Talk:Jefferson–Hemings controversy

Age difference

The 30 year age difference between Sally Hemings and Jefferson should be noted somewhere. Also the fact that the sexual relationship started when she was in her early teens and he was in his 40's. - Pearl2525 (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Eston Hemings' name

Later in his lifetime, Eston Hemings had his (and his family's) last name changed to Jefferson, so his name became "Eston Hemings Jefferson." At least one person has edited the main article to change "Eston Hemings" to "Eston Hemings Jefferson." I believe it should be kept as "Eston Hemings" (except when directly quoting sources who used the latter name) for the following reasons. First, his name was Eston Hemings during the time of his life that this controversy originated; the name change did not come until 1852, long after Thomas Jefferson's death, and therefore in the context of this controversy the earlier name should be used. Second, and perhaps more to the point, using the "Jefferson" surname for Eston is conclusionary in the context of the article, and furthermore becomes very confusing since most of the discussion of the controversy concerns DNA matching between the Hemings and Jefferson families. - Embram (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Article

I believe this article was initiated to provide the details of Jefferson's DNA data, not the Hemmings Controversy. I think that the controversy should really stay on either the Hemmings page, or a "Hemmings-Jefferson Controversy" page. A lot of people are interested in the Atlantic Modal Haplotype and various other aspects of Y-chromosomal DNA without any concern with respect to who Jefferson did or did not sleep with. This article could be a reference/source in the Hemmings, Ellis, and perhaps a future "Controversy" article for those who want more information. Sandwich Eater 13:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Haplogroup T (Y-DNA), which is the appropriate place for the technical discussion. Parkwells (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn’t there be a link to that DNA article in this article, since Jefferson is specifically mentioned there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T-M184 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:EE90:696F:4CE6:6CA9:F33A (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Article title

This article needs a better title. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to know what the original intent of the article was - if to discuss overall aspects of Jefferson DNA, then that needs to be more clear. It seems to devote too much space to K2(T) material. Do we need to know its representation in every population around the world?--Parkwells (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Context

Who conducted this study? Who took the DNA samples, and when? Are the names of the people tested known? Since this article is basically about one experiment, it needs some context on who conducted the experiment, and where/when. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

More information could be added. The first referenced study was in 1998, conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster, of the Y-DNA samples from male descendants of the Jefferson line (no direct descendant documented of Jefferson), Eston Hemings, Thomas Woodson (proposed as another Jefferson son), and Carr brothers (proposed as alternative fathers to Hemings' children.) The DNA test proved 1) that the Jefferson line and Eston Hemings line were related. It further proved 2) that the Jefferson line was not related to the Woodson descendants, and 3) that the Carr males were not related to the Eston Hemings descendants. Some people just don't want to give up.--Parkwells (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the most appropriate place for the presentation of the historical background. However, this page indicated the lack of a link between Thomas Woodson and either Sally Hemings or Thomas Jefferson. It was corrected. Misrepresentation of this history continues after 200+ years. Historians do not acknowledge the mutilations to the Farm Book that Thomas Jefferson wrote in his own hand. An erasure is located in a census of slaves, written by Jefferson in the column for male slaves and the line for slaves born in 1790. Hemings' first son was born in 1790. The names were not entirely erased and so the last letter of the mother's name survives in the Farm Book. The letter is a 'Y.' The name Sally ends in a 'Y.' Nor do historians acknowledge the record of gifts Thomas Jefferson recorded made to Thomas in his financial records. Jefferson made those gifts in 1800 and 1801, shortly before newman James Callender reported that Sally Hemings was the concubine of Thomas Jefferson, disquieting the liaison. If Jeffersonian historians were to acknowledge the mutilations of the Farm Book and the notations written by Thomas Jefferson, then historians, such as Andrew Berstein would be oblidged to exalt a much different history. They would be forced to write the history as Thomas Jefferson would have written it.

Nor has denial quieted after 200 years. In 1999 University of Virginia doctorial student Joshua Rothman wrote an article, after the reported DNA results were reported. The article was printed in a book published by the University of Virginia. Rothman claimed, "Hemings herself claimed this child died shortly after being born." The fact is that no letters, no diary or any writings by Hemings survived, if they existed. Further no one during her lifetime (in writing) quoted a word spoken by Hemings. Rothman could not have interviewed Sally Hemings, as she died over 100 years before Rothman was born. Rothman attempted to kill off her son after 200 years with this misrepresentation of the historic record. This error is not the only abomination in Rothman's article. It is obvious that Rothman's education at the University of Virginia confirms the caution W.E. B. DuBois, advised over 100 years ago,"We shall never have a science of history until we have in our colleges men who regard the truth as more important than the defense of the white race."

Nor did the habitual liar Joseph Ellis quiet the controversy when he appeared on the PBS NewsHour program on November 2, 1998 to report the DNA results. If scientists controlled the process, then why didn't scientists appear first on television to comment on the results, rather than a habitual liar? Historians, such as Ellis, who have misrepresented the history for 200 years, could have commented after the release of the DNA results. What in fact happened was that Ellis was in contact with Nature before the DNA results were released. Dr. Eugene Foster, who collected blood samples from participants, had promised participants that the process would be removed from the reach of historians, but Ellis crossed the line too early. The God and Country Foundation forced the magazine Nature to "clarify" its position and admit that the DNA testing was not conclusive. Whatsmore, Ellis immersed the Jefferson /Hemings controversy in the muck of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal two days before a congessional election (front page Sunday newspaper coverage). How does a "scientific" process have ethical intregity, when its most visible spokesman is a habitual liar, immersed in the political soup of fresh White House scandal? Ellis added controversy to controversy.

