Controversies on Wikipedia

2011

June 2011

Potential candidate for U.S. Vice President Sarah Palin described American Revolutionary War hero Paul Revere as "he who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells." This description, characterized by U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR) as "flummoxed ramblings", kicked off a battle over the contents of the English Wikipedia's article about Revere. Palin's remarks and various interpretations were added by Palin supporters to the Revere Wikipedia page and just as quickly removed by detractors, although at least one commentator opined that "in some cases people appeared to be attributing the claims to Ms. Palin in order to mock her." In the 10 days following Palin's remark, Revere's Wikipedia page received over a half million page views and led to extensive and inconclusive discussion on the article's talk page and in the national media about whether the episode had improved or harmed the article. Robert Schlesinger, writing in USN&WR, summarized the episode by saying that "[i]t used to be said of conservatism that it stood athwart history and yelled 'stop.' Increasingly it seems to stand beside reality while hitting the 'edit' button

The statement you mentioned is often associated with a historical gaffe made by Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the 2008 Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States. In June 2011, during a bus tour, Palin made comments about Paul Revere's ride during the American Revolution that were widely criticized for inaccuracies.

According to historical accounts, Paul Revere's midnight ride in 1775 was to warn colonial militias of the approaching British forces, not to warn the British themselves. Palin's statement created controversy and drew attention to her knowledge of American history.

Viewpoints on this incident vary, with critics using it as an example of a lack of understanding of historical events, while supporters may argue that mistakes happen and should not be overemphasized in the context of a larger political career. Overall, the incident is often remembered as a moment of public scrutiny over a public figure's grasp of historical facts.