Template:Did you know nominations/The 1619 Project

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The 1619 Project

(

)

~~... that journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones's The 1619 Project, a New York Times project that re-examines the legacy of American slavery, was called "brainwashing" by Newt Gingrich?~~ Source: [1]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KSUN (Bisbee, Arizona). Drmies (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Hook was getting a bit long--couldn't put in a qualification for Newt, like "democracy underminer", "serial adulterer since 1974", or "failed presidential candidate". I'm open to alternative hooks, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Created by Drmies (talk) and Usedtobecool (talk). Nominated by Drmies (talk) at 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC).

Comment: Something less political for a start. You could free up some space by removing the needless "journalist" for a NY Times employee, but the Republicans' reaction to this has been all over right and left-wing media this week. We don't need to throw our chairs into that dumpster fire. Is there anything interesting about the 1619 Project besides that it's effective at trolling Republican politicians? Because that hasn't been talked about afaik. Or is that really all it was intended as? — LlywelynII 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

LlywelynII, next time please ping me, thanks. First, "journalist"--it's not a given to a reader of the hook that she is a journalist, so "for a NYT employee" is not very helpful here. Second, there are lots of interesting things, including the fact that a very well-known national figure called it "brainwashing". If he'd called it "lousy" or "ugly", I wouldn't have paid it any attention. Having said that... Drmies (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It was just a comment, not a review, and you kinda need to watch your DYK submissions anyway. Most reviewers don't remember to ping. In any case, it's ok if other people disagree with me or you take a while to respond. Second, it is a given to anyone who knows what a newspaper is that its employees are mostly reporters. The NY Times is the most famous newspaper in the English-speaking world. You can be redundant, sure, but you were looking for more characters. Third, my request was that we aim to talk about the other things, given the copious (monomaniacal?) focus on Republican reaction videos in other coverage. It is actually new information (ALT1) that it was specifically designed to be targeted at schoolchildren instead of the newspapers' own readers, which might give you something to tie that "brainwashing" hook into other than a simple reaction take. Again, though, it was my own desire/comment than DYK not start to resemble a Facebook feed; it's really up to your reviewer to see what they like more. — LlywelynII 18:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that The New York Times's The 1619 Project, which aims to re-examine American slavery, was developed in collaboration with the Pulitzer Center for use in schools? ([2]) Drmies (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough, well sourced, and appears neutral. I agree with not giving any credence in the hook to a blowhard's comment, so I'm striking the original. ALT1 is neutral and backed up in the article by inline citation. No apparent copyvio issues. QPQ done. Good to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)