What's with all this editorializing and race-baiting by this (unsigned IP?) editor? Gee, have an agenda much? I've seen holy hell raised in other corners of Wikipedia and people topic banned and Wiki-banned for this kind of soapboxing. Speaking of incomplete history, Callender is mentioned but the editor apparently forgot to mention that he had an ax to grind with Jefferson and had threatened Jefferson with "consequences" if not given a particular appointment. It's said he "disquieted" the liaison as if it's established fact. Callender alleged it. For the record, Jefferson denied it.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds as if the editor supports Thomas Woodson as a descendant of Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Guess no one bothered to pay attention, given the facts of the DNA.Parkwells (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The mention of Thomas Woodson is highly confusing as it is unclear who he is, why he has been mentioned in this article, and what significance he has. Clarity of his relation to this saga needs to be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.168.27.65 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Diagram

Would some sort of family tree diagram be helpful here? --JW1805 (Talk) 20:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A diagram would be extremely helpful to illustrate how the DNA test -- absent of any historical assumptions/opinions -- indicates that twenty-five "Jefferson male relatives" are candidates for paternity of Eston Hemmings. This includes Randolf Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's brother) and his sons, who lived within 20 miles and all frequented Monticello, all of whom the Scholars Commission indicated as the most likely suspects for paternity. I have not come across such a diagram, and I would assume that historian and genealogist Herbert Barger, who assisted Eugene Foster (now deceased) in the DNA study, would be a good source for such a diagram. This would be a significant visual aid, since many assume that the DNA results demonstrated a direct link to Thomas Jefferson, which it didn't. In William Hyland's book "In Defense of Thomas Jefferson", historian Willard Sterne Randall called the FBI DNA lab to question the inferences of Foster's conclusion, since no DNA was used from Jefferson himself:

I don't deal in inferences. As a former journalist, I got on the phone and called the head of the DNA lab at the FBI, Jennifer Smith, who told me this case wouldn't hold up in court because his [Jefferson's] only son died, and as long as there are other possibilities of people who had access to Sally Hemings the case would be thrown out of court on those grounds. (Willard Sterne Randall's interview on John McLaughlin's One on One, PBS television broadcast, November 6, 1998)

For this reason, I would also recommend the sentence in the article "The study concluded that Jefferson was the probable biological father of Eston Hemings Jefferson" be corrected to say "a Jefferson male" in order to be more accurate with the DNA results. Otherwise opinion and assumption is being projected onto the DNA results, which is unscientific and would be mistaken as proven fact. The DNA results point to a number of Jefferson males as candidates, but does not single out one as the father. Therefore the results are inconclusive for direct paternity.

--Tlsihcd (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a court case. Th e Foster team was aware of some of the historical evidence supporting Jefferson's paternity, and its article said that the simplest explanation of the results and most probable was that Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings and likely Sally's other children. A committee of researchers called by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs the Jefferson public history site of Monticello, concluded the same thing in 2000. Major biographers have changed their minds about Jefferson's likely paternity, as the assertion for more than 150 years was that the Carr nephews were the fathers, not some other Jefferson. In 2001 the National Genealogical Society Quarterly ran a special issue with articles concluding that the DNA results, together with the body of historical evidence, demonstrated a firm chain of evidence connecting Thomas Jefferson with Hemings and her children. They strongly criticized the Scholars Commission report, published earlier that year by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, for failing to follow good historical and genealogical practices, and ignoring the weight of evidence. Randolph Jefferson was never seriously proposed as a paternal candidate until after the DNA results showed the Carrs could not be the father of Eston Hemings, and that there was a match between the Jefferson male line and the Hemings descendant. The MacArthur Foundation awarded Annette Gordon-Reed, who had pointed out how historians discounted some of the evidence prior to the DNA testing, for her persistent investigation resulting in a "dramatic change in Jeffersonian scholarship." Parkwells (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A diagram is not necessary for this article. Also, DNA from Jefferson, or a legitimate son/male-line descendant of Jefferson, would just be as good as the DNA they took from Jefferson's paternal uncle, since what they are testing is Y-chromosomal DNA (Y-DNA is the same for all male descendants of a family in male line). That is, even a direct legitimate male-line descendant of Thomas Jefferson would be just as good a match as a descendant of Jefferson's paternal uncle - which means that, even if there is available Y-DNA data from a legitimate male-line descendant of Thomas Jefferson, it cannot be definitively said that the Hemings descendants were descended from Thomas Jefferson. It would still just mean that the Hemings were descended from a Jefferson male. Given the Y-DNA evidence and historical accounts, it is safe to conclude that Jefferson is the father. The only other thing that would be better than this Y-DNA test they performed would be to take DNA from Jefferson and Eston Hemings and compare all of their 23 chromosomes (instead of a Y-DNA test, which compares just 1 chromosome). Emerson 07 (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it was the Foster team who, with all the caveats, concluded that Thomas Jefferson was most likely the father, as there is other historical evidence that contributes to this conclusion.Parkwells (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The major issue is that two of Jefferson's grandchildren identified Peter and Samuel Carr, his nephew(s), as the father of Hemings children. Historians adopted this view and it prevailed for about 180 years, along with many subjective evaluations of Jefferson's "character" as to why he would have refrained from this relationship. The 1998 DNA study conclusively proved that the Hemings descendant did not match the Carr descendants "consensus" haplotype, but did match the Jefferson haplotype (which is relatively rare.) This demolished the chief pillar of the family denial of Jefferson's paternity; therefore, the new consensus is that Jefferson was the father of all of Sally Hemings' children. In addition, related historical data known to the study team was that Jefferson was at Monticello for the conception window of each of Hemings' children; she never conceived except when he was there. Full reports are online.Parkwells (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish?

