Talk:The 1619 Project/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Generally negative reviews from historians

"and generally negative reviews from historians" - I think a consensus can be reached upon this statement. Gordon Wood, Richard Carwardine, James McPherson, Victoria Bynum, James Oakes, and now Leslie M. Harris have all come out criticizing the 1619 Project. Can we name any historian specifically who has spoken in such detail as these? Who are in approval of the 1619 project? It should be noted, that it appears that Kevin Kruse is the only actual historian listed in the section titled "August 14 magazine issue".

If none can be named, then it's not any one person's opinion, and a case could be made that it would be increasing accuracy if the wiki article replaced the word "general" and instead said "and only negative reviews from historians". The phrase "The project received mixed reception from scholars, political pundits, journalists, politicians, and generally negative reviews from historians." accurately describes the accolades/criticism sections in summary form that follow it. Currently the accolades section is 150 words long. The criticism section is over 600, and that's only including the sections quoting historians. Progressingamerica (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

agreed 100%–and also think the Project should be described as "controversial" in the introduction, since controversy has been its most notable feature, especially in terms of the secondary-source coverage. Tambourine60 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

agree with both "generally negative" and "controversial" in the lead. Numbersinstitute (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with both "generally negative" and "controversial" in the lead. BudJillett (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been nearly four months now, and I am still yet unaware of any historian not connected with the NY Times who has a positive review contrary to Wood, Carwardine, McPherson, Bynum, Oakes, and Harris. This remains a one-sided rebuke. Progressingamerica (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Progressingamerica, are you saying you want the sentence in the "Receptions" section moved to the article's lede? I'm not opposed, I'm just trying to divine your exact intentions so maybe it can be put to a vote. Maybe draft the exact change(s) you're proposing, post them here, and ask for a consensus vote? BudJillett (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Before the Pulitzer Prize, I agreed, but the Pulitzer committee had a historian on it, Steven Hahn, Professor of History, New York University. I don't know the internal workings of the committee, but I doubt they'd give a prize to a history project if there were objections from the only historian on the committee, so Hahn most likely counts as a positive review of the project. The current lede seems ok to me, but "controversial" is fair, and other improvements are always possible, so I'd welcome alternate language in this talk section. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hahn's presence on the committee for a history project as the only historian on that committee comprised of 17 people is probably the larger story. That is a little less than six percent. Why weren't all 17 people historians? This is very strange. In any case, do you have a link for his review? What did Hahn write/say?

I would also like to note that one person of the committee was someone from the NY Times itself. During the analysis/judgement do you know if Gail Collins recused herself or is this a slight case of nepotism? If the NY Times was enabled to review its own work through the Pulitzer board, that's quite significant if it resulted in poisoning the well. Progressingamerica (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be inaccurate to describe the letter sent by Wood, Wilentz, and others as a "negative review". They took issue with one sentence of the introductory essay of the entire issue related to the Revolution. And, while they were critical of viewing everything in American History through the lens of slavery, do believe slavery should be in the foreground of the historiography.

Also, Eric Foner has said positive things about the "1619 Project". Dsa605 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like David Waldstreicher might be a historian who has written a review that's more positive of the 1619 Project. But he may be someone who was consulted by the authors of the project, so there is some question in this regard as to if he can be considered a truely independent voice. [1] Progressingamerica (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If no RS positive takes from historians are found, I would still shy away from 'only' because it seems omniscient and just leave it unqualified as "negative reviews". ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 20:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please mark this as generally negative or controversial of a project. It’s revisionist history. StupidFrik (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit 2020-01-20: consensus was reached months ago. Users keep reverting this. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To demonstrate consensus you would need An uninvolved closer, an RfC, or a poll. There is no such consensus, as you concede by citing the rejection of your preferred text by several different editors. The ONUS and the BURDEN are on you. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you're challenging the previous consensus, the onus is on you to establish a new consensus. The sources support the characterization, "generally negative reactions from historians". -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This discussion is ancient and had few contributors; it doesn't represent sufficient consensus to change a longstanding part of the lead. Furthermore, the cited sources simply don't support the proposed change - the WSJ and the piece by Friedersdorf are opinion-pieces, not usable for such sweeping statements of fact, while one of the Atlantic pieces says The reaction to the project was not universally enthusiastic and goes on to present opinions as split (and both Atlantic pieces are from in its Ideas section, which lean more towards opinion.) It also fails to adequately summarize the article, which presents voices on both sides and does not make such sweeping claims about its reception. If you're convinced there's a clear consensus for this change, start an RFC, but I'm not seeing it among editors on this talk page as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the "criticism and debate" description is okay, though it's quite a charitable interpretation of the body of the article. The overwhelming majority of commentary by historians has been negative, as is documented in the body of the article. which presents voices on both sides: one side is far larger than the other. We document the public letter by Gordon Wood (basically the unofficial dean of American Revolutionary history), James McPherson (basically the dean of American Civil War history), Victoria Bynum, James Oakes (his new book on the Constitution and slavery was positively reviewed by Gordon Wood in the NY Times, of all places) and Sean Wilentz, as well as their separate criticisms aired in other fora (interviews, essays). We document the public letter by 12 Civil War historians. We document the criticisms by other prominent historians, such as Clayborne Carson and Richard Carwardine. We note that the NY Times' "clarification" was prompted by a warning by a Harvard political scientist that she would go public with her criticisms if they didn't issue a correction. Even the more positive reactions are mostly conflicted: Leslie Harris, who helped fact-check the project and who overall supports the goals of the project, says that the NY Times ignored her when she told them a central claim (about slavery and the Revolution) was false. This is all discussed in the body of the article. Given all this, the "criticism and debate" description is really downplaying the negative reactions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you to show a new consensus. Most historians were obviously critical not just of the project's cavalier disregard for facts, but were critical of specific inaccuracies and the conclusions the project drew. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's very hard to argue that the consensus is anything but negative when key facts from the projects original message were wrong. (And all parties admitted that they were wrong.) DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached on the talk page between contributors for the edits to be made as @User:SPECIFICO and @User:Aquillion have made reference to. Edits reverted to previous state. Donkeypeep (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You are reverting to a new edit. I have reverted to the older edit. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Further, consensus doesn't always need a vote. I recommend reading up on consensus: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." See WP:Consensus. Note that this edit stood for months, accepted by many independent editors.

The edit as it stands represents the last time consensus was achieved. Please do not add your own edit simply because you do not like it.

As a better approach, I recommend addressing the substaintial claim: a vast majority of historians believe that the project, as original published, was inaccurate.

Further, it is not WP:SYNTH for us to draw our own conclusions on this talk page. A core claim of the original project was that slavery was the motivating reason for the colonists. Even the projects opponents accept that this is wrong. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand how WP:Consensus works. If you scroll down on that page a little more, then you can note that "when agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." Your edits which changed "The project has sparked criticism and debate among prominent historians and political commentators" to "The project has received generally negative reviews from historians and mixed reception from political commentators" lasted less than two weeks before starting an edit war.

Lasting a week and a half is very very very far from what most editors would establish as consensus on Wikipedia. The previous statement had been there for four months.

In this instance, three out of the four articles cited to support the claim are opinion pieces, two from the same source, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ Opinion notably fails NPOV). In all of the articles, there lacks the statements to support the claim that there is "generally negative reviews". WSJ Opinion has notably been criticized by its own newsroom for in the WSJ's words, a "lack of fact-checking and apparent disregard for evidence" — this is notably backed up by sources from a variety of news outlets. Therefore having WSJ Opinion comprising 50 percent of the sourcing for this top-line claim is truly absurd and completely breaks WP:RSOPINION.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/31/18135

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/a-wall-street-journal-columnist-said-joe-biden-was-part-of-hunters-business-deal-hours-later-its-news-reporters-said-the-opposite/2020/10/23/c4f9689a-1532-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-06-22/mike-pence-says-america-winning-fight-against-covid-19

In fact in the only cited news piece by The Atlantic, it notes historians which refused to sign the letter by the four publicly dissenting historians. The article itself covers debate among historians but does not come to a conclusion that could possibly be extrapolated to mean "generally negative reviews" from historians as an assessment of the entire professional field.

