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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.