So does jefferson have a jewish paternal line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.81.224 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 June 2007

It's possible. There are Jews who belong to Haplogroup K2, and that is one source of K2 in European populations. The New York Times ran an article on the possibility in February. However there are also many other ways K2 lineages are believed to have been carried from the Middle East to Western Europe. One possibility, raised in the article here and particularly publicised a couple of years ago by Spencer Wells, is possible lines of descent from Phoenician traders; another is possible lines of descent from soldiers of the Roman Empire with origins in the Eastern Mediterranean.

At the moment we simply don't have a detailed enough picture of what clusters of STR haplotypes there are in K2, and whether they fall into identifiable geographic or migratory patterns -- because K2 remains rather unusual in the Western Europeans and European Americans who have mostly been tested so far.

But the picture may well become clearer as more and more research and DNA testing continues to be done. Jheald 19:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As Jews made up 10% of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago, it would be almost mathematically impossible for a European or North-African not to have at least one ancestor who was either Jewish or a "Jewish" progenitor. LarG (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is totally misleading. Haplogroup K2 frist of all originated in South Asia, not the Middle East and second of all it is also more common among European (25% (4/16) of Chians in Chios,[9] 23.5% (4/17) of German Stilfser/Tyrolese in Stilfs,[10] 22.2% (2/9) of Venetians in Vigasio and Povegliano Veronese,[11] 17.9% (5/28) of Sicilians in Sciacca,[12]), Caucasus( 28% (7/25) of Lezginians in Dagestan,[67] 21.7% (5/23) of Ossetians in Zamankul,[71] 13% (3/23) of Ossetians in Zil'ga), and Asian( 55.6% (10/18) of Kurru in Andhra Pradesh,[2] 52.6% (10/19) of Bauris in West Bengal,[2] 50% (2/4) of Lodha in West Bengal,[2] 15.9% (3/19) of Rajus in Andhra Pradesh,[2] and 15.3% (2/13) of Mahli in West Bengal.[2] With K-M9+, unconfirmed but probable T-M70+ : 56.6% (30/53) of Kunabhis in Uttar Kannada,[3] 32.5% (13/40) of Kammas in Andhra Pradesh,[4] 26.8% (11/41) of Brahmins in Visakhapatnam,[4] 25% (1/4) of Kattunaiken in South India,[5] 22.4% (11/49) of Telugus in Andhra Pradesh,[6])populations than it is in Jewish populations. In fact, if one looks at the highest frequencies of people who carry this marker, they are found in European, Caucasus and Asian populations.[1] (Angar432 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

Far-fetched stuff

The last paragraph of this piece reads: "The Haplogroup K2 may be part of the Jefferson male line DNA as Jefferson is said to be a spelling variant of the name Jephson. The Jephson surname's variant has been recorded as Gestson. Gestsson is an Icelandic viking name. The vikings were known to have settled in Wales (where Jefferson's ancestors lived) and have trade routes in Africa." It's highly doubtful that Jefferson's last name had anything to do with Icelandic Vikings, and it's far from certain that Jefferson's family came from Wales either. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has replied to this since I posted it, so I'm removing the last paragraph of this article as it's highly speculative and poorly sourced. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved technical discussion

This article got too far into a discussion of the haplogroup K2/Haplogroup T (Y-DNA), so I moved two paragraphs to that article, a more appropriate place for detailed discussion of population percentages and Levantine migration.Parkwells (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the move. But I see no mention here of the actual haplogroup of the Carrs. If that is known, that needs mentioning. Jefferson came from a very rare haplogroup in Western European populations. The Carrs, with whom I'm familiar, are undoubtedly not in haplogroup T/K2. That needs fleshing out here. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Have not found it.Parkwells (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Malone's documentation of Jefferson's activities

I did not originate the term "timeline" in reference to Malone's documentation of Jefferson's activities and residencies at Monticello. Winthrop Jordan made use of his data and noted the connection between Jefferson at Monticello and Hemings' conceptions. This data was also used and referenced by Fawn Brodie in her biography of Jefferson and Annette Gordon-Reed in Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, who refers to a Malone "timeline". The point is that other historians used the documentation of Malone of Jefferson's activities to assess his possible paternity of Hemings' children, and found she conceived only when he was at Monticello, during years when he was away for months at a time. Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Recommend separate article on DNA study

Earlier editors had recommended that articles on the controversy and on the study be combined. Now that more time has passed, I think this should be rethought. The article on the controversy needs a summary of the DNA data, not all the details. And, there are people very interested in the DNA data and not all the historiography. I will try to draft a summary of the DNA study and data to show here. If we agree, then we can move the major discussion of the DNA data to another article - perhaps "Jefferson DNA Study"? Or "Jefferson-Hemings DNA study"?Parkwells (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is valuable to have this article (pretty much as is, though it could be better written) since it joins together all the historical and genealogical evidence on the controversy. There probably could be a sub-article on the DNA evidence as well, though I am neutral to that. Sunray (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That was what I meant, to have a sub-article on the DNA study and conclusions alone, as some people are interested in the more technical issues (especially the discovery of the rare haplotype). (In its previous form, the DNA study article had much information also about the historical arguments, but that could be excluded.) The most important part of the DNA study as it relates to the controversy are the first three paragraphs under the "DNA Study" section - which essentially form a summary.Parkwells (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable approach. Sunray (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

National Park Service biography

The National Park Service runs the Jefferson and Westward Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, as well as the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC. Its biography of Jefferson online includes a discussion of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, and the academic consensus supporting Jefferson's paternity of Eston Hemings and likely all of Sally Hemings' children. Parkwells (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Alleged son?