It's not difficult to likewise find four sources from historians which greatly praise the 1619 Project. Better sourcing is required to make the declarative claim that the project has "received broad criticism from historians" which implies the project has been broadly criticised by those in the profession assessed as a whole — which none of the cited news articles claim. Donkeypeep (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that the historians interviewed by Adam Serwer for The Atlantic who declined to sign the letter said that they also had misgivings about the 1619 Project, including about its factual accuracy:

This was a recurrent theme among historians I spoke with who had seen the letter but declined to sign it. While they may have agreed with some of the factual objections in the letter or had other reservations of their own, several told me they thought the letter was an unnecessary escalation.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How does that make the point that reviews were generally negative? Turning "historians I spoke with who had seen the letter but declined to sign it” into just “historians” is a blatant distortion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Those historians who declined to sign were also critical of the project, as described in Serwer's piece. These are people who by and large did not publicly review the project. They told Serwer that they had misgivings about the project and agreed that it contained factual errors, but they said that they did not feel comfortable publicly airing those criticisms for various reasons. Those historians who chose to publicly comment on the project (including probably the most widely respected historians of the American Revolution and Civil War alive today, Wood and McPherson) were largely critical of it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes but how do you get from there to a generalized statement about all historians? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Which statement about all historians? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think what's relevant is that The Atlantic piece doesn't assess what the mood of the entire professional field of historians is on the project. It's clearly covering the debate that existed between no more than a dozen historians who were consternating around that letter. That's far from what could be used to justify the statement "generally negative reviews from historians". To justify that statement, you'd need broad consensus between multiple (ideally relatively neutral) sources referring to that as fact, or a survey of some kind. There's thousands of historians who would be able to comment on the 1619 Project, the cited sources provide very little to justify that they have broadly have given negative reviews. Donkeypeep (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't what historians who haven't commented think. We can't possibly know that (though those that Serwer spoke to had misgivings of the project and largely agreed with the factual criticisms expressed in the 5 historians' letter), and the text in question makes no claim about that.

The issue is what historians who have commented have said - and the published reactions of historians have been overwhelmingly critical. There's the letter of the 5 historians, the letter of the 12 Civil War historians, the numerous interviews with historians (such as Wood, McPherson, Carwardine, Bynum, Carson and Oakes), the essays written by historians, and comments made by historians to various outlets (Barbara Fields, for example, has called the project "tendentious and ignorant history"). The few reactions that one could possibly construe as somewhat positive are still quite critical of the project: Leslie Harris, who served as a fact-checker for the project, severely criticized the project's depiction of slavery in colonial times and its claim about the causes of the revolution, which the Times included despite Harris' warning that it was incorrect.

These reactions are very well documented (they're already sourced throughout the article), and they justify the statement that reactions by historians have been generally critical. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You would need a tertiary source for any such conclusion. Not your personal name checking survey. That is WP–101. SPECIFICO talk 08:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the body. There are plenty of secondary sources documenting the broadly negative reactions from historians, including Serwer's piece, which calls agreement with Wilentz et al's factual objections and reservations about the project a "recurrent theme", even among historians who had not signed the letter by Wilentz et al. I'm summarizing the sources, not "name checking" (which is just a needlessly dismissive way of referring to "checking what historians who have gone on the record have said"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

See above: Ter-ti-a-ry. Tertiary summation. As editors we don't cherry pick. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There's the 1619 Project, the criticisms of it, and the articles about the criticisms. All three categories of sources are cited throughout this article. Serwer's piece, for example, is an article about the criticisms of the project. The sourcing for the claim that most published reactions by historians have been negative is strong. I'm not wedded to any particular wording, but I am pointing out that there's good sourcing for this claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What good sourcing? We don’t appear to have *any* sources which make a definitive statement about all historians (or even all historians in the United States) and we cant do WP:SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That's convenient, since neither the article nor anybody here has said anything about all historians. We're only discussing those historians who have commented on the 1619 Project. Those comments have been largely negative. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that statement (if true) relevant to the reader in the second paragraph of the introduction to the article? IMO, it's not useful information unless you have information about historians as a body — which as mentioned prior requires a tertiary source of some kind.

The reason why the statement isn't actually useful to the reader is because it'll be read by people who don't have experience with debates over history as whether *historians endorse the project or not* — which quite clearly has not been established. You're treating this like a political debate where those engaged will seek out and receive media coverage, when this clearly can't be treated the same as a political debate. Donkeypeep (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Having some factual objections about the letter does not mean they have an overall negative view of the Project. For example, Painter said, "“I felt that if I signed on to that, I would be signing on to the white guy's attack of something that has given a lot of black journalists and writers a chance to speak up in a really big way. So I support the 1619 Project as kind of a cultural event,” Painter said. “For Sean and his colleagues, true history is how they would write it. And I feel like he was asking me to choose sides, and my side is 1619's side, not his side, in a world in which there are only those two sides.”" I would not call that a negative reception/review. Dsa605 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the weight of coverage, the criticism by historians and the ensuing controversy is the most notable aspect of the project. That's why it's in the 2nd paragraph of the lede.

It sounds to me like you're saying we should discount the many prominent historians who have come out to publicly criticize the project, because there might be others who silently agree with it. The proposed sentences we're discussing simply say that reactions have been generally negative. I think it's pretty clear that that refers only to historians who have publicly weighed in one way or another, and not to every historian on Earth. If you're worried that people might interpret the statement to refer to all historians everywhere, whether or not they have said anything about the 1619 Project, then it's possible to modify the statement to be more explicit, by including words like "published" or "public". -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read all the words above right now but as a historian let me just say that there have been criticisms of the 1619 Project by a number of notable historians. Plenty of other historians have either no major issues with the initiative or are outright in favor of it. If a survey or some such is necessary, then so be it, but critiques have received wide media attention for obvious reasons (at least in part because that's how news works and what it is). So plenty of historians support the project but that's not being covered in the media because "historian so-and-so says they generally agree with the project and support it" is not a particularly compelling news story, or newsworthy at all. But then this leads to a lopsided perception by the public about what historians in toto think about the project. Cjslaby (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The flipside of that is that many historians are privately heavily critical of the 1619 Project, but do not say so publicly. But that's neither here nor there. Gordon Wood, James McPherson, James Oakes and other critics are widely acknowledged as some of the most significant historians in their respective fields. The published criticisms by them and other historians have been extensive, but there's been comparatively little published in defense of the project by historians. That's the situation, and we have to document it objectively. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I said this below but it applies equally here: how many historians do you think there are? I'm not saying the voices of the critics, especially given who some of them are, don't matter or should not be covered as such. But the problem comes in how the criticism gets reported vis-a-vis reception from historians more generally. Hence, again, the question of how many historians there are. I'm asking seriously. Because if there are one hundred historians and these handful of acclaimed people speak up, we can say 10-15% of historians, including some of the most decorated, have expressed concerns about the project. But there are thousands of historians. This "widely acknowledged as some of the most significant historians in their respective fields" is misleading. Again, see my comments below. The main issue here with the credentialing then becomes what specific expertise these critics bring to the table. There are hundreds perhaps even thousands of historians just of the Civil War and American Revolution. Such a historian doesn't have equal expertise in every aspect of those events and time periods. These historians have their axes to grind and they're certainly more than welcome to do so. But if the goal here is to represent how the 1619 Project has been received by historians in general, I believe it is inaccurate to take this handful of criticisms by some decorated and well known by the public figures and then say that overall the 1619 Project has received lots of criticism from historians. I'm a working historian. I couldn't possibly claim to know all working historians today, or even a meaningful fraction. But from the colleagues I do know and the conversations I'm a part of and paying attention to, there are many, many historians who are supportive of the 1619 Project or at the very least generally not critical of it. It seems to me that this reality is missing in the coverage here. Cjslaby (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be extremely unusual for a sizable percentage of historians to make a statement on any single historical subject. That is the nature of things. Yes, there may be hundreds of historians of the American Revolution, but there are not many who have won the Bancroft Prize and a Pulitzer Prize in history, and there's only one who wrote The Creation of the American Republic. In 2011, the New York Times described Wood in this way:

Gordon S. Wood is more than an American historian. He is almost an American institution. Of all the many teachers and writers of history in this Republic, few are held in such high esteem.

