by "Palin supporters") it could be seen that Revere was ARRESTED by the British, and that Paul DID tell the British of the colonists' armies movements, and "dangers to the British." And in effect "warning the British." And just how exactly was it not a "warning"? Uptight over words? cuz of obvious bias against Palin maybe?

So I ask (even if Sarah mixed things up slightly in her wording, making the warning while Revere was "riding"), just how in overall substance was what she said totally inaccurate? The point is simple. Did or did not Revere speak to the British at ANY point, in that whole situation, about opposing armies against them? And basically to stay away, etc etc? And basically "warn" the British?

The answer is YES...Revere actually did, in a very real sense. But according to O'Donnell or Maher, etc, Revere never warned the British at all, at any point. From one dumb extreme to another. Sarah was NOT totally wrong, is my point. She wasn't totally correct, in mixing the events, sloppily. I'll grant you that. But you act as if what she said had ZERO merit at all. You said that it's not a "warning"...even when he was captured. OF COURSE IT WAS A "WARNING". At least at that point. Revere told the Brits to stay away, cuz of "danger." Sounds like a uh "warning" to me.

So again, I ask, (in the spirit of total objectivity with someone I do NOT like at all...and in fact have blogged against Sarah Palin over the years...with her gun-loving nonsense and war-mongering, etc)...where exactly in this case was the big horrendous "flub" in the sense of some "warning" even after Revere was arresed? or "mess-up" or "she does not know who Paul Revere was" or Maher's "errghh, Revere warned the British??? how stupid of her..." Paul DID warn the British. After he was arrested. Palin did not make that clear...because Sarah is Sarah. lol... But there's no "total re-writing" of history per se, just a jumbling of facts. But the "warning of the British" by Paul was a historical fact, in some real sense, cuz it actually happened at a point. Just cuz there may have been some ELABORATION of the actual fact of Paul's words to the British after his capture. Fanatical Palin-haters...you need to simmer down a bit, stay fair and honest, and get over it. If Sarah was not 100% right in her wording, she WAS BASICALLY right in her point of "Paul warned the British." Even if she wrongly put it as part of his "ride". Paul warned the British TOO, after they arrested him. Peace out....Watercolor Merger 03:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're looking for the Sarah Palin article. What she did or didn't say about what Paul Revere did or didn't do isn't the slightest bit relevant to this article. RxS (talk) 04:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I create these sections with Sarah's name in them? Why not crow to those who did the nonsense you just wrote me?

You CAN'T be serious. What?? Your comment right here was so incredibly non-sensical, it's like not funny.

First...I did NOT create these sections with Sarah Palin's name on it, and whining about supposed "flubs" and "re-writing of history" etc. That's everyone else. So if that's the case, why didn't you write your weird comment to THEM? Since they're the ones who are on about this nonsense? Number two: in case you're not paying attention, this article "Paul Revere" is what's under discussion, as to Sarah's supposed "flub"... And since others have been bringing this up FIRST...I merely commented trying to balance things out a tad or two. And it's related to the article (as I made clear) about "Paul warned the British too, after he was captured." What part of any of this is unclear to you? That you would be possessed to snarl at me the junk you just did, while ignoring the other editors who have been groaning against "Sarah supporters" and whatever else? Watercolor Merger 05:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As RxS mentioned, the article you are looking for is that way. Please do not try to torture the Paul Revere article with the unique stylings that Mrs. Palin puts on history. LHM 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, I loathe Sarah Palin. I think she's a dangerous ignoramus who's gotten as far as she has through base manipulation. So I don't appreciate hearing that the only reason I'm trying to alter the above section is to match her ignorant and stubborn point of view.

I'm trying to change the section regarding Revere's capture and what he said and did with the British soldiers because it's bad. The sentences are redundant in many places, the writing choppy and it makes assumptions about Revere's motivations (while he certainly was not trying to "warn the British," we can't say his sole motivation was to save Hancock and Adams. Many sources have claimed he did so to save his own skin). The previous version was more encyclopedic, cohesive and well-written; that's why I changed it. Not to somehow kowtow to Palin's revisionist zombies.

I still don't like the way it's currently written, and think it should be changed and improved. I'm all for including language that clearly indicates who exactly Revere was warning, and what his MISSION was, but I'd prefer it left out unverifiables like his MOTIVATION for specific actions. I'm bringing to the talk page because I don't want to exacerbate an edit war, but work needs to be done. The Cap'n (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely believe that Sarah Palin got her facts confused. She does that. Her quote was recorded, and you can listen to it for yourself: she was wrong. But if it's true that Revere was briefly captured by the British, and that the town having been warned influenced the next actions of the British soldiers, that should be included in the article. The original sources need to be examined more closely. Obviously the INTENT of the famous Midnight Ride was to warn the colonists. But I don't find it impossible to believe that, knowing that a certain town knew they were coming, the British might be hesitant to attack there. The point of attacking in the middle of the night is generally to surprise people.

So anyway, if the facts are true, they need to be in here - free of speculation about secondary motives that have not been verified, just the facts. And if they're not true, if we can confirm that those sources are specious, the non-facts should be added to the historical section of the Urban Legends page, and link to it from one of the "See Also" sections. - 76.102.94.62 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OK - I'm trying to get this straightened up just for my own curiosity..

First off, I was under the impression this guy was only of minor importance for warning US that THEY (the British) were coming.. and that Paul Revere's actual contributions to the American Revolution were for the most part so insignificant that he isn't even considered a Founding Father.

The article now claims his ride to be a "LEGENDARY" part of our history though.. for his warning that the British were coming.. (as in the guy was looking out for OUR side) Now many are suggesting it was the other way around? Paul Revere was actually warning the British about what we were up to? I'm bewildered! Did he not know himself what side he was on?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

--Dogma5 (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dogma5: Even though the servers are located in Florida, please remember that this is an international encyclopedia, so "our side" can be somewhat of an ambigous term to use here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with inserting new and accurate details into the article. However I have a big problem with writing history backwards from the point of view of Sarah Palin's speech. This is a historical American figure and event, we shouldn't be helping democrats or republicans score political points. This article isn't about proving or disproving the accuracy of Sarah Palin's statement. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If we take this road....

