Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 14

Need for more, and more logical, rearrangement
My first reaction to Parkwell's move of Jefferson marriage down to Personal life was to revert it. Reason: Martha Wayles Skelton is part of his "official" biography while Sally Hemings and Maria Cosway are skeletons in his closet. Therefore, it seemed more fitting to me to put Martha up in his early life but leave Sally and Maria down in the euphemistically title "Personal life," which really details his peccadilloes.

But! On rereading the well-written lede, it occurs to me the whole article should follow the order laid out there. What think ye? Yopienso (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The latest round of monkeys beating the article with a stick has actually degraded the structure. Who had the bright idea of putting the UVA section up in the presidency section? TJ's founding of UVA had nothing to do with his presidency. A lede section of an article is supposed to highlight the body; not the other way around. As I said about two weeks ago the "later years" section should have been changed to "personal life" and should include anything not related to his political or public life. This would include Hemmings, marriage and family, retirement and death, and UVA. Again I'm stressing that this would likely only be a temporary fix as there's a very good chance the article will need more sectioning work later on. The amount of time and discussion being put into sectioning right now is crazy. Brad (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad, you need to cool your tone a bit. While UVA, should be placed accordingly it alone has not "degraded the structure", overall. And by referring to editors as "Monkeys ..." are you including yourself in that picture? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yopienso, we have had a Call for Opinion for a proposal in which "Marriage and family" is to be included in Jefferson's "Personal life", for which a consensus has been achieved, and to which you agreed above on January 1, 2012. While the page is really confusing, please don't reopen this issue. For the last decade, the academic consensus on Jefferson's role in Hemings' life is that Sally Hemings and her children are part of Jefferson's official biography, as shown in Reliable Sources repeatedly cited on this page and in the article, and, for instance, in exhibits and discussions at Monticello, the major public history site devoted to him, as well as in the National Park Service biography online. Some historians disagree, which we have noted.  If you want to discuss the issues related to consensus and the controversy, please go to the main article of Jefferson-Hemings controversy. Parkwells (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Hemings is part of TJ's "official" bio; read it here. Even the notorious womanizer, JFK, is spared such details in his official bio, despite present-day claims that at least one of his dalliances compromised national security. Clinton's indiscretion with ML, however, is part of his official bio because it occasioned his impeachment, a very public event. See the difference? I am not sweeping Hemings or Cosway under the rug, but putting them in their appropriate place. Yopienso (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Parkwells, once again, you engage in a discussion, assert several one-sided opinions and then turn around and tell someone else to take it to a different location. You need to abide by the orders you give to others and stop with the POV claims altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying to remind Yopienso what the proposal was which he already said he supported. We have agreed on a summary for the J-H controversy section, and it is appropriate to ask editors wanting to discuss the topic more deeply to do it at that main article. The consensus and disagreement is covered in the article in a like manner to disagreements about other academic matters.Parkwells (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Yopienso, I did not understand that your reference of "official biography" was to the White House website. Editors for the Wikipedia articles have always drawn and written about more than WH official biographies. This article in Wikipedia has always had more material than the WH website, and uses material that a variety of biographers and historians have written. Cosway was referenced before that, including in the noted Dumas Malone biography of the mid-twentieth century. The biographer Joseph Ellis addressed the issue of Hemings in 1993 before the DNA study, so historians have considered this aspect of Jefferson's private life worthy of treatment in his biography. For the last decade, academic historians and biographers of Jefferson generally have included Hemings and Cosway as part of his personal life in any biography. While some historians disagree, as we have acknowledged here, the most common treatment of Jefferson's private life includes his paternity of Hemings' children, as seen in books, and other examples, such as exhibits at Monticello, the prime public history site for Jefferson, which identifies him as the father of Hemings children. Another example is the US National Park Service's online biography of Jefferson. It is for these reasons that editors have supported a section that collects all his relationships under "Personal life".


 * I will open a new section below to respond in order to make following the conversation easier. Yopienso (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have suggested before to look up other presidencial articles Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur. Both currently have FA status and I believe would help with arranging this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The George Washington article, Jefferson's contemporary, is currently in GA status and would be good to look at. That article incorporates Washington's marriage into a "Between the Wars" segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Parkwells is correct that I changed my mind on putting J.'s marriage down after his presidency. Please note that the Washington, Hayes, and Arthur bios include their marriages chronologically, and that GW's and Hayes' bios have later Personal/Private life sections. Yopienso (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I believe that the Presidential articles need to match up or be in similar format. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After all that are we now considering putting 'Marriage and family' back to its original location? I agree and maintained before that 'Marriage be left where it was. However, now that we have settled on locations I don't think this idea is going be too well received by some of the nice folks out there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

source paraphrase
I placed a paraphrase tag in the Virginia state legislator and Governor section. The source was a History.com article. Text needs to be rewritten but also history.com won't pass the reliability test so other sources should be used. Brad (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Page shaping up
On a more positive note, this page has finally shaped up considerably in the last month or so. We now have the 'Controversy' section better summarized and moved to a location after Presidency, Declaration etc. and now doesn't assert a POV about "most historians". Though 'Controversy could be better placed per section name, IMO, the more important thing is that it's in a better overall location, is no longer listed under 'Family life' and presents a more neutral view per controversies. Those were the original concerns. Now we need to better summarize slavery/views, religion, as there are dedicated pages for these topics also. Also, what about a brief summarized section for 'Monticello' that links to its main page? Many of the topics on this page relate to it. Seems the page is lacking in that area. Last, as there are many dedicated Jefferson pages that link to this page, perhaps a nav-list or nav-box of links to those pages would help the reader. As it is, links to these pages are all over the page. When the reader is done reading the page and decides to review or look into a topic he/she won't have to pan through the page to find the link to the dedicated page in question. It will also remind the reader of these pages who may have forgotten about them by the time he/she gets to the end of the article. Ideas to consider. Aside from that, once things are adequately summarized we then can work to retaining the GA status this page once had, years ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I noted when you brought up the GA Status earlier, the reasons the article lost its status have nothing to do with your concerns about Hemings, Slavery or any of the above sections. You can see that by the summary discussion related to its review.Parkwells (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This was not asserted, but at the same time don't think for a minute that those bloated sections for Hemings and slavery have anything to do with regaining GA status. However, it seems we're on the right track now. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone please provide a link to the GA review? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Yopienso. Here is the link, but if you look at the top of this Talk page, you can find it: Go to the brown section on "Thomas Jefferson as Good article".  Click on "Show", and you will see links to the Peer review in 2008 and Delisting sections (the latter took place in September 2009.) Review editors emphasized use of appropriate cites and other issues.Parkwells (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A new suggestion
Since Gwillhickers "knows" that "most people" only read this article to gain insight into Jefferson's political life, we should keep up with the long historical tradition of putting women and children last. This is also in keeping with Jefferson's having been known as a very private person. Since his privacy at long last has been destroyed by the controversy (which only exists because of his status, but never mind), I suggest we honor the great man by putting the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" and "Marriage and family" as the last two sections of the article before his death. This is in keeping with many other articles that have put women and children last, because no one would want to think they might be important to the great man himself or his personal desires to do something in the world, which is why they disappeared from the consideration of mainline history for so long. The order of the last two sections is because, making use of new technology and considering "page view stats" as an indication of reader interest (which should determine how this article is set up, according to Gwillhickers), "Sally Hemings" gets nearly eight times the number of views than does "Martha Wayles Jefferson" (see Stephan Schulz's helpful discussion above). See how interesting it is to use facts? We might need to do a little minor editing for appropriate segue between the sections in that order, but no doubt the trusty editors can rise to the challenge. Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Parkwells, you're really getting ridiculous with this. Jefferson's factual wife belongs near the beginning of his biography just as any other person's wife/husband belongs in theirs. This baloney about women and children last is nonsense. First the race baiting now this. Hemings only gets more reads than Jefferson's wife because again, this lady has been exploited with the very sort of divisive and polarizing nonsense both you and Schulz have brought to this page. No one said Hemings doesn't belong on the page. Only that she doesn't factor into American history and the fate of the nation as do the other topics. And the Hemings issue, if she was involved with Jefferson, occurred later in his life, after Martha had passed on. Jefferson's involvement with the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, Louisiana Purchase, etc came first, and regardless, are much more important issues regarding Jefferson and American history than any woman Jefferson may have saw on the side in his later life and need to be presented in the biography as such, ala due weight. You need to focus on the entire biography if you're going to make this page your second home. You have kept this talk page and the main page absorbed with this topic too long. Please treat this biography just like any other. This is the only presidential biography that some other person has taken center stage on. Please stop this and treat this biography like any other. Thanks for your understanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, the Louisiana purchase happened during Jefferson's presidency, when Martha had been dead for more that 20 years, and Hemings had borne at least 4 children. If you want to continue to participate in this discussion, I would very much appreciate it if you could read one or two Jefferson biographies (I think Bernstein's Thomas Jefferson is a good primer, or see Clay Jenkinson's recommendations here), and maybe even read our article series a couple of times to get a basic understanding of Jefferson's bio. That would allow us to concentrate on real points of contention, instead of being distracted over and over again when you make confident but wrong statements about uncontested historical facts. If you trust me with a mailing address (sent privately via the "Email this user" link), I'll get Amazon to forward you a copy of Gordon-Reed's Controversy as a gesture of goodwill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are numerous articles that have Personal life, or Marriage and family, at the end in Wikipedia, whether they follow WP guidelines or not, and whether you have seen them or not. We can decide to do this:


 * chronologically, as the article is mostly set up, and be consistent, in which Hemings arrives before the LA Purchase, which also followed Callender's allegations about her, as it related to an election cycle.
 * Or, we can go by association - which is that Jefferson's actions as a widower can be seen as part of his "private life," starting several years after his wife's death, and should follow Marriage and family, as in the same category of topic. This is the case for other men who have numerous wives or relationships; they are put in one place.
 * Or, we can go by facts and stats: numbers of page views, in which case no one's opinion enters into it. You say there are reasons for the stats, which you don't like - that is only your POV. In this case, we would put the controversy before Jefferson's wife.  OK, I'll compromise - put Marriage and family, followed by Jefferson-Hemings controversy - both as the last two paragraphs before his death. You argue every which way, Gwillhickers, trying to make a solution you like, but have no consistent approach.
 * The controversy does not belong in the Slavery section, as it had to do with his private life.Parkwells (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thomas Jefferson and Martha were married in 1772, years before the Louisiana Purchase. And since Hemings was a slave mention of her affairs could very well be placed there or after it. And it was not my contention that the biography be strictly ordered on a chronological basis, only that it gave due weight to the things that factored into Jefferson's life and US history, that which directly effected the fate of the nation and the lives of millions of people. Hemings is hardly a factor in that. And while it can be argued that Martha did not factor is as such, she was his wife and so its entirely appropriate that Marriage and family be covered near the beginning of the article. Again, this is the only presidential biography where anyone (Hemings) has gotten this much attention and coverage for so long. There has been progress, but not with out a lot of foot dragging. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to repeat myself, but in the section above I endorsed the third option: putting Marriage and family, followed by Jefferson-Hemings controversy as the last two paragraphs before his death. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interest of compromise I'll go along, but the idea seems to be offered only because it was suggested that Hemings be listed somewhere else. The issue was placement of Hemings. Why should Martha, marriage and family be put anywhere else other than where it has always been? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * this is the only presidential biography where anyone (Hemings) has gotten this much attention and coverage for so long - you sure have not looked at Bill Clinton with related articles Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, Lewinsky scandal,... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First, you're not addressing why Martha/Marriage should be moved and why this was never considered until it was pointed out that Hemings had no effect on US history and the fate of the nation and should not be placed before the many important topics that have effected the lives of millions people. Secondly, the Lewinsky scandal, established facts, only takes up a few paragraphs located further down in the page and has had it's share of disputes but has not dominated the page/discussion and brought discord and disruption to that page nearly in the proportions that Hemings and the POV/undue weight issues have here -- but for the sake of argument, let's say it has -- it remains an exception to the rule and doesn't justify what has occurred on this page for so long. It seems Hemings would not have gotten a fraction of the attention, here, or from others, if she were white and just some lady on the side. Other presidents have had mistresses, confirmed mistresses, and they are duly mentioned briefly, without all the POV/undue weight nonsense, as should the Hemings allegations. Last, Hemings has been and remains exploited for social and political reasons and only because she is part black, and WP should not be manipulated to further this advent. Again, it seems Martha/marriage wished to be moved along with Hemings for vindictive reasons as no one had a mind to do so until it was suggested that Hemings be moved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that Jefferson's relationship with Hemings had no effect on US history. Notable 20th-century historians such as David Brion Davis have suggested that it was because of his relationship with her that Jefferson, following his return from Paris, was characterized by his "immense silence" about slavery and did little to ameliorate or end it in the US. His lack of action did affect millions of people.Parkwells (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remember to "assume good faith" rather than accusing other editors of having nothing but "vindictive reasons" to put "Marriage and family" and "J-H controversy" in a section together related to Jefferson's private life. It is consistent with his life.Parkwells (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A "personal life" section would and could take a lot of sections and turn them to subsections. The section currently named "later years" could be a "personal life" section or something more aptly named for whatever content goes there. Brad (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells' revert

 * User Sunray moved the 'Jefferson-Hemings controversy' section to a more appropriate location, after the sections covering major events in US history that Jefferson was a part of, but Parkwells has moved it back claiming there is no consensus to move it there. I would like to know where the consensus was to begin with to have it in its present location. Sunray and myself want it moved, Parkwells obviously does not and I think we can safely assume Schulz does not. Can we get a better consensus on this? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus was among the editors who have worked on this article consistently in the past year.
 * Whether one location for the Jefferson-Hemings controversy is more appropriate than another is a matter of opinion.  That being said, I think it is misplaced when it is under 'Early life and career' since Sally Hemings was not part of Jefferson's early life and was also not part of his early career.  I think that a better placement would be either under 'Political career from 1775 to 1800'  (since the controversy dates from Callender in the 1790s) or under 'Reputation'.  I do not think it belongs under 'Slavery'. --Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Placement of the 'Controversy section under Slavery was suggested because Hemings was a slave, but like you suggest the controversy is not about slavery itself and Hemings was certainly not part of Jefferson's 'Early life'. However Hemings and slavery could be subsections to a section called 'Life at Monticello', or just 'Monticello'. This section could not only touch on slavery, and Hemings but all that went on there. It could also cover Jefferson's plans for the house itself, Jefferson the planter, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shearonink and Gwillhickers that it doesn't belong in "Early life" (which is why I moved it). I'm not stuck on it being in the "Slavery" section and could see it being either in the "Reputation" section or in a new section on "Monticello." Sunray (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hemings issue is something new in "Jefferson Scholarship" as we keep hearing repeated, so in the sense of articles that run chronologically this new discovery should be last on the list. I'm the one who moved Hemings into marriage and family some weeks ago while I was doing section work. It seemed like the best place at the time. It's ridiculous to argue where it should go now when it's very likely the article will get more sectioning work as I have time other than watching The Hemings Circus on the talk page. Brad (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Sally Hemings & her children/Jefferson-Hemings controversy was in the Marriage & family section at some point before. I wasn't under the impression that this particular discussion was an argument, but sometimes gathering consensus around Wikipedia can be a messy business I suppose... I think the Jefferson-Hemings controversy is a better fit in the Reputation section as most of its dates/scholarship date from 1998 and after.  Placing it within the Slavery section is bothersome to me, the controversy is not about slavery per se but rather about people, another family that Jefferson had/was alleged to have had. --Shearonink (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Placed it temporarily in "Political career from 1775 to 1800", where the beginning of the relationship falls chronologically. If it is not to be included in a "Private life" section, it is appropriate here, as Callender's allegations about the relationship and Hemings' children figured during a later political campaign.Parkwells (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much un-biographical material
In the 'Jefferson-Hemings controversy' section there is too much material that is not biographical to Jefferson and only serves to highlight other topics. These are the three passages in question.


 * In 1997, Annette Gordon-Reed published a book that analyzed the historiography of the controversy, demonstrating how historians since the nineteenth century had accepted early assumptions and failed to note all the facts. A consensus began to emerge after the results of a DNA analysis in 1998, which showed no match between the Carr male line, proposed for more than 150 years as the father(s), and the one Hemings descendant tested. It did show a match between the Jefferson male line and the Hemings descendant.


 * Since 1998 and the DNA study, many historians have accepted that the widower Jefferson had a long intimate relationship with Hemings, and fathered six children with her, four of whom survived to adulthood. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), which runs Monticello, conducted an independent historic review in 2000, as did the National Genealogical Society in 2001; both reported scholars who concluded Jefferson was likely the father of all Hemings' children.


 * Critics, such as the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS) Scholars Commission (2001), have argued against the TJF report. They have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine that Jefferson was the father of Hemings's children. The TJHS report suggested that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph Jefferson could have been the father, and that Hemings may have had multiple partners.

