Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive16

Lede & section statements
It seems we had better start concentrating more on what the Hemings/slavery statements will read like in the lede and the section as the 24th draws near. Below are two 'stub' sentences to start with. Suggestions for expanding and rewording them can be placed below. Like any of the other topics in the lede, slavery and Hemings are due one mention.


 * Lede: Sally Hemings was a slave who lived at Monticello ...


 * Section: Sally Hemings was a slave who lived at Monticello ...

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggestion for the lede statement on Hemings:


 * It has been alleged that TJ had as many as six children by his slave SH and is still the subject of much controversy among historians today.
 * No need to mention/qualify the evidence in the lede, we can do that in the section. i.e.'limited DNA, circumstantial and hearsay evidence'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, "alleged" creates doubt. Creating doubt is not neutral. Who has alleged? Nothing in the lede states that Jefferson is the father of Sally Heming's children. A concensus of historians has viewed Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings.  That is not a statement of fact concerning Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Creates doubt"? The doubt is already present because the topic is a controversy that is far from being established in fact. The term 'alleged' is a general comment about the controversy, per the accusations made toward Jefferson and is qualified at the end of the sentence. It doesn't attempt to establish any claim as to 'most historians'. The suggestion is certainly more clear than the present version: "Even though there is some disagreement on the subject, modern Jeffersonian scholarship generally acknowledges that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children." -- "Some disagreement"? "Jefferson scholarship"? -- The current version not only creates doubt it asserts a singular opinion and attempts to couch the topic with the 'general' consensus of historians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone reads only the lead, they should still have some idea of the broader picture. Journalistically proper to include a few concise clarifying words as to *what* the nature of the evidence is - circumstantial and limited DNA evidence. In the section you go into the specifics.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is my version attempt:
 * "Current historical concensus is that Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings, however, other historians disagree and view any evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings is flawed or misreprented." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm asking this seriously - is English not your native language?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * TheDarkOneLives, please stop this disruptive behavior. Attacking an editors native language is completely uncalled for. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is a rehashed version of the current lede statement with another commentary thrown in. It's like the discussion about giving special treatment to one topic in the lede never occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking anyone - I'm asking a genuine question. I've seen several examples where you seem to struggle with spelling, syntax and grammar - your sentence above being a glaring example. You apparently didn't know the definition of at least one very common word. Wondering if not being a native English speaker might be the explanation. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that changing one "i" to an "a" make the sentence correct and clear English, a simple typo might be a better explanation. I have more trouble with the first suggestion above, which seems to claim that it is alleged that TJ still is the subject of much controversy among historians today (which is true, but somewhat off-topic).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats am seriousness the only errur you spotting of the sentence...inerestingful.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above lede states the current historical view of Jefferson and Hemings accurately, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected version: "Current historical consensus is that Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings, however, other historians disagree and view any evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings is flawed or misrepresented." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you're getting closer anyway.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * TheDarkOneLives. This is the second time I have asked you to stop making a personal attack on an editor's native language. If this was a simple matter of spelling, then just state. Please do not make any more offensive remarks on my first language. I have corrected the spelling mistakes. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking for clarification is not an attack. You need to get off that train of thought. I too have wondered about your reading comprehension. I left a long list of items up above here asking why your responses are so confusing. You haven't addressed those as yet. Anyway, where is this "historical consensus" you speak of? Are there particular places that claim it to be so? Brad (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking for a person's first or primary language is an attack. Please do not change the subject Brad. It is simple to abuse editors in an anonymous fashion. I don't need to "get off" of anything Brad. My responses, Brad, in my opinion, have purposely been "confused" or misrepresented. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not changing the subject, he's speaking directly to your statement. It's no more an attack than your asking why my screen name is TheDarkOneLives is an "attack" - ~shake head~. You've displayed a shaky command of - and seemingly comprehension of written English, I'm just wondering if there's a mitigating reason other than you simply have a shaky command of written English. I note that your "correction" above *still* isn't grammatically correct.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured it out now. You and I can only read Swahili. That must be it. Brad (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Watu wenye sura mbili, unao wasimuliaTheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As already cited more than once: Quote: "Ten years later [referring to its 2000 report], TJF [Thomas Jefferson Foundation] and most historians now believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison and Eston Hemings." The National Genealogical Society has concluded that Jefferson is the father and devoted the fall 2001 issue of their quarterly to the topic. Helen F. M. Leary wrote, "the chain of evidence securely fastens Sally Hemings's children to their father, Thomas Jefferson." The MacArthur Foundation awarded a fellowship to Annette Gordon-Reed for "changing Jeffersonian scholarship," which I have previously cited here. The Smithsonian Museum of American History has a current exhibit on Slavery and Liberty, indicating Jefferson as the father of Hemings' children; Monticello's exhibits and website show that Jefferson is the father of Hemings' children. The Pulitzer Prize for History and 15 other awards, mostly from historical organizations, were made to Annette Gordon-Reed for her book The Hemingses of Monticello (2008), which is based on Jefferson as the father of Hemings' children. Books by Jefferson biographers such as R.B. Bernstein and Andrew Burstein are based on Jefferson's paternity; Burstein and the major biographer Joseph Ellis both publicly announced changing their minds on the issue as a result of the DNA evidence showing no match with the Carr line; they believe that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with Hemings, not that Eston Hemings was the only child he fathered. Gordon S. Wood's recent book about that era accepts Jefferson's paternity, etc. Parkwells (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like you're source shopping to support your POV. I could source shop to support disagreement if I wanted to but that's not what we're supposed to be doing here. Going around and counting how many sources agree and how many disagree is original research. And you're often bringing up a list of authors who won some sort of prize or honor. That has no relevancy or weight in order to claim one source is more correct than the other. Your enemy Malone was awarded a Pulitzer too. Brad (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the attacks stop, I am more then willing to get down to business on the Thomas Jefferson article. Here is a new and hopefully improved version for the lede section.
 * "Current consensus by most historians states Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings, however, other historians disagree and view any evidences surrounding the paternity of Sally Heming’s children and Jefferson are false, misrepresented, or misleading." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems this would be an appropriate time for a facepalm.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about if I said: "When cmguy answers my questions, I am more than willing to get down to business on the Thomas Jefferson article"? We don't work on articles with set conditions from editors. Brad (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad. An editor does not have the right to personally attack editors. Ownership of articles is prohibited. You do not have the right to tell editors when to edit or not to edit or what self imposed conditions other editors may have concerning editing. Editors have the right to put conditions on themselves, not on other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CMguy. There are no attacks going on here except for an editor who claims that questions are attacks and then ignores the questions. Discussing proper sourcing and neutrality for the article is not ownership. I never told anyone here when they can edit or not. Brad (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede's last sentence now reads:
 * "Many modern Jeffersonian historians further believe, based on circumstantial and limited DNA evidence, that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children though there is disagreement on the subject."

