Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 37

Why Jefferson didn't free his slaves
I would love to see this include this take on why TJ kept slaves: ". . . the growing debts in his later life may have made him more reluctant to free them (and thereby lose them as financial assets)." Doing so requires a citation from at least one reliable source. The wording isn't the most encyclopedic. Imo, your insertion of "backfire" wasn't, either. Thanks for coming and trying to improve the article. YoPienso (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thomas Jefferson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425060713/http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/rush.html to http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/rush.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Declaration Image Needs Adjustment
The image below has been removed for adjustment - it should not express info in lieu of article text - see WP:MOS/IMAGES Hoppyh (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added back to the article the 1823 facsimile without explanatory edits. I have looked at the content of the edits about the two printings; I was considering whether to place this in the article section on the Declaration but it appears to me this is too much detail. Hoppyh (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

{{multiple image
 * align = right
 * direction = vertical
 * image1 = US-original-Declaration-1776.jpg
 * width1 = 268
 * caption1 = The opening of the original printing of the Declaration. It was printed on July 4, 1776 under Jefferson's supervision; it is a copy of the text actually voted on by Congress and the one sent to the states and the Army. The more famous engrossed copy (in fancy script) was made later and was signed by Congressmen. Note the opening lines of the two versions differ.cite web |title=The Declaration of Independence: The Mystery of the Lost Original |author=Julian P. Boyd |publisher=Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 100, number 4 (October 1976), page 456 |url=http://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/view/43289/43010 |accessdate=June 19, 2014


 * image2 = Us declaration independence.jpg
 * width2 = 268
 * caption2 = The Declaration of Independence, facsimile copy of 1823
 * header = Declaration of Independence
 * footer_background=whitesmoke
 * background color=LightYellow

Comment re Potential Impeachment
I have moved the following text from the article. I believe it is a misrepresentation of Malone. See Malone, vol. 3, p. 432.

Jefferson's biographer Dumas Malone argued that had his actions become known at the time, Jefferson might have been impeached for treason. (citing Chernow, 2004, [page 573-rj] p. 586) Hoppyh (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Note that "treason" was bandied about recklessly in those days. Jefferson in 1791 said that any Virginia official who cooperated with the proposed Bank of the United States was guilty of "treason" against the state of Virginia and should be executed! Chernow p 352 Chernow says "Hamilton and Washington regarded much of the criticism fired at their administration as disloyal, even treasonous, in nature." Chernow p 392 In the matter at hand, Chernow says "Hamilton increasingly mistook dissent for treason and engaged in hyperbole." And the Jeffersonians behaved the same way. Chernow p 569. Chernow p 573 misreads Malone Who makes it clear that Jefferson had been very careful and had not written to any Frenchman.   In the end no one was ever officially accused of treason. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am so glad I got it right. I was counting on you to keep me straight . Hoppyh (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Quote moved - source uncertain
In the section on 1796 - comments about the Va. and Ky. Resolutions - I have moved the following language, including quote, from the article - It's not clear who's being quoted - maybe Chernow. The theoretical damage of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions was "deep and lasting, and was a recipe for disunion". Hoppyh (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment needs expansion
I have moved the following line from the very end of section on the First Barbary War for further explanation:

although Jefferson continued to pay the remaining Barbary States until the end of his presidency. - cite - Fremont-Barnes, 2006, pp. 32–36 Hoppyh (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Request Minor Edit
If someone who can edit the article would be so kind as to fix a minor typo in the first paragraph of the intro. The word "In" is incorrectly capitalized in the sentence: "Jefferson and James Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party in opposition to the Federalist Party led by Alexander Hamilton In the formation of the First Party System." 75.17.115.231 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hoppyh (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily
, thanks for the work you've been putting into this one lately. I've been mulling coming out of retirement for a bit, and if I do, this GA Review will be the first thing I do. A small suggestion I have would be to remove or replace the quotation someone put in about Thomas Jefferson not being a deist sourced to WorldNetDaily; it's a highly partisan site generally not considered a reliable source. It'd be better if we relied on scholarly work for that section. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and removed. WND is not remotely WP:RS on any topic. Jefferson is among the subjects with the largest number of high-quality academic sources imaginable, and there are several volumes just on Jefferson and religion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat better on the topic, though Gilder-Lehrman also has issues, so maybe another source would be good. —Luis (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a quote from Peterson with a cite which I think adequately makes the counterpoint. Hoppyh (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Hope you don't mind these drive-by suggestions--here's another: WP:LEAD suggests no more than four paragraphs for the lead section (and is a criterion for GA). TJ's up to 7. Is it possible to condense? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest eliminating the fifth and sixth paragraphs altogether and merging the seventh (which is just a sentence anyway) with another paragraph. The info on his ancestry and children in the first paragraph can probably be struck too.  Calidum   02:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, but some mention of Hemings should probably remain. As Ellis points out in the prologue to his biography, it's (for better or worse) one of the two things Jefferson is most remembered for today. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Family and children are domestic arrangements of the public man, as is the longtime affair with Hemings. They can all be struck from the introduction together with the same rationale. The intro need not be a genealogy blog, which is the flavor of several Virginian biographies on WP. Not to take away from the Brodie cottage industry, but once the domestic box is opened with Hemings, then we get the ancestor worship baggage back in the introduction as domestic arrangements come front and center. See featured article Thaddeus Stevens treatment of domestic arrangements -- nothing in the introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying about genealogy generally, but Hemings is an unusual case--the subject of scandal in Jefferson's lifetime, and of enormous scholarly discussion since (Pulitzer and National Book Award winning books, innumerable articles, widespread national news attention and fame, etc.). To me this attention merits inclusion, but I won't complain if there's consensus to the contrary. So many aspects of Jefferson are so famous that it's impossible to include everything. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My edits yesterday created a couple of these issues, i.e. paragraphs, genealogy. So I have made a stab at cleaning them up and addressing the comments above. Hoppyh (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

. Better, but still looks a little bloated to me. I agree with TVH above about removing the Hemmings information from the lead; other articles (including the featured one he mentioned) typically exclude such information (see also Warren G. Harding). I wonder how much attention the story would've gotten had the timing of that story not coincided with the Clinton-Lewinsky saga.  Calidum   02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to use Warren G. Harding as an example for or against including it? His extramarital scandal is mentioned twice in the lead of his FA, including in the second sentence, which I think would be a little too much emphasis here. But rather than draw analogies, I think it's better to be guided by the sources, which do give heavy attention to this as an important aspect of Jefferson's life. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to compare apples to apples in looking for precedent, the other three presidents I could name with notorious extramarital affairs--Harding (an FA), Kennedy, and Clinton (a GA)--all have this fact mentioned in their leads. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I skimmed the Harding article and missed that line. FDR, Ike and Cleveland are among others who had affairs, but I don't believe those are mentioned in their leads.  Calidum   02:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, yeah, Cleveland's "where's my pa" scandal is a good analogy. Forgot him. But in cases like FDR and Ike, or LBJ and Nixon, etc., I think the real or alleged affairs haven't reached the same level of interest as with Jefferson, and therefore aren't quite comparable. It's hard to imagine a Pulitzer Prize winning book or academic conference about the life of Kay Summersby.
 * I guess the only point I want to make is, per your Warren Harding example and several others, plenty of precedent clearly exists for including details of the subject's private life if a major part of their public persona. In Jefferson's case it's probably easiest to just see if the Hemings affair has gotten more or less reliable-source attention than other details we want to include in the lead... I'm uncomfortable with the implied suggestion that it needs to be held to a different standard for the sake of modesty or whatever. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The point on my part was not modestly, but that domestic affairs of any description includes genealogy which I am particularly opposed to in the introduction — looking to significance of the subject based on merit, rather than their inheritance or other tangential matter. The copyedit takes out the genealogy so I am satisfied with half-a-loaf without additional editor support to remove reference to the Hemings affair in the introduction.


 * While Brodie has brought forward evidence that Jefferson and Hemings spoke in French together about guests at Monticello, it is not clear what her influence was on the Embargo policy that would merit her inclusion in the introduction. Even Abigail Adams was unable to get equality for women from dear John. One surely could write a a best seller on the effect of Hemingway’s wives infidelities and vice versa on his writing. Wait, that's done. Psycho-history is also published elsewhere.


 * I suppose the Hemings affair is titillating and so can serve as a hook for the general reader, in a sort of creative nonfiction narrative way. But I think domestic arrangements are weak for a biographical introduction as a matter of encyclopedic style, here or elsewhere. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of leaving the Hemings reference in the lead. As a nod to the counter argument, I have attempted to de-emphasize it by adding the death of TJ on the 50th anniv. of the Declaration. Hoppyh (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Why template
I've removed a from the sentence "Jefferson also signed into law a bill that officially segregated the U.S. postal system by not allowing blacks to carry the mail", with this edit. I think it's self-evident why a slave-owning Virginian would support a segregationist law, but even if it's not, this seems like a small enough detail of his presidency that we should avoid going into it in detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll check a couple sources but I agree. Hoppyh (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On first glance, I couldn't find the postal segregation law mentioned in any of the 4 Jefferson books on my shelf, nor is this law mentioned in the Oxford History of the US volume for the period (Empire of Liberty). If it doesn't make any of those, I think it can be omitted entirely, and have removed it in interests of length.
 * One thing I hope to work on today is that the article is currently double the recommended length even for major articles--90KB readable prose instead of 40-50. Surely any reviewer, even at FA, would cut this one slack for being one of the key figures of world history (WP:TOOLONG is one of the most ignored guidelines in the MOS). But it would still be a service to future readers if we can trim some less important details (maybe 5-10%) to something more readable in one sitting. I'll make a few cuts today of details I think are expendable (the postal service law above, the name of the pastor at his funeral, how the American Philosophical Society responded to his death), and list them in a new thread here. I don't mind at all if anyone reverts some or all of these changes. Some of these can hopefully be moved to subarticles as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Napoleonic code
The article stated that Jefferson allowed the Code Napoléon to continue in Louisiana after the Purchase--but this seems anachronistic, as the CN didn't come into force until 1804. Since the statement is uncited, I've removed it for now, and will try to find a source explaining the legal situation to replace it with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, our own article on Louisiana Law states: "Despite popular belief (and Stanley Kowalski's brief explanation in the Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire) it is incorrect to say that the Louisiana Civil Code is, or derives from, the Napoleonic Code; rather, the two law codes stem from common sources. Although the developing Napoleonic Code strongly influenced Louisiana law, it was not enacted until 1804, one year after the Louisiana Purchase. The main source of Louisiana jurisprudence may in fact be Spanish". Anyway, I'll see if I can find a source describing Jefferson's specific actions regarding Louisiana law and put in a sentence from that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See chapter 9 in Peterson - TJ and the New Nation. Hoppyh (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will check it out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. Cheers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Indian policy
I've made two changes to the Indian policy section that I wanted to mention here, since they may be mildly controversial.

I added the following sentence: This gives some historical analysis of Jefferson's actions. This may sound a bit negative, but no book I've looked in so far has spoken well of Jefferson's Indian policy, and I think it would be undue weight if we sought one out just for that purpose. I also removed this sentence: Since it's cited only to a primary source, it borders on WP:OR, and I'm not sure it's important here; it's probably enough to just say that Jefferson wanted Indians to assimilate.
 * "Historians such as Peter S. Onuf and Merrill D. Peterson argue that Jefferson's actual Indian policies did little to promote assimilation and simply acted as a pretext to seize Native American lands, and Joseph Ellis and Jon Meacham describe him as an early architect of Indian removal. "
 * "He also contended that integration of Native Americans into the European-American economy would make them more dependent on trade, and they would eventually be willing to give up land in exchange for goods or debt curtailments. "

