Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 23

Proposed draft
Here is a proposal for the basic framework for the section. If we can settle on this, we can then nominate two editors to write the section (hoping they will accept).

1st paragraph : Intro', setting, etc..

2nd paragraph : Plantation life, Jefferson's policy towards the treatment of slaves, noting exception to the rule

3rd paragraph : Political involvements. Mention of lawyer years, DOI language, emancipation attempts, and general silence during presidency, selling of slaves to settle estate, etc.

4th paragraph : Neutral, general historical overview, two to four sentences. i.e.brief, for the sake of the stability of this section.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the current set up, however, an introduction paragraph can be given. We have been working on the first sentence(s) (or introduction paragraph) to establish a neutral tone in the article. I believe Public policy is a better description rather then Political involments. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not names for subsections, they are general themes for the paragraphs. Section needs to be written like an historical article in an encyclopedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative approach
It has been suggested by another editor to simply restore a previous version of the slavery section, one that existed before all the major deletions, additions and changes of the last week. I lean towards writing a good section from the beginning but restoring a previous version seems workable as well. We have less than two days to get organized as a group of editors here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the "other editor" who suggested that was you. The prior section had too many problems, and most of what was in it is still in it (very little of it was actually deleted, most was integrated into the current section). The way we should go about it is to condense and modify the current section, as it is currently far more balanced than it was before.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the current subtitles that were made. That depends if the old version has the current subtitles. Also, some of the information in the current section can go into the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Retrospectively, I am not sure that going back to a previous version would do any good. Let's work with what we have. We have made a neutral first paragraph and I believe the rest of the article can follow this lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Either we go back to a previous version and start from there, or introduce a draft and go from there. Also, some editors still have not been clear about section/page length. As we worked for summary and reduction of this section before, it should be about a page long i.e.500-600 words, as again, there are dedicated pages for this subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we start from the current version and condense and edit it. We are working on the draft above.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, however it is inherently problematic. i.e.You hope to take almost four pages of text and condense it into about a page. (!) Do you have any idea how long that will take considering the nit-picking and arrogant attitudes regarding edits? Thanks, but no. We need to get right down to condensing and restore a version that existed before the section took on demonstrable proportions, and work form there. Any vital points introduced by Rj' and others can be included if necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We can ask a neutral administrator to pick a version that existed before all the abrupt and mostly undiscussed changes. The page, evidently, is watched much, in spite of the relatively low attendance here on the talk page. Shouldn't be difficult to find someone. If it were left up to me I would even pick a version that existed before content was added about the actual lives of slaves -- and please note there was zero mention of slave's lives under Jefferson before. Funny how we see only what we want to see when we're jousting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, there is no requirement for disussion before making any edits under Wikipedia policy. The current format is good with the three segments. I would not go back any further then this. I don't have any issues with Quargluonsoup's edits. If your intentions are only to get rid of Q's edits, then I am strongly against reverting. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : Then I will simply make deletions without discussion. Is it your wish that we keep making these major changes without discussion, after all that has recently occurred here?? Thanks for that insight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think any neutral admin would come along and pick a starting point. Although I favor the suggestion of going back, I don't see how it's doable. Looks to me that we're (or you're, since I'm not going to spend much time here) stuck with going forward--actually, not a bad position.


 * I see no reason to have a section on TJ's views of slaves. Slavery isn't the main point of this article--there's a whole separate article on that--yet it's longer than the section on TJ's interests and activities. The man was a genius, an inventor, architect, seedsman, an extraordinarily intelligent and inquisitive man who excavated an Indian mound and basically introduced the tomato to America, yet we say nothing about that but go on and on about slavery. There's no mention of his hemp crop, either.


 * Wikipedia policy is WP:BRD, but as this is a controversial article, we have greater constraints, as noted at the top of the page: "Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them." Yopienso (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Slavery remains the center of attention because of the agenda to turn this highly visible WP page into a political hit piece. Q' and others have made that perfectly clear. All I have attempted to do is add small amounts of content to give readers something to go on besides all the academic 2+2 pov, and even that was removed. We can't let the facts get in the way of opinion, can we? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend discussion before addition or deletion of text, however, Wikipedia does not require this. Gwillhickers, I do believe in editor concensus and keeping the article neutral. Deletions and additions does not mean turning the Jefferson article into the Gwillhicker's POV article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Perception of Negro inferiority
Let's remove the word "southern" in this sentence: "Jefferson shared the common southern paternalistic view that Africans were inferior to whites and needed supervision while in the United States."

Several days ago I provided examples and sources for the fact that this was a general and not regional attitude, starting with Shakespeare. (Search the page for "Othello".) Another editor said the sources represented WP:OR, which is not true. AFAIK, it's general knowledge that Europeans (and hence, Americans) thought Negroes were inferior; I merely supplied examples. Here are some more. The Concept of Negro Inferiority in American Thought. ''Wm. Wilberforce on the Idea of Negro Inferiority.'' Wilberforce wrote in 1807, "The advocates for the Slave Trade originally took very high ground; contending that the Negroes were an inferior race of beings." The author of the paper writes, "From their first explorations on the coast of West Africa in the sixteenth century, Englishmen were impressed with their own superiorty over black Africans." And, "In the course of his labors to abolish the slave trade, Wilberforce exposed the sham logic in the idea of Negro inferiority." I'm astonished anyone questions this. Yopienso (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder why we use "paternalistic" instead of "racial" in that sentence? "Paternalistic" could go in the next sentence. Also, Jefferson wrote extensively about them, just "shared" seems misleading, so: "Jefferson wrote about and shared the then common racial view that Africans were inferior to whites and needed supervision while in the United States.  This paternalism . . ." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Though Yopienso has a point that it wasn't an exclusively southern attitude, it also wasn't a universal (or nearly so) attitude. The history books are filled with examples of people who did not have this view (Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Adams, Abigail Adams, Ben Franklin, and countless less famous people). I don't have a problem with removing "southern" but we have to make clear that it wasn't a universal or necessarily even an overwhelmingly common view. By the late 19th century it was, but we can't confuse late 18th and late 19th century views.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Jefferson viewed blacks as children who needed to be taken care of, that would be paternalism. By modern standards Jefferson could be viewed or called a racist, however, the term racism is a French word created in the 1860's and only popularly used in the U.S. describing Hitler's policy against the Jews. Not all southern society was paternalistic, such as the Methodist and Baptist abolitionists. Many slave holders freed their slaves under the liberal 1782 manumission law that did not require deportation, as Jefferson had wanted. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has looked at the sources I supplied will see this was a nearly universal attitude. Yes, there were individuals who did not concur, but that does not mean the general consensus was not that Negroes were inferior. I know more about Franklin than about TJ, btw, and agree with Prof. Waldstreicher on most points. Also, PBS: Like most people of his period, Franklin initially believed that African slaves and their offspring were inferior to white Europeans and that they couldn't be educated. He began to question his beliefs when he visited a school where young African children were being taught. In 1763, he wrote a letter to an English friend where he stated, "I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children." ) Franklin owned several slaves.
 * My opinion is that it is important to include the paternalistic attitude. Today, that attitude is viewed with scorn, but actually it was an attitude of concern and responsibility born of what was considered the obvious "fact" that the Negro was inferior, as indeed his position and opportunities were. Yopienso (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No one suggested using the term racist, but racial. "Race" became an established term in the 17th century in the modern sense, and was used in the 13th century. Also, the suggestion was to move paternalism, a few words away. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see someone's added Stephen Ambrose to the article. I've avoided quoting him from what I consider a good article in the Smithsonian magazine because he has fallen into such disrepute. In my opinion, that doesn't negate his good work, but I thought he might be a controversial source. Yopienso (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Quark, do not ever again omit words from a direct quote without inserting an ellipsis. I cannot believe you omitted the words, "members of white American society," in good faith. Seems you were deliberately distorting Ambrose's thought. Yopienso (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears reasonable, from what has been stated, that the paternalistic view is the most accurate. The term "racial", though not truly negative, has a negative connotation at this time that could distort the perception about blacks during colonial times. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Quark, time to vigorously edit

