Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 11

Monticello statement-2000
Look at this on the Monticello Website: "'Through his celebrity as the eloquent spokesman for liberty and equality as well as the ancestor of people living on both sides of the color line, Jefferson has left a unique legacy for descendants of Monticello's enslaved people as well as for all Americans.'" Might be good to use in the lede of the TJ article! In a linked section "Extraordinary Ancestors", it said that when President Daniel Jordan announced the findings of the 2000 report, he said that Monticello was going to incorporate them into its training, exhibits, and publications. There have been several new monographs published since 2000 by its staff about the lives of the Hemings and other slave descendants: Free Some Day, and one about Monticello's free people living on Charlottesville's Main Street, etc., including Mary Hemings Bell. (Can't remember the title just now.)Parkwells (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting statement. Just my opinion, that statement tends to gloss over slavery.  Remember there was the American Civil War where thousands of people died, billions of dollars wasted, and massive infrastructure destruction in order for slavery to end and blacks to gain citizenship and voting rights.  Not finished.  And then over 100 years of fighting for Civil Rights laws that protected minorities culminating in the assasination of Martin Luther King.  There was a cost for equality and liberty.  The statement can be put in the controversy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically I agree with keeping it in the Controversy; was just surprised to see it clearly stated: "ancestor of people living on both sides of the color line."Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement recognized Jefferson as the father of Sally Heming's children. That is good. My issue was with the words "Jefferson's unique legacy" seemed to trivialize slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's walking lightly around his liaison with his slave, yes, and his descendants' and supporters' long battle to cover it up.Parkwells (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Finkleman quote
The following edit was put in the Thomas Jefferson article on April 5, 2011. The quote contains the word "hatred". If a source used the word "hatred", is this a violation of Wikipedia policy? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Finkelman, although many slaveholders took advantage of the 1782 manumission law to free their slaves, Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves due to his "own hatred of freed blacks, his utter inhumanity to understand the humanity of his own slaves, and his unrestrained spending habits."


 * I do not believe the quote is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy on  Contentious labels tells the editor not to use the term "hatred".  However, the policy does not exclude a source from using the term "hatred". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Another aspect is whether the term "hatred" is offensive. Wikipedia's policies on offensive matterial are stated in Vulgarities,obscenities, and profanities and Offensive material.  I do not believe the term is vulgar, however, can the word be interpreted as offensive?  Does the Finkleman quote need to be toned down? If so, how?  The sentence does not state that "Jefferson hated free slaves", rather quotes Finkleman directly by stating "own hatred." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Other sources attribute Jefferson's stated dislike of free blacks as based on fear. "Hatred" seems overly strong, but fear leads to anger. It could be modified by saying Jefferson's dislike or antipathy was due to his fearing the influence of free blacks on slaves and possibly encouraging slave rebellion (which you have other sources for), and restrict the use of Finkelman to paraphrasing part of it - and say, Jefferson's inability to "understand the humanity of his own slaves, and his unrestrained spending habits." I think "utter inhumanity" is reading a lot into the past (I understand that's Finkelman's opinion of J), and making one man shoulder the blame for a social system he was born into. It is incomprehensible to us, but what period has there been when individuals in society didn't tolerate some kinds of inhumanity?  We still have poor, we have discrimination (eg, death penalty), unfair levels of education and health care, the list goes on.Parkwells (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I rephrased the Finkleman quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

funny man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.98.212 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Use Abe Lincoln article as a guide
Abraham Lincoln is almost a Featured Article and it might be a good idea to use that article as a guide for this one. There has been a lot of improvement here which I'm glad to see. Brad (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Monticello Association
Editors might be interested in knowing the lineage association has a new main web page and revamped website, and has buried the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. I found a preliminary report, but neither their final report nor the record of their decision on Hemings descendants. (Didn't spend too much time looking again, as there were reliable news accounts.) Herb Barger, one of the founders, is very active all over the Internet in refuting the conclusions of the majority on this issue, so you may come across his name.Parkwells (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Parkwells. I believe there is importance in the MA not allowing Heming's descendants. This shows controversy currently remains on Jefferson having fathered Sally Heming's children.  The MA is in denial, in my opinion.  I believe racism has a connection with the MA's decision not to allow Sally Heming's descendants. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Due to Cmguy's concern, I worked on the Monticello Ass'n article, as it seemed important to cover the 1999-2002 controversy. A DYK hook is appearing on the Main Page of Wikipedia on 4/19 because of my expansion of the MA article.Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Monticello Ass'n article got 2700 hits in the first 24 hours after the DYK was posted on the Main Psge.Parkwells (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job Parkwells! Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Life as a widower (with Hemings)

 * I've just shortened this section by deleting material on the Monticello Association, as it is referenced at Monticello and its own page. Gwillhickers had earlier asked for the agreed-upon facts, which I listed in this section. I will try to summarize the content about the Jefferson family's representations, which were adopted by historians for decades.Parkwells (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parkwells. The facts section is nice...no historical opinion can change that. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That has been there since I worked on the section at length in March, and in fact, historians ignored those facts for decades, in favor of their own ideas.Parkwells (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only because the evidence was flimsy, as you once mentioned. Perhaps they were right to discount the allegation out of hand. i.e. Do we know what Jefferson's male relatives looked like? Is there any sort of historical record of their appearance also? If would seem that if they are related to Thomas Jefferson and share the same DNA they would also share some resemblance to him -- so to claim that some of Hemings' children resembled TJ is to also suggest that they could look like any number of the other Jefferson (and related) males. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, did Sally Hemings at any time ever claim that TJ was the father of any/all of her children? Perhaps along with the facts that are listed we should note what important facts are missing. e.g. No "historical evidence" of the appearance of the other Jefferson (and related) males; No claims(?) from Sally Hemings herself. This would bring 'perspective' to the issue -- something that seems to be lacking in much of the slavery/Hemings sections. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering that many planters or elite men used some discretion about their shadow families and Jefferson was such a private man, the evidence is not flimsy - there is especially the strong record of Jefferson's special treatment of Sally Hemings' children, especially freeing four (including a young woman of high "market" value) when he was so deeply in debt. They were the only family he freed. Hemings told her children that Jefferson was their father, as recounted in Madison's memoir. This was confirmed by another former slave, Israel Jefferson, who said it was well known among the slaves. A neighbor of Jefferson, who was a colleague on the board of trustees with him at UVA, noted twice in his diary comments about Jefferson and his mixed-race children (this came out later). It was gossiped about by neighbors before Callender ever wrote his article. (These were too small to put in this article.) The perspective needed, rather, is for people to stop assuming that the Hemingses were not telling the truth. Jefferson's family apparently lied in his defense: his daughter's claiming he'd been gone more than a year before the birth of one of Hemings' children; his grandson's naming Peter Carr as father; his grandaughter's naming Samuel Carr (both of whom were married) - all these statements have been proven false and not a matter of opinion, but they were what succeeding historians relied upon to deny Jefferson's paternity. There is the strong link between Hemings' conceiving only when Jefferson was there, despite his extensive travels and absences of months at a time. I am not adding more material to suggest he is not the father; that is absolutely not the scholarly consensus. Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jefferson could have freed the Hemings children for several other viable reasons. e.g.They were related to the Jefferson family and were freed on that account alone. Perhaps Jefferson did so to assure Sally Hemings' silence in the matter in an effort to keep his family member(s) and family name out of the picture entirely. This is a viable possibility and almost as probable as any other accepted theory. This would also explain why there is no actual account from Sally Hemings herself. As for the "noted comments" in Jefferson's diary, one would have to ask 'what comments' -- that Jefferson indeed admitted he was the father? As for Jefferson's family members lying and such, this is normal protective behavior and amounts to nothing regarding Jefferson's paternity either way. They could have lied just to avoid implicating the family entirely. i.e.Another quite viable explanation with just as much evidence to support it as the presently accepted theory has.  -- Again, I see a lot of big gaps in the evidence being glossed over by various contemporary accounts and by academics who seem too be caught up in a political/peer driven trend prevalent in many of today's academic circles, and who from the onset seek to revise e.g.Jefferon's account in the fashion we witnessed here by another editor not too long ago. -- As editors we must use the proper sources, but it would be interesting to see how varied the opinions are indeed and whether or not the topic is getting fair representation in that regard. Also, as editors, we do more than just  'cut, reword and paste' , we are allowed to make deductions in a tertiary fashion about the sources and evidence itself. Again much of the evidence is missing and what evidence there is can be supportive of more than just one theory. The article should make sure the reader understands this fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we know that you are not convinced. However, the overwhelming majority of the scholarly community is. If you think you know better, get your opinion published in a reliable source, preferably a recognised scholarly journal. Have you ever considered the possibility that the "big gaps" are more a function of your limited (compared to an expert) understanding of the situation, and not due to a "political/peer driven trend"? Up until Fawn Brodie, this topic was mostly ignored, and before Gordon-Reed's work, the scholarly trend was in the other direction. Why do you think it changed? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The big gaps are self evident, and sort of obvious. There is no account from Hemings herself. Big gap. There is no historical record for the whereabouts of the other male Jefferson family members, another big gap, and no 'historical evidence' for their appearances, yet another big gap. Contemporary academaia has offered nothing other than their opinion on the facts, and lack thereof. Also, Jefferson could have freed the Hemings' just because they were related to the family. Regardless of present day academic opinion, that theory is just as viable as the academically fashionable one is. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not. It's far-fetched and contrived, and has no evidence that supports it. But again, neither my nor your opinion is particularly relevant. What's "academically fashionable" is, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am basing the alternative theory on the same facts, and lack of facts, as the academic theory. If alternate theory is "far fetched" then so is the academic theory, as both theories are viable and based on the same basic facts. As for the notion of "contrived", no one had to arrange, exclude or do anything with the facts (and lack of) other than just to point at them and note that they are no different than those used to support the academic account. You're right about one thing, as of yet anyway, that we must abide by rules and go with the "mainstream" version, if indeed it is the official and final consensus. Given much of the dated (and glaring lack of) evidence, on several accounts, one has to wonder if it is, or was, in the first place. I share these reservations because few if any notable historians with alternative or varying opinion has been represented on the TJ page or here in this discussion forum. And wouldn't it be far fetched to assume there are no reputable sources with varying or differing accounts?Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite independent from the result, the logic you use is completely wrong. Just because two theories are based on the same set of facts does not mean that they are equally viable. As an example, the fact that Hemings regularly conceived when Jefferson was at Monticello, and never when he was not, is compatible with several explanations, but it supports the theory that he is indeed the father. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They are viable possibilities by themselves regardless if they are based on the same facts. "equally viable"? That's a slippery slope to say the least. Yes, Jefferson was around for the conceptions, and even though he was away frequently, he was there more often than not for the simple fact that he lived at Monticello. If this place was unusual to Jefferson then his repeated presence there would amount to something more compelling as evidence goes. If there were other such 'historical accounts' for the other male Jefferson's and it could be shown that none were around for conception, on six different occasions, then Jefferson's presence, in his own home, would amount to something far more convincing. There is not even one such account that negates the other possibilities. As such, academic opinion seems to be based on a (very) limited set of facts that can very easily be interpreted more than one single way. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We must be careful to avoid arguing the facts, rather than assessing and summarizing the sources. Our opinions of the facts and what they mean are irrelevant.  The opinions in the scholarly sources are what matter.   Verifiability, not truth.  --Coemgenus 14:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The question remains, are all the 'scholarly sources' on the same page? So far all I have seen is claims that they are, with little to no representation of other scholarly views. Given the dated and incomplete 'historical evidence' it is quite odd that 'scholars' are all locked in goose-step with the same opinion -- for all six children.  It smacks of peer pressure and intimidation. Yes, we must not concern ourselves with the truth, unfortunately. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

