Jump to content

Talk:The 1619 Project/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

where is the evidence of this history written? there is no historical proof that the USA was established on the premise of black slavery. This is false narrative and will be replaced by the truth eventually. Wikipedia should be doing its homework before establishing such written concept by a newspaper editorial or manager of the The New York Times. Prove what this information before you make it public, otherwise you become part of inciteful false information. FFragala (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is not a forum. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is POV, isn't it?

"the African American citizens who make up 12% of the United States population,[7] face institutional racism and disproportionate amount of socio-economic and political challenges in 2019" DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "...where facts are just one viewpoint on truth..." --- I would disagree. Facts are facts - there is no viewpoint. The interpretation of facts - and therefore one's particular "truth" - are subjective. But facts are not.--- VeritasS (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Platonic solids are solid. Most of the shapes we deal with are permutated in some way beyond their perfect essence. So with facts. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 20:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Non-sequiturs and category errors don't make an argument. Your statement is non-responsive to VeritasS' point. Wilford Nusser (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Note on what only appears to be copyvio

Earwig pops up an article that borrows heavily from this article. Not a copyvio. --valereee (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I am one of those idiots who suck at mind-reading (sorry!) would you be so kind to explain which article we are talking about? Poveglia (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Poveglia, the one that pops up on Earwig at 74%: here for the article at Washtenaw Dems: here and is now showing another copy at a blog. --valereee (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Excellent, thank you! Poveglia (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

wsws.org?

Has anybody evaluated this new addition yet? Organisation looks ideological but perhaps the quoted experts are more relevant. The qualifiers on those experts, and the quotes themselves ought to be looked at by someone knowledgeable, to make sure we don't mislead readers about the totality of what was said and the credentials of those saying it. While we're at it, the critical reception section is starting to become too big. Perhaps it should be trimmed with view to WP:DUE? Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

wsws.org is being referenced in other commentary on 1619, for example in the Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic as a notable participant in the debate. I tend to agree that the reception section is too long and the lengthy span that relies on citing wsws.org is starting to look like WP:OR. Nixin06 (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Goals of 1619 Project

On 1/17/2020, @Historybuff1738 changed the Background section of this article to say the project's purpose was to commemorate "the first enslaved Africans" in "English colonies that would later become the United States". This was Historybuff1738's only edit, so s/he may not realize that Wikipedia needs to report what the project itself says its goals were. The project says it commemorates:

The article needs to say those were the goals, while noting for accuracy that 1619 was factually not the beginning of American slavery, though it was the beginning of African slavery in English colonies that would later be the first states of the United States. Numbersinstitute (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand while we're at it we can move on to other articles like Human evolution and make sure that anything prior to the existence of Homo sapiens is factually accurately characterised as "the evolution of that/those species that would later come to be known as human."? ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 20:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1776 project

Perhaps the 1776 project should be mentioned, maybe in the critical response section? Nikolaneberemed (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added 1776 in the absence of any negative response to the suggestion above. JezGrove (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Move requirement that writers be black to introduction?

This sentence is currently under the "History" Section: "The project was envisioned with the condition that almost all of the contributions would be from African-American contributors, deeming the perspective of black writers an essential element of the story to be told." It would make sense that this be in the introduction, since while it is part of the history of the Project, it's also one of its central tenets and most definable features, even more so than other aspects included in the introduction. I think the fact that this aspect is described as "non-negotiable" would be worth including, too. Would love to hear thoughts! Tambourine60 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead section of this and any article is supposed to summarize the article, so taking the black writer concept out of the article to put it in the lead won't be right. The "History" section now covers the concept of the project and its initial content. For a project which started in 2019, "History" may be a bit presumptuous. How about changing the section title from "History of the project" to "Development" or "Content" of the project? Then it would make sense to have the black writer concept in the first paragraph of that section. This would also be a good place to put the "institutional racism" section, if we can find a citation where the authors talk about institutional racism and disproportionate impact. That's implicit, but I haven't found where they said it explicitly. If wikipedians think either concept is key, they can also be mentioned in the lead section. Numbersinstitute (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

George Will response to Pulitzer Prize

The Washington Post has published a critique by George Will of the Pulitzer prize awarded a connection with the Project: [1] JezGrove (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue of Hannah-Jones's negative statements about white people are relevant

Hannah-Jones's negative racial statements made about white people is clearly relevant to the article because it is possible that her feelings may have biased the material in the project. It would be misleading to leave it out.

This is a pretty dry statement: 

 Hannah-Jones has been criticized for making racist statements in a letter to Notre Dame's student newspaper The Observer in 1995.[10]

It immediately follows on this: 

 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for the 1619 Project.[8][9]


If the statement about the Pulitzer prize is relevant, surely a statement indicating her possible bias is relevant.

As a reader I would certainly want to know about possible influences on this project, positive and negative, were I to come to this page doing research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stcalvert (talk • contribs) 02:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The above-referenced addition by Stcalvert to the main article was clearly done in good faith. It was then reverted by an admin who left an unnecessarily sarcastic edit summary. While Stcalvert should not have tagged the edit as "minor," and its placement in the article was less than ideal, I do think the content is worthy of discussion here, and probably should not have been reverted. BudJillett (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"it is possible that her feelings may have biased the material in the project" is *************-nothing more. So is "if the Pulitzer is relevant"--she won the Pulitzer for this. The Federalist publishes something from what, 25 years ago? And so it had absolutely nothing to do with the 1619 project in the first place? Bud, my statement was not sarcastic at all, and I'm not the only one getting tired of ************* their right-wing talking points in encyclopedic articles.

While we're on the topic, that her statements were "racist" is the opinion of Jordan Davidson, some freelance writer, on a right-wing blog known for sensationalist and, ahem, racially insensitive reporting tactics. Plus, we can dispute whether this is absolutely accurate, "the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world", but it has some factual merit to it. If we're going to go around using phrases like "racially insensitive" for blatantly racist statements ([2], [3], etc.), then we should at least discuss the use of the word "racist" here, before we place BLP-violating material in an unrelated article. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: WP:PERSONALATTACKS "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." I removed derogatory words above. We can discuss the relevance of Hannah-Jones's 1995 attitudes civilly, and where to place them. If Drmies finds wording in WP:BLP that is helpful, it needs to be quoted specifically. There has long been a statement about institutional racism in the article, which needs citation. Numbersinstitute (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to make this clear: Numbersinstitute clutched their pearls and removed "crock of BS" and "drive-by editors dumping", but had nothing of substance to add. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
NOTAFORUM please. I maintain that Stcalvert's edit is worthy of discussion on the talk page. As it stands now, I think its worthy of inclusion in the main article. Other editors may wish to weigh in. BudJillett (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know who you are telling that this is not a forum; I assume that it's Stcalvert, who makes ridiculous statements like "her feelings may have biased the material in the project". You have yet to address any of the arguments for and against inclusion--one wonders if you are just wanting to include it because you don't appreciate what the project was trying to do. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, this is NOTAFORUM. Please just let this Talk page do its job in debating the issue Stcalvert brought up in good faith. BudJillett (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You keep saying this is not a forum. I don't think you know what that means. You have yet to address any of the arguments for and against inclusion. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment to @BudJillett:, @Stcalvert:, and other editors: I stepped away for a few days to see if I could resolve the earlier derogatory comments, without success. So here are my thoughts on the 1995 item. It's covered in the Nikole Hannah-Jones biographical article. There's also a lot more there on her background which would have affected the writing of this project. So putting in one 1995 item would fail WP:UNDUE. The overall 1619 Project is a collection of essays, and there are multiple ways anyone, including Wikipedia, can write about essys. Formalism looks just at the writing, not the author's background, and many people were taught that approach and are suspicious of other approaches. On the other hand Biographical criticism is suspicious of the idea that a work can be separated from its origins. That would argue for a brief section on the background of Hannah-Jones and the other essayists, so readers whose approach is Biographical criticism have a start, with links for more information. Whether or not the 1995 item makes it into such a summary, readers can go to her full bio and see it there. The article already calls "the perspective of black writers an essential element of the story to be told," so other parts of their backgrounds would also be relevant. Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Stcalvert:, @Numbersinstitute: I'm not sure where this leaves us as far as editing the main article. Numbersinstitute appears to have done some thorough research as to how this should be handled, so I'll defer to Numbersinstitute's expertise here. BudJillett (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

Please add or expand upon a section to include the recent un-announced revisions of the Project that the New York Times Magazine has undertaken. Specifically, after claiming for months that the Project asserts the true founding of the United States to be in 1619, the NYT Mag and the lead writer, Nikole Hannah-Jones, have both removed those assertions from the Project's webpages and deleted Tweets asserting the same. Nikole Hannah-Jones has also subsequently claimed (falsely) that the characterization of the Project as making such an assertion was fabricated by "the right." The author also subsequently deleted her entire Twitter history.