Why does the portrait say Eston Hemings son is the alleged grandson if it's been established was Jefferson's son?Studyhard12 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Because some people don't want to accept the academic consensus on this.Parkwells (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The correct answer is because it hasn't been established only suggested. Consensus opinion isn't synonymous with proven. If it had been proven it wouldn't be in the realm of consensus - aka opinion. Docsavage20 (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't been definitely established and probably never will be one way or the other. It's the opinion of some based on circumstantial and limited DNA evidence. The only thing that's known for sure is that some Jefferson male fathered Eston Hemings. TJ was one possible candidate out of many.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there is an academic consensus, based on traditional means of historical interpretation together with the DNA evidence, and that is that Jefferson is the father of Hemings' children. The way such an argument is generally presented, is that there is a consensus, and there are dissenting opinions, as is seen in other articles in which a minority disagree.Parkwells (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been definitively established and probably never will be one way or the other. It's the opinion of some based on circumstantial and limited DNA evidence. The only thing that's known for sure is that some Jefferson male fathered Eston Hemings. TJ was one possible candidate out of many.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Current scholarship

Each of the books in the first paragraph of this section accepts the current academic consensus that Jefferson likely fathered all of Hemings' children. It is not my POV. The review by Wood only referred to Bernstein's book, and that has been clarified.Parkwells (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

TDOL, you are attacking this section as if it were not connected to the rest of the article. These authors have written books reflecting the academic consensus that emerged about 2000 agreeing that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children, which is discussed earlier in the article beginning in the Lede, and in following sections. The cites refer to that aspect of their books. It was not the only thing they were writing about in relation to studying Jefferson. The joint Smithsonian-Monticello exhibit at the National Museum of American History is considered a landmark for its treatment of Jefferson. It is current scholarship that reflects the consensus on Jefferson's paternity and is cited for that conclusion. It is appropriate to look at works since 2000 and see what has been happening in the field in the last 12-14 years since the DNA testing and independent studies. Please stop deleting this properly sourced material. Parkwells (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

After taking a closer look I recognized it for what it is and as consistent with your typical MO. The connections and assertions made are yours - pure POV and OR and as such have no place in a Wikipedia article. As noted previously, when I first looked at it, you were trying to prop it all up with a single reference that didn't even mention most of the books and authors mentioned in the paragraph hoping no one would notice. "..They have used their acknowledgement of Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children as a basis for re-evaluating.." - nowhere to be found in the reference cited - it didn't make a comparison of the referenced works. Nothing but academic review according to Parkwells. Just shuffling a few things and rewording doesn't change what it is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're criticizing something that didn't exist. Fact: You took the Wood cite as referring to all the books; I clearly had a quote referring to Bernstein's book alone. Fact: Each of the books acknowledges the new consensus, and in some cases represents changes by their authors from previous works. Fact: Each book discusses Jefferson or Monticello from new perspectives, as noted in the reviews. And the Smithsonian/Monticello exhibit? Do you think that doesn't exist because you are trying to bar coverage of it in the article? Parkwells (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All assertions, assessments, etc. need to be from RS's, not those of an editor.

Criticizing something that didn't exist? Let's take a look.

Current scholarship

In the last decade, many new works related to Jefferson and Monticello have been published, such as Richard B. Bernstein's Thomas Jefferson (2003); Andrew Burstein's Jefferson’s Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello (2005); Christopher Hitchens' Thomas Jefferson: Author of America (2005); and Annette Gordon-Reed's The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (2008), which won the Pulitzer Prize for history and 15 other major awards. They have used their acknowledgement of Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children as a basis for re-evaluating the rest of his life and some of his political decisions.[63] Other scholars, including some associated with the TJHS, have published works that continue to argue against Jefferson's paternity.

Here's the reference cited - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/books/slaves-in-the-family.html?scp=2&sq=thomas%20jefferson%20garry%20wills&st=nyt&pagewanted=all

What doesn't exist is any statement by this reviewer resembling what you've inserted regarding any comparison of the works cited. That's strictly your OR. Only the Bernstein book is even mentioned in the review. So this large chunk of the section is predicated on the strength of a single *book review* that doesn't even contain what you claim it does. Pure POV and OR. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Each of the books acknowledges Jefferson's paternity; what you describe as POV is a summary of that; it is not an independent assertion of my own opinion not related to fact. The Smithsonian exhibit paragraph was cited and you deleted it - that is your POV.Parkwells (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of controversies

Numerous Wikipedia articles discuss the "meanings of controversies," especially some of the recent media storms around breaking news, videos released widely over the Internet and later shown to be less then they appeared. It is part of the discussions related to how the controversies developed. An example is in James O'Keefe, in which there was much soul-searching by media as to their role and their part in the controversy. The writing of history is about interpretation, and it is legitimate for historians to discuss or question how interpretations have arisen. Parkwells (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Barger

The description of Barger's activities in the "Dissenting" section needs to be supported with a cite. The source cited is only a web page showing him as the previous president of TJSH; it says nothing about his activities in tracing descendants.Parkwells (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Monticello Community