Shouldn't we be discussing and mentioning in the article that Revere was considered a traitor for giving out this information? [4] It's completely referenced as well. Isn't that where this road leads after all. Nuetrality would almost insist it be added. It isn't OR. It's right there discussing Richard Bissell's quote that Revere was a coward and a traitor for singing like a canary to his captures Captors (Yes....I can't spell and I missed this in proof. One doesn't need to be incivil about such things!). Well?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So we should give the same weight to a satirical version by a humorist to balance scholarly references and direct accounts? Are you really suggesting that? Quote from the source you cite: "Bissell's account was grossly inaccurate, the very opposite of what actually happened, but it was what some Americans wanted to hear about their heroes" Dave Dial (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It also NOWHERE states that "Paul Revere was a traitor" Cbaughn (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look you will see the entire section is discussing all the opinions of Revere by his critics, not just Bissell. It isn't a matter of balance sir....if we discuss the fact that he disclosed information then yes...it should be mentioned that he was critisized for it. It's in the same reference being used to substantiate the fact that he had spoken to the British soldiers. The book makes it clear they disagree but now you say you don't want it added because you "Think" it's humor? It wasn't trying to be funny. He meant it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't use myths and incorrect versions of facts without proper sourcing. You are claiming these versions are sourced, but they are not, they are being ostracized by the scholar, not verified. Now, if there were a significant portion of historians and other scholars that made these claims, of course it would have to be added. But with proper citations and significant counter arguments. But there are just two or three cranks who are neither historians or scholars that have bought into some myth. That's not proper weight the vast amount of scholarly sourcing and direct accounts of these events. Not by a long shot. Dave Dial (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edited to add)But hey, since reliable sources seem to be watching this page, maybe they will report some of Palin defenders are trying to depict Revere as some sort of traitor in order to cast her version of events in a better light. Dave Dial (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It matters little that you don't understand what proper referencing is. The fact of the matter is, it is a published source that brings this up. It may indeed be added to the article and being nuetral means to cover the full extent of what is being discussed. It is not a myth....or even unaccurate. It is completely substantiated by the source which has already been used. If we are to talk about the fact that Revere indeed did talk to to his British captures than yes, it is appropriate to add it, whether you or I agree with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what is reported sir. Reporters have screwed up the coverage of the events of the past weekend and it has nothing to do with what goes into the article. If you're attempting to suggest that I am a Palin supporter, first....this isn't a political message board and second...my page makes it clear i am a democrat. This is about the broad coverage of the facts not keeping out what you do not aprove of for polirical reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist, you do not seem to understand that WP:UNDUE requires that views be presented according to their prominence in reliable sources per WP:RS and presented in a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV. WP:UNDUE means that the amount of Wikipedia's space dedicated to a certain aspect of an article should roughly equal its prevalence in reliable sources. WP:RS means that the reliable source's view has to be used that views that have Revere as a traitor are unreliable, and than the question becomes is even mentioning the unreliable views a violation of WP:UNDUE for giving it too much Wikipedia space.--Jorfer (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually Jorfer, that is not what WP:UNDUE says or means. It says: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.. You simply cannot write of someone who speaks to his captures and not mention the critisism of doing such. Also it appears you didn't read the source or you would know Fisher gives an entire section to this. As for the rest of what you seem to be saying....it's nonsense. Undue weight says nothing to what the writer of the reference is discussing. Whether or not the critics views are reliable IS NOT the question. Nor can you make the assumption. Wikipedia does not decide whether or not the views expressed as written are reliable or not, as we are talking about opinion of the critic, not whter they are correct or not. Is Revere a traitor? That is not the point. Was he criticized as being a traitor...yes, he was. Is that undue weight...No. Just mentioning it is not undue weight....HOW MUCH is discussed would be if it was added beyond what the author had or if an entire section was added JUST to discuss the criticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice the plural in reliable sources. This is not the only reliable source on the matter, and thus the prominence in this article needs to be looked at with everything reliable that has been written on Paul Revere. Also, you are misintepreting "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". This does not mean that every view gets written about on Wikipedia (thus the word significant) and this does not mean that if it is mentioned in a reliable source than it can be presented out of context. WP:OR has it this way: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." Wikipedia makes determination on reliable sources all the time. It doesn't just attempt to compile everything that has been said on the topic in the way that it has been said.--Jorfer (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Three times in this section, and once earlier, our facile editor, "A Mad Scientist" confuses "captor" with "capture". What part of the English speaking world is he/she from? Anyway, compounds the atrocity of his belief that anything that appears in a "reliable source" is a significant viewpoint. Dale Chock (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What part of good faith and civility do you NOT understand Dale? It is customary at wiki to refer to each other by our proper usernames You can find my username at the end of each comment in the time and signature stamp. Thanks you.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you have many very good points there, but lets not assume anything. Like you seem to assume I am taking anything out of context. As I haven't added anything. I am simply saying that this is in the same reference and can indeed be added with the reference properly written with inline citation. Nothing you have said has contradicted that much. We already know the source is reliable. Suggesting that simply mentioning the criticism is undue weight is ridiculouse....it hasn't been added yet so there is no argument there at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true at all, and your reading of the undue weight guidelines is also stretched. The 'section' you are referring to in the cited scholarly source is titled:"The Age of Vietnam: The Myth of the Evil American", and to quote the author(who has a vast amount of sourcing in his research), the "myths" were "grossly inaccurate", "the "very opposite of what actually happened" and "There was no truth whatsoever in these interpretations". That is absolutely not describing a 'significant viewpoint". Not even close. Dave Dial (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are simply flat out wrong Dave. It is indeed significant it is indeed about Revere. Wikipedia does not differentiate a viewpoint in a reference depending on what the author thinks. As long as it is written correctly, does not change what the author says and is from a reliable source.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevant question is whether elements of the historiography Fischer documents are fringe theories, and consequently how much space they might merit here. Fischer is clearly not a fan of Bissell, and (in my opinion) presents Bissell (and John Train in the following paragraph) as fringe players. It might be worth mentioning that fringe interpretations of Revere's ride exist, but they shouldn't get much space, or their documented problems (errors of fact and interpretation) should be exposed as well. (I think Fischer presents these things to be complete, not to give them credibility.) Magic♪piano 03:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that puts it in about the right perspective. Not that it is either a correct or even the mainstream thought....only that there has been some mention if even simply to speak only of the fringe.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting it in context does mean when citing the Fischer source to put his view that it is a very unreliable view. I am just going based on what you have explained your desire on the talk page is, which seems to present it as just another viewpoint. I am not just assuming.--Jorfer (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhm...No. It means putting it in whatever context the author did. And yes sir....you assumed a great deal.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia articles about any "important political figure" must prefer the context of recorded history, especially contemporaneous accounts and commentary, without offering a strict interpretation of events. Leave the interpretation to authors of historical fiction. I think the Aaron Burr article is instructive: it offers what could only be called a distorted, rosy picture of the man by downplaying his conspiracy to crown himself the King of America. We too often do this to the Founding Fathers and the Patriots that made them possible. Part of the problem, I think, is the loose definition of 'reliable source' being bandied about, here. There's a reason I can't cite Wikipedia on any academic research paper. This standard is a low bar. Certainly the David Hackett Fischer "Paul Revere's Ride" is well-researched, like David McCullough's "John Adams", but both authors take the modern liberty of making history more interesting by depicting scenes from history in narrative form. Hence, we get to read an exciting scene of Revere 'warning' the Regulars who captured him, rather than the dry listing of often contradictory source accounts and commentary. Fischer interpreted the facts, and composed a plausible scenario of what Revere was thinking and doing at the time. Fischer wasn't there. Other interpretations are perhaps possible. But Fischer would never quote himself as a reliable source, because historians (as opposed to Wikipedia hacks) do the hard work of digging up primary sources, and use secondary sources (other historians) in a differential method of arguing for or against interpretations of ambiguous data. Honest historians include any disputed material, and give reasons for choosing one interpretation over another. Since Wikipedia doesn't adhere to that standard, it's not even a reliable secondary source! So I agree with Amadscientist strictly because it will make Wikipedia better. That said, I make the additional assertion that Fischer and McCullough are not reliable sources for articles about historical figures. Rather, Wikipedia contributors on historical events and figures should be required to refer to the source material listed in the secondary source, like any undergrad history major, and use the secondary source as a reference only when no other option is available (like quoting Aristotle on Zeno's Paradox). In Fischer's case, the reliability issue is further compounded by his ties to the American Enterprise Institute and low opinion of his liberal colleagues -- you remember, the conservative think-tank David Frum had to leave last year after criticizing the GOP? Joseph8th (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia is designed to be a tertiary source. Second, which is related to the first, Wikipedia doesn't interpret. This is why WP:OR discourages the use of primary sources: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them...Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."--Jorfer (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dale is absolutely right. The word is "captor" and I can't bear to read the rest of your comment until this is corrected. We MUST not take that road! English is a language! 76.102.94.62 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exclude editors for spelling. If you feel the need to ignore me due to spelling errors alone...who exactly is the loser in that?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) In my very brief remark, I brought up an issue in addition to "spelling". Therefore, A Mad Scientist seems to be trying to deceive us by imputing the opposite.