edit break1

 * Gwillhickers, you don't want extensive info here, but you argue there must be other arguments. Well, there are not any worth repeating. The National Genealogical Society, the DNA study, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (which runs Monticello), prominent Jefferson biographers such as Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein, all have determined that the weight of historical evidence plus the DNA results shows well enough that Thomas Jefferson is the father. The MacArthur Foundation awarded Annette Gordon-Reed in 2010 a fellowship for her persistent work that "changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship". Her second book on the Hemingses of Monticello (2008) won 16 major history and literary awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for history, and is based on Jefferson's paternity and long relationship with Hemings. But somehow you think there might not be consensus. You can read much of Gordon-Reed's "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy" online if you don't want to get it from the library. You really need to see how she analyzes the historiography. I'm not giving any more space here to such groups as the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society and its commissioned scholars report that is holding out for a minority view. There are not equally viable explanations; you're not paying attention to what I wrote: historians generally based their denial on Jefferson's grandchildren claiming one or both of the Carrs were the father(s) and Jefferson's daughter saying he was not there at the time of one conception; he was there for each conception and the DNA conclusively disproved the Carr connection. In addition, there is the evidence of his special treatment. In the last decade, histories written about Jefferson, about black-white relations in VA and the South, all incorporate his paternity of Hemings' children. It's been widely accepted.Parkwells (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Parkwells: -- More accurately I am arguing that the reader be made aware that there is more than one viable way to interpret the facts. I am not asking for any specific interpretation. Please be clear about that. As editors we are supposed to use established sources, but as editors we do more than just cut, reword and paste -- we are allowed to make fair deductions. Every controversy has at least two theories, or assertions, based on a limited and inconclusive set of facts. e.g.If Sources 1, 2, 3 and 4 say there is much evidence for 'Theory A' but none of them refer to evidence for 'Theory B', then any editor who uses these sources can make statements, deductions, like: There is much evidence for 'Theory A' but none of these sources have presented evidence for 'Theory B'. --  An editor can also say: While there is much evidence for the appearance of Thomas Jefferson, few if any of the established sources have presented/mentioned any 'evidence' for the appearance of the others.  An editor can also say, Finkelman refers to evidence to support 'Jefferson's  appearance' but fails to offer any similar evidence for the other paternal candidates. (That is, if he refers to their appearance at all.)  Again, we should make sure the reader comes away from the page with the idea that the issue is far from set in concrete. Yes, mention the consensus that occurs along the parade of contemporary academia, but as editors we must remain fair to the controversy. We are more than just cut, reword and paste bots here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not about "extensive info" but rather 'equal info', fair representation of both sides of a controversy. Virtually all of the facts, DNA included, can be used to support other theories, viable theories. i.e.  Apparently these perspectives are shunned by academia simply because they tend to diminish the weight of the professed established theory and simply because they run contrary to a political or social trend. If the topic is truly a controversy, i.e.an idea not firmly established by facts, then other viable conclusions should be represented a bit more than they are now, and while we of course acknowledge the following:
 * Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.
 * Presently it looks as if most of contemporary academia are on the same page, but even as Wikipedia acknowledges, this is an institution with systemic bias. It is highly peer driven, esp at the administration level. At any rate, you have worded things fairly overall. In the Conclusions section mention of a differing view is made regarding the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society but I didn't see any mention of any notable historian(s), by name, (in any of the sections) who have asserted an alternative view. I have no inclination to research the matter in any great depth as you and others apparently have. If you know of any such entities they should be mentioned inasmuch as not to give the individual(s) too much (undue) weight. Wikipedia allows it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you hit on it and we should better indicate that for the larger community of historians, the controversy is ended.Parkwells (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the controversy? John Adams believed that many slave masters in the south slept with their slaves.  Jefferson would not be the first slave master to sleep with a slave.  Sally Hemings was more white then black and looked like Jefferson's previous wife.  Jefferson was a single man for awhile after his wife died.  Jefferson never stated he would remain celebate after his wife died.  He promised his wife he would never remarry.  What makes Hemings controversial today was because she was 1/4 black. Certain historians do not want Jefferson to have slept with someone who was black, even though, she was 3/4 white.  There is hardly any controversy over Jefferson's alleged affairs with white women. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be best if the Facts section was put in paragraph form. The Facts section needs to be changed to Circumstantial evidence.  Jefferson is not on trial and in my opinion the section reads as if a prosecuting attorney were speaking to the jury.  Also the list looks like the list on the Monticello cite. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather then Circumstantial evidence or Fact titles, how about just incorporating the Facts section into the Contoversy section in paragraph form. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Controversy was that historians denied Jefferson had the relationship for nearly 200 years. It certainly was common enough for white men to have sexual relationships with slave women. I think it is easier to read with the Facts listed, rather than in paragraph form. I identified them this way because someone said, well, what have people agreed on? what are the facts? It's not circumstantial evidence, that sounds like a trial, too; these are historic facts, not conjecture. There aren't many ways to vary this material - much was identified by Fawn Brodie and Annette Gordon-Reed before Monticello listed it.Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts, listed, are nice, but the controversy remains as virtually all the facts, i.e.likenesses, DNA, freeing of children, etc, can support other viable theories, and because many important facts remain missing. i.e.There is only historical evidence for Jefferson's appearance -- none for either the other male Jefferson family members or for Hemings' children, no record of whereabouts for other males, etc. No matter how many contemporary academics jump on TJ's 'paternal bandwagon', these facts, and the gigantic gaps thereof, remain constant, and can just as easily support other viable possibilities. The reader should come away from the page with this understanding as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You make certain claims ("[there] is only historical evidence for Jefferson's appearance -- none for either the other male Jefferson family members or for Hemings' children, no record of whereabouts for other males"). Do you have an actual source for this? Of course, we very likely have a better record for Thomas Jefferson. But that does not mean that we have no information on the other points. As far as I remember, there have been several contemporary descriptions of some of Hemings' children and even grandchildren, noticing the similarity to TJ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Schulz, if there is a historical record for the appearances of the other Jefferson (related) males, why hasn't anyone even mentionned it, let alone produce it? I base my claim on a simple deduction. Of all the references made on the TJ page, and there are volumes of them, none refer to any such evidence, nor even mention it. You apparently are much more versed on this topic than I, your involvement on this page, Hemings in particular, goes back years. Know of any accounts about the appearances of the others -- accounts you can actually bring to the table? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the way to go about it - Gwillhickers, you are arguing for your own interpretation and asking us to find sources to support it. You wanted the discussion in the article to be concise and it is. Now you argue to have more interpretations included. Go find some sources and bring them in. No, I don't know of reliable accounts talking about other Jeffersons' appearances, but that is really not the point. No doubt there were some family resemblances, there were plenty among his Hemings children, grandchildren and other descendants.  His grandson violated a social taboo by naming Peter Carr as a father - naming a white man, and one who was married.  He had to have a strong reason to do that - his reason was to deflect attention from the grandfather he loved.  I don't know of any reliable sources that support searching for exceptions in order to avoid the conclusion that most evidence supports.Parkwells (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Parkwells: -- Again, as I just explained above I am not arguing for 'my own' or any specific interpretation. Again, if the topic is a 'controversy' then the reader should be made clear as to why that is. The facts section serves this end very well (and thank you again btw). As an editor you are allowed to refer to historians in an overall or tertiary capacity, mentioning that e.g. they all concur on this, some concur on that, or none concur on 'this' or mention 'that'.. It is perfectly acceptable to mention that few if any of the historians referred to offer any evidence for things like appearances, whereabouts, etc. of the other candidates. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jefferson was discreet, which was all that society asked for from gentlemen. They just didn't want the arrangement public, which was one reason why Callender was attacked, because he violated the practice of secrecy. When the patriarch of the plantation took a mistress, his younger relatives were generally not such dogs that they were around looking to take her away. The family groups at Monticello were noted by historians as quite marked in stability, until being broken up by slave sales.  Historians consider 1) the patterns of families: Jefferson's father-in-law had a slave mistress, and certainly it was common at the time; 2) who has access - obviously, Jefferson, more than anyone, and that was further documented by Sally Hemings' pattern of conception, only when he was there (I know you have your own interpretation of that, but yours is not supported by historians); 3) patterns of naming that go outside what is characteristic of slave families - Sally Hemings' children were generally named for people important to Jefferson, not from her family; and 4) special treatment, such as freeing his children. That's not enough for you, so go read some more sources and see why they reach their conclusions. We can't help you here, it appears. This article is going to represent what historians say, not editors in Wikipedia.Parkwells (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am for consensus. I prefer paragraph form without a "Facts" or "Circumstancial evidence" in any titles or paragraphs. The terms Circumstancial evidence and Facts conjure up a trial and the reader is the jury. Listing the facts tends to prompt listing "facts" to prove Jefferson was not the father of these children. As for additional information in the article, possibly mentioning Jefferson's brother Randolph as a potential genetic father would be acceptable, if there is a reliabe source that states this view. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we mention Randolph, we also need to mention that he was never suggested before the DNA evidence made a Jefferson a certainty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cm' , The facts should be clear and deliniated without any ado about who said what about them. Parkwells has done a fine job listing them separately. Your concern that the facts "..conjure up a trial and the reader is the jury"? is a speculation at best. What do you think you'll conjure up by veiling the facts?  If this is a controversy the reader should have the straight facts in no uncertain terms. Don't know why anyone would object to that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I already had noted the TJHS support for Randolph as a candidate. They had several historians on their committee, but critics, including the National Genealogical Society, noted numerous flaws with their approach to the evidence.  Other critics noted that Randolph had never been seriously proposed before the DNA study, and other researchers noted he was seldom at Monticello. (I included these comments with cites.)  Cmguy wants a "paragraph" on agreed-upon material; Gwillhickers liked the Facts section. Despite Wiki preferences, I think it's easier to read as points for people interested in this topic, but if the rest of you want to collect a consensus to change it to a paragraph, go ahead and do it yourself.  You should have a header that shows it is what historians agree on. "Facts" doesn't imply a trial, but that this content is factual and not interpretive. Yes, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, among others, noted in writing the Hemings' children's resemblance to his grandfather, as did Ohio neighbors of Eston Hemings, who saw a statue of Jefferson in Washington, DC and realized it looked like Hemings. I am not adding more to try to strengthen the "other viable" arguments, because that is not the consensus of scholarship. Interpretations are not pulled out of the air, but weighed with other evidence; that's how history is done. This is not about Gwillhickers' or other editors' individual opinions about what they think is equally valid. Parkwells (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to sound so testy; it's hard to try to balance competing viewpoints. Hope the changes suit. I don't think any of the TJHS scholars are considered as major figures as Joseph Ellis, Andrew Burstein and now Annette Gordon-Reed; some had written about Jefferson's politics, others about the period of history.  Parkwells (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cmguy, I no longer understand what you're looking for here. I made changes that I thought you wanted and you reverted them. There were "reliable scholars" with the TJHS scholars' group (at least they have academic credentials), but they were criticized for reaching for exceptions, bias and not going with the body of evidence. That's what people do who promote Randolph Jefferson. The fact that he is a male Jefferson with the same genetic makeup as Thomas, is not sufficient to make him the prime candidate for paternity. That is why the other historians, the National Genealogical Society, the TJF, and the DNA study group, concluded that the most likely answer was that Thomas was the father.Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors should also be considering what books have been published on Jefferson and these issues since 2000 - that's how everyone can see that the field has changed. With the exception of books by people associated with the TJHS, the histories take as a given that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children. This is not a small change; these are books being published by academic presses, which Wikipedia has said is the standard.  It is not up to editors here to create a new standard.Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, you said, "If there were other such 'historical accounts' for the other male Jefferson's and it could be shown that none were around for conception, on six different occasions, then Jefferson's presence, in his own home, would amount to something far more convincing. There is not even one such account that negates the other possibilities." They are not required to negate all other possibilities. Who has negated all other possibilities for Jefferson's paternity of Wayles' children?  But, you seem to have overlooked that I have a cited source for research that looked at Randolph Jefferson's patterns of visits, since the TJSH put him forward, and found that he was seldom at Monticello.Parkwells (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit break II
Parwells, I wanted the section on facts in paragraph form rather then list form. I did not want to delete the facts. The section on facts looks allot like the section on the Thomas Jefferson Foundation site. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias in Thomas Jefferson's page
Reasons why I say this: That Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest Presidents of the United States is obvious because of the historical rankings and Jefferson always ranks between the third to the fifth position. Why was this statement removed from the wiki page?