Restored cited content on this group; it arose among Jefferson descendants in opposition to the position of the Monticello Association excluding Hemings-Jefferson descendants from membership. It received an international award and has been covered by the media.Parkwells (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Current scholarship

New scholarship is being generated that is influenced by the change in consensus, at least among some scholars. For example, in 2010 the MacArthur Foundation noted the change in Jeffersonian scholarship when awarding Gordon-Reed. That's why I had listed (with cited reviews) new works on Jefferson and his society, such as Burstein's and Rothmann's works, which go beyond acknowledging TJ's paternity of Hemings' children to study and add new history. Hyland and similar authors seem to continue on one thing: to argue the "defense" of Jefferson. Parkwells (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're thanking yourself?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Musical Talent

Musical talent is hereditary. Both Thomas and Randolph Jefferson were musical and played violin. Was any Hemmings whom they supposedly fathered also musical? Schmausschmaus (talk)

As I recall, Eston Hemings was known for his talent with the violin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Both Madison and Eston Hemings learned to play the fiddle/violin while at Monticello, and Eston primarily made a living as a musician in Ohio.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Things I found confusing and would wish clearer

Two things: First, The sentence QUOTE: In addition, they determined he would not have had such a relationship because of his expressed antipathy to blacks and miscegenation in his writings, combined with his perceived moral character. UNQUOTE Could we have the "expressed antipathy to blacks" in Thomas Jefferson's own words, not necessarily the text but a clickable link to his text? I haven't read everything Jefferson wrote but what I have read suggests that while he thought it might be impossible in the future to have a country of undifferentiated blacks and whites in harmony, it was not necessary for him to have antipathy towards blacks for him to have believed that was true. It's possible that a person who believes that whites will never work out in South Africa or Zimbabwe has no antipathy towards whites. But if there's words (and for all I know there ARE) of Thomas Jeffersion that really are an "antipathy to blacks" just link them please. Second, "his perceived moral character". A man with antipathies based on race HAS no moral character, so that needs some kind of explanation or some indication or irony or SOMETHING that would make it not-totally-bewildering.

Second, those Carr nephews. They are referred to as if someone reading this article already knows who they are. I think contributors simply forget that a lot of people are not coming to Wikipedia to read an article about something on which they are already expert and tweak that article in such manner as needed to protect their friends' careers, but, rather, simply to learn about a topic (and as often as not express frustration at how contributors make it hard to do just that) on which they know no more than the average person. Coming here only to find out about the topic, I had no idea, before I got here, who the Carr nephews were. The constant reference to their genetic difference from Thomas Jefferson (for without that difference they could be the father of Hemings's children) required me to go to the article on Thomas Jefferson's mother, find therein a daughter of hers who married a man named "Carr", and then rest easy. It would have been far more to my liking had you spared me the effort and referred to the Carrs not as "nephews" but as "sororal nephews", not that I know that that is the correct term but I'm making a guess. Because if they're Thomas Jefferson's brother's sons (and no, don't go there, there's ways their surname could be "Carr" were they sons or step-sons of a brother, step-brother, or half-brother of Thomas Jefferson) then something's not making sense vis-a-vis the "male-line" DNA. I checked and saw they're his sister's sons. So then it connected up. But I shouldn't have had to check. If I were writing this article I wouldn't even use the term "sororal nephews" for them. People tend to be precise about step-siblings and half-siblings, but less so about "nephews" who are stepsons of a sibling, or sons and stepsons of someone who is a step-sibling or half-sibling. They'll say "nephew" rather than "step-nephew" or "step-half-nephew", which, in genetics, leaves it too broad. I'd have gone with "sister's sons" or even "full sister's sons". Or adopted the diagram suggestion.

I do not create an account here because I'm a reader, not a writer, of your articles. I've obeyed the stated instructions for editing this talk page. If more is required then change your instructions and make your cyber-system REQUIRE more. I'm signing BEFORE AND AFTER the four tildes because apparently not everyone can see otherwise. Christopher L. Simpson69.86.131.77 (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

unsourced material

I removed a bit of unsourced material today that had been marked as needing citation for two months:

Because the Jefferson male line was found to be the K2 haplogroup (since 2008 referred to as haplogroup T (Y-DNA)), relatively rare in Europe, researchers in 2007 did additional studies to determine if it was represented among other Jefferson-surname males in England. As it was found among other Jefferson males unrelated to Jefferson's family, they concluded that the haplotype had likely become "indigenous" to England after some random, ancient migration. Researchers suggested that the rare haplogroup was most likely carried to Europe and England by ancient migrants. Less likely is the possibility that it was carried by a Sephardic Jew migrating to England in the 15th and 16th centuries from the Iberian peninsula or other parts of Europe.

If anyone has a source, it can of course be re-added--though I'm not sure it's really on point for the Jefferson-Hemings issue anyway. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade, "Study Raises Possibility of Jewish Tie for Jefferson", New York Times, 28 February 2007. Hi, thanks for your comments on the article. I agree that this part of his DNA is not really to the point of the Hemings descent, but this is the only article where Jefferson DNA is discussed at length. At one point, many people were all excited to think he might have Jewish ancestry. The "Jefferson DNA" got merged with the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy," which also related to the larger analysis of the historiography. There was considerable overlap during heated stages. At one point these were separate articles, and I think probably should still be, with just a summary of DNA material in the Controversy article, especially because of the extensive DNA discussion here. But, I finally didn't have the energy to take that on.Parkwells (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I think I'll probably leave it out for now. If someone else wants to re-add it with citation, I wouldn't object, but personally I think it's probably better to stay focused on the main topic.