(2) It's not an error in spelling, it's an error in pronunciation — hence in knowledge. You don't know 'censor' vs. 'censure', 'legislator' vs. 'legislature', and 'captor' vs. 'capture'. In the world, we use 'adapters' and 'converters' for electrical plugs, not 'adaptures' and 'convertures'.

(3) Who is the loser if we "ignore" longwinded but outlandish — and counter-"scientific" — arguments on editing philosophy from someone who doesn't know 'a censor' from 'censure'; from someone who thinks that anything some celebrity says is a "significant viewpoint"? The answer: nobody loses, everybody wins! Dale Chock (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you being so hostile? Most of your comments on this page -- not just this one -- are attacks. Please read Wikipedia:Civil, especially if you hope to persuade people other than those who are you attacking. Eddiekuns (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First off I will say that I don't put much credit in Sarah Palin as being believable but still I try to be fair. With that said I disagree with Palins statement regarding Paul Revere because of how narrow it is. Saying that Paul Revere is famous for warning the British that the Colonists were ready for them is like saying that the 2008 election was about John McCain picking Sarah Palin as his running mate meaning while it was a big part of the election it isn't what it was about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPhx (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose reverting the page

No consensus to revert to 3 Jun 2011 Version --WGFinley (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From the edits by Sarah Palin supporters to the edits to remove those edits and the edits for size and sections, I propose we just revert this page back to the version from the before Palin made her comments. This just got out of hand. Anyone agree? And I would like to add that we can begin to cut down any sections as we need to after that.Scryer_360 (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Agree - that's a simple and objective approach. New/improved content can be added promptly thereafter. However, I'd suggest avoiding unneeded use of Palin's name in this discussion, and merely refer to an editting storm that started a couple of days ago. rewinn (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC) unAgree - ok, I take back my agree. Arguments below are persuasive. I do still think it's best to avoid naming Palin since she herself does not appear to be doing anything here. rewinn (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Agree This will nip the edit war in the bud and avoid a mess similar to the one resulting from Palin's misuse of the term blood libel which led to constant edit wars in that article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC) 100% Agree Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Agree Have a Better Day. UBUIBIOK (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ok, I reverted back to the version from June 3rd, but A520 went ahead and removed my reversion. A520 we have agreed to revert the page, do not block it Scryer_360 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I reverted it back to your revision of a few minutes ago. It was probably just an honest mistake when he saw removal of content. If not... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Many editors have made wide-ranging improvements to the article over several days. Please do not revert to old versions without extensive discussion. Jokestress (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC) The revert actually never happened, and now I believe we should wait at least 48 hours before touching it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Absolutely not: You don't get to revert the work of several editors based on rumors. This is an article about Paul Revere, not Sarah Palin. If there is some problem with the article, list it here and gain consensus before making changes. As far as I can see, there have been minimal attempts by some sympathetic to Palin to rework the article, but everything that was in the article was well sourced and informational. Which is what an Encyclopedia should strive for. There is no consensus for the revert, a few editors who have not edited the article in a space of a couple hours does not make consensus for such an action. Please revert back and list which portions of the article you find troubling. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC) While my opinion of Palin is anything but positive and while I would love it if .... I digress. To pu it bluntly, I have to agree with the above opinion Absolutely not. If there is a specific issue with the edits in question lets hear it. If not, then there is no issue.--U5K0 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I agree this article is not based on Sarah Palin. That is why I want the revert. Since those comments many edits have been made to the article, and it would be foolish to assume those edits were made solely with intent to improve the article. I think this talk page alone is enough evidence of that. Prior to comments made, the article hadn't been edited in weeks and most of the edits prior to that were minor edits, mostly a bunch of grammar and some reworking of sentences and sentence structure. I think the lack of editing of the article and the nature of previous edits shows that for such a longstanding article, there was a silent consensus that the article was good and needing very little. Now look at it. The section on the ride alone dominates the article, much of it relates to whether or not Revere was warning who or what when prior to June 5th such sections and commentary were neither present nor viewed as necessary to article. Ask yourself, and the guidelines, this: which version of the article, now or prior to the extreme amount of editing that took place, was most closely meeting the criteria for a good article?Scryer_360 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Also, I should say that Purplebackpack89 made a good suggestion of waiting for about 48 hours since this particular discussion opened before we make a decision. I agree to wait before anything else.Scryer_360 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Deal with problems here by discussing specifics, not by blind-reverting. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC) No Palin is an idiot who obviously misspoke, and vandals tried (and may continue to try) to spackle her twisted history onto this page. However, vandalism happens every day, and if any verifiably sourced information can be found that details Revere's interactions with the British, then that information should stay. Due weight might mean it gets no more than a sentence, but if you think Wikipedia works as a format, then there should be no need to roll back the page more than a week because of a few malcontents. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I'd hardly say this is blind.... after all the article has suffered extensively since June 5th. Going through the phrasing of everything now could take a good editor of an encyclopedia days, and we'll be fighting against other edits. Look at the following: "Everything Revere told his British captors had a single goal, to move the soldiers away from Lexington, where he had left Hancock and Adams. Revere had reason to believe the patrol's mission was to arrest the two Patriot leaders. He and other captives taken by the patrol were still escorted east toward Lexington, until about a half mile from Lexington they heard a gunshot. The British major demanded Revere explain the gunfire, and Revere replied it was a signal to "alarm the country". A few minutes later, came a flurry of gunfire that seemed to alarm the British captors even beyond the panic they were already in." All of that is based on a single book, takes up a significant portion of the article, and itself the source hasn't been verified to be objective. The style its written in suggests to me it may also be lifted word for word from the book, and to me at least seems to break NPOV. And that last line, "alarm the British captors even beyond the panic they were already in" takes a whole lot of liberties, nevermind certainly not being encyclopedic. @ JeffJonez: I'm proposing a revision from 4 days ago, not a week. And much of what remains in the article from since the June 5th edits began is hardly verifiable or objective, and certainly doesn't maintain a neutral tone to the article. Determining where and when this all began is proving troubling as so much was added and removed, then added again. This is hardly just a few malcontents. Scryer_360 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC) And whats more, I think we can agree upon this that the article is about Paul Revere, not just "his" ride. The existing version is dominated by just this one section and has lots of material that can be objected to on whether or not its NPOV. I think if we are going to get extensive on the ride, it should get its own article before it takes over this one Scryer_360 (talk) When you revert back that far, you're trying to override the consensus arrived at between a fair number of existing editors over several days. I don't think the current poll provides enough support for that action. Wikipedia reactions to news are fairly normal. After a week or so, things die down, and articles tend to benefit. Don't WP:PANIC, have a nice cup of tea, and trust the wiki to operate without needing all too wild interventions. Most of the time, it will! