Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Thomas Jefferson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Some progress

The lede has recently been changed by another editor since many have offered their consensus, but little has changed. Hemings is still mentioned by name. Mention of DNA was omitted but now we have other info' in the lede about her, that she was part of his life for nearly 40 years. -- Currently there is also some nine pages that run at length about slavery, and especially Hemings. The last time I checked there were some five pages for her specifically. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, she was part of his life for nearly 40 years, which people tried to cover up, and she had twice as many surviving children as his wife did. Allow some time for this to be worked.Parkwells (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a man like Jefferson with his position, fame and fortune could have had almost any woman he wanted, and with his resources could easily have arranged other relationships about the countryside. What seems to be glossed over by various scholars is the possibility that if Jefferson's relationship lasted for so long, that it likely may have been a mutual and meaningful involvement. Is this not just as likely as any other possibility? Why is this not even reflected in the lede and elsewhere?? And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love, and who sought out real companionship where ever he could find it. Any scholar who can't acknowledge this quite common human occurrence in the human drama I would think has little capacity for NPOV to begin with and are motivated by other factors. This has all been discussed before, to little avail.
The larger issue still remains:. -- There is still flagrant undue weight in the lede, which seems to be saying the same thing, only differently, every hour or so. Again, Washington, others are not named and they are far more prominent and connected with Jefferson before during and after the American Revolution, which by the way is not mentioned in the lede also. Controversy may justify coverage of an issue, it does not justify undue weight throughout the article, esp in the gross proportions that we are witnessing here. This is the Jefferson biography. His alleged postmarital involvements are but a small chapter and again, certainly do not compare to the American Revolution, George Washington, the Declaration of Independence, the break from British rule, etc. All of these things are treated in summary form as should the topic of Jefferson's later alleged personal involvements. And let's not gloss that point over entirely either. They are indeed alleged and require speculation to assume otherwise. THIS also should be reflected in the lede and elsewhere. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You speculate about Jefferson's and Hemings' relationship. We know very little about it. What we believe (according to the historical consensus) is that it lasted nearly 40 years, that she had several children by him, and that they were in a legal master/slave situation. That's what we can state. We cannot, unless we find new sources I'm not aware of, suggest that their relationship was voluntary and mutual, or that it was violent and forced. We do not know who initiated it, and why. So we remain silent about it.

You seem to waver between "but it wasn't bad" and "but it wasn't important, so should not be mentioned (or not much)". Can you settle on one? Otherwise you give the impression that your aim is merely to white-wash Jefferson (whom nobody else claims is dirty...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be speculating about the nature of their relationship, neither in the lede nor elsewhere. We haven't as it stands and don't want to introduce such speculation now.Parkwells (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What Gwillhickers has done since early January is argue - over and over - to have a sanitised version of slavery & also to have Hemings removed from the lede. Hemings will be mentioned; the manual of style is a clear guideline, so enough of this rubbish about "undue weight". It's a notable controversy, and yes, her name should be written as well. We don't take orders from those who ignore policies. There is no consensus whatsoever to remove that.Ebanony (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I must challenege you to find and quote any such statement. -- Including this message, I now know of three current misrepresentations of my account edited by your hand. You need to end this sort of behavior immediately. If you are going to say anything on my behalf quote and link to it please. Please find a quote where I say, in no uncertain terms, that I wish to in effect 'sanitize' the issue. Meanwhile, I will look for examples where you make attempts to do just the opposite. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Challenge? Your rhetoric is catching up with you. This isn't about me, it's about your attempt to control the article by relying on WP:FRINGE theories & stuff you outright made up. I explained here [1]. Now you say you "will look for examples where you make attempts to do just the opposite." I already warned you about your numerous personal attacks against me here [2]. Best to read policy WP:PA. I'm pointing this out to you because your baseless claims you've used to dictate how the article should be - over and over. That's not improving the article.Ebanony (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As anyone who can remember past yesterday knows only great reductions in Hemings material, was ever referred to, both in the lede and body of text, esp material that goes on about various historians. Again, you can not even present one example of where I say anything should be sanitized. And you did make attempts to do the opposite by trying to keep the lede from reading 'common for his period' While you falsely accuse me of personal attacks you now have misrepresented me by name on at least five occasions. I am perfectly willing to spend time pointing out these items for you so long as we take care of the overload problem that still exists in the Controversy section. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation: you're willing to go about with your attacks & harassment until people conform to your fringe theories. No. That's not decent behaviour on here, and people will entertain your antics until the article is changed. Some of it will not be changed. And yes you do sanitise. Precisely by using & promoting the fringe ideas of 25 other possibilities (instead of Jefferson), saying Hemings herself possibly initiated the relationship etc. You're the only one here doing that.Ebanony (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was thoughtful of you to admit from the start that your response is a translation. Your belief that the editors who made the reductions did so for no other reason than to entertain my antics is to suggest that they had no reasons of their own or any real set of principles guiding their activity. As for the 'fringe theory' it will be interesting to see how you explain how acknowledging or asking about all possible aspects of this topic amount to that, esp since no one has asked to even mention this on the page. Much of the discussion involves possibilities, times of conception so forth. It is perfectly reasonable to inquire and acknowledge on the discussion page all possibilities involving the relationship. I have been told by two other editors that no one knows for sure the nature of the relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to mention in this context that love or other mutual feelings, could also have been a factor in the affair, if indeed there was one. To suggest that there was no love or mutual feelings involved is to undermine Hemings as a person as much as it does Jefferson. As per your "disgusting" and quite revealing estimation of this affair, it would appear that you posses little neutral POV capacity to be dealing with this issue in the first place. I think bringing attention to this behavior is at this point warranted and any edit you make should be considered in this light. Last, in edit history would you please leave a note and apology for the mis-truth you entered there accusing me of deleting Hemings' name from the lede, and also for accusing me of saying that Hemings "forced" herself on Jefferson. In the apology you should include links to where the reader can see my actual quotes. That would be a fair thing to do also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

already replied to [3]Ebanony (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Civility Wikipedia has guidelines on civility. I have noticed that this article has generated much negative feedback, particularly on Sally Hemings and Slavery. Wikipedia is open source and people need to find a way to come to agreement rather then battle each other in the talk pages. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is general common consensus to reduce the volume of text and make brief mention in the lede, which I believe there is, lets do so. Do we need another call for consensus? We've been through this. Do not be pulled back into endless bickering about details when there is a major problem still at hand. This topic is not more important than the Jefferson biography as a whole. And no one is trying to "remove" or "sanitized" the topic. This has been made clear. Reduction of material and undue weight are the issues. Let's keep our focus.Gwillhickers (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy can add weight to any article. No one disputes Thomas Jefferson loved books. That is why his love for books gets one paragraph. To state that Thomas Jefferson had children by a slave woman Sally Hemings, that generates controversy that has spanned over two centuries. The controversy section needed to be trimmed, no debate there. There is allot, historically, to cover on the Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Topics involving Jefferson must not be controversial to merit more than a paragraph of coverage I believe, especially when these topics are connected with so many other aspects of American and World history, as would be the case for topics like the War of 1812, the Louisiana Purchase, his role as S.O.S., etc. As I have always said, slavery deserves mention in the lede, and summary coverage with highlights/links about Hemings in the text. As you know, just recently the 'Controversy' section was quite laarge. It tended to overshadow not only the topic of Jefferson but also the topic and issue of slavery itself. Indeed so. Up until a few days ago there was less than a page about slavery, and many pages for 'controversy' where it went on in particular about various academic opinions, some even being mentioned by name simply for having an opinion. There was much of this sort of thing, and the last time I checked there still was. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, Gwillhickers. But you also say there were 25 other possibilities besides Jefferson who were the father & that Hemings (a new one) tried to force herself on a grieving Jefferson. Well, you're just making stuff up now! You are in no position to go on about what should be done with absurd conspiracy theories like those. We shall follow wikipedia guidelines, not yours.

"To state that Thomas Jefferson had children by a slave woman Sally Hemings, that generates controversy that has spanned over two centuries." If you claim that he did not have those children, then you have a problem. That is fact, and it's the consensus/majority historical opinion. Do you deny the majority of scholars say they had a relationship? That was as of 1998! That is what we are required to go by WP:RS, and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, not your WP:FRINGE theories. We cannot remove the names of all the academics because this is a complicated history with a variety of actors. There is no guideline saying we should not mention them in the article. Jefferson is not a god; his article gets the same treatment as the thousands of other articles that discuss academics by name. We are not removing Hemings name either (you demanded that); we are not removing Gordon-Reed's name or the others who did pertinent work. That is unreasonable. I believe Parkwells said on March 3rd that it's wrong to just call Hemings a "slave". That is also Gordon-Reed's position. It's no coincidence, Gwillhickers, that you're dehumanising Hemings & denigrating her by making up false accusations, referring to her as a morally loose woman (in veiled language), and now even demand her name be removed. That is exactly what the religious adherents of the 'it wasn't Jefferson' school do, and Reed said it in her book. No wonder you want her name & others removed. Ebanony (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am putting both Jefferson and Hemings in a more human setting and have only asserted that we don't know if love may have been involved in their affair. Again, you keep twisting things in your "disgusting" manner. Again, you try to skirt the greater issue at my expense with the repeated false accusations, even in edit history comments. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When I stated that "To state that Thomas Jefferson had children by a slave woman Sally Hemings, that generates controversy that has spanned over two centuries.", I was concerned only with the weight of the controversy. I was not denying Jefferson had children with Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of the circumstances, most historians, as noted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, do not try to speculate as to the nature of their relationship, nor should we here. It is impossible to know their feelings, and the editors here did not introduce that topic; it has not been part of the article. People can go to other sources than Wikipedia for more information and speculation.Parkwells (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson was not directly involved in the War of 1812. The Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson was. The controversial aspect of the Louisiana Purchase was that the land deal allowed slavery to spread though the South in contact with the Spanish Empire. Since this is a biography on Thomas Jefferson, I believe his private life, i.e. Sally Hemings, does have weight enough for more then just one paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, yes, more than one paragraph. Finally. Also, no where did I claim "he did not have those children", you keep making these stretches basing them only on your own notions. I have several times acknowledged other 'likely' possibilities, so once again I ask that you use caution before making digressions in this fashion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you're playing word games. You don't have to say the exact words "he did not have those children". You directly contradict majority historical opinion by inventing other possibilities that do not exist; these false claims & speculation that Hemings - a 14 yr old!- initiated a relationship is an outrage, and a clear example of WP:FRINGE theory. That nonsense on 25 other possibilities you posted to the main space was either likewise made up or taken from the most fringe of sources. Either way, you're engaging in clear fringe theories, a prohibited practice.Ebanony (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't "invent possibilities". Also, you should learn when people discuss theories based on events that occurred more than 200 years ago, where information is sketchy and far from complete, the existing possibilities are often weighed. Your desire to see that not even mention of this is made on a discussion page only reveals that it is you who seeks to control every aspect of this issue. Sorry, this is not happening. Meanwhile the page has gone through a wonderful transformation, and the tonnes of excessive, inappropriate and redundant material has been omitted by other editors. Don't forget to thank them. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant noticeboard conversation [4] Ebanony (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

End to the Hemings discussion

I can certainly appreciate the enthusiasm of these editors with regard to this topic, but the continual discussion of this is abusive. We have already been down this road and continue to be taken down this road due to POV-pushing. The editors who continually bring up this matter do not speak for the historical community, nor do they know of what they speak. I am stunned at how a few POV-pushers have directed the "history" of this page and forced other editors to respond to their intrigues without proper citation. After a while most editors will walk away from this page, whilst the bullying editors will continue to relentlessly revise history. I have no doubt that in the end their persistence will pay off. I can only participate in this article for so long. I am not a frequent editor and do not plan to return to debate this matter over and over again. Inevitably the Hemings information will be whittled down to a nub, as this does not jive with their version of history, despite the historical consensus.