The Jefferson biography should mention Hemings, the premise of the controversy and leave all the detailed specialized information on the dedicated pages that cover this material more than adequately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The "controversy" seems pretty important right now and many readers will probably be led to the article for some info on that. I think it is a good idea to give the gist of the subject so that readers are adequately informed and those who want more can follow the link to the main article. Sunray (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; this is what a summary is. And let's slow down here. Within the last week, it seemed the editors working on this page reached consensus on the use of this summary, as being a good account of the basic facts, issues, and RS of the controversy. It has to present some of this to make any sense. Gwillhickers is now trying to re-open the content of the summary.  Before getting into that, I suggest we see if there is a consensus among the editors to use this summary to account for Hemings and her place in Jefferson's life.  See below.  I have created a new section header immediately below because GWillhicker was including topics from more than section.Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede
An editor reverted a statement in the Lede that refers to criticism by historians since the mid-twentieth century of Jefferson's stand on slavery. This is an accurate summary of a major point of the article; it does not mean that historians do not think Jefferson is great, but contemporary historians have also criticized him in this area. The short statement is supported by the content of the article, including the Historical Reputation section.Parkwells (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on including marriage chronologically but Cosway/Hemings toward the end
Please see my first post ( 23:21, 6 January) under "Structure" above and 3 previous posts above that (10:07, 6 January; 19:40, 6 January; 19:33, 6 January) for my rational. Briefly: Furthermore:
 * Monticello.org and the NPS (responsible for the Jefferson Memorial) do this.
 * WhiteHouse.gov omits Hemings.
 * Precedent in WP GA presidential bios for including marriages chronologically
 * Consider WP:UNDUE in lumping together two whispered relationships with an honorable marriage. The marriage deserves much greater weight. (The Hemings relationship is of great interest and has great import to the African-American community and to all thinking people. Therefore, it has a whole article to itself. It should not be a large part of this one.) Yopienso (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe marriage and family can be included in the article without a separate heading, possibly in the Early life section. I believe this is important since this was Jefferson's official public marriage. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Editors keep saying the marriage and family "deserve" greater weight, but they do not cite sources, so it is personal opinion. Oddly, no editor who claims it is so important has bothered in all these months of heated discussion to find any additional sourced content for the Marriage and family section, so it does not appear to be really important. 2) As noted by other editors, the Cosway relationship has long been included in the major Jefferson biographies by academic scholars. It is not a "whispered relationship". He wrote a 4,000-word letter to the woman which is renowned for his expression, and kept up a lifelong correspondence. 3) The Hemings relationship is important for this article because of Jefferson's status, so it belongs here. Other editors and I have provided sourced content that discusses this. It is not a "large part" of the article, but a short summary.  The changes in understanding about Jefferson and his relationship with Hemings is a major change in Jeffersonian scholarship that is significant for understanding early American society and history. That is why it needs to be included. The denial by his family and by historians for so long relates to the difficulties of race in American history; that is not my POV, but the opinion of academic historians whom I have previously cited here and who are the RS we are supposed to be following. 4) There has not been an RfC to limit this article to something comparable to the bio of the White House site. Content has always been about describing the total man.Parkwells (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed they were whispered relationships. The mudslinging included printed and whispered charges that Jefferson, a slaveholder, maintained a "Congo Harem." ... The secret letters that passed between them [Jefferson and Cosway], their carriage rides, rendezvous and romance are described in loving detail. Yopienso (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your link goes to a 1993 book review, so its a good "before" example for the "before and after" case. And the "whisper" does not refer to Cosway, whose relationship with Jefferson is apparently "described in loving detail". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm using "whispered relationship" to mean hush-hush, on the QT, secret, private. Illicit, even. TJ took pains not to divulge them. I can provide many sources for this, but believe it to be unnecessary as no one here could really doubt that these were private relationships that others only guessed and whispered about. Yopienso (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying Marriage and family deserve greater weight, just that in other Presidential biographies marriages are incorporated into the article. There would be no need for a separate "Marriage and family" section. Any alleged affairs, "financial misconduct",  or the Jefferson-Hemings "relationship" would be under a controversies or Personal life section. Jefferson was a lavish spender and greatly in debt.  That could be under the "Personal life" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't Marriage and family be given greater weight? Martha was Jefferson's wife for Pete's sake. And that's a fact, btw. I think we can assume the sources will support that. Pertinent facts should get greater weight than theories, esp when the latter, either way, has had virtually no impact on US history. Also, since the 'Controversy has its own section with its own title, why shouldn't Marriage and family? Presidents Monroe, Harrison, Lincoln (GA), Hayes(GA), B.Harrison(FA), T.Roosevelt, Coolidge, FDR, Ford(FA), Reagan(FA) all have sections for marriage or family life near the beginning of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The controversy of Jefferson-Hemings is signifigant. Wikipedia is not suppose to judge the moral superiority of marriage versus the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. Wikipedia is suppose to view Jefferson historically.  I believe his marrage would be best incorporated in the article rather then a seperate section in Personal life.  However, if consensus if that Marriage and family is in personal life that is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify:
 * As I said above,  I an not sweeping Cosway and Hemings under the rug. , but trying to include them in their appropriate place in this article. (Remember--there's another whole article on the Hemings controversy.)
 * I used the White House bios only as examples of official bios; this one should be more inclusive.
 * To examine first-rate current scholarship in a book that presents not one aspect like Gordon-Reed or that focuses on character, like Ellis, but "the total man," which is also our aim:
 * R.B. Bernstein's definitive 2003 bio gives Martha her due chronological place and gives Sally brief and equivocating attention later, finally treating the controversy in the epilog.
 * As recently as 1981 (pre-DNA tests), the great Dumas Malone dismissed the Hemings rumors. (Imo, he was profoundly mistaken.)
 * In conclusion: It is WP:UNDUE to put Jefferson's marriage into the same section as his dalliances. Yopienso (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bernstein mentions both Martha and Sally in chronological order in chapter 1, and several times later. They even are mentioned on the same page occasionally. However, he mentions Sally in the Introduction (page xiv) - not so for Martha. Interestingly, in the index of the book he unambiguously lists "Hemings, Harriet (TJ daughter)", "Hemings, James Madison (TJ son)", "Hemings, Thomas Eston (TJ son)", "Hemings, William Beverly (TJ son)". He also points out the names given to the children as significant (page 111 in the 2005 OUP paperback edition). I wonder how Jefferson's close friend James Madison felt about one particular choice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Madison Hemings' account, Dolly Madison asked Sally to name her child after her husband, and promised her a gift if she did. As I recall, Madison said she never delivered the gift. Some accounts say his full name was James Madison Hemings.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true. The introduction, on the 14th of 18 pages, naturally mentions the inclusion of recent scholarship; nothing new on Martha, who is given her due on pp. 10-11 as TJ's bride. The first mention of Sally in the text is in parentheses on p. 13. as one of the slaves Martha brought to her marriage; the context is the finances of the Southern plantation owners. The next mention is at Martha's deathbed as a witness to Martha's request that TJ not remarry. We do not meet Sally as a person in her own right until after Martha's death when she goes to Paris as the girls' nursemaid. Let's keep our article equally chronological. Yopienso (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Equally chronological? That would require mention of Jefferson having Sally bring his daughter to Paris, and the beginning of their relationship during that time, after his affections were stirred by Maria Cosway in Paris.  Jefferson's time there was important for his life.Parkwells (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and there she is, in the Minister to France section! Yopienso
 * Oh, but Cosway isn't; that can be remedied by a brief mention that is fleshed out later in "Personal life." Yopienso (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk) 01:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not understand any emphasis on the White House presidential bios by Beschloss-Sidey (2009) that are very brief. Wikipedia presidential articles need to follow Wikipedia formats and match other Wikipedia presidential articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems nobody understood it! Forget it, then. :-) Yopienso (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cm' I agree but part of the dilemma there is that the president's articles have a varying format structure, there is no 'one-size-suits-all' structure, with many bio's listing 'Marriage' or 'Family life' while others cover marriage in 'Early life'. Others like Ulysses S. Grant use 'Early life and family'. In almost all cases however, the marriage is covered early on in the biography as such an occasion is always a major event in any person's biography and usually precedes most of the other events. That is why 'Marriage and family' was near the beginning of the Jefferson biography previously, before Parkwells came up with the idea to move that section where it is now because Hemings was being moved there as if to suggest Jefferson's wife and family are no more important to the bio than Hemings. Yopienso is correct to cite WP:UNDUE issues, as I did not long ago. If we are to follow WP format, such that it is, then marriage should be covered early in the bio, as is the case in almost all the other presidential biographies. Maybe it is time for a RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest another vote on where to put Marriage and family if other editors are willing. Jefferson's marriage was public and I believe would be apprpriate to be in the Early years section.  The White House is a good source on Jefferson.  I believe I understand what Yopienso was arriving at in terms of conclusion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's fine to put "Marriage and family" back in the Early Years, but other editors may have opinions. It would be useful if some of the editors so anxious to give more attention to Jefferson's first family would hunt up some material to put in there, which no one has done for a year or more. Parkwells (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of overall structure
This needs more attention, as Brad noted. Changes have been made which are not consistent with the facts or chronology of Jefferson's life. His development of UVA followed his presidency; it was not part of it. Please have more discussion here before making more changes on structure, and give editors time to respond. There was previously a very small section called "Later life," which mostly discussed his library.