Is it really necessary to use both quantifying adjectives of "circumstantial and limited DNA evidence"? One or the other of those words by themselves conveys the doubts that some observers have about this issue...to put both of them together gives those doubts more weight than the opposing school of thought on this issue. Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The term "circumstantial and limited DNA" is acceptable. Here is an alternative sentence:
 * Currently there is controversy among modern historians concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children and Thomas Jefferson. Evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children, both circumstancial and limited DNA, has been disputed or viewed as unreliable by some historians. Most historians, however, contend Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Second alternative without "limited DNA" wording:
 * Currently there is controversy among modern historians concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children and Thomas Jefferson. Circumstantial evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children has been disputed or viewed as unreliable by some historians. Most historians, however, contend Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't convey doubt, it briefly, factually states exactly what the opinions are based on. The DNA evidence is limited to one Hemings child and doesn't specify which Jefferson was the father, there is no conclusive evidence such as a statement by Jefferson claiming any of the children as his.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend the second alternative statement be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No point in using 50 words to convey less information than is currently conveyed in 36 words.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit break3
Problems consistently being overlooked with my corrections and comments: See words to watch. The words "controversy" and "circumstantial" are not neutral. "Has been" is past tense (this is still disputed) My question about determining how the majority or minority of historians was arrived at remains unanswered. Brad (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently there is controversy disagreement among modern historians concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children and Thomas Jefferson. Circumstantial Evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children has been is disputed or viewed as unreliable by some historians. Most historians, however, contend Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children.
 * That is a question I have asked on several occasions. A poll? Or is this idea simply assumed and pushed by peer/political pressure in various academic and media/entertainment circles to give the appearance of wide-spread consensus? TJF's unsubstantiated claim is spurious as this org is chaired by people very involved in race politics, including Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP who happens to preside over the board of trustees at the TJF. In 2001 Bond organized an archaeological dig at Monticello looking for buried slaves. During the 'ceremony' that followed Bond said of the Jefferson slaves that they were ' buried here as property but on this day “we honor them as people.”'  That is hardly an objective statement and is indicative of a deep-seated contempt for Jefferson. Aside from that the TJF committee, once in charge of evaluating DNA and 'other' evidence, was found to have ignored historical evidence and reports before submitting their findings. IMO this org should not be used to source claims (i.e.Jefferson's paternity, "most historians") regarding Jefferson and Hemings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any statements we make must be backed up with a source. "most historians" and "circumstantial" need cites. Preferably both of those entries will be quoted entirely from the source. I'm aware that the TJF has a quote about "most historians" but that statement isn't any stronger or weaker than stating some mysterious minority. I agree with you on points about how a politically correct agenda is making circumstantial evidence into the truth but that's not applicable to the article at hand. Just the facts please. Brad (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling the historical evidence circumstantial evidence is a neutral, factual, prima facie description of the evidence, like saying Lucille Ball had red hair. It is what it is. To call it anything else would be inaccurate and misleading. It isn't direct evidence - the conclusions of some are speculation based on what's believed to be known about TJ's whereabouts at given times. He didn't make any admission, there's no known eyewitness account stating they "spied Master Jefferson abed with Sally engaged in amorous congress" or the like.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that the term 'circumstantial' is accurate and neutral, however I don't think anyone is making an issue about that. The claim just needs to be cited and treated the same as any other item in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ~shrug~ - would it need to be cited that AGR's work is called "a book"?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading the description you provided I'll agree that it's proper to use. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis Brad. As has been mentioned before, according to TJF "most historians" view TJ had children by Sally Hemings. TJF is a solid source. The lede can't mention every historian for or against and in my opinion that is a "straw man" argument that diverges from the paternity issue of Jefferson and Hemings. The paragraph, however, states there is disagreement concerning Jefferson and Hemings. The paragraph states both minority and majority opinions. Since TJF stated "most historians", that means there is a minority and majority of opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest putting the above paragraph in the article, then debate the merits of majority and minority of opinion concerning Jefferson and Sally Hemings' children. Wikipedia is suppose to represent the current thought by historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Brad: Agree we must have cites for "most historians" and "circumstantial" or 'inconclusive' evidence. The notion of 'most historians' has not been substantiated