I'm saying this not to glorify Wood, but just to note that he's an extremely significant historian of the revolutionary era. Whatever you think of his work, one cannot evaluate the significance of his statement by saying that he's just one of 12,000 members of the American Historical Association.

Most importantly, we can only go on what has actually been published on the 1619 Project. A series of highly respected historians have published critical reactions and/or given critical interviews. The positive reactions published by historians have been comparatively few. On Wikipedia, we're obviously not in a position to judge what your colleagues say privately. We can only go by what's actually been published. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't about Wood, or at the very least it's not about his scholarship (of which I personally happen to be a fan). It's about how and why others invoke him (and the handful of others) that they are invoking as part of this conversation about the 1619 Project. I certainly agree that Wood is not just some historian, or even just some historian of the Revolutionary era. But even there, I think the issues I raise still stand. And even if we go by what I think is a misguided set of metrics, Alan Taylor has received the same awards as Wood, is far more engaged with the field today, and, I would contend, has had a more significant impact on the field in, say, the past twenty-five years. But again, this isn't about Wood per se. It's about how history is done. Citing a book from 1969 (!) is not helping make the case that Wood is particularly attuned to or equipped to handle the relevant historical issues raised by the 1619 Project, which are far more a part of the field of history today than when Wood was most engaged with it.

I'm not sure what exactly "we can only go by what has actually been published" means. Surely if the WSWS material merits so much attention then other online comments from historians should also count. The article itself quotes Twitter, too, which means that a full and fully honest representation of what historians actually think about the 1619 Project requires far more engagement than just quoting a handful of critics that received the majority of (mainstream) media attention (because of their status and because media itself amplified the coverage); this of course means work for anyone editing this page, but it's work that should be done, rather than just saying "well, this is the stuff most widely covered." The goal, I hope, of any Wikipedia page ought to be to represent as best as possible what's actually true, not just report what's easiest to report based on the media and sources most easily available to whomever happens to be editing a page on any given day. Again, I realize this means work, it means going looking for the assessments of as many historians as possible, but I think and hope this is the high standard that we'd all want to support. Cjslaby (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The article only mentions Twitter three times, and it only does so when media coverage mentioned specific Tweets. The first two mentions of Twitter come in the section, "Unannounced revision of initial claims", and the tweets mentioned were discussed by a piece in the Washington Post. The first Tweet is given in order to describe how the controversy over the revisions developed, while the second Tweet is given in order to describe Nikole Hannah-Jones' response to the controversy. The third mention of Twitter has to do with Trump. As we all know, President Trump had a habit of announcing government policy by Tweet, and his Tweet about the 1619 Project made the news. That's why it's included in this article. I'm just going through this to point out that this article does not cover random reactions to the 1619 Project from Twitter. Twitter is mentioned sparingly, and only when specific Tweets were discussed in secondary sources.

Here's what I mean by, "we can only go by what has actually been published": there have been various interviews given by historians, and various articles written by historians for different magazines and newspapers. Editors here have made an attempt to summarize those reactions. You have said that these reactions do not match your personal experience of talking to your colleagues. Be that as it may, on Wikipedia, high-quality published sources are what matter. Absent published sources, we really can't know what your colleagues privately think. This gets to Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability, which states, content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, though, this hinges on what counts as "published sources." From what you're saying, it seems tweets don't or shouldn't count. I recognize that Wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources. There are numerous problems with that here, though. One is the claim of what historians generally think about the 1619 Project. If part of the goal of this page is to elucidate that, then certainly we must consider (verified/verifiable) statements by historians from a variety of publicly available sources, such as blog posts or even tweets. There are, as I say, multiple issues tied up in this. Much of the cited negative criticism of the project is coming from senior historians, including people who are fully retired; this means they have both the senior and/or career status to attract and get media attention, as well as the time and resources to do that, and/or to partake in all the efforts involved in the criticism of the project. Associate and assistant professors, historians working in museums or other settings, etc., who are otherwise also perfectly reasonable people to assess the project, are quite busy with their own work. Also, there will be more scholarly assessments of the 1619 Project, the kinds of things that get published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Perhaps some already exist. I'm sure some have been in the works. But these things take time (sometimes years), and with the added factor of the pandemic work for many historians, especially things that are not especially urgent, like an assessment of the 1619 Project, is moving at an even slower pace. So again, I believe it's possible, and even likely, that what's said as being reported in the media (and then re-reported here) is not an accurate statement of what historians in toto think. Also, to clarify something: when I mention my own sense of this, I'm mostly not talking about private conversations. I'm talking about things that I've read or seen and are publicly available, like what historians have said on Twitter, blogs, and the like. See also, for example, this write up on an event hosted by the Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture: https://blog.oieahc.wm.edu/the-new-york-times-1619-project-and-the-omohundro-institute/ I maintain that this page can and should do a better job of trying to actually ascertain what historians in toto think about the 1619 Project, rather than just repeating and summarizing what's been most widely reported in the largest media outlets and the sites of loudest criticism. Cjslaby (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You're asking for us to do original research into primary sources. We're not going to search through Twitter threads in order to counterbalance, for example, a published interview by a Bancroft- and Pulitzer-prize winning historian that has been widely discussed in secondary sources. If it's really true that historians by and large have a positive view of the 1619 Project, that will eventually be reflected in the published secondary literature. However, right now, looking at the secondary literature, the reaction by historians (yes - including highly respected, senior figures in the field) appears to be largely critical. If that changes in the future, the article can be updated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Cjslaby, I think @Cjslaby: makes excellent points. Stating "and generally negative reviews from historians" is potentially supportable if it's a direct quote from a reputable, relevant published academic article and not significantly challenged, but when added, it appears to be in Wikipedia's voice. That would be a strong statement which would require among other things, knowing how many historians there are, knowing how many historians have relevant expertise in the area (sounds challenging), and knowing the views of enough of them to draw such a conclusion. That would be origianl research, not remotely qualifying for the exception WP:CALC. I support the removal. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with these blanket characterizations of the project being negative or perceived as historically inaccurate. There are a few minor responsible suggestions, and a concerted effort very concerted effort among conservatives to debunk this history that cannot be viewed without considering the cultural context. America has strong roots in white supremacist culture that predate our nations founding and it is natural that people born in that culture would find this material controversial. That doesn’t make it, on balance, wrong or inaccurate, even if one thread can be picked at. Similarly, the strong negative push here seems politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.131.214 (talk • contribs)

Virginia Pilot

Can’t see it in the UK, but “ 1619 Project recenters U.S. history on the African American ... erasure of Native Americans' story, writes Dawn Custalow in a guest column”

Native Americans still overlooked in debates about ..