Would be happy to discuss any of this if anyone objects; obviously feel free to revert. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For your use...Statement of TJ to Congress March 1805 per Tucker v 2, ch. 8....."He speaks of the condition of the Indian tribes as imposing new duties both on our justice and humanity—says that being now reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter's state, they should be taught agriculture and the domestic arts, and thus be prepared for civilized society; that their own prejudices present great obstacles to this change, for they too "have their antiphilosophers," who dread reformation." Hoppyh (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We do still have "Jefferson believed that natives should abandon their own cultures, religions and lifestyles, and assimilate to western European customs and agriculture" in the article, which I think covers about the same ground; I don't know if we need to expand it with the fuller quotation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ohio statehood and American Philosophical Society sections
In editing today I've integrated two small list sections (cabinet officials, SCOTUS appts.) into the larger article. One small section that remains is on Ohio's statehood. Would anyone object if I condensed this subsection into a few sentences in the general accomplishments/events of his presidency? Ohio's statehood doesn't seem to even be mentioned in the Jefferson books on my own shelf, and I think its own subsection here may be a little too much emphasis. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection here. Hoppyh (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did so here. I also removed a sentence about Jefferson being "instrumental in prohibiting slavery not only in new territories, but in new states beginning with Ohio". The part about new territories and the 'Jefferson Proviso' is already covered, whereas the "new states" claim is a little confusing as written, since slave states like Louisiana, Missouri, etc. continued to be admitted for decades--also, I had trouble finding a modern source for it. (The original citation was from 1856, a year when American writing about slavery was unlikely to be dispassionate and objective...). -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I also moved the "American Philosophical Society" section to a subsection under "Interests and Activities". I think it fits in well alongside his inventing and language study, and I'm not convinced it's an important enough topic in Jefferson studies to justify a section at the level of "Presidency" and "political views". But if I'm stepping on anyone's toes with this change, as always, please revert and let me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced text moved
Moved per GA REVIEW: t was the first university to offer a full slate of elective courses to its students. With no campus chapel included in the original plans, the university was notable for being centered about a library rather than a church. Hoppyh (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"This First Barbary War was the first conducted by the U.S. on foreign soil"
Isn't this sentence technically wrong? The American Revolution included at least one attack on Quebec. I can't see the exact phrasing of our source, but maybe there's another way to phrase this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it more, John Paul Jones attacked the coast of England as well, so I'm removing this sentence for now. (I did find the source in Amazon, but it's just wrong in a very demonstrable way.) Maybe we could add something later like "fought entirely overseas" or similar if we can find a source for it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After previous edits on this section were reverted without discussion, I've attempted a new version. Hopefully this compromise can start to satisfy both parties (or at least lead to some collaboration). I've re-added the material Gwillhickers deleted about the domestic reaction to the war and Eaton's land expedition (both seem important enough to be worth briefly noting), and tracked down a source for the unsourced sentence s/he re-added about this being the first American naval squadron to cross the Atlantic. My goal was to combine the best information from both of the recent versions; I think this is an improvement on either, but let me know if I succeeded.
 * I still wasn't quite comfortable about the phrasing "first fought on foreign soil and foreign seas", since the Wheelan source isn't high-quality (a Wyoming newspaper reporter instead of a scholar/historian, who opens with the silly gambit of calling the pirates "terrorists"), since it's easy to name other US forces on both foreign soil and seas before this point, and since even the Wheelan source only mentions "foreign soil", not "foreign seas". But George Herring in the OUP US History volume on American foreign policy calls this "America's first foreign war", which seems like a more straightforward and less debatable description. I've substituted that quotation in for now, but will be glad to discuss further if there are still objections. Thanks, everybody, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Autobiography
I would like to add a autobiography section that discusses his book and the context contained in it. Nsiss2 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding a sentence might be appropriate, but my impression is that TJ's slender autobiography isn't an important enough event in his life to justify its own section in the main article. (Glancing at Jon Meacham's recent one-volume biography, for example, he doesn't even mention it; I don't know if other reliable sources would have more coverage.)
 * But if you were interested in creating a stand-alone article for this work, that would be great. We could then link to it from his list of works in this article. Just let me know if you'd like a hand--welcome to Wikipedia! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is in the midst of a GA Review - so you could also put the section here on the talk page for review and discussion. Hoppyh (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Lafayette's visit
I restored much of what was under this heading, as Lafayette's visit to Monticello/Jefferson is not covered at all in the Visit of the Marquis de Lafayette to the United States article. In fact, Jefferson is only mentioned once in passing at the end of that article. Let's get coverage in place there before we remove it here. Besides, coverage here is centered around Jefferson, as it should be, as this is the Jefferson biography. Let's also keep in mind that Jefferson was involved in U.S. history in many capacities, so naturally the Jefferson biography has a tendency to exceed page length guidelines. Let's not gut important context for the sake of this guideline alone. This was discussed at length some time ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a great suggestion. I'll be happy to help transfer some of that. My main concern was simply giving this undue weight in the overall context of this article (more than his friendship with Madison or Adams, the Lewis and Clark expedition, etc.); the level of detail feels a bit more novelistic than encyclopedic. Which is not to say it's not great stuff. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. As I said above, I agree that getting this down to 40-50KB is not realistic, and have no intention of following guidelines for their own sake. I think our point of disagreement is simply whether details like Jefferson letting out classes for Lafayette's visit, the number of neighbors who watched, or the provenance of the wine they drank constitute important historic context in the broad scheme of his life. I apologize if I've stepped on your toes here and will be glad to talk further about what's reasonable to cut and what's not. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * moved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The detail on the visit now in this article is misplaced and belongs in the main article above, with the appropriate link from Jefferson. While moot at this point, little doubt that the detail will not pass muster in a GA review. That said, no reason we can't wait and see. Hoppyh (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The details referenced above, and others, have been included in the main article on Lafayette's visit, so I have restored this article's coverage of the visit with Jefferson to an appropriate level of specificity. Hoppyh (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cut it still a little more; Lafayette's visit to Jefferson just doesn't get much detail in the reliable sources I have about Jefferson compared to things like the Barbary War, Louisiana Purchase, Sally Hemings, Notes on the State of Virginia, etc. (Or even things we still haven't included like his partnership with Madison and his reconciliation with Adams). I don't mind leaving it in its own subsection, but I think it's undue weight to include details like Lafayette getting a membership in one of Jefferson's societies, etc. Take a look and let me know what you think--if I'm overstepping, feel free to revert me and I'll complain no further. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just realized that by revising on several different sections yesterday and today I may be approaching WP:3RR (sorry if I am). I've self-reverted my changes to this section, though I may revisit this part later this week--there's no hurry. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We are in sync...I'm glad you did the self-revert...I was just seconds away from sending you a message saying "Ouch!". I do like the quote from the son about the reunion. Having said that, user Rjensen, for whom I have the highest regard, would chide me about my obsession with vignettes..."not encyclopedic". Hoppyh (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I in turn have often been chided for wanting to cut articles to the bone... so we make a good team. =) I can live with the vignette, but the two smaller cuts I'd still lobby for are "Lafayette accepted Jefferson's invitation to honorary membership in the University's Jefferson Literary and Debating Society" (seems trivial) and the accidental redundancy of "Lafayette arrived Nov. 4... he left 11 days later on Nov. 15". -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoppy (and others), is this trimming acceptable? If not, please feel free to revert. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy
As I mentioned in the GA review section, I'm a little troubled by the current state of this subsection. Though we correctly note what the majority view is, the minority view is nonetheless given more space and explanation, an NPOV problem called undue weight; to reflect the current state of the scholarship, our emphasis should be the other way around (though both views should still be included).

I'll try to be careful about noting my changes to this section in revising. Since it's controversial, I'd be glad to hear from as many page-watchers as possible.


 * "However, there is no written record or oral history of a claim by Hemings that Jefferson fathered any of her children. " -- this seems to have been twisted a bit from its original source, and I've therefore removed it for now. There is a mention that SH left no written records of any kind, but this is presented neutrally: not as evidence either way, and certainly not as a direct rebuttal to Madison Hemings's statement. (re: Madison, I also swapped out "claimed" for "stated" to avoid using weasel wording.
 * The main point of the TJF page is that "Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings"; it's misrepresenting the source a bit to use it only to attack Madison's story -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "rush to judgement" --this quotation is incorrectly put in the mouth of Wallenborn. Per the cited source, it's from a curator named Frank Berkeley. I've removed it for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted in the GA review, I've corrected an erroneous (or half-true) statement that S. Hemings was freed by TJ's daughter. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With this edit, I've made some more substantive changes. I moved the one-person minority report to the TJF report to a footnote; it seems very "undue weight" to give him as much space as the seven-member majority. I added a few words about Joseph Ellis's change of heart. I added a direct quotation from the TJF's conclusions, and did the same for the minority report. I added direct citations to the Nature article, the TJF report, and the TJF minority report, instead of relying on Hyland for all three, so that the reader can easily click through to them for more information. I slightly reduced the detail about the counterhypothesis of Randolph Jefferson's paternity to reflect its status as minority view.
 * The paragraph now consists of four sentences explaining the majority view, and one sentence and one footnote explaining the minority view. This seems about right to me but am glad to discuss further! Thanks to everybody who's worked on this section before me for putting in so much good information already. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I corrected an error in Madison Hemings' statement; he claimed TJ agreed to free the kids at age 21, not age 2. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

TJ and slavery
I've made a substantial edit to this section that can be found here. Per the GA reviewer's suggestions, my goal here was to better employ summary style per WP:SUMMARY. (For example, rather than detailing the conditions of TJ's slaves, I think we can just move up the sentence that most historians consider him a benevolent slave owner). Several quotations have been cut, though I also added several that I think are too famous to be omitted: "wolf by the ear", "I tremble for my country", "book of fate". These appear in most Jefferson biographies and indeed in many general American history textbooks. I also removed discussion on TJ's failure to free his slaves, as his debts and his manumission of several Hemingses are already covered in the section about his death. I think the resulting section is a clearer overview of TJ's philosophy than before. But of all my edits to this page so far, there's no question this is the boldest, so don't hesitate to revert or just let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mild restructuring
This morning I joined the "religious views" and "political philosophy" sections into a joint "political and religious views" section. I also made "Memorials and Honors" a subsection of "Historical Reputation", since the two seem logically linked. If there are any objections, please feel free to revert. The edits are here and here. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Images moved
I have moved the following images from the article (similar ones removed per GA review in John Adams.) Hoppyh (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've temporarily moved these two images here while rearranging some infoboxes. What's the best place to put them back in? Do we need them? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep Sully's? Hoppyh (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)



Rotunda as secular symbol
With no campus chapel included in the original plans, the university had a library rather than a church at its center, reinforcing the principle of separation of church and state. -- this is a great detail, but needs citation to stay in the article. I've looked through about a dozen webpages and book chapters on the university's founding just now, and can't find a mention that this was the reason for the design. (I do have a reference to TJ refusing to allow professors of divinity that might be worth adding, but I want to try to run this down first.) Anybody got one by chance? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for taking part of this back out. But I think we still need a source for the statement that the campus was unusual in not being centered around a chapel. This is very believable to me, but it's still a matter of interpretation; if it's a significant fact about Jefferson we ought to be able to turn it up in some biography or another. I'm cool if you want to leave it in, but is it okay with you if I mark it as citation needed for now? Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good news, Gwillhickers--I think between me and Hoppyh (more Hoppy than me) we've finally tracked down citations for all the material you wanted to add, including the library instead of church at center. As a bonus, Gordon-Reed notes that this was unusual and controversial. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources, Primary Sources section
Per discussion in the GA review, I've been steadily working on reducing this article's reliance on primary sources--even in cases where we take direct quotations, it's better to get those via secondary sources to assert their importance and interpretation. Very few are remaining at this point, and I should have them replaced by Friday.

Working on this, I've noticed that the article's references section is a bit tangled in its intentions. Some entries are the sources we use for the article; mixed in are some that seem to be there only to provide a bibliography for those who wish to read further about TJ. This is a confusing approach.

For now my solution has been to simply remove any source we're not using from our list of cited sources. For sources that seem particularly useful, I've moved them to the bibliography article (which exists to provide exactly this kind of list).

I don't think these are needed here. If anybody needs more resources than the 70 or 80 books we've already included, they are some sort of professional researcher who doesn't need our help finding sources. But if any editors feel strongly that these should still be included in the main article, I suggest we create a "further reading" section or some such to clarify which books are which. Does that make sense to others? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Meacham page numbers
I just realized all the Jon Meacham page numbers I've been putting in aren't much help since they're for the e-book, not the published version (which other contributors have been citing correctly). I'll get a hard copy of this next week and set about fixing those. Sorry for any confusion in the meantime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. These are now all consistently cited to the published text. Sorry for any confusion my alternate pagination introduced in the meantime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical reputation
I've rewritten a few paragraphs of this section to be modeled on the "historical reputation" chapters of several biographies (Appleby 03 and Bernstein 03, also Cogliano's historiographic work). The new approach looks briefly at how TJ's reputation has evolved over the centuries, and attempts to put this in historical context. Let me know what you think--thanks everybody -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Due weight on Embargo Act
I've attempted to reweight this section a bit to ensure we're giving due weight per WP:NPOV. Since the majority view of historians is that the Embargo Act was a bust, I've added an extra sentence with quotations to that effect. (Even Meacham, who defends the Embargo Act, acknowledges that this is the traditional view). Per the policy on due and undue weight, the majority view should receive more space and explication than the minority.

I've also rewritten the phrase "the optimal choice for him" in describing the Act. I'm guessing the intention was "he saw this as the optimal choice", but it can also be read as "this was the best choice for him to make", which would be an POV endorsement we shouldn't include.

