It's starting to look as if a 1619 Project contributor plagiarized another author by cribbing her article and making cosmetic modifications to its text.…
Here's Kruse a few years ago specifically touting the page in question:
Here's the original article he cribbed from, by Elizabeth Fowler in the NYT:
Here is a textual comparison showing direct borrowing of Fowler's text, with minor cosmetic modifications to change a few words and the ordering of quotes:
Here's the 2002 plagiarism case against Stephen E. Ambrose, who got caught doing something almost identical:
And here is the American Historical Association's definition and example of what constitutes plagiarism, also showing a close resemblance to what Kruse did.

But you be the judge.…
For another famous plagiarism incident that looks an awful lot like what Kruse did here, see Doris Kearns Goodwin:…
And for further reference, here is Kruse's own take on plagiarism:
The tweet above by Kruse was in reference to the David Clarke plagiarism allegations in 2017. Clarke's offense sounds an awful lot like what Kruse did here too.…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Phil Magness

Phil Magness Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhilWMagness

17 Oct
This is quite the list of corrections from the smear-job against the Great Barrington Declaration that @bmj_latest ran a few weeks ago.

Although they remain insufficient, several of these corrections reflect errors that I brought directly to the attention of the journal.
@bmj_latest Previous versions of the BMJ article by @gyamey and @gorskon contained a long list of false and defamatory claims about @AIER and the GBD. They may still be seen here:…
The first defamatory passage claimed that "billionaires aligned with industry have funded proponents of “herd immunity,"" by which they meant Koch, fossil fuels, & tobacco funded the GBD through AIER.

This is unambiguously false, and was known to be false by Gorski and Yamey.
Read 19 tweets
17 Oct
This is another lie by @nhannahjones.

The New York Times stealth-edited the 1619 Project's text on its website sometime around late December 2019 when it was taking heat from historians in advance of the Pulitzer season. Receipts follow.

Stealth Edit #1, ca. December 2019 (caught in September 2020):
Stealth Edit #2:
Read 5 tweets
17 Oct
This is an absolute lie by @nhannahjones.

I contacted the NYT on two separate occasions to request corrections to historical errors in the 1619 Project. They completely ignored the first, and handwaved away the second.

Screencap for those she has blocked. Receipts to follow.
Receipt #1:
Read 6 tweets
16 Sep
The errors in the 1619 Project have been listed in exacting detail, @nhannahjones. I wrote an entire book on them, in addition to writing you and your editor directly to seek corrections.

You ignored the problems, then smeared those who pointed them out.
@nhannahjones The inescapable truth is that many historians are afraid to speak out about the 1619 Project's problems because you - @nhannahjones - will attack and smear anyone and everyone who does so.

I know this first hand because you did it to me when I spoke out.
@nhannahjones And here is how Nikole Hannah-Jones responded @coldxman, an African-American critic, after he penned a nuanced and thoughtful essay on the problems with her 1619 Project essay.

Her behavior throughout has been unprofessional, belligerent, and awash in her own bigotries.
Read 7 tweets
15 Sep
Re. the @seanwilentz essay, I can state first hand that I wrote the @nytimes twice seeking narrow, specific factual corrections to errors in the #1619Project in fall 2019.

The paper completely ignored the first, and handwaved the second away by stating they would make no change.
The first - which I sent them via multiple channels in November 2019 - concerned Matthew Desmond's misrepresentation of Alan Olmstead & Paul Rhode's empirical work on cotton production to make false and unsubstantiated claims about the slave economy.

It was completely ignored.
When I had an opportunity to question @nhannahjones about this letter in December 2019, she at first claimed that the paper never received it and accused me of lying about sending it. When I produced the receipts, she dropped the subject and just ignored it entirely.
Read 11 tweets
15 Sep
Periodic reminder that lockdowner scientists @gyamey and @gorskon's favorite go-to source for attacking the Great Barrington Declaration has some very peculiar ideas about why the Twin Towers fell.…
@GYamey @gorskon Earlier this week, Yamey and Gorski leaned heavily on this same source for an article attacking the GBD in @bmj_latest. I wonder if the BMJ editors are comfortable with them repeatedly invoking a 9/11 Truther's blog as a source for commentary in one of the top medical journals?
And lest there be any confusion, Yamey is a huge fanboy of this guy.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!