26 Sept 2020 — Dawn Custalow, an English language learner teacher who lives in Roanoke, is a tribal member of the Mattaponi tribe whose reservation

That’s all I can see. Note it’s in the opinion section. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's very good -- worth reading if you find it archived -- and completely non-notable, either with respect to the author or in secondary references. I did a literature search when I removed it, and if I had found a single good source of notable Native American or scholarly criticism vis a vis indigenous history of 1619 then I would have added it. I have no doubt it exists, since Hannah-Jones mentions it tangentially in some interview, but I couldn't find it published anywhere. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Response by Historians

This article rightly covers some of the negative response by historians to the 1619 Project (a project that journalist creator Nikole Hannah-Jones has herself pointed out is meant to be a work of journalism, not history). In reviewing what is said here about the response of historians and how exactly that is being framed, I as a historian have been somewhat disappointed to see what I would characterize as the lopsided media coverage of the negative criticism being reproduced here. Certainly, I agree, the negative coverage has been amplified in and by the media. That, however, does not mean that the criticism being covered is in any way necessarily representative of the field of history more generally. Given this reality, I am creating this new section in which to gather any additional statements by historians on the 1619 Project, from interviews and op-eds like those already cited, to any and all other forms of statement given by a historian or historians. The point here is not to gather solely positive (or even "neutral" appraisals) but rather to more thoroughly search for and represent what historians in toto think of the 1619 Project. From my own vantage, it seems that the majority of professional historians today do not have particularly strong criticisms of the project, and even if they do raise certain issues, they also take issue with the types of criticisms already cited in this article and overall support maintain support for the project. Whether this is accurate overall, though, remains to be seen and depends on the data. I will return to and update this section when and as I can. I welcome others to contribute as well. Thank you. Cjslaby (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The criticisms cited on the article so far are open letters, interviews, and articles. Historians have published books dedicated to criticizing and picking apart the 1619 Project, which should be included. That may be more along the lines of the strong criticism you're looking for. A non-exhaustive few:

• 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project by Peter Wood
• The 1619 Project: A Critique by Phillip Magness
• Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America by Mary Grabar

I've started reading 1620 and it makes a detailed critique so far. I can't speak for the other two. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of WSWS-related material

Direct links to the the interviews with historians in the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) and mention of the criticism of the 1619 Project by the WSWS were recently removed from the article: [2]. As explained on my talk page (here), this removal was because the WSWS is a "clearly partisan website". First off, I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia allows citation of biased sources for the purpose of illustrating a particular point of view. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Many (if not all) of the sources we cite in the "Reception" section are biased. The questions are really:

1. Should we link directly to the interviews with the historians?
2. Is the role of the World Socialist Web Site in the debate notable enough for inclusion?

In answer to Question #1, I think that directly linking to the interviews is the most helpful thing to do for readers. Otherwise, a reader who wants to see what Gordon Wood said has to go looking themselves.

In answer to Question #2, I'll point out that many prominent secondary sources discuss the WSWS' criticisms of the 1619 Project and its role in interviewing the historians. Anyone who's followed the protracted debate over the 1619 Project is already aware of this, but I'll list some of these secondary sources:

• Elliot Kaufman in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
• Adam Serwer in The Atlantic
• Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic
• The editor of the American Historical Review
• A letter published by the American Historical Review in response to the editor
• David Waldstreicher in the Boston Review
• Katie Mettler in the Washington Post
• KC Johnson in City Journal

There are also lots of "right wing" (read: "mainstream conservative") sources that discuss the role of the WSWS, like the National Review, RealClear and the American Institute for Economic Research, but since it's been explained to me on my talk page that the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is already too "right-wing" to use as a source, I've refrained from linking to them here. I think it's clear enough from the above list that the WSWS' criticisms have been widely discussed in the media, and should be directly discussed in this article. Fundamentally, I don't think an important part of this debate should be removed from the article, simply because it comes from a socialist perspective, or because it's been promoted by conservatives. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That is all very true, but this article is about the project. It's not about the WSWS or the current #BLM discussion or any other current debate about the history of US slavery. Various debates about the scholarship of this project are also about various members in those discussions. I do think more articles are needed that can be highlighted in a "See also" at the bottom of the page. I don't think we need to include those discussions in this article. Jane (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding the 1619 Project is highly notable, and should be discussed in detail here. It involves some of the most famous historians of the early United States, including Gordon Wood, James McPherson and Sean Wilentz; has been discussed at length in newspapers (the WSJ and WaPo), political magazines (The Atlantic, City Journal, Boston Review, Politico, Vox, and others), and historical journals (AHR); has involved an exchange of letters published in the NY Times itself and an official correction by the NY Times; and has generated comment by various prominent political figures. Since the WSWS played a large role in the criticism of the project (interviewing Wood, McPherson, Oakes, Bynum and several other prominent historians) and is itself discussed in many secondary articles about the controversy (see the above list, which is by no means exhaustive), it should be used as a reference and its criticism should be discussed. Even if some editors think that socialists and conservatives are beyond the pale, I see no justification in Wikipedia policy for limiting ourselves to solely citing liberal (in the American sense) commentators. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but after reading a lot of that material and the various rebuttals, it boils down to a few themes that are not central to this project at all. I think you are right about notability and this was the reason for the 1776 project, but no one seems to get behind that because it was born in negativity. Since this project has taken on such a major role (after the fact) in light of the #BLM protests, I think it would probably be a good idea to put a "1619 project response" on the Wikipedia pages of all of all leading US history writers. Their personal takes really don't belong here. The legacy of this project is not worth giving more space than the project itself on its own page. That said, I also don't think this page should become the cliff notes for any student receiving this project on their curriculum going forward. I would hope they actually follow the current discourse as well. Jane (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"it boils down to a few themes that are not central to this project at all": We can't just ignore the controversy surrounding the project because of your assessment of what is and is not central to the project.

"I think it would probably be a good idea to put a "1619 project response" on the Wikipedia pages of all of all leading US history writers": That depends on how important criticism of the 1619 Project is to their overall careers and reception. That decision will have to be made on the pages of those historians. But here, the question is how to accurately and neutrally describe criticism by prominent historians, such as Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson and Sean Wilentz. Their (and others') criticisms are a major aspect of the public reception of the 1619 Project. Not discussing them in the article would be a violation of WP:NPOV - WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, in particular. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Twitterverse is not the general public, and I would wait to decide what the intended audience response is until the first group of students has gone through the curriculum and the teachers have weighed in with their feedback. It's an educational project sponsored by the Smithsonian. I am also not sure anymore what you are proposing exactly. Jane (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what Twitter or students have to do with any of this. I'm saying that criticism by leading historians of the United States, which has received a large amount of media coverage, should not be removed from the article or minimized. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well lumping random criticism at the bottom for such a varied project doesn't help the reader. Properly sourced rebuttals of specific statements that are by leaders in their field are of course helpful. Each essay is on a different topic and by a different author, so I guess each essay could have its own summary paragraph and the specific criticism can be placed there. I think the poems and podcasts are hard to summarize but it's probably worth a try. Jane (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Giving an overview of the controversy helps the reader, and it's required by WP:NPOV. Some aspects of the project have been more controversial than others, and that's reflected in how the controversy is described. I've reorganized the "Reception" section to be chronological, and to better explain the back-and-forth between the New York Times and the five historians whose letter was published in the Times.

