Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Jefferson and whipping

Aha! I think I just found where the idea that Jefferson had his slaves whipped only on their arms and legs came from. Fawn Brodie, An Intimate History, p. 288: "specifically forbidding his overseers to use the whip 'but in extremities'." That means only in dire cases, not on their arms or legs. I was always doubtful of that claim, which has been removed in this recent round of edits. The quote comes in the middle of a story about a French visitor being dismayed at seeing TJ brandish a small whip when they visited the fields. Brodie believed it was just "a piece of theater," but still found the scene "troubling." Let's be sure not to restore the arms and legs bit unless someone has a source that says so. Yopienso (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For those who can't seem to leave the slavery section alone and are of the mind to reintroduce select details into this section, again, they'll do well to review the general picture regarding treatment of slaves, and of course for perspective and balance, we'll have to reinclude details on how Jefferson provided for them. -- Gwillhickers 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, Yopienso. It sounded weird to me, too, and was contradicted by other sources, including J. himself. It sounds like a plausible explanation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : . How is this contradicted by Jefferson himself? Given Jefferson's character there doesn't seem to be anything "weird" about it at all. In any case Webster's dictionary defines Extremity (singular usage here) as 1. The end - limit, outside, utmost point. 2. A remote part of the body: limb, hand, foot; See appendage. Whereas Extreme is defined thusly: 1. In or to the greatest degree; very great or greatest !extreme pain" 2. to an excessive degree; immoderate. 3. far from what is usual or conventional. And remember, whippings according to slave's testimony and other sources, occurred at the hand of overseers and almost always when Jefferson was away so I don't see this rehashed issue as all that important to the Jefferson biography. Also, when you read an account about "whipping" you have to consider the source. Is it a modern source were there things are frequently hyped and distorted through a narrow minded late 20th and 21st century lens by those who have a remote acquaintence with ideas like hardship, struggle, survival, etc? Another view from the classroom? -- Gwillhickers 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if in exstremis, Latin for grave or extreme circumstances --- has a French equivalent which translates into English as "in extremities" vesus the English "on extremities", the arms and legs. If not, the misunderstanding is confounding sound-alike words among three different languages.

In extremis would be for a severe infraction like running away to escape. "On extremities" would be for a light infraction as with a child. Switching on the arms and legs is how children were guided by the Biblical "rod" in the 1700s, slave and free, bringing a red welt without bleeding.

The whole discussion is easily confused because "spare the rod, spoil the child" of ancient Israel refers not to beating with a rod, but to a shepherd nudging to guide a sheep with his staff, and certainly without blows that would permanently alienate the animal in his care, and so render it uncontrollable in a herd. (I a parallel but not exact way, I am opposed to corporate punishment in schools for fear of permanently alienating children who might otherwise by guided by reason.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson, brilliant as he was, also was known for his rather loose orthography, even considering the standards of the time. Maybe he just used standard hacker generalisation to create a useful plural. And I fully expect at least one mistake in this statement.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

TVH, thanks for your excellent insights. Jefferson's is quoted as saying that whippings degraded the slaves in their own eyes so there was a natural inclination to deal with them, as they generally were, in a manner that would not perminently alienate them. Extreme whippings would seem to be a self defeating practice as they would promote runaway slaves also, which were rare. -- Gwillhickers 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yp' is it your intention to start adding details to the slavery section again? If not, what is the point to this thread? -- Gwillhickers 19:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As Stephan readily discerned, I was catching a former error and making sure it is not restored.