 * Since you're here, would you begin the serious trimming of the entire sections you added. Otherwise, others like me will have to do it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is a joke. Text, once again, is mostly devoted to commentary. Not one word abut actual slaves lives, Finkkelman is mentioned by name and given lip service three times, along side lots and lots of other commentary, all one sided and unqualified. And for all his attempts at emancipation the section leads the reader to think that Jefferson was opposed to emancipation simply because he objected to various provisions or lack thereof. Section needs clean up and reduction while much historical content and facts need to be introduced so any one editor can't mislead the reader by including only cherry picked comments. I am going to remove most of the commentary. This is an encyclopedia and as such is supposed to offer the facts, first and foremost, it is not a forum for opinion and speculation. We need to put brief neutral commentary at the end, as we've discussed, so we can at long last bring stability to the section and move on. All the talk about making the section 'neutral' was apparently a joke. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gwillickers, please revert your editing of a direct quote from Stephen Ambrose. It is absolutely unacceptable to change words in a direct quote. If you want to say "most people," you will have to remove the direct quote and say something like, "Stephen Ambrose points out that Jefferson, like most people, regarded Negroes. . ." Here's the source; click on p. 4. You will note the paragraph mentions Jefferson only as an example, actually being about another slaveholder named Clark and his slave, York. Yopienso (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If Ambrose says "most people" then the current statement in the article is fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cooperate, Gwillickers. Please read the link I conveniently provided for you. Ambrose does not say "most people." I'm disappointed that you did not look and that you are editing so cavalierly. This is what Ambrose says, "Clark, like Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy--and of course as property." Yopienso (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambrose is not even a Jefferson historian. How many sources were ignored before he was dug up? -- Will look for an alternative source. He does say "many other white members". Are you trying to say most of society did not have racial views and that Jefferson was some sort of freak exception to the rule? This is the message some editors are obviously trying to establish as was done in the past with this article. Will change that edit to read "like most slave owners and white people of his time".-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary; Quark was doing that. Please take the time to read my posts of 16:14, 27 July 2012, 16:23, 27 July 2012, and 17:05, 27 July 2012. Thanks for reverting. Yopienso (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa--shame on you, Gwillickers. Your irresponsibility is unacceptable. Thank you, Quark, for correcting the quote. (I had looked only at the article and not the history before the comment I've just struck.) Yopienso (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Yes, the difference was obvious, Yopienso', since this was a quote, I should have restored text accordingly. My intention was to make a statement, and not use a 'quote' from one source allowing only a narrower wording. I should have removed the 'simon sez' clause also. In fact, more of this is still needed. The discussions we had about the 100's of sources for Jefferson and clinging to only a few seems not to have effected some of the very recent editing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson the nice slaveowner
I removed the following paragraph as POV:

''However historians note that unlike many slave owners, Jefferson viewed his slaves as more than property and regarded them as part of his extended community; he referred to them as servants. He was known to be kind and just in the treatment slaves and gave them Sunday's and Saturday afternoons off while letting them celebrate and visit with family during the Christmas season. and would not not allow them to be over worked. ''

If the details of this paragraph could be toned down that would be fine. However, this paragraph makes slavery look like a walk in the park, that the slaves had days off from being slaves, and that slavery was good for blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The solution is to simply state that Jefferson did not work his slaves from Saturday afternoons through Sundays and allowed them to meet families on Christmas. That is neutral. All the other stuff relating to Jefferson as the nice slave owner is pure opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Monticello has a financial stake in Jefferson. We need to avoid websites without any author. Is there a book author that states Jefferson stopped working his slaves from Saturday afternoons through Sundays and that he allowed them to meet families on Christmas? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Monticello is a reasonably well-run establishment with a very strong academic advisory bord. They are not perfect, but they are a fairly good source, "financial stake" notwithstanding. That said, I have trouble verifying the claims from the provided sources. "Merwin, 1901" is not in the reference list, so I could not identify the book. It would anyways be horribly out of date, and hence unlikely to be considered a reliable secondary source. And http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/plantation-agriculture does not support the Saturday/Sunday claim. Finally, "Bear, 1967" is an assembly of two primary sources. The sentence referenced is from one of those sources, the autobiography of one of Jefferson's overseers (whose record has been explicitly found unreliable before). This is not a reliable source at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : Have Just added Merwin's 'Thomas Jefferson' to the bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Project Gutenberg has the full text, and as far as I can tell, as an exact facsimile here. Page 26 doe not mention Jefferson's treatment of slaves at all. Can you provide the sentence you think supports the claim? And the fact remains that a 1901 book is extremely unlikely to be a useful secondary source today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now listen to you, Cm'. Many sources, authors, publishers, have a "financial stake" in Jefferson, for better or worse, and this is not at all the position you had when Monticello.org was being used as a source for "most historians" or as a source for the Hemings controversy. Currently Monticello.org is used for about sixteen items, including "most historians" believe TJ was the father to Hemings' children. There are also other website articles with no authors. If we go after one on that basis we have to go after them all. Cm' as usual, you're all over the map and IMO are merely trying to disrupt/distract from the process of bringing neutrality and perspective to the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For whippings and time off ("Sundays, holidays and after-work hours"), see Monticello.org. Yopienso (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, thanks for that source. It gives an accurate perspective of slavery under Jefferson. Since harsh punishment was only resorted to in exceptional cases I'm inclined to think the few slaves who were whipped during all of those years at Monticello were indeed exceptional cases. (It is still sad though) In any case, exceptions like these are noted in the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the "exceptional" claim from? It does not seem to be in the text. Also, that text is for elementary school children, and hence simplified and likely bowdlerized. This is not a good source for detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the reverts and wars starting up again and the article will be locked; this time longer. Brad (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't me who initiated this. There was no mention of Jefferson's treatment of slaves other than one comment about brutality. Cm' and Q' have made it clear they want the section written up in the worst possible terms and are willing to leave out a lot of other historical content so they can do it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Stephan, I agree a page for kids even from the RS Monticello.org isn't the best source. They say essentially the same thing here, though. Surprisingly, the kids' page isn't bowdlerized; it tells of a slave being "severely flogged," whereas the page for the public I've just linked to doesn't. The teachers' page at the Monticello Classroom (written at a middle school level!!) does tell about flogging and other punishments. I feel confident that all three pages are accurate, but would like better sourcing in the article. Yopienso (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, I think I linked to this article in The Atlantic by Benjamin I. Schwartz somewhere in the misty annals of the talk or article pages. ". . . Jefferson had his slaves flogged, and severely punished those who tried to run away." For slaves' work schedules, I don't know anything better than Monticello.org. Yopienso (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Q' has noted Monticello.org is a ticket selling sight that wants to present Jefferson in the most postive manner to sell tickets. There were no book or author references to back up these claims. I do not want Wikipedia to condemn or condone slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, and if a claim on monicello.org is correct, a citation from an RS should be easy to find. Monticello.org is not reliable.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is RS. As has been explained to you by multiple editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

'Jefferson the white supremacist cattle driving slaveowner'

 * Wrong on all accounts Cm'. It only says days off, etc, only to bring some perspective of slavery under Jefferson. This also reveals Jefferson's personal relationship with his slaves, and since this is the Jefferson biography and this is the Slaves and slavery section, this historical content, backed by two RS's and the testimony of slaves, is important and pivotal to the section topic. No pov comments were made. The facts will let the reader decide. I am restoring this sourced material. There was nothing about how slaves were treated in the section before except the isolated comment about brutality. Your claim that I'm making slavery look like "a walk in the park" is the only pov here. Since you are so concerned about asserting a pov, will you be helping me clean up some of the opinions that are still stuck in the text? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, I objected to your "slash and burn" editing style. Now you know how that feels after you deleted much of Q's work on the article. If you read what I stated, I wanted the information toned down.  There were no book sources that state what Monticello.org claims. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, and as discussed above, monticello.org is not a RS.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So why did you remove all the Randall cites along with the Monticello ones? Brad (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Much work to be done
Let's work on this paragraph:


 * Beginning as a legislator in 1769, in the Virginia courts as a young lawyer, in his declaration of independence, and in his first draft of the Northwest Ordinance, Jefferson tried to convince his contemporaries ro recognize the evil of slavery and to set free all enslaved African-Americans.

I suggest:
 * Early in his career, Jefferson was known for speaking out against slavery. As a young lawyer, in the Declaration of Independence, and in his first draft of the Northwest Ordinance, Jefferson stressed liberty for all.

