Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 31

"Most historians"?
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Below is a list of historians, professors and org's who clearly do not go along with the TJ paternity opinion. Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, former research committee member at Thomas Jefferson Foundation Herbert Barger, Jefferson Family Historian at Norwich University Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society Dr. Harvey C. Mansfield, Harvard University Dr. David N. Mayer Professor of Law and History, Capital University Dr. Robert F. Turner (Chairman), Professor, University of Virginia Dr. Paul Rahe, Professor of History, University of Tulsa Dr. Forrest McDonald, Distinguished Research Professor of History, Emeritus, University of Alabama Dr. Alf J. Mapp, Jr., Eminent Scholar, Emeritus, Professor of History, Old Dominion University Dr. Robert H. Ferrell, Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus Indiana University Dr. Lance Banning, Professor of History, University of Kentucky Dr. Charles R. Kesler, Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College, author of American History Eliot Marshall, author/historian Dr. Walter E. Williams, George Mason University Dr. Jean Yarbrough, Professor of Political Science, Bowdoin College NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS: Scholars Challenge Jefferson-Hemings Allegations J. Patrick Mullins, Ph.D, University of Kerntucky Dr. Thomas Traut, University of North Carolina Dr. James Ceaser, University of Virginia Monticello Association, Url2 William G. Hyland, author of 'In Defense of Thomas Jefferson:The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal' and 'A Civil Action: Sally Hemings v. Thomas Jefferson' Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., author of The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, Section Head (Supervisor), DBPH, Library of Congress (1974-78) Dr. James P. Lucier, historian, journalist, foreign policy specialist, appointed as 'Scholar' in the Congressional Reading Room, Library of Congress, served on the U.S. Senate staff for 25 years. [ http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Vindicated-Fallacies-Contradictions-Genealogical/dp/0976777509/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224109610&sr=8-1 Cynthia H. Burton, author, Jefferson Vindicated - Fallacies, Omissions, and Contradictions in the Hemings Genealogical Search, 2005] [ http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Scandal-Thomas-Jefferson-Sally/dp/1572493038/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224109620&sr=8-1 Rebecca L. McMurry, James F., Jr. McMurry, authors of Anatomy of a Scandal: Thomas Jefferson & the Sally Story , 2002]

As I once said back in April 2012 this is not a 'challenge' to remove the statement 'most historians'. I just wanted to point out, that these people, given their prominent backgrounds, shed considerable doubt on the claim of "most historians" and any claims of "fringe" used to sweep other views under the rug. -- Gwillhickers 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Why are we discussing this again? It was settled long ago and nothing has changed.  Multiple reliable sources say there is a consensus among historians.  The lede's purpose is to convey information in a summary fasion, and 'most historians conculsions are' is summary information.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not mix issues. No one wants to remove "most historians" from the section, only that fair representation be given to both sides in the lede. You simply can't ignore the other side simply because an outfit like TJF has said "most historians", esp in the face to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That claim, unproven, not even an explanation offered, does not cancel out the scores of differing opinions from the many scholars listed and elsewhere. None of the other topics in the lede are treated as the Hemings topic is, and they're all established historical facts. How do established facts get less coverage than an unsolved theory with a lot of opinion? Opinions are tangential details. Yes, nothing has changed, all we have is a couple of biased opinions, not "multiple", from highly biased sources like TJF, an outfit one of its own leading members, Dr, Wallenborn, is not in agreement with.  Hemings should not be treated any differently than the other topics in the lede, none of which have quasi and unproven opinions attached to them. Keep the lede simple and neutral like all the other topics and keep the commentary and opinions in the section. Knowing how many other historians disagree with the likes of TJF I'm a bit disappointed at the effort to hide or obscure this reality. -- Gwillhickers 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the same type of argument that is presented to support weight for fringe theories on 9/11, the Kennedy murder, climate change, evolution, free energy, and conspiracy theories of all kinds. Even if a number of historians hold a contrary view, they need to submit their findings to academic publications so that the academic community can assign weight to them.  A brief check on some of the people listed shows that they seem to be right-wing.  Harvey Mansfield is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, David N. Mayer is a "close associate" of the Atlas Society and his publisher is the Cato Institute, Paul A. Rahe is a fellow of the Hoover Institution and host at the National Review, and Forrest McDonald is a "paleo-conservative".  TFD (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except you keep forgetting that opinions that state Jefferson was not the father are not at all "fringe". Sorry, there are simply too many prominent historians and professors who have articulated their views for you to be making such silly assertions. And noting someone is a conservative doesn't come close to impeaching their credibility. We could say the TJF is a "leftist liberal" organization, some of them members of the NAACP. To impeach their credibility we would have to take the ball further than that, as Dr. Wallenborn did, and as you have not, here. -- Gwillhickers 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy. The "Thomas Jefferson Society" did not recruit its researchers based on ideology.  More importantly their findings have been accepted by historians, which is how we determine their weight.  The approach of the TJ Heritage Foundation is typical of how views held by a very small group of people are promoted.  Recruit a small number of experts who are known to share one's views.  Have them write a report which could never be accepted for publication in an academic journal.  Promote it heavily through sympathetic partisan media (the "echo chamber").  Hope that mainstream media picks up on it and the average person believes that there is a controversy among scholars.  And if anyone points out that there is not - then accuse the academic community of being dominated by liberals, big business, communists, or whomever one perceives the elitists to be.  TFD (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the org you are referring to in your first sentence is the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, not Society and you are only guessing if anyone has recruited or selected scholars in the manner you claim. Do you have a source that maintains the Scholars Commission  said "liberals need not apply" or turned away anyone on the basis of ideology, religion, politics, race...anything? No, you don't. None of your speculations and wishful guessing changes the fact that these scholars are accomplished historians and professors from some very prestigious Universities, etc. As recruitment goes, when the TJF conducted their research they didn't allow any independent outsiders to participate, unlike the Independent Scholar's Commission. Sorry. As for the "liberal media, communists, etc", this is all conjecture. From what source are you making these claims --  the same one's who've jumped to the conclusion that Jefferson is the father?  It's like you're referring to a source written by Yaser Arafat to write about the PLO-Israeli controversy. Not a very objective opinion. Pass. -- Gwillhickers 03:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The following is from the TJHS website. The bias is starkly obvious.


 * Purposes of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
 * To further the honor and integrity of Thomas Jefferson, and to promote his vision and ideas and their application in our times and in the future.
 * To stand always in opposition to those who would seek to undermine the integrity of Thomas Jefferson.
 * Yopienso (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have a bias against anyone trying to promote falsehoods based on racially charged speculations based on sketchy evidence that would never stand up in a court if law, at least not in the free world. If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond, President of the NAACP and Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American and "special programs" at TJF. -- Gwillhickers 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because these two people appear to be African-American, they have acute bias? TFD (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my god it just gets worse. Gwillhickers, your inference is egregious and wrong that the TJF staffers must be biased because they are African American. This is a racist reaction pure and simple. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A belated 'just for the record': I was claiming they were biased because of their involvements, not 'because' of their race. -- Gwillhickers 02:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick check of your original comment confirms that you said nothing specific about involvements of Bond and Swann-Wright. Rather, you said "look at" these staffers. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Presentation of "most historians" claim
The idea of "most historians" is indeed a claim and it should be presented as a claim. The section should say,
 * it has been claimed by some historians who feel that Jefferson is the father of Hemings' children that their view is in the majority.

We can't pass this off as a fact, not in the face of overwhelming evidence that says otherwise. There are plenty examples where commentary has been added to the effect that it reads, Historian Smith says 'this and Professor Jones says 'that. The "most historians" claim should be treated no differently. -- Gwillhickers 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is unsourced POV, there is no source that says that, and that's not how reliable sources present it:


 * Smithsonian Museum
 * :American President: A Reference Resource" from the University of Virginia
 * United States National Park Service Jefferson Biography. currently offline
 * Monticello, etc.
 * -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Insert -edit conflict) Presenting a self serving opinion (i.e.most people agree with us!) as a fact is the worst sort of POV. There's nothing that says we can't say Some highly visible sources in the public eye have claimed their opinions are held by a majority of historians.' In any case, we need to keep opinionated commentary out of the lede regardless if you feel their opinion is fact for the simple reason that none of the other more important topics in the lede have such opinionated window dressing attached to them. Claims and commentary from selected sources belong in the section, if anywhere. -- Gwillhickers 03:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue has all been discussed in tedious detail before. For whatever reasons you reject the sources others accept on this matter. Your reasons have not changed nor improved. Anyone who reviews the archives of this talk page will realize that you are attempting to revive a WP:Stick issue.  So, please let's talk about something else, like the still repetitive slavery section - that's always calming :).Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Really, one might as well suggest that the Global warming page should state: "according to some scientists, their view that anthropogenic global warming is occurring is a consensus view". FurrySings (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, Gwillhickers, just wow. Some historians claim their view is the majority? An amazing suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a controversy, so self serving views should be presented as such, esp since these are unqualified claims, not proven, made by orgs in the public eye under a lot of peer, political and financial pressure. -- Gwillhickers 03:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most historians means numerically there are far more historians holding that view and it is reflected in peer-reviewed articles and books. On any subject there will always be people who do not accept the generally accepted view.  But unless they are publishing articles in the academic press then it is insignificant to the topic.  TFD (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Give us something more than opinions. Many of these historians teach at major Universities and have indeed published many books. I at least provided a list. Even TJF's own committee member saw the railroading and goading of opinion going on over there. Eugene Foster, the one who conducted DNA testing, along with H. Barger his history consultant didn't jump to 'conclusions' and were outraged at the way their findings were presented. What can you come up with except generic claims about the academic press? Think about it. You're going along with something only because you've apparently been led to believe it. Not sure why. Do you have a lot of peers looking over your shoulder? How do you actually know "most historians" have made such ridiculous 'conclusions'? I say 'ridiculous' because the evidence is far from conclusive as there are other candidates more likely than Jefferson. How could anyone not be open to all possibilities? Jefferson was and is singled out because he's a prize catch in the 'get America' crowd who haven't grown out of the 60's yet and for those who have a racial axe to grind. There are others. Politicians and public institutions go along because they're afraid they'll be labeled "racist" by pressure groups like the NAACP who are instrumental at this sort of thing and who now dictate policy at the TJF. That's how the propaganda game works, and if you don't think that has factored into this controversy then you're twice as naive as I thought. But never mind all of that. Show us a list that at least supports your notion that "most historians" (are idiots?) go along with the Jefferson paternity theory. The only published books that I know of that claim "most historians" are by Fawn Brodie and Paul Finkleman. Maybe John Ferling. Hardly representative of "most". -- Gwillhickers 16:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AlanScottWalker gave you a list of four reputable sources that make the claim "most historians" believe in TJ's paternity. You sounded shockingly racist in your 04:25, 3 October 2013 post. Yopienso (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please. If you think it's above beneath the NAACP to have any racial or political bias simply because of race then it would seem you're the one who harbors racist views, so stop with the high school spit ball approach and personal attacks please. I treat anyone, black, white, whatever, equally, and hold their feet to the same fire as anyone else, regardless of race, thank you. And don't think for a minute it can't be seen that you're dodging the bias issue with this cheap stunt. -- Gwillhickers 01:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, please apologize for addressing me in that tone. We simply cannot have constructive dialogs like that. Your earlier comment seems to discount Bond and Swann-Wright because they are African-American and/or because they are involved with African-American institutions. Yopienso (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, please apologize for saying I sound "shockingly racist", as there was nothing I said that was remotely racist and saying so was just your way of not actually coming out and calling me a racist directly. Then please apologize for disrupting the discussion surrounding bias with such underhanded tactics. Then kindly review this page. -- Gwillhickers 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, you once had credibility at this page but you shot it away with today's racist observation, "If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF...", the comment linking to photographs of African American staffers. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The NAACP and Swainwright are not above bias, and saying so is not at all racist. Your assertion that I should not say so because simply because they are African American and involved with racial politics and social issues is what is racist. If you have a personal issue with me you should take the matter up on my or your talk page. This sort of (not so) veiled personal attack has nothing to do with the improvement of the Jefferson page, so you need to take the soapbox elsewhere. All you are doing is attempting a personal end-run around the fact that you can't argue the points honestly. -- Gwillhickers 19:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You based your accusation of bias on the appearance of these staffers as African Americans rather than on any of their actions, or on the published observations of others saying that they are biased. Your reference to their appearance is what is fundamentally a racist observation. You should stand down and let uninvolved folks address this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Making reference to their race and racially based politics is not racist. Many others have made the same observations. I could easily document the number of times the NAACP has been embroiled in their own racism, so please take the soapbox elsewhere and discuss the issues directly please, if that's possible. All you are doing is trying to upstage your failed arguments with personal attacks. -- Gwillhickers 00:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers! I most certainly will not apologize to you. I suggest you submit your comment to WP:DRN to find out if only the few of us here see racism in it.
 * I believe you edit in good faith, but it appears you do not understand what is meant by academic consensus. The academics could certainly be wrong! Consensus does shift! Next year we may have to change our statement. For now, most mainstream academics in the field of history believe TJ fathered at least one child with Hemings. Please see pp. 170-184 and note 20 on p. 194 of Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy.
 * Quotes: p. 170--"By the late 1990s there emerged a new scholarly consensus, which accepted that a sexual relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was probable." p. 171--"the new consensus"; p. 184--"That, by 2001, the primary 'defense' of Jefferson was maintained by a fringe group espousing reactionary politcs and employing hysterical rhetoric is testimony to how quickly the historiographical consensus regarding the Jefferson-Hemings question shifted in 1997-8." Yopienso (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hysterical rhetoric" says it all. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Their views were articulated well, and the fact that no one here has squared off with any of the points made more than suggests that the only "hysteria" here comes from the one's pointing a finger as is evidenced by your personal attacks and your repeated failure to address issues and points directly. -- Gwillhickers 00:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't any question that the NAACP's agenda is racist.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that what "most historians" have concluded because a reliable source says so. I also know that Jefferson was an American president because sources also say that.  Can you provide any sources that say the JHF TJHS's views have entered mainstream publications?  TFD (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You know it's so because a reliable source says so? That's really rich. Several of the books listed are used as RS's on the Jefferson page. Do you believe them too? Do you have a list of publishers that are on the "mainstream list" and ones that are not? And if such a list even exists, tell us, who decides which publishers belong and which do not. The 'God of Published Works'? Your argument is not even academic. This is just too easy. All you are trying to do is sweep other views under the rug by attaching labels like "fringe" and claiming they are not mainstream because of an obvious inability to confront any topics raised directly. Easy to see. -- Gwillhickers 01:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you addressing me or GWillickers? Do you mean TJF or TJHS? Yopienso (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was addressing Gwhillickers and referring to the  TJHS.  TFD (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; I was just wondering. :-) Yopienso (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ASW, there are indeed sources that make the claim about "most historians" as you've pointed out and I never said there were none that did. As such we get to say this on the page, as we have already, but as I maintained, we should at least state that this is a claim, not an established fact, as no one has established it, again, not even qualified with an explanation, let alone factual proof. It is a claim made with no footnotes or reference to any bibliography on the online pages these claims are made. It should be treated like any other commentary that has even been made on the Jefferson page. e.g. Finkelman says...etc. Also, no other topic in the lede is treated with opinionated commentary, so any commentary there needs to go. I believe that is fair and objective given the controversy and biases associated with this topic. -- Gwillhickers 01:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several reliable sources making that statement. Unless you find a significant reliable source stating that there is no consensus, we describe the consensus like the sources do. Also see WP:NPOV, WP:CLAIM. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that says we can't say a particular source has claimed or asserted an opinion. Commentary has been introduced to this page time and again in similar manner. Btw, Paul Finkleman once referred to Jefferson as a "monster". Are you saying we can make this statement? "Jefferson is a monster." Nonsense. If a source only makes a claim regarding a controversial topic, without qualification, explanation, let alone proof, we need to make clear to the readers that the assertion is indeed a claim, which is the truth. -- Gwillhickers 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy which has just been pointed out to you is WP:NPOV. Considering this article is about Jefferson, who is notable for many things far more important, a fringe dissenting opinion from mainstream historiography deserves little if any mention.  TFD (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes NPOV means giving both views equal representation. At this point, after all that has been pointed out, your line is beginning to sounds like a chant. "Fringe" only tells us you have no idea of who's out there. The dissent comes from major players in the controversy along with a long line of established historians and professors. Got it this time? -- Gwillhickers 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No it does not. It means giving every view the same representation as it receives in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy is found at WP:WEIGHT. 03:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And people like Dr. Foster, Dr. Wallenborn, Barger and all the prominent historians and professors mentioned give the other side of the controversy plenty of weight. That's why it's a controversy. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? -- Gwillhickers 05:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which means that among the thousands of historians in the U.S., a handful believe that Jefferson was not the father and they have been unwilling or unable to publish their views in the academic press and have received nil acceptance of them. The same is true with virtually any fringe theory you care to name.  Ergo, any controversy exists outside the mainstream and deserves little or no mention here, per policy.  TFD (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, you seem to have slipped back one level. We are not talking about Jefferson and Hemings sex live, we are talking about the current historical discourse. Have any of competent historians among them (and that includes neither Barger nor Hyland) claimed that there is no consensus against their position? Have they done so in a reliable publication so that we should give weight to it? Or is it your own original research that tells you "if there are so many opposed, there can be no consensus"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary in the lede
Either we present a balanced commentary in the lede or we should remove all commentary, esp since no other topics are treated with commentary. Simply because some high visibility websites have claimed "most historians" does not mean there is no appreciable number of others who don't agree. If there was not an appreciable number and they were all fly by night sources, there would be no controversy. There is one and it needs to be presented fairly. These attempts to skew and hide this reality are beneath anyone who tries to author a history article, which should be objective, balanced and neutral. Also, if there is no controversy, then the topic needs to be removed from the lede completely, as that was the reason for its inclusion when it was first debated back in 2011. -- Gwillhickers 19:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Hemings material is significant to the historiography of Jefferson, no matter whether we think the question is now settled or whether it is still open to debate. As such, the Hemings note must stay in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hemings issue started with a rumor and remains far from proven to this day, regardless of opinion, much of it racially and politically motivated. In order for it to be a controversy there has to be an appreciable number of people who haven't jumped to conclusions over evidence that clearly points to other paternal candidates as well. If the topic is indeed a controversy, then it needs to be presented fairly and objectively. If it is not a controversy, it is not significant to the historiography of Jefferson any more than other rumors with no factual and conclusive proof and doesn't belong in the lede, as this was the justification for having it there in the first place. Is it a controversy or not? Please don't play musical chairs with the issue. -- Gwillhickers 19:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have seen no evidence that the findings are "racially and politically motivated" - can you provide any evidence for this in mainstream sources? TFD (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? This very article mentions that the original accusations were made by a disgruntled journalist who was denied an appointment by Jefferson. Callender was making good on threats he'd made to Jefferson that there would be consequences if he wasn't given the postmaster job. There's plenty of racial motivation in interpreting the results of the DNA tests - many incorrectly treat them as definitive and there's an active faction here who want to do so - which is how the article read for a long time - except the facts don't back them up. The irresponsible, sensationalist title of the original Nature article didn't help matters.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidently there's much you haven't seen. As I said, this talk page is not the place to be educating the uninfomred, but you have insisted:
 * William G. Hyland, Jr. speaks of such bias in his book In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal pp.22, 119, 166, 280, published by the award winning Macmillan press, Fifth Ave New York, a major and long established publisher.
 * David N. Mayer's books are published by the University of Virginia. His essay Sally Hemings Myth and the Politicization of American History, is featured in Dr. Robert F. Turner's book, published by the North Carolina Academic Press. (Turner is a Professor at University of Virginia.)
 * Turner's also writes about how DNA evidence was handled and presented in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal: The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings
 * Dr, Wallenborn, former TJF committee member himself accused TJF of political bias.
 * Dr Foster and his historical consultant Herbert Barger have accused the TJF and others of bias noting that some members like Swann-Wright were African American and heavily involved with racial issues, which is a fair observation. Racial motives are constantly considered in courts of law and other places -- but not here??
 * The University of Virgina Magazine has an excellent article of the various biases that have played a central role in the controversy.
 * Francis D. Cogliano's book Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy, p.124 talks about how the civil rights movement pressured Montecello into making slavery the central theme in the tour of TJF Montecello.

Dr. Foster, H. Barger, Dr. Wallenborn along with the many other prominent historians and professors deserve fair representation in the lede and in the section. They are not an inconsequential, or a "fringe" group by any means, esp since Foster, Barger, Wallenborn and others were at the center of the controversy from the time DNA evidence was misrepresented. Their accounts are represented in the mainstream which is largely why the issue is controversial. If their accounts were only published by some fly by night news rag, etc, there would be no national controversy among historians and professors.

