This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The 1619 Project article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from The 1619 Project appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
The project was timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the Virginia colony in 1619
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)
Template:Infobox short story is obviously inappropriate for this topic. What alternative infobox should be used? إيان ( talk) 14:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
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: [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.95.250 ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
"We were not hiding this,” she said. “If you are a historian, you know that all history is revisionist."[8] although I can't find this quote elsewhere.
is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year."[9] Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 00:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
"No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed."among other quotes [11] Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 10:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
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 [12]
An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers - Librivox audiobook [13]
Progressingamerica ( talk) 04:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The 1619 Project article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from The 1619 Project appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
The project was timed for the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in the Virginia colony in 1619
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)
Template:Infobox short story is obviously inappropriate for this topic. What alternative infobox should be used? إيان ( talk) 14:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
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: [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.95.250 ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
"We were not hiding this,” she said. “If you are a historian, you know that all history is revisionist."[8] although I can't find this quote elsewhere.
is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year."[9] Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 00:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
"No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed."among other quotes [11] Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 10:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
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 [12]
An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic, on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers - Librivox audiobook [13]
Progressingamerica ( talk) 04:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)