I don't have time to run this one down right now, but wasn't there also the usual sectional divide in responses to the Embargo? (i.e., New England was far more enraged than the South)? I'll doublecheck later if I'm just misremembering that, and if not, include a sentence to that effect. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"wolf by the ear"
, could you clarify where you're getting "ears" from? My copy of the cited source (Meacham) gives it as "ear", and it looks like this is the way the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has it too. Does your edition of Meacham read differently? Thanks for taking a look at this part... -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is apparently my mistake. I had always thought it was 'ears' -- which seems to make more sense. How does one hold a wolf by just one ear? In any case, if the sources say "ear", so be it. Apologies for any mistake. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Per the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the classic phrase is indeed "wolf by the ears". It's Jefferson who had it wrong, not you. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing content
Much appreciation for the effort to improve the Jefferson biography! Just a reminder, we should be mindful of what we remove from this article, regardless if there is a dedicated page for any given topic. It's always easy to simply delete content and say it belongs in the 'main article' for the topic, but it sort of does a disservice to the editors who contributed much of their time and effort for the reading, writing and citing involved. If content is such that it needs moving to a different article, please do so, rather than just deleting the content and scattering the 'ashes' to the wind. Also, all lesser/dedicated articles for a given topic should have a healthy amount of contextual overlap with the main article. Please be mindful of the fact that lesser articles aren't read nearly as much and accordingly, editors don't give them near as much attention as they do e.g.the main Jefferson article. Please keep this in mind before removing content simply for the sake of 'page length', which is a guideline, not a policy, btw. Thanx for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The best practice is to move the content (with sources) to the talk page for review and discussion - I think that has been done here. Hoppyh (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, discussion is needed in terms of what is included here, but again, content that is sourced, informative, contextual, etc, should be moved to a corresponding article, not simply deleted and discarded. That didn't happen the first time regarding Lafayette's visit section, a crowing event and chapter in the Jefferson biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, the data is retained in the revision history of the article as well. Hoppyh (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, I appreciate your participation in the GAR process. I've reviewed more than 80 articles and I'm fairly familiar with biographies, as I've written quite a few as well.  At this point in the process, it is hoped that the daughter articles are in as good condition as the GA.  This, unfortunately, is not the case.  I think that instead of being so concerned about the material in this article, you should make a serious attempt to improve the daughter articles.  I'm seeing far too much material here that isn't in summary style, which as you may or may not be aware, is a GA criterion.  For example, I'm seeing six paragraphs in the religion section, consisting of many quotes that can easily be paraphrased.  I can envision, therefore, a religion section that shrinks to half that size once the main points are properly summarized and the quotes paraphrased appropriately.  I'm seeing a lot of this as I read the article.  I realize that you may see this article differently than others, but right now it is nowhere near GA quality, and far from FA.  I have several choices available to me as a reviewer: I can continue to review the article in the hopes that participating editors will get on board with the criteria; I can put it on hold and close out the review in the hopes that serious changes will be forthcoming; or, I can fail it.  Gwillhickers, I would like to continue the review, but having been down this route before, I can see that your conception of where this article needs to be differs greatly with the criteria, particularly in regards to summary style, and that concerns me going forward.  If we aren't on the same page on this, then I'm just wasting my time. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, today I have done some significant editing to the religion section to address your concerns above.  Let me know if more work is needed.  Hoppyh (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add my thanks, too, Gwillhickers. I know it's painful to see material you've worked hard on get cut (I've been there too), and your efforts to add so much to the article the last few years are hugely appreciated. Even with all the work Hoppyh and I have been doing over the past few weeks, I think you've still got more edits here than both of us put together.
 * For now there seems to be a rough consensus that some cuts would improve the article (our GA reviewer feels that way as well as Hoppy and I), both to improve its overall readability and to better balance the sections. (For example, I can't pretend to have read every TJ biography there is, but Lafayette's Monticello stop only gets brief mentions in well-regarded recent one-volume biographies I've looked at like Ellis or Meacham--this is probably why you and I see that section differently--so I'm not comfortable giving it billing on par with the LA purchase or Barbary War.)
 * So I hope to continue moving selected material out of the article. I'll note my changes on the talk page as carefully as possible, and will be glad to discuss any individual cuts that you don't think are justified--we can check some biographies and make sure we're keeping things in the right proportions. And once the GA review is done, I'll be glad to work with you to integrate this material into daughter articles. Looking forward to collaborating with you on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Religion subsection now significantly more concise. Hoppyh (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. As I explained to Viriditas, here and here, we need to be mindful of the content that is removed, esp in cases where supporting/clarifying content is not available in lesser articles. Good luck with the review. I'll sit back and see how things go, offering advice if the historical narrative needs attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers do you believe the current version meets NPOV? I spent about 30 minutes reviewing the slavery material in the connected sub-articles, and it looks like Jefferson's position on slavery and Africans has been downplayed considerably in this biography.  I'm not going to push this issue anymore than simply bringing it to the table like this, but I did want to bring it your attention for comment.  I'm not an African American or a person of color, but if I was, I might think there was a bit of, excuse the terrible pun, whitewashing going on here.  To correct this, I don't think we would need to add very much, perhaps as much as a dozen words would do the trick, but I'm not entirely convinced Jefferson's key thoughts on slavery and Africans are represented as best as they could be and I wonder if there is a bit of room for improvement or at least parity with the daughter articles. Like I said, I'm not going to push this, but I will note it. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What are the dozen words you'd like to add? Whitewashing wasn't my intent (I honestly thought my work there would be criticized from the other direction), but I'm sure there's room for improvement. Here, as elsewhere, I've tried to be guided by what's commonly included in scholarly one-volume biographies--not to say that I've succeeded. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto Hoppyh (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to either of your work, I was referring to something Gwillhickers said in another discussion and bringing it up in relation to Jefferson's ideas. Viriditas (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The balance in the current version is more my responsibility than anybody else's, though--I cut it in half and rewrote about half of what was left. I'd be glad to hear your proposed additions/modifications. One paragraph I went back and forth on including was Jefferson's racial views; we previously had, basically, "he had the standard racial views of whites of his day". (This is what the RSs say too.) I don't know if that's worth specifying or not. Perhaps I could re-add a sentence to the effect of, "he shared the views of his day that blacks were mentally and physically inferior, but nonetheless believed they had innate human rights." (Whether it makes it better or worse that he continued to keep his slaves prisoner after acknowledging their rights is up to the reader...) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly where I was going with this. Do we have sources indicating where Jefferson received his racial views from, perhaps in a book in his library, for example?  This would go a long way toward addressing my concern.  On the one hand, Jefferson is presented as a visionary, a revolutionary who wished to break the shackles of the British and also reconcile the inconsistency of this struggle with the enslavement of Africans.  Surely, if these men were as learned as we are led to believe, this discrepancy occured to them.  Not only were they the products of their time, in terms of understanding racial theories, but more importantly, as the sub-articles on this subject make clear, they were more the product of conventional social wisdom, which was more reactionary and conservative when it came to dealing with human beings in the flesh. Sure, on paper they could wax poetic about grand ideas and theories of freedom, but when it came to the people toiling in their fields and the workers needed to build their new country, these great ideas took a backseat to practical matters.  I wonder if there is a way to show this duality in the biography? I'm probably straying into mythological territory in some respects. American tradition promotes the idea that the founders envisioned a universal, living document that could adapt to changing conditions, but most people, I think, knew slavery was wrong, yet made exceptions here and there, just as we make the same exceptions today in other countries and global markets in the name of ecomomic growth and progress. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, makes sense. There is a line in the "historial legacy" section stating that nothing has done Jefferson's reputation as much harm as his obvious contradictions re: slavery (and this afternoon I came across a good quotation to the effect that the DNA test was the all-time nadir of his historical popularity that I might add). But mentioning his racial views and how these intersected with his human rights ideals seems worthwhile, and would only take 1-3 sentences.
 * On a related note, I think a sentence about slave-owning needs to be added to the lead (in addition to the existing Hemings mention). (I've got a possible one in my proposed alt. draft above). The index of any Jefferson biography shows his contradictory views about slavery as one of the biggest topics; it definitely gets more attention than other things we've added like Notes, the APS, even big stuff like the Burr trial. I'm probably off for the weekend after this but this will be a priority for me Monday if nobody beats me to it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To add a political perspective, there was a definite concern of the Founding Fathers that the slavery issue was divisive, and as such could seriously compromise the unity required in successfully confronting the British threat to independence. Adams, for instance, was adamantly opposed to promoting emancipation despite his opposition to slavery out of this concern. Adams was probably not alone in taking this position. Hoppyh (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd love to find a way to work in Jefferson's "fire bell in the night" line in this regard, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added the sentence "Jefferson considered blacks mentally and physically inferior to whites and "as incapable as children", but argued that they had nonetheless had innate human rights" to attempt to summarize his racial views. I also like Hoppy's idea about mentioning TJ's increasing awareness that the slavery issue threatened to break apart the country, but I'll have to dig a little more to craft a good sentence on that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's okay with others, I'd like to revert this addition to the slavery section today. While I'm okay with Tucker for noncontroversial material, a slave-owning antebellum historian just can't be considered a reliable source by modern standards for how Jefferson's slaves felt about him. I fully believe Martha Jefferson told this story; I'm just not convinced modern historians see it as important enough to justify even a one-sentence footnote in our article.
 * It also fails the "one-volume" test we've been trying to apply to other parts of the article--I couldn't find it in Bernstein, Appleby, Ellis or Meacham, either through the index or chronologically, though it's possible I overlooked it in one of these. I can see the appeal of the story, but I think presenting this long narrative is just as unbalanced as if we included a long footnote quotation about how James Hubbard fled Jefferson's captivity, was recaptured by his agents, and "severely flogged" at his orders. (To be clear, I am not proposing that we do actually this.)
 * Even if we kept this, I'd suggest we at least put the tale in its proper historical context per, for example, Gordon-Reed 398-400 and elsewhere. Nothing was more terrifying for slave families than the possible death of a master, since it so often led to parents being separated from children; even the return of a cruel master from a long journey could be a cause for celebration. In the specific case of Jefferson's long absence, many families had been split up and hired out to other farms as Monticello deteriorated; his return after eight years meant that many families would soon be reunited. Still, my first impulse would be to simply omit the return greeting as a tiny piece of a much larger picture.
 * Hoppy, what's your take? Is it okay with you if I pull that? --Khazar2 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hoppyh (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen over the past weeks no progress towards the suggestions made by the reviewer Viriditas to Gwillhickers as to the need to control the detail in this article by use of the daughter articles that are linked. Since I am responsible for starting this GA nom, in order to elevate this matter, l have regrettably resorted to violating WP:3RR. Hoppyh (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Warning received re edit warring. I will in the future rely on the reviewer to indicate where there is too much detail. Hoppyh (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Religious beliefs
I've restored a bit of deleted context to the "Religious Beliefs" section with this edit. Since this was arguably the most significant scandal Jefferson faced in his lifetime, I don't think three sentences is too much. (Though Hoppy, I do really like all the edits you made to shorten the primary-source quotations and some of your rephrasing here.) Between my cuts and Hoppy's, this section is now about half as long as it was when Viriditas asked for cuts above, so it should still be fine on overall length. If anybody objects, though, I'm always happy to discuss further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Burr-Wilkinson collusions
Per the GA reviewer's request, I rewrote this section for brevity. But I also couldn't resist adding a little more context, so it's probably two steps forward, one step back in terms of length. I tried to add a clearer accounting of AB and TJ's falling out, and to make it clearer that historians still don't know what the **** Burr was doing out there in the West. Though I don't doubt that AB would have found his way into Federalist secession plots as well, that doesn't seem to be in the short retellings of any biographies I checked, so I've omitted it here as well. Background about Wilkinson's own craziness has been moved mostly to efns, allowing the focus of the section (like TJ's focus) to be more tightly on AB. Look okay? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I also changed the name of this section to match the subarticle, "Burr conspiracy", which is more straightforward. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Slavery section missing important details
For some reason, Jefferson's benevolent treatment of slaves was removed from the section. All of it. His treatment of slaves is a direct reflection on Jefferson the person. As this is the Jefferson biography, not just a general historical account, we need to make sure that things that directly involve Jefferson the person be included in the narrative. As Jefferson and slavery is a controversial issue, we need to make sure that important facts like this are not left out of the account so the readers can draw their own conclusions.

Deleted content:
 * Jefferson did not allow his slaves to be overworked and gave them Sundays, Christmas, and Easter off. 


 * Slaves were provided with log cabins with a fireplace, good clothing and food and were allowed to have their own gardens and raise chickens which, along with eggs and produce, were sold by more than half the adult slaves to the Jefferson household. 


 * Some researchers suggest Jefferson's slave ownership contradicted his philosophy of "all men are created equal". Other historians, however, maintain that the sentiment in this statement is what actually inspired and drove Jefferson to advance legislation to abolish slavery and that he believed slavery was "contrary to the laws of nature" where everyone had a right to personal liberty.

Will someone add/reinclude this perspective, in so many words? Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I can promise that everyone involved is completely clear that this is a Thomas Jefferson biography. The question is what weight to give the different aspects of his biography. The slavery section still notes that Jefferson is generally considered to have been a benevolent master, but I'd argue that to go into the daily lives of his slaves is a level of detail better suited for the subarticle. Detail about his slaves' days off is omitted in this draft, just as we omit the 30 Monticello slaves that took advantage of the Revolutionary War to escape his imprisonment; detail about their diet is omitted, just as we omit details about their floggings; detail about their cabins is omitted, just as we omit details about his efforts to recapture and punish runaways. I feel like if we start re-including this level of detail, the section will grow out of control.
 * For my guides here, I'm trying to use one-volume biographies like Appleby, Bernstein, Meacham, etc., to see what they cover or don't. (Also the Thomas Jefferson Foundation summary page, "Thomas Jefferson and slavery"). What sources are you using to determine weight here? Maybe that'll give us a place to start discussing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Weight' can be a rather subjective entity. As slavery is a controversial subject, Jefferson's good treatment of slaves should get some representation-- esp since more people read and have access to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation than they do to any particular publication by an author they most likely never heard of. We should say something, and yes, be careful not to give it too much weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying. I guess the problem for me is that we can just as easily find lesser-known publications that lambaste Jefferson on the slavery issue as we can ones that praise him. (Probably more easily, given recent trends in academia.) There's dozens of books and hundreds of articles, and if we pick and choose details that we find important from the overwhelming amount of specialized material, it's just another way of writing our own POV into the article. For that reason I think we have to rely on how major sources briefly summarize the material when they need to do so. My observation so far is that most biographers are much, much less concerned with his daily treatment of slaves (either the good or the bad) than his rationale for owning slaves at all, and I've tried to reflect that in the current draft.
 * But I'll take another look at some of the bios I mentioned tonight. I don't at all mean to suggest this draft is perfect. (In fact, the GA reviewer said it looked like a whitewash minimizing the criticisms of Jefferson's slave-owning... so this draft is getting it from both sides. Not sure if that's a point for it or against it...) -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And thanks for taking a look at it. Even if we don't agree on some details, I'm really glad to have more eyes on it. As you say, a very controversial section and it's going to be very hard to get right. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As this is a controversial issue it's important that we include as many important 'facts' as possible, rather than just the widely varied opinions from a few sources. Many sources, some noted above, cover Jefferson's good treatment of slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Khazar2, I think your and Hoppyh's edits here are doing a world of good, especially in keeping the article to a reasonable size, in accordance with policy. I'd be glad to help out in editing if you need me, but so far it looks like things are going well. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Page length is a guideline, not a rigid policy to be followed in a robotic fashion, but with common sense, with the readers, foremost, in mind.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be careful of using just a few sources as an all around yardstick to determine subject weight, as there are hundreds of publications, new and old, that lend themselves to Jefferson. I'll look further to see if there are others that don't ignore Jefferson's efforts, re: slave treatment and West Point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'll find them, obviously, just as if I wanted to find a detailed source about Jefferson and women's rights, I obviously could. There's so many books out there that if you specifically hunt for an article or book chapter on "Jefferson and [X]", you will usually find it. But that doesn't mean Jefferson's views on women's rights need to be featured in the lead or detailed in the article. The biographies I've been consulting include winners of the Pulitzer, Bancroft, and National Book Awards; these are major authors in the field, and I'm comfortable basing the article on their judgement. But if you have some other biographies you'd like me to seek out and start consulting also, I'm up for trying. All I ask is that they be fairly recent (say, last 30-40 years) to be sure we're getting current scholarly consensus. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you'll be hard pressed to find coverage of "Women's rights" regarding Jefferson, but I get your meaning. Slavery is well covered in many sources for Jefferson, and while I don't want to elaborate on the "daily lives of slaves", we should mention at least what Jefferson did for them in a few definitive words, esp since this is a controversial issue. Simply saying Jefferson was a "benevolent slaveowner" is sketchy and doesn't begin to reflect on the lengths Jefferson went to care for his slaves, whom he referred to as "servants", by the way. We should at least say that Jefferson did not over work his slaves and provided well for them. This reflects on Jefferson the person more than most other items in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Planned edits
There's a few things I plan to tackle on the article this week in addition to anything Viriditas turns up. I hope these are helpful to and not disruptive to the GA review; at least the first few are probably needed to meet GA standards.


 * Replacing primary source citations with secondary source citations. We still have a lot of footnotes going to TJ's letters or memoirs. For basic statements of fact (like where he was when), these probably aren't a problem, but interpretations of his views or plans should be replaced with secondary sources. (It's not like there's a shortage of writing about TJ.) Where helpful I'll also preserve the primary source link in the footnote, as with this edit, so we'll hopefully get the best of both approaches.
 * Improving the sourcing in the Barbary Wars section. There still seem to be some unsourced or dubiously sourced claims here (America's first squadron, etc.), and the famous overland expedition of William Eaton deserves at least a sentence; these problems were addressed but then reverted on Friday without discussion. But I've found a few sources this weekend that might make for a good compromise version, so hopefully we can work something out.
 * Improving the sourcing in the U Va. section. The mass-revert put a lot of unsourced information back into this section; I'll continue trying to source what's there and trying to take out the rest.
 * Trimming the final days section a bit. Things like his last farm book entry, his last doctor, and the (nonnotable) minister who spoke at his funeral seem to me to be an excessive level of detail for an encyclopedia; these are the sorts of things that don't even appear in a lot of biographies of the man.
 * Adding paragraphs on Jefferson's partnership with Madison and fraught friendship with Adams. Both of these get a lot of coverage in secondary sources, and probably deserve a paragraph or two each.