 * Brad is suggesting that we think of a major division between his Political life, including his Presidency, and his Personal Life, which would incorporate his marriage, relationships with Cosway and Hemings, as well as his activities of his post-presidency years. This is a common way to treat lives/biographies of men with prominent public careers. This scheme would also help us satisfy some editors' goals of separating the sections dealing with his Political and Private lives.  According to RS and academic consensus for the last decade, his private life included his marriage, relationship with Hemings and resulting children, and Maria Cosway.  This is what editors on Wikipedia are obligated to follow. Parkwells (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, Brad just stated that the amount of time we put into discussion of section reordering is "crazy", in spite of marked improvements, and yes, at the same time he asserts an opinion above about the possible need for more changes in the future, which, btw, I am in agreement with. Seems we all need to put improvements in our sights, not other editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The very small "later life" section came about from a monkey ramming things around. I had moved mention of TJ's library down there as his sale of it to the Library of Congress had factors to his love of books and his deepening debt. But then the death and UVA sections got removed and scattered elsewhere. The very first thread on this talk page contains issues that need working on. TJ had dysfunctional family members that plagued him in his later years. His son-in-law had various problems, a grandaughter was involved in an abusive marriage, a grandson and a son-in-law (?) who attacked each other near the courthouse in Charlottesville, and some sort of nephew whom killed a slave and was in general disreputable. All of that is due in the personal life of TJ. Whatever... we can blame all that on Hemings. Brad (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All very interesting, except for that inappropriate comment at the end perhaps. As for some of the actions of his relatives, well, that might get mentioned in a family life section, if there was such a section. Though related, do the actions of a e.g.son in law qualify as something in Jefferson's personal life? I'd say no. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would like me to make some genuine inappropriate comments just ask and I shall supply. All of the things I mention above had an impact on TJ related to his growing financial debt. Still missing is the Adams-Jefferson relationship that historians have focused much on over the years. I would suggest you pick up a copy of Twilight at Monticello which is an easier read than Malone's Sage of Monticello. Malone goes into so much detail that your eyes will water. Brad (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad, good points; the family problems of his grown children were severe. His oldest daughter's husband Randolph was governor of VA, but also alcoholic and so abusive that they separated, so Jefferson was aiding Martha and her many children. Some accounts said that Randolph was institutionalized for a time. Two nephews were involved in killing the slave after drinking; one committed suicide and the other managed to leave town. This was all part of his Personal life in later years. Your point about your thread is a good one; it may be worthwhile to post it again after/when the question of where to put "Marriage and family" is settled. (See below)Parkwells (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Brad, I'm sure you could 'supply' us with some eye-openers, but I didn't see anyone around here blaming any thing on Hemings. -- If we are going to start including relatives and the various actions that may or may not have effected Jefferson's 'personal life' somehow then it seems they would be better placed under something like 'Family background' or some such. 'Personal life' (key word 'personal'), it seems, pertains more to marriage and relationships, i.e. his wife, any lovers he may have had, activities that were strictly personal, like painting, music, etc. At any rate, we might want to be very selective about what relatives are included in PL before we start lining them up at the door as the 'grey area' between personal life and family can be immense. Per the divisions you spoke of earlier, I'd say 'Family background' would be a good one, keeping page length issues in mind, even though some FA's exceed the recommended limit considerably, like Barack Obama's bio, presently at 202,684 bytes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A popular misconception about article size is its total size. Proper measurement of article size is by word count; Obama has 46 kB (7634 words) "readable prose size" well within the 10,000 word recommended limit. TJ has 80 kB (12976 words) "readable prose size"; far over the 10,000 word limit. I already outlined this a couple of months ago but few were listening and likely never will. Brad (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I missed it, and that's a good point. However it would seem there are some exceptions to this guideline. Given the many topics that the Jefferson page has and the fact that his legacy involves the Revolution, two terms as president, slavery, Hemings, etc, etc it would seem the TJ page would be one of those exceptions, to a point of course. As I said earlier, don't know if anyone was listening (rib), there are some hefty sections on this page expounding on topics already covered on dedicated pages that could use some scaling down.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cosway and Hemings
I've added some material on Cosway and Hemings to the "Jefferson in Paris" period. Gwillhickers repeatedly says that Jefferson's relationship with Hemings had no effect on US history. But, notable 20th-century historians such as David Brion Davis have suggested that it was because of his relationship with Hemings that Jefferson, following his return from Paris, was characterized by his "immense silence" about slavery, and did little to ameliorate or end it in the US. (The silence and lack of action have already been noted by other editors in the Slavery and Reputation sections.) Jefferson's lack of action, perhaps to protect his own privacy, did affect the lives of those millions of people forced to live as slaves until after the Civil War.Parkwells (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the material you've added improves the article. (There are some previous stylistic problems yet to be fixed.) Now we just need to move Jefferson's wife up to "Lawyer and House of Burgesses." Yopienso (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Marriage moved to following the start of his law career.Parkwells (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose Notes section
I just changed the name of the 'Notes' section to 'References' per WP format for other presidential bios, and partly because of the length of the various notes that are appearing in the reference section. These lengthy (and all) notes need to be separate from page references. Here is the markup needed:

1896 Illustrious Americans
I really don't think we should use Hale's 1896 book as a source. Apart from the hagiographic title, it's also more than a century out of date. And at least the material referenced to it in our article seems to be in direct contradiction to better sources:
 * Twenty-seven slaves, including Betty Hemings, were captured and held temporarily as prisoners of war. Jefferson said of the events, "Had he carried off the slaves to give them freedom, he would have done right."

On the other hand, Jefferson's statement is in more context here:
 * He carried off also about 30. slaves: had this been to give them freedom he would have done right, but it was to consign them to inevitable death from the small pox and putrid fever then raging in his camp. This I knew afterwards to have been the fate of 27. of them. I never had news of the remaining three, but presume they shared the same fate.

Given that Betty Hemings lived on Monticello until 1807, the two claims are incompatible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert :I have a different suggestion. Since we don't know what the original editor intended, let's either use the more complete Monticello quote rather than Hale for the Jefferson letter, or (my preference) take it out altogether. WIKI MOS recommends using complete quotes to provide fuller context and that's really necessary here. I always wondered what that quote was supposed to be about, anyway, as it never made much sense. Still doesn't add much to the content on events, except to show POW camps were miserable places (as were most troop camps, since no one knew about sanitation and disease.)Parkwells (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to the article - If others are interested in checking the Hale cites, go to it. Not sure why any editor would have used him rather than one of the major biographers/historians of Jefferson and his times.


