Talk:1776 Commission

Historians criticism

I was mainly trying to be concise and summarize without having to repeat the main 1619 Project page word for word, considering how overwhelming the historians backlash has been. But since many users would prefer to go the other way, then if we are going to list the universities(and not their names) then we should list every university from which each historian is at. To say it's "a group of scholars from Princeton University" is omission and NPOV. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Update on 10/12 regarding Critisim

I just reworked the section regarding the criticism by some historians as well as the response from the NYT. Please put any discussion here, thanks! JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 22:42., 12 October 2020 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

The author of this information as originally submitted is declaring that this executive order is to strengthen White supremacy. This is opinion, not fact, thereby shall be stricken from this article. 2601:408:503:420:A06E:6903:8B43:EDC0 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "white supremacy" does not currently appear in this article. It may have already been removed. If there are further changes that you would like to request for this article, please feel free to reopen this request with that information. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The article merely states "According to the executive order establishing the commission, the commission's goal is to end what it calls the "radicalized view of American history" which has "vilified [the United States'] Founders and [its] founding"." There's no specific "white supremacy" mention. GeraldWL 06:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The EO has issued

Just to note that the executive order has now issued in this so it will inevitably continue to receive coverage (not least if Biden repeals). FOARP (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

1776 Report

The report is ridiculed by historians:

• White House Releases ‘1776 Report’ That Tries To Erase Legacy Of Slavery, MSNBC, 19.01.2021
• Trump administration issues racist school curriculum report on MLK day, CNN, 19.01.2021--93.211.218.85 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Trump’s ‘1776 report’ defends America’s founding on the basis of slavery and blasts progressivism, NY times, 19.01.2021
• On MLK Day, Biden volunteers, Trump issues divisive report on slavery and civil rights, NBC News, 18.01.2021
• [ https://twitter.com/Dr_C_Thompson/status/1351331998493782018 Plagiarized]

2601:1C0:CE00:496:0:0:0:8EF (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a follow up to that last item here. Not really usable here per WP:SPS, I suppose, but maybe it'll get mentioned somewhere else. XOR'easter (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Presidential commission?

Is the 1776 Commission officially a presidential commission? If so, we should add it to the article Presidential Commission (United States) and add the category Category:United States Presidential Commissions. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears this is resolved: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

This article states that no "Professional Historians" are on the commission... and lists Victor Davis Hanson ( a professional Historian) as a member of the commission. 73.19.59.112 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

He's a classicist, not a historian of the United States, which is what the article explicitly refers to. XOR'easter (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The article's assertion is still incorrect. Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most prominent, living US military historians, and his title expressly states "US Military Historian" at Hillsdale College. This alone would qualify him and therefore disqualify the over-reaching assertion in question; the fact that he is widely published as a professional historian of US history in general only makes this more plainly incorrect. The fact that he is listed by Stanford University as a a classicist does not nullify any of this. Lymanwight (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We have multiple sources which clearly discuss that the panel included no professional historians who focus on United States history. That VDH might have written some books which touch on United States history does not mean his training and experience are in United States history - and indeed, they are not. He holds a Ph.D in classics and his military history expertise is in ancient wars. Your claim that VDH is "one of the most prominent, living US military historians" desperately needs a citation, or at the very least, this deep clarification. Perusing VDH's bibliography, I see no evidence "that he is widely published as a professional historian of US history in general." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For what reason it is necessary to emphasize that there are no historians with works on US history in the commission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.215.58.125 (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Whitehouse.gov link dead, please add Wayback Machine link to report PDF

As of January 20 2021 noon EST, the 45th administration's whitehouse.gov website content has been deleted. Fortunately there is an Internet Wayback Machine link to the report PDF, so please add it to the page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210120005210/https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf

I would do it myself if the page wasn't locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.123.137 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Unclear Wording

Under the "History" section, it says

The commission was conceived partly as a response to The New York Times' 1619 Project, which explores American history through an African-American framing but received generally negative reviews from historians.

This seems a little unclear. Is it saying the 1619 project received negative reviews from historians or the 1776. One of the sources cited is from The Federalist (a conservative media outlet) that critiques the 1619 project while the rest of the sources critique the 1619 project so it seems like it could go either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr3ndyBEAR (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Federalist is definitely not a WP:RS in any way, shape or form. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"no professional historians" incorrect

The NYT is incorrect in stating that the Commission "included no professional historians, as an increasing number of people have been pointing out:

• Victor Davis Hanson is a professor of classics and military history, described by the NEH as "one of America’s best known and most prolific historians." It's worth noting that his Wikipedia article describes him as a historian.
• Larry P. Arnn has written several histories, and is described as a historian. For example, Lewis E. Lehrman describes him as a "Churchill historian" in Lincoln & Churchill: Statesmen at War.
• Charles R. Kesler is a renowned authority on both Cicero and the Federalist Papers and the founding of the United States—and is frequently described as a historian.