The entire quote is, "I forgot to ask the favor of you to speak to Lilly as to the treatment of the nailers. it would destroy their value in my estimation to degrade them in their own eyes by the whip. this therefore must not be resorted to but in extremities. as they will be again under my government, I would chuse they should retain the stimulus of character," and is from this letter in the National Archives. Yopienso (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks like in extremis to me, were I the editor of the papers. Jefferson is against using a whip, preferring the internal governance of character. Back to love as the mainspring of human action, unless corrupted. And as all men are created equally "free and independent", slavery was unnatural; it had to be coerced. And in its coercion, it corrupted both the one held in slavery and master alike, away from love as the mainspring of human action. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You could be correct, but in either case it would seem to boil down to a similar idea, as Jefferson was obviously opposed to the idea as is evident in his letters and writings and in particular the way he dealt with the slave boy caught stealing nails from the nailry, which seems to be among the most insightful of examples. -- Gwillhickers 18:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes opposed to whipping, hence his selling away a runaway rather than flogging, which maims and can put the victim into shock and lead to death. Flogging is absolutely barbaric to modern sensibility, but not something Jefferson countenanced as I recall, however widespread in practice it may have been among his contemporaries. This concern for the individual held in slavery is akin to his interest in establishing a free republic of freed slaves in Africa, the colonization movement, a concern for the life lived out in complete liberty for the individual in Liberia versus being emancipated into the racist regime suffered by freed blacks in 1820s Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson flogged runaways and then sold them. At least he did in one case, that of James Hubbard, according to his own words, reporte in multiple reliable sources. He may have been lenient among his peers, but he was clearly not the saint some here are trying to make him out to be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Burr-Hamilton Duel

The significance of the Burr-Hamilton Duel to Jefferson's biography is that it allowed Burr's replacement on the 1804 ticket. That is now treated in the first paragraph of the 1804 election and second term. Burr's dueling is now linked to the Burr-Hamilton duel article, so the section in all its detail has become redundant.

Propose deleting Burr-Hamilton Duel subsection altogether. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Have split feelings on this one. The duel involved TJ's vice president and this famous event is sort of a chronological landmark in Jefferson's political career. On that note a subsection seems to be in order and it's short enough, but there should be more said about Jefferson here. e.g.mention of why Jefferson dropped Burr as a running mate just before the duel. After the duel and Burr's subsequent flight from New York (to Georgia) Jefferson did not advance Burr any political or personal support when he finally returned to New York. Your call. If you elect to remove the sub section make sure these things are well covered and placed in an appropriate (sub) section. Jefferson's letter should still be mentioned. Btw, dueling was a common practice at this time so I removed "ancient code" from the sub section, as referring to it as such makes it seem like it was some sort of moral policy that was resurrected and seldomly used. -- Gwillhickers 18:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Giving this one some thought. The existing detail could come under a section on Burr, Burr - duel and treason. That section could account for the Burr duel and then his subsequent movements until trial in a summary fashion adding my draft paragraph on Burr conspiracy with a link to the trial article above. Burr is certainly a significant figure of the age, and he influences events across first and second term. So I would expand the Burr section as a topical one on Burr, the last in the first administration as a transition to the second administration section chronological treatment. Then we could drop the Burr trial paragraph in the second administration section, maybe, since it would be covered at 'Burr'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Humane treatment of slaves a fact or evaluation?