Notably, the NYT Magazine has made no announcement of the changes to the Project, nor any explanation of them.

Some sources for these events and controversy: https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/21/nyt-deceptively-edits-false-claim-at-the-center-of-1619-project/ 12.208.95.100 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much clearer it could have been. An addition constitutes a change, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.143.196 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Note, replaced fake username with IP address. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
How can one request that a section be added? I would do it myself but the page is protected. The change is described in detail above so please stop being willfully ignorant. "change (X = a nonexistent section) to (a section described as above)." Here are some additional sources: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-1619-project-is-a-fraud , https://nypost.com/2020/09/21/now-the-1619-project-is-trying-to-rewrite-its-own-history/
The credibility of these sources themselves are not really relevant as they are describing verifiable (by anyone) changes made on the NYT Mag website and Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.143.196 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make precise edits. If you want to add a section, you need to give the exact text to add and tell us exactly where you want it added. Please also don't try to copy other people's comments and signatures. Write your own (indented) comment, and sign it yourself with 4 tildes (~~~~). All that being said, your two sources are no good – The NY Post is specifically deprecated (see WP:RSP), and the Examiner is iffy/partisan. There are already much better sources that document criticism, so I'm not sure what's gained by this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Defunding attempt

23 Jul 2020: "Senator Tom Cotton introduced the Saving American History Act of 2020, a bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the 1619 Project by K-12 schools or school districts." Not sure if worth mentioning until/unless it makes progress, just dropping it here as info. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 1776 Project article

"The 1776 Project" is a conservative response to the 1619 Project. The article about it was nominated for deletion. There was no consensus to delete, but the closer said a merge could be discussed elsewhere.

I don't think this is a subject that needs its own article. There is not much independent coverage of the project (most of the sources cited in the article are to the project itself, which was published in The Washington Examiner), and what independent sources there are are partisan. This makes it difficult to write a full, neutral article about the "1776 Project". Is there any objection to downsizing that article to a couple of sentences or so and moving it here? WanderingWanda (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, a great many editors have been working hard to flood this article with criticism, and it's already reached UNDUE status, so I'm going with no, let's not. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would prefer a redirect with (say) two sentences in this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a suspicious looking AFD, I am not sold on the outcome, NAC was a poor choice IMO. So, I have to ask, before we talk about merging, which multiple independent SIGCOVS are supposed to support content that's proposed be added to this article? There is one sentence already in this article; frankly I find that more than what's WP:DUE going by sources that I could (not) find on the topic. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No. This article is about the NYT project and that other one is not sponsored by the project at all. To merge them you would have to say this article was not about a NYT publication, which it is. Actually, I think that other project was never a serious undertaking at all and was just expanded from some angry tweets in August 2019. Jane (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The 1776 Project isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Having it redirect to the "Political reaction" section of this article would make sense. — Red XIV (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No. They are only partially related in theme, and run by two totally different organizations. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The 1619 Project is separate and the two should not be merged. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No. 1776 Project is too important an organization to merge into another article.Randomalphanumericstring (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, this page shouldn't cover the 1776 project beyond the current mention. Given the clear consensus, I'll now remove the merge-tag from both articles.
    I took a look at the AFD on the 1776 Project. That AFD is, at best, unreliable. It was largely poorly supported keep votes by new users. Two of those "keep" votes appealed to crystalball future Notability, which pretty much amount to WP:TOOSOON rationales to delete. It looks like all, or nearly all, of the available sources are either opinion or blogs (various GoogleNews hits) or talk shows (FOX talk shows are explicitly not RS and I assume that extends to the MSNBC talk show ref) or are the video-equivalent of a raw press release (c-span) or not-independent (Washington Examiner) or not reliable (Daily Signal resembles a news site but it's actually a front for Heritage Foundation). Alsee (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The project has sparked criticism and debate among prominent historians and political commentators

Shouldnt this just say debate? There are many historians that have praised it as well, but the lead doesnt say " The project has sparked praise, criticism and debate among prominent historians and political commentators" because that would just be stupid. So the wording should only say debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:201:5F00:949A:785A:8B16:189C (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Because the most prominent reactions by historians, by far, have been largely negative. The series of interviews with critical historians and the critical letters (first from the five historians, then from the Civil War historians) have received a lot of media coverage. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Protection.

Hey everyone, I am a somewhat inexperienced user and I don't know how the rules work. But because the 1619 Project is now being talked about on the news media and that the US President is talking about investigating it in public schools, shouldn't this page be protected in case of vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOADooAH1 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@MOADooAH1: While there has been a little bit of vandalism, I'm not sure it yet rises to the level of needing protection. I'm sure I'm not the only admin with this page on their watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If a problem arises here or anywhere else, you can post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (or the short link WP:RFPP). However in most cases it's simple enough to just revert the occasional bad edit. We try to follow the philosophy that "Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia anyone can edit". If somebody tries to make their first edit, and they can't, we may permanently lose someone who could have become a valuable contributor. Therefore we try not to protect pages unless vandalism/junk-edits have already become a notable nuisance, or if we fear a more serious level of disruption. Alsee (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry for being late to reply, but thanks for the response. MOADooAH1 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Protecting slavery as a motivation for American Revolution

It seems that the majority of historians reject this as a primary motivation, but we should probably mention somewhere the two historical events that seem to be most often cited in support of this idea: Somerset v Stewart (1772) and Dunmore's Proclamation (1775).--Pharos (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If we present a fringe view, we also have to present the mainstream view, and make it clear which is the mainstream view. I think that would take up too much space, though. People can click through to the sources and read what Silverstein wrote in defense of the project (he cited those two events), and how the various historians responded. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I do think there's some educational value in linking out to specific history, rather than just carefully summarizing who supports and opposes the idea. Perhaps we could even just link out to and further develop Slavery in the United States#Revolutionary era.--Pharos (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The NY Times already admitted this was a false narrative in their original publication. That's why they issued a correction, because it's an incorrect assertion. Additionally, Somerset and Dunmore's don't effectively support the idea. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Background section