Citations and possibly dates needed. Yopienso (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your first sentence as a substitute for the current text. The second sentence is a headache and, in my opinion, unnecessary.--Other Choices (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right to change this, but the problem is that Jefferson was not known for speaking out against slavery. The Finkleman book above (link here:) shows that the claim is incorrect and has no basis. The claim comes from an author who didn't even cite his source or tell why he thinks this. It simply isn't true. What is in the rest of the quote can be found elsewhere in the article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quark, I found that paragraph troublesome and brought it here to improve (or remove). I think the basis for claiming TJ was known for speaking out against slavery is because of some of the court cases in which he railed against slavery, for the strong words he penned against slavery in the DOI, and for drafting an anti-slavery clause in the NW Ordinance. Technically, he spoke out only in court; his pen was far mightier than his tongue. We agree, I'm sure, that he is on written record as making statements against the slave trade and against the expansion of slavery and of suggestions for manumissions. Those items are what are referred to as "speaking out against slavery." Yopienso (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the old 1994 Finkelman article of course did not use the 2009 article re Haiti and Jefferson's 1820 proposal to free all newborn slaves, which was carried to the state legislature by the governor (TJ's son in law). Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, in which court cases did Jefferson rally against slavery? As for the DOI, he didn't pen strong words against slavery but against the slave trade. No one disputes he disliked the slave trade, but this is a different matter from what he thought of slavery. I agree that he wrote attacks on the slave trade, but little or nothing on the expansion of slavery (not an issue in his day). If anything, he participated in the expansion of slavery by selling his slaves to owners as far away as possible. He was also uniformly opposed to manumission (he manumitted very few of his slaves, urged others not to do so either, and stopped a manumission law from enactment in 1769), though could accept a hypothetical suggestion of manumission with deportation out of the western hemisphere.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source with reference and page number that states Jefferson's 1820 proposal to free all newborn slaves, that needs to be in the article. If what I understand to be correct, Jefferson himself did not make the proposal to the Virginia legislature. The Virginia legistlature had no idea Jefferson was behind the proposal. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * there is a reliable source cited. (Scherr, "Light at the End of the Road: Thomas Jefferson's Endorsement of Free Haiti in His Final Years," Journal of Haitian Studies 2009. pp 203+). Everyone in the legislature knew the governor was very close to TJ but that is not why they blocked it. The movement was underway to see slavery as a good thing for society, and Southern leaders were rejecting the "Declaration" statement about equality of all men. Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert:Is there a copy of this letter that Jefferson wrote to the Governor to emancipate slave children? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Either Jefferson proposed the 1769 proposal to emancipate slaves or he did not. Apparently there was a proposal to the Virginia legislature. If Jefferson defeated this proposal, then this needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the consensus on Monticello.org as RS?
Quark just removed Monticello.org refs, summarizing: "Slaves and slavery: removing monticello.org; talk page agreement it is not an RS)." It seems to me we agreed Monticello.org is a RS. Quotes from talk page:
 * 1. In April there was consensus that Monticello.org (but not the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation!) is a RS for this article. (Yopienso) The link goes to a long discussion including, "I do think that the TJF is a good and reliable publisher of material on Jefferson. They have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Stephan Schultz)
 * As was discussed, the TJ Foundation is a publisher of high quality secondary and tertiary sources, and it has an expertise on Jefferson and Monticello. Its website (monticello.org) in its history pages is a tertiary source, (although where there are academic papers on it those would be secondary). (Alanscottwalker)
 * Sorry, but Monticello is a reasonably well-run establishment with a very strong academic advisory bord. They are not perfect, but they are a fairly good source, "financial stake" notwithstanding. (Stephan Schultz)
 * Many sources, authors, publishers, have a "financial stake" in Jefferson, for better or worse, and this is not at all the position you had when Monticello.org was being used as a source for "most historians" or as a source for the Hemings controversy. Currently Monticello.org is used for about sixteen items, including "most historians" believe TJ was the father to Hemings' children. There are also other website articles with no authors. If we go after one on that basis we have to go after them all. (Gwillickers)

Against that stands Quark's insistence to the contrary. Since realizing the Foundation sells tickets to tour Monticello, Cmguy has made several comments against considering it a RS.
 * Insert:Gwillhickers had pointed out that Monticello does not list authorship. That is what initially had given me concerns on Monticello, including any other website that does not list authorship. My view was that Monticello was unreliable and need to have a reliable author source to back up any claims. Financial motivation is signifigant in terms of making Jefferson a more marketable nice guy slave owner in order to sell tickets. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So, where are we now? Is Monticello.org a RS or not? I suggest we go to the RS board or desk or whatever it is for help on this one. For my part, whatever they say is binding.