It's anyone's guess how the NYT has decided to define a "professional historian" here, but certainly Hanson is without question a paid, professional historian by any—and Wikipedia's—definition. And there's no benefit in including such a dubious claim here. We can simply point out that there has been criticism of the Commission's composition, and if more granularity is indicated, include specific objections. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Your first "source" is a syndicated Washington Examiner opinion column, which is definitely not WP:RS.

1. Victor Davis Hanson is... interesting. As a "military historian" and "classicist" his academic credentials appear to be limited to... ancient Greece. It appears the NYT filed him as "conservative intellectual" since his expertise is not in American History.
2. Larry P. Arnn has limited credentials regarding Churchill. His academic credentials are in government, though someone has added uncited claims of his having studied "international history" and "modern history" to his wikipedia page (intriguing). It appears the NYT filed him as "conservative intellectual" since his expertise is not in American History.
3. Charles R. Kesler also appears to fall into the NY Times' "conservative intellectuals" category, with his academic credentials in government (not history). It appears the NYT filed him as "conservative intellectual" since his expertise is not in American History.

Regardless, your WP:OR disagreement with the NYT's analysis does not change their status as WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

At some point (like, yesterday) our article made the narrower statement that the Commission included no historians of American history. I think it got trimmed down during a general elimination of redundancy. While the NYT says no professional historians near the top, further down they get more specific: the commission, while stocked with conservative educators, did not include a single professional historian of the United States. Going with the more specific phrasing may forestall pointless disputes while leaving the essential point unaffected. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be no "professional historian of the United States". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the phrasing now. I think what happened is that it said not [...] a single professional historian of the United States in one paragraph and no professional historians in the next, and during a general cleanup the narrower phrase got removed. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A fairer and more neutral assessment might include a listing of the qualifications of Kesler, Arnn, and Hanson to juxtapose with the NYT report, with accompanying sources. The Washington Times which though it does have a partisan bent, has published material indicating that "the 16-member commission was diverse in the widest sense of the familiar adjective. It included historians, lawyers, academics, scholars, authors, former elected officials and past public servants." The National Review, which similarly leans right, has published material saying that "While CNN’s attack was silly, it was expected. The New York Times, however, had the temerity to complain that 'no professional historians,' only 'conservative activists, politicians and intellectuals,' authored the report. First of all, Victor Davis Hanson has a Ph.D. in classics from Stanford University, and has written numerous excellent histories; Larry Arnn, the chair of the project, has a Ph.D. in government; Carol Swain, the co-vice chair, has a Ph.D. in political science; Matthew Spalding, the executive director, has a Ph.D. in government, and so on." There is currently no consensus on the reliability of the National Review, but there is marginal consensus that the Washington Times is reliable as of the current listing on WP:RSP. To keep in line with WP:NPOV, it may be wise to include one of these with attribution. Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hahahaha, the Washington Times? Are you serious? No, let's not give WP:FALSEBALANCE here - there was literally nothing "diverse" about the commission's ideological composition, and there were no Americanists on the panel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times has published that "right-wing historians" are among the group. While we can simply quote the New York Times (which might very well have a conflict of interest in this case), I believe the currently revised intro complies with WP:NPOV and, in line with the sources provided by talk, this also complies with the guidelines laid out in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Right-wing historians, after all, are still historians.

That is an op-ed in the LA Times. No one is disputing that the committee included people who have PhDs and have worked in academia. But the thing is that a classicist is not a "historian of the United States". It's misleading to readers to suggest that the folks on this committee are subject matter experts when the reliable sources make clear that they aren't. Your edit to the lead which removed the line that there is "not a single professional historian of the United States" on the committee and replaced it with your original research that the "Composition of the committee has been a subject of controversy" is not an improvement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, the op-ed calls them historians, not historians of the United States. The current phrasing "which included no professional specialists in United States history" seems to be the most accurate per RS.Eccekevin (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

18 members, December 18, January 18

Should be mentioned that "18" is a widespread nazi code for "Adolf Hitler". [1], [2], [3], [4] --77.183.42.254 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reliable source that is linking the two in this particular case (I have looked and cannot find one), so probably not due to WP:NOR. If there is a reliable source, it should probably be used with attribution, since claims of a direct and intentional link might bridge into WP:EXTRAORDINARY territory. Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, but if we're talking about the significance of numbers, someone might want to explain why it's called the 1776 report. My reading is that it's a (rather obscure) reference to the removal of Caesar Rodney's statue and his ride to attend the vote for independence on July 2. Vexations (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's called the 1776 report because it was published by the 1776 Commission, which has the stated purpose of enabling "a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to form a more perfect Union.” Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, I was referring to https://web.archive.org/web/20201110212120/https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-birthday-founding-father-caesar-rodney/, but as far as I can tell, no reliable sources have made that connection. Vexations (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

American Historical Association statement (and 33 others)

A statement released on the 1776 Report by the American Historical Association and cosigned by 33 history organizations.
AHA Condemns Report of Advisory 1776 Commission (January 2021)
Myotus (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone want to tackle Good article nomination?