A while back I restored the "Background" section from what had turned into a bloated dogwhistle on how slavery is eternal ([4]). As I said in my edit summary then, this article should focus on the background of the project itself, not relitigate the whole history of slavery or America (WP:SCOPE). Some of it has now been reverted by Kim9988 ([5]). The current version of the background constitutes an original argument in wikivoice (a counter-argument to the subject of the article to be precise), and is completely unacceptable. I am bringing this here because I don't edit-war. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Glancing at the refs added with the new content in Background, several appear directly related to the project, but I think their points belong more correctly in the Reception section. Schazjmd (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, it doesn't matter if the factoids are taken from sources that discuss the topic or elsewhere. The arguments provided/synthesised there are not in the scope of that section, which should give the immediate background to the project, to put it in immediate context. The reception section is already and still too big relative to the topic, I fear (which may or may not be because no one has bothered to expand any other part of the article since it was done in the first week of creation). I am considering whether there should be a separate section or article discussing the veracity of certain claims of the project, or if certain more controversial essays of the project should have their own standalone articles already. But those are all separate issues. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
You're arguing because I agreed that it didn't belong in Background? (And yes, it does matter whether the sources directly discuss the project. If they don't, it's synthesis.) I'll leave you to it, unwatching. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd, no, I was agreeing, and bouncing additional ideas. All I wanted was to make clear that my concern is independent of whether the material comes off relevant, otherwise usable sources. The fact that you only mentioned it because it would otherwise, in your view, be synthesis, means you were also only adding a "by the way", and we never had any disagreement anywhere. You commented of your own volition but took offence when it was replied to, I don't know what I could have done better. It's a shame you'll be unwatching; I wish you the best with whatever else you will be doing instead. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: @Usedtobecool: I'm interested in the suggestion of a separate section to discuss the veracity of certain claims of the project. What else would you put there? It is important background that the project said it addresses "the beginning of American slavery." That needs to be said, and accompanied by a correction that this was not actually the beginning of American slavery. The correction is not an original argument; it's mainstream history. As noted above in a different context, WP:WEIGHT says: "articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint [such as The 1619 Project]... should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This was discussed earlier this year in Goals of 1619 Project. Kim9988 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: @Usedtobecool: On 19 Sept 2020, Usedtobecool removed material on pre-1619 slavery from the Background section, so I put better sourced material in the Reaction from historians section. On 22 Sept Usedtobecool removed it from there. This material (A) is from reliable sources factually rebutting the 1619 project's view that slavery in America began in 1619. The material also (B) meets the demands of WP:WEIGHT to cover the majority view of historians that slavery in America began long before 1619. I'm open to where in the article to meet WP:WEIGHT's requirement that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it"? Kim9988 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Kim9988,
  • historians pointed out that-- This is WP:OR.
  • Who is Susan Parker and why does she deserve the kind of prominence you've given her? And why are you presenting her claims that she made in an opinion piece as fact in Wikipedia's voice: "Florida historian Susan Parker had contacted the 1619 Project when it was organizing, several years before, and found they were aware of the longer history of American slavery, and chose not to cover it"?
  • If there is a weight of high quality unbiased sources behind the claim that 1619 project's view of the history is a minority viewpoint and the majority viewpoint is something else, I can see how that would be due (Even then, it should be sufficient to point out that there was slavery before, I don't see any merit to listing every example from history from Puerto Rico to Florida to Native Americans). But so far, all I've seen are primary sources of the controversy each taking one side or the other. Counting available sources or academics on each side and arguing which is minor and which is major is WP:OR and is unacceptable.
NYT took the Anglocentric view of when America began and a few others pointed out that that was narrow-minded, that Eurocentric one would be better. That fails to be either an endorsement or a condemnation of the project in general and I don't see how it's relevant to the broader issues involving this topic, to be honest. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision of the main point of the project at the NYT

Some media is reporting that the NYT has been quietly deleting material claiming the main point of the 1619 project is a new date for America's founding. You can find articles here and here. However, none of these sources are considered reliable (see WP:RSP). Can people find other confirming sources which would warrant inclusion? MonsieurD (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That would verge on WP:OR. Here is a source which I think is admissible. MonsieurD (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@MonsieurD: Where is the OR? All you have to do is cite the NYT claims, as archived on the archive.org, without further comment. It would be OR if any comment on the NYT's surreptitious later editing were made, but if you just cite what the NYT published in August 2019, there is no OR. XavierItzm (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Fine, do it and see if it sticks. MonsieurD (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The Federalist is not a reliable source. I have removed it and one other source, but the section is supported by other sources too, so I did not change other text.--MattMauler (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The NY Times itself recently published an opinion column that comments on the unannounced edits: [6]. There's been enough commentary on these edits that they should be noted in the "Reception" section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: The NAS letter has been covered by the Washington Post ([7]) and in the opinion pages of the New York Times ([8]) and Wall Street Journal ([9]). More broadly, the controversy over the unannounced edits to the project has elicited responses from the lead author of the 1619 Project, the editor of the NY Times Magazine, the executive editor of the NY Times ([10]) and the owner of the NY Times ([11]), which is quite unusual. The issue has become notable enough that it should, at this point, be included in the lede.
Also, this addition is sourced to a tweet, which by itself is not notable. Nikole Hannah-Jones is quoted in the recent Washington Post article about the controversies surrounding the 1619 Project. A quote from that article could be selected. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
That Washington Post article is a long article about the entire project and barely mentions the NAS letter. To single out that one aspect of the article is classic WP:UNDUE. If you wish to substitute another relevant quote by Nikole Hannah-Jones, please do so. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Coverage in the Washington Post, NY Times and WSJ makes the NAS letter pretty notable, in my opinion. The Washington Post goes over the entire controversy surrounding the 1619 Project, and it includes the NAS letter as part of that controversy. I think our Wiki article covers most of the other aspects of the controversy described by the Washington Post piece. The NAS letter prompted an Op-Ed in the NY Times that has sparked a lot of controversy, and which has now caused even the owner of the Times to comment. Back when it was just Quillette commenting on the revisions to the project, I didn't think that was notable enough for inclusion. But now that the NAS has issued its letter, the Washington Post, NY Times and WSJ have all published on the letter, and a wider controversy has ensued, which CNN and other media is reporting on, this story has clearly passed the threshold of DUE. It should be mentioned in some manner in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You mention coverage in the Washington Post, but what you don't mention is that the lead does not cover every aspect of what is mentioned in the Washington Post, nor should it. I also disagree with replacing a quote from NHJ with a poor paraphrase, that section is already heavily weighted towards detractors and replacing a strong statement with a paraphrase only furthers that skew. Gamaliel (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If the text seems to focus heavily on criticism, that is because there has been a lot of coverage in reliable sources of criticism of the 1619 Project (See WP:BALANCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE). The Washington Post article focuses heavily on criticism of the 1619 Project, as do all of the articles I have seen that deal with the revisions. The revisions to the project have generated a lot of coverage and commentary, including by the most senior figures at the NY Times (CNN called the statement - later retracted - by the NY Times Writers' Guild an "extraordinary move": "1619 Project faces renewed criticism — this time from within The New York Times"). This controversy has developed into one of the most notable aspects of the project, and that should be reflected by in the lede by at least one sentence of coverage.
As for Nikole Hannah-Jones' quote, it's unacceptable to include an arbitrary quote selected from her Twitter feed. Whatever we include must come from a secondary source. I replaced her quote with a paraphrase from the Washington Post article. I wrote, [...], and that critics were interpreting her rhetorical flourishes too literally. The Washington Post wrote, Hannah-Jones, meanwhile, protested that critics were taking her own flourishes too literally. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Thucydides411. MonsieurD (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Your comment conflates criticism of the project with coverage of this insignificant letter. Obviously criticism belongs in the intro, but not every single aspect of the criticism does. A quote which directly addresses inaccurate claims extensively quoted from non-RS opinion pieces is certainly not arbitrary. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Secondary coverage in the Washington Post and the opinion pages of the NY Times and Wall Street Journal indicates that the letter is not insignificant. I don't know what "inaccurate claims" or "non-RS" you're talking about. Perhaps you can clarify. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Quillette and NYT opinion columns. Why did you remove the CNN source? CNN is a secondary source, which is what you said your standard was. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Quillette and NYT opinion columns are allowable with in-line attribution, especially because they have been referenced in secondary coverage in several other outlets. The quote from CNN appears to be from an on-air segment. Is that right? Is there any indication that this quote was notable? Has that interview been referenced in secondary coverage? We go by weight in secondary coverage, not by an idea of giving each side equal time. Stephens' column has been discussed in many secondary sources, which is why we have a quote from him. If you want to include a quote from Hannah-Jones, then there are a few in this Washington Post article and in this CNN article. Is there one you think should be included? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

s/Alleged/Unannounced/ in "... revision of initial claims" heading

I've changed the heading "Alleged revision of initial claims" to "Unannounced revision of initial claims". It's more than alleged that these revisions were made: the sources linked in the section show visual evidence and the NYT has not contested that the revisions were made. What they are contesting is whether or not it was proper to make those changes without advertising their correction. With that understanding, it's an uncontested fact that the revision occurred, not merely an alleged claim whose truth needs to be verified. The controversy is about the lack of a notice. Tobor0 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Revisitionist

The adjective "revisionist" isn't negative. The project seeks to re-examine the history of the United States and reinterpret historical narratives. This fits squarely into the definition of Revisionism. Since I anticipate some editors may misinterpret this, I've created this talk page. If you disagree with the adjective, please comment before reverting.