Since this has been well discussed now and there are more than enough reliable sources, we also need to mention that bias has played a major role among those who have misrepresented the evidence from the start and who have "concluded" that Jefferson was not only the father of one, but all of Hemings' children. We also have more than enough sources to mention in the lede that there are other points of view among a good number of historians. This is not Stalinist Russia guys. We need to make the article fair, balanced and objective. The website sources that say "most historians" allows us to say that, but that's it. It is not grounds to be ignoring the many other accounts as something that is inconsequential. If you maintain all of these people, Dr. Foster, Dr. Wallenberg, Barger, professors at Harvard, Virginia, et al, are of no consequence, which is absurd, then there is no controversy and we remove it from the lede. Btw, there is indeed a controversy, it should have mention, fair mention, in the lede and my advice to you would be to educate yourself on matters before you take part in a debate you evidently know little about. This debate is getting old, has been attempted before several times and has failed each time for the same reasons outlined now. Past participates that share these views are not present at this particular time no doubt because they're tired of repeating the same points over and again. -- Gwillhickers 00:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your first source is a Google book search of Hyland's book for the word "bias." Page 22, which is your first reference, says, "What was their bias or...."  It appears to be discussing the DNA testing.  Also, I asked for evidence in "mainstream sources".  Find an article in a history journal that supports your views.  TFD (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * GWillhickers, the book to which you refer in your last bullet point is the same one I quoted from in small print above. Your hurried search caused you to utterly miss Cogliano's main point. I urge all editors to read pp. 123-124, from which I quote:
 * When, in 1998, DNA testing confirmed that Jefferson was the likely father of at least one child by one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, this development too was incorporated into the house tour. [. . .] Having conceived Monticello as a patriotic shrine to Jefferson . . . the Foundation neglected or ignored slavery during its early years. Eventually, in response to the growing literature on Jefferson's relationship to slavery . . . the Foundation began to consider slavery as an aspect of Jefferson's legacy. As an inevitable consequence of such an approach, the heroic image of Jefferson as Apostle of Freedom . . . was impossible to sustain. Yopienso (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The text indeed says that the Civil Rights movement fueled in part their decision to make slavery the central theme at Montiecllo. It is Jefferon's home and legacy. How is it that slavery takes a front seat to almost everything? -- Gwillhickers 05:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well certainly it can't be that there are any racial motivations involved... TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And it says the TJF acted "in response to the growing literature on Jefferson's relationship to slavery - itself a product of the broader study of slavery in the United States fuelled in part by the Civil Rights movement", not that "the civil rights movement pressured Montecello into making slavery the central theme in the tour of TJF Montecello." None of which supports the claim that their findings on paternity were "racially and politically motivated."  TFD (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The same feelings about slavery directly connect to Hemings who was also a slave, much of the sentiment politically and often racially motivated. Both slavery and Hemings were viewed through the same lens by many if not all the staffers at TJF and elsewhere. It has been easily demonstrated that there is a wide body of descent among people, many directly involved in the controversy along with many prominent historians and professors at major universities across the country. The evidence still supports other possible and viable candidates while there are plenty of important people who have published works in enough mainstream publications to warrant better representation of both sides of this controversy. The attempt to write it all off as inconsequential remains ludicrous and smacks of pushing a POV regarding a controversial topic. There is not one piece of evidence, DNA, looks of children, times of conception, that points to Jefferson any more than it does Randolph Jefferson and others. If so, spare us the 'fringe' rhetoric and name one. Most of the weight should be placed on the facts, not the opinions. The bulk of anything said in the lede and the section should be devoted to facts, with brief mention of the opinions out there on both sides. We can still say "most historians", but that is all you can say. It's not a license to stick your head in the sand and ignore and misrepresent everything else. -- Gwillhickers 05:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss evidence and methodology. The fact is that historians have accepted the TJF's findings and ignored your group's findings.  It could be that you are right and the TJF is wrong, but it does not matter, because policy tells us to follow NPOV.  If you want equal weight for fringe theories, then get Wikipedia to change that policy.  TFD (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have cited no policy that says we can't coverage both sides of a controversy, and your claims about "fringe" remain refuted. The fact remains that historians are widely divided as is easily demonstrated, that many of them are from prominent universities and that much of their work is published by mainstream publications, also demonstrated. Once again, people like Dr, Eugene Foster who did the DNA experiments, Herbert Barger, his history consultant, Dr. Wallenborne who exposed the TJF research committee, all central figures in the controversy, are also in the group who have not taken inconclusive evidence and have jumped to such singular conclusions. You've tried to brush off all of these people as "fringe", but one look at the number of people, their backgrounds, their involvements and their publishers and that claim falls flat on its face. When you say this is not the place to discuss evidence, it only shows us that you have to stay away from the facts as far as possible to sell your opinionated and unproven claims.  ASW has presented four websites that claim "most historians" and though I challenge that idea I have never said we have to remove this from the page. This is yet another distinction that seems to escape you. My only position is that we need to say something more about the other views as there are enough of them to justify doing so. Naturally you object because as soon as the other side has fair representation much of the weight to arguments shifts to the other side. -- Gwillhickers 16:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy is "neutrality". I have never called anyone fringe.  People are not fringe, ideas are.  What makes ideas fringe is not that they are inaccurate, biased, poorly reasoned, not supported by facts, or that their authors are unqualified - the opposite might be true.  Lots of ideas that are now generally accepted were considered fringe when they were first advocated, beginning with Ptolemy's theory that the Earth is round.  Ideas are fringe when they do not attain acceptance in the mainstream, in this case, in academic writing.  TFD (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A "fringe" idea is highly unusual, weird even, with few or no facts to support it. An idea isn't fringe simply because it's not held by "most historians", whatever that amount is supposed to be. As I've said, it's an unproven mostly partisan claim. In any case, there are too many historians, professors and people central to the controversy who don't follow along to be writing off their views as fringe. The reason the Hemings topic is a controversy is because there is great opposition to the conclusions jumped to. If the opposing views were just held by a few fly-by-night websites or books there would be no controversy to speak of. As you know, there is one to speak of, which is why the topic is allowed in the lede. The opposing views have also been published in many mainstream publications as I've also pointed out. -- Gwillhickers 18:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia guideline WP:FRINGE defines a "fringe theory" defines them "in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." Fringe theatre is theater outside the mainsteam, fringe events at party conferences address minority issues, etc.  In this case the dissenting view has received little or not notice in the mainstream, and "neutrality", which is a policy, requires that we provide it with the same prominence.  If you dislike the term, then just say outside or ignored by the mainstream.  Incidentally, it is not up to us to evaluate a theory based on whether there are facts to support it.  That is the role of secondary sources.  And of course mainstream can ideas, such as DNA, can be weird.  TFD (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary in the lede2
You keep ignoring several items. One, that opposing views are indeed prominent and covered in mainstream secondary sources as was pointed out several times now, and two, WP policy says, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints. The opposing views are indeed significant and is why there is a controversy. There is also a quote from Jimbo Wales in that same section which says If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. (emphasis added) This was done, quite easily. The opposing views are indeed held by a significant minority, as is evidenced by numerous and established historians and professors from numerous major universities and people central to the controversy, like Dr. Eugene Foster, etc. Commentary should be limited to the section and differing views be given fair representation. Such details do not belong in the lede and not be given the same weight as the established historical facts, like the DOI, Louisiana Purchase and slavery. -- Gwillhickers 23:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what "neutral" is; you posted that racist bit about "to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF", pointing to the photos of black staffers. That dropped your neutrality stock to nil. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to 'ace' the discussion with such shallow rant. You're trying to take 2 + 2 and come up with 100. I would have said the same thing about anyone involved in such a capacity, regardless of race. My referral was quite warranted. IMO, most of the NAACP, esp Julian Bond, who has a long history of divisive rhetoric and racist slurs, are stark racists and depend on 'individuals' such as yourself to hound those who may hold their feet to the same fire as they would anyone else. Please stop with your not so veiled personal attacks and use the talk page for its intended purpose. Got any thoughts on WP policy and the other finer points of the discussion? Feed that melody into your mixer and see what you can come up with. A.H. -- Gwillhickers 02:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your racist remark is applicable because you are here arguing a finer point about how race relations are to be presented in this biography, especially with regard to slave/master relations with all the attendant need for sensitivity. We all know Wikipedia policy but sometimes there are judgement calls, and this is one of them. I don't think your judgement can be accepted here regarding race matters. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel the same about your assessment, given your shallow jump to conclusions. I made reference to black staffers with racial bias, as was warranted given Julian Bond's history, remarks, etc. This is not (braawk!) "racist", or do you feel they are above such scrutiny because they are black and I'm not? Read: Conditioned response. Please keep the dialog focused on WP policy and how we're supposed to present these issues to the readers. -- Gwillhickers 02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You pointed to what Julian Bond looked like, not any of his history, remarks or deeds. Just his appearance—inferring very clearly that a black staffer must be biased. It is quite different to refer to deeds and say that someone has demonstrated bias, which is what I am doing now. I have no idea what you look like; I just know what you wrote. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : Bink, I understand your point, but I did mention that he was a member of the NAACP -- and while what they stand for on the surface is commendable (equal rights, etc) too many of their members are no different than some extremist who wraps himself with the flag as a justification to do and say what he pleases. -- Gwillhickers 17:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Folks, apropos the lead, historiographic footnotes do not belong there.
 * The issue is raised, should the phrase "consensus of modern historians" be applied in the lead. I would say no. Even were it so, it belongs in the section discussing the Sally Hemings affair/marriage.
 * Further, it seems from the discussion above that the phrase at issue should be amended to the "consensus of [Foundation A] is [A], the consensus of [Institute B]" is [B]." and that observation be placed in a footnote. WP should be a place of greater information. This level of scholarly back-and-forth is not relevant to a narrative on Jefferson's life for the general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. WP isn't interested in the consensus of institutions A, B, and C, but in the overall consensus of the academy--the leading scholars of history. They are not necessarily correct, but they are the arbiters of mainstream thought. Francis D. Cogliano presents an excellent historiography on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy on pp. 170-198 of Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy. The online format has two large gaps; any person in the U.S. can readily find the book at their local library or ask there for an inter-library loan. A careful reading of Chap.6 of that book should end this debate.

Half of p. 183 is given to David N. Mayer's defense of TJ, summed up by a short quote from John Works: "Defending Thomas Jefferson, therefore, has come to mean defending what America means, and we feel compelled to rise to that defense." Cogliano immediately follows with, "Among scholars, this defense has been ineffective." Both Mayer and Works are members of the TJHS, which Cogliano tells about on pp. 180-183. Wrt their report, he writes on p. 181 that "it shows that the work of the TJHS, while cloaked in scholarly objectivity, promotes an explicit political agenda." Cogliano concludes on p. 191,"Now that most scholars accept the Jefferson-Hemings relationship as a fact it will be necessary to re-evaluate Thomas Jefferson's life and character . . ." [emphasis added]