John F Kennedy gave a stunning tribute to Jefferson in one of his quotes. Why was that removed? I saw the reason for this that the quote didn't apply to Jefferson. Well can that be the case because the quote clearly had the "White House" in it and what other President could match with Jefferson when it came to inventions and the polymath that Jefferson was. Remember we are comparing only Presidents here.
 * Such a quote was not appropriate for the Lede, which is supposed to summarize the article, not have newsbites and pithy quotes.Parkwells (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That Jefferson had slaves is well known. That he had an affair might have been discovered now. I'm not saying that we need to discount those facts. But somehow reading the old wiki page, I realize that some of Jefferson's affliation towards slavery is projected here and his greatness is discounted because of that. Certainly we do not have a weighing machine to balance the positives from the negatives, do we? The current page is disappointing and gives an incomplete picture of the legendary Jefferson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua.Chandran (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See discussion below - there is a separate, longer article on Jefferson and his presidency, as well as others dealing with some other aspects. You have to read further.Parkwells (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More than that, wiki is not, and should not be, in the business of building "legends". Neither scorn nor admiration have any place whatsoever in an encyclopedia--let the facts speak for themselves.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So... we include absurd speculations and urban legends about Jefferson smoking pot (which are idiotic rumors created by stoned college students and perpetuated in internet chat rooms and chain-emails); we include the fact that Jefferson had a copy of the Qu'ran, even though to him it was probably nothing more than an odd curio; and we go on FOR EVER about his stance on slavery and his ownership of slaves. But we only include 16 sentences on the political philosophy of this man, who was a prolific writer and one of the most influential political thinkers (if not THE most influential political thinker) in American history. Furthermore Jefferson's political beleifs are invairably small-government, pro-gun, "right-wing" stuff. Yep, don't see any bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.14.244 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The two statements above seem to indicate that both these editors believe that there is bias in the article. Wikipedia is open to any and all editors and if they can see ways to improve the article?... They just have to stick around for four days and have at least ten edits to become auto-confirmed, then they 'll be able to edit it themselves within Wikipedia guidelines.  Shearonink (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Jefferson page still has some seven pages devoted to slavery/Hemings while the section on Jefferson's presidency, both terms, is only about half a page. The editors responsible for building the slavery/Hemings sections are obviously in possession of much knowledge regarding Jefferson, so the question still remains, why wasn't this pool of knowledge used to build the rest of the page to similar proportions and with the same enthusiasm? Once again, there are several dedicated pages for the slavery Heming's topics, yet they continue to dominate Jefferson's biography. There was an overwhelming consensus to have this done, yet, after all the shuffling and rearranging and editing, not much has changed in this regard. There is much scaling down and summarizing still needed and material should be removed or moved to the various dedicated pages if it is not there already. Gwillhickers (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how you measure "pages"? The slavery section is about two screen pages in my browser at default size. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is about two pages (two full screens) for Slavery, two pages for Attitude towards slaves and blacks while the Controversy / Facts / Conclusions sections take up another four pages. These sections still need to be summarized, not merely rearranged. The slavery and Hemings topics need to be scaled down to about two pages, tops. There are several dedicated pages for this material -- material that has been allowed to flood this page long enough. If there is not any improvements soon I will begin removing material on this page that can be found on the dedicated pages. There is already a consensus to do so. If need be, we can call another. Much of the material is not even biographical. e.g.Finkelman is mentioned by name, in the body of text, three times.   Gwillhickers (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point of my question. "Page" is not a useful measure, because the number of "pages" for a HTML document depends on browser size and settings. I can easily configure my browser to make the slavery issue take up 5 pages, and the presidency at least 10. Your talking about pages distracts from a potentially discussion-worthy point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the point of the discussion being evaded here, again? If you wish to debate what constitutes 'page length' rather than address the important issue then perhaps you should find someone else to entertain your 'concern' here. Again, there are MANY pages and sections for slavery/Hemings, while sections like Jefferson's presidency remain stubs -- and all the while some editors who are in possession of great stores of knowledge on Jefferson continue to ignore (and often delete) these integral parts of the Jefferson biography. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson covers Jefferson's presidency. This is Jefferson's biography. Slavery was a part of Jefferson's life. He grew up with slaves, he inherited slaves, he had children by a slave and he ran Monticello as a meticulous slave master. Possibly a separate article on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings could be written that included historical controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, slavery was 'part' of TJ's life .. as was his presidency. Both topics need improving. The slavery Hemings topics need to be scaled down greatly (with its tertiary outline of historians) while the Presidency (and other) section(s) needs to be expanded greatly.Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Another solution could be to put some of the Jefferson slavery section into the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what I have always suggested, for more than a year now. I have been hoping the editors most familiar with this topic would do this, and for a short while it seemed like was being done, but here were are now, half way through April, and the Slavery/Hemings sections are, once again, still the same out of proportion accumulation of material, material that is already well covered on dedicated pages. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You may think it is out of proportion, but to address Jefferson's stand and actions or lack thereof on slavery represents current scholarship - as opposed to older concerns that did not examine this part of his legacy. This is because slavery and its legacy (including many secret children of masters') is at the heart of American history and society. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect current scholarship, not that of 20 or 50 years ago. In addition, his general stand on slavery and actions as legislator and president are different from his relationship with Hemings. The article could be improved by editors bringing in material from more recent scholars, including women and minority historians. Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Current scholarship', such that it is, can be expressed without going into length about it, and again, this is a biography, about Jefferson, not Hemings or slavery. Also, while slavery was a reality, to say it was at the "heart of American history and society" is to gloss over the efforts and sacrifices made by the overwhelming majority of people who did not want/own slavery/slaves. What is at the heart of American history is the American people, the war for independence and those who gave their lives, of their own accord, to win that independence. All else is secondary, at best. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To speak only of the Hemings section: A prominent exhibit at the entrance to Monticello shows the family relationships of Hemings and Jefferson and all her children. We should do the same. As I was developing that portion of the article, editors kept having questions, or saying something was not substantiated. To convey the historiography controversy without details is very difficult, but I can try to summarize it more. Some people do not want to accept a quick summary.Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Organizations like at Monticello are highly visible and in the public eye are easily goaded or intimidated by the sort of racially charged tactics we saw being used here by an other editor back in March. Elected officials are easily manipulated this way. All you have to do is mention 'racism' and they will jump through one hoop after another for you. I tend to distrust accounts from places like this and from most of academia who often go along with their peers for social/political reasons and to protect/secure their annual grants. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A private foundation runs Monticello, not elected officials or any level of government. Since you don't like academia, no sources will satisfy you. Since Wikipedia is supposed to rely on academic and reliable third-party sources, you may not ever be satisfied by what appears here. Parkwells (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Parkwells: -- The reference to elected officials was a (very) typical example of how people or institutions in the public eye can be 'swayed' to go along with a particular party line. As for contemporary academia, I am very skeptical about their involvements and motives and with (many) good reasons, and I believe there are many who share the same reservations. i.e.Columbia University is so anti-American they have (up until recently) banned ROTC programs and have a long history of other such involvements and activism, much of it sponsored by foreign interests. Here in California the University of California (at Berkeley and LA) are constantly involved in demonstrations, activism etc -- much of it orchestrated by, (who else?) history professors and the like. Ward Churchill, ex professor at Colorado Univ, former head of the 'ethnic studies' dept. provides us with a definitive example of such involvements. This gets into another topic, but if you like, I (or anyone) can compile a list of such activities. Peer review is all well and good, just as long as one doesn't write just to go along with their peers. In my opinion this indeed is the state of affairs in most of today's academic circles. I've seen it first hand time and again. No, I won't discount a source simply because an author may be an academic, otoh, I will not blindly follow along just because he/she are. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In terms of general approach, Wikipedia policy recommends mentioning scholars by name when referring to their positions on issues, in addition to using inline citations. If that seems to be a major issue on this article, perhaps editors can agree to withdraw scholars' names altogether, but that goes against the policy.Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mention of a scholar by name once, maybe twice, is appropriate, maybe, but again, there is too much ado about these people in someone else's biography. Historical opinion, all of it, should be summarized and links should be included for those who may want to look into the opinions of these individuals further. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers seems very concerned, but it did not appear that many editors were following my changes to the Hemings section. There were no comments by anyone other than Cmguy at the time about the facts, the length, or anything else. So we have only Gwillhickers' expressing great concern about this article. I would also note that some editors seem to be doing the reading, research and writing, and others are criticizing. Sharing the work would be useful. If someone wants more on his political philosophy, read the works, cite them properly and add the content. Don't just criticize, as if a general editor. You won't know how difficult it is until you do it yourself and answer to the rest of us.Parkwells (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what it is like to do research and writing while another party stands over you and picks and pokes at things, so I have only made reminders and have let people like yourself do the summarizing and reductions. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on the James A. Garfield article. I believe the best answer is to find aggreement between editors and to give the reader some ample amount of intelligence for reading the article and taking away their own assessments of Jefferson. In one sense I agree with Gwillhickers on "over-stressing" biographers as the final authority. Jefferson has had many biographers and each has good information. Discounting biographers is not the answer either. Sources are needed so the article will have authentication and accurate meaning. The most recent scholarship needs to have the most weight. The subject of slavery is historically important since slavery is part of American history. Jefferson was a key figure in the American Revolution and as President of the United States. Admittedly Jefferson, as a person, is hard to figure out and very complex. The "real" Jefferson may never be fully understood. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"that would promote republicanism."
if wikipedia wants to maintain it's neutral stance i suggest it remove this line. this is becoming Conservapedia. ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Jefferson was a strong promoter of republicanism. Of course, this has nothing but the name in common with the modern Republican Party. I'll have to say, however, that Republicanism in the United States is witten from a horribly limited perspective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz is correct about Jefferson but wrong about the GOP. It chose the name "Republican" to emphasize its commitment to the values of republicanism.Rjensen (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ....in the same way that the People's Liberation Army emphasises its commitment to liberty and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea emphasises its commitment to both democracy and republicanism, of course. Today's GOP has would be unrecognizable as "republican" to either Jefferson or Lincoln. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This type of partisan bantering, of which in this instance you instigated, is unseemly, a waste of bandwidth, and against wiki guidelines.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

typographical error
Under Family: colone]cy -- should be "colonelcy" -- I would have made this change in edit, but the article is "semi-protected" and I have no idea how to simply inform the protector of the error. Thus, this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.194.59 (talk • contribs)
 * Fixed. Thanks. Mentioning it on a talk page is entirely correct. If you want to go the official route, Template:Edit protected is available. Also, of course, if you register, you will be able to edit protected pages in a few days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

passage needs clarification before it can be corrected.
In the beginning of the Lewis and Clark section, the following phrase occurs: the society was well established, staffed and equipped and whose resources were availed by Jefferson. This is a bit too far from an example of English for a well-intended non-expert "minor change" editor to replace with its intended meaning, except by lucky guesswork. Would some kind soul explain what was intended to be conveyed here, and if possessing the appropriating editing privileges, make a suitable replacement? Thank you in advance for any assistance.

Xanthian (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Worked on this based on what I know about the Society, Jefferson and the expedition. Also did copy editing on additional sentences in that section. Am not the original editor.

✅ Parkwells (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request (minor typo)
Section 4.4 "Lewis and Clark expedition", an United States should of course be a United States. 86.28.121.200 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson and emancipation
I was about to revert the same edit now reverted by Rjensen, and with very nearly the same edit summary, too. I think this needs discussion. The new version certainly ascribed opinions to Dumas (the listed source) I would be surprised to find there. I also think it had some railroading problems - while Jefferson acte ambiguously about slavery in his personal life, I've not seen serious historians that claim he wasn't honestly trying to keep it out of the territories with the failed 1874 ordinance and later the Northwest Ordinance. As such, it's no more his fault that the Northwest Ordinance was less than perfect in keeping slavery out, than Guantanamo can be laid at the feet of James Madison. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes. Massive changes and edit wars get nowhere. Ebanony says some statements are incorrect--perhaps so. Let him identify each one and we can discuss. TJ's critics do say that he opposed the slave trade all his career. Finkelman and many others say he expressed disappointment in younger generation's failure to act. Are they wrong? Rjensen (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree about Dumas, though it was not intended to refer to him. That is the least of the problems in that slavery section. No, the Northwest Territory in 1784 is not the part I focused on. The 1787 Territory is incorrectly described as banning slavery: Finkelman makes it clear that it not what happened; slavery continued till almost the civil war, which is precisely what the source says. Frankly it's not even relevant, but it's often misused so I left it in to clarify it.


 * Rjensen, you claim you want to discuss changes but your actions show otherwise: you deleted all of my comments on your talk page (twice); you made arbitrary and hypocritical edits without discussing them; and you made a personal attack against me in the history page just now, calling me "revert massive changes by vehement enemy of Jefferson -- to maintain NPOV article please take to talk page and make only incremental changes". A) I've always been willing to discuss changes, but that works both ways: you should practise what you preach, as you made many changes to the article without so much as a peep on the talk page; B)Don't even start with NPOV, for you've been cited by admin for your blatant WP:OR with Monroe when you claimed he too was against slavery.