The 1619 Project was already under the "See Also" of Historical Revisionism.

Q746371 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Individual Assertions

A great deal of ink has been spilled about the accuracy of each of the claims made by the project. Toward that end, I've created a new section, "Motivations for the Revolution". I think it would be great if we created more sections like this. It would help to reader to understand the accuracy of each of the claims made by the project, rather than just that the review was "generally negative." DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Introduction Neutrality

Notice that the introduction discusses controversy, but every paragraph in the introductory section ends with a sentence positive to the project. This gives an impression of support for the project. Support among historians seems to be negative, or at least split. Given previous statements on this talk page about "and generally negative reviews from historians", and an absence of arguments against this proposal, I propose modifying the introduction section to be in line with historian's view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The editors adding these positive statements usually use phrases like "In response, ...". Q746371

I would suggest that there is too much discussion of the controversy in the lede. The lede is not supposed to be the article; the lede is only supposed to be an introduction to the article. Nearly twice as much of the lede is about the controversy as is about the project itself; this is unbalanced. Much of this material should be moved to be the introductory paragraphs to the "reception" section. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
A large fraction of the lede being reception isn't necessarily a problem. The general historical reception has been negative. Much of the content written about the 1619 project has been controversy.
I'm starting the BRD here, so let's leave it as is and discuss before modifying. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of NYT Silverstein source

Objection 1 What Wikipedia says, in the apparent Wikipedia voice:

"despite documented anti-capitalist sentiment among many Southern slaveholders"

While the given source does indeed say this, another person in the same source says: "[the sentiment] does not have to do with capitalism but with aristocratic plantation owners scoffing at small-scale family farms of the north."

Clearly a conflict here. Either change the wording out of the Wikipedia voice, or remove the sentence.

Objection 2 Wikipedia says:

"While agreeing to the importance of examining American slavery, they objected to the portrayal of slavery as a uniquely American phenomenon, to construing slavery as a capitalist venture despite documented anti-capitalist sentiment among many Southern slaveholders, and to presenting out-of-context quotes of a conversation between Abraham Lincoln and "five esteemed free black men." The following month, Times editor Jake Silverstein replied with notes from the research desk, concluding that the scholars had requested the inclusion of additional information, rather than corrections to existing information."

By declining to include mention of Silverstein's factual rebuttal, this strongly implies that Silverstein declined to give a factual rebuttable, and instead merely dismissed the factual objections as merely non-factual (which he did not do). The effect of painting Silvertein's response in a highly misleading light.

It would be like if we said: "James pointed out that John made a factual error. John responded by saying that James simply dislikes him personally", while failing to mention John also, in the same retort, rebutted the supposed factual error. Adding this important context is not WP:UNDUE, and and fact failing leaves the reader with a quite misleading version of events. Masebrock (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should say "Silverstein concluded that the scholars had requested the inclusion of additional information, rather than corrections to existing information" and reference a source where Silverstein says "I do allow that some of the queries in your letter are of a more factual nature. Below is our research desk’s responses to those matters." It's just plainly inaccurate, per the source. Masebrock (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Your edits look fine to me. Of course, the historians strongly disagreed with the factual rebuttals, and the NY Times itself ended up softening one of the central claims that the historians objected to (about the causes of the American Revolution), but it is true that Silverstein did respond to some of the points made by the historians. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

1776 Project vs. 1776 Commission

The sentence about the 1776 Project has been repeatedly removed or merged into the "Political Reactions" section: [12] [13] [14]. Some editors are confusing the 1776 Project (also known as "1776 Unites") with the similarly named, but completely different 1776 Commission (it doesn't help that the Washington Post confused the two in its article on the subject, mistakenly calling the commission's "1776 Report" the "1776 Project Report": [15]). The 1776 Project is a series of essays written by African American academics and journalists. The 1776 Commission was a commission created by the Trump Administration to promote "patriotic education". They aren't the same thing.

The latest removal of the sentence about the 1776 Project stated that it was undue. Here are a few references (including both positive and negative commentaries on it) to demonstrate that it is notable, in the context of the 1619 Project: Chronicle of Higher Education, WSJ, Jacobin, Politico. I think it's notable enough for a single sentence. The one thing I would change about the previous description of the 1776 Project / 1776 Unites is that I would specify that it is a politically conservative response to the 1619 Project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability is not the applicable test. Please read the NPOV policy. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't link to WP:N. I used the English word "notable". The relevant policy acronym is WP:DUE. Based on the above sources, one sentence about the 1776 Project is fully in line with DUE. -Thucydides411 (talk)

NAS Letter

NAS is a very significant organization with a considerable reputation. There may have been only 21 signatories, but they were very important. I think this is DUE. I don't think the number of signatories is relevant. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

NAS is a partisan group with a considerable reputation for right-wing ideology, and 21 people signing a letter is literally nothing compared to the Pulitzer Prize board. At any rate, it does not belong in a section about awards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Given coverage in the Washington Post ([16]), and the opinion pages of the NY Times ([17]) and Wall Street Journal ([18]), there's enough secondary coverage of the NAS letter that it's significant. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Then it needs to be in the correct section - the "Political responses" section. As our article on the group explains, NAS is a politically-conservative advocacy group. The argument of a single right-wing group doesn't merit equal placement and space with the decision of the Pulitzer Prize board - that would be clearly undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Weight is determined by secondary coverage. Yes, the NAS is conservative (which doesn't at all discredit their criticism), but their criticism has had significant secondary coverage. More broadly, the significant criticism of the Pulitzer Prize board's decision should be noted in the relevant section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"Significant criticism" - you have cited a letter signed by a total of 21 people, members of a single right-wing advocacy group, which you have found brief (dismissive) mention of in a single Washington Post article, and two op-ed columns. Sorry, but that's just not "significant." Particularly given that there's been zero ongoing coverage and zero indication that anyone takes them seriously, or that the Pulitzer Prize board is actually considering doing so. "Angry conservatives are angry" is dog-bites-man stuff. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm noting the secondary coverage of that letter. The Washington Post's article summarizing the 1619 Project, for example, discusses the NAS letter (I didn't view it as "dismissive"). I don't know why the conservative nature of the NAS is disqualifying, any more than the very different political views of other critics (or supporters) of the project are disqualifying. What matters is that WaPo and other outlets found it important enough to report on. As for "ongoing coverage", there's a natural cycle of news coverage. "Ongoing coverage" of the 1619 Project as a whole has dropped off steeply. It peaks each time there's a new controversy, but we can't expect it to continue unabated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Per WP:RSOPINION, opinion pieces are not usable to cite statements of fact, especially not such broad sweeping summaries of opinion; we could use those with in-line citations, if we avoid giving them WP:UNDUE weight, but we can't use them to assess weight like this ourselves, because the people writing them are expressing only their personal opinion on what aspects of the topic are important and are not generally subject to the fact-checking and accuracy constraints used for genuine reporting or academic writing. Any op-ed writer can dig up only scholars who agree with them and then argue that their opinions are the sole mainstream; but we require better sourcing than that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The National Association of Scholars is an advocacy group. They shouldn't be cited here at all, certainly not via the extremely weak sourcing being used to justify it above. The current suggestions rely far too much on a relatively tiny handful of opinion pieces citing a relatively tiny handful of people from a single advocacy group - this isn't WP:DUE for more than a single sentence somewhere in the body, at most, and even that will require in-line citations to the opinion pieces being used for it and an accurate description of the NAS as a conservative advocacy group every time anything from it is referenced per WP:RSOPINION. Advocacy groups and opinion pieces are terrible sources for something so controversial, especially when so many higher-quality sources exist. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We're not citing the NAS for statements of fact. We're noting a letter that they wrote (with attribution). That letter received significant secondary coverage, meaning that mention of it is DUE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
But you're citing opinion pieces for statements of fact when you say that it received secondary coverage; that's using those opinion pieces to characterize the topic. It requires inline citations to do so and makes it less WP:DUE to give it the amount of weight I feel you're trying to give it here. Is it worth mentioning somewhere in the article? Sure. Is it a defining aspect of the topic? No. A handful of opinion pieces, mostly from within about a week or so of each other, citing a letter from an advocacy group doesn't require much weight; the one source outside of that timeframe and from someone that can reasonably be called an expert is mostly dismissive of the letter's importance and characterizes its authors as a handful of prominent historians who have offered sharp criticism of that publication’s purportedly revisionist narrative of the American story - hardly a ringing endorsement that the letter represents a broad swath of academia or is representative of the general reception the 1619 project received. --Aquillion (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't follow what you're saying. How is pointing to the existence of articles that discuss the letter the same as citing opinion pieces for statements of fact? Is it a defining aspect of the topic? No. I don't think anyone is arguing that it is. I'm just saying that it's significant enough that it should be noted. One sentence is sufficient. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversial

The word "controversial" ought to be added to the article here: "The 1619 Project is an ongoing controversial initiative from........" link: [19] link: [20] link: [21] link: [22] link: [23] link: [24] link: [25] link: [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.98.50 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This was already discussed in "generally negative reviews" above. Q746371

EDIT: To be clear, there's consensus that this should be done. I've done it but there appears to be some vandalism. DenverCoder9 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus to state, in the lede in Wikipedia's voice, that this is "controversial." We don't use that word in the lede of the 1776 Commission, and there is far more universality in the condemnation of that entity and its report. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I dislike inclusion of negative qualifiers like "controversial" into the first sentence of the lede of articles. While I think the 1619 Project clearly is controversial, including that label in the opening sentence is just gratuitous, and does not come across as neutral writing. The same goes for labeling the project "historical revisionism" in the first sentence. In short, I support your edit of the first sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof and Thucydides411, we shouldn’t be saying “controversial” in the first sentence and I don’t see the clear consenus that DenverCoder9 claims exists anywhere. Theres almost never an appropriate time to use that sort of language right at the beginning of the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
You need to go quite far back in the history of the talk page. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Re "historical revisionism", see that section of the talk page. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT 2020-01-18: there's been consensus on this. If you'd like to remove this from the lede, please achieve consensus on the talk page first. Consensus was achieved to keep it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia bias

This article is extremely biased in favor of the cultural Marxist anti-American false history narrative put forward by the New York Times. Here we have someone from India who doesn't even speak English as a native language falsely claiming that correcting English grammatical errors makes me a "racist." Then he undoes my improvement to the article, falsely claiming that Breitbart is not a reliable source. On top of that some moderator locks the page down, claiming that I "vandalized" it. Breitbart is obviously far more reliable than the New York Times, a far-left propaganda newspaper that tells a completely false revisionist history account of the United States in order to further the Marxist agenda of destroying America. Funny that an Indian thinks he knows American history better than an American who actually has a History degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtikweals (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Would an admin please revdel this edit summary from the history of this highly visible article? Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Shtikweals if you are responsible for the edit linked above, perhaps you can see that the edit summary is racial.
Wikipedia has Policies and guidelines, including one on Reliable sources. Breitbart was specifically evaluated, and consensus of the editor community determined that Breitbart fails our Reliable Source criteria. If you aren't interested in our policies and guidelines, or uninterested in respecting our consensus issue resolution process, or if you are unable to avoid injecting race as you did in your comment above, you might be happier editing conservapedia.com instead. Alsee (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I have revdeleted the summary in question. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: Happy to be of assistance. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Alsee, I think "racial" was a bit mild. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

76.80.94.226 (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)This wiki article is edited by Marxists about a Marxist project (1619) by referencing a Marxist propaganda outlet, the NYT. Wikipedia needs to get out this ridiculous Marxist hall of mirrors that is sinister in intent.

America vs North America vs United States

The 1619 Project has been the subject of significant criticism and with that in mind, we need to strive for more specific language as to what "America" means in the context of its usage. Here are three examples of some of the changes I am making:

"The 1619 Project was launched in August 2019 to commemorate "the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved people arriving" in North America."

The United States did not formally exist until July 4th, 1776. As such, this statement cannot refer to America the country. It must mean the landing on the continent of North America.

"The project dedicated an issue of the magazine to a re-examination of the legacy of slavery in the United States....."

This statement previously was not talking about the generic "America", which could potentially go as far south as Argentina? It was a reference to the country, the United States.

"the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in England's Virginia colony."

This one is likely the most important because America the country(The United States) was not founded until 1776, so then this wiki article must reflect that Virginia was one of the colonies of the British Empire. The article that is linked to says this:

"The first Africans in Virginia were a group of "20 and odd" captives originally from the Kingdom of Ndongo in modern Angola, who arrived in 1619 in the colony of Virginia. They had been part of a larger group heading to Mexico, and were taken after an attack on their Portuguese slave ship by English privateers. Their arrival is seen as a beginning of the history of slavery in Virginia and also as a starting point for African-American history, given that they were the first such group in mainland British America."

There are other instances of "America" in the article that I did not change, but at any point where they can be made more specific they should be.(except only perhaps to direct quotes) This specificity should help reduce some of the consistent controversy that has been seen. Progressingamerica (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If this was some sort of horrible ambiguity that the readers were incapable of parsing you’d have a different name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Replacing the Pilgrims

There's an undertone that I'm surprised hasn't made it into the article yet. In essence, The 1619 Project sets out to replace the story of the Pilgrims. Hannah-Jones has acknowledged the connection: "that we actually arrived here before the pilgrims", USA Today has acknowledged it: "the notion that their ancestors’ presence in America predated the 1620 arrival of the Pilgrims story was a mind-boggling revelation", Politico acknowledged it: "The New York Times’ 1619 Project excited tremendous controversy because it challenged established narratives that date the founding of America’s political development and character to 1620 or 1776.", and Senator Cotton also acknowledged this connection in his commentaries. [27][28][29][30] Our national story beginning with the Pilgrims has been acknowledged both directly and indirectly for over 200 years basically since George Washington, and this should be at least (once) noted in the article. Progressingamerica (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

geez, and i thought communism and everything else happening these past 4 years was bad... now we have the revisionists running this project trying to rewrite the history of this nation and replace it with lies and misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.24.47 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

~3,000 more bytes about one response article which was already covered

@16AdityaG09: please justify the massively expanded use of a single low-quality source (an op-ed), that seems to be massively undue. The extended quotes are also out of the ordinary, its much too much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also just FYI you appear to fundamentally misunderstand what an op-ed is... Your edit summary assertion that "This is the NYT's own criticism of its own project” is simply untrue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"Within the New York Times" read this, to see why this article is important. Read this, this, this and this to see how this op-ed generated vast responses, even from the rest of the NYT editors themselves, multiple times. This column ranked top on the paper's most-emailed list for multiple days.
And frankly I didn't add any persuasions towards any point of view. I just quoted what he said. I am reversing the changes you did to that section. 16AdityaG09 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
There are no statements that have been presented as facts. I put all the claims in quotes. 16AdityaG09 (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a new low even for this article. There is no way in hell that much text is DUE. I have reverted. Contested additions should not be reintroduced until a consensus for inclusion is found. So, please do not revert back before this has been talked through. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The text that was added was too detailed. Bret Stephens' commentary was significant, generated a minor crisis in the NY Times that's been reported on elsewhere (see the articles that 16AdityaG09 links above), and prompted responses from a number of major figures at the Times. However, we don't have to recapitulate every argument from Bret Stephens' commentary. It should also be noted that Stephens' piece is already discussed in the "Unannounced revision of initial claims" section. I think that section is fine, but in the "Journalistic reaction" section, one more sentence summarizing Stephens' major historiographical criticisms (as opposed to his criticisms about journalistic practices) should be added. We don't need a detailed rundown, but one additional sentence would be due. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I added everything that was already there, plus Stephens' major historiographical criticisms. 16AdityaG09 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@16AdityaG09: I don't think that's appropriate. Could you self-revert and then propose a shorter version of the text here? What you've added has way too much detail, and since the text has been disputed, adding it again could be viewed as edit-warring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I just cut some parts. 16AdityaG09 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@16AdityaG09: The paragraph is still too long. Can you propose a paragraph consisting of three normal-length sentences? I don't think anything longer than that is warranted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Thucydides411, Stephens is just not that significant a figure to merit a sea of their opinions. Why would we include the major historiographical criticisms of someone who isn't a historiographer? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Stephens' column did generate a large amount of press, and it was seen as significant that the NY Times allowed one of their columnists to criticize the 1619 Project so harshly. For that reason, his main historiographical criticisms should be briefly explained in the "Journalistic reaction" section. @16AdityaG09: Could you try to summarize Stephens' major historiographical criticisms in three or fewer normal-length sentences? Please post your proposal here before putting it into the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Further Reading

Wikipedia:Further reading has guidelines about what sorts of links should be included in "Further Reading" sections. Links should be topical and reliable, and the whole list should be balanced and limited.