 * Schulz, Hale is used for other ref's too. Seems you're trying to fix something that isn't broke. Source has been there about a year with no issues. Also, this notion of "out dated" is highly debatable and you have not defined any 'incompatibility'. Unless a later source is in possession of new facts (as opposed to new opinions) the existing source is fine. WP is filled with sources that are quite old. That by itself doesn't render them any less reliable than sources whose reliability can easily be challenged, like TJF, given its history of bias and controversy not to mention the conflict of interest and special interests that exist there. Insert : The two senior research historians at Monticello, Dianne Swann-Wright and Lucia (Cinder) Stanton are both members of special interest groups. Stanton, an avowed feminist, refers to Jefferson as "elusive, slippery". Hardly a neutral characterization. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : Your attempts to characterize local commissions on history and academic groups representing areas of studies as suspicious "special interest groups" for historians are absurd, and it is insulting to suggest that being "an avowed feminist" disqualifies someone from being a respected scholar. What about being an "avowed conservative" - perhaps we should exclude them if we find them? Other historians have described Jefferson as enigmatic, secretive, etc. Let's just drop this discussion and try to focus on the article.Parkwells (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just close in saying that if you found a source that was tied in with a 'conservative' (or any) special interest group that was trying to establish and claim as fact something that was not, and/or using divisive language to characterize someone, your challenge would be valid. Yes, I was trying to focus on the article, adding contextual material for 'Marriage and family', and fixing and editing various ref's when Schulz came along and started this thread. However, I'll not pursue it any further if we all do as you ask and just stick to fixing factual and actual errors in text, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement with TJF does not mean that it is not a RS, so please stop with the constant, ever broadening, unsourced complaints about them. We have acknowledged that TJHS has arguments with them. Others have arguments with TJHS, but we did not prohibit their being included as a source in this article. Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schultz's disagreement with Hale does not mean its an unreliable source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a statement that Jefferson was making as a calculated criticism of the British, so perhaps he didn't care about the details of which of his slaves survived, or Hale got the facts wrong. Perhaps no one bothered to look closely at the full Jefferson quote before. Yes, Hemings definitely survived the captivity. The inaccuracies and/or curiosities of Jefferson's quote (since Betty Hemings served him for the rest of his life, and he was certainly aware of her) may reflect the time, or Hale. In the 21st century, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) named Hemings a "Patriot" as a result of her POW status during the Revolution. This makes all her female descendants eligible for the DAR if they choose to join. I had it in that section with a cite, but someone took it out.Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sounds like"? "Perhaps"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Small nitpick: Betty dies in 1807, so she was at Monticello the rest of her live, not his.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Our article contradicts Jefferson himself. This is not some interpretation of the TJF, this is a literal quote from one of Jefferson's letters. Jefferson says, 9 years after the raid, that all slaves but 3 are dead, and that he never heard about the three. All that while, Betty Hemings is the matriarch at Monticello. That's what I mean by "incompatible". And yes, a 110+ year old source is less reliable than current scholarship. Would you want your GPS to be driven by Newtonian physics? Good luck finding anything. Or would you treat infections without antibiotics? The same thing applies to history - over time, we gain a better understanding of it. The fact that Hale is used in several places is cause for concern, not a valid reason to keep him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the first things you should learn about analogies is that you don't compare apples to oranges. Treating infection with 'old medicine' is hardly an argument for using sources that are older. It could also be argued that historians 100 years ago had better access to records that otherwise may be lost to modern day sources. Also, modern day sources generally copy the older sources. The only thing 'new' about their material perhaps is the opinion they may offer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would never use a 110-year-old source unless no newer source was available. The standards for historical scholarship in those days were far less exacting than today.  --Coemgenus (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Need to cite where a given source fail standards (also yet to be defined) instead of challenging it with a broad brush claim. Also, a source whose senior members are highly involved with special interest groups with a history of supporting only one side of a controversy would seem not very reliable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that the professional staff and publications of Monticello comprise "a source whose senior members are highly involved with special interest groups with a history of supporting only one side of a controversy." Parkwells (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I cited two senior members by name, and linked to pages supporting the claim. Hardly a broad brush. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The pages you linked to show their professional involvements and academic appointments, as is characteristic of scholars with areas of specialization. It does not show suspicious "special interest groups". Parkwells (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you claim that there is reasonable doubt that the TJF correctly presents a literal quote from a Jefferson letter? That is entirely ludicrous, not least because Jefferson's letters have been published multiple times, and any such tinkering on a prominent web site would stick out like a sore thumb. You can e.g. find the full text here or in any reasonably complete collection of Jefferson letters, online or offline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My claim is plainly written directly above the conjecture you replied to it with. Didn't say anything about how both sources offered the material in question. This is something you're trying to get off the ground still. And while you link to other material, you have yet to quote the actual text of Hale's of which you take exception to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You totally missed Schultz's point; he said that the limited quote (perhaps by Hale or perhaps by an editor who used only part of his quote) appeared to misrepresent the sense of Jefferson's letter, which we can read in the fuller quote on the Monticello site. The issue was further confused because of the failure of editors previously to show that Jefferson was referring to Elkhill, not to Monticello, as I note below, and my error. Enough already.Parkwells (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I take exception to the use of an outdated source. It does not matter if Hales is right or wrong, what matters is that he is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. The reason for that is that the book is over 100 years old, and standards of scholarship have changed. A lot. Really a lot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. There are other sources for Jefferson's letter, as you showed. Let's get back to the article, please.Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schulz, you're now saying it doesn't matter if a source is wrong or right?? Unbelievable. Please link to the actual WP:reliable source policy that supports your particular complaint and then please tie it in with the actual material in question. Again, the "scholarship" is a wide and varied body of individuals. Your notion that they all belong to the same 'camp' is unsubstantiated, to say the least. Again the talk page is plunged into the same sort of POV'ish issues that have plagued this page for more than a couple of years now. All to do about slaves or Hemings, as usual. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schultz said that Hales was outdated, and that there are better sources. I would not use such a source, either, unless there were a particular reason to do so; there are historians noted for their work on Jefferson. :


 * The problem is not "slaves or Hemings, as usual", except for my acknowledged error. The larger problem is that editors of Jefferson's "time as governor" incorrectly showed where Jefferson was during the critical months of 1781, failed to show he did not join the Assembly after fleeing Monticello and that the Assembly criticized him for this, not just failure of defense of Richmond; further, the editors incorrectly attributed his description of damage at Elkhill (from a letter) to damage at Monticello, thus leading me to think the slaves he was describing were at Monticello. There were so many gaps and errors that I had to add considerable data so readers could make their way through it - and I added cites. Instead of complaining about Monticello, it would be useful if you would do more reading of and working on the article to help find and correct such errors.Parkwells (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone can deny what the preoccupation of this talk page has been over the last couple of years. In any event, your advice is well heeded. Also appreciate you acknowledging your own errors -- not enough editors doing that it seems. As I said below, I have no problems with tackling actual errors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * After all the work I did, I would really appreciate if editors would read that section about Jefferson as governor during the late war. Let's see if it is clear enough about the moves of the revolutionary gov't from Richmond to Monticello, and to Poplar Forest for Jefferson, and to Staunton for the Assembly. I will add to the section about raids to make clear that Monticello was not damaged.  I deleted the Hale quote; does not seem useful even in a fuller version.  Parkwells (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Concatenation of errors
I suggest all the editors take a total break from the above discussion about Hale and any other source, as there are so many errors by a variety of previous editors that it is difficult to know where to start, and much of it may have nothing to do with Hale, or whether we want to use the longer quote by Jefferson to understand what he was talking about in reference to those 27 slaves. This is why Wikipedia is not reliable, or why some summaries are not reliable. Please see the article for additions and cites I made to try to clarify who was talking about what:
 * Briefly, Jefferson & Assembly had vacated Richmond for Charlottesville. There they were warned by Jouett about Cornwallis' troops. Many of the Assembly members escaped over the mountains to Staunton, where they reconvened, but Jefferson went to his estate at Poplar Forest and spent the summer there; reportedly he thought his gubernatorial term was over. The Assembly considered an inquiry against him, but dropped it.
 * The paraphrase of extensive damage and 27 slaves taken was Jefferson describing damage at Elkhill, another estate of his on the James River, not Monticello at all, as it earlier appeared in the article text, so he would not have been as familiar with the slaves.
 * The Betty Hemings error was mine, because my earlier entry on her had been deleted, and I thought I remembered that she was at Monticello - thinking the reference to the 27 slaves was for there. But, now I think Jefferson left Hemings and other slaves in charge of his house in Richmond (as well as other slaves at Monticello, Elkhill and who knows where else), where they were captured by the British and later released. Will have to look it all up again at the DAR, and will report back.Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Parkwells, good advice. I have no problem about correcting actual errors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, memory. Jefferson had some slaves at his house in Richmond, including Mary Hemings (not Betty Hemings.) After he left the capital (and slaves) in January 1781, the British captured Richmond, and took the slaves, including Mary Hemings, as prisoners of war. They were later released in exchange for British soldiers. In June 1781, the British arrived at Monticello, and Jefferson fled again, but his slaves helped protect his valuables, at risk to themselves. In 2009 Mary Hemings was honored as a Patriot by the Daughters of the Revolution (DAR), making all her female descendants eligible for membership in the heritage society. Sorry for the confusion, but it has led to our correcting the TJ article re: his actions and Elkhill, so all is not lost.Parkwells (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict and now answered but here it is anyway) That Monticello was sacked by the British appears to be another common misunderstanding and I had noticed this article not making a clear distinction. I've read the same thing elsewhere. I read, though I cannot remember where, that the British did arrive at Monticello but did nothing other than look for Jefferson while the slaves hid valuables. Brad (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have tried to clarify that section, and made a separate paragraph for Elkhill, so please check it out. Parkwells (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede
Have removed a statement about Jefferson's holding secret talks with the French while VP under Adams. This does not seem appropriate for the Lede.Parkwells (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Governor
Removed the quote attributed to Hale, which we know came from a Jefferson letter. Does not seem to add to the content of this section. If editors want Jefferson's thoughts about the slaves whom the British took prisoner from Elkhill, I recommend they use the lengthier quote from within TJ's letter as shown on the "Elkhill" page, on the Monticello website. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Parkwells (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

principle of inalienable rights arguably not influenced by Locke
The article contained the following statement: "He was influenced by John Locke (particularly relating to the principle of inalienable rights)," quoting a book from over 30 years ago. More recently Locke's influence on Jefferson's reference to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Indpenendence has come into question.