 * We can be bold on wiki and make changes; there is no gradual change rule. You need to state what problem you have with my change, and demonstrate why it is not acceptable. I'm waiting.Ebanony (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's take this one-by-one. I'll start below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ordinance of 1784 and Northwest Ordinance
Jefferson crafted the (failed version of) the Ordinance of 1784, which, among other things, forbade slavery in the western territories of the US. When it failed ratification, he wrote "The voice of a single individual of the state which was divided, or of one of those which were of the negative, would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions of unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment!" The Northwest Ordinance, also drawn up by Jefferson, actually banned slavery. The fact that it was imperfectly enforced cannot be blamed on Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree about Dumas, though it was not intended to refer to him, and I'm willing to accept different wording on that part. Any suggestion?


 * I don't recall touching the 1784 ordinance, and don't see a problem with it. I focused on the 1787 Ordinance because it makes TJ look like he did something he did not do: it did not ban slavery, as Finkelman makes clear, so I wrote "The language of the ordinance seems to ban slavery, but it continued almost until the Civil War." | Evading the Ordinance: The Persistence of Bondage in Indiana and Illinois|Paul Finkelman| Journal of the Early Republic Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring, 1989)|, pp. 21. The current page incorrectly states the facts, and credits TJ's 1784 role with the 1787 Ordinance banning of slavery, when that is definitely not what happened; it should be corrected.


 * A partial list. Please feel free to respond so we can reach agreement.


 * #1 "His first public attack on slavery came in 1774". What "attack" is that?


 * #2 The use of Junius Rodriquez and the undue weight to his opinion? Why? He is who in this field?


 * #3 DB Davis supporting the idea that Jefferson was anti-slavery? That goes against published work.


 * #4 Why are there so many quotes saying "TJ opposed slavery", when that is not what scholarship really say? DB Davis, for instance, say the exact opposite, pg 203.


 * #5 The incorrect description of TJ's "emancipation plan"; it's discussed in 3 different places, when it's all the same thing: an all white America with no blacks. Instead of pointing this out, TJ is shown as someone trying to free them (that he didn't submit it to the legislature); his "plan" is discussed in Notes on Virginia, and it's deeply criticised as racist as far back as 1830.


 * #6 This directly violates policy on WP:OR: "During his presidential term, Jefferson was disappointed that the younger generation was making no move to abolish slavery, but he kept silent."


 * #7 Restore TJ's actual role in 1808 slave trade, not the current exaggeration presenting him as "leader" against it, which he was not (in 1808): "he was not the main force behind the legislation, to which resistance was small (see Agricultural History, Vol. 68, No. 2, Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, 1793-1993: A Symposium (Spring, 1994), pp. 27, 31).


 * #8 Restore the picture of the one black person in the entire article, Isaac. He was one of TJ's slaves and is relevant:.


 * #9 Restore Magnis comments on TJ's racism towards blacks


 * #10 This nonsense that TJ wanted to protect blacks so that is why he didn't free them (this is a disgrace in 2011). Not only does Finkelman not say that, he argues against debt being a legitimate reason for TJ's failure to free his slaves, a thesis supported by one or two select scholars, whose POV is given undue weight: []


 * #11 TJ's comments on blacks being from primates (yes, he said that & that is covered by scholars).


 * #12 Restore the words "Jefferson condemned the British crown for the slave trade, but not slavery", in the DoI, a well documented fact (Was Thomas Jefferson an Authentic Enemy of Slavery? David Davies, Oxford, 1970, p. 6.) that someone removed for illegitimate reasons, citing "drugs".


 * These changes were made by 1-2 editors, and they never discussed it; why their poor work is seen as a benchmark is beyond me. They can make any changes they like, but when I come along, I'm called an "enemy".Ebanony (talk)

Sorting the Finkelman's
There are currently at least 3 references to a Finkelman text named "Thomas Jefferson and Anti-Slavery" on the page (93, 94, and 95). As far as I can make out, none of them has complete and correct bibliographical information. I think all 3 should refer to Is there any concern if I unify all three references accordingly? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem with it provided you ensure they are all referring to the same article, and Finkelman has many, so please check. Also, since there are so many changes to this article (unfortunately), I'd leave it as a full quote, so that if someone should delete one of the other reference, it will still be a working link (not saying I plan on removing it, but Finkelman has been targeted here by a couple of editors). Ebanony (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, number 94 and 95 link to the same PDF. Number 93 only has minimal information (last name and short title), but Google Scholar finds no other plausible match. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz, I've trusted your judgement long enough so that if you see a problem, I know you do a good job in fixing it, as with this item. You know that is not something I would ever ask you to justify. But I can say when I added those citations (if I recall correctly), they linked to one and the same article. It really is confusing in its current form. Please change it. Ebanony (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. It turned out that one fact actually referenced the same paper twice...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that. Hadn't been following this so closely. I think some were my fault, as i was struggling with different forms of referring to the same article, and wanting to have pages cited. (Apparently changing my mind along the way.) Got kind of burned out on the TJ-Hemings controversy.  My sense is agreement with your reading of DBDavis - he said what was notable after TJ returned from France was his "immense silence" on slavery. Maybe it is worthwhile to point out the difference in timing - to contrast TJ's earlier statements and actions, with his later lack of action. Others (would have to find who) have suggested that might have been because of his personal circumstances, having by then started the relationship with Hemings.  But that was part of what Finkelman criticized him for - in terms of what he expects of a leader - to go beyond his time. Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dropping the tag bomb
I know I just tagged the beejesus out of this article but hopefully to better identify its problems. In regards to the amount of who? tags it's better to say Historians Smith and Jones claim than a generic Historians claim. Those are just examples of course. Brad (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what's called weasel wording. Brad (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, some might qualify as weasel words, but not all. There is a bit of support in those articles (when I added them), but I too fear they're not being used as intended. At any rate, there is a simple explanation for the reason the slavery section is a bit ambigious (not naming so many authors by name, for example). Gwillhickers made a big fuss about the amount of space devoted to certain topics and the use of names; there were also a variety of contributors, and that section in general has seen some real ideological arguments (ie. some going as far as to claim Jefferson was an abolitionist). It should be more specific, and that section is not correct in several key points, but we can't leave it like this. I'm willing to work on it if a few other serious editors want to address some of its problems, and are willing to watch it & prevent vandalism/ideological changes.Ebanony (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought some of the "historians" statements represented an overview in the ""TJ and Slavery" section, an introduction, not an attempt to be vague. In other cases, material is sourced. I agree with Ebanony that Gwillhickers objected to having historians' names cited (specifically as we were getting into the arguments about Hemings), although I noted at the time that it was recommended as WP policy. I recommend against citing which planters did what, any more than is already in there, or the section will be buried in detail. More detail is provided in the full article on TJ and Slavery, although it could probably be improved. I added and cited material by Finkelman here, for example, which has more examples in the source. This section can easily get too long.Parkwells (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have not checked to see who wrote the "Lewis and Clark" section. Just worked at copy editing and improving writing, not going back to sources.Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The editing done in the last couple of hours seems to be going in the right direction. I'm not sure what the overall goal is for this article; whether a simple improvement is good enough or a goal of GA or higher. Brad (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a thought concerning the article goal but I think it is a grand idea, maybe a pipe dream or maybe not, for all articles to be edited with at least the hope that they may attain GA or higher. With a somewhat lower expectation (just slightly) I certainly hope that experienced editors do try to make edits with this thought in mind. To that end I think that every "simple improvement" will move any article a little closer to the possibility of attaining GA or higher at some point. Otr500 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure, either and I'm not taking on the whole article, that's for sure. Have spent way too much time on it already. Going through this historians' consensus/listing or whatever again is tedious, at best. The Natl Geneaological Society did their own study in 2000 and agreed TJ's the father (firmly linked by the chain of the body of historical evidence; the curator at Monticello said early on, probably "90 percent of mainline historians" agree; the TJ Foundation has changed their pubs, exhibits and training for staff; the MacArthur Foundation awarded a fellowship in 2010 to Gordon-Reed for her persistence in investigation early American history that has "dramatically changed Jeffersonian scholarship"; her second book, based on TJ and the Hemings (2008), won a Pulitzer Prize in history and 15 other major historical and literary awards; and academic histories since then accept as given that Jefferson was the father, including Burstein's study of Jefferson - Death and Desire. (I had much of that on the page before, but took it out because editors said it was too much.) Malone is dead. Holdouts most notably are people associated with the report commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society and its members, and their report was very weak; most of the scholars associated with it are not writing biographies of TJ. Another holdout is the Monticello Association, a Jefferson lineage society, which commissioned a separate report and has decided not to change its documentation requirements to accept Hemings descendants as members, until there is TJ's DNA, but of course they won't allow his remains to be disturbed. (But they're not historians, anyway.) What more do people need as "proof" that the field has changed?  This is absurd. It is not science, and few articles have received this scrutiny. TJ was a gentleman and discreet; he left little evidence but children who looked like him, and his inconsistent actions related to his and Hemings' children. People who knew him talked about his liaison and mixed-race children, he kept silent, and his family "defended" him by making up alternatives disproved by DNA.Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to convince me about the Hemings debacle. I'm not here to dispute that although I mentioned elsewhere that I thought the topic is being given too much weight in a summary style biography article. Regardless, I only went on a tag spree to point out specific problems the article has. Today's editing did a lot of good work. Brad (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - your review may make me sharper on other articles. I would have been glad to summarize it, but people started arguing that there wasn't a historical consensus, that not everyone agreed, that we needed to show what people disagreed about, etc. And so we are here - it was one of the biggest changes in Jefferson scholarship, overturning 180 years of denials; that's why I thought it deserved some attention. It's very complex if you discuss it at all.Parkwells (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Something I need to clarify is that while I believe there is too much weight on Hemings there are other parts of the article which also have undue weight. There are also areas where not enough is being said. It would be unfair to single out a weight problem when the entire article imo needs an objective overhaul. Brad (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "I believe there is too much weight on Hemings there are other parts of the article which also have undue weight." That is because the other sections are not properly written. They need expansion/improvement; the answer is not to reduce slavery/Hemings: the answer is to improve those other sections. Why? These are two of the most studied and written about topics on TJ in recent times. We cannot ignore the more than 700 slaves TJ held, the girl he had children with etc, like the older TJ article versions did (I'm not saying that's your intention, but it was for some others).


 * As soon as we began to address these things on slaver/Hemings, Gwhillickers appeared out of the woodwork. He went on for months demanding changes to Hemings & the slavery section, constantly asking it to be reduced, canvassing, and denying the historical facts. Even when we reduced the size, he still said it was too large. As Parkwells said, the direction of the article is difficult, but we (especially Parkwells) made significant changes to the Hemings section several times.