That said, I think the article is improved after Quark's deletions of material cited to Monticello.org. I'm not questioning the deletions, but trying to clear up whether it's a RS. Yopienso (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert: agree with Yopienso about improvement to the article; but my impression was that Monticello.org is a reliable (tertiary) source. However, in the past it has been just a little too convenient for lazy editors to cherry-pick its content.--Other Choices (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quark also removed all of the cites to Randall. Brad (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is gross overreach; he has no authority to do that.
 * Scratching my head, I remember finding something the other day that made me think Randall wasn't utterly reliable (though, imho, much more so than Brodie or Gordon-Reed, who lack all sense of balance, yet are necessary to this article). Can't remember what it was. Nonetheless, the back cover looks good (though back covers and jacket flaps are notoriously unreliable). Publisher bio. Yopienso (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the NY Times review of Randall's book. My conclusions:
 * It was written before the DNA testing, so thoughts on Sally H. aren't reliable.
 * The Times says that on slavery he "descends into hagiography," so the facts might be reliable but the spin not.
 * The Times praises him for the section on his court cases as a young lawyer, so that's reliable, as are other parts. Yopienso (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, Edit 1 and Edit 2 tell the story. They were clandestinely removed along with the Monticello cites. Strange thing that I decided to check Quark's editing. Brad (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brad; I'd seen only edit 1, so my comments about appreciating the deletions apply only to those.
 * "Gordon-Reed [...]lack[s] all sense of balance" - that really confuses me. A least Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy is extremely carefully and fairly put together. It focuses on one aspect of Jefferson, sure, but it is, as far as I can tell, the first proper and fair examination of the evidence on that aspect. And it's quite conservative in both style and conclusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, over-statement. Not important. The question is Randall. Yopienso (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is RS. As was also discussed, if there is information in the article that is reliable, the thing to do is use another reliable source, if you wish to change sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Monticello.org is not an RS. I and other editors were not here when you had your discussion on it several months ago, so we should have it again. Cmguy777 agreed with me above that it is not reliable. It is a site that sells tickets to tours of his plantation, and so has a vested financial interest in his reputation. This isn't in and of itself disqualifying, but it is also making claims that we have debunked above and removed. It has claimed that Jefferson was always anti-slavery (which we have established above is not true) and that he was known for speaking out against it (also established as not true). It was the source of the claim which caused the dispute above (Talk:Thomas_Jefferson) which consensus deteremined to remove as POV and untrustworthy. It is a Questionable Source ("Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts....Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.") As for Randall, he is unreliable. His book is filled with claims that have been discredited by scholars, such as his claim that the 1769 manumission law was proposed by Jefferson but turned down, when it was proposed by others and turned down by Jefferson. This a statement of historical fact that was simply wrong. His book is filled with cases like this. Both Onuf and Finkleman heavily criticize Randall's biography of Jefferson (see, page 199-200, especially footnotes 21 and 22). Finkleman attacks Randall's book for "unrestrained exaggeration and misrepresentation" which has been "thoroughly demolished by serious scholars". According to Onuf, Randall's book "bears a superficial resemblance to a serious work of scholarship" that isn't as much a biography as "a student term paper that has metastasized to grotesque proportions." It looks like the claim that Jefferson proposed a manumission law in 1769 comes from Randall, a claim (per Finkleman and Onuf) which has "no evidence or citation" and "Jefferson never proposed such a design; rather, as chairman of the committee that was charged with revising the law of Virginia, he absolutely refused to allow such a plan, written by others, to be considered by the state's legislature."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You were not clear about why Jefferson refused. Simply because it was written by others?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Monticello.org is unreliable and as Ferling has pointed out Randall manipulated information to make Jefferson appear to be anti-slavery. Gwillhickers made a point that Monticello.org does not list a specific author on their web page information. We don't know who is writing the information at Monticello and the organization is designed to sell tickets and present Jefferson in the best possible manner. There was no other reliable author source that stated Jefferson gave his slaves the weekend and Christmas off. This article is suppose to be on Thomas Jefferson and not an attempt to justify slavery, since Thomas Jefferson was a nice slave owner, therefore, slavery really wasn't such a bad institution. Rather then neutrally discuss Thomas Jefferson and slavery at Monticello, the POV is to make Jefferson purposefully look like a nice guy. The term nice or kind is really subjective terminology that could mean many different things to many people. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. You can't dismiss a source, Randall, simply because 'Ferling sez'. As other have pointed out, you need you take your 'complaint' to the RS noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for engaging. Now please abide by the established consensus.
 * Quark, you seem to understand WP well enough to know that getting one other editor to agree with you against longstanding consensus recently confirmed by five editors does not constitute consensus. You weren't here in April, but you were told about the discussion and given a link to it; it you didn't read it, blame yourself. You were very much a part of the recent discussion. If you wish us to reconsider, please open a discussion. Likewise for Randall.
 * For starters, Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts....Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions in no way applies to Monticello.org.
 * Thanks for your cooperation. Yopienso (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify one point, we agreed that the sentence from Monticello.org, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life, is not acceptable. WP RSs sometimes contain errors; the policy is to keep the RS but weed out any errors. Yet, as multiple RS attest, TJ at times in his life (generally early and late, not middle) did make anti-slavery statements. Yopienso (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * by definition, when multiple editors disagree, we do not have consensus.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : Exactly, which is why we have a discussion page, nit that makes any difference to you, you edit as you please regardless of discussions and consensus, so I will be reverting your mess shortly once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) does cite who is responsible for the content. It does not seem promotional to talk about many of those things in that page -- (museums, in the US, charge admission, as I have noted, it is as easy to charge for Simon Legree as a Saint (perhaps, more so)) Since, we do not have a particular content statement before us, using the source, it cannot really be evaluated, here, though. But, in general, it is RS. However, any statement in RS, may not be a useful statement for our article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Established consencus can change any time. April is a long time ago for Wikipedia. You can't force Wikipedia editors to comply if editor concensus promotes POV in the article. There is no authorship on Monticello.org and is not RS. Without authorship anyone could say anything and not have to be responsible. That is unreliable and any statements from Monticello.org need to be confirmed by an established reliable RS author. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear, who is responsible: an academic, publishing, and museum organization, with a reputation for expertise in things Jefferson. It's also clear on that page what they are citing to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The mud is thick. Anonymous writing is dangerous in terms of a controversial subject such as slavery and Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On the Monticello.org cite the entire slavery section contains one general footnote: "This article is drawn from Getting Word; composed by Lucia Stanton, February 2008". Responsible? What does the phrase, "drawn from" mean? We have know idea who wrote this article or how how much in total Stanton was used to make this article. There is not even a page number associated with Stanton's work, Getting Word I am sure if I handed a college or university history paper with one ambiguous footnote to a Professor I would get the immediate shaft. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also a bibliography, but responsible yes -- the academic center/publisher/museum, is responsible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Chapter 7 in Ferling's, Setting the World Ablaze, contains 88 footnotes; many of them combined with multiple references and page numbers. Footnote 77 alone cites 8 different sources with multiple page numbers. That is responsible! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're disagreeing about, I thought you said no one can tell who is responsible for the information on the website, and I pointed out it is clear who is responsible. It's the owners of the website.  Your blanket statements are weak arguments; it is only necessary to debate the relative quality of different RS when you have a sentence and a cite to be added to the article and you wish to balance weight against other RS.  There is no reason to believe they are misrepresenting Dr. Stanton -- quite the contrary. And Dr. Stanton has written allot about slavery at Monticello and studied it for years.  These do not appear to be factual disputes, but interpretive disagreement; at any rate, as I have said we go with secondary sources (unless there is tertiary information that needs to be referenced). But there appears no point to this discussion without a sentence and cite being proposed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK Wikipedia editors. Here is the link to purchase tickets at Monticello. Tickets & Tours. Enjoy! Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we know museums charge admission. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors should take arguments about RS to the RS Noticeboard. Parkwells (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good advice. But it's really only helpful, if you have a proposed sentence and a cite for them to vet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit break 6
If the claims made in Monticello.org are reliable, we should easily be able to find the information in reputable secondary sources from reliable scholars. Consensus has already been achieved for the removable of several claims from Monticello.org from the article, most recently Talk:Thomas_Jefferson. What we have here then is:
 * A source of dubious reliability, full of unsourced claims and claims made by individuals who aren't even scholars or historians.
 * A source whose primary purpose is to make money off of Jefferson's reputation through the sale of tickets for tours of his plantation.
 * A source which has made several claims that have been shown through secondary sources to be factually inaccurate.
 * A sources which has made several claims that have been cited in the article, which have since been removed due to consensus on the inaccurateness of the claims by the editors here.

There is no question or dispute on any of these points above. When a source has shown itself to have so many problems, there is no question that all of its claims are suspect, and that it is not a RS.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the above points are varying from questionable to plain wrong. Monticello is run by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which is a non-profit foundation with a mandate to "preserve and educate". It's primary purpose is not "to make money". The "education" part is handled by the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies, which has an advisory board stocked with about 20 high-caliber academics, most professors with endowed chairs, many from Ivy League or other high-class universities, and representing a broad spectrum of modern Jefferson research. Monticello.org is a popular web site and not quite as good as a peer-reviewed journal article or high-quality monograph, but it is, on the whole, a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stephan, you may recall that when the Hemings arguing was going on that I supported the TJF site as reliable and I still do. One of the major issues here is that Cmguy will consider a source reliable when it supports his agenda but suddenly it's not reliable when it doesn't. I went back and did some archive reading and sure enough Cmguy considered TJF reliable for Hemings citations but now that it's citing something he doesn't like it's no longer reliable. He also did this with the PBS Frontline source when it supported Hemings but not when it supported TJ's so called "denial letter". Plain and simply Cmguy has an agenda which he won't admit to and plays dumb when he gets called on it. Don't get sucked into this web. Brad (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert: Objection! Not to fast Brad. I prefer to do my own speaking before you put words in my editing. I am all for reliable sources no matter what their opinion is of Thomas Jefferson and slavery. I liberally allowed a source, TJF, that has no authorship or footnotes with page numbers to dictate information on this article. That was my mistake. I believe many editors are liberally throwing away good RS sources for unauthored and in my opinion unreferenced work on Thomas Jefferson and slavery, the TJF site. I have become more conservative in terms of standards on reliable sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Quark's first and 2nd points are plain wrong. Wrt the 3rd point, we have dismissed one statement ("consistent opponent") and been unable to find other sources that confirm slaves' times off from work. 4th point--rewording of 3rd point.
 * Quark wrote, "by definition, when multiple editors disagree, we do not have consensus." (Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2012) This is incorrect. See WP:CON--Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. It's also very strange that he made his controversial deletions with the edit summary, "removing monticello.org; talk page agreement it is not an RS." There was no such agreement.
 * CURRENT CONSENSUS: Monticello.org is a RS for this article. Yopienso (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may disagree on my rationale and conclusion but the fact that Cmguy777 and myself believe that it is not an RS means that, by definition, there is no "current consensus".Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Cmguy you sound like a Fox News commentator. The facts are that in your "own words" you have accused editors of article ownership, personal attacks, idolatry and promoting White Supremacist views. When called on these you play dumb like you're doing again here. You're missing the point that you objected to the PBS Frontline source not long after accepting that it was reliable for the same reasons you give out here but in the meantime the Monticello site was still ok because it wasn't challenging something you agreed with. Ok; your transparency on POV is a reality but you'll dance around it with off topic and irrelevant responses. You are but one of the reasons why the TJ article has been mired in argument for over 18 months with little progress. Brad (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Randall cites
Quark, why will you not address your removal of the Randall cites and sources when you had no consensus to do so? Brad (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That won't be necessary, as once again Q' has jumped in and made major changes without any established consensus and very little discussion, so I will be restoring what Q' once again took upon himself to remove. Given his continued major edits, before the page was blocked and now, and his total disregard for past discussions and consensus, it's becoming clear Q' is trying to provoke an edit war and trying to push his [Jefferson] saw them as little more than animals pov. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already addressed this above. I will do it again here. Randall is unreliable. His book is filled with claims that have been discredited by scholars, such as his claim that the 1769 manumission law was proposed by Jefferson but turned down, when it was proposed by others and turned down by Jefferson. This a statement of historical fact that was simply wrong. His book is filled with cases like this. Both Onuf and Finkleman heavily criticize Randall's biography of Jefferson (see, page 199-200, especially footnotes 21 and 22). Finkleman attacks Randall's book for "unrestrained exaggeration and misrepresentation" which has been "thoroughly demolished by serious scholars". According to Onuf, Randall's book "bears a superficial resemblance to a serious work of scholarship" that isn't as much a biography as "a student term paper that has metastasized to grotesque proportions." It looks like the claim that Jefferson proposed a manumission law in 1769 comes from Randall, a claim (per Finkleman and Onuf) which has "no evidence or citation" and "Jefferson never proposed such a design; rather, as chairman of the committee that was charged with revising the law of Virginia, he absolutely refused to allow such a plan, written by others, to be considered by the state's legislature."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's use your yardstick to measure up RS's. Finkelman is unreliable. He said "Jefferson hated the negro", a sweeping and fringe claim which flies in the face of many RS's and historical evidence. Again, if you have an actual issue with a particular source, present it to the RS noticeboard. -- Now, will you be restoring what you've deleted? I also have concerns about web-page articles that lack an author/historian, but they need to be dealt with one at a time with discussion. Your bulldozer approach to editing is bringing constant disruption to almost everyone around you. Please stop this sort of behavior and move along at a pace with the rest of us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My yardstick is what scholars say on he matter. Yes, please use my same yardstick. Show us a secondary source by a reliable scholar who says that Finkelman is unreliable. It is clear that you have been disrupting this article for some time now. Non-RS's aren't allowed here, and the fact that you won't accept Jefferson's views on slavery changes nothing. If you think some of the claims are accurate, find a reliable secondary source from a reliable scholar to demonstrate this. Otherwise, you are just edit warring.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't dismiss a source simply because one author finds fault with another author. Sorry. Please take your issue to the RS noticeboard and see what they have to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is to be dismissed because it has been "thoroughly demolished by serious scholars," makes incorrect claims despite having "no evidence or citation" and has been attacked by scholars as "a student term paper that has metastasized to grotesque proportions."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is all true then you should have no problem convincing the RS noticeboard. They are the ones who have the final say about contested sources, which is no doubt why you haven't taken your 'claim' to them in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Where was the agreement that Randall is not reliable and should be removed from the article? Nowhere. Your editing is immature and underhanded. Brad (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Finkelman is an established source. Wikipedia editors do not have to specifically use his language, such as "hatred of Negroes". There is nothing in this article that states Jefferson hated black people. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't play the simpleton. The article may not say this, but the skewed and out of context claims have done that for you. And leaving out how Jefferson treated and managed his slaves at Monticello also helps in this effort. I suspect this is why you want to get rid of monticello.org as a reference entirely. They have extensive coverage of slaves and their lives, including testimony from the actual slaves themselves. If they were just trying to make Jefferson look good to "sell tickets" it would seem they wouldn't jump to 'conclusions' about Hemings and TJ paternity. So much for the ticket theory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have made it clear that any historically accurate depiction of Jefferson's view towards slaves is considered by you to be "fringe" and "skewed".Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Finkelman is not fringe for exposing any inconsistencies in Randall's view of Jefferson. Randall could be used possibly in other areas that is not contested by Finkleman. We as Wikipedia editors can't judge the motivations of either Finkleman or Randall. To avoid controversy, I believe the article needs to list specific things Jefferson did, including being an obstructionist. The Finkelman versus Randall debate, in my opinion, is more of a side issue. Editors need to focus on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, with the reading problem. 'Fringe' was only used in reference to Finkelman's claim that "Jefferson hated the negro". Even A.G.Reed doesn't use this language. In fact, you will be hard pressed to come up with a statement from any other sources that even approaches this flagrant comment. Finkelman has hung himself with that one. Not much you can do about it now, except swallow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TJ disliked Negro lifestyles and habits such as being up half the night fiddling and dancing (which kept him awake some nights) along with the other beliefs he had about intelligence etc that have already been mentioned. TJ did not want to associate with people leading that sort of lifestyle but he also avoided drinkers and gamblers for the same reasons. Somehow disagreeing with a lifestyle has been interpreted as "hating" the people that do it. Brad (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Website sources
If we, somehow, have Monticello.org removed as a RS, then we have to go after all websites that have articles with no authornames. In the 'Controversy section website articles from Monticello.org and the Smithsonian are used to source these claims:


 * "most historians accept that the DNA and historical evidence supports the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.[196]"


 * "most biographers and historians have concluded that the widower Jefferson had a long-term relationship with Hemings.[197][198] "

We had a long debate about the reliability of such sources, but because one editor neither cares about all the discussions and effort made, or about making major and radical changes without consensus, we now have to deal with the issue all over again. Contributing editors have a responsibility not to bring major disruption to the page. The best way to avoid this is to review talk page history before getting carried away. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with online sources per se, but rather with sources shown to be unreliable. The fact that a source is online doesn't make it unreliable, rather the fact that it makes dubious or incorrect claims does. If you think any of the other online sources are unreliable, tell us why. What claims have they made that have shown them to be inaccurate?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems you should be asking yourself these questions regarding monticello.org. Now please restore what you have deleted and take your issue to the RS noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And we are asking and answering these questions above already. If you have a problem with it, participate in the discussion we are having above on this matter.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This should have occurred before your last episode. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have been discussing the problems with this particular website, and removing a large number of its claims from the article by consensus, for some time now.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You have no consensus to remove numerous references, along with text, that has been in place for some time. You need more than a partial agreement from one or two editors with the same pov. Sorry. While you were sweeping through removing 'monticello.org' from source text you conveniently let the sources about 'most historians' and 'Jefferson paternity' in place. More of your veiled pov tact. Did you have consensus for that also? Imo, your activity and your words have been less than honest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have stated that the best way to avoid controversy is to not use online sources without author in the slavery section in my recommendations. In the past I was much to liberal with allowing web pages without authorship dictate information in the page, including any "Many historians agree" statements concerning Jefferson and slavery. We need to avoid gross generalizations in the slavery section. From a readers standpoint there is nothing more stronger then to see a name attached to a reference, especially in the new Wikipedia system of having the reference appear with the mouse pointer over the reference number. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to disagree with Cmguy777 here, but I'd like to get input from other editors. My understanding is that slavery section of this article should be nothing more than a summary of the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article.  That has been my approach to editing this article, based on my understanding of how to write wikipedia articles.  Can other editors please share their views on this point?
 * Accordingly, I have deleted a paragraph from this article's slavery section, because it smells of contradictory POV pushing and doesn't reflect the nuanced writing in the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article, which I think is quite well done. This is a perfect example of where a neutrally-worded summary of the scholarship on the subject is appropriate for the main Thomas Jefferson article.  I'll propose such a summary for others' consideration:  Thomas Jefferson was closely concerned with the details of slave life when he was in residence at Monticello.  Hstorians generally consider Thomas Jefferson to have been a relatively mild slavemaster, and slave life at Monticello has been the subject of close scholarly attention.--Other Choices (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe your edit improved the article, not because it removed a source, but because it removed unnecessary detail. (I made a similar edit in the Monticello section, which was reverted and then accidentally re-reverted and seems to be awaiting another revert. I will remove it if it reappears.) Ideally, the slavery section here would be a summary of the other article, but the other article was already kind of rambling (imo) when I inelegantly dumped off some stuff from this one, starting with "Jefferson inherited slaves as a child." Not the coolest thing to do, I admit, but I didn't want to consign all those facts and refs to the memory hole.
 * I don't follow you on your proposed summary. Are you saying that's all the section would have? That would be too brief. Scholars have recently begun to examine slave life at Monticello. Yopienso (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind expanding and/or rewording my proposed addition as long as it is brief and general, summarizing content of the TJ and slavery article. Inclusion of any detail invites endless wrangling of which and how many details to include, so keeping coverage of this topic general and brief is (IMO) the best way to keep the peace among the editors.  Perhaps not an ideal solution, but we're never going to please everybody, so we need to find a way to keep the pot from boiling over.
 * I actually like the current "Monticello slave life" section of the TJ and slavery article, but there are couple sentences that could be reworded. In my opinion, it nicely achieves a neutral POV.--Other Choices (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect Other Choices decision to delete any statements that Jefferson was a nice slave owner. He was an extremely active slave owner involved in every aspect of slave life at Monticello. Jefferson was not a friend of the slaves, he was their master and could sell them or break up their families anytime he wanted too. The slave could not vote or be legally married. Slaves did not have time to grow up. The slave could not leave Monticello. Slaves were always under compulsion of the whip at Monticello. There was a system of perpetual slavery passed down to each generation. Attempting to justify slavery in the article is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brief coverage of the slaves lives is not pov, it only puts it into perspective and cuts through all the hate filled stereotypical narrow minded 21st century academic snobbery you seem to have been force fed (via peer/academic pressure). Now it seems you have a habit doing your thinking for you. Trying to block any coverage of slaves lives is pov pushing. Slavery under Jefferson wasn't "a walk in the park", no, but it wasn't a 'house of horrors' either, as you are obviously trying to assert. There are many RS's that say Jefferson treated his slaves humanely and that he was considerate of many things in their lives. The evidence is overwhelming and there is plenty of testimony from slaves to this effect. Why has this always been a problem for you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And there are many RS's that say Jefferson was brutal. Stating that he beat his slaves isn't "21st century academic snobbery" (condemning him for it would be though), it is stating historical fact which is fact in the late 18th century just as it is today. Judging him would be 21st century snobbery, stating the facts isn't.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated before, I am not judgeing Jefferson for being a slave owner. Terms such as "kind" and "gentle" are POV and have no definate definition. Was Jefferson a kind and gentle slave owner when he took their children and forced them to work in the nailery and or spin yarn on the spinning wheel? The slaves never had a day off, except for the two whom Jefferson freed by manumission. The slaves were not worked from Saturday afternoon through Sunday. That is different from having a day off. People who are voluntarily employed get days off, not slaves. This article is neither to justify slavery as an institution nor make the instituion look like there were no hardships. Why are you, Gwillhickers, so intent on making Jefferson look like a nice slaveowner? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Restore deleted material
Q' removed a lot of sourced material but I noticed he left the "most historians" claims alone in the 'Controversy section. (!) I would like to make a major revert but need to get some consensus. IMO we should restore the version immediately before Q's last major edit. If this is generally agreeable I will make the change and then we can deal with the sources in question from there. A plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have consensus, because both I and (judging from his comments above) Cmguy777 don't agree. You should be participating in the discussion we are having above on this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now you're clinging to consensus, something you didn't bother to deal with before your last episode. You just talk in the vacuum of the moment forgetting what was covered before, and oblivious to where you are going. Your words say one thing, your actions tell us quite a different story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the most historians claim is referring to. If that claim comes from Monticello.org, I do not believe that the site is RS or reliabe without authorship. The Monticello.org needs to be backed up by a reliable author source. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I also have reservations about web-page articles with no author name, but I take greater exception to those, including you Cm', who defended Monticello.org when it came to Hemings and other controversial topics. Now I see Monticello.org is being attacked only because they have so much revealing material about the actual lives of the slaves under Jefferson. THIS is obviously the reason why the editor who feels Jefferson saw them (slaves)as little more than animals wants this cite removed in its entirety. Until we get a ruling from the RS noticeboard, I will be returning Monticell.org ref's to the page, one by one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Opps, gotta be careful of that 3-RR. I reversed two of my last reverts. Will simply rewrite the material and use same source. Q', once again you have taken advantage of the 3rr, making numerous deletions knowing any one editor can only revert three of your questionable undiscussed changes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Both of you are proceeding much too fast, making and reverting changes quickly without giving other editors a chance to weigh in. There are several editors on this page who show up regularly but aren't here on a daily basis.  Consensus, or lack thereof, includes these additional editors, some of whom have been watching this page for a long time.  Right now, I'd like to suggest that both of you sit on your hands for a while -- a self-imposed joint topic ban will allow less heated editors to consider issues in a more timely way.--Other Choices (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good words of caution, but let's be clear about something. I have made three reverts, was mindful enough to reverse two others while the 'other' editor has made dozens and dozens of edits, deleting sources, text, and in the face of continuing objections. Yes, more consensus is needed on this page, but the page has standing consensus also.
 * Consensus ... Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.
 * As such all of the deletions were made against standing consensus, with no regard for other consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Finkelman opinion
I was just directed to a source where Q' claims Randall is not RS because 'Finkelman sez'. I went to that source. -- Along with attacking Randall, Finkelman also attacks Douglas Wilson, Dumas Malone, Alf J. Mapp, Jr., Merril Peterson, Gordon Wood "and a host of others, ..."


