Talk:Religious views of Thomas Jefferson

Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources

[copy ex Rjensen talk page]

Rjensen, Why do you feel that the ref you deleted did not support the section you deleted in that article? Scott P. (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That is your private interpretation of one letter. Wikipedia demands we use experts and published reliable sources. These experts have looked at thousands of letters and read hundreds of Studies of Jefferson and his contemporaries, so that makes for reliability. Rjensen (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson's own words do not interpret his own thoughts correctly, but you do, then is that what you are saying? Scott P. (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you believe when in his letter Jefferson attacks those who say God is "immaterial" as "heretics", and when he sides with the "antient fathers" in this letter, and reports that they hold that: "It (God) to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter," that you believe he is really trying to say something other than that he believes that God is "material", and he is not proclaiming a disbelief in God himself? Scott P. (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, how do you feel I misread Jefferson's words in that letter, and specifically, what do you feel was the "correct" interpretation of that letter regarding Jefferson's views on God and "immaterialism"? Scott P. (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your one answer above. I'm not certain exactly why you feel that I "misunderstood" Jefferson's writing. Whether it was because you believe (as many now mistakenly do) that Jefferson did not believe in God, or if it might have been for some other reason. I will wait until tomorrow for your answer. Your answer would be much appreciated. Scott P. (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether you correctly or incorrectly interpret one letter from Jefferson. The issue is the very strict rule that Wikipedia editors are obliged to take their information from reliable secondary sources, and not depend on their own private reading of one tiny slice of the many original sources. If it's important topic, then numerous scholars will have made the point, and you should cite one of them. Rjensen (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I still would very much appreciate it if you might be able to explain what "point" in that deleted section, you felt was "contrary" to what you apparently feel is the currently prevailing scholarly opinion on the subject at hand. Obviously you wouldn't have deleted it if you felt that the section I inserted was in harmony with prevailing scholarly opinion. Normally, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, or conflicting prevailing scholarly opinion, direct quotes from a person who is the subject of an article are not deleted. What point in that deleted section did you not like? Scott P. (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If additional documentation about Jefferson's belief in the existence of a Creator is what you are wanting for the deleted section, then I would be happy to include additional refs to support that point that Jefferson did in fact believe in the existence of a Creator. If you are wanting some other type of supporting refs, then please explain. I am always open to improving my contributions to Wikipedia, or to be proven mistaken, but so far I still feel pretty much in the dark, only able to make uninformed guesses as to what point exactly you think is either inaccurate, incorrect, or incorrectly cited. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You have to provide evidence that your interpretation is congruent with the prevailing scholarly viewpoint. That means a footnote to a reliable secondary source that makes the point. The issue here is materialism, rather than deism. Let's start with the basic point: what secondary sources are you Depending upon for your edits on Jefferson's materialism? Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I got what you were saying. I believe there are now two fairly straightforward direct quotes from Jefferson, and no "interpretation". Scott P. (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

you seem to be telling me that you in fact are not using any reliable secondary sources. That would be a serious mistake because it violates Wikipedia principles. The world is not want the personal views of anonymous editors. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

specifically, it is a controversial to interpret primary sources as "Jefferson describes himself as a materialist, as against the "spiritualism" of Jesus"; and Four years later in 1824, he appears to have possibly changed his mind about Jesus' spiritualism. It needs a strong secondary source because these are two letters out of hundreds & they have not been Selected by an expert on Jefferson's theology. Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of what you consider to be the "interpretation" of a primary source. Still, I have stripped down the two quotes to mere quotes, with not even a word of summary. This result seems to be more difficult reading and less fluid than before. Your choice. Scott P. (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No. these are highly controversial quotes and need RS for context. Critics often use them to attack Jefferson. Rjensen (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to believe that Wikipedia Policy deems that "highly controversial quotes need (supporting) reliable (secondary) sources" to allow for inclusion in Wikipedia:

1. I cannot find any Wikipedia policy to the effect that "controversial" (yet reliable) primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia without the interpretations of secondary sources.
2. I can find no ongoing controversy regarding the meaning of the primary sources you deleted.

I find your desire to delete direct quotes from Jefferson to be more harmful to gaining a better understanding of him than helpful. If you have trouble with what Jefferson said, then it seems to me that it would be more helpful to understanding Jefferson, if instead you were to find your own secondary sources that you believe "clarify" what he said, and then to "weave" these into the quote references, rather than to simply delete what Jefferson said. I would have loved to include helpful secondary sources related to these quotes, but I could find none, thus I included none. Unless by tomorrow you might be able to show me both the Wikipedia policy about excluding such primary sources that you refer to, and the actual controversy that you refer to (each of which would be required to support your argument), I will reinsert the deleted section.