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC) And if you do need to intervene, try to intervene "along the grain" as much as possible Virtually needless to say, oppose. I added a fair amount of material, to the "Early years" section no less, yesterday. Comparing the state of the article today to that of mid-May, I don't think it has suffered. Scryer and others are of course free to take issue with issues of neutrality, balance, and sourcing, but it's not like the article has been badly mangled. Furthermore, if you think the article is unbalanced because the ride section is too long, I suggest you crack a book or two open and lengthen the other sections (as I started to do with the Early years section). The article is currently 18K "prose size", which is well below size guidelines. Magic♪piano 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC) As stated above, the article is about Paul Revere. Sarah Palin is not relevant to Paul Revere, or what he did or did not do. If there is to be a mention of the Sarah Palin/Paul Revere stuff, it belongs on Palin's page. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Agree In fact, I would favor reverting back and then locking the article down for a week. Considering that this is an article about a guy that died 200 years ago (and no new information has emerged recently) the entire flurry of recent activity can be attributed to defenders or detractors of Sarah Palin. Any of these fervent efforts to insert references to "ringing bells" or "firing shots" or "warning the British" should be reverted. Really, if this article needs tweaking, there's no hurry. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Hmm, Seeing as the page has already been semiprotected since november 2010 Can you identify, precisely, which edits are problematic, from your point of view? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Can I go through 200+ edits in the last few days and make a determination about each one? No. That's my point. Consider that there are over 200 edits since Palin made these comments and less than 10 in the two months prior. Clearly, nearly all of these recent edits are in response to the comments (or in response to the responses). If we end up throwing out a couple of valid minor maintenace edits while sweeping out 198 edit-war edits, then so be it. There's no rush. The guy is still dead. Nothing new has come out about him. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I can go through 200+ edits, why can't you? And these show that you haven't actually looked at the edit history: "Clearly, nearly all of these recent edits are in response to the comments (or in response to the responses)" and "198 edit-war edits". You're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater since a revert to an earlier date will undo my work, which is almost all reputably sourced. (By the way, I've seen at least one news story that pointed out that the article has actually improved because of the attention.) Magic♪piano 15:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Well, that's the beauty of wikipedia. Nothing gets thrown out, it's always there to refer back to. If we reset to the stable version (before this all happened) then you can add your good edits back in (and we'll have time for proper discussion this time). That way any good edits won't get lost in the firestorm. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC) The problem is, you still haven't detailed what you find objectionable about the current version of the article that requires such a significant step. All you've done is whine about the number of edits, and badly mischaracterize the edit history. Since you want to do a wholesale revert, how about you detail objections from, say 5 paragraphs? I've spent several hours improving this article--you spend one hour writing up your objections, please. Magic♪piano 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Resorting to petty insults doesn't change the fact that you added a significant amount of material without discussion or consensus. A willingness to spend more time editing doesn't buy consensus, it's just an indicator of one's ability to WP:FILIBUSTER. --Loonymonkey (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC) I'll tell you what: if you can find five objectionable edits of mine (I've made about 30 edits to the article since June 5, this should not be hard), I will stop editing the article and propose my edits on the talk page first. Until complaints are substantiated, this is just whining. I think the (unsolicited by me) parade of opposes to this idea speaks for itself, as is the fact that none of my edits have actually been reverted. Magic♪piano 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC) This is getting silly. Have you actually, yourself, LOOKED at any of the edits you are objecting to? Any of them at all? I've watched the history here as an interested observer with no skin in the game, as a person with non-partisan political views, and an occasional editor of other pages (outside the realm of history). With few exceptions, I don't see a significant bias in the large number of recent edits. The media attention has brought many eyes here. Let's take advantage of that attention -- while it's here -- to improve this page, eh? You are accusing people of bias and bad intention without any apparent willingness to provide a shred of evidence in your favor. If the edits taking place now are so biased, it should be trivial for you to provide at least one sample. I have actually looked at perhaps 2/3 of the edits of the last week. I haven't checked any sources. Assuming the sources are being accurately quoted, almost all the edits I see are reasonable. The very few that were unreasonable were reverted (or rewritten a different way) quickly. IMHO, Magicpiano is being very reasonable, especially considering your harsh accusations. You are making strong accusations without any willingness to provide evidence, which greatly weakens your case. Eddiekuns (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Eh? I usually click the "500" button straight off the bat. Ok, to be fair, I then just take samples from beginning, middle, end, and only look closer if there's something funny going on. The funny thing is, I don't really see much funnyness going on (from that helicopter-view skim-through at least). (For starters, there's only 200-250 edits that are even interesting at all. That's not much for an article that's been in the news! Then there's the semi-protection since November, which at least explains the low edit count, but not the news articles. The odd thing is that it made the news at all! <scratches head>) That said, hey, this did make it into the new york times (online edition at least); so I'd love to do a full analysis. This requires that we go over things with a fine tooth comb. We could take 100 edits each, or see if another editor or two join in, so we can do 50 each. The latter is pretty doable if you take half an hour, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC) On the basis of the quick shortcut question "what's actually different this time", I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll actually find the root causes of the media articles on the talk page edit notice, but we need to go about things methodically, and eliminate the impossible first, to be sure we don't miss anything. If you don't require special historical knowledge or source checking, but just revision comparisons, I'd be happy to join in an effort to characterize what has actually changed in the last five days. Eddiekuns (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Agree entirely. Hell, I've done it to articles before. It's the safest thing. We have no time limit. It's not like Paul is mysteriously more relevant from a historical standpoint. Look, after this long, if we try to take anything in the middle we're going to fall into the M:WRONG trap. The only way out of it is to go back to where we started. There is a lot of new, entirely lovely new content in the article, but there's also plenty of things that have been shuffled through with and without discussion. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 20:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Changing to Agree in some areas...there's no reason to mess around with the new, non-controversial and uncontested info. It's only really one section that's in dispute. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 21:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Here is some background. I added the information about the nature of the alarm system, the background (the reason for the British movement, which was absent from earlier versions of the article), and significant portions of the description of the ride and Revere's exchange with his captors. Much of this material I copied from Battles of Lexington and Concord without major modification. I actually wrote a fair amount of the material, and pushed that article through GA several years ago. All of this material is sourced to reputable sources. People think I'm a Palin supporter because I did this; I don't know if this is funny or sad, but it shows a great deal of bad faith. I did this to forestall the addition of poorly-sourced material, knowing that the material from the other article was largely useful here. I did not add the material Scryer is complaining about: Revere's motives are Fischer's opinion, and should be stated as such, if they are to be retained here. I am prepared to defend my contributions, but complainants will have to be specific. Saying "I don't like that someone added this" isn't a reason to revert anything -- the sources and the use of the sources will have to be addressed. Magic♪piano 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Discussion is not required, only WP:CONSENSUS. Can you point out where consensus has not been followed in this case? Also, how does M:WRONG apply here, seeing as the page is semi-protected, not protected? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC) The pace of editing is too high and no discussion section of significant length to properly sort through. M:WRONG applies to every and all articles, period. Semi-protected? That just means that it's registered users edit warring instead of IPs. It makes no difference. "Wrong" version reverts have happened in the middle of Admin wheel warring on a fully protected article, so it happens everywhere. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 21:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC) M:WRONG is a humorous piece about admins always being blamed for protecting a page on the wrong version. I'm really puzzeled how it would apply here! You are now claiming that there is an edit war taking place. Can you show me which sequence of edits appears to be an edit war? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC) + Checking your claim of pace of editing being too high, well, there have been less than 50 major and minor edits since this morning (UTC), which comes down to a brisk average rate of 2.2 edits per hour. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Consensus moves the other direction. Can you point out where consensus has been followed in adding this material? Clearly there is no consensus for the recent flurry of additions.--Loonymonkey (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Consensus is not required to add material. If you have any objections to the material I have been adding (please see the now extensive changes to his life prior to the ride), feel free to detail them on this page. Magic♪piano 15:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, it absolutely is. That's one of the core principals of wikipedia. Yes, you can boldly add material, but once anything is challenged (as has happened here) the burden is on you to justify its inclusion, not on other to justify its exclusion. See WP:BURDEN for further explanation of this.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC) The problem is, my contributions have, with minor exceptions, not been substantively challenged. You and others complain about the woeful state of the article, but when pressed, can't articulate a well-founded objection to a single sentence I've added. Above you suggest that I simply re-add my material. Well, my material is literally all over the article -- I've touched just about every single section. Restoring my material would, to a first approximation, mean restoring the article to its present state. Do you see the problem now? What content are you objecting to, and why? Magic♪piano 20:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Absolutely not. Articles get improved more quickly when many editors look at them due to controversy. Contrary to claims that the article is "worse," the NY Times reported yesterday, "As a result, the Revere article has become much longer, and much better sourced." [5] This article is much better now. If you have specific concerns, let's improve those, but nothing is gained by locking out editors who want to improve this while interest is high. Jokestress (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Absolutely Not - I essentially agree with Jokestress. Any mention of a web page or site in the news is going to lead to a lot of traffic to that page or site. While some people are politically motivated, others, like me, are completely neutral. I came to check out the state of the page; if I had pertinent historical evidence to add, with a source, I would add it. As others have in CERTAIN sections of the article. The "Midnight Ride" seems to be the section under dispute, so what would it harm to leave the other sections alone? I actually looked at the last 200 edits before coming to the talk page (I'm a speed reader.) Most of it is for the best. There are grammatical fixes, expansions to other sections, and some really neat information that's well-sourced and not related to the edit war. Let it be, and when the hype dies down the historians can come back and quietly clean up any remaining untidiness. - 76.102.94.62 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Hi, it's me again (anonymous user from above.) Just back to prove a point. I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia, and I've been working on some other wikis lately. But the news bringing me to this page today was the reason I created a user account here. I'm actually not great with history, but thanks to this inconsequential Palin thing, I'm now inspired to edit/maintain some of the sections where I can be of use. Cheers. SashiFox (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Agree Encyclopedias should not be open for manipulation by political operatives trying to rewrite history, especially for the petty purpose of making history retroactively fit the gaffes of politicians. Ankles (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Sure. Did you notice that the article does not mention Sarah Palin, nor anything she said? Apart from that, can you explain to me which parts of it have been politically manipulated? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC) So it's just coincidence that the rate of editing increased by roughly a thousand-fold in the days after her comments? Also, you may have seen mention in multiple reliable sources of this specific issue, political manipulation of this page. Asking other editors to "prove" this reality by poring through hundreds and hundreds of edit-revert-edit cycles in the last few days is not going to get anywhere. It isn't anybody's job to spend hours proving the obvious. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC) If it's obvious, you should be able to find a random sample of problematic edits fairly easily. And if not, how did those "reliable sources" come about their knowledge? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Clearly it's not coincidence that the rate of editing is higher after the media attention brought people's eyes here. And, just as clearly, you have not personally looked at any of the changes that have been made. I have. There have not, in fact, been "hundreds" of edit-revert-edit cycles on this page. There have not yet been 200 edits since this started on June 5th. Of those 191 (approx) edits, perhaps just under half are not even to the "midnight ride" section. If all you are willing to do is cast aspersion and blame, absent any effort to actually find an edit "in bad faith" or even a bad edit in good faith, then you won't get very far. Eddiekuns (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Or better yet, Loonymonkey could just read the article (or if really pressed for time just read the discussed "Midnight ride"-section), it's not very long. Then report back with any evidence of political editing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC) If pending changes is an option, this would be a prime candidate for review before anonymous edits going live. Keegan (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Just checking, but you were aware that anonymous edits have been impossible since November, right? (semi-protected). If you're proposing to switch from semi-protect to review, then sure, that might be a step up. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Absolutely not - The difference between the old version and the current version is dramatic and positive. 177 edits over the last few days, and this page is much better cited and stands improved by many standards. Perhaps some small recentism has crept in, but the news coverage of the page activity has understated the yeoman work several editors have made to protect the page as encyclopedic content, and has failed to engage the collaborative and self-correcting nature of the Wikipedia community. While I initially disagreed with the section blanking of unsourced content, I believe this action set a high threshold, preventing malicious edits by more partisan contributors. Heck, I was seriously unhappy full page protection was declined, but ultimately the choice was the correct one. The watchful eyes of wikipedia editors have improved the page. It's close to B-class by the MilHist checklist, and could easily be brought to Good Article status once the pagespace regains stability. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC) oppose the article got better due to the controversy --Guerillero | My Talk 22:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. The extra attention this article has recieved has also resulted in a lot of edits not related to the ride, and I see no reason to revert them. The few examples mentioned here that might be problematic can be worked out the usual way. Also I see no evidence that the edits are done based on a political agenda. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Agree All of this Sarah Palin stuff doesn't belong on here, and I'm getting tired of seeing tons of arguments and edit wars going on over this. Wikipedia should not be involved in this kind of politics; we already have enough trouble with the vandals here. Usb10 plug me in 22:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Could you please specify what you mean by "Palin stuff"? The section on Palin has been removed some time ago, and that is not what we are discussing here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. There is nothing in the article about Palin. It seems that some people are using this discussion about reverting as a referendum on Palin. I am not convinced that everyone expressing an opinion here has looked at diffs, or even read the article. The (unfortunate) controversy has spurred a great deal of improvement in the article; reverting would be an over-reaction. Revcasy (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose The article had problems that were being delt with BEFORE the herd came around after reports!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Though I hate the Palin zombies, it's obvious that nothing about Palin has been added, and I think the article is now more refined because of the jillions of people reviewing it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