 * "It is they who have set the agenda by arguing that he {Jefferson] believed "slavery was morally wrong..." -- Finkelman, pp.198-202.

Finkelman, aside from his fringe claim that "Jefferson hated the negro" is all over the map. In any case, we can't impeach a source by claims made by one source. That is why we have a RS noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, we only use WP:RS/N when we cannot find local consensus. Going there is neither the default, nor is that noticeboard a panacea. We should always make a honest and open attempt to find consensus here first. And, for the nth time, your reading of the source does not correspond to what the source says. While there is a critical discussion of many Jefferson biographers, there is no "attack", and in particular not in the part you quote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you're belaboring the term attack. Finkelman did indeed criticize a whole line of established historians. In any event, trying to impeach a RS on the basis of 'Finkelman sez' is ridiculous, as I think you must know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the opinion of other reliable source are about the best methods we have to judge the quality of a source. But, again, Finkelstein is not attacking them. He points out that they have constructed a certain conceptual framework, and he applies it in ways they neglected, giving results that shed a different light on some aspects of Jefferson. If you have read the whole article, you should have noticed that Finkelman (like me) hold Jefferson in high regard, although (like me) he does not overlook the more problematic sides of Jefferson's life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Schulz, I have seen enough of Finkleman's unqualified language and tone to have a different picture of the individual. Regardless of our perceptions, we can't use one source as sort of a 'badge' to play 'RS cop' with. If one were to try and disqualify a given source by means of other 'sources', you would indeed need more than one source, you would need many, and not the same few, but a wide consensus. Best to challenge a RS on a per issue basis and via the RS noticeboard. Not my idea of fun. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Finkelman, however, plays fast and loose with certain facts, marshaling them into his POV that Jefferson did nothing against slavery. Twice he invokes St. George (for whom I hold the utmost regard):
 * ". . .many of his neighbors and friends, including George Washington, publicly and privately acted on their antislavery views."
 * ". . . hundreds of other southerners led by George Washington, Robert "Councillor" Carter, and John Laurens who voluntarily freed their slaves during the nation's first few decades."
 * The trouble with that is, Washington freed his slaves in his will, after profiting from the sweat of their brows for half a century, a fact Finkelman knows.
 * Finkelman holds TJ to a very high standard: ". . .the test of Jefferson's position on slavery is not whether he was better than the worst of his contemporaries, but whether he was the leader of the best; not whether he responded as an average southerner and as a planter, but whether he was able to transcend his sectional background and economic interests to implement the ideals he articulated." This, imo, is like expecting Al Gore to live in a cabin in the woods and never travel except by bicycle.
 * But Finkelman veers into actual distortion with the Ordinance of 1784, ignoring it altogether and proclaiming, "As a war governor and a wartime state legislator, Jefferson was silent on the question of emancipating and enlisting slaves." True enough, but as a delegate from Virginia to the Second Continental Congress, he proposed, "5. That after the year 1800. of the Christian era there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty" (Merkel 572). Sound familiar? It's the model for the 13th Amendment (Merkel 562). To TJ's dismay, Congress defeated it by one vote because a sympathetic delegate was absent due to illness. TJ wrote, "Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment" (Peterson 283). Also see Merkel, p. 595, for another anti-Jefferson distortion by Finkelman, this one in another document and about the lack of an enforcement clause in the Ordinance of 1784.
 * Sources: Finkelstein, Paul. "Thomas Jefferson and Anti-Slavery: The Myth Goes On." The Virginia Magazine, of History and Biography, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 193-228. Merkel, William. "Jefferson's Failed Anti-Slavery Proviso of 1784 and the Nascence of Free Soil Constitutionalism." Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 2. 3 April 2008. Peterson, Merrill. Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography. Oxford UP, 1975. Many other sources back up my claims here. Yopienso (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, I know that Dumas Malone covered the "one vote loss" in his vol 1 of 6 but I don't have the volume here atm. Washington's will stipulated freeing his slaves but it also stipulated that freedom wouldn't be granted until 2 years after his death. I would imagine this enabled preparations to be made at the plantation for operations without slave labor. However, the slaves were freed after one year. Sadly this Finkleman seems to be another historical revisionist; one who has not found anything new but rehashes the old into the new. Just like Oprah-Reed did. Brad (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find a single reputable scholar in a single reputable secondary source) who says anything bad about Finkleman or his work, please share it. The problem here is that you are giving us your opinion about why Jefferson should be seen one way or another. This article isn't to represent the views of editors (that would be original research but the views of scholars. As we have said elsewhere, Jefferson's views on slavery were complex and contradictory, though his role in the 1784 land law is about all any editors can find to claim that Jefferson tried to fight slavery in some way. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, did you read what I wrote? Or just quickly skim? Did you check the sources I gave? I'll give you some more, if you like, but on your talk page so as not to clutter this one even more.
 * (I'm assuming you, like Finkelman and myself, are aware Washington did not free his slaves in his lifetime but--just like TJ!--made them work and wouldn't let them go.) Yopienso (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly did read it. I know all about the 1784 law, and that this is pretty much all people who think Jefferson was a proto-abolitionist have (which is why the view is rejected by scholars). I am not sure what you were trying to accomplish by giving me so many links about a law that I am very familiar with. You are wrong to claim that Finkleman says Jefferson did nothing on the issue of slavery legislatively while a Virginia official: in 1769 he single handedly prevented a manumission law from being enacted, though it was easily enacted as soon as he left the legislature. On Washington, Finkleman uses him (and some others) to show that even compared to other slave owners, Jefferson was unusually strong armed. He notes that Washington refused to buy or sell slaves, and was much less arbitrary in discipline with them than Jefferson. Cole, another slave owner, tried to convince Jefferson to follow him to free his slaves together in Illinois (while still alive) and Jefferson not only refused but tried to convince Coles to change his mind. This shows an act of kindness other than simply freeing his slaves, as he freed their families together, which contrasts with Jeffersons' freeing of a couple of his slaves without family support, which ended badly for them. (James Hemings, for example, had no free family and subsequently committed suicide). Actually Finkleman gives example after example to show that even when compared to other slave owners, Jefferson was far from kind or enlightened.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Ordinance of 1784 only applied to the Northwest Territory. Slavery was prohibited, however, not abolished and initial settlers could keep their slaves. Keeping slaves out of the Northwest would ensure the South's political domination in Congress due to counting slaves as 3/5 persons and protect southern agriculture interests. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Quark: I don't follow this: ". . .in 1769 he single handedly prevented a manumission law from being enacted, though it was easily enacted as soon as he left the legislature."
 * Finkelman has identical passages in Slavery and the Founders, pp. 137-38, and Jeffersonian Legacies (ed. Onuf), pp. 188-190, that say TJ did act to permit manumission. Richard Bland, who made the motion, was denounced by his fellow legislators (rich planters who, I'm told, were far more liberal than the cruel and benighted TJ), teaching freshman TJ he'd better shut up and put up.
 * Cohen says, "In 1769, during his first term in the House of Burgesses, [TJ] seconded a motion for the adoption of a law which would permit masters to manumit their slaves, but it did not pass. When such a law was adopted in 1782, Jefferson failed to free his own bondsmen. In three other instances Jefferson proposed specific plans which called for emancipation, but he was less than vigorous in pressing for their adoption and only the Ordinance of 1784 was actually brought before a public body for consideration." Yopienso (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of slave's lives
There are two editors who are dead set against mentioning anything to do with slave's lives under Jefferson and wish to keep this context completely out of the Jefferson biography for reasons which at this point are completely obvious. In the process they would like to have Monticello.org completely eliminated as a RS as it provides a wealth of information covering the actual lives of the slaves, some of whom were close to the Jefferson family. They have been trying to paint a dark and grim picture of Jefferson and in the process have exhibited the rankest form of negative pov pushing I have ever seen on this page. They know that once the whole truth is known and presented to the public it will not only expose the Finkelman's of the world, it will knock the bottom out of their cherry picked commentary and pov pushing. The section needs to briefly cover this important aspect of slavery under Jefferson. By simply presenting some of these facts, readers will easily form their own pov. No commentary or speculations will be needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What we object to is your attempt to turn this article into an attempt to justify slavery and make it appear humane. Why are you so emotional about this?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please knock it down a notch or three. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and it applies to Paul Finkelman as well. Do you know who Finkelman is? And let me also point out WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Q', for someone who said that Jefferson regarded slaves "...as little more than animals" and who did this (read it) to the section, your concern for pov has become a complete laugh. You're merely parroting Cm's rant. No one is trying to "justify" slavery.  No one said slavery was 'okay' because slaves had Sunday's and Christmas off. Like Cm', you shirk at the idea of presenting all the facts as you know they will undermine the cherry picked unqualified commentary you have been trying to inject into the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers statement: "They have been trying to paint a dark and grim picture of Jefferson and in the process have exhibited the rankest form of negative pov pushing I have ever seen on this page." Utter rubbish. Gwillhickers, you are angry because Q' and I object to the POV of making Jefferson, the slave master, and slavery look like, as Q' has stated, a humane institution and Jefferson was a gentle slave master. There has been no attempt or effort to my knowledge to make Jefferson a monster or to "paint a dark picture". I object to the way the phrase states that slaves had a day off. The statement needs to say Jefferson did not work his slaves, rather then the slaves got the day off. That is difference. Kind and gentle is subjective terminology and POV pushing. Also Gwillhickers your tone is becoming more threatening on a personal level towards Q' and myself for expressing out opinions as Wikipedia editors. I am a born again Christian and have accepted Christ as my savior. I have no agenda against Thomas Jefferson or anyone on Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At this late date I have seen enough stunted isolated statements made that indeed in effect paints a distorted picture, completely devoid of any context. Also the section for the longest time did not say 'word one' about slaves lives and Jefferson's involvement with them. Including factual historical content, by itself, is not pov pushing. Parading commentary is pov pushing, and we've seen plenty of that, and recently. There are plenty of RS's that say Jefferson was kind and exceptional in his treatment of slaves, unlike most slave owners, and there is slave's testimony to that effect. Can you find one RS that says Jefferson was a cruel slave driver, or anything to that effect? Not even Finkelman, Ferling or Reed paints Jefferson as a cruel master. All they do is cast aspersions on the idea that TJ was always anti-slavery. Content about Jefferson's dealings with his own slaves is important and trying to block it is gross pov pushing. It should be briefly outlined, in context, nail factory included. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Finkleman and Onuf, among others, do depict Jefferson as an unusually cruel slave maser. If we do describe Jefferson's approach to being a slave maser on the article, you won' like it. Finkleman comes close to calling Jefferson a terrorist when noting his method of punishing entire families for the misbehavior of a single slave. The picture you have of Jefferson the slave maser simply doesn't align with historical fact or scholarly consensus. You are right that we shouldn't judge Jefferson, though we do have to present the facts, which are quite plain and indisputable.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : Well Q', as soon as you uttered unusually cruel and terrorist, the rest fell into place immediately. 