Whether or not Jefferson treated his slaves humanely is not a fact but an evaluation, that is relative to a lot of other things, such as other slave owners treatment, and ones general views of slavery. To say as a fact that he treated his slaves humanely is not possible even when many sources suggest that was the case. We can state that eyewitnesses stated that he did so and that historians have agreed. But that still does not make it a fact. We can also give specific examples of how his treatment compared to other slaveowners treatment of their slaves. But saying that it was human always will be someone's evaluation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. The same can be said for many statements in the article including "most historians", "contradiction", "paradox", "complex man", etc . If we applied this methodology throughout the article it would be a "reported" mess. We report the way the RS's report. -- Gwillhickers 19:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No we dont. When RS give their opinions we attribute that in text. If three sources say that "Jefferson was a good man" then we dont say that he was a good man we say that he has been described as such, and by whom. Likewise if a source says that he was the "Greatest president". The problem here is that it relies on an assumption that it is possible to treat slaves humanely. That is to me, and I would guess a large amount of the worlds population a contradiction in terms. That means that the claim that he treated his slaves humanely is necessarily relative to either other slaveowners of his day, or to the norms of someone who thinks that it is possible to be a human slaveowner. Either way this problem needs to be addressed by in-text attribution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes we do, and have been. Throughout history slaves, POW's, inmates, etc, have been treated humanely. Apparently you find this amazing. There are simply too many "evaluations" to be saying source 'A' says this, and source 'B' says that -- esp when multiple sources say the same basic thing. Btw, you advanced your own POV by saying treating slaves humanely is a "contradiction in terms". Soldiers were marched off to war -- yet they were treated humanely by their commanding officers. By your way of thinking, since they were in a war, they could never be treated humanly. There is a statement that says "most historians" have concluded that Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings' children. This is an evaluation also. Should we say here that Source 'C' is of the opinion that...? Other statement mentions "contradictions", "complex man", etc. Why did you single out just the one statement? -- Gwillhickers 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is my POV that it is a contradiction in term, one which I know is shared by many. In my opinion there is no humane way that a person can own another person, and exercise ownership of their body. But just as this is my opinion, it is someone elses opinion that it is not a contradiction in term and that one can be a human slaveowner, and I recognize the existence of that opinion. But I reject the notion that this opinion can be presented as fact in an encyclopedia, regardless of how many sources say so. Your comparison with soldiers is irrelevant. The fact that many sources say that he treated his slaves humanely do not make it any less an evaluation, and in any case it requires a point of reference to what is or isn't human which is any all and any cases a question. I will establish an RfC on this issue if you insist that Jefferson's alleged human treatment be described as fact rather than attributed to the sources where it is so described.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are other bad phrasings in the article where an evaluation could do with a better attribution, but I noted this one because it is glaring as it amounts to a tacit acceptance of the legitimacy of the institution of slavery itself. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your POV, however there are many who also do not share this POV and see matters as more than a 2 dimensional advent. Again, unless you're prepared to treat all "evaluations" in this article in the same way, we present the content the way the RS's present it. I think at this point you need to be citing policy violations if you want to continue advancing your POV. -- Gwillhickers 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are being borderline uncivil in suggesting that I am advancing my Pov by demanding attribution to an evaluation. In-text attribution of potentially controversial statements is standard policy. I am filing an RfC below so that we can let consensus decide the wording. Your claim that all evaluations in the article must be treated the same is absurd.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You admitted your pov and the only thing absurd here is the double standard you are advancing. -- Gwillhickers 20:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Further reductions

Now that we're all agreeable about reducing content, the Jefferson–Hemings controversy section is now larger than the Slaves and slavery section. Btw, the 'controversy section should be a sub section to the slavery section and whose size should be in proportion to it. About one paragraph, not five. -- Gwillhickers 22:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

{e/c} Agreed.

Thank you. I have just trimmed a few more words and sentences for style or redundancy. The only controversial edit was to remove the assertion that TJ didn't make his slaves work harder than free farmers. First, slave labor and free labor are not analogous. Second, the experiences of free farmers were so varied the statement is too over-generalized to be meaningful. I left the superfluous references at the end of the second paragraph since at this point I think I have no business messing with citations. They need to be trimmed to two, though.

I removed the following as redundant, but paste it in here in case anyone wants the citation, which may be better than the citation to the same information that I left it. Jefferson drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of slaves. (Peterson, 1986]] pp.152–153, 285) In 1807, Congress passed and Jefferson signed into law a bill prohibiting the transatlantic slave trade beginning on the first day of 1808, the earliest date permitted by the Constitution.

Cheers while you lift a pint, Gwillhickers! Yopienso (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The slavery section and the Hemings sections seem to be equivalent in size. Reducing the Hemings section to one paragraph is too much.--Joe bob attacks (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In chronological order, Martha (wife) and Martha (daughter, whitehouse hostess) and Sally (concubine/common law wife) should get about the same amount of coverage, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, in the same sub-section, domestic relations of Thomas Jefferson. --- with links to the articles on the three women. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Historians have written far more about Sally than Martha and Patsy put together. We give the same weight mainstream sources do. Yopienso (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, your statement is actually an indictment against the objectivity and neutrality of many modern historians who feel a theory is more important than Jefferson's factual wife. We need to include factual material more than we do trendy opinion. If it was an established fact that Jefferson fathered every one of Hemings' children your claim might carry more weight. Imo, it's sort of unethical to try to push a POV by citing rules and regulations. Thank goodness there are other rules that can be invoked in the event someone games the system to advance a socio-politically motivated POV. In any event, we finally have the sections scaled down to sane proportions. Let's try to keep them that way. -- Gwillhickers 17:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the very crux of the problems with your editing, Gwillhickers, that (I suppose) prompted Binksternet to take you to ANI: You fail to realize that what you (and I, for that matter) call "trendy opinion" is, in fact, the mainstream academic consensus. Wikipedia is not the place for you to argue with the experts, but to summarize their views. You are correct that, weighted properly, we should also include the reliable dissenters. There are blogs and independent publishers that would welcome your "indictment against the objectivity and neutrality of many modern historians," because that has been the essence of your pages and pages of comments at this article. You want it to reflect your views rather than the current academic trends. Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Yopiendso, your statements above are rife with assumptions. First, I wouldn't be referring to the failed ANI hearing to artificially prop up other failed statements. The so called "experts" you broadly refer to comprise a body of professors and historians who stand on both sides of the controversy fence. I have outlined this reality time and again. Though some sources say "most" historians (i.e.PBS, a media source; TJF, with its agenda; Smithsonian, a government source; etc) we really don't know how much "most", or if indeed it is true at all, as the claim has never been proven -- not even qualified with an explanation, anywhere. Have you ever noticed? Discounting sources simply because of age exercises the worst sort of prejudice and should not resorted to in a forum like Wikipedia. Sources should be judged on the truth and objectivity they enfold within their pages. -- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the crux. Gwillhickers pushes the advances of modern historiography downward in importance relative his own opinion which appears to me to be founded on 1950s-style biographies and even hagiographies.[1][2] Our readers deserve more than a rehashing of the greatness of the Sage of Monticello—they should be introduced to modern discussion of how TJ was not such an avid fighter against slavery.