 * Brad, I see you want to expand some of the other sections. Fantastic! What are your proposals?Ebanony (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Parkewells has a point: If we try and make that part more specific like you want, it will be longer in size, not smaller. We might be able to add a few names, but not without altering it quite a bit. I haven't checked it through 100% yet, but I can say it is not the way it was intended to be. BTW, I agree that the slavery section needs to be redone. I'm considering restoring it to its early March status, before some of the current problems appeared.Ebanony (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a case in point: a specific scholar's pov is written; he's named and properly referenced. Then guess who comes along and deletes it? Yes, Gwhillickers "The reason he gives? Omitted moral comentary made by historian mentioned by name." . So I agree it should be less vague, but some people make up their own wiki rules and delete things they fell hurt TJ's reputation. I'd like to help you fix it, but we're being disrupted by Gwhillickers. Here is yet another case where he removed the names: . BTW, if you look at the CLAIM he made, he made it up. Here he claimed the opposite of what the source said. Ebanony (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's time for the Gwill debacle to stop being blamed for every problem this article has. This is why there is an ongoing RfC on the matter. Gwill comments belong there. I'm quite surprised that you went on an editing spree without discussion considering how contentious this article currently is. Brad (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I've just addressed some of these concerns by restoring most of the data that was removed a short while ago. It's less ambiguous. That also took care of a lot of incorrect data about TJ's role in the slave trade, Northwest Ordinance etc. The statement that TJ regretted that the younger were not working towards ending slavery was WP:OR. Ebanony (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to above section
Rjensen, "Finkelman and many others say he expressed disappointment in younger generation's failure to act. Are they wrong?" Where does Finkelman state that, and in what context? Wouldn't want to give the wrong impression, now would we? And BTW, Rjensen, YOU must demonstrate what problems you believe my changes have. You cannot demand that I submit a list to you so that you may approve. Who are you? Follow Wiki guidelines and stop making unreasonable demands. You reverted, you have an obligation to discuss it. Ebanony (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One statement that Ebanony erased was this: Jefferson expressed his disappointment that the younger generation was making no move to abolish slavery,[ref]Paul Finkelman Slavery and the founders: race and liberty in the age of Jefferson (2001) p. 195 [/ref]. The same point is also made in Francis Adams & Barry Sanders, Alienable Rights: The Exclusion of African Americans... (2004) p. 105 and Onuf, Jeffersonian legacies p. 209; David Konig says TJ was "deeply disappointed that slavery had not somehow been eliminated"  (Devising Liberty (2002) p 268). David Waldstreicher, in his into to Notes on Virginia (2002) p 70 says "Jefferson puts his hope in the younger generation, acknowledging that slavery and the American revolutionary spirit do not — or should not — go together." Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and look how magically the citations appear. Would you like to discuss the rest of Finkelman's comments on TJ in that context and exactly where that info comes from? I do not dispute that TJ made that claim; he claimed many things for his legacy, but Finkelman was not supporting TJ, as far as I recall; he's one of his harshest critics, and I do believe there's more to the story. BTW, there are 11 other points you need to justify keeping in the article, Rjensen. Sure you want to defend them all? That's just for starters. The rest was excised to comply with Brad's comments here ; please get your facts right and stop claiming I never discussed any of these changes.Ebanony (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Ebanony dodges the "younger generation" statement and the multiple cites provided. Try another one: 1784/87. Historians give TJ credit for the 1787 Northwest Territory ordinance provision (article VI) that made slavery illegal there [see Peter Onuf, Statehood and union: a history of the Northwest Ordinance (1987) p 143]. Historians talk of the success of the ordinance--Greene and Pole: "The success of the Northwest Ordnance in keeping slavery out of all territories north of the Ohio " [A companion to the American Revolution (2003) p 576]; "Slavery was prohibited in the Northwest Territory under Article 6 of the Ordinance" says Morgan, Slavery in America: a reader and guide (2005) p 128. The Ordnance did not apply after the statehood but pro-slavery efforts (in the states of Illinois and Indiana) to allow slavery all failed.  Did it matter? Finkelman says there were still some slaves but it did matter: "In the long run, of course, Article VI [on slavery] helped set the stage for the emergence of five free states in the region. By discouraging slaveholders from moving into the region, the ordinance helped create a white majority in the Northwest that was hostile to slavery." "Slavery and the Northwest Ordinance," J Early Republic (1986) v6 p 346.  Finkelman goes further and says: "In 1784 Jefferson had proposed the prohibition of slavery in all  the  national  territories after  1800." (ibid p 353). Rjensen (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ebanony says "7 Restore TJ's actual role in 1808 slave trade, not the current exaggeration presenting him as "leader" against it, which he was not (in 1808): "he was not the main force behind the legislation, to which resistance was small (see Agricultural History, Vol. 68, No. 2, Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, 1793-1993: A Symposium (Spring, 1994), pp. 27, 31)." His source is challenged--I just read the article; it emphasizes TJ's role and there is no mention of TJ on page 27 or 31.  Most historians since DuBois have stressed  TJ's essential role in opening the issue and condemning the slave trade harshly in 1806. Thus 1) James Morton Smith, Republic of letters - (1995) Page 24 "In 1807, Congress followed Jefferson's recommendation, prohibiting the slave trade after January 1, 1808, a law that William Freehling has called 'one of the most important acts an American Congress ever passed.'";  2) Paul Lauren  The evolution of international human rights (2003) Page 39 says "The first serious efforts to render the slave trade illegal occurred simultaneously in the United States and Britain ... Thus, President Thomas Jefferson, in his 1806 message to Congress, explicitly used the language of rights and urged..."; 3) David Brion Davis, The problem of slavery in the age of revolution, 1770-1823 (1999) p 134 says: "The American government showed no sign of moving against the traffic until President Jefferson, in his annual message of December, 1806 condemned..." Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, no one denies TJ made that statement to Congress, but there is more to it, and you're ignoring the other interests invloved; I said TJ was not the main driving force behind ending the slave trade. I'll confirm the source and post it later. Ebanony (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ebanony #1 "His first public attack on slavery came in 1774". What "attack" is that? -- every study of TJ mentions the famous 1774 attack; Ebanony erased the statement. For example see John Ashworth, Slavery, capitalism, and politics in the antebellum Republic (1995): Volume 1 - Page 34 says: "In his famous Summary View of the Rights of British America of 1774 Jefferson made his first attack on slavery in print." Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what you say here, but the current text in the article doesn't make that clear, hence my question "what attack".Ebanony (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ebanony: #3 DB Davis supporting the idea that Jefferson was anti-slavery? That goes against published work. and #4 Why are there so many quotes saying "TJ opposed slavery", when that is not what scholarship really say? DB Davis, for instance, say the exact opposite [3], pg 203. That is false. Davis is a nuanced scholar who gives TJ lots of praise. for example: 1) Davis, The problem of slavery in the age of revolution, 1770-1823 Page 134 says "The American government showed no sign of moving against the traffic until President Jefferson, in his annual message of December, 1806 condemned..."; 2) Davis, 'Slavery in the colonial Chesapeake' p 34 says "Jefferson acquired a deep and lifelong hatred of the institution....He never set them free, even in his will, since he was convinced that the problem could not be solved by private acts of manumission."; 3)Davis in The problem of slavery in Western culture p. 425 says: " he earnestly desired to see an end to Negro slavery." Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's your interpretation of his work, not what scholars say: "Many scholars, especially...David Brion Davis...have made the case that Jefferson was not in fact anti-slavery and that he did little to end the institution." Finkelman cites Slavery in the Age of Revolution and Was Jefferson an Authentic Enemy of Slavery?, but he doesn't say "nuanced"; DB Davis says TJ aas not against slavery; his "praise" refers to other things, not his position on slaves.  pg 203Ebanony (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Finkelman does not quote anything of D.B. Davis about Jefferson in that article. He groups Davis along with numerous others. Davis actually did write "Jefferson acquired a deep and lifelong hatred of the institution." as cited, and Finkelman does not challenge that.  Davis did say "he earnestly desired to see an end to Negro slavery" and Finkelman does not discuss that quote either.   Rjensen (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Point #2 Finkelman most certainty does quote DB Davis books and page numbers - directly (ie. pg 205), so you're wrong on that. Your point #3 on TJ's "hatred of slavery", your statement is false, not mine. Finkelman most certainty does challenge the "lifelong hatred" of slavery argument. That is what half the paper is dedicated to: "Jefferson's only concern here was for his own race and what slavery might do to its members". And, "his hatred of slavery was unproductive and limited to complaints about how it affected whites", Finkelman 200-10. So yes, a very narrow "hatred", and one based on profound racism. TJ had absolutely no concern for the welfare of blacks: "He had little empathy for those who allowed themselves to be reduced to 'degrading submission'." And, "he hated slavery because it brought Africans there and kept them there". You TJ was arguing for an all white America without any blacks, and you've misrepresented Finkelman & Db Davis's positions.Ebanony (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * #1 you list TJ's opposition to the slave trade in 1807-8 as evidence TJ opposed slavery. That's a straw man argument; ending the slave trade was in no way opposition to slavery. You either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge this well accepted fact. I see you repeating arguments by discredited scholars whose goal was to misrepresent TJ as an opponent of slavery; that is the other part of Finkelman's thesis. If you have read his work, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. Ebanony (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)



Ebanony #2: ''#2 The use of Junius Rodriquez and the undue weight to his opinion? Why? He is who in this field? The name is RodriGuez-- He is a leading specialist on slavery and abolition with many books published by ABC-CLIO and other well-established presses: here is a partial listing: 1) editor in chief, The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery (2 Volumes  ABC-CLIO 1997) he led 200+ scholars from 30+ countries in this great compilation; coeditor Reading Southern History: Essays on Interpreters and Interpretations (University Alabama Press; 2001); editor in chief Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia (2007)-- one reviewer said ""it would be hard to find a better two-volume reference work on slavery."; author, Chronology of World Slavery (1999); editor in chief, The Louisiana Purchase: A Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia  (2002)' editor in chief Encyclopedia of Slave Resistance and Rebellion (2 vol 2006, Greenwood publisher); and not yet published: Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression'' (scheduled Oct 2011). Rjensen (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "not yet published" - precisely why it cannot be considered. Wiki guidelines require that it's "already been published by a reliable source", WP:V. Do try and keep with policy.Ebanony (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not offered as a source, but as evidence for Junius P. Rodriguez weight in the field. If a book is officially announced, the publisher is committed. That said, while Rodriguez seems to have edited a number of well-received overview works, I'm not to impressed with the citation count, at least according to Google Scholar. By comparison, the Handbook of Automated Reasoning, which serves a not-too-large community, has nearly 300 cites. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I could see someone pointing to Malone or DB Davis (among others) for a statement like that. But why give so much weight to these other writers who are not as well known? If we take Rodriguez statement seriously (that TJ opposed slavery) then we'd be repudiating Finkelman, DB Davis and a variety of others who say the exact opposite: namely TJ did nothing to oppose slavery. There are 2 pov's on this subject, and I'm willing to address both, but it should reflect scholarship since the 60's, not only pre-1960's.Ebanony (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Better read Davis. He says that TJ was one of the world's greatest antislavery advocates before  he went to France (in 1785) and largely silent after he returned in 1789. Problem ...1770-1823 p 174 Rjensen (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't presume what I've read/not read. I explained there's a group of less serious/popular historians who follow earlier debunked ideas - particularly the idea that TJ was anti-slavery. That does not include Finkelman/DB Davis. Now in terms of anti-slavery behaviour pre-1785, some do claim he was doing things to end slavery then & others saying always, but "one of the greatest anti-slavery" guys? That's a particular interpretation, and one not all scholars would agree with. Anyway, this bears out what I've been saying all along: DB Davis rejects TJ as being anti-slavery, particularly after 1785. In your June 16th comment above, you misrepresented DB Davis & Finkelman above & used straw man arguments on the slave trade & "hatred" of slavery. Now your argument is changing, and the fact you wrote "he did little/nothing to end slavery" only proves my point. You're trying to present TJ as anti-savery, but DB Davis/Finkelman etc do not agree with that, and your're ignoring a whole of of what they've written. A more neutral/helpful approach would be to acknowledge this, and seek a way to incorporate these things without insisting that the "he was against slavery pov" the only pov reflected here. My edit tried to do that, and that's what I'm asking for, not one-sided pov's.Ebanony (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Ebanony
 * Ebanony refers to Davis a lot--and indeed David Brion Davis is the "big name" in the field of slavery studies--but does not actually quote Davis and instead gives a false impression of what Davis actually says. Let me quote Davis: "One cannot question the genuinesss of Jefferson's liberal dreams. If he had died in 1784, at the age of 41, it could be said without further qualification that he was one of the first statesmen in any part of the world to advocate concrete measures for restricting and eradicating Negro slavery." [David, Problem of Slavery ...1770-1823 p 174] Alas, some people here do seem to question what Davis calls "the genuinesss of Jefferson's liberal dreams." Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've not given a "false impression of DB Davis" work; I do not deny he said TJ did things that seemed to oppose slavery before 1785, as Davis interprets it & how you present it. I clearly pointed to your contradiction: you claim one minute TJ was against slavery all his life, then say he was only against slavery before before 1785, citing Davis. You can't have it both ways. Which is it, all his life or just before 1785? What do other scholars say? Try quoting from those who have a different pov from yours.


 * Now I do quote, and when I directly quoted Finkelman's review of DB Davis work here where he says DB Davis does not support the thesis that TJ was anti-slavery. You claimed "Finkelman did not quote anything of D.B. Davis about Jefferson in that article" (he does on pg 202), and dismissed what Davis said, giving not a valid reason: "He groups Davis along with numerous others" . He sure does group them on the side says TJ was not anti-slavery, but that doesn't void Finkelman's work or the fact there is another group who say TJ opposed slavery: "Many scholars, especially William Cohen, David Brion Davis, Winthrop B. Jordon, Robert McColley, John Chester Miller, and William H. Freehling have made the case that Jefferson was not in fact anti-slavery and that he did little to end the institution." You can see that Finkelman says this, and it's not my interpretation (as opposed to your misleading select quotes) on pg 202; please also acknowledge the fact Finkelman directly quotes Davis on pg 205: ]. My point: this a two sided debate of "he was for slavery/lukewarm" vs "he was against slavery"; you're denying this & showing only the "he opposed slavery" POV, which violates WP:NPOV guidelines.