Properly sourced rebuttals of specific statements that are by leaders in their field are of course helpful. Each essay is on a different topic and by a different author, so I guess each essay could have its own summary paragraph and the specific criticism can be placed there. That might be possible, but I think the controversy has received enough coverage that it should be described in its own section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• I pointed this out above, but to my reading the majority of those are opinion pieces. We should try and find higher-quality sources summarizing coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I boldly trimmed it and moved it to the politics section, which may even be too much. The WSWS U.S. affiliate Socialist_Equality_Party_(United_States) has zero ballot presence. The interviews with historians are relevant if the historians are individually cited, but not as a list of historians cited as an interview on WSWS – no reader cares that they were the ones doing the interview, they just care who the historian is. Finally, in future, the WSWS quote about race vs. class may not even be relevant to this article since that has been mainstream socialist ideology in every major political iteration since its beginning. It's almost on the level of quoting the Libertarian Party as saying "We believe in individual liberty." SamuelRiv (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Holy thread resurrection, Batman! I support your trim and move. The Friedersdorf piece lends a little weight to the WSWS coverage, but not much. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Ballot presence of the authors is not how we decide what weight to give to sources on Wikipedia (as far as I'm aware, the New York Times has no ballot presence either). Many sources discussed the publication venue of most of the interviews with the historians who commented on the 1619 Project. I listed several of them above, at the top of this section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The line you restored reads like "WSWS published interviews with X[source]." That's not about X or what X says, that's about WSWS. And nobody cares about WSWS, especially not in that section. If you want to add something about what the specific historians said, citing from those interviews, that's perfectly fine. But "This group did interviews" doesn't add anything relevant on its own. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources care, as I demonstrated at the top of this section, which is why it's notable. We note that the 1619 Project was published by the New York Times, because the sources consider that relevant. The sources also consider it relevant that a bunch of prominent historians gave heavily critical interviews in a socialist publication, because that was a major aspect of the debate over the 1619 Project. The debate over the 1619 Project is just as notable as the project itself, given how many major historians have weighed in, how much secondary commentary it generated in other publications, the political fights over the project, etc. Where the bulk of the historical criticism occurred is relevant, particularly since so many articles comment specifically on that point.

As you noted in your first comment here, your removal of this material was WP:BOLD. I objected to that bold edit and restored the material, and explained my reasoning. The next step is discussion, per WP:BRD, not "revert again." I'd appreciate if you'd undo your latest revert and explain why you think that the venue of the historical debate is irrelevant, particularly given how many sources commented on that exact point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I would be in favor of removing the 2nd clause in this sentence:

Beginning in October 2019, the World Socialist Web Site, whose national affiliate the Socialist Equality Party has opposed a "shift from class to identity" on the American Left, published a series of interviews with prominent historians critical of the project, ...

The first clause is relevant, but we don't need an excursion on the politics of the outlet. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I added that clause, thought it was useful context because the "World Socialist Website" is not exactly a household name, and readers will be reasonably curious what this has to do with "socialism" at all. Pharos (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If these interviews are so great, then the way to cite them is, "Bynum, historian, said blah blah blah.[source]" Not "Bynum was interviewed[source]", or "Awesome interviews await if you click on this link!" And yes, at this point I am wondering whether people aren't just trying to promote WSWS. As to BRD, you also reverted moving it to the politics section and removing incorrect citations. But I don't get this hiccup – if you like these interviews then just cite them properly. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You haven't actually addressed the fact that the venue of the interviews has been widely discussed in secondary sources. As I said above, the debate over the 1619 Project is one of the most notable aspects of the project (based on coverage, it's the most notable aspect, by a large margin). How the historical debate began is something that many sources comment on: a series of very well known historians (Gordon Wood is probably the most famous living historian of the American Revolution) gave interviews in a socialist publication. That raised eyebrows for two reasons: who was criticizing the 1619 Project, and where. I haven't yet seen any substantive argument for not mentioning the venue of the interviews. Talking about "ballot presence" is a complete non sequitur. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The ballot presence goes to whether to print the WSWS/SEP political views, which was a different section that you already were open to move/remove. The argument we're having now is that the only thing you are writing about is the venue and dropping names. There is no connection made between those historians, their interviews, the larger debate, and the rest of the article. There might be if you click on each WSWS link, but that's not what we want the reader to do to get the proper context and flow in reading the article. To illustrate, this is how what the prose reads currently:

"Yesterday Albert Einstein was interviewed in the Washington Post. In other news ..."

It doesn't matter that the venue is WSWS, it doesn't matter if they interviewed Jesus-Allah-Buddha. You have to spell it out in the article what the connection is, from the previous paragraph, to the next paragraph. You have to write. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources consider the venue important, as I demonstrated at the top of this talk-page section. If you're proposing that we explain in the text why the sources consider the venue important, that's reasonable.

If you look at the section under discussion ("Reception"), we actually note not just WSWS, but New York Review of Books, the Atlantic, The New York Times, Politico, and USA Today (and perhaps others I've missed). I find it curious that none of those other names are objectionable, but that somehow mentioning who interviewed the series of historians is objectionable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv: You still have not explained why you want to remove any mention of the World Socialist Website (WSWS) from the historical reception section. We mention the New York Review of Books, the Atlantic, Politico, USA Today and a few other outlets by name. However, if you followed the historical debate over the 1619 Project, you'll find that those other publications played a far smaller role than the WSWS. What kicked off the historical debate in the first place was a series of interviews published there. Prior to that, there was some criticism in a few conservative outlets, but no major historian had yet weighed in. Then there was a series of interviews in the WSWS with some of the most famous historians in their respective fields (including Wood and McPherson) that were sharply critical of the 1619 Project. As I demonstrated above, the WSWS' role in the historical debate has been extensively discussed in secondary sources. Yet for unclear reasons, you object solely to mention of the WSWS, but not to mention of Politico, the Atlantic, USA Today, and all the other publications.

I've tried to get you to explain why, specifically, you don't want mention of the WSWS, and why you're discounting the many secondary sources that discuss the WSWS' role in the historical debate, but your responses have been puzzling. You talk about electoral results, the Buddha, Albert Einstein - but not the sources or the timeline of the historical debate over the 1619 Project.

You've accused me of trying to WP:OWN this article, pointing to a few editors who have argued against inclusion of mention of the venue at which the historians were interviewed (but curiously, not against mention of any of the other outlets, such as Politico and the Atlantic). The latest editor who reverted me is a long-time stalker who for years has followed me around to various subjects, ranging from linguistics to American Revolutionary history to obscure proposed space telescopes, to revert my contributions, so I have my doubts about whether their motivations for reverting me here have to do with content. But I do want you and the other editors to explain your reasoning. Earlier on, when the 1619 Project article was more heavily trafficked, there was a consensus for inclusion of the material in question. I want you to explain why you disagree with this previous consensus, and why you object specifically to mention of the WSWS, but not Politico, the Atlantic, etc., which played a much smaller role in the historical debate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The difference between the WSWS and those other sources is that they are reliable and WSWS is not (they also largely appear to be used for attribution, which is an entirely different thing). Their role in the debate as attested by secondary sources should be covered using those sources, there is no compelling reasons to use them as a primary source here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

These are interviews with historians who are widely viewed as some of the foremost experts in their respective fields. Are you really arguing that we can't link to interviews with Gordon Wood and James McPherson, because you don't like the venue at which they were interviewed? We link to the NY Times' 1619 Project here (rightly so, in my opinion), even though its reliability, from a historical perspective, has been called into serious doubt. We can also link to interviews with historians who are widely viewed, by experts in the field, as far more authoritative (when it comes to historical matters) than the NY Times. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That is literally how our reliability policy works. The problem with unreliable sources is that we can't be sure they're accurate, that applies just as much to an interview as anything else. If the interview is in for example the Daily Mail then it is for all intents and purposes useless to us unless the subject being interviewed is also an employee or owner of the Daily Mail which would open up the WP:ABOUTSELF window. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the WSWS misquoted the historians or fabricated these interviews? Do you have any evidence at all of that? These interviews have been widely cited, and I've never seen an assertion in any other publication that they've been falsified. Gordon Wood himself has discussed his interview with the WSWS in other fora, and has never even hinted that he was misrepresented. This claim that the text of the interviews is dubious comes completely out of left field. To be honest, it sounds like you just don't like the source for whatever reason, and therefore don't want it to be mentioned, even though it's obviously highly relevant here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they are claiming that the interviews were fabricated or misquoted, only that the source on its own is not necessarily reliable. You make a good point and I highly doubt there's evidence suggesting the interviews may be fake. Putting a binary classification on a given is erroneous, and I'd suggest for users to review that context matters and the definition of a source.