Specific to this conversation, I think if we accurately balance Sally Hemings in relation to the amount of literature discussing her we will end up somewhat lopsided in her favor. Certainly there is more written about her than about TJ's wife or daughter, so the proposal of covering them in 1:1:1 ratio is not feasible. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with [Binksternet] on this one. As this "controversy" has raged on for more than 200 years, it is evident that more has been written on the Hemings' than his wife or daughter. Perhaps that is a disservice to those ladies, but it's just the way it is. It's not Wikipedia's job to right that wrong. Joe bob attacks (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : It's not WP's job to perpetuate that wrong either. Editors are the one's who decide what sources are reliable, as is done all the time throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a list of sources to 'use' or 'not use'. Editors simply can't look at the date of publication and claim that a given source is 'automatically' reliable. Well, at least you admit the wrong. Sally Hemings has been exploited as a victim with no mind of her own in many "modern" history texts like few other woman. Few of them entertain the idea that she may have seduced Jefferson or that Jefferson was in love with a woman who was mostly white and whom he may have considered as such. Further, Sally was hardly a slave by conventional standards and there are modern sources that entertain such ideas.

• Ishida, 2010
• Tillet, 2012
• Brooten, 2010
• Haliday, 2009
• Onuf, Lewis, 1999
• Woodson, 2001

-- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what you're driving at. Are you saying Sally had a mind of her own or didn't? that she did or did not seduce TJ? that she was held in bondage or that she wasn't?

Do you realize your first two sources discuss fictional narratives of TJ?

Do you realize that Mia Bay, whose essay you link to in the third source, is an aggressive feminist scholar of African-American history?

Do you realize Halliday's psychohistory has been panned by the academy? Yopienso (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen clearly above, I maintain Hemings has often been written off as a victim with no mind of her own, and that the possibility that she may have seduced Jefferson, a lonely widower, is not often advanced -- no doubt for the fear that it would reduce the scandal on Jefferson's behalf. Btw, the narratives are only fiction inasmuch as the theory itself may be a product of fiction. Like many others, they discuss the viable possibilities, narrative or not. Are you also suggesting that African America feminists are not reliable as sources? There are other sources, some of which I've just added. If you are concerned about missing content in the controversy section we should mention that Jefferson could have been seduced and that his relationship with Hemings could have been loving and consensual. After all, we are discussing theories, and there are many modern sources that entertain this likely possibility, that is, if there was an affair at all. -- Gwillhickers 21:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion above helps clarify at least two variations in emphasis or scope for this article. Gwillhickers seems interested in writing a biography that admits sources prior to 2005 and includes those after. Others argue to exclude all sources prior to 2005.

I suggested Martha wife, Martha daughter and Sally be given equal weight because they were equally the center of Jefferson's domestic life at three different stages of his life -- which goes uncontested.Now it is explicitly said that the article should reflect the interests and weights of current historiography, (not Jefferson's life ?) --- Sally with the widower at Monticello --- more than both earlier Martha wife and Martha daughter, hostess in the White House, combined. So, among 'professional' historians in the last decade, what weight is to be given Eleanor Roosevelt or Mamie Eisenhower at the White House?

