Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1203967916 by 2601:204:C700:99:F589:E793:682D:348B (talk) apologies, but this edit resulted in non-grammatical double-talk |
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 19:
On May 4, 2020, the [[Pulitzer Prize]] board announced that it was awarding the 2020 [[Pulitzer Prize for Commentary]] to Hannah-Jones for her introductory essay.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |last1=Barrus |first1=Jeff |date=May 4, 2020 |title=Nikole Hannah-Jones Wins Pulitzer Prize for 1619 Project |url=https://pulitzercenter.org/blog/nikole-hannah-jones-wins-pulitzer-prize-1619-project |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506072348/https://pulitzercenter.org/blog/nikole-hannah-jones-wins-pulitzer-prize-1619-project |archive-date=May 6, 2020 |access-date=May 4, 2020 |publisher=Pulitzer Center}}</ref><ref name=":1" />
The 1619 Project has received criticism from historians, both from the [[political left]] as well as the [[Right-wing politics|right]], who [[#Historical_accuracy|question its historical accuracy]].<ref name="atlantic-friedersdorf2">{{Cite web |last=Friedersdorf |first=Conor |date=January 6, 2020 |title=1776 Honors America's Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/inclusive-case-1776-not-1619/604435/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200716232507/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/inclusive-case-1776-not-1619/604435/ |archive-date=July 16, 2020 |access-date=July 27, 2020 |website=[[The Atlantic]] |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name="atlantic-serwer2">{{Cite web |last=Serwer |first=Adam |date=December 23, 2019 |title=The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224112432/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ |archive-date=December 24, 2019 |access-date=July 27, 2020 |website=[[The Atlantic]] |language=en-US}}</ref> In a letter published in ''[[The New York Times]]'' in December 2019, historians [[Gordon S. Wood]], [[James M. McPherson]], [[Sean Wilentz]], [[Victoria E. Bynum]], and [[James Oakes (historian)|James Oakes]] applauded "all efforts to address the enduring centrality of slavery and racism to our history" and deemed the project a "praiseworthy and urgent public service," but expressed "strong reservations" about some "important aspects" of the project and requested factual corrections. Most prominently, these scholars
In March 2020, in light of persistent criticism of the project's portrayal of the role of slavery, ''The New York Times'' issued a "clarification", modifying one of the passages on slavery's role that had sparked controversy.<ref name="The New York Times 2020">{{cite web | title=An Update to The 1619 Project | website=[[The New York Times]] | date=March 11, 2020 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html | access-date=December 30, 2020 | archive-date=March 12, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200312105044/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Butcher 2020">{{cite web | last=Butcher | first=Jonathan | title=The New York Times Begins Correcting the Historical Record on "1619 Project" | website=The Heritage Foundation | date=March 16, 2020 | url=https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/commentary/the-new-york-times-begins-correcting-the-historical-record-1619 | access-date=December 30, 2020 | archive-date=December 21, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201221102544/https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/commentary/the-new-york-times-begins-correcting-the-historical-record-1619 | url-status=live }}</ref> In September 2020, controversy arose when the ''Times'' updated the opening text of the project website to remove the phrase "...understanding 1619 as our true founding..." without accompanying editorial notes.{{efn| Silverstein said that the phrase had actually been removed in December 2019.<ref name="Silverstein-On-Criticism" />}} According to critics, including [[Bret Stephens]], a conservative columnist at the ''Times'', claimed the differences showed that the newspaper was backing away from some of the initiative's controversial claims.<ref name="VanityFair">{{cite web |last=Pompeo |first=Joe |date=October 14, 2020 |title="This Isn't Jayson Blair": With 1619 and Caliphate Controversies, the New York Times Turns on Itself |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/the-new-york-times-turns-on-itself |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025162855/https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/the-new-york-times-turns-on-itself |archive-date=October 25, 2020 |access-date=October 17, 2020 |work=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]}}</ref> The ''Times'' defended its practices, with Hannah-Jones saying that most of the project's content had remained unchanged.<ref name="WaPo-1619-2020" /><ref name="CNN-12Oct20202">{{Cite news |last1=Stelter |first1=Brian |authorlink1=Brian Stelter |last2=Darcy |first2=Oliver |authorlink2=Oliver Darcy |date=October 12, 2020 |title=1619 Project faces renewed criticism — this time from within The New York Times |website=[[CNN]] |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/media/new-york-times-1619-project-criticism/index.html |url-status=live |access-date=October 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201014054521/https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/media/new-york-times-1619-project-criticism/index.html |archive-date=October 14, 2020}}</ref><ref name="Silverstein-On-Criticism" />
| |||