awful writing in "British are coming" sentence

Could someone fix this awful, dumb sentence:

"Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols, and because the colonists themselves were British."

This is like writing, "George Washington did not say 'I cannot tell a lie -- 'twas I who chopped down the cherry tree,' largely because he was too small to wield his father's axe, and the cherry trees on his property had very hard wood requiring the efforts of at least two men with a six-foot saw."76.218.9.50 (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia :-). Sorry about the page being semi-protected. I've improved it slightly. Better? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

George Washington didn't say that because that whole story is fiction. 86.143.49.173 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So both this and the George Washington got it right, since they both include statements to those facts. :) --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Should class of article be bumped up from C?

Should the class of this article be bumped up from class C? Discusion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say no for the time being. First of all, I would wait for this Sarah Palin mess to blow over in a few days. Secondly, I think we still have a few citation issues to work on. Once the citations are in order, I think it would be fine to bump this up to class B. Safiel (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that the article meets the B-Class criteria. PKT(alk) 20:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

After examining the article, I would say that it is right on the borderline. It needs a few more citations in a couple of areas. It seems to meet all the other criteria for B class. If these needed citations are added, I would then be happy to see the article upgraded to B-class. Safiel (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since my comment the other day, sufficient citations have been added to justify moving this article to B class, which I have done. Good work, everybody. Safiel (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Population demographics of Massachusetts, and who was "British"

A complaint was placed on my talk page that Fischer's claim the Massachusetts colonists thought of themselves as British was incorrect, based on the observation that the population demographics of all of the colonies was not British in origin.

Since this seems to be a somewhat contentious issue, maybe this should be elaborated. First, here is what Fischer wrote (p. 110): "In 1775, the people of Massachusetts still thought that they were British. One of them, as we shall see, when asked why he was preparing to defend his house, explained, 'An Englishman's home is his castle.'"

Second, New England's population demographics were not as significantly affected by the German migration of the 18th century as the middle colonies were. Here are the demographics of Massachusetts from the 1790 census (source, JSTOR access required):

English 82.0% Scotch 4.4% Ulster 2.6% Irish Free State 1.6% German 0.3% Others (French, Dutch, etc) 9.4%

I believe these figures refer to the white population. According to other sources I've seen, about 2% of the Massachusetts population was black (slave and free) in 1775. This means that roughly 89% of the Massachusetts population in 1790 was of what we might consider "British" origin. I doubt the 15 years between 1775 and 1790 resulted in a major change in these numbers.

I haven't looked to see what sort of sources Fischer uses to justify his statement. Magic♪piano 13:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what they considered themselves, they were all legally british subjects until 1783, and American citizenship could not exist until the declaration of Independence. So they couldnt claim to be anything else but british subjects.XavierGreen (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Beg to disagree. Saying "the British are coming" to someone who self-identifies as German and lives in a predominantly German community will probably mean more than it would to someone who self-identifies as English or British. Magic♪piano 19:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure followers of Gandhi, Kenyatta, and Mandela wouldn't have hesitated a second to use a warning like "the British are coming", even though they were all legally British subjects too.

The parenthetical addition about being "predominantly English in ethnic origin", with a completely different ref, does seem a bit WP:SYNTH-y though, and maybe unnecessarily defensive... Fat&Happy (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no comparison between Gandhi, Kenyatta, and Mandela and the colonists in the "13 colonies". The British in India and Africa were invaders ruling noncolonial societies. The ancestors of Gandhi, etc. had no historical connection to Europe and they had occupied those territories for centuries before the Europeans arrived. The white society in the "13 colonies" was a colony. It was created by Britain. And the colonists far outnumbered the indigenous. Obviously, in 1775 almost all the white people in the "13 colonies" were British — and many of them British born to boot. The fact that you invoke an irrelevancy to dispute such an obvious point, and that you make a smokescreen with an accusation like "violating Synth": it's all just a game of disruption for its own sake. Dale Chock (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to alter my indentation and paragraphing. If you were to try reading without the obvious chip on your shoulder, consistent assumption of bad faith, and confidence in your own superiority you display, you might read my response to Magicpiano as an agreement with his response to the prior post, i.e., that it was the colonists view of themselves, not their legal status, which would have logically prevented them from using the phrase. But thank you for clarifying the obvious difference between colonists and the colonized – I'm sure nobody else understood that. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

[reply to Fat & Happy, 00:31 11 June] After your obfuscation (your obfuscation, that was my point), maybe they didn't . And you were bullying the other editor. Aside from that, let's take note of the complaint, "you're indignant and condescending!" coming from someone (you) who proclaims, "I'm relentlessly diversionary and snide!" (Virtual proclamation resulting from the cumulative weight of your interventions, starting with your very username.) Dale Chock (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To Magic piano: if we assume your point, then it means these German immigrants would regard their fellow colonists, the English speakers, as "British", and that a warning of "the British are coming" would likely be interpreted as referring to those neighbors and not to troops sent from Britain. Duuh! And anyway, where did this fantasy come from, of German villages between Boston and Concord? German_American#Colonial_era — Dale Chock (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing about the Germans was just an example to illustrate the point about self-identification. There weren't German towns in Massachusetts (at least not along Revere's route), but there certainly were in other colonies, like Pennsylvania and New York. While they were technically British subjects, they were not ethnically "British" (and might not thus self-identify as British), which was the issue raised by the interlocutor on my talk page. I also don't think Fat&Happy is far off in his/her analysis about synthesis and defensiveness. The demographics support the argument, but they may not have been what Fischer used to justify his statement. Magic♪piano 00:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are we even debating this? Obviously when we talk about Revere today, when we say "the british are coming" we are not referring to the colonists. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we create a new page for Paul Revere's midnight ride? Thoughts? Agree / oppose?

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 and unambiguous: Don't split the bio section on the ride into a separate article. Eddiekuns (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If the "midnight ride" is given an entire article, that will allow people to add detail to that article without that article taking over this page. Then, the Paul Revere page could have a much shorter summary of the event, which wouldn't interfere with the flow of the rest of the biography. The part on the ride is taking over the page! It is the longest section by a good measure. This new page could then be referenced from Paul_Revere's_Ride_(disambiguation) (which could then reference the poetic version and the historical versions of the event) and Paul Revere and Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord.