Incidentally, for anybody else watching, my small efforts at clean-up are motivated in part because I'm hoping to nominate this for Good Article status in the next few weeks. It seems to me to be at or close to meeting the criteria already. Thanks to everybody who worked on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Burstein

I removed two sentences that don't appear to me sufficiently supported at the moment.

The removed text was "While other Jefferson males would have had the same DNA as Field (and therefore, presumably, Thomas) Jefferson, no candidate from his male line had ever been identified by the family as the father during the nearly 200 years of the historic controversy -- as noted above, the Carrs had been considered candidates... none of these men were proposed as alternatives before the DNA study results showed a match between the Jefferson and Hemings haplotypes."

This appears to restate Burstein's answer in the source: "Technically, there were other Jeffersons with matching DNA characteristics, but the white Jefferson descendents who established the family denial in the mid-nineteenth century cast responsibility for paternity on two Jefferson nephews (children of Jefferson’s sister) whose DNA was not a match. So, as far as can be reconstructed, there are no Jeffersons other than the president who had the degree of physical access to Sally Hemings that he did." (Incidentally, this quotation is also given in full later on in the article.)

I'm concerned, first, that this restatement isn't very POV, emphasizing the omission of other candidates rather than the focus on the Carrs; second, that it's not quite what Burstein is saying, as it switches from talking about the family's candidate to a passive voice implication that no one identified other candidates; and third, that Burstein's remarks in an interview may not meet standards for reliable sources. Would it be possible to consult his book instead, or another source that would have been reviewed by an editor or fact-checker? It seems unlikely that his interview answers were fact-checked prior to publication.

I don't think this article particularly needs this counterargument for now; the argument for the scholarly consensus is already abundant and clear. But if others feel strongly about including this point, I'm game to help try to find a better source for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking deeper in the article, actually, this counterargument is already expressed by Alexander Boulton. So I think we're set. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DNA section

I reduced the section on the DNA testing considerably for a few reasons; the edit is here.[2]

First, the section appeared to contain a good deal of repetition between its initial section and its subsections, stating most of its facts twice. More important, though, per WP:SUMMARY, I'm not sure that such a level of detail on the DNA analysis is necessary; it seems better to simply summarize the findings of the study. (Reprinting several tables of its data, as this draft did, may also raise copyright issues). The section about a possible Sephardic ancestor in Jefferson's distant past is interesting, but seems rather off-topic and trivial for this particular article.

I realize this is a bold edit, so I've included a diff above so I can be reverted if others diagree. Let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In a smaller change, I also removed the first phrase in the sentence: " In contrast to the conclusions of the certified genealogists of the National Genealogical Society, who had examined all the historical evidence and concluded that Jefferson was the father, the 2002 report to the Monticello Association concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish Jefferson's paternity". Since the given source doesn't appear to mention the National Genealogical Society, adding this comparison (and emphasizing the "certified genealogists") seems like a bit of WP:SYNTH to further discredit the Association's actions. Honestly, I think the Truscott quotation makes them look bad enough already. The diff is here if anybody disagrees, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've revised what appears to me to be another instance of WP:SYNTH, in which a 2000 report by the Monticello Association is deployed out of its logical chronological order to rebut Hyland's 2009 book. (Instead, I moved this information to earlier in the article.) Diff here: [3] -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with shortening the DNA section, at one time it was very long and a separate article, before people suggested it be combined with the whole controversy thing. Agree that too much technical detail here is off topic.Parkwells (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion that the DNA evidence, in and of itself is conclusive proof of Thomas Jefferson's paternity of Eston Hemings, is not at all accurate. Taking the DNA evidence at face value only, it is only proof that Thomas Jefferson was one of eight potential fathers of Eston Hemings. I have rewritten the DNA section accordingly, as it seems to me that any other interpretation that the DNA evidence in and of itself says anything more than the 1 in 8 probability, would be inaccurate and misleading in this section. Scott P. (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status

I'm hoping to nominate this for Good Article status in the next week or so if others agree that the above changes are acceptable. (If not, obviously I'm glad to discuss until a consensus version is reached.) Let me know if you see any other outstanding issues here before I go ahead. Thanks to everybody who worked on this one to bring it to this point.

And I promise this will be the last thread I open on this page today! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading this one today, I've decided to withdraw the GA nomination; I think I was overhasty in making it. There're still a few quotations that seem to need page-specific citations, such as "But "we do know that Jefferson bargained intensely with Hemings to return to America, promising her a good life at Monticello and freedom for her children when they became adults", writes Gordon-Reed." The citation style probably needs a little cleanup generally, too (the op cit.s need to go). More broadly, the structure's a little repetitive; "background" acts more as a second lead rather than giving background, and should probably be removed, and sections like "New evidence in DNA study" and "DNA study" should be combined. For a controversy, the discussion is also weighted quite heavily in favor of Gordon-Reed, without much space for dissenting views prior to the DNA study. (It's mostly just G-R's dismissal of prior historians.)

It's my own fault for rushing this one and not addressing these issues first. I have some other articles on my plate at the moment but may try to work on this one some more later this year. If others disagree with me about the above, you're of course welcome to renominate. Sorry for the bad call on my part. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing to reduce duplication

Have been editing to try to reduce duplication in the article and still show the historiography of this issue. It was developed in response to related articles in other places and is now dated.