This is who Cogliano is. Yopienso (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with TVH, the lede should be a summary of Jefferson's life and any topic should not get treated any differently than all the other topics there. Opinionated commentary belongs in the sections and since there is a significant minority of descending opinion regarding the Jefferson paternity theory from notable people in many mainstream sources their views should get fair representation. The attempts to obscure and hide these things from the readers are disappointing. -- Gwillhickers 17:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yopienso, Cogliano indeed mentions that "most" scholars accept ...as a fact. 'As' a fact. The idea of Jefferson's paternity is still a theory and remains far from proven. As such, we need to be clear about that and not deceive the readers. You should be looking for legitimate ways, per WP policy, to do that, because that's the truth. -- Gwillhickers 17:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article currently reads, "These indicators have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. That seems to address your concern that we do not present it as a fact, and may even understate the degree of acceptance.  TFD (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In all likelihood it may even overstate that degree given the many prominent historians, professors and other notable people (tip of the iceberg) who haven't jumped to such a narrow conclusion. In any case, giving commentary in the lede for this topic is giving it special consideration and weight over all the other established facts presented there and needs to be confined to the section.-- Gwillhickers 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any academic paper that any of these professors have published? There are of course always experts who doubt orthodoxy, but unless they publish and their views obtain recognition it is of no relevance.  TFD (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any published from anyone in the TJF or any other web-cite sources that has claimed "most historians", etc? The Smithsonian, PBS, etc? Heck, these orgs have simply made the claim and we don't even know anything about most of the individuals there 'standing behind the curtain', pulling the ropes, so let's not start inventing requirements that WP policy has not even stipulated regarding reliable sources.  -- Gwillhickers 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yopiensko just provided you with a book published by the University of Virginia Press. TFD (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're jumping to another topic again. You have provided no published academic paper so asking for me to provide one is more of the foot dragging that continues to characterize your (lack of) arguments. -- Gwillhickers 17:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, the members of the TJHS are all (maybe most?) recognized scholars and more renowned than Cogliano. All or most have published, some prolifically. Not all are TJ specialists. Almost all are old white men; some are dead. There's an old white woman and an old black man among them, and one or two middle-aged men. That's the problem: they are from the passing generation, and no longer represent the mainstream, but have become reactionaries. This happens every generation or so as the trends in historiography swing lke a pendulum. For better or for worse, right now the trend is not to write hagiographies, but to paint feet of clay. Yopienso (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not interested in speculations about which source may be more recognized than the other, esp since WP policy has nothing to say about that, and esp since sources like TJF, PBS don't even have actual names of historians or professors attached to them. Again, commentary in the lede for one topic, a theory, should be removed. The topic has the most text devoted to it than any other topic in the lede, and again, this is just theory. We're here to write a factual biography and any opinions and theory can be mentioned in the section with fair representation for all significant views. Btw, Dumas Malone was an old white man when he wrote his award winning biography of Jefferson. He is still a reliable source regardless of his race or the fact that he is now deceased, so let's stop inventing rules and keep our line straight. Most modern sources only offer new opinion and simply copy the older sources. I have further reservations about many modern sources as many are undisciplined, are acutely presentist in their thinking and often plagued with a lot of peer driven trendy attitude. Ergo, sources should be evaluated on an individual bases and prejudice toward old white men should not be a determining factor. -- Gwillhickers 17:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You should be arguing your case on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're confused again. I was only pointing out that no WP policy was presented in any of these arguments about sources. Is there a source that says we can't use sources written by old or dead white men? Once again, opinionated commentary needs to be limited to the sections. Ultimately only facts directly associated with Jefferson's life should be summarized in the lede. Modern day speculations, either way, about a theory should not receive more weight and coverage in the lede, or anywhere, than do the established historical facts. -- Gwillhickers 20:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this biography should touch upon the changing historiography of the topic. There is no remit to limit the lead section to a fraction of the article content. Rather, the lead section is a summary of important article content. The historiography is especially important for TJ as it is subject to recent reevaluation. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the biography should 'touch upon' all historiography, but not in the lede. Everything is subject to reevaluation. The lede is no place for the 'historiography' of one topic, an unproven theory no less, the importance of which is also opinionated. If we must keep such commentary in the lede, then it should reflect all significant views. You can't have it both ways. Either we keep commentary in the appropriate section or we give all significant views fair representation in the lede, as well as in the section. If Jefferson's paternity was a proven fact, beyond the shadow of numerous doubts, then opinions in the lede about the topic might be warranted, but no more than any other topic, none of which are typed out in the lede in paragraph proportions. None of the other (very) important established historical facts in the lede are treated with any commentary from selected sources. -- Gwillhickers 03:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the lead section the way it appears today, including the paragraph about slavery and TJ's relationship with Hemings. If you are proposing to delete that paragraph then I am against that suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except you've failed to explain how this topic, a theory, deserves more weight than all the other established facts. Either we remove the commentary, or we have it include fair representation for all significant views. Btw, we don't have to remove the entire paragraph, just the commentary. There was no one sided commentary about historians before July when some new user came in and claimed Jefferson "got off far too easy". This editor then edited the lede to say that DNA matched Jefferson, only, an obvious attempt to pass the paternity matter off as fact. This is underhanded BS and an obvious deception. Not too long ago ASW balanced the commentary by including "A minority note the evidence also supports the possibility that other male members of the Jefferson family could have fathered her children. Before that throughout most of 2012 the commentary included, some historians have noted that the evidence can also support other possible fathers, which is the truth. Any commentary in the lede needs to reflect the whole truth regarding DNA evidence and other significant views as it did before. In any case, commentary is only given to this one topic/theory and more text is devoted to it than any other topic by far, and now it's one sided. The current lede poses a clear undue weight and POV issue. -- Gwillhickers 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't value your argument enough to rebut it. This is a race issue and I don't think you can be neutral. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of you're arguments didn't stand, and since you can't wiggle your way around the above points just made, all you can do now is play the race card. Sorry Bink, who are we kidding? Even if I were the 'racist from hell' it doesn't change the facts and issues like undue weight, POV, significant minority views, etc -- none of which you could square off with and address effectively. -- Gwillhickers 00:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is asked to be neutered, we are only asked to use reliable sources to contribute information to the encyclopedia. We are to be even handed, admitting conflicting scholarly views unless there is a preponderance of evidence which makes a POV WP:fringe. Which is why I would like to include all associations of differing reliable source scholars on any given topic dispassionately --  without the explicit agism appealed to heretofore by some of our contributing editors. I would like to hear from Alanscottwalker again, since his proposal and mine are so close, and I endorsed his above, for the body of the article narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert: (edit conflict) Agism and racism. Opposing sources were recently ridiculed: "Almost all are old white men..." No reference to political and racial agendas and orgs with a long history of racist and divisive slurs, just old white men -- and our finger pointing friend here had zero to say about it because he's on the same side of the fence.  This is what you're dealing with at the moment. Just so you know. -- Gwillhickers 00:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have taken this off my watchlist. Discussing it again, for the many reasons discussed previously, is not worthwhile. In the years this has been discussed, I am still of the opinion that "consensus of most historians" or something like it belongs in the lede as summary information. As to the rest, good luck.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ASW, even though we disagree about most things regarding Hemings I don't mind saying that you were/are a significant contributor and your edits were a big part of the reason why the article remained stable until just recently. Hope you don't go. -- Gwillhickers 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is little left to say. It was stable until you started changing it again, and then reopened it here.  But to say it all again: look at the sources.  Ample sources directly support "most historians."  The major source offered to quibble, here, the TJHS report overall concludes: "don't know" and "resonable persons disagree" (individual members have a range of doubts, some are "almost" certain its not true, some are skeptical, Paul Rahe says more likely that Jefferson is the father of Eston - and says even the argument that it's Jeffeson's relatives reflects extremely poorly on Jefferson), and none of that expressly contravenes "most historians" which is what we are relating as sourced.  In ordinary language "most" has never meant "all" and does not do so here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary in the lede3
Actually the recent round of edits and debate started here when you reverted an edit that added balance to the Hemings presentation in the lede as the page had recently. (This is not to see it's all your fault.) The page was stable when it reflected both significant views in the lede. As I've always said, it's not my wish to remove most historians, only to give fair representation to the significant views as the lede did one before, and as you also added to the lede. I would like to remove the commentary from the lede and treat the Hemings topic no differently than the others, but if we must keep commentary there it should reflect both significant views. Don't think that compromise is unreasonable. -- Gwillhickers 19:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted a single word that made no sense in the sentence back to its stable version. Obviously, I think it should have ended there. But it did not because more and more was then changed - and that word did not find its way back into the sentence, which sentence already acknowledged that agreement was not universal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Non-conclusive" evidence made perfect sense, but I apologize, there was a similar attempt by TDOL before that where Bink reverted. Yours was the second revert, involving non-conclusive evidence, which is the truth btw. Then later you came back and added balance to the lede as I pointed out above, which sort of surprised me, but that too soon disappeared, which didn't surprise me. In any case no one has submitted any legitimate argument for not giving the readers the whole truth here. Opposing views are significant, numerous, widely published in mainstream sources, as was pointed out numerous times now. If there's going to be commentary for this one topic, which smacks of undue weight over all the other established facts, btw, then it should reflect both significant views as it did up until July when some redlink user came in with no discussion and made the change -- and went so far as to say DNA matched Jefferson, period, with no mention of the other numerous possibilities. Yet another deception. Commentary in the lede needs to  say something to bring balance back as it did before. -- Gwillhickers 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we having the same discussion. Most here don't see us hiding anything.  We are to provide a summary of sourced information in an article lead.  See  ;  . "Most historians" is sourced summary information, and it does not mean all historians.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no one has even come close to justifying adding commentary in the lede for a theory when there is none for the other more important factual topics. How does an alleged affair come off more important than topics like the DOI, Louisiana Purchase, Presidency, slavery?? I say 'more important' because the Hemings theory is given more coverage by far than the other topics in the lede. This is clearly a POV undue weight issue. Secondly, claiming "most historians" by itself is ambiguous and doesn't represent the wide body of the other significant views. So not only do we have to put up with commentary for one topic in the lede, but for it being skewed to represent one side. Now an other editor has added even more commentary about "oral tradition" and "places Jefferson at home in time to father children..." and has almost turned the lede into a section about Hemings. There was no discussion or consensus to add all of this other stuff so it needs to go and balance brought back to the commentary along the same lines as your edits to the lede recently did. -- Gwillhickers 23:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Source for "coaching" of Madison Hemings
William G. Hyland, Jr. claimed on p. 166 of In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal that S.F. Wetmore coached Hemings. I am merely reporting this, not supporting or attacking Hyland or his claim. I do not think it should appear in this article, but could be appropriate to Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. Yopienso (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim was that the living descendants of Madison Hemings had been coached. TFD (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, thanks for digging that up anyways. After years of reading the many different sources it gets sort of difficult to remember which source every idea came from. I agree, coverage of this part of the controversy belongs on the dedicated page. In fact, we might want to review the Controversy section and see what other details we might want to trim down. -- Gwillhickers 21:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but as you see I misunderstood the claim, which was that Madison Heming's descendants were coached.
 * Did you notice my rebuttals under "Facts in the lede"? I hadn't realized till Bob joe returned and I went back in the archives how long this discussion has been going on. I think it really is time to stop discussing the same old stuff, since we editors have a consensus (a plurality, not a unanimity) that 1. TJ was ambivalent wrt slavery and, 2. there is a mainstream academic consensus that TJ fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children. I see I should drop out of the discussion and urge each editor to walk away from it. We should be responsible for keeping the article on this track. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me Yopienso. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the lede as it is, reflecting well established facts and sources. We end up discussing the "same old stuff" only because the 'same old reasons' present themselves from time to time as we saw just recently, i.e.skewing the DNA statement, etc. Then of course once in a while a new comer arrives, sometimes making one-sided edits with no concern for past discussions, neutrality, and we have to go through the same thing all over again until they come up to speed and get matters straight. Joe Bob', I have no problem with stating that "most modern historians" subscribe to the Jefferson paternity theory because we must go by the sources, even when we disagree, as I obviously do. My position however is that there is a wide body of other reputable historians, scholars, professors from notable universities and elsewhere who don't follow along with the Jefferson paternity theory and that their views are just as viable and significant as that of "most historians". This so called "minority" constitutes a significant view and as such is due fair representation in this biography, per WP policy, as I have maintained all along. I resent attempts by anyone who tries to skew the controversy, or any topic, with one sided opinion, leaving out other viable opinions and often important facts. This article has a long history of this sort of editing. Too long. Yopienso, thanks one again for being the voice of mediation and compromise. I was comfortable with the lede statement as you wrote it and was ready to move on days ago. -- Gwillhickers 07:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The position of Jefferson/Hemings doubters on the continuum of mainstream to minor to fringe is more toward fringe than mainstream. We should not entertain the doubters with as much weight as a supposedly "viable and significant" minor viewpoint such that this minor position be stated clearly in the lead section. Rather, we should clearly state the mainstream position in the lead section and relegate such minor/fringe viewpoints to the article body because of their failure to gain traction. In his survey of the literature, Kenneth Morgan of London says that the 1998 DNA research combined with historical evidence shows that Jefferson was sexually active with Hemings "beyond reasonable doubt"—that TJ fathered at least one child by Hemings. Morgan is nothing if not objective about the dispute across the pond. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're echoing the same old speculations. DNA points to many paternal candidates, and there is not one piece of circumstantial evidence that narrows the matter down to Jefferson alone. At this late date there is also a lot of unanswered questions about why DNA analysis was handled in Britain, not in the USA, who funded and oversaw the experiments and how the DNA samples were handled. These are fair questions, still unanswered and quite warranted considering the way Britain's Nature magazine reported and skewed the facts in the typical fashion still practiced today. Were the DNA samples compromised? Were they kept at the right temperature during the flight to Britain? Were the samples subjected to X-rays during security checks? Aside from the evidence being far from conclusive, even if samples were handled correctly, these questions remain unanswered. And why are modern day Hemings descendents refusing to cooperate with further DNA investigations? Speculation is a two way street. -- Gwillhickers 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Gwill, but you obviously know nothing at all about DNA analysis. I suggest you either get basically informed about the issue, or you assume that the peer reviewers of Nature, one of the most respected scientific journals on the planet, know their job. And you really start to sound paranoid about Britain - what's their end game, discrediting Jefferson so that the American population rips up the constitution and begs to be allowed back into Elisabeth's empire? See my comment above about why further analysis of Hemings DNA is of, at best, marginal value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Baloney. We are not here to argue the case, we are here to tell the reader what the historians have determined. The historians have largely settled on Jefferson having fathered a child by Hemings. Your above arguments are fit material for a book you might write, but they are not useful here at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. One of the main purposes of the talk page is to resolve matters of indifference before we put pen to paper in the article. And we are here to report the established facts, with mention of varying opinions over the years. Facts come first, which is why you seem to gravitate toward opinion to the extreme degree you have, while you attach labels to ones that don't line up with your disposition on matters. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a historiography. We are allowed to make brief comment on what historians think, past and present. Facts please. -- Gwillhickers 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no. We are not writing a traditional encyclopedia here, where scholarly debate among the editors shapes the text. Instead we are writing Wikipedia which exists to summarize the already published literature. Your preference for facts that you have personally selected is deprecated at Wikipedia which focuses on conclusions made in the literature. In a previous discussion you wrote "the sources say Jefferson morally opposed slavery, a conviction that increased, his entire life." However Lacy K. Ford says otherwise in Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South—he says that from 1784 forward, TJ's opposition to slavery was private, not public, and it was consistent, not increasing. Many of Jefferson's biographers have questioned TJ's moral stance as complex and contradictory. If we relied on your "facts" we would be adrift in errors such as these. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "We are not writing a traditional encyclopedia here"?? Be nice if you could present a WP policy that nails that one. In any case, by ignoring facts and focusing on opinion the only thing we would be "adrift" from are indeed the facts. The article already acknowledges that Jefferson has been criticized by modern historians over slavery. We present the facts, mention varying opinions past and present, and let the readers decide. What are you afraid of, that readers will make up their own minds? -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Letting the reader decide is a common argument of the minority position. Wikipedia summarizes the mainstream literature; we rarely let the reader decide. When we do it is because the literature is seriously split. In this case it is not. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wait, help. Lacy K. Ford says Jefferson’s was consistently anti-slavery, not increasingly anti-slavery after 1784 in his private, not public opposition. His opposition did not decline despite repeated frustration in the political arena? That is remarkable consistency, not hypocracy.