I recently removed a link to Gerald Horne's book, The Counter-Revolution of 1776. I've been reverted, and the link has been added back in: [31]. The book is arguably topical, because its thesis is similar to the 1619 Project's claim about the American Revolution and slavery. This thesis was the aspect of the Project that brought the heaviest criticism from historians, however, which brings us to the 2nd consideration: reliability. The thesis that the revolution was a counter-revolution meant to stave off abolitionism has basically no support among historians. To say that this thesis is "controversial" would be extremely charitable. For that reason, I don't think this book should be listed in the "Further Reading" section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Controversial" does not automatically mean "fringe"; the topic-area of the 1619 project as a whole is controversial, so obviously any sources related to it would be controversial. We still have to cover the background of those controversial aspects - inclusion there, in this context, does not imply endorsement of the book's thesis, just the idea that reading about it is useful understanding the topic. We could possibly add clarifications stating what point of view a particular external link is included to represent (something I have seen done on similar articles). --Aquillion (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I wrote that "controversial" would be a charitable term to use. A blunter term would be WP:FRINGE. If we want to direct the reader towards materials that give a better understanding of the topic, then we should pick a mainstream historical work, and there are many that we could choose from. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This source is one you presented above. It says:
  • Historians would be justified to complain that the Times presents as a radical reorientation an interpretation that differs little from a long-term, if still incomplete, trend to move African American history to the center of the American narrative. I share my colleagues’ frustration that journalists occasionally draw on years of our unacknowledged research to publish under the banner of “Extra, extra, never been told before!”
And in covering that specific claim, the author says:
  • Admittedly, at a minimum, her formulation seriously overstates the anti-slavery bona fides of the British Empire at the time, not to mention the universality of pro-slavery views in the colonies. Fair enough. So, then, what would suffice in its stead? “One of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence”? How about “some of the Patriots fought for independence in the knowledge that it would secure their investments in slavery”? Presumably at least some of the letter writers would find the following counter-formulation no less objectionable: “there were many reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence, but the preservation of slavery was not among them.” While Hannah-Jones may be guilty of overstatement, this is more a matter of emphasis than it is of a correct or incorrect interpretation.
In other words, it's not as fringe as you're making it out to be - it's a point that is reasonably debated in academia, even if some scholars overstate their case on it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The first quote you gave says nothing about the thesis that the Revolution was motivated by a desire to preserve slavery. It's talking rather nebulously about "reorientation" of history and what to put at "the center of the American narrative." The writer admits that the claim made by the 1619 Project is a "serious overstate[ment]", and then muses about what Hannah-Jones could have written instead. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but calling something an overstatement is a really, really far gap from calling the position fringe, especially given that they make clear that the converse statement would be similarly objectionable. It presents the subject as a valid topic of dispute and directly pushes back against the people trying to characterize it otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, a couple of points. First, this comment "From the Editor's Desk" in the AHR was one of the very few somewhat positive historical reactions to the 1619 Project, and it's still very hesitant. Second, the AHR published a series of really scathing responses to the editor's comment: [32]. I'll excerpt from Sean Wilentz' letter here:

After scorning the letter as unenlightening, you confess that some of its contentions about serious inaccuracies are in fact correct; but then you briskly excuse the errors as mere 'overstatement.' Is it overstatement to claim that the Americans in 1776 were perturbed by a rising outcry against the Atlantic slave trade in Britain? Is it overstatement to aver that the colonists, North and South, were driven to revolution because they feared that London was going to upend their economy by closing the Atlantic slave trade? No, these are simple falsehoods that require correction by the Times.

Instead it dwells on how 'peculiar' it is that African American historians who might have been critical of the 1619 Project, like Barbara Fields, were not interviewed. [...] Barbara Fields, the scholar you single out as worth listening to, has written to the interviewers of her concerns that some of her students might be 'seduced by' the 1619 Project's 'tendentious and ignorant history.'

That last judgment, "tendentious and ignorant history", by a historian whom the AHR editor said should be consulted, really stings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
One more thing: Lichtenstein writes, Admittedly, at a minimum, her formulation seriously overstates the anti-slavery bona fides of the British Empire at the time, not to mention the universality of pro-slavery views in the colonies (emphasis added). This is more than just a small overstatement. He's saying that at a minimum, it's a serious overstatement. The historians who replied to Lichtenstein, particularly Wilentz, took him to task for this, writing that "seriously overstates" is putting it too lightly, and that the claim is just plain false. Again, if we want to give readers further reading to deepen their knowledge of the subject, we should point them to mainstream material, not material that advances a thesis that is viewed as simply false by some of the most eminent historians of early America (such as Gordon Wood, Sean Wilentz and Barbara Fields). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
No personal opinions, please. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't given my personal opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • For reference, here's some academic reviews. They don't all agree with everything in the book - again, if it's used as an external link, it would be to present a particular relevant point of view, not with the implication that it's axiomatically right about everything - but none of them treat it as anything remotely like WP:FRINGE. [33][34][35]. Here is a bunch more. Again, it's a subject of heated debate in academia (not so much absolute right and wrong, but how much emphasis and weight is appropriate to give that as one of the causes), but it's not at all treated as a fringe perspective. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The view that the Revolution was motivated by a desire to preserve slavery is absolutely WP:FRINGE. There's no real historical debate about it, because as Gordon Wood as correctly pointed out, there's no documentary evidence at all that British abolitionism (a very small movement at the time, and tightly interconnected with the larger abolitionist movement in the middle colonies and New England) motivated any of the colonists to oppose the Empire. This is the claim that even the NY Times' own fact-checker, Leslie Harris, told them to omit, and which they eventually felt compelled to "clarify". We should be pointing readers to mainstream historiography. If we specifically want a work about slavery during the colonial and Revolutionary era, then Edmund Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom is a much more standard work. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The view that the Revolution was motivated solely by a desire to preserve slavery is, perhaps (it's also a strawman in the sense that few people advocate it.) The belief that it was a factor in the revolution is absolutely mainstream - fringe perspectives do not have a huge number of reputable scholars discussing books about them supportively. Again, look at the massive list of reviews, sources and citations I found above for Horne, most of which are not at all treating him as fringe. It isn't sufficient for you to find scholars who disagree and say "well, these people criticize it, so it's WP:FRINGE"; additionally, since we're discussing Of course more standard sources exist, but this article is at least in part about that debate; the argument that it is nonstandard (ie. there is serious debate in academia about the extent to which it was a cause) is not at all sufficient to disregard the entire topic as fringe. Again, go over the roughly a hundred scholarly reviews about Horne's book above. There are plenty that don't entirely accept his thesis or who feel he needs more evidence (although there's also plenty that do broadly accept it), but he's not treated as fringe; he's a respected academic, not a random crank. You need to actually engage with that rather than citing the same handful of people disagreeing with that thesis again and again and again. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The view that it played any major role in motivating the American Revolution is fringe, as evidenced by the massive response of historians to this very claim in the 1619 Project. I'm sorry, but when Gordon Wood and Sean Wilentz call the idea completely baseless and false (not merely overstated or exaggerated), you can't simply dismiss that. Gordon Wood is very widely viewed as the foremost expert on the political writings during the Revolution and its ideological origins, and when he says that not a single colonist expressed alarm that Britain was going to abolish slavery, that carries a lot of weight.
We have a choice of what to put in the "Further Reading" section. Right now, the choice has been made to put in a work that presents a thesis that's viewed as absolutely false by the leading experts on the subject. You argue that the source is not fringe, but why include it at all? I propose that we do one of two things: either we restrict the "Further Reading" section to books that are specifically about the 1619 Project, or we include a mainstream work on the Revolution. My preference is for the former, but if we want to direct readers to a book about the Revolution, we should pick something whose central thesis is not vehemently opposed by the leading experts on the subject. Baylin's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is a fairly standard work (and it discusses slavery at some length), though there are other possible choices. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty devastating review of the book in Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, by J. Kent McGaughy. Addressing the central thesis of the book, McGaughy writes,

However, Horne's effort to establish a connection between slave resistance and the decision to declare American independence is unsupported by the evidence.