For example, to quote a modern heavyweight, Jack Rakove, this phrase "arguably owed more to Jefferson's reading of the Swiss jurist Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui than it did to his manifest debt to John Locke." See Rakove, Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America (2010), p. 300.

In summary: Locke's influence on Jefferson's views concerning inalienable rights is controversial among leading experts, so I removed that particular statement, preserving the general statement about Locke's influence on Jefferson's political views.--Other Choices (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Marriage and family
Brad's, Schultz's and Yopienso's comments led me to think of this in a different way. Because Martha Wayles' father died the year after her marriage, she and Jefferson quickly inherited Betty Hemings and her family, whose members played such a prominent role in the hierarchy of skilled slaves at Monticello. Her father's last six children, by Betty, were Martha's half-siblings, all of whom were trained as house servants/artisans and grew up within the larger household. Two of Betty's sons served Jefferson as domestic servants, and other Hemings descendants later had equally close roles. The slaves inherited from Wayles also composed part of the pool from which Jefferson drew labor, or sold slaves to pay debts. It seemed useful to show how early this interrelationship of the families developed. Providing such information is a way of using Jefferson and Monticello to show what plantation households were like at the time. The Jefferson Legacy Foundation notes this background when writing about Martha Jefferson. Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heartily agree, although there may be too much detail now, or maybe not. The student of history needs to understand the times he studies--the Wayles-Hemings saga helps explain Jefferson's conscience. As Mary Chesnut wrote, ". . .every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think."
 * The brief lull in my everyday life is ending; I'll be much more of a kibbitzer than participant now. Cheers to all! Yopienso (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Jefferson-Hemings "relationship" began after his wife Martha had died. This was a public marriage and I believe that is why his marriage belongs in the chronology. As far as I know there was nothing controversial concerning Jefferson's marriage to Martha. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I remain amazed that 'Marriage and family' was considered for other placement to begin with, given the glaring considerations various editors here have pointed out all along. While the Hemings legacy is indeed quite interesting, it should be treated appropriately in terms of Jefferson's biography, per Marriage, Declaration' along with the other landmark events in US history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am for mentioning briefly the relationship between the Wayles and Jefferson families in the chronology. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It has to be explained enough to be understood. Put most of the text in footnotes of the "Marriage and family" section, back under Early Years.Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The section is better in the article's chronology. Good job, Parkwells! Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have just added mention of a few items about the actual marriage, their mutual love of music, etc., cited. Moved some text describing Martha to 1st paragraph before info about inheritance, etc. Yes, info on Hemings family history, per Martha's father, etc do give good perspective to Jefferson's feelings towards the various slaves under his care. Seems they were almost like a 'family' and is well placed under 'Marriage and family'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * True. Jefferson called his slaves "family". One must remember, however, Jefferson only favored the Hemings slaves.  As far as I know, there is no record of how Jefferson's other slaves viewed Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given Jefferson the man and the background here my speculation would be 'better than average' at least. Parkwells perhaps can better direct us to sources covering that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If one reads Ferling (2000) correctly, Jefferson lived a reclusive "fantasy" lifestyle on his Monticello mountaintop home. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly reclusive, given his entertaining noted by other historians, but they definitely considered him in the patriarchal style.Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Monticello practically needed revolving front doors based on the amount of visitors on a regular basis. Plus he had a couple of sisters who would bring their families to stay for months at a time adding to all of Martha's children. Hardly reclusive; Ferling must have been drunk when he wrote that. We'll see if another collaborating opinion like that surfaces. Brad (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was using information by Ferling on reclusiveness. Remember, these people went to see Jefferson, not vise versa.  In other words, if one wanted to see Jefferson one had to go to Monticello, since Jefferson was reclusive. Jefferson spent lavishly.  I believe that supports his "fantasy" lifestyle at Monticello. Ferling used the term "fantasy" and was not generated by myself. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * After his wife died Jefferson rode on secluded roads by himself to mourn. Monticello was built on a reclusive mountaintop.  In essence Jefferson was a "mountain King".  I believe this is where Ferling was going.  In my edit on Jefferson's reclusiveness I even toned down the psychological part in the Ferling book. Here is a CSPAN video with John Ferling. I don't think he was "drunk" in this video. In Depth With John Ferling (July 5, 2009) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * John Ferling is currently Professor Emeritus State University of West Georgia -> History Cmguy777 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Illustrious Americans
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/27986276/Illustrious-Americans-Their-Lives-and-Great-Achievements-1896#page=124) Here are reasons to exclude this as a source: Hale wrote the introduction, not the articles, for which there was a stable of writers listed at the beginning. No editor is identified. Articles have neither bylines nor footnotes, so readers cannot tell who wrote it or where the material comes from; therefore cannot check the sources. By contrast, the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, at the Monticello website, identifies the addressee and shows in full Jefferson's letter about Elkhill, for instance. In its article on Jefferson and the war, Illustrious Americans contained only the truncated quote from the Elkhill letter, as previously shown in this Wikipedia article. Who knows why the editor for this WP article chose to use it, or chose to use this book, when such better sources are available. It appears any substantive original material, like the letter on Elkhill, can be found at other, better sources.Parkwells (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that any written text on TJ that is now in the public domain (pre-1923) should not be used here based on the availability of so many more modern sources. There is so much written scholarship on TJ that external linking for sources should be kept to an almost zero state. Relying too much on the Monticello website introduces possible bias but keeping in mind it's the best source for the most up to date information. Brad (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Under discussion was a quote from a letter of Jefferson related to damages at Elkhill and slaves captured during the Revolution.  No doubt multiple sources have it; Schultz had found the original document on the Monticello website; it was not an issue of commentary about it. I agree that more contemporary historians than Hale's stable should be consulted - just wanted to give the link if people wanted to look at the book.  There is no reason to use Hale in this article: I've deleted the short quote, as it added nothing to the account of Jefferson's actions late in the Rev War. The other cite was for a non-controversial statement about Jefferson's accepting a governmental appointment which is well documented.Parkwells (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Authors who truncate quotes should be shot. It misleads and gives the impression that the British freed the Elkhill slaves which obviously they did not do if the whole quote is read. Brad (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with that point (not about being shot) and have no qualms about getting a better ref for that item. However, I don't agree about replacing a source simply because its older, or PD. The source should be weighed on its own merit. Hale, a Harvard graduate and second in his class (also the son of Nathan Hale) was one of the leading historians in his day and his book is co-authored by an array of credentialed historians of that day, hence it has peer review as a publication, and Hale himself was the editor. As modern sources go, where do they get their material? Answer: from older sources, and from primary sources, just as the older sources did. In fact, the older sources may have had better access to primary sources than do the sources of the 21st century. Now we have to ask ourselves, how reliable would a source be if its bibliography consisted of only other modern sources? Seems any well rounded bibliography would have new, not so new and older sources, along with primary sources to be used in conjunction with the other sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, Edward Everett Hale was the son of Nathan Hale only in a metaphorical sense. Nathan Hale had no heirs. E.E. Hale was his grand nephew. That doesn't affect his credibility as a historian, of course :) Sunray (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For that matter, class rank at Harvard used to be determined by social standing, not grades (McCullough writes about it John Adams) but this may have changed by Hale's day. But why confuse the issue with facts?  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, historians today cite to primary sources, as did older historians, but we have access to more sources today and higher standards for actually adhering to those sources. Old books aren't always bad, but where the information is also found in a newer sources, they should at least be cited together to show that the assertion is consistent with modern scholarship.  --Coemgenus (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Older sources often had direct contact with various people and other primary sources, and I don't see a modern source as something that 'automatically' has better access on that note. Modern sources may have access to other modern sources, but have no better access to primary sources, and in fact have compromised access given the passage of time. Again, what would you think of a modern source whose bibliography was made up of only other modern sources? Another cut-reword-paste job? It would seem that a well rounded bibliography should be made up of old, not so old and newer sources, each of which should be weighed on their own merit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe older book sources can be reliable and are not necessarily invalid. However, anytime there is modern research, such as on Jefferson, that needs precedence over older sources.  Some older sources may capture some incident or detail "forgotten" by modern biographers. I believe that gives older sources value to Wikipedia. However, older sources, in my opinion, 19th or early 20th Century, have a tendency to be less analytically written and generalized. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'reliability' is the keyword. Hale certainly has this established. Many history books, new or old, are often somewhat general in their presentation and don't delve into an array of details when they are not needed. For example, we don't need to know where Jefferson 'bought the ink' the Declaration of Independence was written with or whether or not it was raining that day to appreciate that event. If the source can provide the pertinent details this should suffice, esp for a summary style encyclopedia like WP. Shall we start excluding any source as soon as a newer one becomes available? Will this be the only basis for its replacement? If we were to blindly follow this methodology we would only be left with a few sources -- all of whom copied the older sources and used the same primary sources as the older sources. The analytic (and any other) quality of a source should be weighed independent of its age. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Time as governor