But, some of Jefferson’s recent biographers have questioned TJ’s moral stance as complex and contradictory? Could this mean the biographers simply deny the legitimacy of Jefferson’s nationalism, which took 'slavery policy' as a means to a larger end – continued national unity and therefore perpetuating U.S. independence in a world of competing empires north (English), west (French/Spanish) and south (Spanish/English) and east at sea (British/French)? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The hypocrisy is between TJ's written words and his known deeds. There was consistency in his words, and consistency in his deeds, yet there was hypocrisy between the two. Thus TJ was consistently hypocritical.
 * The question of TJ's statesmanship with regard to slavery will always be an interesting debate. Some say he was successful politically, some say he was a failure; the literature is divided. If you want to tie TJ's moral stance on slavery to his nationalism you should quote some reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hoooo-boy... Talk about simplistic conjecture. There are numerous sources that cover the political and social circumstances that Jefferson was up against, esp during his presidency. I just got finished outlining the definitive ones above. i.e. Wars, political division and the threat of civil war during a very unstable period, etc. This explains why he didn't involve himself with abolitionist pursuits, to speak of, during his presidency. Before that there was much that Jefferson did do politically. You seem to be faulting him for not having a 100% success track record, as if any political short comings were entirely his fault. Jefferson did not live in a vacuum. He was surrounded with this entity called the real world.  Morally he was 100% consistent. There's not one quote, speech, letter -- anything -- that can be presented that says otherwise. Again, we present the facts, with mention of varying opinions, and they vary considerably, and we let the readers decide. We do not tell them what to decide, or goad them into deciding, or persuade them into a decision, media style.  -- Gwillhickers 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * B', your last edit was based on selective opinion, conjecture, (i.e."contradictory") which doesn't even acknowledge the realities Jefferson was dealing with. Lack of action is not in of itself "contradictory", esp when there are political realities that had to be dealt with. You also need to give us something that nails down the idea of "pro-slavery stances". We've been through this sort of thing before. There are 100's of sources for Jefferson, which is why we can't get into an opinion war, so we have to present the facts and simply say opinions vary. -- Gwillhickers 01:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Binks, you need a cite to source southern threats at secession (end continental nationalism in the U.S. of the Jefferson-Adams sort) over slavery were developed by 1810? I introduce my students to the idea by a scene from the movie 1776, cut or uncut version, where Pinkney sings, “Molassas to rum to slaves”, and the ‘whole south’ walks out of the Continental Congress debating independence – in 1776.

That sentiment does not evaporate with the 1783 Treaty of Paris. The South, or more properly, elements of it, assume a minority stance of “rule or ruin” the United States, leveraging slave-power, then the race card. I would re-read LSUs ‘History of the South’ in eight volumes for you, but I’m on another project. For the latest iteration, see the threatened default of U.S. good faith and credit over the last two months, merely a continuation of ‘rule or ruin’ mindset.

Jefferson had to trim expressions on slavery for his political base in the short run, and let the evolving superiority of free soil build majority over time in the nation, allowing the working of democracy and majority rule to find a solution to the issue of slavery. Which in one sense the 'rule or ruin' fire-eaters forced on the nation in a civil war, --- where --- God may not have been on either side as Lincoln observed in his Second Inaugural, --- but it was certainly --- Napoleon's 'God is on the side of the biggest battalions', for the good of all, slave and free, that all would be free. A sentiment shared by Jefferson and Lincoln, although both were at times manifestly ambivalent about how to go about it in the real world of American politics and majority elections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gwillhickers
All editors are invited to comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as it is relevant to this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The ultimate cheap shot. Brad (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This notice is neutrally worded. Its placement is just as likely to bring supporters of Gwillhickers to comment as it is likely to bring critics. Binksternet (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not a dispute resolution, searching for a way to express the majority scholarship along with the now controversial minority scholarship on DNA. Gwillickers has demonstrated it is not WP:FRINGE with current sources. Though, one editor claiming previous scholarship is not admissible on the death of the author is surely inadmissible POV agism. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * DRN is for content disputes. I don't see this as a content dispute; I see it as a behavioral problem. Also, I wanted a forum that would bring closure even if Gwillhickers was unwilling to participate.
 * If Gwillhickers was not so combative, the various content disputes on this talk page could get solved in less time with less drama, and I think with more respect to the widely varying perspectives which are present in the literature. His sharp polarization of the problems makes it that much more difficult to achieve a neutral and balanced result. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede2
Though Brad's last edit was thought provoking, per Jackson, et al, it was of course not appropriate for the lede as I'm sure he knows ("har de har"). Yopienso's last edit seems appropriate, that Jefferson "expressed" opposition to slavery and leaves the door open to interpretation. -- Gwillhickers 20:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been perusing Gordon-Reed's book on the relationship and the words come off the page as very angry, and demanding retribution for slavery. I know, off topic but I changed the lede as a form of venting. Brad (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

14702 words. A bloated nightmare

 * File size: 596 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 135 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 24 kB
 * Wiki text: 183 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 91 kB (14702 words) "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 1648 B

Naturally the Hemings section has grown all over again after several attempts in the past to chop it. Little is included in the article on TJ's post-presidency and several other areas. How much can we add to this article before it becomes 10 lbs of feces in a 5 lb box? How long will slavery and Hemings remain more important than anything TJ ever did in life? Brad (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Hemings section" is slightly more than "University of Virginia" and slightly less than "Final days". I don't find that particularly unbalanced. "Slaves and slavery" is full of some anachronistically sourced white-washing, but I have several conference talks to prepare, and don't feel like taking that Augeas stable up quite now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By full of anachronistically sourced white-washing were you referring to any factual errors? Too many facts, not enough opinions? It would help to prevent misunderstandings if you were more clear. -- Gwillhickers 23:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'll be busy more or less for the next two months. But I have some trouble accommodating the opinion that "Jefferson's policy was to not allow his slaves to be whipped except as a last resort, and then only on the arms and legs [...] whippings were administered only for stealing, fighting, or other exceptional cases", with the fact that the great man himself wrote (in a letter to Reuben Perry): "In reference to a recaptured runaway slave by the name of James Hubbard: I had him severely flogged in the presence of his old companions, and committed to jail where he now awaits your arrival." Now of course, maybe Jefferson saw running away as a form of stealing oneself (the inalienable right to liberty notwithstanding), but this is not a point of view that we should adopt in a modern encyclopaedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We relate the facts, i.e.the truth, foremost. "Modern" has nothing to do with it. Opinions are secondary, are a dime a dozen and vary considerably in modern times, which brings into question the ability for many "modern" thinkers to maintain objectivity, i.e.a discipline. One could argue that there is more deception, opinionated loathing and presentism in modern history texts. If it would make you feel better, you can mention the runaway example. In any case there are enough sources, new and old, that relate the fact that whippings were only administered in exceptional cases, like in running away, and that this was something Jefferson did not enjoy, as you seem to be suggesting. The cite used for "exceptional cases" is Brodie. Is she not "modern" enough for you? Miller's The wolf by the ears, p. 106, is another. And there is always TJF, Treatment. You should also try to remember that harsh forms of discipline were used all around in those days, not just for slaves. -- Gwillhickers 18:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...this was something Jefferson did not enjoy, as you seem to be suggesting" - where is that coming from? I've never suggested anything remotely like that. I have no particular insight into Jefferson's mind, but I cannot imagine anyone sane to take enjoyment of inflicting pain. But whatever Jefferson's feelings were, they did not cause him to reject the system of slavery in practice - he was a slaveholder like many others, and worse than some - note that e.g. Washington managed to free all his slaves in his will. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hemings and Jefferson's treatment of his own slaves has too much coverage. Ghillhickers, indeed one could argue that modern historians are not viewing Jefferson accurately, but policy requires us to present their views.  TFD (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As the article does. It even mentions excessive whippings by an overseer. -- Gwillhickers 18:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not been following this closely, and now see the section has indeed become a "bloated nightmare." I am pasting in a quick abridgment that I think would make a good starting point for a revision. Note that I have not deleted anything I considered untrue; I simply cut it down to size. I have been oblivious to the footnotes. Imo, I deleted what was repetitive and what went beyond the brevity appropriate to the secton. The reader can go to the separate article for details.
 * Any editor is welcome to move my draft to a sandbox or to hat it or put it anywhere you may consider more convenient. Yopienso (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A slave owner himself, Jefferson wrote that he believed slavery was harmful to both slave and master.[194] His views on the institution of slavery and African slaves, however, are complex; historians are divided on whether he truly opposed it. He had inherited slaves from both his father, Peter, and his wife's father, John Wayles. Over the course of his life, he owned some 600 slaves,[213] buying and selling them as necessary to pay his bill and maintain some 130 at any one time to work at Monticello.

Although he hoped to see the end of slavery,[201][206] Jefferson did not wish to challenge the Virginia culture that relied on slave labor to cultivate tobacco and grain.[207] During his lawyer years, he took on cases involving slavery and on one occasion refused to defend an overseer who whipped a slave to death. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of slaves. In the mid-1770s he drafted and proposed a plan of gradual emancipation whereby all slaves born after a certain date would be freed. Expansion of slavery was to be limited to only descendants of female slaves until the age of 25, after which they would become free. That bill was not passed. In 1807, Jefferson signed into law a bill prohibiting the transatlantic slave trade beginning on the first day of 1808, the earliest date permitted by the Constitution.

In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson denounced the British government's role in the international slave trade[note 6][202 ] During the American Revolution, he accepted common racial stereotypes of African Americans and did not take into consideration the plight of slaves. [235] Although he proposed abolishing slavery in all territories to the west after 1800 in his draft of the Land Ordinance of 1784, that provision was stricken by Congress. It did influence Congress to prohibit slavery in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase was a great achievement of the Jefferson administration, but the President was criticized for having allowed slavery to continue in the newly acquired vast territory.

Jefferson opposed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which established a geographical dividing line among the states, believing that such a division and attempt to limit slavery would lead to war.[215] He expressed this concern in an April 22 letter to John Holmes, worried that such a division among the states would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union.

In his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” (1785) Jefferson expressed a "strong suspicion" that the Negro “was inferior to whites in both the endowments of body and mind.”[234][234]  His solution for the slavery dilemma was to transport blacks to Africa where they could set up a free and independent black nation, leaving the United States as a white society. [end]


 * I like Yopienso's effort as a reset. Should it be made into a formal proposal for support/oppose? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems like a fair description, although I would change Virginia "culture" to "economy." TFD (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Yopienso's effort but the section as presented here overall looks like a patch work of out of context facts piled one atop the other with some major omissions. Mention of Jefferson's various political involvements with slavery should be mentioned in the appropriate sections, not all lumped into one section with little to nothing to qualify the given topics. For example, the Louisiana Purchase, that Jefferson was criticized for allowing slavery to go on, with no mention of the existing political and economic situations that existed there, esp as concerns France who still had major slave holding interests in this vast territory. Then there was the problem of enforcement. As we all know, the L.P. comprised an area about 1/3 the size of present day USA. Trying to police this vast territory would have been next to impossible, would have required great military and economic resources and would have aggravated relations with France -- and at a time when the country itself was still unstable. This should be covered in the Louisiana Purchase section. The Slaves and slavery section should be about 'Slaves and Slavery'. As it is there is very little mention about Jefferson's interaction with slaves at Monticello, et al. No mention of the skills they were taught, no mention of how long they were worked, how they were treated and provided for, nothing to give the reader an insight into actual slave life under Jefferson. These are things that reflect on Jefferson the man much more than his political involvements do. This is the Jefferson biography. This proposed draft is almost written like a political treatise, not a biography. There should be a summary statement regarding Jefferson's political dealings with slavery while the main focus of the section should be on Jefferson and the actual slaves. I propose we rewrite the section with this perspective in mind. Once we remove all most of the political dealings to the appropriate sections, where they can be dealt with more appropriately, the Slaves and slavery section itself will be shorter and much easier to deal with. As it is, sections like the Louisiana Purchase don't even mention Jefferson's approach regarding slavery, at all. -- Gwillhickers 10:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * From Yopienso's draft as a reset, the first order of business seems to be to organize two subsections on slavery, one Jefferson's political economy, one Jefferson's personal economy. The 'personal economy' section would expand on the paragraph beginning A slave owner himself, Jefferson ... and that graph would be moved to the bottom of the treatment under its own subsection 'personal economy'.