Perhaps we should remove Hemings from the article entirely? Perhaps we should remove the fact that Jefferson was a slave owner as well. We should only put in information that shows him in the best possible light, as he was a demi-god. Whilst we are at it, perhaps we should petition the Vatican to sign Jefferson up for sainthood. Then we can have an idol cast of him and bow down to it accordingly. The point of this is, when will this cease? When will reasonable people here say enough is enough? There has already been an historical consensus on the matter and "encyclopedias" report the historical consensus. I apologize for the frustrated tone of this section, but the repetitive nature of these discussions has been exhausting. So once we reach a consensus, can this topic be closed for discussion?

I am not attempting to over-assert myself when I say that I am a part of the historical community. I know Jefferson scholars and I can tell you that this article should be not be tampered with in this manner. In my opinion, the Hemings information listed on this page was appropriate. However, once a consensus is reached, there is no need to discuss this topic over and over again. To do so would only serve those who wish to sanitize and revise history to their own desires. This needs to stop. Once consensus is reached this topic should be permanently closed.

If wikipedia continues to allow a few POV-pushing editors to whittle away at the Hemings information (then who knows what information will be next). If some of these POV-pushers continue down this slippery slope with history, then I will have no choice but to direct my students away from wikipedia when researching Thomas Jefferson. -- Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but aren't the POV pushers the ones who have no problem with keeping five pages of material on one topic? This has been corrected by a number of editors, including the ones who authored much of this material. For someone who wants this conversation to go away you are not helping matters by making erroneous and one-sided accusations about 'some editors' on the discussion page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is simple. Once consensus is reached this topic should be closed. You should not be able to continually debate this topic with a new batch of editors every week in order to give you a preferable outcome. This is about consensus. Each time consensus is reached your bring up the topic again. Clearly you define consensus as your way or no way. This is blatant POV-pushing. I understand that you are passionate about this issue, but once consensus is reached (which is hopefully based on the historical consensus) the topic should be closed. My students rely on wikipedia for accurate information, as this generation of kids is always online. Thus, I am on the side of history, nothing more. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how long you've been around, but this debate has gone around pretty much in the same circles for some time. As you know last week a consensus was called for and an overall desire was revealed to see a reduction in the volumes of material, almost five pages, in the 'Controversy' section and to deal with the lede which also gave this topic more scope than any other topic in that lede. The outcome I am hoping for is pretty much the same as almost everyones I believe, a reduction of material, esp non biographical material, and a lede that (presently) has one or two sentences for the slavery/hemings topic. Also I voted in a consensus call to keep the lede, with mention of Hemings, at the present version (Mar.5th at the time) in an effort to stablize the article, so the "your way or now way" sentiment is unwarranted. However, the 'controversy' section still needs dealing with. My focus has and remains on undue weight and biographical policy. LIke anyone else, I am firm on some points and flexible on others. Great volumes of material for one topic, I am not that flexible on, esp when the topic already has a dedicated page for it. This topic should obey the same guidelines as any other topic in a biography. 'Controversy' warrants mention in the lede and summary coverage in the text. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe bob attacks, I don't think that any topic on Wikipedia can ever be considered as "closed" and certainly not "permanently closed"'. Doesn't that go against the very grain of an encyclopedia being open to editing by all? Are you proposing that once this particular group of interested editors craft and edit the subject material to their own personal satisfaction that the article should then somehow be put into an editorial deep-freeze?

And regarding Wikipedia itself...I know people do use it as their source but they do that at their own peril. It never has been and never should be regarded as an ultimate source or even a reliable source...that's why using one Wikipedia article as the source for another Wikipedia article is not allowed by Wikipedia guidelines. If students are relying on an encyclopedia that is open to editing by everyone and therefore is not a stable source of information, then they need to re-think their methods of research, otherwise they will end up taking the word of a passing Internet vandal that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson was a ...(fill in the blank/expletive-deleted) who did ...(something stupid) to ...(another Founding Father) or ...(the vandal's best friend). Shearonink (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so I've seen other pages in which a particular topic had been discussed to death and there was information in the header that the topic was closed. I'm not sure if it was permanently closed. The example I can think of off the top of my head is Michael Jackson's page. I was there, probably the year that he died, when I saw that they had closed discussions on certain things once consensus had been reached b/c a topic had been discussed, discussed and over discussed. I don't know if that's a great example, but how is it logical to have the same debates over and over again with the same people? These people do not know the meaning of compromise and will no doubt get their way in the end, accuracy be darned.

With regard to students using wikipedia, I am not asserting that this is their main source material, however, wikipedia is a great starting point for them, especially for the young one not well-versed in research. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede, related to controversy

Ebanony made a good point (made before on this page) that controversies do need to be included in the lede, certainly a controversy that involves a major change in scholarship on a major figure such as Jefferson. I have changed the lede slightly to indicate the controversy, and added more current sources to indicate the range of agreement on the topic.
I also think we might add a sourced statement here and in the controversy section as to why the change is so important - as the MacArthur Foundation said, it is bringing to light the complex history of colonial and 19th c. interracial relations. That Jefferson was such a major political figure highlights the issues. The effects and results of slavery, and the complexity of relationships arising from it, is at the heart of the history of this country - that's why there was so much controversy about this aspect of Jefferson - he's a symbol of all that, both of efforts to repress knowledge and of more current efforts to look at our full history. The controversy about him is symbolic of whether the US looks at the reality of our history.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, thank you Parkwells, and just to add, this is the current lead:

While historians long discounted accounts that Jefferson had a long relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, it is now widely held that he did and had six children by her.[9][10][11]

The MoS says "It should...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" WP:LEAD.

This edit conforms to all relevant policies, and names Hemings by name (as it should), and is no longer than 1 sentence (which is a compromise). In fact, whoever wrote it did a good job, and I thank him/her. There is no way anyone can truthfully claim the above sentence it is "undue weight", too long or that it is not a "prominent controversy". As Joe bob attacks states, the constant objection to Hemings "needs to stop". A select number of editors have made unreasonable demands, and they're wasting all of our times. Let's end this nonsense:

For keeping the current sentence above in the lead without further changes unless there is consensus & WP:RS or a policy violation.Ebanony (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For keeping that sentence and the last paragraph of the lede as it reads currently, based on the above conditions.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For the last sentence. It's a reasonable summary of scholarly consensus. --Coemgenus 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For keeping the controversy in the lede as Parkwells has written it. There is an historical consensus on this topic and it is properly cited. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For Keeping the existing lede version of March 5 (disagree with name mention but lede is now tolerable.) Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point the lede discussion, in relation to Hemings, should be closed. Certain editors should not be allowed to whittle away at any further. Can this specific discussion be permanently closed? --Joe bob attacks (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still too soon. Other editors need a chance to respond above, and then we can close it.Ebanony (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about how the discussion can be permanently closed... Joe bob, are you perhaps referring to setting up some sort of FAQ on this talk page, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx ? Shearonink (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

'Sanitizing' and other Straw-man accusations

Joe', thank you for leaving your consensus in the 'vote' section. In your attempt to end this discussion you have actually brought up some valid points:
We cannot sanitize history and have not been charged to do so. This was a controversy that he experienced in his own time and it is still relevant. The POV pushing occurring on this subject is extreme. Removing whole chapters of historical consensus is tantamount to idol worship.

No one can change history this is for sure, but I have seen those who try to present it in fashion where the account they offer is indeed 'changed'. This can be done by singling out points and presenting them with different context, or no context, often bettering or worsening the account of what really had occurred in History. There have been historians who have attempted to do this before, and they (both sides) continue to do so today. -- Regarding the concern for "sanitizing" the article: From the beginning attention was brought to the great volumes of text committed to this one topic. There was no call for "sanitizing" made by myself and as far as I know, by any other editor. Most if not all of the omissions made were done so by the editors who authored this section and who were gracious enough and had the emotional capacity to square off with the issue and correct it. If you still have any concerns about "sanitizing" the article you might want to check with the editors who made the reduction to the nearly five pages of material that was committed to this one topic, one that is already covered at great length on the Sally Hemings page, btw. About a year ago the same situation existed with many pages committed to the one topic, much of it filled with opinions, little of it bothered to let the facts speak for themselves. The great volumes of (non biographical) material was reduced, but over the last year it continued to grow little by little while the discussion page was in the midst of often heated debates, to the previous proportions of a few days ago (linked to above). 'Controversy' warrants mention in the lede and is entitled to adequate summary coverage in a separate section. Controversy policy doesn't exempt it from the guidelines that all other lesser topics of a subject must follow, and this includes UNDUE weight and biographical guidelines. Again, the reduction was made by contributing editors to the section and there was nothing that came close to "Removing whole chapters". This was occurring days before you weighed in with your apparent attempt to end the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers I understand that you are passionate about this subject, but as a person who has studied history for decades and teaches history, I can tell you that the evidence on the Sally Hemings matter is there. You may not see yourself as sanitizing history, but you are very protective of Jefferson's legacy with regard to Hemings. I can respect that and I applaud your enthusiasm. I would be so lucky if my students were this enthusiastic about history, however, there has to be a stopping point. You continue to say there is "undue weight" placed on this controversy. Undue weight to who? Certainly not the historical community.

You are not the only editor who is doing this. I have no idea what your motivation for this would be, as most modern people do not sit in judgment of Jefferson for this. He was a man of his time. That said, we have come to a more recent consensus on the lede. Therefore, I consider this matter closed. Consensus is also about compromise and you have to compromise, as we all do.--Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe' thanks for your input here.. -- As I think you realize, I am not the one making repeated lies (or inaccurate statements, if you prefer) about the edits of other editors and I am not the one who is trying to turn this into a race issue. If there are those who are upset because mention of the possibility of love and/or other mutual feelings between the two -- simply because Hemings is part African -- I can only say that perhaps they are the racists if this is the nature of and their only concern. I agree that this topic is uncalled for but so long as it is persued I am not going to idly stand by and let the other side go unrepresented.Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Who was discussing the lede here?? As usual, you jump topic and try to sidewind into other topics. Again your underhanded attempts to turn this into a racial issue have been noted. If the notice-board decides to take your wild stretches seriously they will at once see not only your long sordid trail of attacks and lies they will also see the sort of thing you are trying to turn into a racial issue. I look forward to their inquiries. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not I who made repeated untruths about a number of edits, which have been clearly outlined and leave no room for 'interpretation', and I have not made the attempt to turn the issue into a racial one. From the beginning I have made calls for reduction in the absurd amounts of material devoted to the one topic of 'controversy'. Again, 'controversy' warrants mention in lede and summary coverage in the text (like any other notable topic). 'Controversy' does not entitle the topic to be presented with no regard for undue weight and biographical policies. And why do not all the other sections have lengthy outlines about historians, etc?? Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony and Gwillhickers, I hope that the personal attacks between you two stop. There's no need to question each others motives so viciously. Clearly you both sincerely care about history, albeit from different perspectives.

Gwillhickers, with regard to the Sally Hemings, I have read many of your previous comments and much of what you have theorized (with regard to Hemings) has already been dismissed by the historical community. The reason I am concerned about sanitizing history is because there is a fringe group of deniers. These are people who continue to deny or explain away (in various fashions) the enormous amount of evidence, leading to the simplest conclusion. Unlike detached historians, these people tend to have personal stakes in the "purity" of Jefferson's legacy. No doubt some of these conclusions may also be based on some form of personal prejudice. This is unfortunate but true, as everyone, including myself is susceptible to prejudice.

Now, momentarily placing aside the deplorable nature of dealing in human flesh, if one looks at this from the perspective of a land-owning white man of this era, mulatto and quadroon concubinage was quite commonplace. It was particularly common in the southern U.S. and the Caribbean. Historical records indicate that there these women were highly sought after and considered very beautiful (according to European standards of beauty). They were called "fancy girls" and fetched high prices. They were also subject to various treatments based upon whom they were bound to. Some were brutally treated, raped, beaten, and some were treated well (and even loved), as perhaps Hemings was.