I should be able to get through this list by Friday at the latest. Glad to discuss any of this in advance or as I go. And thanks again, Viriditas, for taking on this review! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've flagged a few more uncited statements. I'll try to source or remove them in the next 1-2 days, but if anybody gets there before me, you're welcome to them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tucker's following comment closing out his work reflects on TJ's approach to suffrage and contradicts in general the opinion he opposed women's voting: "His zeal in behalf of a general system of popular instruction; of his ward system; of the extension of the right of suffrage, all aimed at the same object of placing the power of the state in the hands of the greater number. It was these objects of his untiring zeal which won for him the title he most prized, "The Man Of The People." Tucker (1837, v. 2 page 567 Hoppyh (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do like that quotation but I'm not sure it hits the women's suffrage issue directly enough to include there. Let me check out Ellis on this again, he's dove deeply into TJ's occasional contradictions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Hoppyh (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Peterson. Hoppyh (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ellis and Brodie have some general discussion of TJ wanting women to stay in their domestic sphere, but nothing specifically on suffrage. I think it may be best to just strike the three sentences: "Many of Jefferson's contradictions can be understood within this philosophical framework. For example, he opposed women's right to vote or any participation in politics because a government must be controlled by the economically independent. Instead he argued: "our good ladies ... are contented to soothe and calm the minds of their husbands returning ruffled from political debate." His opposition to women's suffrage was so common for his day that we don't really need to explicate it here. What do you think? I've got no objection to this being restored at some later date if someone comes along with a meaningful source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the value of the quote about women generally but more importantly we don't know the context in which he made the comment... I think the text all should be struck as you indicated...if someone wants it back in then the general comment Tucker made is just as useful as a counterpoint? Hoppyh (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any sources for the text which you have tagged in the 2nd paragraph of the section on Society and Government; so I recommend it be removed unless someone else can provide sources tomorrow.Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

All of my initial list above is now ✅. The only major GA issue I see remaining at this point is to make the lead concise and balanced to reflect RSs, per WP:LEAD, but there's doubtless more small things (or even big things) I'm overlooking. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning your comments regarding how the various Jefferson biographies (don't) cover certain details, most of them cover the 'Separation of Church and State' topic very well. Entire books are also devoted to this subject. With this in mind, do you plan on making further edits to cover this important topic? It's almost as important to the Jefferson biography as is the Declaration of Independence and needs to be summarized accordingly, imo. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * please make any planned edits to the appropriate daughter article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring during GA review
Note that the edit warring in this case was entirely my responsibility in initiating a violation of the WP:3RR policy. While it was nonetheless an unjustifiable violation, I did commit this intentionally to elevate the issue at hand over level of detail. My point is to reassure that the warring was focused and will not be repeated by me. As the GA nominator I especially regret the downgrade. Hoppyh (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This was entirely avoidable, as I tried to initiate a discussion regarding the importance/weight of the 'Separation of Church and State' topic where the "level of detail", among other things, could have been examined and ultimately a proposal we all could live with, per summary style, would have resulted. You chose to ignore that and instead "intentionally" violate 3RR to do what I had hoped would be done through discussion.(?!) Again, this is one of the landmark issues Jefferson is known for, covered very well by Jefferson's biographers, not to mention the many dedicated books devoted to the subject, and needs to be represented in the biography in proportion to the scholarship. Currently even topics like Reconciliation with Adams is covered more than 'Separation of Church and State -- a topic that reflects on Jefferson the person more than several other topics that are covered with at least a paragraph in this WP Jefferson biography. Without due representation of this important topic the article will remain unstable, as anyone half familiar with Jefferson will want to cover this topic sooner or later. At this late date, no viable reason has been offered that justifies ignoring this topic almost entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * pointing to evidence of excessve detail as an argument for more excessive detail misses the point entirely. We have daughter articles; please expand and improve them. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excessive details? Currently there are zero details about Jefferson's views of Church and State in what is supposed to become a Good Article. Bear in mind that all the sections have (often many) details. It is customary to have 'discussions' to determine 'how many' and 'which' details are covered in this biography if there are differences of opinion. So far, no one, with the exception of, has cared to discuss the importance and weight of the 'Separation of Church and State' issue. Some days ago I was invited by Khazar to add various content to the biography. Each time I had edits in mind I've attempted discussion, only to be ignored and later met with an unprovoked edit war, while the topic of Church and State continues to be ignored. Could you please explain why we must keep 'all' details about Church and State out of this biography, esp since it is one of the major topics involving Jefferson? Could you also explain why the topic of  Reconciliation with Adams is given more weight, and its own subsection, while this landmark issue continues to be ignored in the biography? Don't quite understand the reluctance to square off with this issue so we can move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said the last dozen times you brought this up: move any deleted material to daughter articles, and add any relevant, summarized main points to this article. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I attempted to add a single sentence to the topic and it was reverted four times without a discussion. If there are no objections from most editors I will write a short summary for the topic, keeping it summarized with maybe two or three sentences -- more if there is consensus to cover the topic comprehensively. What are your thoughts about giving this topic its own subsection and placing it under the Political and religious views section, since it has much more weight than does Reconciliation with Adams topic, which has its own subsection? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know who reverted you, but if it's one small sentence and relevant, you should try adding it again. I don't think we need any new subsections, so please add it to an already existing section in summary style. Whether we need a section on Adams is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jefferson expounded greatly on this subject, as well as many, many others we can't afford to detail. The bottom line is that the freedom of religion is articulated in the Bill of Rights which was crafted without direct involvement of TJ who was in France at the time. It belongs in a daughter article. That said, I will not revert again. I think it's time to get beyond my sin of some days ago. Hoppyh (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Gwillhickers, it feels like you are trying to reinvent the wheel. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been 'reinvented' here. Jefferson was a proponent of Separation from the beginning, before he authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1777. He stressed that the Constitution demanded separation. Since then he was one of the strongest most outspoken advocates of Separation, regardless of any direct involvement with the Bill of Rights, which, btw Jefferson was also a very strong proponent of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Length
Per WP:TOOLONG, this article is currently double the recommended length even for major articles--90KB readable prose (14469 words) instead of 40-50KB. Surely any reviewer, even at FA, would cut this one slack for being one of the key figures of world history (WP:TOOLONG is one of the most ignored guidelines in the MOS).

But I think it would still be a service to future readers if we can trim some less important details (maybe 5-10%) to something more readable in one sitting. I'll make a few cuts today of details I think are expendable (the postal service law above, the name of the pastor at his funeral, how the American Philosophical Society responded to his death), and list them here. I don't mind at all if anyone reverts some or all of these changes. Some of these can hopefully be moved to subarticles. I will try not to delete anything controversial without prior discussion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Frame of reference - I had noticed this when I started work a month ago - it was at 206 then. I agree though. Lincoln went to GA at around 160 I think. Hoppyh (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! Yeah, these big topic articles just tend to accrue new details like crazy. I checked Lincoln for comparison, it's at about 85KB readable prose now. The cuts I've made to the first third already have this down to 86KB, so even if you or other editors restore some favorite sentences, this will be comparable. I apologize if I end up "killing your darlings" at all during this process. Please don't hesitate to revert me anywhere you disagree. I'll hold off here on my cuts for the day so others will have a chance to see what I'm up to before I go further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So far so good for me. Hoppyh (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Early Life and Career

 * "His facial appearance resembled that of his father but his slim physique was typical of his mother's family. "
 * "Through Small he made the acquaintance of law professor George Wythe. (how he met Wythe doesn't seem needed)
 * ", including some inherited from George Wythe" -- mentioning his books
 * "Their marriage took place at the house of Martha's father and was conducted by the Reverend William Coutts. "
 * "It is said that she was attracted to him largely because of their mutual love of music. "
 * "The fire at Shadwell had also claimed his legal papers and notes for the coming term of court, and though he was frantic, George Wythe consoled him with a line from Virgil, "Carry on, and preserve yourselves for better times."
 * " He recalled Bland was "treated with the grossest indecorum."" (the previous sentence is probably enough on this)
 * Although earlier discouraged, smallpox inoculation began in 1768–1769 in Norfolk County, Virginia, and precipitated riots. Jefferson defended the riots' victims, including Dr. Archibald Campbell whose house was burned. Jefferson, himself inoculated at age 23, gave up his law practice before the case was resolved, but later served on a General Assembly committee which sought to reduce the 1769 restrictions on the inoculations. (I don't think this is an important enough incident in his life--it's not even mentioned in Meacham's one-vol bio, for example)
 * Jefferson's earliest memory was being handed to a slave on horseback and carried 50 miles away to their new home, which overlooked the Rivanna River in current Albemarle County.

Political career 1775–1800

 * "Though he was reluctant to take the assignment, he agreed and Adams promised to consult with him upon completion." (Jefferson's reluctance is already clear from the previous sentence in which he prefers Adams.)
 * "The Declaration is considered one of Jefferson's major achievements;" (already very clear from other sections of this article as well as the sentences that follow)
 * "His "Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" led to some small changes at the College of William & Mary, and reduced control by clergy. (another incident small enough that it doesn't make the one-volume bios)
 * "His gubernatorial term expired in June and he spent much of the summer with his family at Poplar Forest."
 * " in Staunton, Virginia across the Blue Ridge Mountains" (location of reconvening not too important)
 * "He was assisted by Thomas Walker, George R. Clark and geographer Thomas Hutchins." (assistants don't seem to have played enough role to make one-volume bios)
 * " He said that, "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had chosen a people." (Jefferson's views on slavery are explored in detail later)
 * "Jefferson learned of the ordeal while in France, and spoke to Franklin who compared the Committee to a "needed light house" and its members to a "raging sea", rendering it inaccessible and dysfunctional."
 * "Jefferson thought that Congress had "mutilated" his work, but accepted the majority's changes."
 * Jefferson taught himself to read and write Spanish during the nineteen-day voyage, using a copy of Don Quixote. (This is already covered under linguistics)
 * Four days after his arrival, Jefferson rode out to Passy to greet Franklin.
 * "he taught her French and helped her with her studies"
 * "Duties on whale oil were removed, and Jefferson directed more of the tobacco trade directly to France eliminating British intermediaries." (covered sufficiently by saying he negotiated trade agreements)
 * He wrote a letter to Edward Carrington expressing similar concepts he held of the natural tendencies of government and its relationship to the people, saying in one instance, "the natural process of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." (Jefferson's views are already extensively covered elsewhere in the article; not sure this letter merits its own sentence)
 * "The confidence of the whole nation is centred in you. You being at the helm will be more than an answer to every argument which can be used to alarm and lead the people, in any quarter, into violence or secession."" -- quotation is already adequately summarized in preceding sentence
 * "The French minister Edmond-Charles Genêt said in 1793: "Senator Morris and Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton ... had the greatest influence over the President's mind, and that it was only with difficulty that he [Jefferson] counterbalanced their efforts." " (No reason to quote a nut like Genet as a historian, but perhaps we can replace this from a better source)
 * "with reservation as to the brutality of the French Revolution" (already mentioned a few paragraphs back)
 * " Future developments indeed bore that out." (no need for foreshadowing)
 * "He initially intended to forego the swearing-in ceremony, which he thought monarchical, but relented.
 * He was concerned about the absence of rules governing his authority over the Senate... He had also served on the committee appointed to draw up the rules of order for the Continental Congress in 1776 and as Vice President, he was able to formulate some Senatorial procedures. (a bit vague and also uncited; don't think it's needed)
 * ", saying, "The violations of the Constitution, propensities to war, to expense ... which we have lately seen, are becoming evident to the people"" (quotation already seems well-summarized by previous sentence)
 * He often dined with many of the city's prominent people, and accumulated wines for return to the United States. Jefferson corresponded with many pivotal supporters of revolution including the Comte de Mirabeau, a popular pamphleteer who repeated ideals that had been the basis for the American Revolution. (I couldn't find a reference to Mirabeau in several one-volume TJ biographies I checked, suggestiing the influence was slight. The second citation about Mirabeau is to a website that looks unlikely to be an RS. TJ's influence on prominent people is well covered in the following paragraph, to which I added a note about the Declaration on the Rights of Man; the mention of wines is a bit trivial and his taste is covered elsewhere.)
 * "He commented on the drafting of the constitution, saying he supported freehold suffrage, by which only landowners could vote." (his role in this sounds minor, and we explore his ideas of democracy in much greater detail elsewhere)

Presidency 1801–1809

 * ", claimed that "if this administration shall not reduce taxes, they never will be permanently reduced." The Swiss-born Gallatin was Jefferson's most valued administrator and a critic of Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policy." (reduced a sentence that Gallatin helped him dismantle Hamilton's system)
 * "Republicans also repealed a provision of the Judiciary Act that had required Supreme Court justices to travel extensively to serve as circuit court judges. " (an interesting change but I'm not sure it's major in the scheme of Jefferson's life. Also, uncited)
 * cut a bit of repetition in the paragraph on founding West Point, and extraneous detail like the engineer's name who scouted the site
 * "Lewis had extensive military woodlands experience and proved an apt student of the sciences of mapping, botany, natural history, mineralogy and navigation. "
 * "At the time, knowledge of the western continent was limited to what had been learned casually from trappers and traders. " (already implied enough by "uncharted" in previous sentence)
 * "In keeping with his trade and acculturation policy, Jefferson kept Benjamin Hawkins as Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Southeastern peoples, who became known as the Five Civilized Tribes for their adoption of European-American ways." (no citation, and also I'm not sure Hawkins is important enough to merit a mention here)
 * "Jefferson continued to pay the remaining Barbary States until the end of his presidency." - This needs clarification to be included. Hoppyh (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Later years

 * "once remarking, "Whether I retire to bed early or late, I rise with the sun." (a little too much detail on his not-very-important old man routine)
 * "visiting the fields and the nailery" (same)
 * He once wrote, "I never go to bed without an hour, or half hour's previous reading of something moral, whereon to ruminate in the intervals of sleep." (same)
 * "In the evenings, his family ate dinner" (same)

As an aside, it seems to me two important things are missing from this section: Monticello becoming a tourist attraction with constant visitors, and his famous reconciliation and correspondence with Adams. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

University of Virginia
 * "In 1800, Jefferson wrote a letter to Joseph Priestley about his proposed University. "
 * Stylistically, Jefferson was a proponent of the Greek and Roman styles, which he believed to be most representative of American democracy by historical association. (already well covered--just going to mention Palladian style again)
 * Jefferson's educational ideas were expressed in the configuration of his campus plan, which he called the "Academical Village". Individual academic units were defined as distinct structures, each housed classrooms, faculty offices, and residences. Gardens and vegetable plots are placed behind and surrounded by serpentine walls, affirming the importance of the agrarian lifestyle. (maybe getting into to too much detail now--also uncited)
 * Until his death, Jefferson invited students and faculty of the college to his home. (not super-important, and doesn't seem to be from a scholarly source)
 * I've cut the above sentence for a second time; sorry if I'm being overly pushy on this one. I'm not 100% opposed to this sentence, but there seem to be two problems here. First, so far as I can tell, this fact doesn't appear in most (maybe not even in any) TJ biographies, as evidenced by our need to go to a 1935 publication of the genealogy society for it; if modern scholars aren't mentioning it even in much longer works, I don't think we should either. Second, even if reintroduced, the citation isn't verifiable without a page number. Up for negotiating though, and feel free to revert if anybody still disagrees (and can find that page number). -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Lafayette's visit
 * "in a carriage provided by Jefferson with a military escort of 120 men. Some 200 friends and neighbors also arrived for the reunion"
 * Lafayette later accepted Jefferson's invitation for honorary membership to the University's Jefferson Literary and Debating Society.
 * "Jefferson's grandson Randolph was present and witnessed the historic reunion: "As they approached each other, their uncertain gait quickened itself into a shuffling run, and exclaiming, 'Ah Jefferson!' 'Ah Lafayette!', they burst into tears as they fell into each other's arms." Everyone in attendance stood in respectful silence, many of them stifling sobs of their own. Jefferson and Lafayette then retired to the privacy of the house and began reminiscing the many events and encounters they shared years before" (as much as I love this story, I think this is an excessive level of detail ; right now I think we have more words on Lafayette's 11-day visit than the Barbary War or Jefferson's Haiti policy).
 * "The next morning Jefferson, Lafayette and James Madison rode to the Central Hotel in Charlottesville. After being greeted and honored with speeches they departed the hotel at noon and set out for a tour and banquet at the University of Virginia. In the rotunda of the university with Jefferson seated between Lafayette and Madison they had dinner, with French wine from Monticello." (same)
 * "Lafayette later accepted Jefferson's invitation for honorary membership to the University's Jefferson Literary and Debating Society." (same)