During the Rev War, in 1780, Jefferson received questions from France on the colonies, and started working on what five years later he called Notes on the State of VA. While the book is notable, this seems an inappropriate place for the discussion, as the nation was still at war. Will put it with his intellectual pursuits.Parkwells (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI. I saw you mention below about no one responding to some of your posts up here. I'm still working through Malone Vol 1 and plan on citing material and possibly introducing or removing some less than important other material. I prefer to finish the book first so that I have my head wrapped around the subject. Vol 1 covers his ancestry and birth to leaving for France as Minister, so it has a lot of information to digest. At this moment in my reading TJ was just elected Gov of VA. Brad (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Effect of Jefferson's shadow family on his public policies
As I've noted, some historians believe that Jefferson's relationship with Hemings did influence his public policies; for instance, David Brion Davis thought this might have been the reason after 1789 for his silence on slavery. Similarly, Peter Onuf suggests that Jefferson's ideas about colonization of freed slaves were influenced by his concerns for his unacknowledged children by Hemings. See Onuf, Peter S., "Every Generation Is An 'Independant Nation': Colonization, Miscegenation and the Fate of Jefferson's Children", William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. LVII, No.1, January 2000, JSTOR,, pp. 153-170. States idea on p. 153 and then develops it.]. I will put this also at the Thomas Jefferson and Slavery article for reference use.Parkwells (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : "his unacknowledged children"? We shouldn't be basing more speculations on the first speculation, and again with the POV comments -- we need to stop referring to them as a given, established facts, here and on the main page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to supply the page number/s for this source. Brad (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.Parkwells (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speculations about what "David Brion Davis thought" and what "Peter Onuf suggests" are better placed in the Jefferson slavery page, if any where, as WP articles should deal in facts, not speculations from a from a couple of cherry picked sources. We're still trying to get this article cleaned up and organized and injecting it with more speculative slavery issues doesn't seem to be the way to go. Btw, Peter Onuf of Univ.Va. has bee criticized for having a statue of Jefferson in his office which dons a hat on backwards, sun-glasses and a sign hanging on it that reads 'my meal ticket'. WP doesn't need insights from characters like this. Like the TJF has, Onuf impeaches his credibility with his own acute biases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't want to make the article too much longer, but that criticism of Onuf is absurd and irrelevant. I could see adding a sentence or two, with more in the sub-article if necessary.  --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting such bias of any source is a valid criticism. As historians, they must try to maintain objectivity and neutrality when evaluating history. As soon as they fall from that state they have no platform to place their credibility. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, an unsourced criticism is nothing for editors to note. WP policy discourages attacking people, including sources, if they meet standards for reliability, which both Davis and Onuf do, as professors for top universities who have been published in peer-review journals and academic presses.Parkwells (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the interest of improving the article, my intentions were to bring historians' work to the attention of editors interested in learning about historians' analysis of this issue. Editors should read the sources to learn something before making conclusions about the content. Ad hominem attacks on scholars who are published in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses, thus meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, are not appropriate for the Talk page. I have added content and cites as appropriate at the main article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery, as noted in my very first entry above.Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing inherent bias is not ad hominem. If we're going to allow such speculations in a biography (as opposed to facts) about what may have effected Jefferson's thinking then we need to base them from a neutral source. Onuf is far from a neutral entity, peer review or not. Also, any source shouldn't be used to push a POV. If you attempt to refer to 'his children' as a given fact and then go further with that idea to establish yet another speculation this is pushing a POV, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The University of Houston, which published David Brion Davis' last book, notes: His scholarship has been honored with the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award for History and Biography, the American Historical Association's Albert Beveridge Award, the Bancroft Prize, the Society of American Historians' Bruce Catton Prize for Lifetime Achievement, and many other awards.Parkwells (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we need to find another 'prize winner' as a source. Onuf reeks of acute bias. What would you think of a Pulitzer prize winner if he/she had a dart board with Hemings picture on it with the words 'Tramp' printed on it and displayed in a public office -- and then someone defend that person by saying, 'gee wiz -- he's a Pulitzer prize winner'. Doesn't change anything, does it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about before we add any sources, we just have Gwillhickers inspect the author's office and make sure there's nothing he disagrees wth there? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'How about' just checking the integrity of any source and leave personal humor directed at GWillhickers out of it so as not to descend into a rancorous dialog? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, peer reviewed papers and books by university presses are among the best and most respected sources Wikipedia recognises. If the authors have won prestigious awards for their work, they gain even more weight. Wikipedia follows these sources as a matter of policy. And your analogy really compares apples with oranges. Disparaging Hemings does nothing to help Jefferson. Treating Jefferson with some harmless humor (wether of dubious taste or not - de gustibus non est disputandum, as Jefferson would be the first to acknowledge) is not a sign of bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schultz Schulz you need to read what I have written, not what you wished I had written so you can construct some sort of straw man. No one has disparaged Hemings and it was only asked 'how would you feel', and given your remarks, you actually help make the point. Thanks for that at least. Awards and such are noteworthy, but I don't think they give any source a blank check. Each source should be judged by itself. So you feel Onuf's rendering of Jefferson's statue is just a matter of personal taste? Nonsense. It was a clear act of disgracing the image and man. As such, any speculations about Jefferson this individual has to offer (as opposed to facts) should be avoided if there are other sources that are not biased and marked with such immaturity. Why would such scrutiny pose a problem for you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've tried to point out before, I'm not "Schultz". I seriously wonder if and how you have read what I wrote. You proposed a hypothetical scenario where someone called Hemings a tramp. I replied that that scenario would disparage Hemings, which would exactly nothing to help Jefferson. I also pointed out that the concrete scenario of Onuf's handling of a Jefferson state is not a sign of bias. Nor is it "disgracing the image and the man", in the least. It does no exhibit mindless devotion to a god-like Uberfather of the country, but I suspect that's the point. And I'm very sure that Jefferson would take more offense at being placed on a pedestal than at being humorously mocked. Jefferson was very much a republican, with no patience for devotion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : My apologies about spelling your name so. -- You did not say "that scenario would disparage Hemings" you indeed said "Disparaging Hemings does nothing to help Jefferson" i.e.implying that it was I who made and directed the remark. Further, no one is trying to pass off Jefferson as "god-like". This is yet another one of your straw men. And thanks for at least admitting that Jefferson was mocked by Onuf. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See your talk page for the name issue. I'm sorry if you had the impression I was accusing you of disparaging Hemings - I assumed it was clear we were discussing in the hypothetical. Please don't take words out of context. I said "humorously mocked". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jefferson was for the exportation of freed slaves before Sally Hemings. "Why was Jefferson silent on the slavery?" is valid. In theory, if he was open on slavery, then that might draw attention to him sleeping with Sally Hemings, his slave and a black woman, as Davis stated.   My view is that the more Jefferson became entrenched in slavery the more he became silent on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the question is indeed valid and we should look for answers from unbiased sources who have scholarly integrity and don't have an axe to grind. Onuf clearly has one. Aside from disgracing/defacing Jefferson's image other 'statements' made by Onuf about Jefferson include "(Jefferson was) very anal about obedience to law,”. Onuf's remarks also include [ http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/110586/ "Sometimes I hate Thomas Jefferson" and "We are going to have to knock Jefferson off his pedestal."] while other Jefferson scholars have taken exception to the juvenile musings of Onuf e.g.(made in the Washington Post) as well. This is clearly an acutely biased source and should be replaced with one whose integrity has not been soiled with personal rancor and other juvenile misgivings. We should not let a character like this hide behind his awards. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert: Onuf is published by reliable sources, has been used as a reference and interviewed by PBS and other media. It is not up to individual editors here to vet RS who meet Wikipedia requirements, especially by citing their blogs rather than their professional writings. Parkwells (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Les Kinsolving is a radio talkshow host, not a Jefferson scholar. William Hyland is a lawyer, not a Jefferson scholar. And neither World Net Daily nor any blogs are reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Robert M.S. McDonald is a professor at the United States Military Academy and David Mayer is a professor at the Capital University Even -- and as for Kinsolving, anyone can report on Jefferson's defaced statue or other acts of bias. Having said that, Onuf's bias still hangs over his head as a neutral, and hence reliable, source. In speculative and perhaps controversial issues his opinion can only carry weight to like minded individuals who have already made up their minds. As editors of WP we are supposed to maintain objectiveness and neutrality and therefore should only use sources from individuals who have the capacity to maintain these qualities. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're getting a bit tangled up here. Does anyone besides Gwillhickers object to using Davis or Onuf as sources?  If not, let's just move on.  --Coemgenus (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert: Editors are not charged with assessing RS. RS are not required to produce writing that is NPOV; that appears to be a misunderstanding of Gwillhickers. This does not have to be addressed.  His RS also have strong opinions. Let's move on.Parkwells (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no particular issue with Davis. There are NPOV issues regarding Onuf that have not been acknowledged and addressed. Are we going to get consensus for allowing NPOV violations? Is that allowed? Before a consensus can be established there must be a basis for that consensus, so I thought. Could we replace Jefferson's picture with Bart Simpson if you got a few editors to agree with you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've ever read WP:NPOV. It requires us to report all significant viewpoints, not to decide for ourselves which sources are true. --Stephan Schulz (talk)
 * Let's not argue about this. The editor who has a problem with the personalities of particular sources, according to the blogs he has read, needs to study the Wikipedia policies. Please provide links to the policies that support your point of view. Other editors are in agreement that you are misunderstanding or misapplying WP:NPOV and WP:RS. This is not a forum for discussing the personalities of academic writers. Parkwells (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I state, "Let's move on." Onuf and Davis, in my opinion, are valid historical sources. The editors on Wikipedia and readers can seperate opinion from historical theory or hypothesis. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving on