 * Second point you've misrepresented: "Davis actually did write 'Jefferson acquired a deep and lifelong hatred of the institution.' as cited, and Finkelman does not challenge that. Davis did say 'he earnestly desired to see an end to Negro slavery' and Finkelman does not discuss that quote either." . But Finkelman does challenge the idea TJ "had a lifelong hatred of slavery", and dedicates pgs 202-9 to it with subheading like, "Jefferson's Fear of Slaves" & "Jefferson' Racism and His Hatred of Slavery". Yes, but what KIND of 'hatred'? One that "earnestly desired to see an end to negro slavery". You'd said Finkelman agrees with that. NOT according to Finkelman who instead says,
 * "Jefferson's 'hatred' of slavery was a peculiarly cramped kind of hatred. It was not so much slavery he hated as what it did to his society. This 'hatred' took three forms. First, he hated what slavery did to whites. Second, he hated slavery because he feared it would lead to a rebellion that would destroy his society. Third, he hated slavery because it brought Africans there and kept them there. None of these motivated him to do anything about the institution." . Yes, some claim 'hatred', but you're giving the false impression he was some benevolent guy trying to help slaves out of concern for their welfare, when that is not what Finkelman says. We have an obligation accurately represent the pov's of scholars (ie. Davis & Finkelman), as well write about their different pov's, not pretend there's just one (ie. 'TJ opposed slavery') & ignore the others (ie. 'TJ was not anti-slavery') WP:NPOV.Ebanony (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * rjensen, I'm disappointed that you insist on claiming there is consensus that TJ was anti-slavery. In reality, there are two opposing pov's (one that agrees & one that disagrees). Presenting only one side whilst ignoring/misrepresenting the scholars who say TJ was not anti-slavery is a violation of wiki rules, as I pointed out above. I've raised this point 3 times and you've ignored me each time; you claim you want to "discuss" changes on the talk page, but your silence shows otherwise.Ebanony (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is consensus that a) TJ hated slavery (Finkelman is explicit on that). b) There is consensus that he was a leader in stopping its expansion before 1785 (he proposed no slavery in any territory--it lost in Congress by one vote); c) there is consensus he was always opposed to the slave trade and more than any American was successful in stopping it. d) Was he "anti-slavery?" One school says (d1) yes he opposed slavery as a public national institution; and one (d2) (led by Finkelman) says that he accepted personal slavery--he freed few of his own slaves--and therefore was not anti-slavery.Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No there is not a consensus that TJ hated slavery. Finkelman makes it very clear that "It was not so much slavery he hated as what it did to his society." He goes on at length at how these earlier scholars misrepresented TJ's 'hatred' into something it is not. You cannot claim TJ "hated slavery" and leave it at that; basically all TJ hated, according to Finkelman, was how slavery harmed whites, not blacks. He had no concern for the slaves, and your claims obscure this fact, even though Finkelman directly says this. That is why you repeat "he hated slavery" but refuse to discuss exactly what that narrow, self-centered hatred really meant. You're misrepresenting Finkelman. I suggest you stop that, for it violates WP:OR and WP:V policies.


 * In terms of stopping expansion, that is not the same as opposing slavery's existence. Again, there were ardent supporters of slavery who wanted that area slave free to prevent further competition on staple crops. It's necessary to discuss WHY people support/oppose things. It's easy to point to it & say he wanted slavery to end, but that means ignoring other relevant facts (ie. the inconvenient ones). Now, that TJ did more to than any American to stop the slave trade? That's debatable, and contradicted by scholars I've read. As to Opposing/supporting slavery there are at two schools: one that misrepresented/left out facts to claim TJ opposed slavery, continued by popular biographers today and others who say TJ was not anti-slavery (not let by Finkelman for their work predates his in some cases): "Many scholars, especially William Cohen, David Brion Davis, Winthrop B. Jordon, Robert McColley, John Chester Miller, and William H. Freehling have made the case that Jefferson was not in fact anti-slavery and that he did little to end the institution." You make a lot of claims, rjensen. I cannot agree with your version for it is not accurate, nor is this the first time I've seen you do things like this. I must declare there is a serious npov problem on your end, for what you say does not match published scholars' work.Ebanony (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Finkelman & RS say he hated slavery (why--because it was bad for American society. seems a pretty good reason). The antislavery forces of that era all fought to stop the slave trade. TJ was probably the most visible and successful leader in that regard in the US (who had a better record??). Read up on the horrors of the Middle Passage--the part of the slave trade that killed so many people in horrible conditions. TJ helped stop it (not 100% since there still was smuggling).Rjensen (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Finkelman & RS say he hated slavery (why--because it was bad for American society. seems a pretty good reason)." No, Finkelman said it was bad for white society because "he feared it would lead to a rebellion that would destroy his society." In other words TJ feared the slaves would overthrow slavery & massacre slave owners like in Haiti & TJ opposed that - he opposed letting them fight for freedom. Some opponent of slavery! "Third, he hated slavery because it brought Africans there and kept them there." Finkelman is saying TJ was so racist he didn't want blacks in the US - at all. Finkelman is not alone in saying it. Rjensen is twisting Finkelman's words, who makes it clear that the quote "his society" referred to WHITE SOCIETY, and not black society (ie. he wasn't talking about the damage it did to slaves). Finke,man directly says this! That is the reason I assume you're trying to avoid discussing what that "hatred" meant. It doesn't fit with the image you claim these writers have. Now what you're saying about "anti-slavery" forces & the "middle passage" is irrelevant because TJ was never identified with such marginal outcasts of society; he represented the planters and slave owners, and it was THEY who opposed the slave trade because they feared slave rebellions (newly imported Africans) would rise up and kill the whites. Try telling the real story. Ebanony (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * TJ hated slavery say the RS. because it was bad for America. (bad only for whites?) He opposed the slave trade and was the LEADING American opponent of it. Why? he asked Congress to use "your authority constitutionally to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe." [Message to Congress 1806]. That's pretty strong language, and it worked.--Congress passed the law. This is perhaps the strongest condemnation of the immorality involved by any public figure in that era.Rjensen (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, you either can't read what Finkelman writes or you willingly choose to misrepresent/ignore it. Finkelman directly says on pg 203 that TJ's 'hatred' refers to his racist interest in the protection of white society, not blacks. Example: "He hated cruel punishments (at least for whites), and successfully initiated a complete reform of Virginia's criminal code for white people." Finkelman says that TJ hated those things and DID something about them, but his 'hatred' of slavery as so cramped, and his racism so great that "None of these feelings motivated him to do anything about the institution." He's talking about the institution of slavery, so you really need to stop this straw man argument on the slave trade, something that has nothing to do with this. I'd say you're engaging in a dishonest practice, and urge you to stop it.Ebanony (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * all the RS say he hated slavery because it was bad for America. so we report that in Wikipedia. As for slave trade, it was very horrible and most antislavery people in US and Britain were fighting it. Jefferson was in the lead and he said it was a violation of human rights. Ebanony has boxed himself into a corner and it now poo-pooing the abolition of the slave trade! to use Ebanony's word, that's "obscene". Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"TJ hated slavery say the RS. because it was bad for America. (bad only for whites?)" & "all the RS say he hated slavery" - absolutely wrong! Rjensen, TJ was a racist whose concern was for whites; he didn't care at all for blacks. Finkelman directly says on pg 203 that TJ's 'hatred' refers to his racist interest in the protection of white society, not blacks.' His version of America didn't include blacks, as any honest reader of these scholars will say.

Finkelman also says on pg 204: "Jefferson's most famous outburst against slavery is found in Notes on Virgina, in which he argued that slavery 'had an unhappy influence on the manners of our people'. The designation 'our people' here does not seem to include blacks. A careful reading of this famous paragraph shows Jefferson's concern was for the effects of slavery on the master class. He was afraid that slavery would corrupt white Americans. At first glance he seems to have concern for the slave...The rest of the paragraph, however, says nothing about the slave and concentrates only on how slavery corrupts the master class". He continues: "Jefferson did not suggest the parent should free his slaves or even sell them. No, the parent should only keep his temper when his own children are about. Jefferson 'hated' slavery because it made whites into tyrants...nor did he seem concerned with the physical and emotional dangers adult slaves might face from the passions of an adult slave owner. Jefferson's only concern here was for his own race and for what slavery might do to its members. I made it very clear that if the article is going to discuss "hatred", it must accurately reflect Finkelman's work on the topic, which analyses the 'hatred'. You are trying to ignore this because you don't like that it shows Jefferson's racism & real position on slavery (hence your diatribes on the slave trade). Ebanony (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The job of the editors is to reflect the full range of serious scholarship. There is no doubt with Ebanony on line that Finkelman's ideas will be well represented.  But there are dozens of other scholars out there--very few of whom are as extreme as Finkelman--and they need representation. On the slave trade--how does one in 2011 support that horrible trade? a) ridicule the leading opponents; b) say they did not really mean it; c) say they had ulterior motives and were not pure of heart by 2011 standards; d) say it's a straw man and not deserving attention. That alas is what we see Ebanony doing re the major issue that anti-slavery forces concentrated on for many decades before 1830. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The job of the editors is to reflect the full range of serious scholarship." I'm glad you understand this basic principle. Now perhaps you'll put it into practice by including the things Finkelman and Davis say regarding TJ's "hatred" of slavery, and not a one-sided pov that ignores pertinent facts. His POV must be included in order "to reflect the full range of scholarship", which is what I've been saying for weeks. Your evidence that "very few of whom are as extreme as Finkelman"? None. He is a well reviewed and respected scholar, but you call him "extreme"? You're trying to exclude/discredit someone whose pov you disagree with, a violation of wiki rules. Now I said several times, let's discuss the type of "hatred" scholars claimed TJ had, and include Finkelman's comments on it. Do you have any legitimate reason why Finkelman's pov should be excluded? Enough of the "slave trade", you obviously are confused since you think it was the "anti-slavery forces" - yeah, the biggest plantation owners suddenly became anti-slave. More like they didn't want free born Africans in the US stirring up a rebellion like Haiti & Jamaica. TJ was among them, one of the biggest owners in his area.Ebanony (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Would it do any good to work on the separate article: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery first, and then summarize that in this one? If editors delve into the details of all the quotes and claims here, it will extend the section, but perhaps the agreements should be copied to the TALK of the main article, so there is a record of the discussions and settlements.  Everyone is gathered here right now, but perhaps it would be better to be at the main article.Parkwells (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That works for me; we should reconcile the two & discuss it in one place.Ebanony (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Rjensen (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Finkelman references
I see that an article by Paul Finkelman is the most referenced item in the slavery section. However, there are no less than five references to page 205 of that article. This should be corrected. It is possible to reference the entire article but if you have quoted material the exact page number of the quote should be listed. Dwalrus (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When I first added content it always included the page number; there have been numerous changes to the article, including outright misrepresentations of Finkelman's work by Gwhillicker's. I've recently been trying to correct some of them in the above discussion with rjensen, but he is not agreeable to any changes.Ebanony (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ebanony would be more credible if he read more widely. Excessive reliance on Finkelman is the issue here--with the fear that Ebanony cites Finkelman because they agree on an anti-TJ position. That bias is not allowed in Wikipedia editors who have to TRY to maintain neutrality. Rjensen (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Finkleman, although and excellent source, may be oversighted and I agree neutrality needs to be maintained in Wikipedia articles. Who then is to decide on what is neutral and what is not neutral?  I personally grew up in a definately pro Jefferson U.S. educational system. I was never taught that TJ owned slaves let alone had forced children to work in a dangerous nailry.  I never was taught Jefferson believed African Americans were inferior.  I was never taught Jefferson had his slaves whipped.  I did learn in college he may have slept with Sally Hemings and had children by her. I am not sure that this article can be perfectly neutral, since the real Jefferson who lived on Monticello, will never be completely known. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Finkelman is an important scholar on Jefferson and slavery but there are many scholars who have studied Jefferson and they deserve to be used as references as well as Finkelman. As the article stands right now the problem I see is that footnote 96 to Finkelman's article is cited five times to the same page 205 and that page does not contain any of the five references. The references appear to be located at: (a) on page 228, (b) on page 210, (c) on page 211, (d) on page 220 in footnote, and (e) on page 224. The reference (d) should have the quotation changed with the word "not" moved outside the quotation marks. Someone who edits this article should do this as I will leave it to them.Dwalrus (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that more sources other then Finkleman are needed to add balance and historical weight to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What a bore: Hemings-prop in introduction.
"While historians long discounted accounts that, after his wife died, Jefferson had an intimate relationship with his slave Sally Hemings; since the late 1990s it has been commonly accepted that he did, and that he had six children by her.[14][15]"