 * On the other hand, to be fair, Yopienso's draft included on the LA Purch: The 1803 Louisiana Purchase was a great achievement of the Jefferson administration, but the President was criticized for having allowed slavery to continue in the newly acquired vast territory. Gwhillhickers consideration might rephrase it to

''Alt.: The 1803 Louisiana Purchase was a great achievement of the Jefferson administration, complicated by the establishment of pre-existing French slaveholders from modern Illinois to Missouri to Louisiana. Faced with the option to confiscate the slaves of French nationals, Jefferson chose to answer English and Spanish objections to the sale by quickly incorporating resident settlers politically into U.S. territories. Jefferson's failure to tamper with preexisting conditions led to criticism for his having allowed slavery to continue in the newly acquired territory, and the adoption of the Code Napoleon in the New Orleans Territory that would become the state of Louisiana.'' TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly how will this reduce the size of the article? You're talking about more subsections now? wtf Brad (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Adding sub sections will only lay the foundation for expansion. While keeping overall page length in mind we can shorten the 'Slaves and slavery' section by moving specific political actions involving slavery to their appropriate sections. A summary statement for Jefferson's political involvements in the 'Slaves and slavery' section might read:
 * During Jefferson's political career he was both praised and criticized for his various dealings with the institution of slavery.
 * Once this idea is in place we can begin moving text covering TJ's specific political involvements. TVH's above draft has the right message, imo, but now we need to get this into the L.P. section while shortening it a bit in the process. TVH, would you like to handle this? -- Gwillhickers 19:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, see a draft "Louisiana Purchase" incorporating existing, Yopienso and my writeups. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

UVA section
Something else for a change besides slavery and Hemings! The UVA section can be trimmed and made more relevant to what TJ did for it. The current section reads very suspiciously like a copy/paste either from a website or a UVA brochure although I've never been able to find the source. Brad (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sort of seems that way. All the sources used are taken from 'Virginia.edu.', which in itself isn't necessarily wrong, but we should try to get some other sources in there. One thing there's plenty of -- sources for Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers 19:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The best I've read about TJ and UVA was in Malone v6. Brad (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First Barbary War
Another bloated section that needs an axe. Currently it takes the reader on a history tour of the Barbary States with way too much that is irrelevant to TJ. Overall the FBW was not a big part of TJ's presidency and it should be treated as such. Historians give little attention to this conflict relating to TJ. Eliminate the entire section and summarize elsewhere with a short description. Brad (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Jefferson was the first president to tell the Dey of Algiers where to get off i.e.he was no longer going to pay him 'tribute' and instead launched the first American naval fleet to cross the Atlantic to do battle with the Barbary States who for years were pirating merchant ships and enslaving crews for large ransoms. When Jefferson came along there were several thousand Christians held in slavery -- and they weren't given a log cabin, good food, Sundays and holidays off, etc, btw. It was under Jefferson that the Navy began designing smaller gunboats more suitable for harbor and river defenses and for blockading the Tripoli Harbor. {During the Barbary War) the US Navy went through a notable change under Jefferson. For the longest time I've wanted to include content on this topic but as usual, other topics have taken center stage, all but killing any spirit to pursue such things. Anyways, this war deserves a short section imo. After all, it was a declared war. -- Gwillhickers 22:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea is to keep in mind how important the FBW has been in the eyes of Historians that have written about TJ. If they've paid more attention to it than other topics then we should as well; if not then we don't. Brad (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Meacham gives war on Barbary pirates some consideration in his 'TJ: the art of power'. Historians investigating only Jefferson's domestic affairs will not pay much attention, but they can be discounted. Leaving out warmaking might leave the impression that Jefferson was not a nationalist in realpolitic world affairs who attained some success, --- but only an abstract philosopher with tortured domestic contradictions in widowerhood. There is more to the story of his presidency. How about running Lewis and Clark into British territory and Zebulon Pike into Spanish Mexico to determine migration routes for population and settlement counter-claims in each? Not so much attention as the FBW, so it probably can't be included. But First Barbary War should be. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Maria Cosway
Also doesn't warrant a section. Cosway and her relationship with TJ can be summed up in Minister to Paris. Brad (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Gwillhickers 22:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

'Louisiana Purchase' consolidated and condensed
Here is a suggested consolidation and condensed 'Louisiana Purchase' section. All points are preserved to the best of my ability as I mostly edited for conciseness among existing, Yopienso and myself. Others may remove the actual points made as too detailed for here, better left to the reader to find at Main Article: Louisiana Purchase. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

In 1803, in the midst of the Napoleonic wars between France and Britain, Thomas Jefferson authorized the Louisiana Purchase, a major land acquisition from France that doubled the size of the United States. Having lost the revenue potential of Haiti while escalating his wars against the rest of Europe, Napoleon gave up on an empire in North America and used the purchase money to help finance France's war campaign on its home front.[100][99]

Jefferson had sent James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston to Paris in 1802 to try to buy the city of New Orleans and adjacent coastal areas, with the assistance of French nobleman, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours. Napoleon offered to sell the entire Territory for a price of $15 million, which Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin financed easily. The purchase was without explicit Constitutional authority, but most contemporaries thought that this opportunity was exceptional and could not be missed.[102] The Purchase proved to be one of the largest fertile tracts of land on the planet, and it marked the end of French imperial ambitions in North America which were potentially in conflict with American expansion west.[103] Some historians, such as Ron Chernow note Jefferson’s inconsistency, “Jefferson, the strict constructionist, committed a breathtaking act of executive power that far exceeded anything anticipated in the Constitution.”[104] Other historians dispute this with the following reasoning: Countries change their borders by conquest, or by treaty. The Constitution specifically grants the president the power to negotiate treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2), and Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison gave assurances that the Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate quickly ratified the treaty, and the House, immediately authorized funding.[105][106][107][108] On December 20, 1803 the French flag was lowered in New Orleans and the U.S. flag raised, symbolizing the transfer of the Louisiana territory from France to the United States.[109][110]

Historians differ in their assessments as to who was the principal player in the purchase; among Napoleon, Jefferson, his secretary of state James Madison, and his negotiator James Monroe.[111] The historian George Herring noted the Purchase "is often and rightly regarded as a diplomatic windfall—the result of accident, luck, and the whim of Napoleon Bonaparte."[113] Though France was removed as a threat to the United States, Jefferson refused to recognize the new republic of Haiti, the second in the Western Hemisphere, and imposed an arms and trade embargo against it.[101] The entire territory was not finally secured until England and Mexico gave up their claims to northern and southern portions, respectively, during the presidency of James Polk (1845–1849).

While the 1803 Louisiana Purchase was a great achievement of the Jefferson administration, domestically it was complicated by the establishment of pre-existing French slaveholders from modern Illinois to Missouri to Louisiana. Faced with the option to confiscate the slaves of French nationals, Jefferson chose to answer English and Spanish objections to the sale by quickly incorporating resident settlers politically into U.S. territories. Jefferson's failure to tamper with preexisting conditions led to criticism for his having allowed slavery to continue in the newly acquired territory, and the adoption of the Code Napoleon in the New Orleans Territory that would become the state of Louisiana.

[End proposal] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you should go ahead and change that section of the article per your proposal. Also, I'd like to see my proposal for the Slaves and slavery section carried out, as well as the other items mentioned by Brad and Gwillhickers. Naturally, all new revisions are subject to "merciless editing." I frankly don't have the time to do anything on the article right now.


 * What's the note about removing a double template? I think those two documents are pertinent and help the article. Yopienso (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The images are safe. There is, however, a proposal to delete the template that places them there, because it's functionality is now subsumed by the more general Template:Multiple image. No matter how that discussion ends, there will be some compatibility hack/robot action to keep this page working, so there is no need to do anything. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TVH's proposal looks 'okay...', but commentary is a little redundant. In one paragraph we have a dissenting opinion where Chernow is mentioned by name, while there's no ascending opinion with an author's name attached for balance. Herring is also mentioned by name with his dissenting opinion. In another paragraph we have Historians differ in their assessments....  We should just make the 'differing assessment' statement and be done with all other commentary -- giving priority to the established facts. After commentary is condensed the proposed section will be even shorter. -- Gwillhickers 18:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Implementing the proposal is only a starting place. A good starting place, imho. I hope someone will make the new edits, which of course are subject to endless further edits. Yopienso (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Modified proposal


In 1803, in the midst of the Napoleonic wars between France and Britain, Thomas Jefferson authorized the Louisiana Purchase, a major land acquisition from France that doubled the size of the United States. Having lost the revenue potential of Haiti while escalating his wars against the rest of Europe, Napoleon gave up on an empire in North America and used the purchase money to help finance France's war campaign on its home front.[100][99]

Jefferson had sent James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston to Paris in 1802 to try to buy the city of New Orleans and adjacent coastal areas, with the assistance of French nobleman, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours a friend and close ally of Jefferson. Napoleon offered to sell the entire Territory for a price of $15 million, which Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin financed easily. The purchase was without explicit Constitutional authority, but most contemporaries thought that this opportunity was exceptional and could not be missed.[102] In the face of criticism from some of Jefferson's other contemporaries James Madison gave his assurances that the Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate quickly ratified the treaty, and the House, immediately authorized funding.[105][106][107][108] The Purchase proved to be one of the largest fertile tracts of land on the planet, and it marked the end of French imperial ambitions in North America which were potentially in conflict with American expansion west.[103]

On December 20, 1803 the French flag was lowered in New Orleans and the U.S. flag raised, symbolizing the transfer of the Louisiana territory from France to the United States.[109][110] while France was removed as a threat to the United States. [101] The entire territory was not finally secured until England and Mexico gave up their claims to northern and southern portions, respectively, during the presidency of James Polk (1845–1849).

While the 1803 Louisiana Purchase was a great achievement of the Jefferson administration, domestically it was complicated by the establishment of pre-existing French slaveholders from modern Illinois to Missouri to Louisiana. Faced with the option to confiscate the slaves of French nationals, Jefferson chose to answer English and Spanish objections to the sale by quickly incorporating resident settlers politically into U.S. territories. Jefferson's failure to tamper with preexisting conditions led to criticism for his having allowed slavery to continue in the newly acquired territory, and the adoption of the Code Napoleon in the New Orleans Territory that would become the state of Louisiana. Since the purchase historians have differed in their assessments regarding constitutional and slavery issues.


