Question

Peter W. Wood regarding the 1619 Project

"... The 1619 Project evades this kind of transparency ... Hannah-Jones, who makes some of the most audacious claims, cites no sources at all: the project as presented [originally] in the [New York Times] magazine contains no footnotes, bibliography, or other scholarly footholds."

Answer 1

Peter W. Wood contends that the 1619 Project lacks transparency and did not meet scholarly norms because it originally included no footnotes or bibliography. This critique pertains to the standards of historical writing and the importance of source verification, as well as a balance between written and oral sources.

Step-by-step explanation:

Peter W. Wood's criticism of the 1619 Project raises questions about the standards of scholarly transparency and rigor in historical writing. According to Wood, the 1619 Project, in its original publication in the New York Times magazine, did not include footnotes, a bibliography, or other traditional academic forms of citation that allow readers to verify claims and sources. This highlights the importance of adherence to scholarly norms such as the inclusion of sources, acknowledgement of counterclaims, and demonstrating a clear purpose, organization, understanding of audience, and cultural context. The project has been controversial due to these issues, as well as debates over its historical interpretations. However, textual scholarship advocates for the recognition of both written material and knowledge transmitted through oral tradition, suggesting the need for a diverse approach to historical sources.