I object to this on the sheer weasel-wordiness of it: "commonly accepted" by those misled by the original sensationalized accounts of the DNA research? Or by whom? What a sorry tidbit of politically correct but fact-challenged half-truths to sneak into the introduction of one of our greatest presidents.HedgeFundBob (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that ones greatness as a president is not dependent on who one does or does not have sex with? The only sensationalism is in your mind. Paul B (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have two Jefferson bibliographies on my desk right now. Thomas Jefferson: Author of America states, unequivocally, "It was in Paris that Jefferson met her, and began an affair that was to continue for many years, produce many children, expose him to considerable scandal - and needlessly baffle generations of American historians." Of course, Hitchens is well-known as a dupe who will believe just about anything on the flimsiest evidence. And Bernstein's Thomas Jefferson states "The new consensus that the Jefferson-Hemings relationship did exist rests on three pillars: the close analysis of circumstantial evidence and oral tradition in Gordon-Reed's book, the DNA study published in Nature, and the statistical analysis." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Academically accepted" is the best wording since this implies among historians. There could be many persons who personally believe Jefferson did not have children by Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good edit, Stephan Schulz. I believe the sentence is accurate and appropriate. Academics implies peer review. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (eced, but still relevant as an explanation...) I've rewritten it a bit. "Academically accepted" with the active voice makes no sense, and passive voice generally makes for weak and boring prose. I also took out the "certain", as it suggests a very restricted set, when in reality it was most of the major biographers of Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Yes, it is hilarious that I mixed up "safe" and "save" in a comment on grammar. It's 2:55 am here, and it's not my native language to begin with... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is fine. I had used the word "certain" to imply that Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson had actively sought to discount the view Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings. Malone, especially, was Jefferson's main biographer. I do not, however, object to removing "certain" from the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to 'historians'. Using a different word 'academics' leaves open the interpretation that historians have not changed their opinion, and only out-of-touch 'ivory-tower' types believe this. FurrySings (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jeffesron recording
The Thomas Jefferson recording appears to be a selection of the Wikipedia article rather then the full article. Nothing is mentioned of Jefferson and slavery in the lede section or any mention of Sally Hemings. I am not sure who approved of this recording before posting on Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken refs
As of right now, the following refs are broken: #11, #33, #34, #145, #223. I can't quite figure out what the sources are/were, if anyone else can figure it out that would be great.Shearonink (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All but the last seem fine to me. The very short references are simply pointers into the bibliography below. The last (#223) does not work for me, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a Bot ran on them and they all got fixed shortly after I posted that...the refs I mentioned had been nothing but red-linked/error-messages but they all look fine now. Sometimes editors alter/delete a single ref and don't realize that it is related to others or they put in a ref without previewing if it actually works, maybe one of those is what happened in this case?  Thanks for taking a look, this article gets so much traffic that I think it's a good idea to keep an eye on all its components.Shearonink (talk)

Why is TJ's paternity of Hemings' children being allowed to be presented as a foregone conclusion?
It doesn't matter what opinions of which historians have or haven't changed. Nothing about the DNA evidence has changed. It still doesn't conclusively prove Jefferson's paternity. The only thing that can be stated as fact is that someone in Jefferson's line fathered children with Hemings. This will be the case unless they exhume T Jefferson and take viable samples. Unqualified statements to the contrary are agenda-based and don't belong in this or any other Wikipedia article on the subject.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely unreasonable standard of proof. We have proved paternity (and murder, for that) to a reasonable degree of certainty for 5000 years without any DNA evidence. In the Jefferson case, scholarly opinion had already come around based on other evidence before the DNA analysis removed all reasonable doubt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Monticello has changed its website. In its section, "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account", the Monticello website reads, "Ten years later [referring to its 2000 report], TJF 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." That is sufficient for Wikipedia, especially as it is bolstered by other institutions, such as the National Genealogical Society.  Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you know that these people are all agenda-driven liberal Nazi Marxists bent on destroying American values? TheDarkOneLives returns to this page every few months to make exactly the same assertion. Nothing will convince him. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, the exact same and still correct assertion. Your hyperbole only discredits you and demonstrates your bias. There does not exist any irrefutable evidence that Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings. The ONLY way to show this irrefutably in the absence of a clear, substantiated admission by Jefferson himself - which is famously non-existent - is by direct DNA evidence - no researcher has or can provide this. My "agenda" is to stick with what the facts are. "most historians now believe that" - provides the basis to say it's believed by some based on what evidence could potentially suggest. It does not provide the basis to say "it is so." Your very language belies your agenda. Sure, direct DNA evidence would convince me - but it's not a matter of whether I'm convinced, it's a matter of what's proper for this forum. Trying to assert as immutable fact that which hasn't been established as immutable fact is improper and is exactly the kind of agenda-driven content that gives Wikipedia its flaky reputation.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not pertain to whether you are convinced in your personal opinion, but in showing what published researchers and scholars have concluded.Parkwells (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back at this with a sense of satisfaction that the misrepresentation that you and others desperately wanted to include is no longer represented in the article. - TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That applies to you as well pal - you can state what researchers have concluded as their opinion, Wikipedia is not a forum to interpret those opinions to fit an agenda. It has NOT been conclusively established as fact no matter how badly you want it to be, it remains in the realm of conjecture and likely always will and needs to be presented in the proper way.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. We can't know the truth about who impregnated whom back when; we can verify the consensus among scholars in the field.  That's what belong in the article, and what is in the article.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating "Hemings' children by Jefferson were seven-eighths European in ancestry..." is improperly stating this paternity as definitive fact, and is inconsistent in tone with the preceding paragraph "...historians ==>believe<== that the widower Jefferson had a 38-year intimate relationship...". What can be verified is the belief of the historians and it can properly ONLY be stated as such. They may have compelling reasons to believe this, it still isn't definitive. If a woman is trying to prove the paternity of her child in court, they take a sample of DNA from the alleged father. That isn't the case here. The DNA evidence that exists is not directly from Jefferson's remains. If it could be said that "DNA samples from Jefferson's remains have shown conclusively that Jefferson is/is not the father of..." it would be a different matter. This statement cannot be made and it is improper to present it as if it were.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to miss a central tenet of Y-Dna research: most of the time it's a game of the odds. In most cases, there won't be a definitive conclusion, but instead one inferred from the weight of circumstantial evidence. In the case of the Hemings offspring, the rarity of the Jefferson Y-Dna marker indicates that the parentage of those children can be assigned to a male Jefferson. From there, the circumstantial evidence relies on ascertaining the location of the possible fathers at the time of conception. Clearly, the preponderance of evidence points to Thomas Jefferson himself – a conclusion the Monticello website has come to endorse. In other words, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to the paternity of Thomas Jefferson. That's all that can be said. It's enough to have convinced most historians of any stature. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to the paternity of Thomas Jefferson. That's all that can be said. But that's not what is being said with "Hemings' children by Jefferson were..." This clearly asserts that these children were irrefutably Jefferson's and it's improper to do so. It's a mischaracterization & misuse of the references.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a mischaracterization of the sources; it is the way historians write about the past. Given that TJF has said it and most historians believe that TJ was the father, it is appropriate to go on from there and talk about the Hemings' children's ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, 'only' the preponderance of evidence points towards Obama being born in Hawaii. And yet we state it as fact. The same standard applies here.
 * Guys, nothing is going to sway TDOL. This argument is becoming repetitive -- it's becoming a waste of time. I suggest we put a tag on this conversation and point here every time this issue comes up. FurrySings (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fallacious, incorrect arguments aren't going to sway me. Your Obama analogy is fallacious - there's a signed, dated state document attesting to his birth. Prior to this being released, it was completely reasonable to have suspicions and it was due to Obama's own obstinacy that these suspicions were fueled. There are plenty of examples of Presidents telling outright lies. In the Jefferson case, there is insufficient genetic evidence to make a definitive statement that he sired any Hemings children. The arguments for the notion that he did need to be stated for what they are - opinion (and not unanimous opinion) of researchers - and not stretched to be what they aren't.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem not to understand genetics, and especially Y-Dna markers. The evidence indicates that among a handful of men in Virginia at the time of Heming's conception was the putative father. In the small environs of Albemarle County, it's a matter of tracking the whereabouts of those who might have sired the children. Overwhelming evidence points to one man out of a handful. No, it's not 100 percent – but it's as close as one can probably get – and close enough to convince the Monticello foundation and most scholars. Case closed. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "You seem not to understand genetics" Apparently your understanding is shaky if you say "...it's as close as one can probably get..." As close as one can get is with a direct sample which isn't available. Just your use of "probably" is hedging and frames it for what it is, as are the phrases that keep coming up in relation to this subject such as "high probability", "strongly suggest". A definitive conclusion based on technology that's available but not possible to utilize therefore cannot be made and it's not within the scope of Wikipedia to claim otherwise. The only thing that can be definitively stated is that a male from the Jefferson line fathered the children.


 * "...close enough to convince the Monticello foundation..." Really? I find no mention of a "Monticello Foundation" related to Thomas Jefferson. I assume you don't mean the Monticello Foundation of Monticello, UT? Are you perhaps thinking of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation? If so is this sloppy use of words representative of your approach to "facts"? Looking at the section on Sally Hemings let's see what they actually say. Whaddya know, they *don't* make the unqualified statement that Jefferson was the father. The qualified term "most likely" is used. Pompous pronouncements of "case closed" don't change *actual* Wikipedia standards or available facts. Opinions of researchers need to be presented as just that.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting too is that they include a mention of Thomas Woodson though there isn't even a proven connection to Sally Hemings, let alone to Jefferson. This is based on "oral history" and "Woodson family tradition"...?? I.e. its inclusion is capitulation to social pressure despite there being no actual evidence.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They likely included a mention of Woodson as he has been a figure often discussed as a possible descendant of Jefferson. They certainly show there was no DNA match.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not twist my words or take them out of context. I began this discussion by noting that attribution in genetics is often a game of probabilities. I explicitly said "the preponderance of evidence" points to Thomas Jefferson as the father. That is a conclusion also reached by nearly every professional geneticist who has written about the case, as noted by NOVA in their show on the topic, which noted that the evidence "leav[es] Thomas Jefferson as still the most likely father of Eston Hemings Jefferson." As far as your point about the 'Monticello Foundation,' I didn't capitalize the word, and simply used it as shorthand, as the Thomas Jefferson Foundation hosts its website as monticello.org. I figured anyone familiar with this topic would understand that. In any case, as I said initially, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to Jefferson as the father – a stance even the Foundation now concedes, despite some tough grappling with this issue among its members, some of whom were (as you can imagine) taken aback by the irrefutable genetic evidence initially. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your words and their context are there for all to see. You misstated the name of the foundation and further made an imprecise claim about what the foundation says on the subject. They do NOT make an unqualified assertion of Jefferson's paternity. So much for your "closed case". The fact that they also include "family oral traditions" (with prominent disclaimers) gives a clue to what's behind the statements. Since it can't be stated with the level of precision that's technically possible but not plausible - they're not going to exhume Jefferson to get a sample - it has to be stated for what it is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're the one over-interpreting the website and jumping from one statement to try to discount another. I provided a direct quote from the page devoted to "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings."


 * You missed the statement that the TJF has changed their website to reflect that they do accept TJ as father of Hemings' children. I will be changing other Hemings' pages to show that.