 * In the interest of moving on I concur, and I'm sure at this point editors here can look at matters for themselves, but the readers still need to be presented with a neutral picture so they can fairly determine things for themselves. They can only do this by presenting them with a neutral picture. We need a source to tell them, briefly, what the shadow family may have done to effect Jefferson's political thinking. Last time I checked, 'Mr. Onuf' wasn't our man. No one is trying to eliminate Onuf as a source for established history, but we're writing about Jefferson's thinking, and Onuf's view of Jefferson borders on hostile, however funny it may be to some. The readers deserve a better view of 'Jefferson the thinker' than that which an individual like Onuf can offer them. If anyone knows of a source who can shed impartial light on Jeffereon's thinking in this capacity then I would encourage them to use it rather than resort to one that is openly haughty and hostile to Jefferson. I also agree with another editor who feels this matter is due brief mention but should be covered with no more than a couple of sentences. And because a speculation is being put forth it should be covered as an idea, not a fact, because no one today can say for sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Gwillwikers, Onuf is not the only source in this article, and heavily relying on one source would push the POV issue. From a reading point of view, Wikipedia presents Jefferson as a noble stateman instrumental in founding of the nation.  Historians, can be accurate and critical of a person.  Wikipedia editors can balance, if there are other accurate historical sources, any hyper-critical historians.  I personally believe this article is fair to Jefferson.  The lede even states that Jefferson was one of the greatest Presidents of the United States.  The subjects of slavery, white supremacy, and Sally Hemings are controversial, and I believe this article has presented them in them fairest possible manner.  If there is a valid source that Jefferson was an intellectual giant, then that can be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede currently states:
 * "A leader in The Enlightenment, Jefferson was a polymath who spoke five languages and was deeply interested in science, religion and philosophy. His interests led him to assist in creating the University of Virginia in his post-presidency years. While not an orator, he was an indefatigable letter writer and corresponded with many influential people in America and Europe."
 * This summarizes Jefferson's enormous intellectural abilities. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree - that aspect of Jefferson seems well covered in the article - with Monticello, UVA, inventions, library, etc. as well.Parkwells (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a link on Jefferson from the book Andrew Jackson and early Tennessee history ... by Samuel Gordon Heiskell, John Sevier (1920). This book views Jefferson as an intellectual giant as President, however, a weak administrator. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cm' thanks for your thoughts. All I am asking that we not base 'Jefferson the thinker' on the views of someone who is indeed 'hyper-critical' as 'Onuf' clearly is. I am in partial agreement that this article portrays Jefferson in a fair manner. There are a few areas where the language needs to be checked, but they are not pressing and hopefully these will be corrected in due course. As Parkwells and Stephan Schulz mentioned, we are supposed to 'present all views' but at the same time they should be reminded that 'Onuf and Davis' hardly represent all views and that a POV can still be pushed by cherry picking and giving lip service to a couple of selected sources. In matters of speculation and opinion, i.e.Hemings, 'Jefferson the thinker', completely neutral sources should be used. I'm sure there are plenty of such impartial sources covering these topics in a fair and accurate manner. IMO we should use them first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your welcome Gwillhickers. I believe there is difficulty in defining "neutral" sources. The Jefferson-Hemings "relationship" has historically been very polarizing.  The most neutral historian I have found is Ferling (2000) in his book Setting the World Ablaze.  He stated that the "relationship" was most likely consensual.  Historians, in my opinion, will never know the true "relationship" between Jefferson and Hemings. Yet the historical and DNA evidences weighted by historical conscensus is clearly signifigant in the analysis of the Jefferson-Hemings "relationship".  Each reader can take this evidence and postulate their own views.  This article, I believe is balanced, and gives both views, consensus and alternative, of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Slavery section part 390.25
I'm noticing that some passages in this section would be better located in their chronological positions. Here's one example: This really belongs in the declaration section and there are other passages about his slavery legislation while Governor etc. I'm thinking of the slavery section as more of a "TJ slavery analysis" section than actually pointing out specific events. ? Brad (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson condemned the British crown for the slave trade. He also condemned the King for "inciting American Negroes to rise in arms against their masters", related to the Crown's promise of freedom for slaves who fought for the British in the Revolution.[141][142] At the request of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, this language was dropped from the Declaration
 * I'm not so sure. His early comments on slavery did not have much historical effect. They give us insight into the man Jefferson, but don't move the chronological narrative forward. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From earlier discussions, it seemed the original intention of this section was to give an overview of Jefferson's thoughts and actions re: slavery, and to reveal what how different generations of historians have evaluated him on this issue. e.g., More recently, they have measured him against what he did rather than what he said, even in the context of his times; e.g., Washington and others manumitted their slaves; he didn't. Perhaps the summary could recount his statements/actions before 1785, when he had reached his peak of activity/leadership (per David Brion Davis, Library of Congress, and others); and after; and briefly, historians' assessments of him, and why. (Or maybe keep the detailed historians' assessments in the main article, as this is overloaded with who said what and why, and simply show the differing historical approaches to assessing Jefferson). In terms of historical evaluation of Jefferson, his statement of human rights in the Declaration has been considered much more important than blaming the Crown for the slave trade, or details about what got taken out (these seem to me to be more appropriate for a detailed discussion of the development of the Declaration).Parkwells (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For instance, Jefferson as a Virginia Assemblyman supported the prohibition of the international slave trade, then as a leading position; by the time TJ signed national legislation in 1806, all states but SC had already banned the importing of slaves. Under the Constitution, the international slave trade was protected for 20 years, so he did what he could on that, and left the fight on domestic trade to others. Parkwells (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since Sally is mentioned in the Minister to France section shouldn't anti-slavery legislation also be mentioned when it happened? At least we know the fact is that TJ did introduce legislation and Sally is speculation. Brad (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought this was in the chronological section and agree it should be there - added it. Perhaps editors repeated it in the "Slavery" section to give an overview of his thoughts and actions on that topic, so they can be seen together and how they changed over time. If the Slavery section were made more clear to deal with only his major actions in both public and private life, it might be improved.  More detailed discussion can be in main article. Parkwells (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the slavery section is important since this allows historical analysis of Jefferson's views on slavery and blacks throughout his lifetime. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with idea of overview, but it needs refinement.Parkwells (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that "overview" is what I have in mind for that section. My point was that the details belong chronologically in their own place. Overview would be to remind the reader of TJ's past legislation without going over it again in as much detail while including the analysis of historians. Brad (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, to include context of historians, as they have evaluated him against different standards and expectations.Parkwells (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Chronology is in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article and was set up that way to get as much in on his actions or views toward slavery. An overview is good as long as historical analysis is kept in in the Thomas Jefferson article. I do not have an issue with putting information in the historical analysis section in the chronology of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Subjects to address
Some areas of the article that need more information. Brad (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Public education plan
 * Developing: Thomas Jefferson and education Brad (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Architecture
 * Naval policy
 * Later years
 * Developing.


 * Poplar Forest
 * Familial dysfunction. Maybe cover with "personal life"?
 * Bibliophile
 * "Administration, Cabinet and Supreme Court appointments" should probably be made into prose if we want to raise the quality to that of better Presidential articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Areas that need reduction:
 * Political philosophy and views. Needs to spin-off maybe to Political philosophy and views of Thomas Jefferson
 * Slavery - There is an entire article devoted to TJ and slavery much of which is repeated here. Slavery section should be shaved to about 4-5 paragraphs total. Brad (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)