Talk:Jane Randolph Jefferson

"half-breed Indian squaw"
So, I saw this article recently, about Thomas Jefferson's alleged African-American ancestry: http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm. I quote:


 * Jefferson, who served two terms between 1801 and 1809, was described as the "son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father," as stated in Vaughn's findings. Jefferson also was said to have destroyed all documentation attached to his mother, even going to extremes to seize letters written by his mother to other people.

What's the basis of these allegations? Any foundation in truth? None of it seems to be borne out by our article about Jane Randolph Jefferson (or Peter Jefferson, for that matter); where is it coming from? --ESP (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw the same article. The basis for the allegation (and for most or all of the articles other allegations of Presidents with African American ancestry) seems to be racial allegations of long ago political detractors which are taken at face value by people in our era looking to find Presidents with African American ancestry. The claims are either demonstrably false (as with Jefferson and Andrew Jackson), or plausible only if using some one-drop rule, due to lack of genealogical evidence. See Black People and Their Place in History, which is the book by Vaughn the article relies on, for further debunking. CAVincent (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/jane-randolph-jefferson. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I actually wrote the material at http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/jane-randolph-jefferson, I thought it impossible that I could copy myself, so delete or not, as you wish. I plan to delete other material I have added to Wikipedia. Taylor (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)boymonday

Day of birth
There is a range of days of birth for Jane. Monticello says the 9th. They also have a note that that is "Old Style"... with no corrected / current day. I would imagine that Monticello would have insight into this date and the intention to ensure the information is correct. But, I could be missing something.

It seems that books either do not provide a day at all, or say the 9th or the 20th. The 20th is also given as the baptismal day, vs. date of birth.

Does anyone have any insight that could be helpful? Or, know why the 10th was entered when the cited source says the 9th?

Thanks much to anyone that can shed some light!–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The baptism records of St Paul's Church, Shadwell show Jane was baptised on 25 February 1720, aged 15 days, i.e. that she was born on 10 February. A facsmile of the baptism record is reproduced in the Article.


 * I am aware of no scholarly work that impugns the reliability of the parish record and, to the best of my knowledge, none exists. It is a principle of historiography (and common sense) that, if two equally prestigious records conflict, the earlier in time is prima facie taken to be the more reliable, because it was written down when events were fresh in people's minds.  The Monticello record was written down many years later.  Therefore, the article should not assert as a fact that she was born on the 9th.  The 10th is the more probable date.  Ttocserp (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks,


 * I will return the 10th as her day of birth, and add a note with sources explaining the discrepancy of dates in books, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I made the changes and added a note with example references. I could add more sources for each scenario (no dob, 9, 20, baptism on 20th), but it seems like a bit of overkill to do that.


 * Does this version look ok to you, - or anyone that has an opinion?


 * Thanks, much–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Ttocserp (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)