He continues,

Toward the end Horne's book devolves into a polemical justification for why his thesis must be true rather than a presentation of evidence that proves his thesis.

One of McGaughy's major criticisms of Horne is the lack of primary sourcing for his claims, and even worse, misrepresentation of sources:

Horne alters or misquotes sources, and far too often relies on primary sources cited in secondary works rather than referring to original documents.

McGaughy gives two clear examples in which quotations are seriously misrepresented, and then writes,

These are not the only citations that raised questions found in Horne's book, and this kind of recklessness undermines the credibility of his entire work.

Near the end of the review, McGaughy writes,

The careless and/or nonexistent citations in The Counter-Revolution of 1776 and Independence have a direct effect on determining the appropriate target audiences for both of these books. Horne seems to suggest in his conclusion that he hopes his book will lead to further study of this subject. If Horne wants to be a trailblazer, then he needs to leave a trail that others can follow—which represents the role citations are meant to play. Unfortunately, his poorly constructed and inaccurate citations make it difficult for anyone to follow up on his conclusions.

This criticism is very much along the same lines as Wood's criticism of the idea that the revolution was motivated by a desire to preserve slavery: it's simply unsupported by any primary documents. I just question why it is that "Further Reading" has to direct readers towards this particular work. Again, I think there are two ways forward. On the one hand, we could limit the "Further Reading" section to works that are directly about the 1619 Project. On the other hand, if we want to include additional reading about the American Revolution, we should include a mainstream work. There are many that we could choose from, but Bailyn's Ideological Origins is a standard work, and chapter VI of the book covers the issue of slavery in the revolution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Relevance to the article

Correct me if I am wrong, but Horne's 2014 book did not predict that The New York Times and The New York Times magazine would few years later create the 1619 project. In other words, the book does not include even one word about the subject of this article, correct? If my assumption is wrong, why is it that the book is "further reading" material, but not used cited as an actual source about the subject? Politrukki (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

'Commemorate' wrong word?

I thought at first that commemorate was a bad choice of a word, but the NYT itself used it: "To commemorate this historic moment and its legacy, The New York Times Magazine has dedicated an entire issue and special broadsheet section, out this Sunday, to exploring the history of slavery and mapping the ways in which it has touched nearly every aspect of contemporary life in the United States." Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Who has alleged that NYT Magazine website was not revised?

With regards to subsection heading "Alleged revision of initial claims" (see this), has someone credibly asserted that The New York Times Magazine did not revise its website? For example The Washington Post, which is cited in the section, reports

the libertarian journal Quillette noticed that the Times had removed a phrase from the 1619 Project website describing the date as "our true founding." But no clarification was issued, leading critics to suggest the Times was trying to wipe clean its history without owning up to its mistakes.

The Post also reports that Jake Silverstein, the magazine's editor in chief, acknowledged that the website was doctored, but, to paraphrase, Silverstein denied that the doctoring was deceptive.

Unless there is a serious dispute as to whether NYTM website was revised, Wikipedia should not describe this as an allegation, per WP:WIKIVOICE and MOS:ALLEGED. Politrukki (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly retitled the section Revision of initial claims, removing the word Alleged. If therre is dispute regarding whether or not revisions were made, the section should probably be re-retitled something like Reported revision .... However, besides sources cited in the article re revisions of the NYT web page, see this and compare the current version of the target of the Official website link on the NYT website linked in the External links section of the article with the archived copy of the originally published version. Perhaps some rewriting is needed to shift the focus of this from the question of whether revisions have been made to changes in assertions made on the website (as described in cited RSs, of course). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Strenuously disagree. No non-opinion sources that I can see support the argument that it was revised. The positions of the NAS and the piece from Quillette can only be reported as opinion, not stated in Wikipedia voice as fact; the non-opinion coverage of them carefully only cites the argument that this represents a revision of the initial claims to those sources, and notes Nikole Hannah-Jones' and the Times' disagreement. Obviously we cannot take something that news sources describe in terms like critics claim and treat it as fact. This is an unequivocal BLP violation (in that the old wording unambiguously accuses Nikole Hannah-Jones, in the article voice, of something we have no BLP-quality sources supporting); do not restore it without a clear, non-opinion, high-quality source unambiguously that text. The entire section seems extremely WP:UNDUE (Quillette and the National Association of Scholars are not WP:RSes nor particularly significant sources; the only secondary non-opinion coverage is a single Washington Post article that only mentions them in passing and with self-evident he said / she said skepticism), so we should probably trim it down further. But in any case we cannot cover it in a way that implies that the opinions of Stephens, Quillette, and the National Association of Scholars are factual. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hannah-Jones does not stand accused of revising the web site. The New York Times Magazine is not a living person. Did you read any secondary sources before commenting? Politrukki (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
(from Wtmitchell) Aquillion, despite my bold edit here with which you express disagreement, this article is not a big deal with me and I would prefer not to be drawn into a discussion of these issues. Hopefully, a consensus can be reached on this quickly. I'll start by agreeing with the points made by Politrukki above. Beyond that, (1) I'm not sure from your disagreement comment whether or not you disagree with my assertion that the article was, in fact, revised. Do you dispute this? (2) I see here that the section at issue has been retiled Response since my edit but otherwise remains pretty much unchanged. Do you have other disagreements which we need to discuss? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not we think that what happened qualifies as a revision of initial claims, as you have suggested some people might believe, doesn't matter. What matters is what the sources say. None of the secondary sources in the article state so in the article voice; all that I see are some opinion pieces expressing that opinion, and some secondary sources stating that those people hold that opinion (carefully wording that interpretation of events in a way that avoids endorsing it, eg. critics claim.) If you disagree, point me to a quote in a source - other than Stephens, Quillette, and the National Association of Scholars, who are all WP:RSOPINION at best - that states so in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for doing this so abruptly, but I'm going to have to drop this because of the press of things outside of Wikipedia. I need to pay more attention to some current and upcoming demands in real life and I'm going to reduce my WP activity to allow that. Sorry. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

OR? - tag and suggestion

Here I added a tag, and in the edit summary here I wondered a bit about having done that. It seems clear to me that a solution to this would be to use {{Cite tweet}} to cite Trump's tweet as a primary source. I would try to do that myself, but I'm not a t... ... er ... Twitter user. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, I just removed the tag. Since it was added, the tweet itself has been added as a citation. The CNN source also verifies the sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Myth

Regarding that Politico article: Can we make sure that it is being quoted or paraphrased correctly? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)\:

This followed on this un-revert. I've let it stand, though it is contrary to WP:BED..I think that it does need discussion to establish a consensus, though.
I'm of two minds about the term myth. It grates on me to see it used here, though I tend to think of it the other way when I see it in the Creation myth article. The National myth article says (among other things) , "National myths have been created and propagated by national intellectuals, who have used them as instruments of political mobilization on demographic bases such as ethnicity."; The supporting source cited there seems relevant, and is unrelated to the U.S. Aftr thinking about it, I think my concern here is over national myths (plural, and implying widely collective applicability) vs a (single) national myth, with specific support. The term appears in the first paragraph of the Project section of the article, and the Politico source cited in support there ([36]) is about one particular single bit of the national narrative of the U.S. and strikes me as being over-generalized here. That bit is contemporary with the focus of this article but I don't see any specific overlap in the Politico article with the focus of this article or the 1610 project. I'm hoping that more editors will weigh in here and establish a consensus on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The Politico article explicitly says "The New York Times’ 1619 Project excited tremendous controversy because it challenged established narratives that date the founding of America’s political development and character to 1620 or 1776." A related concept is dominant narrative, I think perhaps both concepts are worth mentioning in this article.--Pharos (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I've corrected the indenting above, and it's clear that I somehow missed what you quoted from the Politico article -- my errors both there. As I read them now, I think the article assertion paraphrase of that bit of the Politico article is OK -- my opinion, for what that may be worth. 19:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pidgesqueen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to summarize criticisms using secondary sources when available.

