Talk:The 1619 Project

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

Conflicting provable history[edit]

We have a huge problem on our hands here with this. It will likely mean that the background section and other parts of this article might need to be re-written, or else this could spill over in an ugly way into other wiki articles. A small but notable example(there are many) is the article about San Miguel de Gualdape, which states that 93 years prior in 1526: "The enslaved Africans brought by the settlers became the first documented instance of Black slavery in mainland North America and carried out the first slave rebellion there."

Someone could easily remove that line citing a reliable source, The New York Times, because there was no slavery of any kind prior to 1619, the "400th anniversary of the first enslaved people arriving in America". And if there was no slavery, there obviously couldn't have been a slave rebellion either. This is the whole premise of the project, it's exactly what they are saying every time you see the number 400. Here's one example:

Four hundred years after enslaved Africans were first brought to Virginia, most Americans still don't know the full story of slavery. The 1619 Project examines the legacy of slavery in America.[1]

Here's another:

Since January, The Times Magazine has been working on an issue to mark the 400th anniversary of the first enslaved people arriving in America.[2]

Another here: ([3]) uses very similar language to the first cited above.

If on the one hand, I could completely prove that this started in 1619 citing reliable sources; but then on the other hand, I could completely prove that this started prior to 1619 citing reliable sources, how can we write comprehensive and accurate wiki articles this way when now both hands are 100% correct with cites? I'll try to make a small fix to the background to start but we have a much larger issue here. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The arrival of slaves in Spanish colonies in North America in the 16th Century and uncertainty about the status of the Africans who were brought to Virginia in 1619 are both tricky questions for this article. It's difficult to describe the 1619 Project succinctly and accurately, without simplifying or misrepresenting these issues. For example, the lede says:

The project was timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the Virginia colony in 1619

Yet the status of the Africans who arrived in Virginia in 1619 is not settled, and is the subject of a longstanding historiographical debate. There is a view that slavery did not exist in the colony in 1619, and that the institution of slavery only developed decades later, and there is indeed evidence that some Africans brought to the colony early on were treated as indentured servants, and later gained their freedom. There is another view that says that at least some Africans were essentially treated as slaves (lifetime indentured servitude), even if the legal framework of slavery did not yet exist. The problem is that the evidence is very patchy, and historians are trying to draw conclusions from quite indirect types of evidence.
In any case, I think we should try to find a way to modify the description in the lede to describe the intention of the NY Times (to mark the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first slaves in Virginia), without actually stating definitively that the people who arrived were treated as slaves (because this is a contentious issue among historians). It's a tricky thing to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a contentious issue among historians anymore that the First Africans in Virginia were enslaved, though it was a few years ago. There seems to be pretty wide consensus now for this, quite unrelated to the 1619 Project.--Pharos (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wikipedia article says they were enslaved (in the original sense of having been free people made slaves), which is not in doubt, but not that they were indefinitely treated as slaves in Virginia. LastDodo (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should try to modify the description to use the "intention" of the NY Times to make it accurate. We should describe what the Times said and note its accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q746371 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported partisan claim worded as fact[edit]

I call attention to this sentence in the Journalistic Reaction section

"Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery (e.g. Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans), smears the Revolution, distorts the Constitution, and misrepresents the founding era and Lincoln."

This claim "Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans" is a serious allegation and not common knowledge. It is preceded by "unwelcome facts" which implies that this claim is a fact. The only source provided for this sentence is the same National Review opinion piece written by Lowry. If this is true, then it needs to be backed up by a much stronger source than an opinion piece from a partisan source which "there is no consensus on the reliability of".

I have never seen any other source support the claim. Therefore, I propose the sentence to be changed to one of the following:

1. Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery (e.g. Africans allegedly captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans) [...]

2. Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay leaves out unwelcome facts about slavery (e.g. Lowry claims Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans) [...]

3. Rich Lowry wrote that Hannah-Jones' lead essay "leaves out unwelcome facts" about slavery (e.g. Africans captured other Africans and then sold them to Europeans and Americans) [...]

4. If an independent source supports the claim, add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.135.61 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That it is 'not common knowledge' we can certainly agree upon. That is a reflection of how well people have been misled. But it is not 'a serious allegation', it is well established fact. Go read any decent history of the slave trade - any one at all - and you will find it to be the case. Go read any slave narrative (e.g. Olaudah Equiano's), and you will find the same thing. Europeans, with the partial exception of Portugal, traded for slaves from tiny forts on the coast that were in most cases highly vulnerable to the power of the African states with which they traded, as well as African diseases, which would gurantee a high mortality rate for any group of Europeans travelling inland. That is not to say that kidnappings did not happen, they certainly did, but only a minority of Africans were enslaved this way. Many were trafficked for months across land before they saw a single European. Many died in this part of the journey - probably more than died during the Middle Passage, since it came earlier in the journey, and took much longer (the Middle Passage killed people faster but was much shorter). None of this is at all controversial. Reflecting all this, I have added the fact back in, as an example cited by Rich Lowry. LastDodo (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And does your edit summary really just say "no"??? [4] 142.115.142.4 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
crazily your bias is showing. MrOllie (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you citing the Wikipedia article? إيان (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [5] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

infobox change[edit]

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

Blaming England a bit?[edit]

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: [6] [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.95.250 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does anyone think it is not Revisionist?[edit]

In the lede it says 'Some historians, journalists, and commentators have described the 1619 Project as a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events 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.'