Scott P. (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia policy "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." at wp:PRIMARY Rjensen (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I read nothing in that policy that seems to agree with your apparent interpretation of that policy that: "highly controversial quotes (of primary sources) need (supporting) reliable (secondary) sources". I read only a caution about primary sources there, that if "interpreted" in any way, primary sources must be carefully and accurately interpreted.

The quotes you deleted were not "interpreted" in any way. They were essentially bare quotes. Could you please explain your rationale as to how this quoted policy advising care in how to interpret primary sources translates to your statement that: "highly controversial quotes (in primary sources) need (supporting) reliable (secondary) sources"? So still, unless and until you can clarify how you made the jump from the actual policy to your stated interpretation of the policy, I am still planning on re-inserting the deleted quotes tomorrow. Please, this doesn't need to be a legal battle. Just explain yourself clearly and convince me, and I will be happy to let the quotes go. Scott P. (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It says primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. and a snippet of a small part of a long letter ripped out of context is not using a primary source with care. It invites readers to come up with their own misunderstandings; it does not help them learn what the experts have said. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Richard, again... the policy does not say one word about having to refer to any secondary experts when quoting primary sources. You seem to be fixated on this one seemingly novel interpretation of the policy. Neither does the policy say one word advising against using short quotes, which you seem to be opposed to here. Still, if you could somehow show me how I in any way took quotes that were actually "out of context" within the letters they were quoted from, and that by themselves were actually somehow misrepresenting the true intents of these letters, then I would still be happy to let go of the quotes. Scott P. (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that you did not take these few words out of hundreds out of context-- you have not read any of the reliable secondary sources that discuss these famous letters. Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your logic seems to be based on an assumption that only paid historians, such as yourself, are capable of competently understanding how to read English. How do you think your logic appears to the rest of us? One of the key things that makes Wikipedia work, is its ability to create and find "new" experts, by the fact that unpaid experts are allowed to edit here, equally as well as paid (published) experts. I truly respect, admire, and appreciate the fact that you are a published historian, but please, stop trying to make up policies about requiring paid and published experts to use primary sources. Such policies simply do not exist in Wikipedia. If you want the quotes to stay deleted, you will actually have to prove that they are out of context, just like the rest of us would, not merely lazily infer that you think the direct Jefferson quotes "might be" out of context. Jefferson knew how to write in English, and we know how to read in English, without the need for "professional interpreters". Scott P. (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:RELY: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That same page says, "They (primary sources) can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Again, there is no blanket prohibition against using primary sources in Wikipedia, or only using them when "experts have interpreted them for us" via secondary sources. Certainly if they were taken out of context, then that would have been an error, but by your decision not to show how they are out of context, it implies that you are more concerned with trying to keep primary sources as exclusive to paid historians, than with the validity of the quotes themselves. In this case, I could find no secondary source regarding what Jefferson meant when he said he and Jesus were both "materialists". If you could find such a source, by all means, please let me know. Scott P. (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok here are 2000+ secondary sources by many scholars Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Cool tool. I am indebted to you. I will be reinserting the quotes at some point, but not until I have one of those secondary sources also woven into the section. I will let you know when I do if you want. Scott P. (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Most closely Unitarian?

The third sentence in the lead currently reads, "Jefferson was most closely connected with Unitarianism." I don't fully understand what this means. Jefferson was raised Anglican. He admired the Unitarianism, but I don't know if he ever attended a Unitarian service or how "closely connected" he was to the organized faith. At the very least, this needs to either be fleshed out a bit more so that it is clear what is meant. Does somebody have the source cited (the book by the Corbetts)? --GHcool (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

**Sigh**

Founding Fathers, please come back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.76.18 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Jefferson articulated a statement about human rights that most Americans regard as nearly sacred."

This clearly needs a very good source to be included, at absolute minimum. However, I am at a loss as to why it needs to be included at all. This is an article about Jefferson's beliefs, rather than the beliefs of 'most Americans'. It looks to me like editorialising of the most blatant sort, and surely doesn't belong here. 86.191.147.56 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

DONE! --GHcool (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. 86.191.147.56 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)