Final Days
 * On May 22 he made his last entry in the 'Farm Book', noting the price of lamp oil and the cost of lighting his estate. On June 24 he wrote his last letter, to Roger Weightman of a Washington newspaper, the National Intelligencer, in which he reaffirmed his principles in the Declaration of Independence. (not very revealing detail about the man, doesn't appear in most biographies)
 * "by his grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph and his doctor, Robley Dunglison, and other" (specifics about family members and doctor probably aren't needed here)
 * , and was at ease with the immediacy of death. He said to Dunglison, "Well Doctor, you see I am still here yet." To the family's words of hope Jefferson impatiently replied, "Do not imagine for a moment that I feel the smallest solicitude as to the result," at which point he gave directions for his funeral, requesting no sort of celebration. He declared, "I have done for my country, and for all mankind, all that I could do, and I now resign my soul, without fear, to my God, – my daughter to my country." After falling back asleep, Jefferson later woke at eight o'clock that evening with a final inquiry, "Is it the fourth yet?" His doctor replied, "It soon will be." (more detail than needed)
 * "Jefferson's funeral, held July 5 and performed by Reverend Charles Clay, was a simple affair. No invitations were sent, but some friends and visitors came to the ceremony and burial to pay their respects." (more detail than needed)

Political philosophy and views

 * " In another letter to Smith that year Jefferson wrote: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." (This is redundant with the previous quotation, and also a factual error. Both statements are from the same letter, this one preceding the latter by only a sentence. The previous quotation was also mistranscribed from its source, so we may need to check these for errors.)
 * "In retirement, Jefferson reminded John Taylor in 1816 that they had ever hated the banks which could destroy the state constitutions, already suffering from speculators who "sweep away the fortunes and morals of our citizens". He considered banks more dangerous than standing armies–"swindling futurity on a large scale". " (mildly redundant with what's already come in this section. Plus, this discussion of his late-in-life opposition to banks doesn't appear in several one-volume bios I checked. Lastly, this is half-cited to a primary source.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Religious beliefs
(Per the GA reviewer's suggestions, I've made significant cuts here to better follow summary style. I've prioritized keeping statements from secondary sources over primary sources, and will try to integrate the remaining material into the daughter article after the GA review.)
 * Jefferson later wrote that he found two strains within the Bible, one that was as "diamonds" of the "purest moral teaching", and another that was as a "dunghill" of "priestcraft and roguery".
 * . He claimed that Christianity possessed, "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." (cited only to primary source; already implied by previous sentences)
 * Jefferson's personalized Christianity included a strict code of moral conduct and was inspired by classical literature. His belief system retained some Christian principles but rejected many of the orthodox tenets of that time and was critical of the Catholic Church as he had observed it in France. He advanced the idea of Separation of Church and State, that the government should not have an official religion nor should it prohibit any particular religious expression. He initially offered these thoughts in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. In a private letter to Benjamin Rush in 1803 he explained some aspects of his personal belief system regarding Christianity: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence ..."
 * Jefferson noted both benevolence and contradictions in Christian doctrine. In an 1820 letter to his close friend William Short, he stated, "it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." In 1824, four years later, Jefferson had changed on his view of the "materialism" of Jesus, clarifying then that "... the founder of our religion, was unquestionably a materialist as to man."

Historical reputation

 * "Yet others have noted Jefferson was predominantly a kind and generous employer and master, who expressed deep moral convictions against slavery. " (cut for two reasons. First, it's already in the article under Slavery. Second, as Cogliano points out in his book about Jefferson's evolving historical reputation, nothing has done more harm to his reputation than the slave issue; it seems undue weight to mention slavery only in a list of other problems, followed by two sentences defending him. I realize this might be controversial and am happy to discuss)
 * I've also added several sentences about other politicians seeking his mantle, and the polls of scholars that rate Jefferson at the top.

Interests and Activities
APS
 * "While serving as Minister to France, Jefferson had the opportunity to survey the foremost classical buildings he had reviewed in his reading, as well as the architectural trends then fashionable in Paris." (not cited, and also doesn't pass the "one volume" test--I checked five biographies and couldn't find a source for this, so I don't think it's important)
 * ", founded in 1743 by Benjamin Franklin" (not sure this really matters, since Franklin's quickly sputtered out, and the APS was then defunct for 10-30 years. )
 * "He was elected to the Society in January 1780 while Governor of Virginia and the following year was elected a Counsellor. During his long tenure he served on many committees." (unnecessary detail for a historically minor part of his life)
 * "He offered the Society his letter of resignation on three separate occasions, all of which were refused." (too much detail)
 * "After Jefferson's death in 1826 the Society draped the chair he had occupied in black for six months. " (too much detail)


 * "Jefferson was also elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1787. He became an associated member of the Royal Institute of the Netherlands in 1809, and was a member of the American Antiquarian Society. (I can't find references to these memberships in a few biographies I checked, and in any case they're sourced only to primary sources here. If they don't show up regularly in full-length biographies, I'd propose that they're not significant enough for our encyclopedia article.)

Linguistics
 * ", though colleagues were skeptical. John Quincy Adams dismissed Jefferson's account as one of the exaggerative "large stories" he was inclined to tell." -- (using "claimed" is enough to cast doubt on the Spanish-language story already. Also, "colleagues were skeptical" may be overstating it, since the source only mentions JQA. Anyway, it's a lot of words for a small point in the scheme of his life)
 * "He studied the ancient Anglo-Saxon language in a linguistic and philosophical capacity. " (no citation and not especially important)
 * " and was known to keep his Greek grammar book with him everywhere he went."
 * "consequently becoming keenly interested in linguistics and political philosophy altogether." (no citation and I'm not entirely convinced that it's the Greek language that got TJ interested in politics. Meacham, for example, attributes that to the influence of George Wythe and others)
 * "Here Jefferson first became familiar with the Anglo-Saxon language, especially as it was associated with English Common law and system of government. He was so interested in the subject that, while pursuing law, he set aside time to devote to its study, as the college offered no such curriculum."
 * " He owned a wide variety of multiple language dictionaries, including Webster's A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, 1806. Much of Jefferson's correspondence is earmarked with Greek and Latin quotations and other references to language. "
 * "Although his political career and private activities required him to speak in public and his writing on a wide range of topics was regarded as brilliant, " (both already established)

Inventions
 * "to hold five volumes at once to be viewed by the reader" (the book-stand is a minor enough thing that detail probably isn't needed)
 * "Louis Leschot, a machinist, aided Jefferson with the clock." (his name seems irrelevant here)
 * "6 in long coded wooden... The messages were scrambled and unscrambled by 26 alphabet letters on each circular segment of the wheel. " (a little more detail than needed; "coded cipher wheel" is definitely redundant)
 * "He made improvements and introduced innovations on an English printing press he had brought back with him." (not cited; not sure it's significant)
 * "a device for counting the number of steps taken while walking, and gave one to James Madison." (too much detail on minor point)
 * "in collaboration with Charles Willson Peale" (not really important)

Memorials and honors

 * "During the New Deal era of the 1930s, Democrats honored Jefferson and Andrew Jackson as their party's founding fathers and continued inspiration. He was portrayed by them as the spokesman for democracy and the common man. President Franklin D. Roosevelt led the effort to gain approvals for his monument in Washington." (not cited, and already touched on in earlier reference to FDR seeking to be his successor)
 * His original tombstone, now a cenotaph, is located on the campus in the University of Missouri's Quadrangle. (minor detail, even for a Mizzou fan like me)
 * "A life mask of Jefferson was created by John Henri Isaac Browere in the 1820s. (trivial, unless we mention that he almost suffocated doing it, which we don't)
 * "Other memorials to Jefferson include the commissioning of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship Thomas Jefferson in Norfolk, Virginia on July 8, 2003, in commemoration of his establishment of a Survey of the Coast, the predecessor to NOAA's National Ocean Service. A bronze monument to Jefferson was erected in Jefferson Park, Chicago along Milwaukee Avenue in 2005. In honor of Jefferson's support, the Library of Congress' website for legislative information is named THOMAS." (uncited, and minor details unlikely to appear in a published biography)
 * Biographies on WP seem to make a niche or haven for trivia in the "Memorials and honors" section. I myself am a big fan of adding stamps for Virginians. It seems generally to do little harm and is often agreed to. But it seems to me that the GA standard of writing style we are discussing here will not admit to that level of frivolity. I like the standard asking, What appears in reliable single volume biographies? One can see way too much stamps and coinage has crept into George Washington -- one could imagine a stand-alone subsidiary article on GW philately and numismatics. Anyhow, this is to be supportive of the sterner rewrite this article is undergoing. I am following it with great interest in seeing how it all pans out -- especially the subsequent nominating process, having failed to promote three myself. Thanks for your continued good efforts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I know from the article's history that you've been quite active here, too, so thanks for everything you've done to maintain this one over the last few years. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed - GA review
Note above we have had a GA review ongoing for some time now. There remains considerable work amidst differences of opinion on what level of detail is apropos. I have been working hard on the article - over 1100 edits over the past 3 mos.. and am fatigued to the point of earning a warning for edit warring. The GA reviewer has dedicated work also to this and some fresh faces/minds are needed here. Hoppyh (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Such frustration has characterized work on this article, which is why one by one we all give up. YoPienso (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * any concrete suggestions for future improvement? Viriditas (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The general improvement suggestion for years (if you search the archives and from my own recollection) is to cut down, but that has met long resistance. So, just want to lend my general support to User:Khazar and Hoppyh - but there is a history that has caused abandonment by several who have supported shorter text in the past.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and within the last month, the article has been significantly pared back to a reasonable, stable version. There are still areas of dispute that need to be addressed, however. I'm still not exactly clear why GW insists others should preserve specific content in the daughter articles when there is nothing stopping him from moving it there himself.  For me, that's a bone of contention.  Editors are not required to preserve content, so if that's something he wants to do, he needs to do it himself. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It also appears to be tied to POV issues, which I think you noted early on in your review. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, under the circumstances, my best concrete suggestion is to gather enough like-minded editors to form a consensus (unanimity being unachieveable; See WP:CONS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. . .") to force through, if you will, a concise, summary-style narrative. How do we gather without canvassing/personally inviting? Some good past contributors no longer watch the page. None of this is in the best spirit of Wikipedia. One contrarian can take an article hostage. [Sigh.] YoPienso (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, we already established consensus on this point in the review, but I'm more than happy to start a new RFC for additional input. Would you like to help me create the RFC wording? Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the subject of the RfC? YoPienso (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The stability of the Jefferson biography almost entirely has revolved around how the Hemings and Slavery issues were handled, not mere 'page length', which is a guideline. There are a good number of GA and FA articles that exceed page length guidelines, and it's sort of troubles me to see a few editors more fixated with that idea than they are about the historical narrative we are giving to the readers, which should be any editor's foremost concern. I don't think there has ever been a reader that complained about a Subject being too well covered, unless of course the article was textually redundant, too tangential, in error, etc. That is not the case here. We should keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson was involved in (very) many aspects of American history, so it only goes that the Jefferson biography is going to be much longer than the average biography. Jefferson's extensive involvement in American History needs to be discussed in terms of how to cover it well as it pertains to the Jefferson biography. The practice of gutting sections of informative and often important content simply to satisfy a page length guideline is uncalled for and does a disservice to the readers. A reader shouldn't be required to hop over to dozens of other pages just to get a clear understanding of the article's subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * GW, you're the only editor who has discussed page length. What myself and others have discussed is summary style, which is a related concept, but not the same thing.  You've also been told that SS is a GA criterion regardless of whether it is a guideline.  There is nothing wrong with the current length of the page.  It is debatable, however, if SS is still a problem.  Since this has already been discussed in detail and we've already established consensus for it, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.  But when multiple editors come here and tell you that you are standing in the way article improvement, I think you should start listening. The SS criterion is deeply connected to the other GA criteria; you cannot dismiss it as a mere guideline.  I think you need to stop discussing and arguing about SS, as that's already been discussed. The underlying problem is that you absolutely refuse to work on and improve the daughter articles, instead preferring to disrupt article improvement in the parent topic because of ownership issues.  When a dozen editors tell you that you are interfering with their work, it's time for you to step aside. Do not continue to bring up the page length guideline straw man again. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference is made to today's entry by Gwillhickers in the Separation of Church and State Section of the review page. Apparently, that editor does not intend to collaborate with the reviewer, I will not further respond to what seems to me to be a semi-combative tone. Hoppyh (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This same problem has been going on at the Ulysses S. Grant article, among others. It's worth noting that there's not much difference between guidelines and policies. No one editor can frustrate a page's progress by refusing to abide by a guideline that the rest of the encyclopedia follows by on a regular basis, especially in the face of a contrary consensus, like the one we see here and at the Grant page. If this GA review is doomed, that's a shame, but I'd be happy to help out on the next one and any further action deemed necessary. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review is about 2/3 completed. How about island hopping Gwillhickers' "daughter article" passages and complete the review, returning to the "daughter article" information which I will be happy to assist in transferring once identified in a list. I have noticed a consistent article improvement everywhere "the reviewer" has chosen to focus attention in this collaborative effort. We also have identified an additional section to develop above...I can't place it just now...but I see no reason for abandoning hope of GA just because the review is not completed in a one-pass procedure. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it is up to the reviewer, but when there is such contention around an article - like, here, someone bringing a request to block against the article nominator -- it is often failed until another time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with 'Summary Style' as long as we are not leaving out major points, important context and entire topics. I bring up page length because entire paragraphs have simply been removed -- not rewritten to accommodate summary style. If we were trying to 'summarize', we wouldn't simply make large wholesale deletions of content and important context but would strive to retain these things and rewrite the paragraph/section in question accordingly. The issue of 'Separation of Church and State' is not even summarized in the Jefferson biography and is only mentioned in passing. This is acceptable writing/coverage to you? In all fairness, this important topic needs its own subsection, which will invite the readers to follow up in the Daughter article where the article is covered in depth. Again, this important topic is not even summarized in the main article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would appear you're the one with the combative attitude. i.e.Refusal to discuss reasonable content issues, your accusation on the GA review page that I am gaming the system, not to mention your 3RR violation and refusal to even discuss matters of Church and State and how it is a major topic with Jefferson. There is no denying that this is a major topic for Jefferson which is apparently why you don't dare try to debate the idea along historical lines. Easy to see. Please get your own line straight before you vent personal frustrations over notions about my activity. All along I have acknowledged the good work being done, however, there seems to be little to no capacity among one or two editors to accept reasonable criticism. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson and Haiti
Re: your discussion at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/GA2. Referencing the treatment in the daughter article, Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, it seems we could at a sentence or two here at the Re-election in 1804 and second term section. The last paragraph addresses Jefferson’s attempt to annex Florida from Spain and Napoleon. The same paragraph topic on Jefferson's American Hemisphere foreign policy could be expanded to include both Florida and Haiti with the following addition:

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the above as you suggested.Hoppyh (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The addition is good Hoppyh. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

✅

Coverage of the Louisiana Purchase
I have reverted an edit by GW which added the fact that the relative size of the Louisiana territory was unknown at the time of purchase - a good example of the kind of detail that does not belong in the main article on Jefferson - unless someone can cite a source indicating this specific was a major issue at the time. Hoppyh (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction, the relative size was known -- what was not known was that it was the largest tract of fertile land on the planet, per Ellis, 2008, p.108. This is the Jefferson biography. Mentioning Jefferson's state of mind at the time of purchase, with just a few words, is completely appropriate and would be welcomed by any inquisitive reader with average intelligence. Referring to this added point as "excessive details' is sort of an exaggeration. We are not authoring an outline. Details become "excessive" when there are too many and/or when they are too tangential. That is not the case here, so I'm restoring this point of context. It directly involves Jefferson's state of mind. I am of course open to further discussion if there is something else we are missing here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten that line a bit to reflect the true importance of the fertile land gained by the purchase. To tell it was the largest tract of fertile land on the planet is mere trivia, but to note it led to agricultural self-sufficiency is more important. (I didn't say exactly that; someone can improve my edit. I didn't want to quote or paraphrase Ellis: "making it self-sufficient in food in the nineteenth century and the agrarian super-power in the twentieth.")
 * Also, Ellis didn't say it was the largest tract of fertile land on the planet, but that it was the largest tract of fertile land of its size on the planet.
 * Slight typo here in the comments--it's found on p. 208, as shown in the narrative. YoPienso (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But before the plow invented to cut through the plains grass it was unarable. The main point in the short run was to expand west and exclude European claims on the North American continent. Other than along river deltas, there wasn't much there there to farm. John Deere's "grasshopper" plows were an invention of the 1830s. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. TJ bought acreage to enlarge possession and extend governmental reach; only after Lewis and Clark returned did he even know what he had bought besides sovereignty. But if (IF! I prefer not to.) we note the large tract and cite to Ellis, the point is agricultural self-sufficiency, not a Guinness record. YoPienso (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Gwillhickers, if you're determined to add trivia, please make it accurate: it was the largest tract of fertile land of its size on the planet. YoPienso (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the ungrammatical "while not knowing it at the time, the new territory included the largest area of fertile land on Earth, making the new country self-sufficient in food." After sleeping on it, I'm still not strongly in favor of noting the fertility of the land or the eventual agricultural self-sufficiency it supported. I am strongly in favor of preserving The purchase doubled the nation's size and marked the end of French imperial ambitions in North America, removing an obstacle to U.S. westward expansion since it communicates what TVH called "the main point in the short run." Other details are more appropriate in the LA Purchase article. YoPienso (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of Church and State

 * It's a common practice to determine issue weight for purposes of the article by comparing it to issues that have been given weight (e.g.with their own (sub)section), so yes, it's entirely relevant. Weight is also determined by how the topic is covered by the scholarship, and as I pointed out several times, 'Church and State' is a landmark and very important issue, covered very well by the current scholarship. In any event, I'll come up with a short summary of 'Church and State' mentioning Jefferson's thinking and how it impacted American History and (very) many court decisions. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists regarding Church and State is when the issue became very public and controversial, per the Federalists and others who were very critical of Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jefferson was a great proponent of the Bill of Rights and was instrumental in their development, regardless of any "direct involvement". He stressed ("expounded") the importance of Separation' more so than most if not all his other contemporaries. -- Gwillhickers'' (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of the limitless and far flung historical implications of the statements and actions of Jefferson - the main article on the man is unfortunately not so limitless - hence the use of the daughter articles. Hoppyh (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Insert: Church and State are not a "far flung" idea, and the fact that you refer to it such in an attempt to dismiss the entire issue to another article is sort of curious. Once again, daughter articles are for in depth coverage -- they do not exist so a given editor can dump 'all' details there, all the while there are many hundreds of details in the article involving less important issues. Not at all consistent in terms of weight. The topic carries much weight.  Again, my proposal is to only summarize this important affair with a few sentences. Jefferson began his pursuit of this idea when he authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which btw, this biography also overlooked, save a link to the topic (which I just added). More attention needs to be given to the overall narrative involving Jefferson and 'Church and State'.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

At Thomas Jefferson we have a treatment of Jefferson’s political views on separation of church and state, and the consequences of his views in the political arena, but nothing on his personal views themselves. Can the following summary notes from Meacham be edited to two or three sentences, under 150 words, cut in half?

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem the 'Church and State' issue should be covered under the Political and religious views subsection, rather than the Religion subsection, as the 'Church and State' idea lends itself to politics, the Constitution, court decisions, etc, not any particular religious belief. IMO, we should mention Jefferson's thinking on the idea, along with his actual pursuits, including his efforts involving the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, For context we of course mention criticism from the Federalists and when the issue became very public when the newspapers published his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The letter is historically synonymous with Church and State and should be mentioned in the summary. This can all be effected, summarized, with just a few sentences. A definitive quote from Jefferson on this topic would also be in order, as this is the Jefferson biography. Since you are very knowledgeable about Jefferson and Virginia history and no doubt have more hard texts at your disposal I would recommend you handle the narrative and give us a proposal. IMO this important topic needs its own subsection where a comprehensive summary can do the idea some justice. Your ideas regarding added context are also welcomed by me, and I'm sure the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposal to add more on this subject. Note that the GA reviewer has said a new subsection is not appropriate. Any amount of addition will be closely scrutinized for retention. Hoppyh (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This sort of talk is not helping editor relations around here. Since when do reviewers have more authority over matters than other editors? When there are no policy issues or errors in the narrative, matters concerning content/context are resolved by consensus. Once again, the issue of Church and State is a major issue to Jefferson, covered well by most if not all Jefferson biographers, with dedicated books on the subject, and needs to be summarized in the biography in proportion to the scholarship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The reviewer has authority over the review and since I made the nomination, I am obligated to work in concert with them—for the betterment of the article.Hoppyh (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewers may (?) have authority over the review but not the article. In the interest of "Betterment of the article", we need to cover major issues in accordance with current scholarship. I would recommend that more attention be given to the narrative and the readers rather than to the quickest and simplest was to get a GA award. IMO, this is what is occurring here too often. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your implication that the "quickest and simplest" way is being sought to GA is not supported by the facts or the conduct of the review. And, "IMO", no one is more culpable of violating WP:OWN policy with respect to this article than yourself.Hoppyh (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I support the review procedure as it is working out here. But let me say, at Thomas Jefferson we have a treatment of Jefferson’s political views on separation of church and state, and the consequences of his views in the political arena, but nothing on his personal views themselves. I propose introducing the following bold additions. full proposal removed to current discussion "Jefferson's opinion of Jesus" TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's sufficient for the daughter article to have this. Hoppyh (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Further copy-edited proposal for conciseness. Still, it is not logically sufficient to assert, "Jefferson's unorthodox religious views became an important issue" without establishing the antecedent, what those views were and how they were unorthodox. Objections were not made to the disestablishment of state-sponsored churches as much as he was attacked for disbelief in the contemporarily conventional Triune God. I'm not proposing that the article promote the Triune God concept, only that it report the controversy as it occurred in Jefferson's time, rather than illogically trying to describe one hand clapping, as it were. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposal looks good, but I would also mention the Danbury letter, as this is where the phrase a wall of separation between church and state was first publicly uttered by Jefferson, where the newspapers took it and ran with it, for better or worse. Yes, we need to hear more on Jefferson's thinking. This topic obviously carries more weight than several topics currently covered in the bio', like the Reconciliation with Adams topic which is covered with its own subsection and eight sentences -- a section that is filled with details. Again, Separation of Church and State is a very important topic and needs its own subsection under  Political and religious views. Don't be afraid to cover this topic in the manner that it obviously warrants. Once this topic is well summarized here we can then overlap some of the text with the Daughter article where the topic can be covered in depth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * further copy edit. It is not strictly chronological, but topically organized, intellectual underpinning, application in society, church-clergy-state (philosophy), and political. I read through the daughter article Religious views of Thomas Jefferson. Although differing sources are used, there is nothing here of exceptional detail, only an overview of major topics covered there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson the British subject
Was Jefferson a British citizen as an American colonist since he was born prior of course to American Independence on July 4 1776? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I recall no mention of it in Tucker. Hoppyh (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course he was! Except the proper term is British subject. I'm NOT saying we need to mention that bit of trivia. Not saying we shouldn't, either. Just answering the question. ("Van Buren was the first President not born a British subject." http://millercenter.org/president/biography/vanburen-life-in-brief) YoPienso (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I bring this up because I am not sure the modern reader knows if the colonists are British citizens or subjects and if subjects then what is a subject versus citizenship ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the article to explain the complexity of nationality law. But everyone born subject to the King of Great Britain is his subject.  Americans lost the King's protection after independence and British subjects in the U.S. became American citizens.  Although both citizen and subject are concepts of nationality they are not the same thing.  Canadians for example were British subjects until 1982, when they were re-named Commonwealth citizens.  But since 1947 they have also been Canadian citizens.  TFD (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To the extent that one's domicile is determined by intent, that could not have been formed until TJ was of age, and he might well have never intended to be a domiciliary of Britain. All very interesting, but I agree it does not belong in the main article. Hoppyh (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not refering to "domicile of intent". Please don't change the discussion. I was refering to Jefferson's legal status prior to July 4, 1776 and I believe that is appropriate for the main article and this would benefit the reader. I think it is impossible to determine "domicile of intent", but possible to determine legal status. Were the colonists "subjects" of the Crown or "citizens" of Britain? There is a difference. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it's entirely different...I was just flapping my lawyer-gums a bit. I don't think the article needs to go into the issue, however.Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Virginia was legally a Crown colony rather then a proprietary colony like Maryland. Here is a suggested addition..."...at the family home in Shadwell, Virginia, then a Crown colony." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, "Jefferson was born a British subject, the third of ten children, on April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 OS), at the family home in Shadwell, Virginia.[1]" TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Virginia Historian. That is acceptable...or "a Crown subject" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson was not a British citizen because it was not created until the British Nationality Act 1948. He became a subject of the King of Great Britain by being born within his territories in America. The correct term is British subject. But I do not see why any special mention should be made. All the revolutionaries were British subjects, whether born in America, the UK or, like Hamilton, in the Caribbean. TFD (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto–it's not really informative.Hoppyh (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that Jefferson was a British subject is a basic detail and important -- it's about Jefferson's life, and this is his biography, where items like this belong, more so than anywhere else. This apparent habitual practice of striping or blocking context from the biography is becoming self defeating to the biography and the readers. There's no reason why we can't mention that Jefferson was a British subject before the Revolution. It can be covered with less than a sentence if incorporated into the narrative wisely. Let's not make this a big deal also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree Gwillhickers. Mentioning Jefferson is a British subject is essential to the article. That gives more perspective on Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson had legal status in the British empire. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the bulk of the DOI was against George III a reflection of Jefferson the British subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Every American citizen who was not naturalized and was born before the Revolution was born a British subject. Is there anything special about this biography that it should be mentioned or should we add a couple of sentences to each article? TFD (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you can do what you like to other articles, but there's no reason not to mention basic details about Jefferson in his own biography here. Yes, there is something special about this article -- it's a biography, and items that directly involve Jefferson should be mentioned. Most of the readers will not take it for granted that Jefferson was a British subject. I suspect most of them have no idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD Adding "a British subject" is not a couple of sentences but three important words to establish Jefferson was a British subject until July 4, 1776. Jefferson was a primary founder of what became the United States of America and Third President of the United States. As far as I know Virginia and the rest of the colonies did not establish Independence from Britain until July 4 1776. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections or favors for adding TheVirginiaHistorians edit: "Jefferson was born a British subject, the third of ten children, on April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 OS), at the family home in Shadwell, Virginia." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Favor: I favor the addition for the above reasons already mentioned by Cmguy777 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if the info already in the infobox is sufficient:
 * Born	April 13, 1743
 * Shadwell, Colony of Virginia, British America
 * Died	July 4, 1826 (aged 83)
 * Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S. YoPienso (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers/Cmguy777, the American Revolution among other things removed the loyalty of colonists to Great Britain and they became citizens of the U.S. I do not think readers are so ignorant that they need to be reminded of that in every article about anyone born in the American colonies.  TFD (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, this fact is completely unremarkable. It was a status Jefferson shared with more than three million of his fellow Americans. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Favor. Isn’t it conventional in WP articles for the main article to include context for everything in the Infobox and Introduction? They are to be derivative summary of the article material. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Favor We don't need a slide rule to figure this one. Jefferson was a British subject, regardless if all the other colonists were. No doubt his sense of loyalty as a British subject diminished as the Revolution drew nearer. British subject needs to be mentioned simply for its historical context. Hoppyh's edit, (and was a British subject at birth) makes the point perfectly without inferring that Jefferson considered himself as such. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. There appear to be three in favor and two who do not favor. Yopensio seems to be neutral. The infobox does not specifically state Jefferson was a British subject. The DOI, whom Jefferson was the main author, changed the legal status of British subjects to American colonial citizens independent of the British crown and parliment. That is what makes Jefferson special. I don't view that many readers know Jefferson was a British subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

More lede issues
We should indeed mention that Jefferson was an architect in the lede but it seems we should leave any further details out of the statement. Below is the passage in question, with the proposed removal of some details striken.
 * He was a proven architect in the classical tradition, whose designs include his home Monticello, the Virginia State Capitol and others.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing this request, as it was made 'on my way out the door', sort of. The statement, with its details, serves to mention Monticello, etc, and is the only place in the lede where it is mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)



Image of Martha J. Randolph
I have replaced the following image with the superior Sully portrait of her. Hoppyh (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the other photo is better showing a younger "Patsy" as Jefferson knew her at Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned review?
Viriditas has failed the GA review overall due to instability. That is, having introduced instability on a daily basis without consensus, he then admonishes editors to establish a consensus which does not change “day to day”. The reviewer should be able to establish a rapport with editors making frequent contributions to the article, perhaps setting ground rules in the manner of an arbitrator.