Now place the historical evidence aside and look at the situation through a human lens, as historical figures were human beings first, icons second. Some of these women, including Hemings herself (who was 3/4th white) may have been imperceptibly "African" and appeared "white." I say this, not because I think mixed race women are more attractive than women of pure African heritage, but perhaps mixed race women were more acceptable in concubinage (to certain men) due to the pervasive racist standards of the era. Therefore, it is not surprising that Jefferson could/would have a mistress such as this. It is important to look at the human factors as well as the historical evidence.

Gwillhickers again, I applaud your enthusiasm. As I said, I wish my students were as energetic as you are. You have great passion for this matter and I can only respect it. However, I feel your passion has been misplaced in defending some of your theories. I respectfully think that this subject matter be closed. The continued debate will not change the outcome of history and even if you could erase Hemings from every history book, it would not diminish the discussion of this controversy. In fact controversies kept in the dark only increase. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe' if this topic involved someone else besides Jefferson the issue wouldn't be looked at twice. What I am 'passionate' about is the attempts to have the topic dominate the page in a disruptive fashion as we experienced here of the last year. No one is trying to erase history. The page should certainly cover this advent, as a controversy, outlay what deciding facts are known, and then summarize the opinions and link to where they can be covered in greater detail. As I also pointed out, many of the other sections have shrunken or disappeared. More work needs to be done in many of the (missing since Feb., now crammed into the 'Political philosophy and views' section) sections while the 'Controversy' section still runs at length about historians, establishments etc and needs to be summarized in that area. Jefferson's involvements with topics like 'Separation of Church and State', 'Carrying of Arms', 'States Rights', his opposition to 'Banks and the Federalists' etc need better coverage. Jefferson was a prolific letter writer who often wrote extensively on some of these ideas. A reliable historical account on some of the defining letters would be interesting. Also, for some reason, the 'Political philosophy and views' section is near the bottom of the page. The topics in this section define Jefferson as a politician and political philosopher and should be among the first sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe bob attacks, I didn't addressGwillhickers motives; I said his comments "intentionally or unintentionally" gave voice to racial views inappropriate for this setting; as to his historical views outside of the historical community, I can't why he does that either, nor does it matter. The fact is he does those things & won't stop. But it was Admin that said of his comments/edits, "editors have correctly insisted on keeping to sourcing policy and should continue to do so." [5] He's done this for months, now saying, "I am not going to idly stand by and let the other side go unrepresented." There is no other "side", save the deniers. And he said right there he will continue to give voice to fringe theories. That is why we all have this problem.

Now, the best historians say there is no reasonable doubt or evidence for any other possibility, just unfounded speculation with a political purpose. Gwillhickers claims there are other possibilities; that the relationship in itself is just a "theory" (that's a direct contradiction of historians who say it is fact, not a "theory"); he's on some 25 other possibilities as the real father; and the latest of Hemings possibly seducing a grieving Jefferson. Based on what??? He's been warned too many times, and whilst you might admire his enthusiasm or passion (as you call it), he is directly contradicting the best historians. That's going to improve the encyclopedia? This is why it doesn't stop; he refuses to stop. Ebanony (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Boy and I thought the problems I am having over on the Weston Price article were aggravating. I have to agree that as it currently stands the Sally Hemings material looks reasonable if a little long but then again the entire Thomas Jefferson article is a little long thought it looks about as tight as it is ever going to get.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is indeed long, too much material on academic and established opinion, very little about the actual controversy itself in terms of facts. Gwillhickers (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Topics have shrunken or disappeared!

Many sections and much material was omitted by one editor over a several hour period on Feb.12-13 with no discussion that I have found. This was a major transformation involving much of the page, that included many sections and many prominent topics, and there was no discussion. Before the editing began the Jefferson page was at 132k -- after more than a dozen edits later the page looked like this, at 106k with all the previous material crammed into one section or missing. While page weight/material was being removed, the Slavery/Hemings topics at this time occupied about six pages. By the time a consensus was called on March 2nd the Slavery and Hemmings topics occupied some eight pages and was a glaring undue weight issue. The deleted sections should be restored, but of course a consensus is needed, and a consensus should have been widely assessed before the editing of Feb.12-13 had transpired.

These are the sections and topics involved that used to cover some five pages, now crammed into one page or missing:

10 Political philosophy and views

10.1 Francophilia
10.2 Banks and bankers
10.3 Individual rights
10.4 States' rights
10.5 Carrying of arms
10.6 Judiciary
10.7 Rebellion to restrain government and retain individual rights
10.8 Women in politics

Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the charge: "much material was omitted" - actually, much of the material was combined with existing sections (not just 1) and was kept. On the other hand, yes, some material was deleted, and with good reason. Some of the deleted material was redundant; some was irrelevant, not needed or unrelated to Jefferson (some were a real problem [6]) WP:UNDUE weight; some material was without proper sources WP:RS & WP:V; some material was WP:OR ie "carrying of arms"; then there was copyright infringement & plagiarism. Gwillhickers, you say: "The deleted sections should be restored". I'd strongly advise against restoring any material that violates basic wikipedia policies (such as a good portion of what was removed), and you should understand that restoring those violations means the editor in question would be violating those policies & would assume responsibility for said violations - specifically after having been duly warned, which you can consider yourself on reading this.

Now, you claimed "there was no discussion". Actually, these things were indeed discussed: [7] [8] [9] [10] And as to some of the recent reworking of material (Hemings & otherwise), they've also been discussed, and that includes their increase as well as changes to the entire lead section: [11] [12] [13].

Gwillhickers, you should inform yourself of the relevant facts before making such statements like you did above. Now if you have a specific proposal for inclusion of new material, you can make your suggestions here, and editors will be happy to consider them. 12:58, 7 March 2011 Ebanony (talk)

You've come up with something buried in archives that was indeed discussed but no mention of the removal of entire ranges of sections and complete removal of some topics. In particular, Schulz, Parkwells and yourself discuss page length and splitting the page up even. Parkwells, one of the main contributors to the 'Controversy' section, suggests even that the Hemings controversy get its own page. Here is the defining passage.

We might want to consider a separate article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, from the point of view of the scholarship and historiography, since it went on for so long, and reflects so much of American attitudes, society and assumptions as it continued, including changing ideas about presidents' private lives (or lack thereof). Not to take all references out of this article, but to give it its due and not overburden this article with it. ... Parkwells (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2011

If you were interested in shortening the page, why didn't you instead, as Parkwell suggested, consider the separate article proposal and move the volumes of material to the Sally Hemings page (if it wasn't there already)? In any event, a wider consensus is needed for a change like that. After a short discussion, with little consensual basis, and after ignoring Parkwells' reservations about section size and overburdening the article, you took it upon yourself to instead remove many sections and topics while the Slavery/Hemings sections continued to grow to drastic undue weight proportions during this same time period. Again the 'Controversy' section doesn't discuss the actual controversy much, it's still a referendum of historical opinion. There was an overall consensus to reduce the 'Controversy' section and not only do we need a review of that consensus now, we need to weigh in about how to restore the sections and/or topics you chose to shrink or eliminate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you claimed we didn't discuss the changes/adds/removals of entire sections. Reread the archive. Not everyone does endless bickering & polls (Admin have already warned you about). Now I did remove material, and as I explained, material that violates WP:OR plagiarism or WP:RS or wikipedia pillars, gets removed etc. Totally unrelated to Hemings.

Since you bring it up, on March 3rd you said the Hemings controversy section "should scale the text down to one or two sentences and link items as best seen fit. This would help balance undue weight and would help to shorten the article (currently at 115k) that is way beyond the size guidelines allows for."[14] Parkwells shortened it a bit [15], and then Schulz corrected your error: "The readable prose of this article is 54 KB at the moment, less than half of what you claim" (you said 115k) [16]. So you were saying the article was too large for that material on Hemings.

Yet suddenly on March 7th, there's plenty of room for "deleted sections" you say "should be restored". You know the February article was far larger than the "115k" number you used on March 3rd to justify reducing the Hemings material. You wrote: the "Jefferson page was at 132k" & was reduced to "106k". Right after you said you wanted those things restored, which would bring the article's size far in excess of 115k. Hence you said 115k is no problem ie size doesn't matter. [17]

So is the article is too large or small? According to your own edits there's no room for Hemings, but there's plenty of room for other things & the overall size of the article & undue weight to those topics are the least of your concerns. This isn't about size, is it? Why is it you're so determined to remove the one section that discusses the attempt by scholars to misrepresent the facts? At any rate, you can make your proposal for new material below. The old cannot be considered due to its policy violations.Ebanony (talk)

This is a presidential biography, which of course intersects with a great deal of history, so by nature of its subject and scope it tends to be (usually much) larger than the average biography, but that was not the issue here, it was your professed concern for page size, and again, after Parkwells' concern about section size and overburdening the article you went ahead anyway and made some pretty drastic deletions none of which touched the Hemings section which was in great need of reduction. I'm sure there were items that needed attention or even removal in the sections in question, but you still haven't explained why you removed none of the material in the Hemings section, already covered in great detail on the Sally Hemings page and instead elected to do a major reduction of so many different and notable topics directly related to Jefferson's activities. You took approximately five pages of material and chopped it down to one page, and with not many people weighing in on the matter. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you've gone on about Hemings for months! You cannot bully us removing it. This is harassment & a personal attack. Stop trying to interrogate me. Your proposals for improvement (on topics OTHER than Hemings)? Ebanony (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia could have a brief section. This works expresses Thomas Jefferson's philosophy and physical observations. Many of Jefferson's beliefs are summed up in this book and give an insight into Thomas Jefferson's rationalist world view. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It had better use sources that cite scholars' opinions of what Jefferson is saying, rather than some editor taking selected first person quotes as OR>Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The purpose is to have an overall view and to somehow get glimpses into Jefferson's Enlightenment opinions and observations. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not responding to legitimate concerns and discussion and instead are retreating again with the usual digressive accusations of my account. 'Bullying' implies force or taking advantage of someone who is weaker or is diminished in some other capacity. If you are experiencing something that prevents you from functioning the same as the rest of us you should bring it to our attention so we know what we are dealing with on your end. As anyone can see I have not forced anyone to do anything. All I have insisted on is that undue weight and biographical considerations be dealt with further, and again, the contributing editors in question have reduced the section significantly while you instead went on your little attacks in your attempts to divert attention from the larger issue. Didn't work. We are now discussing various ways to summarize and/or split various topics off in an effort to bring stability and sanity back to this page. Thanks for all your help. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, we asked you to make new proposals for improvement several times. This is not a page for your complaints/speeches on perceived bias or otherwise. WP:TPG aren't optional; see WP:TPNO under "Behavior that is unacceptable". One should limit oneself to the behaviour listed under "How to use article talk pages" & avoid needless disruptions to make a WP:POINT, lack of good faith accusations WP:AGF (such as lying or otherwise), and personal attacks WP:NPA ie "if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there — or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia." WP:APR

Concerning deleted content, it's not enough to claim they should be included; it's up to you to demonstrate that said topics a) are worthy of inclusion and b) deserve a prominence higher than that of other topics (Hemings or otherwise). You've presented no evidence for either claim, and they cannot be considered without it. Your claim of WP:UNDUE weight cannot be taken seriously, and complaints themselves can hardly be considered new proposals. Ebanony (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning deleted content, these sections covered notable events and topics and again after a brief discussion with a couple of editors and no mention of multiple section removal you took it upon yourself to make sweeping deletions. You never outlined 'why' so asking me for reasons for their inclusion is hypocritical. As for your repeated false accounts, the discussion page is not a place to be making these but since you have made them they need and will continue to be addressed on the same page that you have posted them. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I clearly explained the changes, and provided links to archive discussions, so you're mistaken: [18]. Your comment here reveals you read those links, and my warning not to restore it for its violations: [19]. So, your proposals for new content? Ebanony (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored Old lead

Gwillickers gave no valid reason for removing the entire lead section and replacing it with poorly sourced content. There is something called consensus, and he ignored it. He claimed it had "too many" sources! That's a new one. As opposed to none, or ones that misrepresent Jefferson's affair? The manual of style on the WP:LEAD requires sources (sometimes several), and so do policies like WP:RS. This bloke has been doing highly disruptive things to the article and the talk page since January, and several people have called into question his behaviour. No, the lead is well documented, and there is NO reason why gwillickers's should on his own decide the way it will be. This isn't just about Hemings. The whole thing is different, and he's behaving in the most uncivil manner by demanding everyone do what he says. Frankly, he has 0 credibility with me because he openly violates numerous policies.