 * Commentary overall is removed, along with comments about Haiti. Because the section is now much smaller the image of the treaty has also been removed and is instead linked to in this section. (i.e.the treaty). Also added several links. Statement about funding remains over cited i.e.don't think we need four here. -- Gwillhickers 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Modified proposal posted with two further edits, one orphaned cite picked up, one link amended. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Slaves and slavery
I've boldly gone ahead with my proposal, with just a tweak or two. It seemed most editors were fine with it, but somehow the proposal has languished. I regret that I have messed up some citations, and hope some of you retirees will take the time to fix that problem. I do not like the wording of the last paragraph, but cannot take the time to improve it. I think it is important to end on that note, however. Yopienso (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Last two paragraphs, which are truly poor from a stylistic angle. Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert: Who around here is retired? I'm self employed and work out of my office and am fortunate enough to have enough time to edit during the day, and night. Don't appreciate the prejudice and attempt to portray others as old and retired. -- Gwillhickers 14:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies; no offense intended. I believe the Virginia Historian has identified himself as retired. Could be wrong. Yopienso (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your work is, I think, a good starting place for moving forward. Thanks for being bold. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Section is now lacking some important information. First, the into' needs to be restored and Jefferson's interaction and treatment of slaves needs to be covered. This is probably the most definitive info in the section. As I've said before Jefferson's treatment of slaves reflects on the person much more than the political stuff. -- You've removed all of it.  The section is  about 'Slaves and slavery'. While I appreciate the effort, sort of, you shouldn't edit from the approach that others will clean up after you. If you messed up the citations you should fix them. Being bold is not a license for lazy and careless editing. -- Gwillhickers 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the text again per WP:UNDUE. The material gives too much emphasis to the issue of slavery. It should be summary section sending the reader to the main article for details. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Too much emphasis to the issue of slavery"?? The content is summary and has been in place since 2012 while the section itself is about Slaves and slavery'. You even gutted the citations for other content! If anything needs to be trimmed it's some of the political content, which could be moved to the appropriate sections. -- Gwillhickers 14:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't help but notice that you elected to remove probably the most important information in the section, that which reflects on Jefferson the person. Reminder. This is the Jefferson biography. His interaction with slaves is probably the most important content in the section. -- Gwillhickers 14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've done some trimming: Removed second sentence as bloat. Rmvd mention of TJ as wealthiest plantation owner as unnecessary and misleading. Rmvd duplicate sentence, swapping a ref. Chngd "treated slaves very well"--a subjective assertion--to "was a humane slavemaster"; rmvd misleading allusion to free farmers, whose lot was not easy.
 * Jefferson the person was far more complex than you seem to realize, Gwillhickers. To fully cover "Jefferson's interaction and treatment of slaves" requires a book. Much has been written of his treatment of the Hemings family, which is totally absent from this section. I agree it's important to note he was humane, although that is relative; he did not accord slaves full human rights.
 * I accept your criticism of my sloppiness, and apologize. I suppose since I don't have time to be careful I should not participate at all. Yopienso (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : Isn't saying 'treated slaves very well' and '...was a humane slavemaster' basically saying same thing? In any case, this stuff is well sourced, and is even supported by slave's testimony, so it's not exactly 'subjective'. -- Gwillhickers 18:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's dismiss the argument that flawed text which has been in dispute for many months is somehow blessed by lasting a long time in the article. Instead, let's look again at what the consensus is for reducing the section on slavery:
 * No reduction
 * Cmguy777: consistently argues for adding more text; and consistently adds more text. In resisting reduction, Cmguy777 offers various arguments from authority such as "you can't own the article".
 * Yes reduction then no reduction
 * Gwillhickers: In 2013 argues to keep most of the text, to present a "broader perspective" even though the section should have just 500 to 600 words (at which time it had 1550 words), it should be "presented in summary form" with most of the text moved to Thomas Jefferson and slavery (March 2011). It should be condensed and rewritten (August 2012) and it is "still a bit on the long side" (in October 2012).
 * Yes reduction
 * Parkwells: Agrees with SUMMARY proposal including "summarizing other views at the end and send them to the main article"
 * Binksternet: reduce per SUMMARY
 * Stephan Schulz: reduce per SUMMARY
 * Yopienso: Against excess detail in section, reduction is an improvement and too many citations is a distraction.
 * Alanscottwalker: "I too support editing down"
 * Brad101: strongly in favor of reduced version ("the section is too long") but "it ballooned up again while I wasn't looking"
 * Quarkgluonsoup: per SUMMARY, "most of this should be addressed in the Jefferson slavery article, not this article"
 * Other Choices: "My understanding is that slavery section of this article should be nothing more than a summary of the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article." Argues in favor of moving text and reference out of TJ article and into Thomas Jefferson and slavery.
 * Neutral
 * TheVirginiaHistorian

It is quite clear that consensus is for reduction. While looking through the archives, I noticed that upon his arrival at the article, Cmguy777 was strongly opposed by Gwillhickers because of differences of opinion over content, but the two editors appeared to slowly realign themselves to work as a team after they found common ground. In August 2012 User:Other Choices observed, "This article has been plagued for many months by a pair of obsessive, opposing POV pushers whose only point of agreement is their shared willingness to add reliably-sourced 'stuff' to the article ad nauseum..." In other words, the section bloat was caused by disputes about content rather than agreement. I think it would be a mistake to say that the slavery section text was optimal in the 12-paragraph version I found earlier this year. It should be reduced per WP:SUMMARY, and the detail brought to the TJ and slavery article. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Flawed text"? What flawed text -- treatment of slaves? I've no objections for reduction, in fact, I was among the first to call attention to this section which was once pages long. Just take exception to removing key content under the guise that the section is too long. Jefferson's treatment of slaves is the most important content in the section. As long as this is conveyed to the readers you can reduce all the content you like. Just don't try to remove it with the broad brushed claim that your only interest is reducing content. Thanks a whole bunch for your understanding. -- Gwillhickers 17:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's some flawed text you restored after I removed the redundancy:
 * Although he hoped to see the end of slavery, Jefferson did not wish to challenge the Virginia culture that relied on slave labor to cultivate tobacco and grain.[24][191][192] Although Jefferson hoped to see the end of slavery,[192][193] he did not wish to challenge the Virginia culture that relied on slave labor to cultivate tobacco and grain.[194] Yopienso (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is redundancy and doesn't pertain to the broad brushed claim that was made by B'. I'll go ahead and fix that. -- Gwillhickers 18:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gwillhickers. Please do note that the overwhelming majority of editors do not agree with your preference for so many details or for casting TJ in the best light regardless of the unevenness of treatment experienced by slaves at Monticello. Thank you, Binksternet, for finding all those quotes and posting them. Yopienso (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse us, but you're trying to "dismiss" all the discussion, the time and effort of fellow editors, that brought the page to a stable condition for the longest time in its history. -- Gwillhickers 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will reiterate Binksternet's cogent observation: Let's dismiss the argument that flawed text which has been in dispute for many months is somehow blessed by lasting a long time in the article. The flaws are in the bloat and the "sticking up for" TJ. Many of us were frustrated and left because you did not heed "all the discussion, the time and effort of fellow editors." Yopienso (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me just close this line by saying that I and others have wanted to reduce the 'Slaves and slavery' section from the beginning so your attempt here to portray me as some lone editor who opposed reduction is sort of bogus. I only opposed omission of text covering treatment. The bloat was added by other editors. We succeeded in 2011 reducing text when the section was many pages long with language that was out of context and read like an indictment. i.e.Flawed. That's when I introduced some context regarding treatment of slaves -- something you conveniently left out with your last 'bold' edit just recently. That was another flaw. Kindly keep your line straight in the future. This is not the first time you've made less than accurate remarks on my behalf. -- Gwillhickers 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Reduction of 'Slaves and slavery' section
Thanks, Binksternet for the remarkable reduction of text in the 'Slaves and slavery' section while leaving the statement about treatment in tact. I never thought it could be reduced to such proportions but you seemed to have disproven that notion. I still have one reservation regarding treatment. The section says "comparatively well". If the five sources used actually support that wording then we can go ahead and run with it. If not we should change it (back) accordingly. From what I have seen, Jefferson overall treated his slaves exceptionally well. I'll look into it. -- Gwillhickers 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally I like the wording I chose: He treated them humanely. Yopienso (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be the better wording. Here are what some of the sources say:
 * Peterson, 1985, p.535: There were limits to his own superintendence, but within them he would not allow his laves to be over-driven, or whipped unless at the last resort, preferring rather to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious. ...he cared about their health and welfare.
 * Merwin, pp.22-23: 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. How he treated the blacks may be gathered from a story, told by his superintendent, of a slave named Jim who was caought stealing nails from the nail factory. ... Mr. Jefferson turned to me and said 'Ah Sir, we can't punish him. He has suffered enough already.
 * Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.  Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.  These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm. ... Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed.
 * J. Bear, p.99: Jefferson had a large number of servants that were treated just as well as could be.
 * Pierson, p.103: Mr. Jefferson was always very kind and indulgebt to his serbants. He would not allow them to be overworked, and he would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped. (Others forthcoming) -- Gwillhickers 19:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to say Jefferson treated his slaves humanely -- I've already made the change. I'm hoping the section will at long last bring stability to the page so we can all work together to improve the entire article. Now I'm going to this page and contemplate my next move. -- Gwillhickers 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Merwin book is from 1901. It's not a reliable source for the current state of knowledge. And how you can reconcile your desire for "facts" with a quote like "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" is hard to fathom - it's pure opinion, and puts a spin on it that reminds me that "my greatest weakness is that I cannot control my drive to deliver excellent results within time and budget". Pierson/Bacon is a 1862 primary account, and not remotely reliable for anything. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do recall something about Jefferson believing slavery destructive alike to the human spirit of both slave and slave holder. But then, that was a view of the institution by Jefferson himself, not postmortem 1800s praise pieces. --- Then Lincoln inverted the insight to say emancipation did honor both to those freeing and to those set free. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.[...] The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances", followed by the more famous "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever", from Notes on the State of Virginia, . I have the vague feeling that I've heard an even more direct quote to the effect, but cannot just now recall it.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Schulz, it seems we've had this same basic discussion at least ten times at this point in our 'tenure' here. Primary sources can be used if they are not used to synthesize a new position, which hasn't been done here. Policy : Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care... As per your reference to the "current state of knowledge", this is ambiguous as it gets, because as you know, opinions and views in later days are all over the map, so it's a good thing we have primary and older sources for perspective and to check them for balance. When you look at the bibliographies of most new sources they are filled with primary and older sources. Are they not? By and large the newer sources simply copy and reword the older sources, while overall the only thing 'new' they offer is new opinion, and we've seen what a circus that can be sometimes. Sources should be evaluated on a per item basis and not judged with the sort of prejudice you seem to have exhibited here. Having said that, what was your overall point in terms of article improvement? Is there an item you're taking exception to? The statement about humane treatment is cited with six sources, new and old. -- Gwillhickers 16:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Schulz has a point. There should also be something in the slavery section about the commerce aspect. Jefferson had a 4% rule to illustrate the economics of slavery. Jefferson calculated that the birth of each new slave yielded him a yearly profit of 4%. “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” Jefferson also wrote an acquaintance who suffered financial decline in the 1790s: “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises them if they have the money to do so they should “every farthing of it laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” Economist David Brion Davis touched on it as well - "In 1860, the value of Southern slaves was about three times the amount invested in manufacturing or railroads nationwide.”Joe bob attacks (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's well understood that Jefferson used slaves to make a profit. Don't think we have to include all these details to actually demonstrate that particular point. If we start reintroducing details it seems it will just invite others details, and in that event will only invite more debate about which details to include, and not. For example, imo, since this is a biography about Jefferson the man, details about how he treated and provided for slaves is the most important. I'm sure there will be one or more who disagree. -- Gwillhickers 16:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removal of misleading sources is in itself an improvement of the article. And yes, of course newer sources reference older sources - that's the "standing on the shoulders of giants" part. But you totally ignore the "seeing further" part. Modern sources don't simply repeat older sources - they add new levels of validation, comparison, and interpretation. Just as I don't want to get my medical treatment according to the state of knowledge of Robert Koch, I don't want my history based on the state of knowledge in Merwin. As for primary sources, I point you to the "but only with care" part. You cannot seriously advocate taking the claims of a 75 year old slave overseer, recorded and published some 40 to 55 years after the fact, on the brink of the American civil war, as a reliable source on the treatment of slaves. It's good source of what Bacon said at the time, but not a reliable source for what actually happened. As for facts vs. opinions, I point you to my above statement on Mervin - you seem to have no problem with his plainly ridiculous opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers-- I think the picture you're presenting of him as a kindly genteel slave owner, similar to George Washington (who actually freed his slaves upon his death), is inaccurate. I'm not saying that Jefferson abused his slaves. There is no evidence to indicate that. At least none that I have come across. However, the contradiction of his actions should be presented, as this is a biography. As this contradiction is likely based on his economic dependence on slavery, as I illustrated above with his quotes, I think that should be presented as well. Jefferson may have said that he abhorred slavery, but his actions and words present a contradiction. Wikipedia cannot present a sanitized version of Jefferson. It is best for people to view the man as a whole and make up their own minds. I say this as a Jefferson admirer and as a descendant of slave holders. My wife is also a direct descendant of Judith Jefferson, Jefferson's Aunt. Joe bob attacks (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stephan and Joe.
 * The section presently does not mention TJ's profits from "natural increase," which was an important aspect of his slave management, and, imo, a driving force behind his successful campaign to shut down the importation of slaves. Should someone care to add that detail, it should be no longer than one sentence, imo. Yopienso (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Time to move on
We have scaled down both the Slaves' and 'Controversy sections, as was widely agreed upon. Unless either of these sections is missing important content it would seem we need to begin with the task of overall article improvement. The editors who have hovered over these sections, almost forcing the involvement of other editors, while ignoring the rest of the biography, need to give it a rest and stop rehashing the same old failed arguments. -- Gwillhickers 19:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor lede work
Just restored a statement that was removed July 10, i.e.banning of international slaved trade, considered one of Jefferson's biggest achievements. Also removed citations from the lede, as topics are cited in body of text. This convention is fairly common. -- Gwillhickers 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your attention to these and other minor details, Gwillhickers; they are real improvements. Yopienso (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the words of collegiality. Now that we are of a mind to approach the page with 'summary' as an overall objective, perhaps this is the time to remind everyone to be careful before they swing their summary axe, esp in regard to landmark topics such as the DOI, LP, Presidency, slavery and the banning of the slave trade. Because this is the Jefferson page, involving a person who wrote the DOI, was a founding farther, first Sec'State, first VP, a two term President, architect, lawyer, Minister to France, slave owner, not to mention someone behind all the political involvements along the way, this article will have more than a tendency to be longer than that of the average president's article. Page length guidelines are just that -- guidelines. There exist numerous exceptions/exemptions some of which involve FA president's articles. While it's good to see the progress made thus far, we should keep this perspective in mind, imo. -- Gwillhickers 19:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree (little error--TJ was the 2nd VP), and the article's looking good. Section 3.11 needs copyediting. Yopienso (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement suggestions

