User:Parkwells/TJdispute

TJ Dispute:

Lead
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_8&diff=417095153&oldid=416044636 (Archive 8)
 * The fact that this subject is still discussed after 200 years, gives it weight. It should not be limited to one sentence to satisfy Gwillhickers, who is clearly POV pushing. The level of proof this person and other people of this ilk are demanding is ridiculous. This level of scrutiny would not be applied to anyone else, other than Thomas Jefferson. The only sure way of knowing with absolute certainty is to dig Thomas Jefferson up. There should be no change on the Hemmings subject. This subject was put to bed years ago. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The weight of an issue can not be measured simply by how many people happen to be talking about it, esp since the only reason the issue comes up so often is because of an orchestrated effort to keep the issue in your face, and I believe that has happened here. There is much talk here because, for example, there was once more than three entire pages dumped onto the TJ page about Hemings. Recently someone put almost an entire paragraph in the lede about Hemings. 'That' is how the issue usually comes up. In of itself, the Hemings affair is not a pressing issue, and effects virtually no one other than the people who chose to do cart-wheels over the issue. -- To measure the weight of an historical issue it must be looked at from the perspective of how this issue impacted the fate of millions of people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson&action=edit&oldid=424893484
 * This is what I have always suggested, for more than a year now. I have been hoping the editors most familiar with this topic would do this, and for a short while it seemed like was being done, but here were are now, half way through April, and the Slavery/Hemings sections are, once again, still the same out of proportion accumulation of material, material that is already well covered on dedicated pages. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


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


 * To speak only of the Hemings section: A prominent exhibit at the entrance to Monticello shows the family relationships of Hemings and Jefferson and all her children. We should do the same. As I was developing that portion of the article, editors kept having questions, or saying something was not substantiated. To convey the historiography controversy without details is very difficult, but I can try to summarize it more. Some people do not want to accept a quick summary.Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Organizations like at Monticello are highly visible and in the public eye are easily goaded or intimidated by the sort of racially charged tactics we saw being used here by an other editor back in March. Elected officials are easily manipulated this way. All you have to do is mention 'racism' and they will jump through one hoop after another for you. I tend to distrust accounts from places like this and from most of academia who often go along with their peers for social/political reasons and to protect/secure their annual grants. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)