Fact: The academic consensus is that there was a relationship, and that they were his children. Some people present a false & highly ideological version based in pseudo-history, and he is one of them, as is evidenced by this edit Parkwells had to correct [20]; he'll say anything to get rid of Hemings. Fact: this is the major Jefferson work in the past decade, and it has to be covered. No apologetics please. Ebanony (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This "academic consensus" does not include American National Biography, the standard work of general reference; their article was written by Merrill D. Peterson. Expressions of certainty are unwarranted; however, I certainly agree that we should cover the matter in full. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Above statement needs source, page and date of article. Is it online so other people can read it? Consensus does not mean everyone agrees - we have said "it is widely accepted", which is the formulation used in other articles on Wikipedia. Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, Sir? This is a talk page; and the assumption of good faith should preclude such demands. Yhe article on "Jefferson, Thomas" (American National Biography, Vol. XI, pp.909-17) should not be hard to find in a resource in alphabetical order; however, the on-line edition has been updated on this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More work has been done since Peterson, and no one is saying it is a "certainty". Consensus doesn't mean every single one will agree. Some don't and never will . However, the majority do, and yes, we can say that he did those things and was the father.Ebanony (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If the source in question were his 1970 book, that would be a conclusive response; but it isn't. Majority, however, seems to me a reasonable claim; if the article said "majority", instead of "consensus", we might have a genuine consensus on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Septentrionalis the assumption of good faith does not include taking whatever other editors say as fact without supporting evidence. Even if some people rely on that book, we cannot go by Peterson's work on Hemings because it is flawed. Yes, flawed. And he's not the only author to ignore evidence on her or to outright misrepresent Jefferson's involvement in slavery to protect his image or support the antislavery myth. Neither Peterson nor his work is "conclusive", but is rather just his opinion as a scholar; nor is it the only one. There is a far better academic who revealed the facts about Hemings, and it's her work that is authoritative (until the person comes along). Amazing how a black woman wins every award out there (& exposed these scholars for what they were), and some on here still prefer the refuted fairy tales of the great white men. No way we're going by what Peterson claimed. He's also been dubunked by other scholars. As to the word "consensus" or "majority", I have to agree with Parkwells. His work on Hemings has been stellar, and I've seen no errors in his work on her. I can't say the same for your claims about his work being biased or a "party view" when you changed the Hemings in the lead [21]. Where do you get your info from?Ebanony (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

All the 'to do' about which historian has ignored 'this' and which academic has ignored 'that' is very interesting to some individuals I'm sure, and I don't doubt there are those who have concealed personal things to protect images. At the same time I don't doubt for a minute there are those who have taken a quite finite set of facts and have read into them for their own sordid purposes. It can work both ways for anyone who has a mind to do so. In the mean time, this sort of material about what some historians may or may not have said, not only ventures away from the topic of Hemings, it certainly goes far astray from Jefferson. Again, the Jefferson biography is not the place for an outline of academic review and much of the material presently in the Controversy section still needs to be scaled down in this regard. It does not belong in a biography. This coverage does not focus on Jefferson it's focus is about what others have and haven't said or acknowledged about him. Regarding controversies, MOS clearly says let the facts speak for themselves. Mention may be made of widely varied views, and even the prominent accepted view, and then it should link to the article where this topic is quite adequately covered. People like Foster are due mention by name as he revealed facts. Others do not merit mention by name in someone's presidential biography simply because they hold a popular opinion about the facts. Try to present more facts and less opinion of facts. There is still far too much material in the 'Controversy' section for inclusion in a biography. Also, the section still remains to be the largest section on the page by great proportions while all of the others remain unusually small for some reason. Gwillhickers (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Septentrionalis can speak for himself. But since your off on one again... Anyway, No, you're wrong: Hemings directly involves Jefferson. She was his mistress (putting it nicely), and those were his children. That is historical fact; it is not a conspiracy theory. That is what the majority of scholars say, and I don't care if you want to continue to deny the facts. No WP:FRINGE theories here.

The Controversy is appropriate because some people scholars intentionally misled the public. The material on her in general should be shortened, but that controversy section should remain. Mentioning scholars by name is important so readers know who said what. Jefferson is not anything close to a divinity, and he gets no special treatment. We follow wikipedia guidelines, not yours. Names appear in thousands of wikipedia articles. Deal with it.Ebanony (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep banging on the same tin pot. As I clearly indicated above, I am not asking for complete removal of the section. Please make more of an effort to get it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You've asked for Hemings out of the lead, and then a reduction in the material to the level you feel is appropriate, which is not in accord with the guidelines. Then you deliberately post conspiracy theories about her in the main space. Distancing yourself from those conspiracy theories now, eh? Denying that you added them? You love to change the subject. You're being unreasonable.Ebanony (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Concensus means that any minority opinions or disagreements have been arbitrated or resolved. Parkwells has mentioned there has been some break through with Sally Heming's descendants and the Monticello Association. If there is a "last holdout", the MA would be a good candidate. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, the other day you lied in edit history when you said I removed Hemings name in the lede, you lied again when you claimed I said Hemings forced herself on Jefferson, and at the top of this section you lie yet again when you say I removed the entire lede. Are you on medication, or do you lose the ability to remain congnent when you encouter difficultly on a discussion page? This is a fair question as you have been carrying on as if my account can't be checked on per the lies and accusations you have been making. Well I suppose if anything we are getting some coimic relief into the discussion. Thanks for that at least. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I already [22]. As to your "theory" that Hemings initiated a relationship with Jefferson ("forcing herself" is a paraphrase). End of story. Ebanony (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your remark that I said Hemings forced herself on Jefferson is definitive of the way you have written about my account. Please be more careful of this tendency in the future and you won't find yourself spending so much time in damage control after the fact. Thanks, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize

Both Annette Gordon-Reed (2009) and Dumas Malone (1975) won the Pulitzer prize. Is the mention of the Pulitzer necessary for the article on Thomas Jefferson? In my opinion, mentioning the Pulitzer sounds argumentative, only in the sense that since Gordon-Reed won the Pulitzer, therefore, her books on Thomas Jefferson are "proof" that her research is correct. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that Annette is well respected in this field. Annette's research is impeccable and she is highly sought after the historical community. I think Dumas's pulitzer should be mentioned as well. I'm not sure why removing the pulitzer prize information is necessary? --Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fawn M. Brodie's work that gave substantial evidence Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children was severely critized by Pulitzer winner Malone. Brodie's work on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was acknowledged by Pulitzer winner Gordon-Reed. Brodie never won a Pulitzer. I believe there is a danger in giving any Pulitzer prize winning historians weighted authority over other non Pulitzer prize winning historians. Mentioning Malone won a Pulitzer may be the best alternative. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A valid point Cmguy777, but do recall we do not use only what Gordon-Reed says, or rely on it because of her Pulitzer. We rely on the majority of academic work - Pulitzer or not - and have no problem including Brodie or Malone insofar as their work is within mainstream opinion. One does well to exercise caution with Malone's work because he purposefully misrepresented the facts of Jefferson's involvement in slavery, perpetuating the anti-slavery myth (see Finkelman); as to his work on Hemings, his was pre-Gordon-Reed, and he didn't have a chance to revise his ideas on Hemings after her 1997 work, so his older work (including any criticism of Hemings could no longer be considered as majority opinion).If we said "Oh, he won a Pulitzer, therefore we must go by his work", then we'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight, but we're not.Ebanony (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we doing that with Gordon-Reed since she won the Pulitzer, therefore, "we must go by [her] work"? I agree, Ebanony, what you mentioned on Malone, yet, he won the Pulitzer. Maybe this is a reflection on the Pulitzer, rather then the recepients. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I referred to Gordon-Reed's winning the Pulitzer AND 15 other major historical awards as a way of representing to you, Cmguy, that her work on the Hemings and interracial relationships has been widely honored today by numerous professional associations in the discipline, showing there is a consensus that it is valuable. This article is not the place to note all the historians who won awards for their work on Jefferson in earlier times, a quarter of a century ago. Of course that meant that they were honored at earlier times, as their work was then considered to represent the best thinking on the subject. (At one point Ellis was also noted as an award winner - he got the National Book award for his Jefferson bio; I used that as a shorthand to show that historians considered to be prominent had changed their minds. We can add mention of Malone's awards to the article on historiography, but I think it is out of place here.) I really think we have enough here to give a sense of changing ideas in the field, which was the point.Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly mentioning Gordon-Reed is the most recent Jefferson biographer to win the Pulitzer could work. That would acknowledged other Jefferson biographers have won the Pulitzer in the past without mentioning the others, Malone and Ellis. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777, as far as I know, Reed has not published any Jefferson biography - per se. Her work focuses less on him, and more on the treatment "award winning" scholars & other writers gave to the Hemings/Jefferson scandal (1997); her second book focuses on the "Hemingses" in the 19th century (08/09), and her yet unpublished text is to deal with them in the 20th century (unsure of date of release). She has indicated a desire for writing a Jefferson bio & covering his politics (I believe in her speech at Monticello), but she is in a totally different league from the biographers, scholarly or popular. Reed won the Pulitzer for "history", which is one of the different categories they've got, and a very difficult one to win.

However, it's not about awards; it's about academic acceptance; despite earlier awards, their work on Hemings does not represent majority opinion anymore. Try to see the reasons behind awarding Reed those new prizes: she helped overturn generations of scholars who weren't interested in the facts. She also ended - and I repeat ended - a 200-yr controversy. Focusing on those older awards could give voice to discredited ideas by making earlier work seem like it's still good (the ideas that "award=current historical consensus" is faulty, as you pointed out), instead of ensuring that readers know that those ideas are totally without merit, regardless of what awards they won. I understand what you're saying, but Parkwells' logic is correct. What you're asking for requires a lot of work, and some editors are calling for a reduction of this topic. Ebanony (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If Reed is to be taken as gospel and has indeed ended the Controversy (though I don't think she has) then this topic is not a 'controversy' after all. Reed overall represents the new and contemporary academic consensus with its highly visible, perhaps over represented capacity. Insistence has been made by one editor that accounts from these entities, roundly referred to as historians, are the mainstream account and that 'all' other accounts are "fringe theory". If we are to be expected to heed Reed and the body of 'historians' she represents then we must also heed any consensus that the controversy is over. In this event the topic would not enjoy 'controversy' status and mention in the lede, while the topic over all would be dealt with accordingly and linked to the several other pages where the topic is expounded on already. -- Reed or no Reed, mention of specific Historians is unwarranted in a biography if all the historian is noted for is an opinion. To go further than that and give coverage to specific awards is a clear departure from the biography itself. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop wiki-lawyering and start using substantive arguments. A controversy does not lose its status because academics come to a consensus. Indeed, sometimes we have whole articles on topics where there is very strong academic consensus - see e.g. global warming controversy. Nor is "ongoing controversy" status needed for a position in the lede. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with Stephan Schulz, and will add: Reed & the academic community agreeing Jefferson was the father is not the original controversy. "Controversy" refers to Jefferson having children with his slave; that scandal (controversy) is what "notable controversy" means, and it's staying in the lead & article (using names). The other controversy is the academics who ignored evidence & had their work refuted by Reed, which is precisely why it too needs coverage here. Be aware the policy WP:BLP is serious, & attacks on living persons is covered (your comments on Reed raise red flags). Further, Reed & academics are not discussing "opinion", and you must stop misrepresenting them & their work; the relationship is fact, though your word games deny the facts & distort what these respected academics have written. Disrupting the talk page with these endless demands to remove/reduce this is highly disruptive WP:TPG; you will not be warned again. Ebanony (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia

I added a section on Notes on the State of Virgina. Does this section belong in his political career section or another area of the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect, that Jefferson wrote a book in itself merits no inclusion; insofar as it relates to its contemporary issues, there is value, which is why it's already covered in "Attitude towards slaves and black". This briefly discusses it & his racial views; there's also a link to the main article on said topic. That section is only missing when & why he wrote (a sentence or 2). Parkwells removed the word "racist" because it lacked a source. Cmguy777, Magnis [23] would be the proper source for that sort of claim, but since the book itself & his racial views are already covered (ie he "believed they were inferior to whites"), why add a new section or say the obvious? Ebanony (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the work represents Thomas Jefferson as a person and represents the contemporary thoughts of his time, views that Jefferson shared himself. Just refering to the work on his racist statements in Notes on the State of Virginia, could mislead the reader to believe that the entire work was Jefferson rationalizing his view that blacks were inferior. He took 5 years to make the book that covered other topics, not just race and slavery. Whatever emotions Jefferson had he put them into the making of this book. Jefferson, the "Child of Enlightenment", was for lack of a better phrase, "showing off" his scientific knowledge and intuition in the monumental book. Others contributed to the book as well. I just put in a brief paragraph on the book. No need to expand. The book also reveals an "apparent contradiction" with Jefferson's view on slavery and his racist view that blacks were inferior. The source I gave (Shuffleton) did in fact call Jefferson's views racist. Ferling also calls Jefferson's views on blacks racist. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No quotes from the book are put in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the material, though not in-depth; seems fair enough. Ebanony (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ebanony. Jefferson wrote the book during the Revolutionary War, while he was Virginia's governor. Also he briefly stopped writing on the book after his wife died. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand that; my concern is avoiding sections where an additional sentence or two to an existing paragraph will do. I'm sure that could be done here, but ok fine. As to the racism, there is no question Jefferson used racism in his book or that he was a racist, but that is hardly news; it is just so obvious from all the other parts that I don't see the need to repeat it. And that's how it gets redundant: discussing the same thing in 2 places, especially his racist views. Aside from that, you might want to add a couple of other sources to it, this way it covers relevant research by other writers who focused on his book. Also, there's an online version of the original manuscript of his book - that is worth putting up. Ebanony (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777, here is the link to the online manuscript of Notes. I think this would be a valuable addition to those who want a more in-depth study of his work [24]. I haven't had to the chance to add it to the main article, though it should be.Ebanony (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an entire Wiki article about this book; do you really need a section in this one?Parkwells (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The book took 5 years to write and Jefferson poured his "Enlightenment" training in the book. The book occupied Jefferson's time during his brief retirement. The book was also Jefferson's way of improving his damaged reputation as Virginia's governor and helped him cope with his wife's death. There is only one paragraph. Also, the book is mentioned in Jefferson's views on African Americans. The paragraph mentions the background behind the book and in general what the book covered. There are no quotes from the book in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive lying

The following thread was/is on my talk page and has been moved here as it concerns activity and other editors on this talk page.

I've been more than patient with you, but no, I did not "lie" at any point, and I am not "on mediation" [25]. You should immediately remove the aforementioned claims from the talk page.Ebanony (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You said I removed Hemings name from the lede, I did not. Then you said I removed the entire lede section, I did not, you said I claimed Hemings forced herself on Jefferson which I did not. There are other examples. Now you stand there and say you didn't lie at any point. When you correct all the lies in discussion and leave a note in edit history about the lie you left there, then we'll talk about any requests you have for me. Not until. Suggest you leave someone another notice. The Jefferson and discussion pages needs more attention anyway. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no lying, but perhaps you have trouble reading. If you bothered to read the talk page, I already answered this twice [26] & [27]. You're making something very small into something big. Now, regarding the Hemings fringe theory you spoke of, you speculated she initiated a relationship with him ie seduction of a grieving man. "Forced herself" (again I already this elsewhere [28]), is a paraphrase of the baloney conspiracy theory you invented or took form the fringest of places. I have no need to retract; I'm not the one inventing history or promoting racist ideas. You have no qualms about degrading black women & inventing stories, but have the nerve to discuss honesty??? What should we call your invented history, honest? Please. Ebanony (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I read and write quite well thank you, i.e. this is your quote from edit history (14:30, 3 March 2011):
Gwillhickers Stop making unilateral edits to remove Hemings from the Lead -
you have no concensus...
-- Please quote at least two "unilateral edits" (you did refer to more than one) where I do ANYTHING that even approaches removing the name from the lede. As for your other linked references of ( 20:44, 5 March 2011), this is just damage control made shortly after the fact in an obvious attempt to gloss over this lie of (00:53, 5 March 2011):
'You didn't have the audacity to claim a child forced herself on him?
Your comments are insulting..
and also (01:07, 5 March 2011):
.. making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself
on Jefferson & take advantage of him..
In yet another example you say in no uncertain terms (12:12, 3 March 2011) ..
Gwillickers gave no valid reason for removing the entire lead section and
replacing it with poorly sourced content..
As anyone can see from edit history I have at no time, ever, made any such removal of the entire lede.
-- As for your straw man accusation of "fringe theory", you are again, merely trying to take something said on a discussion page and pass it off as something I want to include in print on the main page. Again, mention was made by at least two editors I know of who said in so many words that no one knows the nature of the relationship. All I did at this point was to say this.. And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of
a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love..
to which you replied (01:07, 5 March 2011) ..
..making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself on
Jefferson & take advantage of him. Yes, you're inventing history!
And of course to finish it off you now close with another lie claiming I am trying to "invent history" when all I did was mention one of any other likely possibilities. Again, your tendency to even control what is mentioned on a discussion page only demonstrates that it is you who has abandoned all POV. Your pattern of behavior and repeated outright lying is now a matter of record. If you would like to make additions to this record, please feel free. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You said: "As for your straw man accusation of "fringe theory", you are again, merely trying to take something said on a discussion page and pass it off as something I want to include in print on the main page" & you said "another lie claiming I am trying to "invent history" when all I did was mention one of any other likely possibilities."

I am lying or misrepresenting the facts? Then why does the Fringe theory noticeboard say?: "see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians. You and other editors have correctly insisted on keeping to sourcing policy and should continue to do so." [29]

They were talking about the stories you cooked up/copied from fringe sources ie Hemings taking advantage of Jefferson by trying to seduce him (force herself or however else I refer to it) & there being 20-25 other possibilities, "likely possibilities" etc. You're engaging in denial of history by claiming the Hemings/Jefferson affair is just a theory; it is not a theory; it's historical fact, and that's why you went to the noticeboard. If you go to the Holocaust pages and claim "it's just a theory" & "there are other possibilities" you'll get the same treatment. Holocaust denial/Jefferson/Hemings denial is the same thing, different subject matter. And your claims have racial undertones, and degrade back women for the sake of protecting Jefferson - which you accuse us of trying to defame (without reason). You shouldn't insist. I will not apologise/retract what I said concerning that. Or are you going to accuse the administrator of lying next too? Do go to the noticeboard and read it because I can assure you, there is a very different version of the facts, and you should be careful not to misrepresent that because it concerns admin. Again, there is no other"possibility" or "likely possibilities" as far as the academic community are concerned. Yes, you are inventing history & misrepresenting the facts with the utter nonsense you write. That is not allowed on wikipedia.

As to the "lying" you mention in concern with the lead, you're writing this in 5 places, even though I clearly say above in 3 places that I had made an error in naming you as the editor who removed the information from the lead. However, you did say, as far as I recall, that you wanted Hemings out of the lead (then changed in January/February), and have demanded reductions in Hemings content. Therefore, my comment of March 6 (which you removed from your talk page & posted above) is your answer.

Look, I'm wiling to let these insults/attacks go, but I insist you at once stop going about with these accusations of "lying" all over the talk pages. This is clearly a personal attack. WP:PA Al new members made errors, and you should learn from your experience not to insist on fringe theories. You can't promote them here or on the main page. Ebanony (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point it's become obvious that you are now back tracking and have made efforts at damage control, trying to arrange 'explanations', after the fact, as to what others can readily see and determine for themselves. If you want to compound your present foray I will be more than happy to chronicle this activity also and we can continue this chat indefinitely. Otoh, if you would simply like to come to terms with a few realities regarding the 'Controversy' section that would be nice. Fringe theories? I recognize this concern, but please try to remember it was a passing mention in discussion about the unknown nature of the relationship. However, now that you've attempted to turn 'that' into a racial issue, it seems that you are only interested in 'torpedoing' the entire discussion with yet another issue that tends to scatter the editing efforts here, which is why the other sections look stunted, neglected, as focus is forcebly been kept on this one topic with the huge amounts of material and with your type of antics, all over the map. It is my suspicion that you don't care much about the biography overall and are only interested with this one topic, and the more controversy you can bring to the topic the better, even if it means resorting to the sort of behavior we have all just witnessed. I certainly hope I'm wrong in this estimation but given your recent long string of misguided 'accounts' I don't think I am. Now you're off to the noticeboard with issues of fringe theories and racism. I don't know what you expect from them. A mandate that certain subjects never come up in a discussion?
In any event my focus will remain on undue weight and biographical policies. There is still far too much mention, by name even, of a whole string of historians, etc. in the Controversy section. This is all reference material; simply refer to it with the cites and then summarize their consensus. i.e.Leading scholars agree ... etc, links.'. Again, this is the Thomas Jefferson biography. it is not a forum for an outline of academic opinions about controversy theory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In the latest development you have conducted other manipulations with

discussion text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

These edits you made to the main page [30] [31], and you made similar claims numerous times in the talk page (not "in passing). Case closed. Move on. Responded to [32].

Regarding reducing the "controversy" section on Hemings, you've provided no evidence of any WP:UNDUE weight; you generally say some "academics" & phrases should go. That is vague. No reduction is warranted. Ebanony (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My post above was bringing attention to your numerous misrepresentations, your attempt to turn the discussion into a race issue and your concern for the section rather than the biography as a whole and touched on your concern for fringe theory. You ignore (ie.'doesn't repsond') to all of this and instead try to kick up dust with statements I made, about historians, a month before consensus was called and the Controversy section reduction got underway. Fine.. Here are the examples you referred to..
16:27, 5 February 2011 - In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children.
16:32, 5 February 2011 - ..though for one reason or another they prefer to ignore the other possibilities for Hemings' children, preferring rather to believe it was Thomas Jefferson.
As anyone can read this is not a theory about Hemings they were simple deductions made about historians. If not all historians agree, something the section should cover better, btw, then the above statements are true. I was not discussing Hemings possibilities here, so your whole idea of theory, fringe, or otherwise, is another fraudulent assertion that attempts to mix words. Careful. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The fringe theory noticeboard completely disagrees with you, Gwillhickers, and said "I see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians. You and other editors have correctly insisted on keeping to sourcing policy and should continue to do so". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC) [33]. Continued misuse of talk page or personal attacks will be reported to administration for violations of WP:PA WP:TPG. Ebanony (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has attempted to add that material since it was removed two months ago one has to wonder why you asked for an opinion now. As a distraction from avoiding the issue of undue weight and biographical policy along with the litany of untruths you made regarding my activity? I have lost count of the times you have attempted this and failed. -- Let's keep focus: More work needs to be done on the controversy section. When consensus was called on March 2 Parkwells wanted a separate page for 'historiography' material and Cmguy777 concurred, as do I and almost all of the others. Your noticeboard antics and other evasions and distractions and the litany of untruths you have made of my activity here and on the Noticeboard, i.e. (Gwillicker's illegitimate poll..) have not changed this reality. Please try to cooperate with the rest of us and help us reduce the controversy section so it outlines the facts and presents the topic as a theory, with summary coverage of the historians who subscribe to this theory. Again, you are permitted to say most historians agree with the theory. It remains a theory, with (very) many loose ends until someone can 'prove' Jefferson was involved with one, some or all six children. No one has, not even the DNA evidence can narrow it down. Sorry.