Looking at WSWS on its own, it's not the best source, but the creator or publisher of the work isn't the only criterion for determining reliability. The context is that several of the more lauded historians on American history were interviewed by WSWS regarding the 1619 Project. The piece of work itself is those interviews. Especially if statements made in future article edits are attributed to the historians, the interviews are not unreliable. While it's strange to those familiar with Wood, McPherson, and the other historians and their reputation as to why they interviewed with an organization such as WSWS, it doesn't discredit their statements and claims, especially given they are subject matter experts in this particular topic. With that said, there's better criticisms of the 1619 Project than seemingly controversial interviews, such as the following books which are worth considering.

• 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project by Peter Wood
• The 1619 Project: A Critique by Phillip Magness
• Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America by Mary Grabar Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the removals of the WSWS context, and I disagree with them. Yes, it is a relatively small publication with a particularly odd-sounding, stridently ideological masthead title, but it was by all accounts an important part of the public discourse on this subject.--Pharos (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The same notable commentators are covered from their NY Times letter. WSWS is a Trotskyite FRINGE organ. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm again asking you to stop stalking me on Wikipedia. How many random articles on completely different subjects have you now showed up at, with no previous editing history, and immediately reverted my edits? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I made all my points in the comments above, but I will reiterate for effect. There is nothing wrong with talking about the historians and the debate, but you have to actually talk about them. I illustrate above with examples what you are doing instead. The prominent references to other sources in-text is problematic in this article as well, but as they are within sentences about the subject of the article, I generally don't revert other editors' stylistic choices. If you want to mention WSWS in-text, there is a way to do so correctly if you have been paying attention, and if you do so I will not revert it and would perhaps even defend it from selective reverts. But I'm not going to do your homework for you, because I'd rather see most in-text source naming removed (the exception is when the publisher name makes something an RS more than the author -- WSWS obviously does not have more credibility on commenting and publishing on history than the historians they hosted). SamuelRiv (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If I'm rehashing points from above, it's because I don't think you've addressed them. One of the most notable aspects of the 1619 Project has been the historical debate it has generated. That debate occurred in a number of fora. One of those fora has been extensively commented on - probably moreso than any other forum, aside from the NY Times itself. That's partly because a series of extremely well known historians gave interviews there, which is what set off the historical debate in the first place. It's partly because some commentators and historians were surprised that a socialist publication was somehow the main venue for prominent historians who were critical of the 1619 Project. Removing the reference to the forum is actually removing one of the most notable / commented-on aspects of the historical debate.

You've said that you don't want to "do [my] homework," but reverting because of a supposed lack of context, without specifying what additional context you want, is not particularly helpful. If you could propose something more concrete, I would appreciate that. There's a strong chance I may even agree with your proposed addition. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you're asking: I already illustrated the absurdity with a construction like "A resurrected Jesus gave an interview with the Tallahassee Times. In other news...". Here's an alternative construction: "Notable scientician Jesus said in a July interview with the Tallahassee Times that it felt great to be resurrected and everyone should do it. In other news...". Do you understand the difference? What part of that construction is most relevant to the reader? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be much more helpful if you stopped talking about Jesus, the Buddha and Einstein, and instead discussed that actual text in question. We're talking about interviews with Wood, McPherson and other leading historians, who gave strongly critical interviews of the 1619 Project in the World Socialist Website in late 2019, sparking a larger historical debate over the project. How would you word that? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticism memory-holed because it appeared in socialist publication

As anyone who followed the debate over the 1619 Project is aware, the historical debate began when a series of extremely prominent historians, including two Pulitzer Prize winners (Gordon S. Wood and James M. McPherson, probably best known historians of the American Revolution and Civil War, respectively), gave critical interviews about the project in a socialist publication. This has been extremely widely commented on, as can be seen from this non-exhaustive list of sources:

• Elliot Kaufman in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
• Adam Serwer in The Atlantic
• Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic
• The editor of the American Historical Review
• A letter published by the American Historical Review in response to the editor
• David Waldstreicher in the Boston Review
• Katie Mettler in the Washington Post
• KC Johnson in City Journal

Recently, a few editors have removed all mention of these interviews or the publication where they were given from the "Reaction of historians" section. The reasons they give have been bizarre, including that socialist parties don't get large enough vote shares in the US to matter, as if that were a legitimate reason to delete any reference to interviews given by leading American historians in a socialist publication - interviews that have been heavily discussed in the secondary literature. With the removal of any reference to these interviews, one of the most notable phases in the historical debate (indeed, the events that kicked it off) has been simply memory-holed. I can't help but get the impression that this has been done for political reasons - namely, editors' personal dislike for the socialist publication that Gordon Wood, James McPherson and others were interviewed in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The views of these critics have remained in the article, with RS sourcing. The only thing that's been removed is the Trotskyite FP:FRINGE reference. There is no consensus to add that kind of sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: How did you arrive at this article? Did you look through my contribution history and device to come here and revert my contributions? You've done this many times in the past with articles scattered across Wikipedia. This is called WP:STALKING, and it is a form on harassment. If you have an actual interested in a subject and just end up on the same page as me, that's one thing, but you repeatedly show up at pages on completely different (sometimes quite obscure) subjects, and immediately revert my contributions.

Here, you don't even appear to have engaged at all with the subject (i.e., you're just here to revert me, as at many other articles in the past), as you are calling interviews with leading American historians "fringe." These are probably some of the least fringe sources cited in this article - I would be much more worried about Op-Ed pieces in the popular press by non-historians than by an interview with a noted historian. The fact that an interview takes place in a socialist source, whose politics you object to, has no bearing on whether it is "fringe." If Gordon Wood or James McPherson give interviews on their areas of expertise, the source is not fringe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You've also engaged in WP:STALKING towards me and it is one of the reasons why I briefly retired from WP. If you keep this up, I won't hesitate to start a discussion on WP:ANI. X-Editor (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• City Journal is the in-house publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative-leaning think tank. It is absolutely not comparable to the others in quality and should not be weighted equally to them by including things that were only published there, especially not if we can cite the same broad opinion to higher-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Magness removal

I removed this because it seems like too much weight for an opinion piece from a magazine. Andre🚐 04:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's part of the WaPo citation. Read the WaPo article that's in the literal same paragraph. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not how to do a secondary citation. You're putting the words of Quilette in the mouth of Washington Post. Andre🚐 04:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any consensus for inclusion in the discussion above; it seems like it was quietly slipped back in after it failed to reach consensus the first few times, but Quillette is definitely not a source we can use unattributed and would be WP:UNDUE in general. I also have strenuous objections to the way Quillette was being used to try and slip something into the voice of the Washington Post, which is utterly inappropriate. I see no mention of Magness anywhere in the Washington Post piece; what WP:RS is this connection being cited to? Also, we were again citing multiple opinion pieces for statements of fact, something I'd thought was fixed a while ago. Anything stated in the article voice unattributed needs to be cited to a non-opinion WP:RS - even an opinion piece in the New York Times is still only WP:RSOPINION and can only be cited for the author's attributed opinions. Also also, City Journal is the in-house publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; it's not a reliable source, either. A huge amount has been written on this topic - surely we can find better sources than these for any aspects that are significant. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  (Personal attack removed) You're reverting to "unnamed critics." The WaPo article leaves not one critic unnamed. What is with this complete disregard for the accuracy of the content in your revision?