Is the 'some historians, journalists and commentators' part necessary? Is there anyone, on either side of the debate, who doubts that the work is revisionist? Here is what wikipedia says historical revisionism is:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or timespan or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.

I can think of few pieces of work for which this description is more apt than the 1619 Project. If its not revisionist, then what exactly was the point of it? Why has it generated so much support and opposition if it is just recapitulating the orthodox view? Why award it a Pulitzer? Of course the answer is that it certainly is revisionist. So why not replace the above paragraph with:

'The 1619 Project is a revisionist historiographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, such as the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, and later figures like Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War.'

Thoughts? LastDodo (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hard to think what its point is except to be revisionist. Has anyone said that it isn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I await to see what others say. But as it stands the paragraph in question implies they have, simply by qualifying the claim as being made by 'some'. LastDodo (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of counter-criticism that the project is not revisionist, either. For what it's worth, Nikole Hannah-Jones' reported response to a letter criticizing the NYT Magazine for an "inaccurate reframing of history" is "We were not hiding this,” she said. “If you are a historian, you know that all history is revisionist."[10] although I can't find this quote elsewhere.
The editor's note on "The 1619 Project" also states that the goal is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year."[11] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States Slavery[edit]

Hello everyone! In the most recent edit someone pointed out that the U.S. had slavery for 246 years which is an important point of the whole effort of The 1619 Project, so it is curious that another user would immediately revert that edit despite its relevance. Could we have a discussion and build a consensus? Thanks!!! 72.17.70.228 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP! Remember, relevance alone does not necessarily merit inclusion. While I don't doubt the statement, are there reliable sources mentioning that as the specific timespan? That would help. Also, if you could talk about how you wanted to integrate the information into the article, that would be perfect. Happy Holidays! Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that it is a direct part of the 1619 Project itself. This article [12] written together in a partnership with the Smithsonian specifically states that the United States had slavery for 246 years. "The Stono Rebellion was only one of many rebellions that occurred over the 246 years of slavery in the United States." This article is featured prominently in the main body of the Wiki article already, so I need no additional cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.54.178 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that The 1619 Project directly mentions this too, but rounds up to 250 years. "No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed." among other quotes [13] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may be a little late to this, but I do not think it should be included as it would be very multifaceted. It also highlights how useless using the ambiguous word of "America" is. The U.S. purchase of Spanish Florida where there was slavery means that slavery was inherited. From purchase in 1819 to abolition in 1865 means that slavery in the U.S. in the former Spanish territory is 46 years. The rest of the responsibility for slavery in Spanish America lies with Spain. The same is true for slavery in the French slave colony of Louisiana that was purchased by the United States. Slavery there as it regards the U.S. is 62 years and for France, many many more years. With the 13 colonies and the original Founding of the United States it means that the United States had slavery for 89 years. In most instances, slavery was conducted by European powers when there was no United States at all. Progressingamerica (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionists ignored[edit]

In James Oakes' Dec. 2023 article referenced in the Wikipedia article, he points out that abolitionism was ignored by the authors of The 1619 Project, saying:

The rise of Anglo-American slavery gave rise to Anglo-American antislavery. But it was the revolution itself that put slavery in jeopardy.

This is quite a monumental thing to say in light of how 1619 originally tried claiming that the whole point of the revolution was to protect and defend the institution of slavery. I do happen to think that a small bit about the role of abolitionism has a place in the article, perhaps the following two history books would become useful for that purpose and potentially even out the preferential message contained in The 1619 Project? Particularly abolitionist sentiments/persons known to have existed prior to Independence.

Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808) - Librivox audiobook [14]
An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers - Librivox audiobook [15]

Progressingamerica (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were there abolitionists? Of course there were. But they were relatively small in number and had little actual success until the Civil War. And you know what? They have been studied and covered ad nauseam over the last century and a half. Thank you for providing two works with which you are associated on Librivox, but we would really need something like more contemporary criticism making the points you wish to include. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing the audiobooks. I agree with Dumuzid on their size and success, but there are more modern works that discuss pre-independence abolitionism. I think a bigger point of criticism is how the premise The 1619 Project made for its claim about the American Revolution, that Britain was "deeply conflicted" about slavery in the American colonies and the slave trade, was incorrect. The 1619 Project overstates the influence and effect of British abolitionism. I read about that and historians' responses in Peter Wood's book 1620 and more of this criticism could be included in the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little bit of WP:MANDY to Wood's criticisms, not that they are therefore unfair, but it does tend to make them less notable. I, personally, would want to see more coverage of the 1620 book before I would think it due for inclusion in the article. But as ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. To avoid confusion, are we confusing historian Gordon S. Wood, who has had back-and-forth criticism of The 1619 Project, with Peter W. Wood, who wrote the 1620 book? I can't find allegations against Peter Wood or Peter Wood denying something per WP:MANDY about himself or his content in this topic area, but would like to include them if there are any. The book has received reasonable attention and has been a popular seller[16][17][18][19], and reflects mainstream research on early US history. It also appears to be the most substantial criticism of The 1619 Project. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_1619_Project&oldid=1217762210"