A summary update: It has been 16 years since the DNA studies showed a match between the Jefferson male line and a Hemings male descendant, ending the previous assertion that a Carr was the father of Hemings' children. It has been 14 years since the Monticello Foundation concluded in its related 2000 study that Jefferson was likely the father of all Hemings' children. It has changed its exhibits and tours as a result, and new publications reflect this. In addition, major Jefferson biographers such as Joseph Ellis, Andrew Burstein and Christopher Hitchens have accepted the change. Annette Gordon-Reed's The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, explores the interrelationships of ancestry among the Wayles, Jefferson, and Hemings families. While some historians disagree with this conclusion about Jefferson's paternity (who are mostly associated with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society), it is widely accepted among historians and the public. It is being interpreted in popular culture, literature and works of art. In 2012 the Smithsonian and Monticello had a joint exhibit in Washington, DC: Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello, the first to explore Jefferson as slaveholder and the first to feature six major slave families owned by him. It notes he is widely believed to be the father of Hemings' four children. (The exhibit also toured to Atlanta, St. Louis and Philadelphia - the latter in 2014.) Writing by other major historians on Jefferson and his period also reflect this change.Parkwells (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

DNA data for another article

There is enough DNA data that has been deleted from here (much by Khazar2 and it is in the history) to form another, separate article. Anyone interested in taking it on? Parkwells (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a really funny suggestion (to me). Do you recall that this article started its life as "Jefferson DNA Data"? It contained nothing *but* the DNA data analysis then! I guess you can try to resurrect an old version as a new article :-) But you will run into the new article police, so good luck with that. Indeed, I originally tried to create a new article about the J-H controversy, because it was taking over the main Jefferson article, but this was very quickly shot down. So then I simply moved all the information into the "Jefferson DNA Data" article and renamed it to "Jefferson-Hemings controversy". Nobody minded that... KarlFrei (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing in process

The Jefferson-Hemings controversy is no longer controlled by historians, if it ever was. Years past the DNA testing, a new popular consensus has arisen that needs to be acknowledged in addition to the historians' consensus. Am working on this. Parkwells (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This page nonetheless comes down strongly on the side of the 'popular consensus' in dubbing historians and critics "historical deniers" simply because they admit the limitations of science and DNA analysis. There's a difference between what is known scientifically and what makes for good television novellas. 100.7.77.219 (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That language is charged and unnecessary, evoking the Holocaust over skepticism and uncertainty over what the DNA evidence does or does not prove. I'm changing it. Calbaer (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A novel is not relevant - nor is the Monticello website quote

Why is a novel and speculation included in the discussion about whether or not these defamatory allegations are true? And why claim that "many historians believe Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemings that lasted nearly four decades, until his death, and that Jefferson fathered six children with her. The Monticello website states: Through his celebrity as the eloquent spokesman for liberty and equality as well as the ancestor of people living on both sides of the color line, Jefferson has left a unique legacy for descendants of Monticello's enslaved people as well as for all Americans." when the quote from the website does not even suggest that he had such a relationship, and that in any event a modern website can claim anything, but is evidence of nothingRoyalcourtier (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Though not proven I wouldn't call the allegations defamatory - it's plausible that he could have had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings. As I understand it there's no question that someone in the Jefferson family did the deed with her at least once. The problem is the TJ bashers want really badly to call the claims proven which they're not. What's behind this desire is of course a whole litany of "great white oppressors" America-bashing sentiment.

The Monticello site reflects what's in the various related Wikipedia articles - i.e. "there's evidence to suggest..." - which is true. Docsavage20 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jefferson–Hemings controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008063811/http://www.tjheritage.org:80/documents/SCReport1.pdf to http://www.tjheritage.org/documents/SCReport1.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Consent

Unless I missed it, I don't see a discussion in the article about the terms of consent in what is otherwise put as a "relationship". In context, the term doesn't simply refer to any type of relations between two parties but carries non-neutral overtones of courtship or romance, which would be especially inaccurate if said "relationship" was not consensual (read: rape). A better term might be "affair" if not a more pointed term based on historiographical consensus (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The terms used in the article are based on Annette Gordon-Reed's work.2602:304:CFFD:6541:162:FFBF:AF17:92 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a rather weak defense for the lack of discussion of consent. A single source who has a perhaps overly romanticized notion of their situation does not justify a complete failure for an article on the subject to ignore completely the inability of someone being kept as a slave to consent (or refuse to consent) to sexual advances from her owner. She was, literally, his property to do with as he pleased, and he did what pleased him. For the article to ignore that makes it a faulty article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblamont (talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson–Hemings controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720115728/http://oieahc.wm.edu/wmq/Oct01/boulton.pdf to http://oieahc.wm.edu/wmq/Oct01/boulton.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jefferson–Hemings controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929113852/http://www.tjheritage.org/directors.html to http://www.tjheritage.org/directors.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829231051/http://www.monticellocommunity.com/ to http://www.monticellocommunity.com/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130204193852/http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2007/jul/15/-rtd_2007_07_15_0230-ar-187219/ to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2007/jul/15/-rtd_2007_07_15_0230-ar-187219/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505114527/http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/jefferson/essays/biography/1 to http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/jefferson/essays/biography/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Undue self-citation

This is primarily an explanation of my potentially contentious removal and restoration of content. I stumbled across this edit [4], in which an author appears to have inserted an undue amount of their own work into the article, against the established historical consensus. Although some degree of self-citation is allowed, per WP:SELFCITE, I believe that this was clearly an attempt to place excessive emphasis on their own opinions and potentially fringe ideas, and to cast unnecessary doubt on the the consensus. It appears that many of the more egregious examples had already been removed, but as the article still had some of it, I took it on myself to restore it to how it was prior to the edit. Let me know if my edits were inappropriate. Darthkayak (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

/* Dissenting views */ Added summary report's exact wording rejecting the claim of Jefferson paternity as it is stronger than the existing text in this section.