A “failure to understand the summary style criterion” is only one side of the coin. The reviewer must have a minimal background in the subject matter to make responsible judgements in the copyedit process. Most recently there seemed to be a misunderstanding on the reviewer's part concerning the place of religion for Jefferson and his contemporaries as reflected in the current literature.

I regret the abrupt abandonment of the review process, and suggest we continue to follow the guidance of Khazar2 and Hoppyh through one pass of the article, and then go about finding another reviewer. The article is much improved due to Viriditas and their efforts in my opinion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The review wasn't abandoned, it was failed, and for good reason. I've reviewed a few GA noms in my time, and Viriditas has reviewed many more than I have. His actions, while unfortunate, were the only option available for an article that was in the midst of an edit war and plagued by reviewers who declined to follow the criteria. If we all commit to following Wikipedia's article guidelines and the GA criteria, we can renominate this thing successfully. Absent that commitment, it will fail every time with every reviewer. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto...in my view, the reviewer showed great perseverance and stayed with it longer than I expected. To be honest, as the nominator I am glad she put this one to closure so I can walk away. I have awarded the reviewer a barnstar for the effort and expressed my regret to the extent I fell short here - which regrets I also extend to my fellow editors. That said, the article is much improved from a couple months ago. Cheers! Hoppyh (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First, the article was nominated long before it was ready, which is grounds for immediate failure, but none of the constructive/optimistic editors here made that an issue. There was no attempt to discuss the GA review with contributing editors, who by and large had their years of discussions and contributions tossed out the window. Second, the article was coming along -- it merely needed some additions and tweaks in the content which could easily have been resolved had their been a willingness to do so. Lack of such willingness became apparent when simple suggestions and attempts at discussion were routinely ignored. The article was failed because of disgruntled editorship and an inability to accept reasonable criticisms. Period. No one made unreasonable suggestions for improvement. All this could have been avoided if there was more of a capacity for compromise. To all editors, let's not give up work on the article. As soon as we include the important 'Church and State issue', which was a major oversight in the narrative, there are only a few tweaks of context, etc that remain. Let's get the work done and renominate the article asap. Though I'm in disagreement with a couple of editors, their long hard work can not be denied. Many thanks. We hope you will remain with us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Separation of church and state
The idea of separation between church and state is one of the landmark issues that has always been associated to Jefferson. Currently the bio only mentions that he "pressed for a wall of separation..." and nothing more. Jefferson intimated this idea in 1802 in a letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. Imo, we should give the readers more on the topic and at least mention why, when and where Jefferson promoted the idea. Seems this could easily be accomplished with just a sentence or two. We also might want to quote Jefferson (in part) on this:
 * ""Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions..." Thomas Jefferson, 1802

Appleby, 2003, p.58 and Bernstein, 2003, p.138 covers the advent well, while the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (also) provides us with the quote. --

Proposed entry (in bold) added to existing text:
 * Having supported efforts to disestablish the Church of England, and having authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he pressed for a wall of separation between church and state. In response to attacks from the Federalists that Jefferson was hostile to religion, he publicly reaffirmed and clarified his view in an 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, maintaining that 'Separation of Church and State' was demanded by the U.S. Constitution. 

Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added the context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt to add a sentence of context but it was reverted, four times in a row. Why was there no attempt to discuss the matter? Daughter articles are for in depth coverage -- this doesn't mean that we merely mention a topic in the main article and that we put 'all' other details, major or otherwise, in the Daughter article. Main articles and Daughter articles are supposed to sync up and share 'some' content/context. Separation of Church and State is one of the topics Jefferson is noted and famous for, yet this article only mentions "he pressed for a wall of separation between church and state". A Good Article should have something more to offer than that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See comments by reviewer in "Removing content" above which are not being heeded - having made the GA nom, it is my obligation to follow the guidance of the reviewer. Hoppyh (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewers don't own the article, so I am not clear on this "obligation" to a reviewer. In any case, your comments above were general and didn't address the matter I've brought up here. First we need to get something straight. Just because there is a Daughter article doesn't mean we can't summarize a topic in the Main article. They're supposed to sync up. If we were to follow with your approach, removing any and all details, the entire article would resemble an outline, not a historical narrative. The 'Separation of Church and State' topic is hardly summarized here and deserves more than a link to the topic. As I said, this is an issue Jefferson is very famous for and reflects greatly, not only Jefferson, but much of the impetus behind the American Revolution. I don't see any problem of covering this very important topic with a few sentences in what is supposed to become a Good Article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference is made to your exchange this date with the GA reviewer on the article's talk page. Hoppyh (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

GW, if you are concerned with material being lost, then it is incumbent on you to add that content to the daughter articles. Editors do not have to be concerned with syncing minor details in a summary style paragraph in a parent article, and I must ask you to stop making that claim. If you're concerned about the missing content, then you're the one who has to add it. I hope this clears up the issue once and for all. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GAME policy is becoming an issue here. The same admonition has been made and is not being acknowledged. Hoppyh (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, allowing Jefferson's view answering his most persistent critics accusing him of hostility to religion is mere WP:BALANCE. I regret I have only Meecham and Ferling immediately at hand, but in the same way we allow the article to mirror current scholarship in the Hemings domestic arrangement, we should editorially allow a reflection of current scholarship in the treatment of Jefferson on religion, — perhaps more but certainly not less.


 * It would be anachronistic POV to make the editorial determination in Jefferson’s biography that religion was of little import to the American mind of the early 1800s, so it would deserve little more than a sentence in a 10,000 word article. Established religion was still the practice in most states, while Jefferson sought a non-sectarian nationalism of a republican "empire of liberty". --- But for the sake of the article, I would like to take advantage of the review process through one pass of the entire article taking note of any objections as we proceed.


 * Please continue the review, noting the sections which GW has objected to which the reviewer suggests paring. I will be happy to assist in augmenting the daughter articles after the first pass, taking away any “loss of information” objection by GW. I regret I have been unable to follow the interchanges as they evolve in real time, but I will be happy to address a summary list of sections nominated for daughter article expansion, perhaps allowing for additional edits for summary style after the first pass. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the topic of 'Separation of Church and States' is covered by major Jefferson biographers and accordingly should get representation in the biography. Simple math. Currently the topic is barely mentioned in passing, let alone summarized, as if it was some minor insignificant detail. Jefferson biographies that cover this important topic very well include:
 * Thomas Jefferson Foundation
 * Hayes, 2008
 * Ellis, 1998
 * Cogliano, 2006
 * Berstine, 2003
 * Appleby, 2003


 * The Jefferson biography needs to cover this important topic in proportion to the scholarship, per summary style. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We are looking at the section, Political and religious views? We are looking at perhaps an additional 150-200 words to match the Slavery -- perhaps more? Some context relative to "disestablishment" rather than previous "religious freedom” of colonial toleration needs to be noted in light of contemporary state taxes for Congregational establishment in Massachusetts, Episcopalian establishment in South Carolina, etc. at the time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Given the weight of this topic and how it impacted American history greatly the topic needs to be summarized well and ultimately be given its own subsection. A small paragraph with a few sentences is called for here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One point to keep in mind that I haven't seen mentioned on this page is that Jefferson attended church in the Capitol building while president. According to the Library of Congress, "Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. [. . .] In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government." YoPienso (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and as the sermons were given by several pastors in rotation among the denominations, it was consistent with Jefferson's "Apiarian" view of taking the best from each one. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this point sufficiently covered with the last sentence, "As president, Jefferson countered the accusations by praising religion in his inaugural address and attending services at the Capitol.[244] Merwin 1901 p. 10." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes; I didn't notice that. Thanks! (Not sure other posters here did, either. Several have remarked on the importance of TJ's stance on separation of church and state, apparently without realizing none of the founders saw the issue as it is applied today where a kid can't thank God at his graduation from a public high school. It was perfectly fine to hold church services in the Capitol.) YoPienso (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting Church and State summarized
We should get coverage of this topic in place before we become too involved elsewhere. I should have waited before I made suggestions regarding Jefferson's opinion of Jesus. In any case, here is a proposal for the coverage of 'Church and State', it covers the main events along with Jefferson's thinking on the idea of Church and State. It's in the raw, and still needs some tweaks in the narrative and citations.


 * Jefferson was a prominent proponent of Separation of Church and State throughout his political career. For Jefferson, 'separation of church and state' was a necessary reform of the religious "tyranny" common in Europe for centuries, whereby any given religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished. He believed that organized religion would always be a factor in political affairs and encouraged reasoned inquiry to questions of faith.  He maintained that religion was wholly a personal choice and that government had no right to compel anyone's decision about which religion was observed, and opposed the establishment of any state sponsored religion. 


 * In 1779 he drafted the The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which after the Revolution became state law in 1786. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteed freedom of religion to people of all religious faiths.'


 * When Jefferson was President he was criticized by the Federalists that he was hostile to religion and was an atheist. He publicly reaffirmed and clarified his view in an 1802 reply letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, who were concerned that their religious freedoms were threatened by state law based on outdated colonial law. Without trying to offend them Jefferson maintained that a 'wall of Separation between Church and State' was a principle demanded by the First Amendment. 


 * The phrase 'Separation of Church and State' has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The Statute for Religious Freedom is one of only three accomplishments Jefferson chose to have inscribed in the epitaph on his gravestone. ''

Since this topic carries much weight and is covered well by the scholarship, we need to make coverage here in proportion to it and give the topic its own subsection under the Political and religious views section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it. I made a few small edits, perhaps you'd like to adopt some or all…
 * Jefferson was a prominent proponent of separation of church and state throughout his career. He believed religion was a wholly personal choice in which government had no right to compel anyone's observance, and opposed the establishment of any state sponsored religion.  For Jefferson, 'separation of church and state' was a necessary reform from the religious "tyranny" common in Europe for centuries, wherein a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights and even punished.


 * In 1779 he drafted the The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which after the revolution became state law in 1786. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteed freedom of religion to people of all religious faiths.'


 * When Jefferson was president he was accused by the Federalists of being hostile to religion and an atheist. He publicly reaffirmed and clarified his view in an 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, who were concerned their religious freedoms were threatened by state law based on an outdated colonial law. Jefferson maintained that a 'wall of separation between church and state' was a principle demanded by the First Amendment.  However, he believed organized religion would always be a factor in political affairs and, therefore, encouraged reasoned inquiry to questions of faith. 


 * The phrase 'Separation of Church and State' has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The Statute for Religious Freedom is one of only three accomplishments Jefferson chose to have inscribed in the epitaph on his gravestone. ''
 * Thoughts? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it. Is there room for consideration of Jefferson's personal theology and societal outlook as in portions of my earlier proposal? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can add this context with 2 or 3 sentences that would be great. Then the Church-State issue will have been given enough weight and coverage for this biography and will run more consistent with how various issues in the biography have been given weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

and West Point

 * I think West Point the military institution Jefferson established had mandatory Church attendence...I think there maybe an oversimplification of Jefferson and religion...his actions versus his writings... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TJ did not set the rules for West Point. His main goal was to get non-Federalist officer corps. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That would mean having non-Federalist officers more important then separation of Church and State... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Military service chaplains have a long tradition of non-denominational worship. Jefferson regularly attended the Capitol Hill services with rotating preachers, including itinerant evangelicals of some note. No religious establishment is not the same as irreligious; there need be no hostility to religion per se among those who train to sacrifice their lives if need be.

Non-Federalist officers meant at the time, those not in the hereditary Society of the Cincinnati (Hamilton was one). Each Congressional Representative has two appointments each year — with a majority of Congress Democratic-Republican, that meant the political complexion of the officer corps would be primarily interstate, and not primarily regional (New England) nor hereditary (the Cincinnati and their sons). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "That would mean having non-Federalist officers more important then separation of Church and State" Is this a sentiment that any prominent historian has argued or just your opinion? I haven't heard the West Point angle brought up in discussions of Jefferson's positions on the establishment clause/church&state so I'm curious if this is a connection made by notable historians/commentators... Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more of a question of Jefferson's actions versus his rhetoric that historians often question...such as his position on slavery...blaming earlier generations for slavery...no accountability for his own generation...and then putting the ending of slavery on the next generation...his weakening of the Northwest Ordinance by allowing Southern slave owners to enter the area...his rhetoric on being a spendthrift but he was a massive spender himself... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * French nationals with slaves who settled before the Northwest Ordinance were not prosecuted in Illinois for slave-holding until after Jefferson’s terms as president. Jefferson encouraged his neighbor Edward Coles to migrate west with Coles' emancipated slaves, settling freed Virginia slave families into Ohio and Illinois; Coles was subsequently elected governor there as an anti-slavery political ally of Jefferson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)
 * Just so we don't have to do the Coles discussion again. Coles begged Jefferson to advocate emancipation and Jefferson refused and told Coles not to free his slaves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to free his slaves in Virginia where they could not support themselves in a regime of severe racial prejudice. I cannot find condemnation on Jefferson's part against freeing slave families to self-reliant lives as independent farmers and artisans in Ohio and Illinois. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In his letter to Coles, Jefferson advised Coles not to leave Virginia. As for manumission in Virginia, Jefferson was a supporter of the law to allow it (and of course did it, himself, for a few) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

West Point in Lead
Howdy -- I made this edit previously but with the GA nomination, it appeared to be an inopportune time. Now, with the review no longer happening, I have partially made it and removed the following sentence from the Lead: "Historians believe that after the death of his wife Martha in 1782, Jefferson, a major slaveholder, had a long-term relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, and fathered at least some of her children." I remain of the opinion that this does not belong in the lead and that the whole issue is given too much discussion in this article given its limited focus on Jefferson's personal life in favor of his accomplishments as a founding father, diplomat, academic, and others.

