Talk:1776 Unites

Expansion of the article
While I'm reluctant to simply revert away User:MJRidder's edits on my own initiative, since the article was just a pretty useless stub before. But I'm not sure any of it really belongs. It appears to be a simple copy-paste of his own rejected Draft:1776 Unites, and doesn't strike me as particularly NPOV. Then again, I'm not really convinced that the 1776 Project is actually notable enough to merit its own article at all. Being simply a response to The 1619 Project, perhaps all it merits is some description within that article's Critical response section. So instead, I'll ask what other editors think first. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 1776 Project article
Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_1619_Project#Proposal_to_merge_1776_Project_article WanderingWanda (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change article title to "1776 Unites"
1776 Unites is the official name of this program. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:1776 Unites
Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for this suggestion. I believe that the purpose of this article is to summarize the simple facts of what 1776 Unites is about and a few events that define its history. If a reader wants more, the references and links show the way to learn more. Adding more to this article that gets into the editorial position of 1776 Unites runs the risk that the article steps outside the boundaries of what is acceptable to Wikipedia. You note that the article as it stands now has picked up a hat note to this effect. I would suggest that most of what you have written belongs on the 1776 Unites’ website, rather than on this article. Thanks again for you interest. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

POV tag explanation
This article uses multiple conservative sources which are potentially not independent to justify WP:PEACOCK and POV wording, and does not include WP:DUE sourced criticisms which could be inserted. Work toward NPOV is needed. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't myself see all that much PEACOCK here. The most flagrant example is a single sentence which is clearly lifted, directly or indirectly, from the group's own mission statement.


 * Contributors to 1776 Unites promote current and historical examples of prosperous Black communities as "a powerful refutation of the claim that the destiny of Black Americans is determined by what whites do, or what they have done in the past."


 * I did a quick Google trawl for critical responses to 1776 Unites. Mostly what I found was articles pointing out that the 1619 project has less scholarly heft than 1776 Unites, which contains some strong centrist voices (from the Black community) as well as many voices further from the right.
 * I did find this on the atheist/rationalist site, Why Evolution is True:
 * "1776" throws down the gauntlet to NYT's "1619 Project" — 28 February 2020
 * Coleman Hughes is a sharp and engaged young mind concerning racial issues in America. As reported here, he tried to engage Nikole Hannah-Jones in serious dialogue and she tweeted back a disrespectful gesture. Here is the version of this story from Why Evolution is True:


 * Mark Heminway parsed this response for those (like me) who didn't know what she was getting at with this gesture:


 * Earlier this week, Nikole Hannah-Jones, a New York Times Magazine staff writer and the driving force behind the 1619 project, took note of the rival effort.
 * "I want to say this is my response to the 1776 project," she tweeted, followed by a picture of her pointing at her bottom row of gold teeth with her pinky, a dismissive and deeply unserious hip-hop gesture.
 * She followed that up with a "serious" tweet where she suggested that her African-American critics at the 1776 Project didn't actually care about the enslaved children at the time of America's founding.
 * (She later deleted the tweets.)


 * That seems to be a big part of the reason why there isn't much critical blowback against 1776 Unites: the very existence of the competing 1619 Project, combined with the appropriate body language, is seen by its adherents as a sufficient rebuttal. &mdash; MaxEnt 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Only biased sources; no mainstream reporting or responses cited
All of references are from conservative news sources; there are no mainstream news media cited at all. All pro, no con. No objectivity reflected. To wit, not neutral. It reads like a pamphlet or promotional piece generated by the organization. Dano67 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that there simply isn't enough coverage of this topic to write a neutral, independent article; most of the sources are either affiliated with it in one way or another, or are opinion pieces that only mention it in passing. It would make more sense to redirect it to Robert Woodson, since most of the coverage focuses on him anyway, and since it seems to mostly have been an initiative of his that received little long-term coverage (and little actual activity) after his initial tour of the conservative press. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)