  How is it slipping something into the voice of WaPo when it's in the voice of Magness (who wrote a book on 1619, is credentialed to talk about this kind of history, is in major think tanks -- regardless of what you think of Quillette, which I agree does not would not otherwise give sufficient inherent reliability as a publication in itself) -- the fact that the same thing Magness writes is also cited in the WaPo article that is subsequently mentioned is just to say that WaPo also thinks he's worth mentioning. Did none of you read the Ellison WaPo piece? How is this putting words in the mouth of WaPo when we have one sentence saying what Magness says in the piece that WaPo cites (this is not the same as a secondary citation, nor is it intended to be), and in the next sentence we note that this is among several critics in a WaPo article talking about the same topic. There are a dozen ways to improve how this is presented, including consolidating into a single secondary citation. I don't see why removing everything and then blatantly mislabeling the WaPo article should be your choice. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I went to the page [3] and did a Ctrl+F Magness and I couldn't find any Magness in the article. The text in Wapo reads, "A writer for the Atlantic launched a massive Twitter thread noting all the times when Hannah-Jones had said, in essence, that 1619 was the nation’s true founding. That’s what prompted her social media self-purge, she told The Post, so her tweets could not be “weaponized.” Meanwhile, 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." So the critics are "unnamed," they weren't named in the piece. Therefore, it would be an appropriate secondary citation to say Wapo referred to Quillette, but not that Wapo referred to Magness, since it didn't. Regardless, this is a trivial mention, and it should be left out entirely. There isn't consensus to include it. Andre🚐 06:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is a ridiculous interpretation. Ellison is referring to articles that are easily referenced by the reader, including directly linking to the Twitter thread in question which reveals the "unnamed" Atlantic writer's name. Calling these critics "unnamed" implies to the reader that their identities were hidden or kept anonymous, which is simply disingenuous. Ellison decided for whatever reason that Quillette would be a more relevant reference to the reader than Magness's name, which is a decision we probably all would disagree with. Friedersdorf's only background is as a writer for The Atlantic, so referencing only the latter is probably appropriate. In neither case is the critic "unnamed" except in some hyper-literal reading that, if written here, disinforms the reader.

  There are plenty of criticisms in the WaPo article, and the section (and article) needs a good amount of rewrite and update. Not disinformation. And none of this addresses whether Magness is an RS on his own merits, regardless of what you think of Quillette. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I changed it to "Critics cited by The Washington Post, such as Quillette magazine." Magness would be a partisan opinion. Andre🚐 16:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

MasteredDegree keeps inserting the assertion that the subject is a conspiracy theory, referenced to a single opinion piece in City Journal, laundered through bunkhistory.org. This is clearly far short of the sourcing required to even be mentioned in the article at all without attribution to the author as an opinion, and has no business being in the lead at all. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I have multiple citations. MasteredDegree (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you have two copies of the same article reposted on different websites. MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I've warned them about edit-warring. MD, I cask that you read WP:RS and pay attention to distinctions between opinion pieces in polemical sources, and evidence of consensus of broad scholarly and journalistic sources for establishing assertions in Wikipedia's voice. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I've added the edit as well as a couple citations to bolster the fact that this is a largely debunked conspiracy theory. Any discussion is welcome. MasteredDegree (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Your sources are unreliable and clearly represent an extreme minority position. This article must follow the position of the majority of mainstream sources: this is journalism, not a conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems like more of your opinion and less of a factual statement. MasteredDegree (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of why there is a problem with Wikipedia.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lede in this article is not written with a NPOV in the sense that the first line in the second paragraph should be part of the lede, “The 1619 Project has received criticism from a number of historians, both from the political left and right, who question its historical accuracy.” If that is in fact the case then everything about the 1619 Project should be called into question. It should not be presented as a statement of fact as it is in the lede because it has been roundly questioned by all sides. The lede presents it as a valid documentation of historical fact when that is clearly NOT the case. I’m not here to engage in back and forth with other editors but if you cannot acknowledge questionable content heavily influenced by a biased premise and then go to great lengths to justify same don’t expect people to take the project seriously. 108.46.171.68 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC) ? The second paragraph is part of the lede (so are the third and fourth paragraphs). Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC). It should be the second sentence in the article. It should not come after a full paragraph, especially as it has been so roundly challenged. Suggested change would be as follows as it puts the project into its proper context: The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from The New York Times, and The New York Times Magazine which historians, journalists, and commentators have described as a revisionist historiographical work that takes a negative view of traditionally reverenced events and people in American history, including the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, along with later figures such as Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War.[4][5][6][7] The stated purpose of the project is as follows: "aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States' national narrative."[1] The first publication from the project was in The New York Times Magazine of August 2019 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the English colony of Virginia.[2] These were also the first Africans in mainland British America, though Africans had been in other parts of North America since the 1500s. The project also developed an educational curriculum, supported by the Pulitzer Center, later accompanied by a broadsheet article, live events, and a podcast.[3] On May 4, 2020, the Pulitzer Prize board announced that they were awarding the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary to project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones for her introductory essay.[8][9] The edits do not add significant content not already in the article but arrange it to more accurately reflect the WP:NPOV the project strives for. 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC) 108.46.171.68 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I suggest getting off the soapbox. everything about the 1619 Project should be called into question nope, sounds like you're trying to WP:RGW. Andre🚐 17:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Seems like you appear to be following me around Wikipedia to challenge every statement I make which would be harassment are you sure you want to continue down this path? When you show up on a series of unrelated pages to make a response to statements I’ve posted on seriously has to question your motives. Please stop with the bullying behavior. It’s quite transparent what you are doing and I am asking you to stop it. 108.46.171.68 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Actually, as you can see, I edited this page back in August [4] and believe it or not, I'm allowed to respond to you on 2 different pages without it being bullying or harassment. Andre🚐 03:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC) The article already lists the criticism made against the project from all sides, It seems like you're looking for bias that isn't there. Harryhenry1 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Slavery?

The article calls the +-20 people slaves, but were they slaves or indentured servants? This pop site (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa9_rgwRiH8) says the latter. Does any-one have a good source one way or tother? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:7DA3:EC2D:99E8:6A14 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I was taught both in grade school, in the same class, on the same day. That is to say, indentured servitude is widely regarded as a form of slavery. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it's "controversial" and "widely criticized for inaccuracy" should be in the first sentence.

EDIT: Before engaging on this thread, you might want to engage on the NPOV notice board first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been said before on the talk page that most of this thing's notability is its controversy and criticism. The lede starts with what it is, fine, but without the note that it's widely criticized gives the impression that it is more respectable than it is. This is especially an issue on mobile, since the critical portion of the lede is several finger rolls down and past the infobox.

The first sentence starts: The 1619 Project is a long-form journalism endeavor. I recommend it say The 1619 Project is a controversial and widely criticized long-form journalism endeavor. Or similar, I'm not attached to that exact wording. It should be in the first sentence, though. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That tilts the article in a nonneutral way. The second paragraph explains the context, and that is plenty early in the article. MrOllie (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

In what way is that not neutral? I have several reasons I've made the edit.

1. It's true. Similar heavily sourced wording is in the body.
2. It is a major reason the project has notability in the first place. Maybe the primary reason.
3. Other articles on controversial things usually start that way.