At some level the contention on this page is related to a desire on the one hand to write a encyclopedic biography of Jefferson using a balance of reliable sources, including authors who are dead, --- and on the other hand, a desire to write an encyclopedic digest of recent historiography on a subject, limited to living authors over the most recent ten years. --- But it happens that at different times culture and society seize on different aspects of Jefferson's life to remember or commemorate as it relates to themselves, and modern publication is not free from the ethos of its own ephemeral celebration. The encyclopedia should be able to write a concise summary of the subject using various reliable sources in the literature. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your observation is correct. Who wants exclude sources prior to 2005? But I certainly want older sources to be considered in light of current research, and weighted and evaluated accordingly. Modern interest in Sally Hemings really started up after Fawn Brodie's Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, which was published in 1974 - that's about two generations by Jefferson's reckoning. I certainly don't want primary sources from 1862 or hagiographies from 1901 to be given equal weight to modern scholarly biographies, or indeed for them to be used as a source for non-trivial facts at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on hagiography. One of Gwhillickers sources was impeached because the author had died after 1974 but before 2005, so some here do seem to argue for a narrowly modernist cast. But there is a difference between writing a narrative of Jefferson's life, and writing a digest of recently published material of living scholars. The digest cannot give equal weight to the three major periods of Jefferson's domestic life. Meecham would add Jefferson's time as a lawyer lived with his mother as a fourth period, I suppose. That would give us four significant women in Jefferson's life, with Sally' portion of widowerhood per se as a one-quarter of the domesticity topic of Jefferson's life. I acknowledge that the cottage industry publishing on Sally surpasses that on long-term liaisons of FDR or Eisenhower.

But Wikipedia allows us to link to details of Sally's life with Jefferson in Sally's article under her domestic arrangements, so as to keep her part in his life in proportion with three other equally important women (and only equally as important) helping his professional career at each stage of his life, mother, wife and daughter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned comments, TVH. One thing to keep in mind was that TJ was married to Martha for 11 years and allegedly was in a relationship with Sally for almost 40. And of course Sally was in TJ's life during his marriage. Changes the weight a bit, imo. Yopienso (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of discussion, were Sally to be three times more important than any other woman in Jefferson's life, she would have a proportion of 3:1:1:1, or one-half the narrative concerning the domestic arrangements of Thomas Jefferson by word count. That implies we can trim the Sally Hemings section as the article narrative is now written, and punch up some of our women's history for mother, wife and daughter in the White House. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in a very general sort of way. The caveat here is that history can't easily be reduced to mathematical formulas.

• Merrill Peterson said of TJ and his mother, "By his own reckoning she was a zero quantity in his life" (Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, 1970, p. 9). Fawn Brodie, on p. 43 of An Intimate History, rejects that assessment and imagines TJ disliked his mother. In any case, TJ's mother doesn't have the same weight in his bio as, say, FDR's mother does in his. (Or Washington's, for that matter.) Jon Kukla, on pp. 6-7 in Mr. Jefferson's Women (2007), writes, "There is scarcely any evidence from which to speculate about Jefferson's youthful relationships with his mother and sisters."
• Martha Jefferson was the wife of a lackluster governor, not a POTUS, so she has less weight than a First Lady.
• Patsy Jefferson was her father's hostess in the White House and was the surviving daughter of a POTUS and his devoted supporter in his old age, so she has more weight than her mother and grandmother combined. Yopienso (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Sally Hemings wasn't a first lady either. And unlike Jefferson's wife, her relationship remains a theory, the evidence of which supports other paternal candidate. Even the freeing of Sally's children can be attributed to the idea that Jefferson did not want any family blood to remain a slave -- and he could have very well freed them at the request of his brother, Randolph. And remember, he never freed Sally. If he had strong feelings for her children it goes that he would have same for their very mother. Again, he never freed Sally. That alone reduces the weight of that particular piece of evidence considerably. Again all evidence is and remains sketchy and full of holes and inconsistencies. -- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