Also, what do talk page guide lines WP:TPG say about making false statements about users?. What about lying about users on noticeboard discussion pages? On the noticeboard you said I conducted an "illegitimate poll..", yet typically cited no actual violation -- that's because there were none. All appropriate notification guidelines were followed. In the latest round of lies you have gone to the 'Biographies of living persons Noticeboard' trying to convince them my referral to Reed was racist because I 'singled her out', and where you were told This is an acceptable position for him to take, even if against consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC). Again, you try the race angle, once again you fail. Your repeated false accounts and numerous attempts at diversionary tactics only exemplifies the fact that you have not gotten over this consensus ordeal, at all. You compound matters for yourself when you envision any attempts to bring the Hemings topic to acceptable and summary levels as a racist endeavor. In that event, you come to the page with an extreme POV which you need to come to terms with. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

100% of what you wrote has nothing to do with improving the article; it bears no resemblance to reality & merits no response.Ebanony (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The following comment, made above, among others, was in full view of your 'response'. "-- Let's keep focus: More work needs to be done on the controversy section. " -- This is your idea of having "nothing to do with improving the article"?? The truth is 100% of what you have written here is unresponsive and has nothing to do with improving the article and once again incorporates an additional false statement regarding my activity, for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fact or Theory

Ebanony, not that I have, but please don't tell editors what sources can be criticized and which ones can't. Also criticism of a historical opinion made by a person, living or not, is not an "attack", so please, watch these overstated remarks. You do this habitually and as such your word and credibility have suffered greatly. You can't try to scare editors out of the discussion. Since Reed and her circle of historians are used as reference in the 'Controversy' section and elsewhere it is perfectly fair to ask that you heed all consensus that may come from these sources. That is all that was done here, so your attempts to misrepresent this activity also has been noted. Also, the Jefferson relationship is theory. You can have a thousand reputable people who go along with the theory, but it is still a theory. There is only scant evidence to go on. DNA points to numerous possibilities, historical evidence for the wherabouts of people is inconclusive and only Jefferson can be accounted for while none of the other many possibilities can not. Is this not a fact? Please make sure the article mentions this fact clearly, btw. Don't try to pass off Jefferson's assumed role as fact or there will be issues here also. We will need a consensus on that item. Again, you can say most historians go along with the theory that Jefferson is 'father of them all'. The article here should also mention opinions vary greatly because the evidence is incomplete, which is also a fact. Shultz, there is a difference between academics coming to a consensus about Jefferson and making a claim that the controversy is over. Are you saying that if i.e.Reed or Finkleman said the controversy was over you would ignore this claim? Isn't that considered cherry picking the source? I am not in possession of hard text specific to Hemings and know of no such claims so you can relax, I just needed to see what sort of principles are guiding the activity here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an attack, and I'm asking you to remove it: "If we are to be expected to heed Reed and the body of 'historians' she represents".

"I am not in possession of hard text specific to Hemings" - then inform yourself of the facts before commenting & demanding changes. Discussion closed.Ebanony (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly" an attack? Thanks for letting us know what your idea of 'clear' is, the 'Living persons Noticeboard' disagrees with this over-stated and distorted account as this account runs par with all your other false accounts. You have been instructed that my views are quite legitimate and that you should not make attempts to remove text from a discussion page as you have done with mine and your own in the recent past. Also, please continue in your effort to not make false statements about other editors here on the Jefferson discussion page and on the noticeboard where you have clearly made other false statements. -- You attempted to try the race angle on the 'Fringe Theory notice board' where you claim I conducted an "..illegitimate poll.." while also claiming ..the claim of multiple fathers is patently false & one with clear racial undertones. -- You also attempted to play the race angle on the 'Biographies' Noticeboard' by claiming my 'criticism' (in spite of none ever made) towards Reed amounts to 'racism': I've got reason to believe some of his other comments/edits, on speculation directed towards Sally Hemings & Gordon-Reed, may support racial views incompatible with wikipedia's stated mission. Not only are there at least three (now documented) examples of your false accounts on two separate noticeboards, your litany of false accounts are also a matter of record in this discussion and read quite plainly, leaving no room for your damage-control, after the fact, rationalizations. You need to collect yourself and make attempts to participate in these discussions in a civil manner and make your objections known without the chronic 'responses' and repeated false accounts. Again, you have been told by the Bio'Noticeboard: Deleting other people's comments on Talk pages is highly disfavored, and the gist of his remarks is that he doesn't believe certain material belongs in the lede, but only elsewhere in the article. This is an acceptable position for him to take, even if against consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC) There is overwhelming consensus to summarize the Hemings topic. Your blatant disregard for consensus is also now a matter of record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This belongs on your talk page, not here. Again, there is a very different version to the reality you present, and the noticeboard is there for all to read. The rest merits no response. Stop focusing on me, and use the talk page for Jefferson.Ebanony (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's back up a moment. After I made a call for consensus you attacked me ten different ways to Sunday, here and on two different noticeboards, almost all of it with 'less than truthful' accounts. You have singled me out by name dozens of times, compared to only a couple of other editors who only mention me once in a great while in the course of discussion as is normal for anyone. Meanwhile my involvement on this page has overall only been in discussion, not in an editing/deleting capacity on the main page, so I don't quite understand your concern. The comments I added about historians were made two months ago, logical deductions, which were removed and never contested again by me. 'This' is what you drag over to the fringe theory noticeboard the other day. On several occasions you brought 'race' into the discussion and stopped just short of calling me a racist. What remains a complete mystery to me is that you make comments of my activity in full view of what I have written. In any event, I would much rather spend my time helping/building the article but I simply can not stand by idly while you attempt to villainize my activity to the great extent that you have. If you are ready to move on and focus on the page, so am I. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Separate article in development on controversy

Just to bring you up to date, I am working on an article on the controversy, using much previous info from here. Not sure how to describe it except by differing opinions of the evidence, including how to use DNA. Can't make much of a case for opponents who want to believe anything other than that Jefferson was the father. Even the First Ladies Library of Canton, Ohio calmly has incorporated the Hemings saga/info into its website. I'm also revising the Sally Hemings, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings' articles to focus on them and their families, rather than rehashing the arguments of the controversy.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is a good idea Parkwells to have a separate article. The controversy is over 200 years old and there is allot to go over. I do not believe the controversy is over, at all, until the MA allows Heming's descendants full membership. There needs to be expansion on Peterson, Malone, Brodie, and the fight over the CBS broadcast. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there is the possibility of brief mention of the fringe theory ideas in the main space that might help. For instance, WP:FRINGE theory under WP:ONEWAY allows discussion of the fact that it is non-mainstream & unscientific and not taken seriously by the academic community. A sentence or two with WP:RS might be a solution.Ebanony (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the reference to the CBS broadcast is about. I am not going to rehash every critic's argument even in the main controversy article, but only the main points. Cmguy, you may have your opinion about the controversy, but the MA is not the determining factor in terms of talking about the field of Jeffersonian scholarship. No reliable sources discuss the MA as significant for their decision to exclude the Hemings descendants, but only as outliers. They are making their decision on different grounds than those of most historians. What is being covered by news organizations are the efforts by both Martha Wayles Jefferson and Hemings descendants, black and white, to reach across within the families and heal the legacy of slavery, as in the Monticello Community, a new organization. We have to stick to the sources. Parkwells (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, going through each critic's claims (unfounded criticism) is unnecessary. Any critic can say anything, and some do. What matters　is the mainstream academic community say (which is why they hate the academics). Some of those associations/critics do not fit the description of "academic" or "mainstream". Their "possibilities" or "evidence" are so thoroughly refuted no one takes them seriously; hence, there's no need to discuss their objections anymore than we would the bigfoot or UFO theorists and their so-called evidence. Yes, I'd say it's on that level. Let's see Parkwells work, and then work with him to use it in the best way. Ebanony (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, just wanted to say, let me know how I can help with the new content. I want to be more constructive.Ebanony (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I hope to have it up soon for help/comments. Am getting tired of this topic, quite frankly. Can't find my copy of Gordon-Reed's book on the controversy, which has such a good overview of the historiography, so will see what's online.Parkwells (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Parkwells, it's good to see efforts are being made to reduce much of the non-biographical material in the Controversy section, as there are several separate paragraphs that still give lip service to individual historians and their opinions. The Slavery/Hemmings topic still takes up several pages, with the subject of Jefferson's factual wife stuck in the middle of it all. Marriage and family needs its own section, and better coverage, and listed before any mention of controversy theory and opinion. Hemings had nothing to do with Jefferson's marriage. Also, the Reputation section is redundant as this section also goes on at length about historical opinion, is very one-sided and opinionated about Jefferson's overall reputation. And there are items that simply do not belong, such as this one Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend in Hamilton's favor:. Including this section, there is presently some seven pages that are devoted to Slavery/Hemings, most of it about Hemings. Do you have any ideas about how to deal with this section also? Again, there should be no more than a page (+ -) devoted to Hemings. Also, why doesn't the Controversy section outline the actual controversy? It's virtually all opinion. It needs to outline what facts have been established so readers can look at the issue more objectively. Readers need to see more facts and less opinion about reputation which varies greatly, something that is also not mentioned in this section. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Except the Hemings info doesn't discuss opinion or theory. Those are well established facts.Ebanony (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As anyone can read Ebanony the section indeed discusses opinion, most of which is referenced by name. This has been brought to your attention on numerous occasions and was in full view of your response, btw. Also, no one disputes the facts, what little we know of them. What is dismissed by many is the interpretation of the facts, so your cursory remark, here also, doesn't seem to have any real substance to it. We keep seeing the term Historical evidence used in the typical broad-brushed fashion, yet the present Controversy section makes very little mention of the facts, historical or otherwise. We know Jefferson was around during times of conception and we have DNA results that can only narrow the possibilities down to a couple of dozen other male members of the Jefferson family, to which you have replied to with the idea that there is no 'historical evidence' for the others, and so you readily dismiss them, all of them, out of hand. What other notable and deciding historical facts do we have that 'confirms' that Jefferson was 'father of them all'? What other historical evidence is there that excludes all of the others?? 'Lack of historical evidence' of more than 200 years ago doesn't exclude other possibilities. The present 'Controversy' section only makes cursory mention of the idea of 'conception times' and summary mention of DNA, facts that if taken alone do not amount to anything conclusive. The section instead outlines the opinion of a whole range of historians and establishments. If there is other historical evidence, facts, this needs to be included in the controversy section. Again, we need to see more of the facts, and less opinion of the facts. The section can summarize consensus by saying 'most historians' have concluded that Jefferson was the father but should not be written as to assume that all historians agree and that there is no room for 'controversy' which ironically is the name of the section.