If consensus is that this is a bad idea, so be it, but I wanted to formally propose the idea. Eddiekuns (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very bad idea. The "midnight ride" is what we remember Paul Revere for. The other events and achievements in his life are minor by comparison. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mild oppose. This article is not so long (currently 25k "readable prose") that the ride needs to be split out, and I'm not anticipating it growing by my efforts more than another few paragraphs. Although it is a significant portion of the article, I don't think it is unduly out of proportion, especially once I add those paragraphs. The ride is also documented to some extent in Battles of Lexington and Concord. I also think that leaving it here will give readers a chance to learn about his other work. Magic♪piano 13:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. In the future maybe, but we should wait for this Palin controversy to pass. I think a lot of errors are being introduced to the story by the Palin Supporters and Detractors. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please detail these errors in a new section on this page, so that we can fix (or at least discuss) them. Magic♪piano 00:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you see errors, then please identify them so they can be fixed. Eddiekuns (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. "The part on the ride is taking over the entire page." (Of course the statement is a slight exaggeration, and rhetorical slight exaggeration is OK, but do bear in mind it is an exaggeration.) What the hell's wrong with that (i.e., with the actual situation, which is less extreme than the exaggerated description)? Guy doesn't even bother to make an argument for his proposal. While it is true that looking at his life alone, he did many things for the cause of independence far more important than his ride the night before the opening battle of the war of independence, since his death the mythology about the ride has become what is most notable about him, most encyclopedia worthy. That's because of the impact of that mythology on American political culture. Dale Chock (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe the exaggeration is more than slight, because it seems to me the topics that have been augmented in the last week are the vicissitudes of his business and other minutiae of his personal life. Dale Chock (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, just because many people only know him for the ride, doesn't mean we can't detail other aspects of his life (like the reason he was court martialed, and his role in the tea party and other protests). I also think that his silversmithing deserves more space than it gets now, as does his postwar industrial work. I'd actually like to know whether he had any significant impact on industrial developments in the mid 19th century. This would be an unexpectedly noteworthy thing to describe here. Magic♪piano 00:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In a Wikipedia article one can justifiably detail anything which is notable. As for the possibility of his impact on the industrialization of America, apparently no substantial claim has been made about this, and you haven't claimed to have found anything. There is, as you are aware, a whole organization devoted to memorializing and researching this person: the PRMA. Such an organization probably provides a list of publications and they probably answers questions of that type. Dale Chock (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So far the consensus is 100% against. If this continues for another day or two (to give other people a chance to weigh in) then I'll close this section as decided. Yes, Dale Chock, "taking over the page" was an exaggeration, clarified by "It is the longest section by a good measure." You said "Guy doesn't even bother to make an argument for his proposal." OK: 1) The midnight ride is what most people will be looking for, not a biography on Paul Revere, 2) An article on just the actual history of the ride would be a nice balance to the current article on the poetic version, 3) Size and balance of the sections of the Paul Revere biography, 4) Documentation of the ride shouldn't be split partially between a battle article and partly between a biography; it should be found cleanly in one place. As long as the other sections of the biography grow and the midnight ride section does not grow disproportionately, the current page will be balanced well enough, as Magicpiano says. In this case, #3 is moot. Dale Chock, notice, no sarcasm in my response. I responded to your complaints politely, without emotion. I ask again, why are you so critical, harsh, and insulting in so many of your comments? Eddiekuns (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

". . . the current version on the poetic version [of the ride]." The discussion in the current article is NOT slanted toward the poetic version! Aside from that, look at what you're proposing. While others are proposing a separate article on Paul Revere's ride of the night before the opening battle of the Revolutionary War, YOU are proposing two articles on the ride. Jeez. As for the "balance arguments", they're also nonsense. There isn't any inherently best "balance between sections". It all depends on the relative importance of what is being written about. Now, I realize that every member of Wikipedia has to join sometime, but look at you, you've just joined and instead of your first contributions being article edits, they're polemical arguments. And the arguments are trite. All the numbered points you make are not just wrong, they're trite. In (1), your idea that the biggest thing that person X is notable for NEEDS to NOT be fully addressed in person X's biography. Dale Chock (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Point of information. Wikipedia makes provision for automatically redirecting readers to the URL where the information they seek is. This takes care of people looking for the midnight ride. If there is an article on "John Smythe", then somebody typing in "John Smith" can be redirected. It requires keying in a redirection message. Dale Chock (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is not overly long. If, in the future it gets too long, a split might be appropriate. WCCasey (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is some merit in the suggestion. There is far more to Revere than just the Ride, although that seems to be the only thing non-historians ever remember about him. The Ride itself does seem to have a life of its own, including both the facts and the poem which made it the stuff of legend. I support the idea of a condensed version on the Revere page, and an enhanced article on the Ride. --averagejoe (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Eventually support creation of Ride article: Not because of the length of the article, but because it is a historically significant event. Oh, and the midnight ride involved several other people...William Dawes, anyone? Samuel Prescott?. However, I echo the concern that it shouldn't be started until this whole Palin business blows over, and should be closely monitered against Palin's alternate vision gaining too much weight in the article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The prelude to the Battle of Midway involved some critical code-breaking cryptanalysis. You can read about it in the article on the battle. A separate article isn't warranted. The prelude to the Battle of Lexington and Concord involved riders on horseback warning targets of possible arrest and initiating an alarm to assemble town militias and minutemen. You can read about it in the article on the battle. A separate article isn't warranted. The ride itself is historically meaningless as an isolated event separate from its importance to the battle that followed. If readers want to learn about the reality of Paul Revere's midnight ride then Wikipedia should make them aware that they actually want to learn about Lexington and Concord by directing them there. I don't think an encyclopedia should reward ignorance by separating an event from its historical context because the event has achieved a "life of its own" in popular culture. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK, reality check here. Does anyone other than Dale Chock think that my question ("Should we create a new page for Paul Revere's midnight ride?") was so ridiculous, or "trite?" Am I really wasting everyone's time here? Seeing as he appears to be universally hostile and unrelentingly critical, I am tempted to sake everything he says above with a huge amount of salt. And Mr Dale Chock: I did not suggest that the discussion in the current article is slanted toward the poetic telling of the ride. Nor did I suggest that Paul Revere's midnight ride not be discussed in this biography. Also, why do you think 1) I've just joined Wikipedia, or 2) these are my first contributions to Wikipedia? I have not been overwhelmingly active. And frankly, your hostility makes me wonder why I bother. So again, reality check. Feel free to respond in my talk page so as not to waste space here on this. I will listen to constructive criticism from anybody. If my thoughts here are truly felt to be useless, than I'll abstain. There are other things I can do with my time. Eddiekuns (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

with regards to this and what you said on your talk page, no it's not "trite" at all. oh, and I'm also not opposed to this if the section on the ride keeps growing, as long as we put the other riders in any new article as well. Ansh666 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• not opposed - I don't feel like doing it myself, but what is the harm in letting someone put in the work? The Paul Revere article would still include a reasonable summary of the ride and refer to the proposed full article for any level of detail that one cares about, literary references and so forth. So long as this article remains sound, with an appropriate description of the ride, there is little harm in another article going into greater detail. rewinn (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose There is absolutely no need for a separate article, either now or in the future. The length of the current article is absolutely no issue at all. The "ride" is not significant enough to warrant a separate article from the main biography. Safiel (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why not Revere's account?