There seems to be a lot of interest in this article, which is about a notable but short-lived topic. Obviously, there's still some back and forth needing to worked out, but once activity has settled a bit, are there any editors who would be interested in nominating this entry for Good article status? Or, care to share thoughts on what improvements must be made before doing so? Any thoughts/feedback welcome here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition to GA status (which I think this article is a good candidate for), I would also consider nominating it for Wikipedia:Did you know (possibly after GA status is achieved). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit - OR/SYNTH concerns

I've challenged a recent edit for two reasons. First, I don't understand the ref changes being made. Second, the change to the last sentence (changing "The report does not include citations or footnotes, and does not identify its main authors." to "The report includes very few citations, does not include footnotes, and does not explicitly identify its main authors among the members of the commission") seems to be using editors' own interpretation of (and citation to) a primary source to supersede the description of the reliable secondary sources (speciifcally, the NY Times article, which states "While billed by the White House as “definitive,” the report included no scholarly footnotes or citations, nor was it clear who its primary authors were."

That is impermissible WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We have to follow the sourcing, not our own interpretation or spin ("explicitly") of it. Mikehawk10, I understand from your edit summary that made the changed ("it does include citations to primary source documents Federalist 2 and Federalist 10, so it isn't true that it "does not include citations") but that you disagree with the source material isn't really material — we rely on the RS to make these judgment calls, not us. (Also, I would disagree with you that references to two primary source documents are the same as "citations" in the academic sense. These sorts of judgment calls are exactly why we rely on the reliable, secondary sources.) Pinging Snooganssnoogans and NorthBySouthBaranof since they have expressed interest in this. Neutrality^talk 23:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The RS that is being cited maintains an appearance of conflict of interest in this particular case, as the 1776 commission was made, as Forbes and many others have reported, to directly challenge the work of the 1619 Project, which was published in The New York Times Magazine. If we can find alternative sources (the AHA source that I added in the membership section seems to be sufficiently independent, as does the Forbes source), then we should go with that. The change in refs was accidental, and was overlooked as I attempted to resolve a merge conflict; that was my bad. I'm a bit inexperienced here, so I don't fully understand the full scope of WP:NOR as it pertains to this issue, but I don't know in what way simply viewing the source text is considered to be original research. Does original research mean referring to the content primary source documents and plainly saying what it says, or does it mean conducting novel background research and posting it on Wikipedia? I realize that I may be a little overeager on this, so any friendly advice would be helpful. Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• The New York Times is a reliable source here, and they do not have a conflict of interest. (Nor does Forbes claim otherwise.) The journalist who wrote the article on the 1776 Report is totally separate from the 1619 Project developers.

Yes, OR means that we cannot conduct novel background research and post it on Wikipedia, and we also avoid using our own interpretation of primary sources, especially in a way that undercuts or qualifies the secondary source on point. Neutrality^talk 01:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to correct inaccuracies, 23 January 2021

One inaccuracy: 1776 Report was not “withdrawn” (first paragraph of article) or “removed” (last paragraph of this article) by President Biden’s executive order. The new executive order revokes executive order 13958 that established the “commission”. The “report” was already publicly disseminated by the commission as directed in Sec 2(c)(i) of the previous executive order. The new administration has chosen not to carry out its recommendations, but there is no way to “remove” or “withdraw” something from the public domain

Another inaccuracy reported in this article: The 1776 Report was not taken off the White House web site in response to Biden’s signing of his executive order. In fact, the entire Trump White House web site was copied to the national archives and replaced with an entirely new web site created by the incoming Biden administration, unrelated to a specific executive order. The new web site did not contain the files of the outgoing administration’s web site. Note how this also occurred during the transition between Obama and Trump.

Finally, why is there a link to an archive.org copy of the pdf in the “External Links” section? It links to a page that embeds the pdf along with some politically biased metadata and commentary. There are better sources for an archived PDF, most notably the one that is already embedded at the top of the article and hosted within wikipedia.org. For something more historically accurate, link to the PDF in its original context within the archived White House web site. 2600:1004:B12F:A8AD:9088:D17E:1EBC:E47 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out these issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

Add the following:

The 1776 commission reports opening paragraph reads: "In the course of human events there have always been those who deny or reject human freedom, but Americans will never falter in defending the fundamental truths of human liberty proclaimed on July 4, 1776. We will—we must—always hold these truths". The founding of the United States of America, on the principles of individual freedom is the stated reason the commission was formed. The report itself was designed to act as a guide to sitting presidents on the governance of the country. Baddbowman (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't see a good reason why we should add this. Also see WP:PRIMARY. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is literally the opening paragraph. You want to exclude the actual verbiage, but will allow a bunch of opinions? How is that contributing the legitimacy of this website? It just solidifies the view that this is just a sounding board for one sided viewpoints.