for us, esp in the face of a whole range of historians/professors who don't follow along with Reed and company. Otoh, finding a source that refers to some of the 'historical evidence' as "circumstantial", or 'inconclusive' shouldn't be too difficult. I'm wondering why we even have to be this definitive for the topic in the first place. It's the lede. None of the other topics in the lede get any commentary. Like any other topic Hemings and slavery should be mentioned once and cited. No commentary, no pov. Just the facts that are well established. -- i.e.SH was a salve who lived at Monticello and is believed by some to have had six children by Jefferson which is still the subject of controversy today. -- If someone wants to do more than source the facts and add historical commentary let them do so in the section where there is room devoted to this topic. I'm wondering who decided that this one topic gets special commentary in the lede in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a discussion about the lead. It's easy to forget the focus because we'll have to take this same topic up again when it comes to the article body. I agree that a lead section does not have the room to introduce any topic or wording that's going to require buckets of explaining and citations just to place it there. A well written lead should be as brief and neutral as possible. Therefore I think your example above is a good start. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New version:
 * ''There is disagreement concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children. Evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children is disputed or viewed as unreliable. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation stated that most historians accept that Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First your statement doesn't even define who and what SH was, and second you're carrying on with another version as if you haven't even read any of the discussions about favoring just one topic in the lede with a controversial and unsubstantiated opinion. Again, you repeat yourself and have been instrumental in dragging the debate out with non-responsive rehash, which at this point in time I'm beginning to wonder if you're doing so intentionally. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly - besides being awkwardly worded overall it doesn't flow conceptually from the previous material, clumsily discussing a person and issue the reader may know nothing about without enlightening the reader as to who she is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, nothing seems to appease you concerning Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. I believe you, Brad, and the Darkonelives have claimed ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article, violating Wikipedia policy, making this discussion page caustic and unfriendly to alternative opinions.  You had been chastened before by other editors on your stamp movement.  It is impossible to make any headway in this article with the current negativity and personal attacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I have made numerous concessions on this page and elsewhere. Much more than some others I might add. If this is a discussion, per talk page guidelines, then asking for your responsive participation is no assertion of ownership. Please remember that it wasn't any of the editors you mentioned who have kept these topics so disproportionate to the rest of the biography, in the lede, the sections, for some two years. 'Ownership'?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Cmguy if you really believe that ownership and attacks are taking place here please report them to the appropriate admin boards. You've been using these accusations as a distraction from the topic everyone here is trying to find resolution with. Despite what is discussed you come back with the same agenda. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Due to the toxic nature of these discussions, I can no longer make any contributions to the Thomas Jefferson article. Best endeavors to all editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many areas of the page that need attention. Just because there's some heated discussion doesn't mean your help is not wanted or needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dramatic exits never solve anything. WP:DIVA. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, even putting aside for a moment your obvious bias, since you're convinced there's some conspiracy afoot I invite you to present your various attempts at constructing a sentence exactly as they appear above to any English professor and ask them to critique them purely on technical grounds knowing nothing about the context - see what their response is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede edits
I removed the following statement from the lede as it had nothing to do with Jefferson's biography.: 'Slavery already existed in the acquired territory and Congress did not pass laws to prohibit it. This contributed to the crisis of the Union a half century later.' Slavery still remains the most mentioned topic and is twice given historical commentary, unlike any other topic in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good pruning there. I just trimmed the lead of more mentions that aren't important enough to be lead worthy. Brad (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at TJF and "most historians"
The often touted quote that's causing so much debate here originates from the Monticello website; particularly from here Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings. Well ok, fine. I'd consider the TJF a reliable source but I cannot find any particular author of the page linked. Whomever it might have been has used a combination of primary and secondary sources that are noted at the bottom of the page (a good thing). Most interesting were the published reports of the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. The report (read this; not the html version) never says anything about "most historians" it uses, in two different places, the words "high probability" and "most likely" regarding paternity. One member of the committee, Ken Wallenborn, M.D wrote a minority report disputing the decision of the committee. Then there was a response and then a response to the response. BTW, Wallenborn is highly upset it appears.