Your feel of "plenty early" and "POV" can't just stand alone. You need reasons. At least, you need to address my reasons. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

And does your edit summary really just say "no"??? [5] 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the WP:FRINGESUBJECTS section of your link specifically addresses historical revisionism (a phrase explicitly used in the article and by critics) and urges that we pull no punches so as to keep WP:DUEWEIGHT. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This applies to all types of fringe subject, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Its relevance couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it’s a major, unprecedented, Pulitzer-winning long-form journalism project with the weight of the US newspaper of record behind it, could it? Clear WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT POV-pushing from the IP. MrOllie is correct. إيان (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Do you mean to refer to notability? It was infamous first. Then, crazily, it "won" some recognitions. How it's "unprecedented" I don't know... Anyway, that's an address to only one of my three reasons. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

crazily your bias is showing. MrOllie (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You should probably address the policy and reasoning of my comments instead. Calling other editors biased like this is considered uncivil. (I am the same editor as IP 142.115.142.4 posted above). 66.207.202.66 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The characterization of a Pulitzer-winning project from The New York Times as fringe is hilarious. The IP's claims are completely unfounded. إيان (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of the article or just the first sentence? There are virtually no historical authorities that will back it. In fact, there's hardly any that will concede anything to it. And this is in the article body already. The lede should reflect the body, and policy on this type of thing is give no ground. Drive-by readers are given a disservice if the first sentence doesn't make this clear. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you citing the Wikipedia article? إيان (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To justify content in the lede? You bet, since the lede is the article summary, by definition. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that seems to be the consensus here so far: the controversy certainly needs to be mentioned, but putting it in the first sentence is WP:UNDUE. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think ""just mentioned" is consensus" is reflected in the article body. Other than the section on what it is in it, there are almost only negative criticisms. The controversy is that virtually all historical authorities have discarded it, but it is from the NYT, Pulitzer awarded it, and some politicians have praised it and pushed to put it in school curricula. The article body is probably 80% about this, and there's a good argument that this controversy is the reason it's notable in the first place. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of academic historians have sung its praises and many more have not "discarded" it. Even Gordon Wood, an early critic and signatory of the NAS letter, has admitted he misjudged its significance, and has said "We’re going through a great atonement, trying to atone for the 400-year legacy of slavery. The 1619 Project is an aspect of that great atonement." Representing it as controversial is entirely fair. Saying all historical authorities have discarded it is hyperbole at best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wood explicitly maintained his criticisms. The quote you make begins, Gordon Wood, one of the historians who signed the letter criticizing the project, said that while he stands by his criticisms.... This means his positive messaging is about something else, not the false historical claims from the Project. I'd support the addition of this quote, but it needs to be clearly noted that Wood supports the vague "racial reckoning" the Project endeavors to make, but maintains his historical criticism. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IP: apologies for the rollback. I was uncomfortable with the "racist motivations" language as that, to me, goes beyond the four corners of what is reported in the article. While in a colloquial way I would say you are right, with accusations like that, I think explicit sourcing is preferable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'll search around for an explicit source. It is a bit weird to me, though, that it is controversial to paraphrase someone's "they're racist" quote while also giving that quote. "They're racist" is a flippant retort these days. We hear it all the time. She played the race card. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the quote only. I still think it's perfectly fine to state in wikivoice "she accused NAS of racism". Isn't that her message? We are supposed to describe disputes, not just quote the parties involved. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Given this talk page discussion, you really need consensus to shift before rewriting the lead in general or making edits like this one. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying different edits, taking feedback into account. That's part of the prescribed process.

You reverted 3 unrelated edits.

1. Added "controversial" to intro sentence.
2. Moved last sentence in first paragraph a few sentences up.
3. Added Hannah-Jones quote to NAS request to rescind the Pulitzer, in the responses section immediately following the NAS quote.

In response to those reverts:

1. We have our talk thread above. I think we can agree that quickly spun into something else. I first tried "widely criticized". Now I've tried the much softer "controversial", a form extremely common on WP. Are you suggesting with your revert that this topic is not marked with great controversy? If so, how do you account for the bulk of the article being about the criticism and controversy?

2. I'd like to hear your objection here. "I like it the way it is" doesn't count. My reasoning is putting like with like. The sentence I moved is about positive/informational things, which follows some content about criticism, which follows other positive/informational things. Like with like makes a less jarring and disjointed article.

3. I added sourced and highly topical content. I don't know what reason you could have for reverting this. This was also a second try when Dumuzid didn't like my paraphrase of it. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above: That tilts the article in a nonneutral way. The second paragraph explains the context, and that is plenty early in the article. Making the same edit (reinserting controversial in the lead, or adding the same quote over and over) with minor variations is still edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not edit warring. I feel like you're not really reading my messages, nor familiarizing yourself with context of other discussions you've not been party before characterizing my actions.

For example "adding the same quote over and over". That's not what's happened. I made this edit Hannah-Jones then accused the NAS of racist motivations. On the day the NAS called for the revocation of her Pulitzer, tweetingshe tweeted that it was an effort to “put me in a long tradition of [Black women] who failed to know their places.” Dumuzid's objection [6] is in reference to my words (racist motivations) about the quote, not the quote itself. I take this into account with my next edit, stating only the quote now, On the day the NAS called for the revocation of her Pulitzer, Hannah-Jones tweeted that it was an effort to “put me in a long tradition of [Black women] who failed to know their places.”

A lot of editors are plenty happy with different edits that account for the objection. This cannot reasonably be called edit warring. It's earnest participation. Then, with additional reverts, you're now committed to deeper explanation. In this case, what is your objection to the quote? Dumuzid didn't complain about the quote.

In the same vein, I've put up policy and well known Wikipedia conventions to justify my edits, but you aren't responding to that. First I was pov pushing, now I'm edit warring. I don't think you're being fair to my bona fide participation. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like you're not really reading my messages I know it is hard to believe, but I can read your messages and still disagree with your position. First I was pov pushing, now I'm edit warring. Why choose when you can do both at the same time? You're still trying to insert stuff into the lead sentence without consensus, and making minor tweaks to your repetitive edits absolutely is edit warring. You should have known your edit wouldn't fly, because it doesn't fix the problems of substance with your earlier effort. but you aren't responding to that I'm not actually required to object in exactly the way you prefer. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'm going to ping @Dumuzid: for input about the quote, then hit the NPOV board about the others. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I am more or less neutral about the quote. I see some utility in including it, but it was simply a tweet--though one that the Washington Post deemed worthy of mention. I think the best plan for the moment is to leave it out, per WP:ONUS, but IP, if you can get another person to agree with you (assuming no other input), I would consider that a rough consensus and enough for inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest the WaPo included it because of the irony. On a project about systemic racism, the criticism is dismissed as racist. Also, if someone makes response to criticism, shouldn't we note it? That would be fair. News does this all the time, "We reached out for comment...", because it's the right thing to do. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Everyone should read MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, which calls out "controversial" and other words specifically as "contentious labels" not to use. Because of all of this and the escalation to the drama board, I realized I didn't have this article on my watch list. Now it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

infobox change

Template:Infobox short story is obviously inappropriate for this topic. What alternative infobox should be used? إيان (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Blaming England a bit?

This article seems to play a little too fast and loose with the facts. Everybody knows that the United States government enslaved black people for 400 years and that England led by Wilberforce abolished slavery in 1833. I added these four reputable sources below from CNN, The Philadelphia Enquirer, USA Today, and even America's own U.S. House of Representatives recognizes that the United States government engaged in slavery for 400 years. I hope this new information can help begin to clean this article up a bit with all of the right wing bias that is present. When the United States government itself admits that it enslaved black people for 400 years, there shouldn't be any question and there should NOT be blaming any other countries and especially the ones who never had any slavery at all. Sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.95.250 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The United States government hasn't yet existed for a span of 400 years. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)