Second, I remain of the opinion that Jefferson's founding of West Point as president does belong in the lead. I realize that Jefferson is a man of massive accomplishment and we can't try to fit everything into the lead. However, I can't imagine how the founding of West Point -- one of the nation's top universities and its most selective -- does not belong there. I don't have specific wording to propose but this can be done with just a few words and I think it's worth it. Thanks. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a lot of text in the lede devoted to the Hemings topic. While it should remain in the lede it might do well to trim it a bit.
 * Yes, West Point, was in the lede, after a discussion, but then it was removed, even though covered in the text. Jefferson is famous for founding West Point and the topic is covered by enough reliable sources to be mentioned in the lede. It was an unprecedented major accomplishment. No viable reason to not mention it in the lede has been offered -- and referring to this famous topic as a mere and "excessive detail" is nonsense.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * removal of Hemings, etc from the lede was a mistake. We need to discuss this first. Would you please restore the Hemings lede item and discuss this with us? I am in partial agreement with your assessment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Hemmings, perhaps she should be included. But the lede which previously existed only devoted four words to his wife outside of the Hemmings sentence, and none to his children. It does not mention his parents, Charlottesville, or Monticello. More discussion of his personal life might be merited but if it is included, I believe it should discuss all of the items mentioned that are arguably more important -- not just Hemmings. But it'll be hard to do that without significantly expanding the lede.
 * On West Point, I will try to come up with some language in the next few days to add to the lede if someone does not do this first. Thanks. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I liked your WP/UVA combo previously attempted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede used to read quite simply "Jefferson founded the United States Military Academy at West Point." Let's just restore this simple and definitive statement. Jefferson is famous for the founding of West Point which was a major accomplishment, and needs to be mentioned in the lede. The topic would do well to be covered a bit more and in such a way as to reflect Jefferson's thinking, in terms of his biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to resurrect things already discussed, it would be good to address the reasons that were already given. They were, major-whole-life-biographies do not find West Point worth great ink to spill about - so, not intro material. In addition, note that the Center for the Presidency encyclopedia bio, (which are all generally very geared toward the presidency of each president) does not mention it in the intro. . The United States government has published a whole life bio essay that mentions West Point once way down. . It's very easy to get all excited about a relatively small thing to overall biographers - but they do not belong in the lede. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OTOH the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has devoted an entire page to the issue, while the issue is covered by others, (as I pointed out once before) so instead of comparing a few sources (bearing in mind that there are 100's for Jefferson) there is no denying that Jefferson is famous for this major accomplishment which shouldn't be written off as some 'excessive detail'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That comparison to a page about West Point is irrelevant in the context of judging the lead of this entire biography. In no way is West Point among the first things dealt with at the Foundation website. Editors, here, are just skewing it because of personal POV - famous to you, does not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk)


 * No one said that West point is the most important topic, to me or anyone esle. This was discussed and Khazar finished off the discussion by inviting me to expand the topic (including the lede), while at least two other editors besides myself feel this important topic needs to be mentioned in the lede. It was originally mentioned in the lede, for years with no issues, opinionated or otherwise. --- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, you made a comparison to the Miller site, but when i make a comparison to TJF's coverage you claim it's irrelevant. Was your comparison to the Miller center also irrelevant? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I made a comparison to a scholarly encyclopedia bio lede. - Obviously relevant when discussing an encyclopedia lead. However, in no way is West Point among the first things dealt with at the Foundation website about Jefferson - thus irrelevant in discussing the lede, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is clear support for inclusion of West Point in the lede so I will be adding it now. Thanks, guys! Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am again adding this information back into the article. I would urge editors who disagree with its inclusion to make their case here rather than going against the vast (3 to 1) opinion of editors here. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even were consensus a vote (it is not), your count would be incorrect given the discussion that went on concerning this in the last month, during the GA review, editors who oppose inclusion are, at least, 4 in number. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And one editor disagreeing with every other editor in a discussion doesn't preclude consensus. I'm sure you can find many editors expressing many different opinions if you look around enough. I get that you disagree, but three editors here have expressed their support for inclusion in the lede (and others have elsewhere).
 * Every other editor (isn't that about 50%>?) is highly doubtful that West Point should make it into the lede. Jefferson identified the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the United States Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia as his most important contributions. We don't need to follow him, of course, but "West Point" is not something that comes to mind as the first thing Jefferson is known for - I'd list "French Wines", "Monticello", "Polygraph", "Jefferson Plow" much higher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a picture of "French wines" hanging in the academy? :-) Again, West Point is covered by enough sources, and is certainly famous enough, to at least mention it in the lede. We have only included one short sentence to the lede. Better to include more than enough than not enough. It's unfortunate that much of the recent efforts have been aimed at removing content, not improving or adding to it, which is what any inquiring reader would want. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, no West Point in the lede, please. (And I'm not arguing specifically with Gwillhickers here, who happens to be the most recent poster.) West Point barely appears in the literature. And yes, TJ's wines are much more famous than the fact he signed the bill that established West Point:
 * "As Robert McDonald points out in the introductory essay for Thomas Jefferson's Military Academy: Founding West Point, as late as 1997, there had been as much scholarly work on Jefferson and prairie dogs as on Jefferson and the military academy (three entries each in Frank Shuffelton's annotated bibliography), and more on Jefferson and clocks (five entries) and wines (thirty-nine) than on Jefferson and West Point."
 * That's from a review of a collection of essays, edited by a West Point instructor, about TJ and West Point. YoPienso (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ledes are tough. On some articles, I've felt like it was hard work to find enough important events about a person to fill it out to a reasonable length. Jefferson is not such a man. He had hundreds of scholarly books and articles written about him (probably thousands). In a way, that makes things harder. For a relative nobody, we'd throw in everything. For a great man of many accomplishments, we have to use our judgment in getting it down to a reasonable length, containing just a thumbnail sketch that, hopefully, entices the reader to dive into the longer article and maybe even the daughter articles. So there will be disagreements. I think West Point is important enough to put in the lede of the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson article, but here it must give its place over to more important events of TJ's life. TLDR; let's leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana purchase
Ellis makes the point that this was the largest tract of fertile land, giving added insight to the readers of just 'how' important the acquisition was. There was no "inaccurate trivia" included -- everything is taken from Ellis. This was the basic language that has existed for several years with no issues. If there is something else we are missing that is really important and worth discussing please discuss it and please stop this slow-mo' edit warring. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my posts above under "Coverage of the Louisiana Purchase." They were at 16:35, 5 December 2015; 18:13, 5 December 2015; 21:02, 5 December 2015; and 17:17, 6 December 2015. You didn't respond to any of them. Also see my edit summaries. Your inaccurate trivia has not been there for years; you just introduced it 21:12, 2 December 2015.
 * The sentence currently in the article, While not knowing it at the time, the new territory included the largest area of fertile land on Earth, making the new country self-sufficient in food, eventually producing an agricultural surplus, says the new territory didn't know it at the time. That's what's ungrammatical about it. Your intention, I'm sure, is to say TJ didn't know it at the time.
 * Please make your trivia accurate and your sentence grammatical. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase -- Without realizing it at the time Jefferson had purchased one of the largest fertile tracts of land on the planet -- has existed since August 2013. Yes, not that it makes any significant difference in the historical narrative, Ellis does say "the most fertile land of its size", so I'll tweak it accordingly. I believe the misunderstanding occurred when you first removed the perspective entirely. This was not discussed originally. In any case, many thanks for not continuing this edit 'arm wrestling'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't been there that long. It's been taken out repeatedly and you keep adding it back in. Previously-and I'm sure I missed some instances--| you reinserted it over a year after it had been removed. Also please note you are the only one "arm wrestling" with me. 3 and 3 now.
 * It's annoying that you still don't see your errors, so I'll go ahead and fix them for you. Not that I particularly care for the passage as you intended it, but at least we won't have glaring grammatical errors. YoPienso (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

West Point
West Point is not mentioned in the lede. Jefferson founded this institution. It should be mentioned in the lede, and perhaps covered a bit better in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think this gets sufficient coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in the lead. (In fact, it's probably borderline for the article at all.) Checking the one-volume bios I have at hand, Ellis gives it one sentence, Appleby gives it one sentence, Bernstein ignores the founding entirely and mentions only the TJ portrait painted there, and Meacham gives it a few words of a long sentence on that congressional session.
 * For any other president, this would probably be a major accomplishment, but it goes to show you the scale TJ worked at. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe not in the introduction, but founding West Point is an indication of Jefferson's nationalism which is important to establish. Likewise, Jeffersonian democracy was developed in the context of the US as a nation-state among superior world powers, not as a disembodied abstract ideal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely understand where you and Gwillhickers are coming from, but I feel like it's time we stopped talking about what's important or not in the article based on personal analysis; it gets frustrating and tends to go around in circles. I propose we try to stick with reliable sources: what recent biographies are you two looking at that treat West Point as a major topic? The first four I checked didn't care at all about it, which makes me very reluctant to expand this part. (Honestly, if I was truly editing boldly, I'd take it out entirely, but I understand that you guys would disagree and I'll respect your opinions on this.)
 * Still, those four biographies aren't a comprehensive survey, and I'd be happy to check out whatever biographies you're reading; we can then try to balance it against what's on my shelf. Is that a fair approach? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the two sentences on West Point by that standard. While much is made in recent scholarship uncovering inconsistencies, real or imagined, it is also appropriate as a matter of balance in the WP article to show where Jefferson acted consistently with his principles, including his support of West Point in the case of nationalism and his support of statehood for Kentucky and Ohio in the case of sovereignty of the people under democratic republican government. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Weight

 * The Thomas Jefferson Foundation gives ample weight to Jefferson and West Point, providing several other modern sources as well. More importantly, it touches on the reasons Jefferson pursued such an effort, which of course reflects directly on Jefferson, per his biography. Brief mention should and could easily be made in the lede without giving the subject too much weight, and with no impact on page length worth mentioning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ellis. 1998, devotes more than one sentence to West Point.
 * Dumas Malone's award winning six volume biography devotes two pages to West Point in at least one of the volumes. I'll check the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * MacDonald, 2004 devotes an entire book to the subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the argument, many of the publications for Jefferson don't cover his involvement with West Point. Seems this is a discretionary call, but given Jefferson's and West Point's prominence in American history it seems we should at least say 'hello' in the lede, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bedini, 1990
 * Betros, 2004
 * Mr. Jefferson's West Point:, Remick, 2001
 * Onuf, 2007
 * Cogliano, 2011
 * Wood, 2009
 * Ambrose, 2013
 * Galloway, Johnson, 1973
 * Kranish, 2010


 * You're right; Ellis has two sentences on that page. I do apologize for the error, but I think the larger point still stands.
 * Let me rephrase my objections this way. I don't have strong feelings how we set criteria for the lead, but I do care that we make it consistent. So, for example, if you want to include everything that gets 2 pages in Malone's 3350-page biography, let's list all those topics and see how long that would make the lead. If you want to include everything that gets 2 sentences in Ellis books about Jefferson, let's list all those topics. To me, this is the only fair approach.
 * I understand you'll say again that you just know West Point is important, so who cares about source coverage, but remember, the next editor can say that about Haiti, and the next about his introducing segregation in the post office, and the next about his partnership with Madison, and the next about his feud with Adams, and the next about his feelings about George Washington, and the next about his affair with Maria Cosway, and the next about his making Richmond the capitol of Virginia, and the next about his early claim of executive privilege, and the next about his helping a runaway slave in his early legal career, and on, and on, and on. (Coming at it the other way, two weeks ago we had some editors arguing that Sally Hemings didn't belong in the lead; I think we can all agree that the attention given to Hemings compared to West Point is at least 100:1.)
 * I think the only way we can build a solid, concise lead here is to stop arguing out of thin air and try to look systematically at the sources. This is also what WP:LEAD demands: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Folks, this seems like such a minor point. Can we please keep our eyes on the ball? There's a lot to do here and arguing over including West Point in the lead is so trivial.  Keep it or remove it, it hardly matters.  Please focus on the big picture, improving the prose and the readability. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You're probably right that my quest for brevity has gotten bogged down in minutiae, and I've deleted my previous comment. Sorry, all.
 * Gwillhickers and others, please feel free to expand the West Point section (including into the lead) and restore other material as you think best. I'll step away for a bit and return in a few days to complete any remaining points of V's review if Hoppy hasn't beaten me to them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Khazar. The founding of West Point may not be comparable to e.g.Jefferson's authorship of the Declaration of Independence in terms of weight, but to call the matter "trivial" (Viriditas) is a bit overstated. I'll go ahead and simply mention the fact in the lede with a few words and restore mention of Jefferson signing the Military Peace Establishment Act in the given section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "trivial", as I used it in the above context, refers not to the topic of West Point but to the importance of this dispute. If you can't interpret the correct context of a simple comment, I'm concerned about your ability to interpret and gauge the importance of content in source material. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were wondering why this article wasn't a GA already, you have your answer. Disruptive editing has plagued it for years. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Hoppyh (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC) (by deputy - AWAY on vacation)
 * Ditto. I endorse the comments by Viriditas. I appreciate your hard work reviewing this and regret the results achieved thus far, though great progress has been made. I am personally leaving this entry while AWAY on vacation so as to avoid any violation of Sockpuppetry rules etc by my authorized deputy who is watching my user page only. Hoppyh (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This sort of peckish and disgruntled bickering is what is disruptive and uncalled for, as the matter was resolved quite easily. All this 'talk' here is after the fact. No one said, or even implied, that Viriditas was not doing good work. And just for the record, Coemgenus, the main reason why the article hasn't been nominated for GA was because of the incessant POV pushing in the Salley Hemings (and Slavery) sections, which you voted 'for' to resolve. It took the long hard work and a lot of debate of a few editors to get those sections reduced to sane proportions, where a balanced and neutral narrative was finely achieved. The negative POV attempts still continued after that also, but with no luck, as consensus was on the side of neutrality. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit, I do have a slight tendency to bicker. I blame my mother for forcing me to eat my carrots and never letting me have sweets.  I want my cake and I shall eat it! This is payback, y'all!  :) Anyhoo, please read through the current version of the article, Gwillhickers.  Do you believe it passes the GA criteria?  Take your time in responding, as I will be going over the article in the next several hours.  Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, it's a bit too early to make that call just yet. There are some items that I think need to be restored, but other than that, I think you, Khazar and Hoppy are doing great work, even though I disagree with some of the removing of content. And thanks for invoking your sense of humor at a time when the discussion could have escalated into something not so nice. Unfortunately not many editors have the capacity to do that. (A beer for you!) And for whatever it's worth, my reference to "trivial" was aimed at subject weight and the discussion, not the topic, but you're right to a point -- in terms of the biography the entire matter isn't 'that' important where it should take up a lot of time and discussion. Thankfully it was resolved with just a small addition of text. Hope this isn't sticking in anyone's craw. Again, you guys are doing great work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , please do the restoration so I can finish the review. Please also note that I have recommended many times that you should work on improving the daughter articles instead of expanding this one.  Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My intentions are not to "expand" the article in terms of added paragraphs or pages but only to add various points that may be missing, which can most often be accomplished with just a sentence or two. Also be reminded that this article must sync up with the lesser articles, and it is the responsibility of 'all' editors to do this when editing this article. The practice of gutting sections of content with the idea that 'someone else' will clarify things in the lesser article goes against guidelines and simple common courtesy for other editors who gave much time and effort to WP and its readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sally Hemings in the lede
, you removed mention of TJ's children with Hemings with the edit summary "Cutting some unnecessary detail re: Hemings. This is Jefferson's biography, not hers. She has her own page and section.)" I restored it with the edit summary, "Nope; the phrase refers to children *he fathered*--it's about *him*.)" You then immediately reverted, saying, "Your rationale failed to see the other change in the edit. Either way, not important to include this in lede." What does "Your rationale failed to see the other change in the edit" mean?

Also, you summarized an edit changing "most historians" to "some historians" with "This is a contemporary controversy. The majority of historians over the course of scholarship on Jefferson do not hold this position." At Wikipedia, we report the contemporary academic consensus as the standard for accuracy. We have spent a great deal of time on this article hashing out whether there is an academic consensus on the liaison between TJ and Hemings; there is. Monticello.org says, "Today TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings. February 2012." And there are many more sources that bear out my claim. YoPienso (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)