Almost the entire criticism section relies on WP:PRIMARY sourcing that fails to put the comments in any sort of context. We mention this piece (which summarizes the historical debate and provides broader context in a more even-handed manner) in the further reading section, but we don't actually use it anywhere - we ought to be citing it more and interviews with the World Socialist Web Site less. Similarly, we are giving massively WP:UNDUE weight to the World Socialist Web Site as a source - as the Atlantic piece says, they went aggressively out of their way to find critics (and most of the people they approached refused to sign their letter, which means the critics they found aren't representative.) They can and should be mentioned, but we need the proper context, explaining where they're coming from and why, and we need to avoid giving excessive weight to one comparatively-niche publication. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. I'd be careful of drawing conclusions such as "and most of the people they approached refused to sign their letter, which means the critics they found aren't representative." For two reasons: One, the Atlantic piece states, "given the stature of the historians involved, the letter is a serious challenge to the credibility of the 1619 Project." So, the piece's author implies a great respect for these historians. And two, it's very difficult to get anybody to sign onto anything these days if it risks their being labeled as racist merely for sticking to their convictions of historical accuracy. So four top historians signing on, in this instance, is significant given the risks they face. I do agree the Atlantic piece should be cited more, however. BudJillett (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The criticisms are not WP:PRIMARY sources. The definition of primary says: "An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." The historians' criticisms are WP:SECONDARY sources: "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". The point of the criticisms is that these mainstream historians synthesize American history differently from the essayists in The 1619 Project. That's why the criticisms need to be in the article, to keep it WP:NEUTRAL.
Among the 1619 essayists, only Kruse and Muhammad are historians. Most of the others are journalists; they provide strong writing to support their views, but Wikipedia takes no position on whether either journalists or historians are right. WP:WEIGHT says: "articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint [such as The 1619 Project]... should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Aquillion:, @Numbersinstitute: I see no proposals for specific changes to the main article yet, though I think the discussion as far as care and direction has been beneficial. If either of you, or any other editor(s), draft a proposal for insertion, please ping me and I'll gladly weigh in on it for consensus purposes. BudJillett (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
they went aggressively out of their way to find critics: The best known historian of the American Revolution, Gordon Wood, and the best known historian of the American Civil War, James McPherson, both criticized the 1619 Project. Just for reference, Gordon Wood and James McPherson wrote the volumes in the Oxford History of the United States on the early republic and the Civil War, respectively (the former volume was nominated for the Pulitzer for History, the latter won it). Gordon Wood has won both the Bancroft Prize and the Pulitzer Prize for history, and is widely regarded as one of the most influential historians of the American Revolution in the post-war era. It looks like the World Socialist Web Site just contacted the most prominent historians in the field of early United States history, and interviewed them. The claim that they went aggressively out of their way to cherry-pick historians is really not tenable. Beyond Wood and McPherson, there are several other highly prominent historians who were interviewed, including Richard Carwardine (Oxford University, specializing on the American Civil War), Sean Wilentz (Princeton, specializing in the American Revolution, and another Bancroft Prize winner) and James Oakes (CUNY, specializing in the abolition of slavery in the US).
There's another critic who's not mentioned at all yet, Phil Magness. He's an economic historian who has criticized the 1619 Project's claims about the antebellum American economy and the development of capitalism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Over on the Anthony Johnson talk page, there is argumentation, with secondary citations, about whether the people on board the 1619 ship were actually slaves IN AMERICA, the argument being that although they had been taken from Africa to be slaves, when the ship was diverted to its ultimate destination, things changed; and when they landed they were indentured servants; and in fact, all later became free by fulfilling their terms of indenture. I don't know if the secondary sources cited there address the Project; if not, while relevant, the material would, unfortunately, be Original Research (OR). Does any-one have the resources to check?67.209.133.169 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that Adam Serwer's article presents reactions from historians that is more comprehensive, contextual, and nuanced. Dsa605 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Serious question asked seriously: how many historians do you all think there are? And, again, seriously asking: why does the general public knowing who a historian is relate to their appropriateness to evaluate a particular historical project or intervention? I'm not saying that Wood and McPherson and all the others aren't experts on what they're experts on, but to take just one example: 1. Gordon Wood is not the only historian who studies the Revolutionary era and 2. Being an expert on the Revolutionary era, as Wood has been, certainly does not mean he has equal expertise on every single aspect of the Revolutionary era; this has become more true over time as Wood has become less involved and less engaged with the field and as the field itself has grown and diversified, with an increasing diversity of topics and subjects covered and 3. As I said, Wood certainly has been an expert on the Revolutionary era but given his recent and current position in and involvement with the field (largely disengaged) invoking his career achievements and status is a way to sidestep this again crucial issue, which is whether he, among those with expertise in Revolutionary history, is best suited to evaluate a project such as this. I think this applies broadly. Of course the page should note the criticism, but how it describes that criticism and how it represents what the field of history more generally thinks are key. Cjslaby (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We can't possibly know what every historian believes. We know what has been published. Gordon Wood is certainly not the only historian of the Revolutionary era, but he is one of the most prominent and widely respected, and he has actually stated his opinion on the 1619 Project - and that statement has then been widely discussed in the media. We can't write an article based on suppositions about what other historians who have not made any sort of public statement might believe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
What does him being prominent and widely respected have to do with it? Or, rather, prominent to/for whom? And respected by whom? I'm not trying to tarnish the guy's reputation or otherwise impugn him. But I am very much confused at this idea that because an expert is generally known to the public that means the public is able to assess that expert's ability to assess something specific to the field in which they work. Again, Wood has done important work. For the most part, it's not really on the stuff that's at issue in the 1619 Project. Plus, Wood is (and has been for quite some time) disengaged from the field proper. I don't expect non-historians to know any of this necessarily, but then that's my point. People keep repeating Wood's career achievements as if they have specific bearing on his ability to evaluate the 1619 Project; of course he's able to evaluate it better than a random person on the street. The question is why should the public care about what Gordon Wood thinks about the 1619 Project any more or less than another historian of the Revolutionary era. And my point is that there are plenty of other historians of this time period who are far more engaged with the field today and who actually work on the areas most relevant to the 1619 Project. This isn't about Wood, though. It's about how the criticism coming from historians is understood and represented more generally, and as I'm saying, I think it's quite lopsided, inaccurate, and giving much more attention to a small group that has received relatively wide media attention compared with those historians who don't have particularly negative or strong feelings about the initiative. Is the goal of this Wikipedia page just to repeat the lopsidedness of media coverage, or is it to report what is true (i.e., that most historians probably either don't have a problem with it or don't have particularly strong feelings)? Cjslaby (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe the article covers the published reactions by historians to the 1619 Project fairly. If you believe that the published reactions by prominent historians do not reflect the private beliefs of most historians working in the field, that's not really something that Wikipedia can remedy. The answer to that would be for other historians of similar stature to Wood, McPherson, Oakes, Wilentz, Carwardine et al. to publicly support the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_1619_Project/Archive_1&oldid=1208748815"