 * Section 3.11 needs attention because .... Yopienso.
 * Overall bibliography and citation work. Gwillhickers 20:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

1804 election and second term
Begin proposal. All notes and links are preserved, edited for conciseness. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

''Jefferson's popularity suffered in his second term because the problems related to wars in Europe. Relations with Great Britain had always been bad, due partly to the violent personal antipathy between Jefferson and the British Ambassador, Anthony Merry. After Napoleon's decisive victory at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, Napoleon became much more aggressive in his negotiations over trading and neutrality rights, and American efforts failed. Jefferson responded with the Embargo Act of 1807, directed at both France and Great Britain. This triggered economic chaos in the US and strong criticism at the time, resulting in Jefferson's abandoning the policy within a year.[117]

''Domestic politics were embroiled in controversy related to international affairs. Jefferson invoked the Alien and Sedition Acts to counter Federalist attacks, particularly those by Alexander Hamilton.[118] In 1807, Jefferson ordered his former vice president Aaron Burr tried for treason. Burr was charged with conspiring to levy war against the United States in an attempt to establish a separate confederacy composed of the Western states and territories, but he was acquitted.[119][120]

''Following the Revolution all the states abolished the international slave trade, but South Carolina had reopened it. The Constitution of 1787 had protected the trade for only the first two decades of the nation’s history, so on his annual message of December 1806, Jefferson denounced the "violations of human rights" attending the international slave trade and he called on the newly elected Congress to criminalize it on the first day possible.[121] Congress passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, effective January 1, 1808.[122][123] While the act established severe punishment against the international trade, it did not regulate the domestic slave trade.''

End proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's wasn't and still isn't much of an introduction to this section. The section doesn't even mention Jefferson's running mate, Clinton, nor Pinckney whom he ran against. It just starts off with his popularity suffering which should come after basic preliminary information. While several topics are simply mentioned they're not offered with much context. e.g.Jefferson instructed the navy to take an aggressive role against the slave trade. As this is the Jefferson bio, this section should have good coverage and do more than simply mention topics. The section (existing and proposed) almost reads like a list in paragraph form. -- Gwillhickers 09:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, mentioning South Carolina reopening the slave trade, period, seems a bit tangential to a biography. What was Jefferson's response? Also, the introduction might start off with Jefferson won a second term as President because ... Also, the Embargo section, which covers only one topic, is almost twice as large as the section for his second term as President. Also, since the banning of the slave trade is considered one of Jefferson's biggest achievements perhaps it should get its own section as does the Louisiana Purchase, his other major achievement. As it is, this major topic is barely more than mentioned anywhere in the article. Summary considerations are one thing, but it seems we're leaving a lot of big holes in the bio' to achieve this. A well written article with good coverage is what's required for GA and FA and is more important than page length considerations imo. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the banning of the slave trade needs a whole section in this summary biography. What sources give it that weight? Here are five popular, internet sources that don't:
 * Official White House bio.
 * Monticello.org's brief bio.
 * Infoplease.com.
 * The first 200 of 9235 words from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
 * The above don't even mention it; this one does, with caveats: POTUS.com. Here are the data:
 * 1807 Congress outlaws importing slaves from Africa, March 2.
 * 1808 Slave importation outlawed. Yet, another 1/4 million brought in by 1860.
 * As far as I know, all scholars agree the Louisiana Purchase was his greatest achievement. TJ himself wanted to be remembered for the DOI, religious freedom, and the U. of VA. Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert : The first three above sources are little one page articles -- there are many other topics they don't mention as well. Not a good litmus test. John Chester Miller, The wolf by the ears: Thomas Jefferson and slavery (1980) p. 142, claims it was among Jefferson's biggest accomplishments. Junius P. Rodriguez - 2007 claims Most historians agree that Jefferson's two major accomplishments as president were the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the abolition of the slave trade (1808). There are many others that give extensive coverage to this topic. Speaking of misplaced priorities, on the Jefferson page here the Embargo act, which didn't accomplish much, is given a section larger than the one for Jefferson's entire second term. Banning of slave trade is due a section comparable to that of the LP. In terms of its involvement at sea, banning was a turning point for the Navy also. This is hardly a topic that should be treated with just a mention in passing. -- Gwillhickers 20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gwillhickers that reelection needs first paragraph treatment. Louisiana Purchase 1803 is in the first term, not the second beginning March 1805. Banning slave trade, first proposed December 1806 after second term mid-term elections, was the way early republicans and federalists believed slavery could end without further government interference in the states such as SC, before the impact of the cotton gin in the Old Southwest (TN, AL, MS). It is not chronological to denigrate an achievement in January 1808 which did not foresee the 1830s cotton South. More later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fact check
Existing paragraph reads Due to political attacks against Jefferson, in particular those by Alexander Hamilton and his supporters, he used the Alien and Sedition Acts to counter some of these political adversaries.[119]

It was my understanding that the Alien and Sedition Acts lapsed in Jefferson's first term and were not re-inacted. Meacham says on p. 409, that in Jefferson's second inaugural, he criticized "the artillery of the press" with "licentiousness". But, Meacham says, "The marketplace, however, should decide. Censorship should be in the hands of the people." --

Is the quoted paragraph here in the article in error? Or do I misunderstand "counter"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 668 of Chernow, 2004, is not viewable on line, but given the usage (counter) it would appear to mean, resist, respond or retaliate. Page 667 covers this idea well noting Jefferson's response when he pardoned two Republican editors jailed under the Alien and Sedition Acts then later turned around and prosecuted editor Harry Croswell under those same acts for seditious libel. In Anthony Scott's Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton ...', p.68, he points out that both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans flip flopped on their positions regarding the acts when it suited their purposes. Apparently Jefferson was giving the Federalists a taste of their own medicine. -- Gwillhickers 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think somebody misconstrued Chernow, whose book, btw, is about Hamilton, though it has many details of TJ. This is from the top of p. 668:
 * In the summer of 1802, Croswell said of Callender: "He is precisely qualified to become a tool, to spit the venom and scatter the malicious poisonous slanders . . . " In another article, Croswell said, "Jefferson paid Callendar for calling Washington a traitor, a robber, and a perjurer . . ." These comments tested Jefferson's reverence for press freedom. The concerns he had expressed about libel prosecutions brought by the federal government against Republican editors under the Sedition Act seemed to vanish when state governors so prosecuted Federalist editors. Yopienso (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So there were state laws against libel used against editors in a partisan way, just as Federalists had used the national Sedition Laws to prosecute Republican editors calling office holders names, and so undermining the authority of government by libel. -
 * At Alien and Sedition Acts intro it says, "The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively." -- the passage here should read Jefferson's Republican governors used 'state libel laws', not Jefferson used 'Alien and Sedition Laws', yes? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there were state alien and sedition laws, but I really don't know. I think it's best to delete the material unless it can be clearly supported. Yopienso (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, state libel laws are not national sedition laws, but libel laws were used for partisan effect by Jeffersonian Republican governors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Democracy
Hi All

I am new to this talk page, so please excuse me if I am rehashing old discussions.

The page on TJ says that he was a big supporter of democracy. This should read 'democratic replublicanism.' The founders were opposed to majority rules which is why they passed the bill of rights.

DRGetchell (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. This is a tricky point, since the meaning and connotation of the word "democracy" has changed over the past two and half centuries. I've added a link to our article about democracy, which define it thusly: "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws." I think we can all agree that's the form of government TJ promoted. He was clearly against mob rule.


 * Also, I've reformatted this into a new section. You may wish to go through the tutorial before editing further. Yopienso (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there DRG', thanks for your comments and Welcome to Wikipedia! We would be interested in any further ideas you can offer regarding this topic. -- Gwillhickers 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to provide sources. Your position appears to be popular with some people, but you need to establish it is accepted in mainstream sources, e.g., scholarly works about Jefferson.  TFD (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Second term - Meacham
The following summary is from the Meacham chapters on Jefferson's second term. It includes treating Spain, Quids, Burr, USS Chesapeake war fever, Embargo to election of Madison. Not sure how to shuffle existing separate sections on Burr and Embargo...

Year sub-sections are administratively provided only for ease in making editing comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1805
In 1805 tensions with Spain held center stage, revolving around the exact boundaries of the Louisiana Territory, negotiations over the Floridas, and outstanding financial claims. A mission of James Monroe to Spain failed, and Spain allied with France led some in the administration to speculate over action against Spanish outposts explored by Zebulon Pike, or even an alliance with England. Jefferson sought to maintain neutrality, strengthening harbor defenses, building coastal gun boats and preparing militias for possible deployment at key points such as New Orleans.

1806
The domestic political split in Jefferson’s own party came from fellow Virginian John Randolph of Roanoke in March 1806. Jefferson and Madison backed resolutions to limit or ban British imports in retaliation for British depredations against American shipping. Jefferson’s Secretary of Treasury proposed spending $20 million in roads and canals in infrastructure, leading to the National Road west from Maryland. Randolph held that Jefferson had gone too far in a Federalist direction, building a congressional caucus of “Quids”, Latin tertium quid, “a third something”, calling for a purity in republican principles and roundly denouncing both Jefferson and Madison.

1807
After Aaron Burr was disgraced in the duel of 1804, he was reported by the British Ambassador as wanting to “effect a separation of the western part of the United States [from the Appalachian Mountains]”. Jefferson believed that to be so by November 1806 because Burr had been rumored to be variously plotting with some western states to secede for an independent empire, or to raise a filibuster conquer Mexico. At the very least, there were reports of Burr’s recruiting men, stocking arms and building boats. New Orleans seemed especially vulnerable, but at some point the American general there, James Wilkinson, a double agent for the Spanish, decided to turn on Burr. Jefferson issued a proclamation warning that there were U.S. citizens illegally plotting to take over Spanish holdings. Though Burr was nationally discredited, Jefferson feared for the very Union. In a report to Congress January 1807, Jefferson declared Burr’s guilt “placed beyond question”. By March 1807 Burr was arrested in New Orleans and placed on trial for treason at Richmond Virginia, Chief Justice John Marshall presiding. The weak government case led to Burr’s acquittal, but Burr was never able to mount another adventure.

Jefferson tried to prepare for war following the HMS Leopard attack on the USS Chesapeake off the Virginia coast. He issued a proclamation banning armed British ships from entering U.S. waters. He called on the governors of the states to have quotas for a total of 100,000 militia, and he ordered purchase of arms, ammunition and supplies. The orders went out unilaterally, without prior Congressional approval. Said the former Virginia governor who had fled Tarlton without calling out Virginia militia, “The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation [than strict observance of written laws]. The USS Revenge sent to receive an answer from the British government was itself fired upon, including its passenger, Vice President George Clinton. July 31 1807 Jefferson called for a special session of Congress in October.

1808
In December news arrived of Napoleon extending the Berlin Decree banning British imports everywhere, including the U.S. George III ordered redoubling efforts at impressment. But war fever of the summer had faded, Congress was in not in a mood to prepare the U.S. for war. Jefferson asked for and received the Embargo Act, the least bad option to war or doing nothing, but gaining time for defensive works, and building up militias and naval forces. Legislation passed December 1807, a projection of power and enforcement which historian Jon Meacham called surpassing even the hated Alien and Sedition Acts. But domestic economic consequences and widespread negative reaction caused an end to the embargo in time for Jefferson's Secretary of State James Madison to win the 1808 presidential election.

end Meacham sourcing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)