TJ apparently instructed his daughter to give Sally her freedom, with her last two sons, after his death. The theory is, he didn't want to name her in his will or have to petition the legislature for her to remain in the state. He wanted her to be freed on the QT to avoid scandal. She was listed on the 1830 census (actually a couple years later; it's complicated) as a free white. Yopienso (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good. Meacham takes the same stance on mother, Jefferson uses the family library as a beginning lawyer, then loses it and all his casework in a fire. Looks like we are on the right track, if Sally can be put in context of domestic relations over all; there is no modern need to segregate her when she was de facto a part of Jeffersons intimate daily household life. An interpreter at Monticello a few years back said she resided in the home during Jefferson's later life, not in slave quarters? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mythbuster here

During TJ's tenure in the White House he was only visited by Patsy once and only for a few weeks or months. It's a worn out myth that she was the hostess of the White House. There is no evidence that Sally lived in the main house regardless of what some Monticello tour guide spews out. If Sally was part of the household staff then she lived wherever the household staff did. At one time TJ had a house built for the Hemings family so it may have been there. The house burned down at some point and I forget exactly when. Stop spreading myths. Brad (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just popped in and what do you know the same conversation. The last time (what, ages ago?) you said "no evidence" of where she lived (or maybe it was the time before that), I believe I pointed you to this evidence. Not that it matters to this article, like so any of these rabbit holes, so will visit in another couple months and we can discuss it all again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. Monticello.org and the White House perpetuate that myth, which hinges on definitions. Malone, Ellis, and W.S. Randall show two stays in the White House, during which Patsy did shine at dinners (and also bore a child) but is not indicated as hostess. Dolley Madison sometimes helped TJ but he mostly hosted guests himself. I've edited my comment above. Yopienso (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, you're the only one that got my point, which had nothing to do with slavery or Hemings. It's commonly bounced around that Patsy was 'first lady' but there is little historical evidence of her presence at the White House. However, the official Order of Precedence of the US may in fact grant that title to the oldest daughter of a president who is a widower. I don't know about this for sure. Andrew Jackson's niece served as hostess since Jackson's wife died just prior to his Presidency. This shouldn't be such a big deal here but I get tired of seeing things repeated as fact when they are quite cloudy. Brad (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert (Can't believe I'm doing an "insert!") Just an interesting point of trivia. I found a possible source of the "myth" about Patsy being a hostess in the White House. Virginius Dabney, in The Jefferson Scandals: A Rebuttal, (NY: Dodd, Mead, 1981), p. 85: "The latter [Patsy] was often in charge at Monticello, and for part of her father's second presidential term managed affairs at the White House." Yopienso (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Insert. Also Meacham notes an extended stay at the White House over that first winter of the second term with her U.S. Representative husband. Then she took sick and returned to Monticello, and the two brothers-in-law had a falling out, which Jefferson characteristically did not confront. Thanks for the opportunity to reconfirm. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

All comments point to reducing the current coverage of Sally on the Jefferson page, especially since Jefferson's domestic arrangements seem to have so little to do with the significant chapters of the man's life, Jane, Martha, Martha, Polly, and Sally --- as is so well sourced in this discussion. No need to segregate Sally out, as she seems alike the others, of little direct influence on Jefferson, whether he was single, married or widowered, achieving accomplishment or suffering failure. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My reading of this discussion shows one initial comment about reducing and the rest explaining why we shouldn't reduce the Sally Hemings part. Yopienso (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We are writing the Jefferson biography where we entertain the established historical facts first and foremost. If the Jefferson-Hemings topic was not controversial theory and was indeed an established historical fact your argument for greater coverage over Martha Jefferson might be warranted. What kind of biography would it be if we went at length discussing theory in the middle of a biography? The theory may have been written about more than Martha Jefferson in the last couple of decades, but it still remains a theory and as such is not something that should take a front seat compared to Jefferson's factual family. We must of course acknowledge modern opinions (many of which vary and differ) but we must also keep policy pertaining to biographies in mind. Look how the John F. Kennedy page deals with Marilyn Monroe. i.e.One short section. -- Gwillhickers 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

How many of his children is she alleged to have borne? Does she have living descendants claiming to be Kennedy family members? Yopienso (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there are no such people using JFK as a coatrack for socio and political reasons today. Theoretical claims made 187 years after TJ's death are not what give justification for the sort of coverage you seem to be advancing over Martha Jefferson and family. Again, we are discussing theory here, not established and universally recognized historical fact. -- Gwillhickers 19:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wife Martha, -- (not Martha sister, not daughter Martha (Polly)) bore six children; Sally bore six children. Martha -6: Sally-6. Martha and Sally deserve equal word count on that point. But that would not be good history-biography of Thomas Jefferson properly weighting his domestic relations in the context of his intellect, politics and statecraft.