'Finkelman sez', once again. What you/Finkelman have said is an extraordinary claim, completely out of step with Jefferson's overall track record, and so many other factors. May I ask, what did this one slave do to make Jefferson respond in such a rash, sweeping and heartless manner? And more than once? Do you even know? Finkelman, for all his academic accomplishments, too often speaks in excessive tones. He is highly visible, peer driven and in my opinion preaches for the choir that has given him tenure, literally and figuratively. Even the titles of his books are brash and highly opinionated. Most Jefferson biographers entitle their books e.g.'The life of Thomas Jefferson', or some other such neutral title. Finkelman, who by no means is alone in this effort, entitles his books with '...the myth goes on', etc, as if Jefferson, uh, the human being, was some diabolic schemer his entire life. -- So, you mentioned facts. Now you get to present them. Tell us about this one slave. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you even know? - I don't. I'm willing to learn. But I cannot imagine any scenario where it would be morally acceptable to punish a family fo the deeds of one. Can you? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : Of course not. Why would you even ask such a question? I just can't imagine someone like Jefferson lashing out at so many slaves because of something (whatever it may have been) one slave had did. Seems reacting like that would cause dissent among the rest of the slaves there. Not very wise, and Jefferson by many accounts was a persevering man. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It happens every time a breadwinner or caregiver is imprisoned. More to the 18th-century point, the Constitution had to specify there could be no "corruption of blood." Q. refers, I suppose, to families being broken up by sales, which TJ found necessary either as punishment or for cash flow. Although Washington was able to avoid creating such tragedies, TJ practices were not unusual. Finkelman calls freeing just one member of a family "a perverse kind of cruelty." Yopienso (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that Jefferson is to be viewed as a slave driver. The paragraph that stated Jefferson's slaves were brutally treated has been taken out, and I agree that the paragraph needed to be taken out. I am against using terms such as "kind" and "gentle" just as much as terms that state Jefferson was a "brutal and cruel" slave master. These terms are completely subjective and in many respects have different meanings for modern readers. According to Appleby, Jefferson treated his slaves the same as contemporary slave owners. Why not propose a sentence or paragraph to be put into the article in the discussion page? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is too much evidence and RS's that says otherwise for me to entertain this any further than here. From what I have gathered Jefferson took his slaves and made them into an extended community.  They were not regarded as "little more than animals", they looked after his children and his wife Martha, some present at her death bed. They were taught a wide range of skills and often paid extra. Yes, many worked the fields, just as many freemen have had to do for their meager existence in those days, 'free' but unable to do much else with their life. This is the perspective many 20/21st century presentists lack. There is just too much evidence, testimony of slaves and RS's to ignore that Jefferson was overall, exceptional in his treatment and regard for his slaves. The section needs to reflect this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Appleby states that Jefferson went along with the norms of fellow slave masters. There has been a signifigant effort not to use language that makes Jefferson look like a monster or some sort of evil task master. To go the opposite direction would not be truthful, to portray slavery in the way that you described would be POV that condones the institution. One needs to seperate Jefferson's rhetoric with how he actually ran his slave plantations. According to Appleby Jefferson wrote severe physical punishments for slaves into the Virginia laws. Jefferson viewed slaves as commodities trading them when he needed money or giving them away to his family. Calling his slaves family does not take away these difficult or harsh realities. As has been mentioned before, please feel free to write a draft paragraph in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert : Jefferson did not go along with the "norms of slavery". He had a reputation for treating them good overall and there is slaves testimony to that effect. Including historical content is truthful. If it was cherry picked only to show one POV we would have issues. That is not the case as the section has always been filled with isolated claims and LOTS of pov commentary with little else to balance it out. For the longest time there was not one word in the section about Jefferson's treatment of slaves. Blocking any mention of treatment to slaves at Monticello is pov pushing. If the slaves were treated generally good, then that is the truth and should not be kept from the article because a couple editors share the pov that it will make slavery look like a "walk in the park". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Appleby Jefferson did publically oppose the mass execution of 25 blacks after the Prosser slave rebellion, prefering that blacks be deported. Jefferson appointed Benjamin Banneker, a black man, surveyor for the district of Columbia. I would accept these to be put in the article. What may be missing in the article is Jefferson's fear of slave rebellion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: After further reading Banneker did not participate in the survey of Washington. Apparently Jefferson promised him employment, but there is no record that Banneker had been hired for the federal survey. Also, Jefferson believed Banneker was a common "negro" who had obtained aid from white mathmetician Andrew Ellicot. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: Claims he was "unusually cruel" are as absurd as claims he had a happy family of willing slaves. Slavery is not pretty. TJ was a slavemaster. Yet, he was not overtly cruel within the parameters of the reality of managing chattel slaves. The article has to show that, and Monticello.org is the best RS I know of to show it. Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So far it looks like Monticello.org (sometimes referred to as TJF) is indeed the best resource for looking into the actual lives of slaves. Some runaways were whipped, a rare event, but once we get past that it's easy to see the overall situation. To get a good perspective of how slaves were treated one should read this article about Isaac Granger Jefferson. There are many other such examples including where Jefferson moved slaves to reunite families. 1, 2 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realise that that story deals with a particularly qualified and valuable slave, not the average field hand, right? And I still fail to see how you deduce that only runaways were whipped. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Schulz :  Many slaves had particular qualities, skills, many could read and write. No doubt Jefferson's affinity for a given slave revolves around this idea. That doesn't mean his considerations didn't carry over to his other slaves. Field workers, like the skilled workers, lived in log cabins, with a fire place a root cellar and a sleeping loft, they were allowed to have their own gardens and raise their own chickens, etc, so it seems they were treated the same, overall, regardless of any favoritism TJ had for some slaves. re: Whipping. No doubt this was the punishment for fighting, assault, etc. Shall we condemn all sea captains for flogging seaman for the same things? If a seaman 'ran away', he was usually hung. If a seaman disobeyed a direct order from the 'master' while at sea, he was hung. And how easy it would be to call the captain a 'cruel man' because of his dealings with a few seaman. Welcome to the 18th and 19th centuries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would upset Cmguy in some manner if I mention that the Hemings family had their own house on the Monticello property. It burned down at one point and I don't know if it was ever rebuilt. Just another sign of the cruelty toward slaves that TJ practiced. Brad (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the very reason Cmguy777 and myself don't think this article should be discussing Jefferson's methods as a slave owner: it is too subjective and just invites this kind of antipathy.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Insert: No Brad. Not upset. I am sure Jefferson favored Sally Heming's and her family particularly if the two were sleeping with each other at Monticello. I believe that promoting the "joys of slavery" on the Thomas Jefferson article is POV. There is no place in the article that states Jefferson was a cruel task master and the reference on "cruelty" by Jefferson's oversears was taken out of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WHAT?  "joys of slavery"?? Before it was "a walk in the park". This is mindless horn blowing. Reference to cruelty by Jefferson's overseers should be included also. Don't think you can block facts by blocking just one of them. That also is established historical content. Your attempts at manipulating selected facts is becoming an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is an account of Jefferson's dealing with a slave who stole nails from the nail factory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, here is a quote from the author Henry Childs Merwin written in 1901 in the same book on page 22: "Slavery itself was probably a factor for good in the character of such a man as Jefferson,--- it afforded a daily exercise in the virtues of benevolence and self-control." Merwin has endorsed slavery as a good institution. That is POV. The purpose of this passage was to use slavery to make Jefferson a good person. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cm, you have a habit of masking wild stretches. Before you claim that showing slaves lives makes slavery look like "a walk in the park". Now here you are saying Merwin is 'endorsing slavery' because it made Jefferson do a lot of thinking. Your reaction to slavery is habitual and seems largely peer induced. Time to count past four. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you just broke my ironymeter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Richard Bernstein refers his readers to two books by Lucia C. Stanton and to Paul Finkelman's Slavery and the Founders (not specifically "The Myth Goes On") and to other authors for details on Jefferson and slavery. What this does for WP editors here is: 1. Points to useful RS books, and 2. Validates anything at Monticello.org attributed to Stanton. Yopienso (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, 1901 was an important time in American history. Historians were reconciling with the South after the American Civil War. In order to do this somehow slavery had to be looked on as a moral institution and that Southerners were fighting for state rights. Republican Reconstruction was castigated as corrupt despotism and President Ulysses S. Grant, the general who defeated Robert E. Lee at Appomatox, was viewed as incompetant rather then a President who enforced Civil Rights on the South. Also, in 1901 blacks were being lynched, the KKK was rising, and President Theodore Roosevelt for all practical purposes viewed blacks as biologically inferior. In fact the southern Press was outraged when TR had Booker T. Washington over for dinner at the White House. I believe Merwin as a source needs to be put in the context of his times. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right, and this is one reason Wikipedia policy discourses older sources, and always places priority on newer RS's.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers has attempted to compare soldiers with slavery. This is not true. Soldiers get paid for their services who are contracted to serve for a certain period of time, even under a draft. Soldiers who are U.S. citizens can vote. Soldiers can also rise in rank, while a slave can not. The U.S. military is not an agriculture slave plantation owned by one master. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong, no such comparison was made, and you managed to miss all three points. Reference to sailors was mentioned as you seem to think slaves were the only ones who were ever dealt with harshly in those days. Two, they were also mentioned to give reference to that time period. Generally very unforgiving. And three, to point out how easy it would be to refer to the administrator of such punishment as 'cruel'. All this was in full view of your response. Again, please respond to what was written, not to what you wish was written. You have a habit of ignoring discussions and wasting time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cmguy is entertaining no? Since he has wailed about boys in TJ's nail factory and girls at the textiles your mention of sailors is also relevant. In that era boys were regularly on ships as powder monkeys and assistants in various duties. David (Damn the torpedos!) Farragut was aboard a ship at age nine. It was very common of the era for children to work dangerous and unhealthy jobs whether slaves or not. Child labor was not exclusive to slavery. Brad (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing that child labor is what makes slavery objectionable? Cmguy777 is not passing moral judgment on Jefferson simply by mentioning the historical facts. Gwillhickers wants the article to discuss Jefferson's methods as a slave master, which is a can of worms we would be best not to open up for this reason. If we are going to discuss that, then Jefferson's use of child slaves is relevant (though we shouldn't pass judgement on him for using them). For this reason, it would be best to avoid the topic of Jefferson the slave master all together.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The topic of discussion is Jefferson and slavery, not children and powder kegs. No one is judgeing Jefferson in this article for working slave children in a nailry or spinning. Sources state that Jefferson worked slave children, excluding this from the article is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)