Why do are several authors cited on Paul Revere's ride and not Paul Revere's own deposition and commentary on the ride? The Mass. Historical Society has his words on the ride on-line we should use that as the primary source to describe the ride. The other authors should be used as supplemental sources. e.g. Note significant difference between Fisher's description of the ride and Revere's [ http://www.masshist.org/database/img-viewer.php?item_id=99&img_step=1&tpc=&pid=15&mode=transcript&tpc=&pid=15#page1] User:Jhoulgate 16 June 2011

Because Revere's account is a primary source, and is not necessarily reliable. This is why Wikipedia requires, when available, the use of secondary sources. Secondary sources will presumably balance Revere's accounts (there were several) with other source that describe aspects of his movements. A quotation from one of Revere's accounts might be a useful side box. Magic♪piano 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say mostly because in this instance it would be considered a primary source. However, for other purposes, (i'll have to think of one), it could be a reliable secondary source. We tend to try to avoid primary sources in Wikipedia because they can't say much on their own unless we come up with a conclusion ourselves about them. (See synthesis) So we try to find a person talking about the thing we want to talk about so we have a bright intellectual person saying something about it all. - or someone to blame when the conclusions are bad :)

-- Avanu (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2012

In the "Later Years" section, it mentions that " Revere became a pioneer in the production of copper plating, opening North America's first copper mill south of Boston in Canton, near the Canton Viaduct. Copper from the Revere Copper Company was used to cover the original wooden dome of the Massachusetts State House in 1802."

Revere was also heavily involved in developing copper sheathing for ships. Indeed, Revere refined his process explicitly around the problem of ship sheathing (see Robert Martello's book 'Midnight Ride, Industrial Dawn', page 225-238).

A more immediate problem is that the page currently links "copper plating" to an article about electrolytic plating. Technically Revere made "copper sheets". The most appropriate article to link to would therefore be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing

Browley (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you clearly state what sentence (with reference) you'd like added and where? Achowat (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I (as the editor who wrote the material being commented on) had actually intended to revisit this particular section at some time, and have located a copy of Martello's book that I will eventually be able to borrow. I really would like to better understand Revere's impact on industrial development, which is why this particular section has languished. The commenter is correct that what Revere developed was the rolling of copper, not electrolytic plating. I have in the interim corrected the link (even though the linked article is mainly about the naval uses of rolled copper). Magic♪piano 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've deactivated the template so that it is easy to tell that this request is being handled. PLease reactivate it when you answer Achowat's question. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"trumped up by enemies"?

"A variety of charges were made against Revere, most of them trumped up by enemies he had made in his command at Castle William." Sounds very subjective to me, evidence? OdyLankenau (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The evidence would be in the cited source, feel free to look it up. (Exaggerated charges laid by rivals for promotion and position were not uncommon in courts martial during the revolution.) Magic♪piano 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As stated below, there is a factual afterword in The Fort where Cornwell states quite clearly the evidence for both Revere's cowardice and further shows it's likely he was exonerated as a matter of politics (blaming Saltonstall, and thereby reducing Mass. debt) rather than lack of guilt. Where does Wikipedia stand when there are two contrasting pov? I'm aware Wikipedia is an American venture, and Revere an American hero, but shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" every time his cowardice is mentioned in the only fight he was involved in isn't very exacting. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, when sources disagree on something, one presents the disagreement in the article ("The historical record is unclear on whether Revere behaved in a cowardly manner, and historians have reached different conclusions on the matter." etc...). You then present the uncontroversial facts and discuss the differing assessments.

I don't see anyone attempting to paper over the accusations or evidence of cowardice or other malfeasance here -- if you have sources that make specific accusations, feel free to propose well-sourced changes (see {{Edit semi-protected}} since as an anonymous editor you cannot make edits to this article). If you want to cite Cornwell specifically (rather than his sources, which it would be useful if you identified those), you'll have to be very specific (provide page numbers) so that it is clear you are not citing the fictional portion of the book.

Oh, and English Wikipedia is an international endeavour, with editors from all over the world contributing to it. American editors (like those of other nations) also sometimes know how to write unbiased articles. Magic♪piano 14:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The book The Fort by Bernard Cornwell (writer of the Sharpe series), mentions sources that describe Paul Reverse as having been responsible (in part) for the failure at Penobscot Bay due to being generally uncooperative and mismanaging the artillery. It also mentions that his presence in Midnight Ride is incorrect as, while he was one of the men ordered to relay news of the British arrival, he did not in fact complete the mission while the other men did. Unfortunately the novel itself doesn't cite many sources which has made the claims difficult to follow up, which is why I wanted to mention it here in case anyone is better able to verify the claims.

On a related note it is also mention that Paul Reverse's charges may have been dropped in order to allow Massachusetts to claim the fault was with the naval force under Saltonstall. Again, I'm unsure of the source(s) for this. These are all however things mentioned in the closing notes of the novel, and so should not be fabricated by Cornwell himself. It's possible his sources were part of the exaggerations against Revere but I wanted to mention all this in case the sources are something worth including in the descriptions here, as Bernard Cornwell does use actual historic sources for his novels so some of it may be verifiable. Haravikk (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gill, (references)

In ref 1 we are given Gill 1891, pp. 10–11. but there is no Gill in the bibliography; however there is a Goss, Elbridge Henry (1891). Is Gill a typo? Jodosma (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Revere's dentistry tools?

The first picture on the left side of the screen has the caption "Revere's dentistry tools". Shouldn't this say "Revere's silversmithing tools"? 107.2.249.138 (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The photo is captioned as dental tools by the source (a museum collection on Flickr). Revere is known to have done dental work. Magic♪piano 12:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• This article refers to Revere's horse in the famous ride. However, historically he did not own a horse, and used one borrowed from John Larkin, who as Deacon of the church where the lanterns were hung. Shouldn't this be corrected?Tham153 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The British are coming

http://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=98 We have the account of Paul Revere written in 1775. In his own account he calls the British the Minesterial Troops but he never once use the words regular troops. We also have the written letter of Paul Revere from 1798 were he call the British, the British. Unless we have a manuscript from Paul Revere were the words The Regular's are Coming appears some obscure reference is not enough to support that claim. As for the paragraph that says that the Americain considered themselves British, this is nonsense. In every letter of the time the american never call themselves British, and the British never call the american British. It was the Continental Army, not the British army of America. British and Canadian try to rewrite history to present the revolution as a civil war among British. Basicaly they continue to pretend the american did not exist. The american considered themselves Colonists, patriots and Son's of Liberty. The war is between colonists who increasingly considered the British as foreigner trying to rule them from England and British born soldiers. Saying All the American considered themselves British is not true. They knew England was not their country. EMvague (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Revere did the "midnight ride" and the article does not say that!

It is very weird! 198.228.216.44 (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to read more carefully. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to help, next time look in the contents. The contents sometimes is hidden. Just click show.The Almighty God (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Paul Revere and the Raiders

Why is the band Paul Revere and the Raiders mentioned here? The implication seems to be that it was named for PR, but it was not - the bands leader was named Paul Revere Dick - one of any number of kids named after PR.81.202.188.33 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)