Also, the the present version of the Reputation section is quite different than the version Rjensen authored] on 02:13, 13 November 2010. Notice his account is more broad minded and begins with -- Jefferson's reputation has many levels.. , -- while the present version is narrowly worded and has a condescending tone that attempts to train focus only on Indian treatment and slavery and speaks of historians as if they are one collective mass with the same brain. Attention needs to be brought to this section also. Gwillhickers (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just now tried to broaden the lede, since it has to cover TJ's reputation across 200 years. Peterson's 1960 study remains essential. I suggest that the recent quote from Sean Wilentz about TJ's changing reputation among historians is quite important, as it puts his declining reputation in a much broader perspective, including political and economic themes as well as race. Wilentz by the way generally is more pro-Jefferson than most scholars. Rjensen (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, you did a few other things in that edit you didn't mention. I removed the incorrect statement "Despite Jefferson's outspoken public opposition to slavery" for it has no factual basis, and you very well know it; I'm also restoring the part on Native Americans.Ebanony (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson's opposition to slavery is well established in the RS. Here are some cites: 1) "Jefferson's opposition to slavery was well known " in 1776 [Randall, Thomas Jefferson: A Life (2004) - Page 301; 2) "All aspects of Jefferson's public career suggest an opposition to slavery." Junius P. Rodriguez, Slavery in the United States (2007) v. 2 p 351; 3) "Jefferson advocated the emancipation of slaves, and end of the slave trade, and a prohibition on the spread of slavery and acquired territories....In his [1784] proposal slavery and involuntary servitude were prohibited in all territories of the United States -- North and South." (it lost by one vote) Boyd Childress, "Thomas Jefferson" in The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery (1997) volume 1 pp 379-80; 4) he included a plan for emancipation in his Notes on Virginia, says Cogliano Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy p 202. 5) Peter Onuf points to "his well-known opposition to slavery, most famously expressed in... his Notes on the state of Virginia". Peter Onuf, "Jefferson, Thomas" in Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery (1998) volume 1 page 446 Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true, Rjensen. Take Randall's book you quoted: "Willard Sterne Randall, in a recent popular biography, that has been thoroughly demolished by serious scholars, assures us that 'Jefferson's opposition to slavery was well known.' Similarly, Randall argues (with no evidence or citation) that Jefferson 'favored gradual emancipation' but that his plan was rejected by a legislative committee that he chaired". The reality is "Jefferson never proposed such a design...For Malone and Randall, it was necessary to mistate Jefferson's record" in what Finkelman calls their "unrestrained exaggeration or misrepresentation" of Jefferson's role in slavery. Finkelman, TJ and Antislavery, p 199-200, 1994. BTW, his book A Life, was published in the early 90's (he never saw fit to correct his errors in his newer version?). Rodriquez statement "All aspects of Jefferson's public career suggest an opposition to slavery" is a rehash of the discredited Malone/Randall nonsense & simply cannot be taken seriously.

Finkelman and David Brion Davis note that Jefferson made anti-slavery statements up until about 1785, and after that was largely silent, as well as not taking actions similar to some of his cohort, such as Washington, who freed his slaves in his will, and Robert Carter III, who freed nearly 500 slaves in his lifetime.Parkwells (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You quoted Cogliano who said Jefferson had an emancipation plan in Notes, and Boyd Childress who said "Jefferson advocated the emancipation of slaves". Except Jefferson never submitted that plan, and arguments made using this line have been discredited: "This analysis assumes that Jefferson wanted to do something about slavery. There is simply no strong evidence for such a conclusion. He not only failed on this point, but he also prevented others from proposing gradual emancipation when his colleagues approached him with draft legislation that would have brought gradual emancipation to Virginia, he declined to add it to the proposed revisions because 'it was better that this should be kept back' and only offered as an amendment." TJ and Antislavery, Finkelman, p 210-1, 1994.

The fact he supported an end to the slave trade proves nothing; those scholars "conflate opposition to the importation of slaves with opposition to slave holding" (Finkelman, 213), despite the fact it's a refuted red herring discussed in Flawed Keepers of the Flame, Peter Wallenstein The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 229-260. Rjensen & Childress ignore relevant research. I'd also like to know why you ignore William Cohen, David Brion Davis, Winthrop Jordon, John Chester Miller - the majority on this topic - say "Jefferson was not in fact antislavery and that he did little to end the institution" (Finkelman, 202). The erroneous statement in the Jefferson article had to go; we cannot rely on faulty facts/discredited popular writers. The new version "Abraham Lincoln in particular was heavily indebted to Jefferson for his political philosophy of liberty and equality in the battle against slavery." Likewise has to go because it is not correct. Further, it contradicts the info already in it "Historian Peter Onuf stated that "Jefferson's failure to address the problem of slavery generally and the situation of his own human chattel...is in itself the most damning possible commentary on his iconic standing as 'apostle of freedom'." Ebanony (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

edit break

And since you've brought it up, Gwillhickers we'll have no rehash of the January attempt to distort the record on Native Americans. Jefferson's behaviour is correctly described, and if you want any changes, you need WP:RS & should make your proposals here. As for the Hemings material, you're repeating the same WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories of "other possibilities" & maybe it wasn't Jefferson at all. Your comments have been referred to the fringe noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, and cannot be debated here or included in the main space. Ebanony (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the entire idea of controversy, an idea whose platform you have used to justify mention in the lede and for the volumes of material committed to this one topic, involves various and often opposing points of view. Your attempts to block discussion of other points of view with claims of "fringe theory", a term you use habitually, broad-brushed style throughout your edit history, doesn't wash, as the only way a controversy can be presented is by presenting the various points of view. But all this is more of your evasive sidewinding. I simply requested that you include more facts, more historical evidence in the so called 'controversy' section, and I specifically asked you about the evidence that has excluded all the other male Jefferson family members as possibilities, and that this be presented in the section also. Is there a problem? There is such evidence, isn't there? And making mention of this would certainly give more credence to contemporary consensus. Why doesn't the Controversy section explain to the reader why the other Jefferson male members can't be possibilities, for any of the six different times of conception? What we have mostly in that section is a line up of contemporary opinions based on facts that are not presented to the reader. You need to include these facts and explain how this has eliminated the other possibilities. You simply can't say, 'historians say so'. This is intellectually delinquent and not fair to the readers who turn to these pages for an objective view. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"I specifically asked you about the evidence that has excluded all the other male Jefferson family members as possibilities" - Gwillhickers, you already know "The historical record...is devoid of any...connection between Sally and Jefferson's brother Randolph or Randolph's sons or any other Jefferson for that matter" Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings Annette Gordon-Reed pg x [34] & Dr. Foster's DNA study the "absence of historical evidence" made or other "possibilities...unlikely" [35]. We've been telling you for months, but you're a denier of these facts & falsely claim there are other possibilities (not that we have got evidence for); we reported you and the noticeboard said of your fringe theories: "I see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians. You and other editors have correctly insisted on keeping to sourcing policy and should continue to do so" [36]. These conspiracy theories will not improve the article; stop posting them. Ebanony (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never denied these facts, my inquiry was simply asking if there are other facts that singled the other Jefferson males out of the realm of possibilities. You say, the "historical record...is devoid" and that they have been dismissed as possibilities because, why..lack of evidence? I wanted to be clear on that. In other words 'mainstream consensus' has rested their opinion on no more than Jefferson's presence around conception times, DNA evidence that points at numerous other possibilities and the lack of no record for the whereabouts of the other male Jefferson family members. Are you sure there is no other significant event or item to consider? This is it? This is all 'mainstream consensus' has rested their case on? -- The controversy section still needs to outline the evidence, such that it is, behind the actual controversy and inform the reader that 'contemporary consensus' has reached their conclusions with no more to go on than general DNA evidence and Jefferson's mere presence around his own home. It should also note that there is a considerable body of historians who do not make these conclusions, given the sketchy nature of the 'evidence'. If this is a controversy the reader should understand why it has become one. It's unfair to keep these facts from the reader all the while the section parades, by name, one selected historian or establishment after another. Now you want to mention awards by name also. This material is not biographical and focuses on individuals and items other than Jefferson and Hemings and should not be specifically covered by name, in a biography. Also, the present account tends to pass off Jefferson's involvement as fact, not theory, simply because some historians agree about the sketchy evidence, mostly from academic circles ala Reed and her contemporaries. You can use terms like, it is generally accepted theory or it has been concluded by most.. but it should specify theory as there is simply too many pieces of the puzzle missing. This is accurate editing. No one is asking you to include unsourced material here. That's a distraction I am sure the noticeboard will come to realize now that I have informed them about and outlined various accounts and because my focus remains on undue weight and biographical policies, and now, that you make sure the reader has all of the facts, with mention that few of them are actually known. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "it is generally accepted theory" is unsourced material. The best experts consider it fact, and you've got no reliable mainstream sources saying otherwise. That, along with your speculation violates WP:RS & WP:FRINGE.Ebanony (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, the present controversy section, sourced, already mentions that opinions vary i.e. (Not all historians were convinced, and some continue to disagree with these conclusions.). The Controversy section still needs to outline what facts the reliable sources have rested their conclusions on. Are we to understand that the other Jefferson males have all been dismissed as possibilities 'for all six' of the Hemings' children simply because there is no historical account for their whereabouts more than 200 years ago? You seem to be in possession of the various Hemings specific texts, please tell us, is there any other significant fact they have rested this conclusion on? The present Controversy section is sketchy in this area. The reader needs a factual perspective of the controversy which will allow him or her to reach a conclusion of their own. You seem to want to skip all of that and just lull the readers into a view by parading academic consensus before them. Btw, the 'experts' are only as good as the facts they are dealing with. If everyone is in possession with all known facts, then they are equally the 'experts'. The controversy is over the interpretation of the same set of facts. Many (most?) of those who have differing opinions have based their conclusions on the same set of facts the "experts" have, so in the future, please don't try to 'ace' the discussion with this sort of vain overture to expertise. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For about a week or 2 you demanded reducing or even removing the controversy section (which Parkwells is working on), and now you want to add information to it?? So now it's too small? Astonishing. Perhaps we should make a brief mention of those deniers who push this fringe idea. Plenty of WP:RS on this fringe theory & that some have a clear agenda. I'm not adamant, but other articles do this. Ebanony (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The section needs to be reduced and mention only made to the few facts that are known, with summary coverage of historical opinion. Clear now? Also, your habitual usage of the term fringe theory comes off like a teenage who just discovered a new word. There is nothing 'fringe' about mentioning divided and varied opinion about what facts are known. Sorry. try another angle. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is like calling the blue sky yellow - facts don't matter to you. There is no "divided opinion", and you can't provide mainstream reliable sources saying otherwise. Hence, there is no discussion on including your fringe ideas.Ebanony (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Directly above and elsewhere I have insisted on presenting, the facts, all of them, so the reader doesn't have to rely on the sort of accounts you have been known to resort to. Now here you are saying "facts don't matter to you"?? As for your notion that there is no divided opinion, even the present controversy section admits this, and this is now the second time you have been informed of this (ie.'does not respond'). Again, you read one thing and say another. Please make an effort to retain objectivity before making edits. Also, who decides what sources are "mainstream" and which ones are not? (please respond) That's yet another item that needs to be cited. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, guys - perhaps the tone could be lowered here? Editors interested in this issue should read the sources, since it's unlikely a summary on this site of material that now occupies several books' worth of paper can satisfy everyone. But here is how the NY Times (mainstreame enough?) interprets the position of the TJ Foundation: "For several years now, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns Monticello, has held the position that the third president of the United States probably had one if not several children with Hemings, based on DNA analysis and persuasive circumstantial evidence; namely, that Jefferson seems to have been at Monticello whenever Hemings conceived."/"As a result, the tour-guide talking point for the centuries-old gossip about Jefferson and Hemings has changed from the “possible but not likely” of a decade ago to the “highly likely” of today."[2]Parkwells (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe my tone is normally friendly and my activity has a long history of compromise here and elsewhere, but when someone makes repeated false statements here and on various noticeboards about my activity, in print, a matter of record, I feel my tone in this case is warranted. -- More importantly, the account as you have presented it here is acceptable, and does not try to pass off the affair as fact. The usage of terms like "highly likely" is acceptable as it doesn't try to turn a theory into a fact. I have no problem acknowledging that most contemporary historians have gone along with this theory. I take exception to any effort made to present the topic as fact when there are simply too many things that remain unknown. Again, we have DNA evidence that points to numerous possibilities and we have a 'historical record' that documents Jefferson's presence, in his own home. But because there is no 'historical record' for the other possibilities academic consensus has 'concluded' that Jefferson is the father of not one, but all six children. I find this quite amazing. In any event, so long as the section presents the topic as a theory that most (?) historians have subscribed to, this is acceptable. The section should also relate to the reader what few facts are indeed known and that therefore this 'controversy' is by no means concluded. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson's rhetoric idealized individual freedom and liberty, yet, he had his slaves whipped, forced them to work in the nailery, slept with Sally Hemings, and worked in the fields. Jefferson freed only 7 slaves. Another Virginia slave owner freed all his slaves and paid the price of the Virginia people's wrath. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I look back into history I remain in utter disbelief of how harsh and brutal people were towards one another, not only towards different races, religions and cultures, but towards their own kind. Slaves were indeed whipped for running away, soldiers were shot for running away, in some societies hands were chopped off for stealing and women altogether were simply at the mercy of men. I will concur that some of Jefferson's slaves ran away and were whipped, as were all other slaves for running away, but when you compare people like Jefferson to the leaders of other countries during his time most often there is simply no comparison. Do you know of any? Jefferson owned slaves but this does not detract from his efforts at freeing the people of America from the snobbery of British rule. I take exception to those who attempt to single out people like Jefferson and present them in such a way as to lead the reader into thinking that he (and others) were unusual in this advent. I also have to take exception to those who, while pointing the finger, ignore their own country's bloody and tyrannical legacies, often in an attempt to obscure their own histories, most often for political reasons. Also remember that the institution of slavery was almost entirely chartered or financed by European banks, and many of the goods, esp cotton and tobacco, produced by slavery were shipped to countries that, while pointing the finger at the USA, had no problem enjoying the fruits of slave labor. I don't mind the criticism, just so long as it's not asserted by these sorts of hypocrites. (No, this is not directed at you personally Cm', it's just a general comment and perspective on this issue.)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Slavery - sources need improvement