Why is it impossible to quote the TJHS Scholars' Report in which the authors state clearly their rejection of the accusation of TJ paternity as almost certainly false? The existing text of this wiki softens their position suspiciously, really misrepresenting what the Scholars' report concluded. Their report did not primarily conclude there was insufficient evidence to establish paternity; it primarily concluded that the accusation was "almost certainly false". This should be clearly stated in the dissenting section.2600:1700:87B0:20A0:DC7D:9121:A00:20D (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No the report concluded it that there was insufficient evidence but that reasonable people could disagree, individually those in the majority ranged from very skeptical to almost certainly false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Modern Scholars' Conclusions About the Controversy

"The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming" is an article by Robert F. Turner which was published in the July 11, 2012 WSJ

The Jefferson-Heming Controversy: Report of the Scholars' Commission, is a book contributed to by Jefferson scholars who explored the contentions of Heming descendants in depth. It was published by the Carolina Academic Press September 1, 2011. Both the article and the book point out that there is no scientific evidence that Jefferson fathered Heming's child Eston, or any of her other children. Only Eston's descendants had the chromosomal rarity carried by Jefferson males. At the time he was conceived, at least eight Jefferson males frequently visited or stayed at Monticello. They all had the haploid genotype, and almost all were younger than Thomas, who was sixty five. Younggoldchip (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"had the chromosomal rarity carried by Jefferson males" It is not rare, just unusual in the United States. Jefferson males were found to belong to Haplogroup T-M184. It is relatively common in the Levant and various areas of East Africa, but represents a minority of the population in Southern Europe and is exceedingly rare in the rest of Europe. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of was

I think that we should change the past tense format of the article regarding the debate because this issue is still debated, mostly by Jefferson defenders. It’s worth noting that Monticello itself has come under fire from more conservative groups for focusing many of its exhibits on slavery and Sally Hemings, that might be worth also adding in tue article to an extent. These are just my thoughts. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Serious pro-paternity lead section/article bias

I find the lead section to be very biased in favor of the pro-paternity side, with nothing stating the contrary aside from a dismissal of past-held ("racist") consensus in regards to the anti-paternity historians/geneticists. I also think that there are a lot of problems with using sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post, who have an evident left-leaning political bias, particularly after the Great Awokening. The same can be said for the History departments of prestigious US universities like the Ivy Leagues and the UCs. I would probably even say that the article as a whole is very pro-paternity and the article reads like it was written in 2012. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I would however admit that it is unfortunate to see that the pro/anti-paternity sides to this argument are largely broken via partisan lines. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but it’s difficult to take anything you say about this seriously when you’re throwing around terms like “the Great Awokening,” especially when you’re using it to discredit academic institutions. —GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you personally have faith in the New York Times and Ivy League historians, they are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the non-paternity argument you are shopping shifts the contemporary critique of Jefferson from "rapist of teenager" to "pimp who tolerated or encouraged his relatives to rape a teenager so that he could benefit financially from potentially selling her children on the speculative slaves-as-commodities market." By all means expand the article wherever the truth leads you, just make sure to include citations with page numbers. Cheers.

jengod (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

from "rapist of teenager" to "pimp"..." One does not necessarily contradict the other. Jefferson could be getting pleasure from rapes, but that would not stop him from seeking profit from prostitution. And since slavery was involved, no consent was necessary by either Hemings or any other slave who was impregnated to benefit her master's pockets. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. This may be more applicable to the era after the transatlantic slave trade closed but nonetheless: "According to Frederic Bancroft in Slave-Trading in the Old South, young female slaves were also considered an excellent financial investment: 'Not only real estate, but also stocks, bonds and all other personal property were little prized in comparison with slaves...Absurd as it now seems, slaves, especially girls and young women, because of prospective increase, were considered the best investment for persons of small means.'" (page 343) jengod (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

We already have an entire section on the minority viewpoint. Further expansion of it is unnecessary relative to the level of acceptance and coverage the viewpoint has received. VQuakr (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

1999 Monticello minority report

In Special:Diff/1209855675, User:DrKC MD added a section on the 1999 minority report of the Monticello Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. The section had several issues:

1. It was out-of-place and didn't fit well within the flow of the article.
2. It had excessive detail on debates that happened many years ago. I think this single-author document from 1999 is better treated as primary source material for historians of this historical controversy rather than as a reliable source for notable claims of truth in the present. User:DrKC MD's summary seems to take the latter route.
3. It is not clear to me that it's first sentence is correct: "The committee which came to this conclusion issued a majority and minority report." It seems from the Daniel P. Jordan's cover letter dated March 23, 2000 that this report was issued by White McKenzie Wallenborn, a member of the study committee, of his own accord, and without any apparent endorsement by the committee or by the Foundation. It was published significantly prior to the committee's final report and was discussed and rejected by the committee prior to their producing the "majority report".[5]

I haven't worked on this article before today, and I would gladly defer to other editors who have spent more time thinking about how to frame these issues. Daask (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lewis Woodson potential critical issues

Please see Talk:Lewis_Woodson#biased_article. I thought the subjects are related so input from those watching this talk page could be beneficial. Commander Keane (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)