@Baddbowman: Seriously? You believe that "The report itself was designed to act as a guide to sitting presidents on the governance of the country." This "report" isn't a guide by any stretch of the imagination. In any case, if a person needs a 45-page pamphlet as a guide in order to understand how to "sit" as a president, that person is not qualified to be president. Osomite ^hablemos 00:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's what it's stated purpose is.

What source says that it is its purpose? If you're proposing to cite the document itself, a page number or section title would be helpful. The quote you provided doesn't say anything about being "a guide to sitting presidents." Rather, the text itself says it was written with the intention of cultivating a better education among Americans in the principles and history of our nation and in the hope that a rediscovery of those principles and the forms of constitutional government will lead to a more perfect Union. Of course, if that was its true intention, it probably shouldn't have read like the right-wing agitprop which it actually is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Clean up Contents:

Under the contents section there really isn't a lot of specific information, and it is written in an inflammatory way. After reading this, I'm more confused than when I began. Any chance we can be more specific on what the commission actually states? Is it simply trying to conserve the history that is already being taught, or is it trying to alter history in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5580:8500:A493:432A:C2D4:A4B8 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Who were those people? "Professional Historians"? "US Historians"? "professional specialists"? "Scholars of US History?"

@Snooganssnoogans: your edit summary said "these words do not mean the same thing". I don't understand what comparison you are making. I am making an effort to clarify because the words I changed did not make good sense.

You changed my edit of "mainstream US historians" to "professional specialists". That seems like a strange choice. I guess you think calling the report's critics "professional" and "specialists" is gives them some legitimacy and objectivity. I think the use of "US Historians" in this context is most apt. And thinking about the word "mainstream" (my thought about lending some creditable to US historians) is unnecessary. US Historians, who are actually historians, have creditability

However, calling them "professional specialists" is getting a bit far afield and somewhat vague. (What will readers think when they run across the unusual term of "professional specialist" in this context (like I did)?) Maybe "professional US History specialists" would be better, but that is still not very good.

Of course, the familiar term for "professional history specialist", is "historian". Clearly "professional history specialist" falls under the field of scholarship (another word that implies "professionalism") of "US Historian". "US Historian" used alone indicates the specialization that is most apt, based upon these ideas:

About "professional" In itself, it is a pretty good word. Professional suggests things such as being qualified (however defined) and practicing in a definable area, having expertise based on a deep level of knowledge, and having a commitment to the area of practice.

The practice of history requires professional skills. Historians are trained to research and critically assess evidence and events of the past, taking into account the broader political, economic, social and cultural context.

A historian is an expert in history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon. Such as a US History historian.

A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past and is regarded as an authority on it.

I am inclined to make another edit that clarifies that the critics were simply "US Historians". After all, US Historians, who are actually historians, have sufficient creditability to be critics of bad US history.

Your thoughts?

Osomite ^hablemos 00:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

My preferred way of wording this has always been "The commission included no historians of the United States." 00:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: That works, but it is a bit awkward. Sounds like a bunch of historians who were citizens of the United States. How about "The commission included no US historians."? Osomite ^hablemos 01:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not just state who the report did include, i.e. list the authors of the report and their affiliations. Anything else seems selective and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthdeck (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

New source

Hi folks, here is a new source that seems relevant to the article. MonsieurD (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This post is garbage. You list no historians when there are in fact historians. You then say Historians hate it and quote journalist. This is why Wikipedia is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ing311 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

I propose the term "1776 Project" which redirects to this article needs a disambiguation page. The "1776 Project" is also used in reference to 1776 Unites campaign, a project of the Woodson Center created in 2020. Any objections? Any support? Cfwschmidt (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"overwhelmingly" vs "largely" criticized

My edit changing "overwhelmingly criticized" (in the lead section) to "largely criticized" was reverted. Washington Post, one of the two sources cited in that section, states "Historians largely condemned it, saying it was filled with errors and partisan politics." The New York Times likewise did not use the phrase "overwhelming".

The lead sentence clearly relies on the Washington Post characterization by quoting the "errors and partisan politics" part, so using the word "largely" would better reflect the source, whereas using "overwhelming" was less accurate. From a simple search I did not identify other major sources cited that characterized criticism was "overwhelming". My edit was not improper.

Thoughts? Pinkslimo (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)