Given the major historians who have written about Jefferson, the article would be strengthened by using some of them, rather than by citing Willard Sterne Randall, a popular biographer, and Junius P. Rodriguez, who has published mostly as a general editor. They are hardly authorities for his stands on slavery.Parkwells (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Randall's work has been severely criticised: Peter Onuf's "Peerless Tom" New York Times Book Review 243 (26 Sept 1993) & Jan Lewis "Pieces of a President" Washington Post Book World 23 (Aug 1993). These academics do not consider his work to be "a serious work of scholarship", and on the question of slavery, Finkelman says he's totally unreliable. As to Rodriguez, I can't understand the reasoning behind relying on him other than perhaps some editors do not have access to the other books since they're not online. I put a partial list of some editors who should be included a few days ago.Ebanony (talk)

Judith J. Fossett remarked the Thomas Jefferson is a complicated American icon. Contractions in Jefferson's attitudes or world view on slavery may never be understood completely, or concerning Wikipedia, the readers need to be given the best informtation and make their own opinions on Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that Willard Sterne Randall is not a good source. There are other historians who are more authoritative about Jefferson and slavery than he is. Similarly, Halliday's 2001 book is considered a popular history, rather than one by a specialist.Parkwells (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Progress in Mid-March

This page is fortunate to have a few editors who possess great sums of knowledge that goes beyond the standard and common knowledge most of us are otherwise familiar with regarding Jefferson. Though I am in disagreement with some of the views or rigid conclusions made by a couple of editors their depth of knowledge can not be denied. It is my hope that this knowledge will be used to build the entire article which should receive the same in-depth and detailed coverage that the Hemings/slavery topics have received. I have read the various consensus-talk about 'historiography' between Parkwells, Rjensen, Cmguy777, etc, but have noticed that the 'Controversy' section continues to grow once again. It was trimmed down to about a page and a half after the consensus call on March 2 but has slowly grown again to about 3 pages. Just a reminder, that there is already a separate page for Thomas Jefferson and slavery and for Sally Hemings (pages which for some reason have not gotten the same attention as the topics have received here). Again, this is a biography and most of the (in-depth) material in the Controversy and Slavery sections is material specific to these different topics and is again quite lengthy. I and I'm sure the rest of the editors would like to know when this material is going to be relocated to the aforementioned pages (if it is not there already) and the sections here in the Jefferson biography presented in summary form. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Have been trying to rethink how to approach this; have had some other things to take care of - some editors wanted major points of view represented but once you get into that, you have lists of names and opinions because it is chiefly about interpretation of the evidence. I think I will simply list what is known and why historians believe these facts lead to a conclusion, with summarizing other views at the end and send them to the main article on the controversy.Parkwells (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

First Gwillhickers, Parkwells has agreed to do quite a laborious task, and the rest await his work; we cannot help him in that until that time, and if he says he's got a full plate, then I'm inclined to give him some time. When he's ready, then others can assist. Third, I haven't added anything to that section so I don't know about the size. Since everyone's agreed to reduce it, you'll soon have what you want. Patience is a virtueEbanony (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Realizing the extent of the task before Parkwells and others I have only inquired and have made the usual reminders. Bear in mind that I have made no deletions to the controversy section, even after consensus weighed in, realizing it would be more appropriate for people like Parkwells and yourself who (at the risk of sounding patronizing) are most familiar with the topic. It is not my intention to sanitize or hide this topic. It should indeed have its own section and get adequate and summary coverage with all the links needed to direct attention to the several other pages that deal with this subject in great depth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me add, one of the reasons I edited out some of the info/sections is because their violations weren't improving the article. I agree other sections should be better, and await your suggestions/proposals.Ebanony (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If items are unsourced of course they should get attention. What I don't understand is that the topics removed were common topics, easy to find sources for. With the great amounts of knowledge and text you are (apparently) in possession of I don't understand why you gave these items the 'axe' rather than to supply a few general cites and even more (needed) material. In my Wiki' travels when I see an item that I can easily provide a source for I do so rather than deleting it, leaving a void in the page and possibly causing other 'disagreements'. I will see what I can do about the other topics, but as concerns American history I only have a limited amount of hard text at my disposal (and the local public library is in a sorry state of affairs with just a few general texts on American history, nothing specific to Jefferson, or anyone else for that matter). I have a few general texts (some very old) I can use. If I add material to the other sections it will probably be sourced with what I have and what I can find on-line (which sometimes offers great sources, but not always). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe any controversial sections can be sorted out by finding out where editors are in agreement. For example, I believe that all the editors support that Thomas Jefferson owned slave and that these slaves worked on a plantations collectively referred to as Monticello. Sally Hemings. Either Jefferson had sex with Sally Hemings or he did not. A concensus believes he did. The article does note objections. Jefferson's racism needs to be addressed in the article. This has been addressed. There may be disagreement with using the word racist. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cm' there is no dispute than I know of that Jefferson did or did not own slaves. The dispute revolves around how he treated those slaves, and in particular Sally Hemings. What ever is sorted out by editors should culminate into a summary presentation. We can allude to Jefferson's 'views' towards Africans but we should do so in the context that racial and cultural barriers were the way of the world then, Jefferson being little different. Today the word 'racist' or 'racism' are emotionally charged and highly derogatory words and using them can distort the real image of the person. Using the term losly to describe someone today makes it seem like the subject is from a different planet. We should speak of Jefferson's views towards blacks in the context of world history. There was a similar discussion about this concerning the lede which now reads ..he held views on the racial inferiority of Africans common for this period in time.
-- As for Hemings, we don't know the nature of the relationship so therefore we can not speak good or bad of it in the main space. To describe any relationship simply by saying Jefferson may have had sex with Hemings is sort of a narrow presentation and only appeals to baser interests, be they sexual, or politically motivated (e.g. not historically motivated) and tends to discount a whole range of human behavior that may have prevailed in spite of various speculations 200 years later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've made major changes to the section on Sally Hemings and the controversy, trying to focus on the most important facts and contentions. Please don't make any changes yet, as I'm still adding page numbers to the cites from Gordon-Reed. No doubt this can still be shortened, but some editors seemed concerned to give a flavor of the historiography. The main article will deal more directly with various historians' points of view. At this point, I think there needs to be emphasis on the major conclusions; while showing what historians consider significant.Parkwells (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be glad to present some research. However, I'm confused as to which topic to focus on? Are we still on the Hemings subject? Are we on the slavery subject? Racial views? What shall I present research for? --Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I'm looking for consensus in this article on the section "Life as a widower/Sally Hemings and her children/Controversy, etc." That is, basic agreement on this approach, if we can reach that. It can probably be shortened more in the discussion of historians' viewpoints. Separately in draft is User:Parkwells/Jefferson-Hemings controversy, which interested editors are invited to comment on/contribute to, or wait until I post it. It would be good if we could agree to use that (JHC) as the main place for discussion of opinions/facts, etc. Other editors have made separate articles on Sally Hemings, Harriet Hemings, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings. I think these should be about the people themselves, and not just endless rehashing in all these separate places of whether Jefferson did or didn't do it. The controversy was about Jefferson and his actions.Parkwells (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Other people have suggested that the "Slavery" section in this article and other sections need more work. That's up to other editors.Parkwells (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a historical encyclopedia. Why censor words such as "racism" or "sexual nature" because those might get people excited or offended? Please give the readers credit for being intelligent informed persons capable of making their own opinions on Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cm', why are you so intent on using those particular words? Virtually everyone was "racist" in those days. Even the Adolf Hitler page, which refers to racism, doesn't refer to Hitler as a 'racist'. On the Pol Pot page the word 'racist' doesn't even appear. As I have already explained, words like 'racist' (which implies hatred and other such ideas) are highly charged and emotional words and today carry with them all the baggage that has been added by activists and hypocrites alike and therefore distort the image. There are other ways to define Jefferson views without calling him names. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done except I must agree with Gwillhickers that the editors seem obsessed with all things racial. Far too little depth concerning Jefferson's philosophy, for example, and far too much depth concerning the alleged, yet probable, affair with Hemmings and slavery. If Jefferson had children with a white mistress, would so much space be used to talk about the affair or the children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.7.135 (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the Controversy, Facts, Etc?

Is it possible people are satisfied? It seemed necessary to cover some of the background. It becomes more clear that the question is not whether circumstantial evidence plus DNA is enough to determine that Jefferson had the relationship, but to wonder how historians for so long accepted such flimsy evidence and essentially nothing more than family denials that he hadn't, especially given the resemblances that people identified among the Hemings children to Jefferson, what people knew about men in power relationships, the planter-slave hierarchy, and the widespread concubinage that white planters enjoyed with enslaved women. It's interesting to note that most of the Jefferson biographies were written after the end of Reconstruction, with the restoration of white supremacy and elevation of the Founding Fathers in popular imagination. He was a private man and exercised discretion, but it does not appear he decided to be celibate after his wife died.Parkwells (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No comments can be a good thing! Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Great effort Parkwells. Esp about including the list of facts. We should remember that historians and others couldn't go along with the idea of Jefferson's paternal involvement 'because' the evidence was flimsy, as you say. Now we have DNA evidence that narrows things down. As for the names and appearances of Hemings' children, while compelling as historical evidence goes, we must be fair to the discussion and acknowledge that there is still plenty of room for reasonable doubt about who in fact was the father -- of all six children. Esp since accounts are more than 200 years old and far from complete. As for the "power relationships" and such, that embarks on further speculations. One could easily assert that since some of Hemings' children had names of people liked or loved by Jefferson that this is historical evidence that there was perhaps something special between Jefferson and Hemings who shared not one, but six children together. Other evidence of a special involvement is that Jefferson indeed freed the Hemings slaves. Speculation is a two way street, however this part of the discussion probably goes beyond the grasp of most of contemporary academia who for the most part seem to go along with the peer and political pressures prevalent in these circles today where they assume that any matters between Jefferson and Hemings was malevolent or disgusting. It was good to see you include items like where the three Hemings boys were given an apprenticeship with a master carpenter, etc. In any event, the Slavery and Controversy sections still takes up most of the page space in the article with non-biographical references to some items e.g. "Annette Gordon-Reed demonstrated.." and also with specific items about specific people e.g. "The biographer Henry Randall accepted this family testimony a ..." Is this material included in any of the several other pages dedicated to these topics? The 'Facts' section is nice, but overall, there is still other things that can be more summarized, esp items regarding historians. -- I am still hoping that with the wealth of knowledge among the editors here that it will also be used to build the rest of the Jefferson page with the same enthusiasm used for the Hemings topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)