On the linked page, TJF is claiming "most historians" but shows nothing except 10 year old sources while making the claim. Is this opinion? Yes. Did the TJF decide to speak for a mysterious majority? Yes. Does TJF back it up? No. Is it still a reliable source? Yes. Yet this is the often touted source that agenda keeps throwing into the mix here. One opinion by one source does not make it a majority of anything. With all that in mind, this source needs to be used with care. The passage "most historians" must be quoted directly from this source. The current article body Hemings section does none of this but is full of weasel "many historians", "other scholars", and "most historians. So far, we only have this TJF source making any claim about some majority. Brad (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All that WP policy requires is an RS for a cite such as TJF to be quoted for a phrase such as "most historians", which I did repeatedly. The website quote is based on the foundation, which runs the major public history site for Jefferson, making a statement of assessing the field ten years later. I didn't claim more for it than that. Sometimes editors didn't want the quote in the article so it came out, but I always had it cited. TJF is not required to meet some WP editors' criteria; it is a RS. Gwillhicker has commented extensively on Wallenborn's disagreeing with the TJF report. So put that in the article - that does not mean we do not use TJF as a source. As I provided with sourced, quoted information, genealogists of the National Genealogical Society and other historians writing in William & Mary Quarterly strongly criticized the TJHS Scholars Commission Report, but GW resists having that covered here. Those are RS commenting on another RS - that is how you deal with controversy, by reporting the sources. Parkwells (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't I just say TJF is a reliable source? Since you mentioned it; I do recall that at one point you and I discussed quoting TJF directly and it did get into the article and was quoted appropriately. Why it is no longer there I've no idea. According to the TJF, "many historians etc"(citation) is the proper way to handle this. Too bad this conversation has to start all over again. A source is allowed to get away with weasel wording but WP is not; therefore quoting the source directly does not give the appearance of original research or opinion by WP editors. Brad (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you think academic consensus is shown? Yes, Malone won a Pulitzer - in his generation, his work was believed to represent the best in writing.  His work in fact has been used by historians as evidence that TJ is the father of Hemings children; other historians analyzed his documentation of TJ activities and the record of births in the Farm Book and found that TJ was at Monticello every time Hemings conceived, and she never conceived when he wasn't there. But Malone believed, based on family testimony and earlier historians, that the Carr nephews were the fathers.  The DNA study disproved this for the Eston Hemings descendant, leading many current historians to new conclusions - that is, historians of the last 15 years or so.  This is the generation that is making new contributions in the field, among them, Annette Gordon-Reed's book. Yes, I think awards such as the Pulitzer and others represent the academic and literary field recognizing top works. I wasn't cherry picking people, but writing about currently recognized Jefferson biographers, such as Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein. The TJHS historians want to say, well, all the other Hemings children may have been fathered by someone else. Helen F. M. Leary of the National Genealogical Society strongly criticized their report for bias and for ignoring the body of evidence. Joseph Ellis says it is unlikely that TJ had a one-night stand for Eston; he believes that the match for the Hemings descendant showed a longstanding relationship of TJ and Hemings.  Changes in opinion? PBS noted that two major Jefferson historians went to the CBS president to prevent a mini-series being produced on Sally Hemings, adapted from Barbara Chase-Riboud's 1979 novel.  In 2000, by contrast, as PBS noted in a Frontline program, "Though many quarrelled with the portrayal of Hemings as unrealistically modern and heroic, no major historian challenged the series' premise that Hemings and Jefferson had a 38-year relationship that produced children." But all this is in the longer Jefferson-Hemings controversy article.  So don't use the phrase "Most historians", but I had a quote for it. Malone is a recognized Jefferson scholar; so are Joseph Ellis, Andrew Burstein and Annette Gordon-Reed. Parkwells (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "..Joseph Ellis says it is unlikely that TJ had a one-night stand for Eston.." - It hasn't been proven he had an any-night stand with SH.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * From the introduction to the PBS Frontline program, Jefferson's Blood, about the DNA study and changing ideas. It does not have an author but is the overview for the many parts of the series and accompanying website:

"'Now, the new scientific evidence has been correlated with the existing documentary record, and a consensus of historians and other experts who have examined the issue agree that the question has largely been answered: Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children, and quite probably all six. The language of 'proof' does not translate perfectly from science and the law to the historian's craft, however. And the DNA findings in this case are only one piece of a complicated puzzle that many in previous generations worked hard to make sure we might never solve."

"In this section, FRONTLINE has gathered some of the key scientific and documentary evidence which has led historians to believe in Jefferson's paternity, as well as the 'dissenting views' of those who continue to maintain that the evidence is not conclusive." at  So, there is consensus and there are dissenting views.Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cmguy called the Frontline source a "fringe" when it was used to cite TJ's denial of Hemings. So does this mean that PBS is ok when it supports your POV but not when it cites anything else? Brad (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the PBS Frontline program on this topic was a good effort and consider it a RS; the section I quoted was an overview or summary of historians' work. Did not participate in the discussion you reference and won't comment on that. Cmguy speaks for himself.Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "...So does this mean that PBS is ok when it supports your POV..." - Of course.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, you guys, unlike others on this page, I'm not trying to disqualify RS; I have consistently made the argument that we have to follow the scholarship. As noted, the Frontline program drew from the range of Jeffersonian scholarship at the time of its program. Parkwells (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

TJF biased?
Looking at the TJF main page at the top, there are several main-topics to click on. Among them are 'Plantation and Slavery', while there are no links to 'Family life at Monticello', 'Jefferson's writings', 'American Revolution', the 'Declaration of Independence', etc. Why are not any of these main topics listed on the main page?? This all by itself reveals their preoccupation and focus. The TJF is a collection of sources, IMO this privately run organization is not a source in of itself and they are wrong to speak on behalf of 'historians' unless they can qualify and cite their claim. Parroting the unsubstantiated claim of this one on-line source on WP is asserting a POV. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion, and one WP editor's opinion is not enough to disqualify an otherwise respected institution as an RS. You will note that I provided another source above, the PBS Frontline program, which commented on the new "consensus" in its overview of materials representing all sides of the controversy for its 2000 program Jefferson's Blood.  Brad has suggested a succinct statement for the Lede that does not mention "consensus" or "most", so why not just accept that?  Parkwells (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough. Just a note: I have great respect for anyone trying to make sense of their history, I just have some reservations about possible political motivations and the language sometimes used. i.e.'Most'. Hope you don't see my objections as anything more than that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)