 * Incidentally, the full statement by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation states: "Ten years later, TJF 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." MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Emphasizing a word still doesn't change the qualified context in which it's used.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All you're doing is regurgitating the same speculative phrases. Preponderance, weight of, most likely, believe that - all qualified. No matter how often you throw up more of the same the fact remains that none of them can point to definitive DNA evidence that irrefutably proves or disproves it to the degree that is possible and this needs to be consistently reflected in the article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm simply telling you what the Thomas Jefferson Foundation believes, as per their statement. If you're not interested in that, I think you're probably editing the wrong article. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that we state without any qualification that "Jefferson's father was Peter Jefferson, a planter and surveyor in Albemarle County (Shadwell, then Edge Hill, Virginia.)", although genetic evidence only constrains his paternity to about 423 million possibilities. Double standard? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's corroboration and documentation of Peter Jefferson being the father of TJ. Neither TJ or SH wrote anything affirming that he was the father of her children.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We should tag this discussion rather than continuing to argue about it here because an editor disagrees with reliable sources; there must be an administrative solution. Don't waste your time - we did not make up the academic position, and the article reflects a minority disagrees. The majority of historians now accept these conclusions, based on their reliance of the usual historical evidence (such as Hemings never conceiving except when TJ was documented as being at Monticello), supported by the DNA match of the male line. Parkwells (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article reflects WP:RS and WP:NPOV. TheDarkOne disagrees with what the reliable sources say currently but offers no sources that support his personal opinion about how to interpret the historical body of evidence and DNA study, nor a familiarity with the sources that many editors have provided here. His position seems to be "I DON'T LIKE IT", but that is not sufficient for engaging in this discussion or changing the content of the article.Parkwells (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You've totally missed the point. What I take exception to is not what the sources say but how what they say is represented in the article. None of the sources can state with the degree of certainty that is potentially possible with current technology that Jefferson is the father yet the wording in parts of the article reflects otherwise. I don't care whether Jefferson fathered children with Hemings or not. What I have a problem with is seeing more of the same agenda-driven content that's all over Wikipedia because a particular faction focuses their attention on an article. *All* of the sources offer qualified opinions and that's how it should be reflected in the article. One other vocal editor offered a misrepresentation of what a source said, couldn't even be bothered to get the name of the source correct. I further pointed out that among the content at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation site which this editor relies heavily upon also includes a so-called "Jefferson child" that can't even been factually linked to Sally Hemings let alone to Jefferson, yet there he is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are trying to establish a different standard. WP policy asks for statements to be verifiable. That's what is done in the article: a variety of reliable sources are cited for what is said. You are asking for more qualification than they use. Annette Gordon-Reed's second book, The Hemingses of Monticello (2008), is based on Jefferson's paternity. It won the Pulitzer Prize for history and 15 other major historical awards. In 2010 she was awarded a MacArthur Prize; for her "persistent investigation into the life of an iconic American president [that] has dramatically changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship." . Such awards represent historic consensus.Parkwells (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "WP policy asks for statements to be verifiable" What can be verified is what various sources say they believe the limited evidence points to. No matter what awards her book won, she still can't produce conclusive DNA evidence that doesn't exist. She's still in the "believes that", "evidence suggests" realm just like all the others.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All editors, please keep the tone civil.Parkwells (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, it is a foregone conclusion. Reliable sources do indeed conclude that Sally Hemings' sons and daughter were the children of Thomas Jefferson. That's what Wikipedia must, therefore, report. If another reliable source disputes that conclusion, than Wikipedia should report that, as well. None of that, however, changes what the reliable sources do, in fact, conclude. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * yes, it is a foregone conclusion. Only to those who take it upon themselves to make unscholarly leaps the research doesn't support. It is in all cases stated in a qualified manner.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether, you believe the reliable sources are good scholars or bad scholars, is neither here nor there. Whether, you dispute the conclusion of the reliable sources, is of no moment.  Whether, you're convinced by the reliable sources, is wholely unimportant. Your entire line of argument is plainly irrelevant, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the summary - we have reported both in this article.Parkwells (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The circumstancial evidence of Jefferson's paternity for Sally Heming's children can not be ignored. The Dr. Foster DNA test ruled out the Carr brothers as potential DNA donors.  Jefferson's brother Randolph would be the only genetic alternative, however, there is currently not enough circumstancial evidence to support a Randolph paternity. Thomas Jefferson fits both the DNA and circumstancial evidence. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The circumstancial evidence of Jefferson's paternity for Sally Heming's children can not be ignored Nor should it be, but it remains circumstantial.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that Herbert Barger who was directly involved in the DNA testing has some interesting things to say on the matter, here in the reviews section of the AGR book at Amazon.com as well as elsewhere. Never heard of him until until the last couple of days but I see he says essentially the same thing I've been saying. I realize this won't sway those who see Wikipedia as a forum to push their pet agenda. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ZC9MLWNMOCXZ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2ZC9MLWNMOCXZ TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think a comment of an Amazon reviewer is remotely reliable as a source you are in LaLaland. There is no agenda other than the truth. It's difficult to see how this unremarkable fact could advance anyone's ideological interests. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is a book review by an Amazon reviewer. Although a good review, as a source this would be unreliable.  No "pet agenda" is being pushed here.  Jefferson did own slaves.  He was against slavery because he believed the institution was destroying white society, not black.  The instititution was also allowing him to live the "high life" on Monticello.  Jefferson spoke out against living on debt, and yet, he was vastly in debt at the end of his life.  He said "All men are created equal" and enslaved hundreds of blacks on his Virginia plantation.  None of this is done to denigrate Jefferson as a man and founding father or take away any of his vast intellectual and political contributions to the young nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Herbert Barger is a family historian and one of the founders of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, devoted to "protecting" Jefferson's reputation from his own historic activities. It commissioned a Scholars Report that concluded in 2001 there was not sufficient evidence to determine that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children, and that Randolph Jefferson was a more likely candidate. This is covered in the Jefferson article, as well as the strong criticism of the report for its failure to use accepted historical practices and ignoring the body of evidence. Randolph Jefferson was never seriously proposed as a candidate until AFTER the DNA results showed a match between the Hemings descendant and the Jefferson male line - as noted in the article. Barger has undertaken an independent campaign on the Internet to argue his group's point: in Amazon book reviews, comments in various places and all over.  He does not have standing as an academic historian such as Joseph Ellis or others who have published on Jefferson.Parkwells (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no "forgone conclusion" mentioned in the article lede. The lede simply states that current historians have accepted Jefferson was the father to Sally Heming's children.  The article discusses the paternity topic, yet, does not directly state Jefferson fathered Heming's children but rather states what modern historians have concluded. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this still up for debate? This topic was closed months ago. I'm a historian and I can tell you that the overall conclusion in the historical community is that Jefferson fathered some, if not all, of Hemings children. This is widely accepted. I do not understand why so much credence is given to a small, but vocal, group of historical deniers. This is ludicrous. Enough already. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that this particular topic has been closed. If you think the discussion has reached an end, then you can always contact an administrator and ask them to close this particular discussion per Closing discussions.  I am not sure that a closure is necessary yet but you're welcome to ask an admin to look in on the discussion.  Shearonink (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion is not aiding the article. Editors are supposed to follow the reliable sources, not insist on their own points of view. The academic consensus among most historians is that Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings and fathered her six children. That is what has been written about him in academic histories of more than the last decade. It is time that the Wikipedia reflect this.  Historians writing about this are receiving major prizes in their field, Monticello has adopted the consensus and reflected it in exhibits, publications, staff training, etc. There are no grounds for presenting less consensus here. Parkwells (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson "Family" section
Nothing is mentioned that Thomas Jefferson inherited slaves from his father Peter Jefferson in the Thomas Jefferson Family section. Why? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Add it back; I agree that it should be in there, as it provides an immediate context for understanding who Jefferson was and what position he had in his society. Don't know who took it out.Parkwells (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Madison Hemings‎
There is currently a dispute between myself and darkonelive about what the article on Madison Hemings‎ should say about Thomas Jefferson's paternity. I argue that it should be the same as what is stated on this page, darkonelive has his own ideas. I'ld appreciate it if the more experienced people here have a look. FurrySings (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no dispute. The article(s) needs to reflect what research actually says, what the consensus actually is. All sources offer qualified conclusions, because that's all the evidence that's currently available will support. They all essentially say - "yeah, probably." But the "probably" is important and unavoidable. If the evidence were rock-solid - a conclusive (and uncontroversial) direct DNA match - see what Foster's research assistant has to say about the DNA study such as it is, or even an uncontested public admission by Jefferson, a big chunk of this article would be a moot point and Gordon-Reed wouldn't have fame based on a long-winded bit of speculating.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't pay too much attention; the article should reflect what is here. There is academic consensus for accepting that Jefferson is the father of all Hemings' children - see discussion above.Parkwells (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Among the elements that historians rely on is an early 2000s statistical analysis of Hemings' conception dates and Jefferson's residencies at Monticello, during years of extensive travel. She only conceived when he was there; there is a 99 percent chance that he is the father of all her children. Parkwells (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And whenever Jefferson arrived home from a long absence, he was visited by relatives. This leaves plausible room for doubt. You think they were likely to put in their journal "whilst welcoming home brother Thomas and partaking in the merrymaking hither, I didst once again take a roll in the hay with his fetching slave Sally."?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Most historians do not agree with you. You are welcome to try to provide quotes and reliable sources to support your view, but the field has moved on. Your personal opinion is not important to the content of the article; the policy is to follow the scholarship, which has changed.Parkwells (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize you've made this and related articles your pet project as evidenced by the edit history, and you apparently think you in some way "own" the referenced sources and your dismissive hand-waves are compelling - they aren't. My issue is and will continue to be that the article needs to reflect what the sources actually say.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Overview of historical research and controversy: why?
Why does this article have whole sections describing the development of the opinions of historians about the paternity of Sally Hemings' children? This has absolutely nothing to do with Thomas Jefferson! It seems to me that of the whole section 7 (Life as a widower), only 7.1 (Sally Hemings and her children) belongs in this article. The rest could be put into a separate article, "History of scholarly opinion about paternity of Sally Hemings' children" or something similar.

Especially the paragraph on 'Nineteenth century biographers ... the above 20-th century historians ...' seem completely unrelated to the topic of this article. I am sure there are many other topics where historians' opinions changed over time... KarlFrei (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ignoring controversy does not make controversy go away. The circumstantial evidence and the DNA evidence has been put in the article, not as a judgment against Thomas Jefferson, rather as historical research and evidence.  The reader can make their own opinions and judgments on Thomas Jefferson.  Who else could be the father of Sally Hemings' children? Randolf Jefferson.  However, he was not at Monticello each time Sally Hemings got pregnant, as Thomas Jefferson was. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There were people who objected to simply having a summary of current opinion, but wanted to have the history of the controversy. The section which KarlFrei objects to above was in answer to other editors who objected to just having a summary. I agree that now, a decade past the shift in scholarship, should be sufficient time to come to the conclusions without the history. It did have much to do with Thomas Jefferson, as he and his public position were the reason there was any controversy at all, and that it went on for so long.Parkwells (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this biography article should have only a summary. There rest belongs in a separate article on the debates --which deals largely with various historians and tests after his death and thus is historiography rather than biography. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm ready to do that, too, with a brief summary of the evidence that changed the nearly 200-year-old consensus on Jefferson, as the controversy belonged to him. Let me give it a try.Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a summary and a separate article. Looking at the article again though, I think this section should be merged with the section on his family, preferably with a similar list of his black children as there is now of his white children. (It also puts the whole business about him 'never remarrying' in quite a different light.) KarlFrei (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good move. That section was easily big enough to deserve a sub-article with a brief summary here.  --Coemgenus (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work; I also agree with you in terms of putting his second family in the Marriage and family section; that is where I originally had it many months ago. Will move it now.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a problem, as Talk page history on this topic was not moved to the new article: Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children. It has been nominated for deletion for that reason, and someone else thinks it is the same as the DNA article, which it is not.  Also, there has been raging debate about the controversy on this page for months, this year alone, since January; it would likely had been better if you had sought consensus on the title before making the move. I think the article should be renamed, to what the topic has been called: Jefferson-Hemings controversy, as the controversy belonged to him - the issue was whether he was the father. Otherwise people would not have cared about her children.  He was the public figure whom people examined; his writings were the ones analyzed; his reputation was what his family and historians thought had to be protected for nearly 200 years.Parkwells (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I did not know that it was possible to move a talk page as well. I do not have much experience in creating new articles. Is this just a matter of copy and paste? Should I copy the relevant discussion here to that talk page? I am not committed to the name, we can easily change it. KarlFrei (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have experience with that, either - suggest you look at Wiki help pages for that. It probably is cut and paste. There has been so much heated discussion on this article that the Talk page has been repeatedly archived. Maybe it's sufficient to use the talk of the last several months (what is current), rather than copying many Archives - that's one thing to check. We can compare solutions later.Parkwells (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)