Descendants from both sides claim relation to Jefferson. But how much should WP be a memorabilia of genealogy, and should WPs ancestor worship emphasize one side over the other, and on what grounds the discrimination? Some have suggested here an historiographical digest of articles limited to the "current historiographic scholarship", so Sally should edge Martha in an open-ended way by journal-cite count, or alternatively, Jefferson had a marriage ten years, and a liaison for thirty, so Sally should be 3X Martha. I disagree with the current weighting, as all the technical discussion of DNA probabilities belongs in Sally's article, and this one can just summarize the liaison with (for the sake of collegiality) 3X word count for Sally as is given over to wife Martha. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect to write about Sally Hemings, someone who is passed off as a conventional black slave, rather than a white housekeeper and nanny, and someone who could have simply stayed in Paris if she so chose, sells more books in modern times than the otherwise boring Martha Jefferson, regardless of her significance to Thomas -- esp with all the promotion/distortions coming from activist and agenda types. That's why Hemings is written about more than Martha, lately. If Sally was all white and not a slave she would be an unknown in most of the black community and among many of the various academics. Hence the topic, and the significance of the controversy, has and continues to be artificially inflated. Playing a song 100 times on the radio doesn't make it any more better of a song than one that is only played a few times. To be fair to the history, we must enter this element into your above algorithm. -- Gwillhickers 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So we can drop all the DNA technical specs to a footnote or to Sally's page altogether, and simply summarize the liaison in the TJ article narrative? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA should be summarized in the section, and clearly, as it is at the heart of the controversy during modern times. In the lede however the controversy is due mention but the commentary and details should go. It is the only topic in the lede given special treatment. Not even the DOI, abolition of slave trade or the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson's biggest accomplishments, are treated in such a manner, with Hemings mentioned three times:

Since 1800, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings.
Historical research, bolstered by DNA tests showing that a Jefferson family member was the father
of one of Hemings' sons, has led to a consensus among most modern historians that widower
Jefferson fathered Hemings' children.

Once this is finally accomplished we can all move on with getting the rest of the article in better shape also, as I know all the other topics are just as important to editors as this topic is. -- Gwillhickers 10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede proposals

Here is my version: Historical research and DNA tests suggest that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children. The sex part is implicit in the children.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(Took the liberty and bolded your version) Not bad, word count wise, but you didn't mention controversy letting the readers know there has been major disagreement since 1800, while the wording is a little unclear, as it suggests DNA supports Jefferson paternity of all her children. It's sort of difficult to be clear about DNA while trying to make a low word count summary statement for the lede. I suggest we just mention the controversy per the slave Hemings and her children and leave the details about historical research, DNA tests and clarification to the section. With this in mind, here is another suggestion which still refers to all her children:
Since 1800 there has been a controversy over whether Jefferson was the father of his slave Sally Hemings' children.
-- Gwillhickers 18:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA should be in there as it is an important element of the new historiography. The literature has totally changed since 1998; we now have a split resulting in pre-DNA Jefferson biographies, and post-DNA Jefferson biographies. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Many details are important for many of the other topics too, which are all well covered in the sections. The above proposal lets the readers know there is a controversy, that it began in 1800, that it continues to this day, and that it involves all of Hemings children all the while the word count is kept to a minimum, consistent with the treatment of other topics in the lede. Adding scientific details is not appropriate here, as again, this would be giving the topic more attention than all the other more important topics. DNA tests (that point to Easton only, not all six children), along with historical evidence, changing historiography, etc, are details that belong in the section. Mentioning DNA in a summary lede statement would imply that it points to all six children. We should be just as summary minded here as we were about the section. Let's be consistent. -- Gwillhickers 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You are expecting that nobody will be able to write a summary statement which brings DNA into play without implicating all six of the Hemings children. I see no reason why none of us will be capable of doing exactly this. Per WP:LEAD, the most important points of the article should be summarized. DNA is the most important point about the Hemings controversy. Absolutely critical. It must be in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Can you come up with a lead statement that includes mention of a controversy and DNA that connects to only one child without getting into too many words or details and deals with the topic in the same manner as the other topics in the lede are treated? An actual attempt at a proposal would have been nice. -- Gwillhickers 22:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with implicating all six? I disagree with including the arbitrary date 1800 because there were rumors before that and Callendar published in 1802. No need for a date in the lede. Suggested final paragraph:

As long as he lived, Jefferson expressed opposition to slavery, yet he owned hundreds of slaves and freed only a few of them. Historical research and DNA tests suggest that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children. Although he has been criticized by many present-day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery, Jefferson remains rated as one of the greatest U.S. presidents. Yopienso (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That works for me. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok for me, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yp', there's still no mention of a controversy, i.e.one word that lets the readers know up front there is major disagreement, which, btw wasn't a controversy until Callender went public; we still have details that are not afforded to any other topic; we are still implying a DNA connection to all six children, which we all know is not so. We can mention all children, as I have done, but please do not try to attach DNA significance to them. This ploy, this distortion, has been tried time and again and it's sort of surprising that you are trying to do so here at this late date, and in the lede no less. No special treatment for the Hemings topic. Well, at least you only mention Hemings once. Other than that it's almost like you haven't even read the prior discussion. -- Gwillhickers 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are some more possible renderings for the troublesome second sentence.

My favorite new proposal:

Historical research and DNA tests support the controversial allegation that Jefferson fathered some or all of the six children of his slave, Sally Hemings.

Second best, imo:

Historical research and DNA tests suggest the controversial allegation that Jefferson fathered some or all of the six children of his slave, Sally Hemings, may be true.

Third:

Historical research and DNA tests partially support the controversial allegation that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children.

Fourth:

Historical research and DNA tests partially support the controversial, two-centuries-old allegation that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her six children. Yopienso (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to insist we mention what you apparently regard as the 'magic' DNA word, then we must be clear:

• Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy regarding whether he fathered his slave Sally Hemings' children, while in recent times DNA tests have linked a number of Jefferson males to one of those children..

I still would prefer that we use my previous shorter version so we should wait to see what others say. It would be nice to hear from editors who don't have a history of preoccupation with this topic and have worked on or at least have given attention to the entire article in some appreciable capacity.-- Gwillhickers 00:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The lede sentence should be strictly about TJ; your proposal makes it about Sally. Could we modify it thusly?:

Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy over allegations that he fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings; DNA tests in 1998 suggest he did.

Or, Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy over allegations that he fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings; DNA tests in 1998 tentatively confirm he fathered at least one. Yopienso (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My latest lede statement mentions Jefferson first, then Hemings. Anyways, your second proposal here is the better of the two, but it says "at least one" while in fact there is only one connection, and it's still sketchy in that it again suggests DNA tests have singled out Thomas. Again, if we are going to included details about DNA we have to be clear, or we should just make the basic summary statement as I originally proposed and let the section make the distinctions. -- Gwillhickers 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason I said it made it about Hemings was because it says, "DNA tests have linked a number of Jefferson males to one of those children." This is about Hemings and her children and their possible father.

I too quickly adopted your dropping of the words "historical research." It is the research together with the DNA tests that point to TJ; the DNA fingering a Jefferson and the research tentatively eliminating all but Thomas. Thus:

Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy over allegations that he fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings; DNA tests in 1998 and historical research tentatively confirm he fathered at least one. Yopienso (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "tentatively" strikes the right note, when the various forms of evidence point so strongly to a widely held conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Then we'll have to say "suggest" instead of "confirm," because, although in some scholars' minds it's settled, the evidence is not rock-solid. Monticello.org leaves the decision up to the reader. See particularly the last two paragraphs of "DNA Evidence and Response." Yopienso (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the same tact that is so often used, usually by partisan sources: i.e.Mentioning 'DNA' and 'historical research', side by side in the same sentence, to roundly refer to all of Hemings' children. This is not at all clear. Mention of DNA has to be such that the uninformed reader will not get the impression that DNA tests implicate "at least one" child. The lede is only supposed to introduce the topic. I don't want to get into details at all, but if we're going to mention DNA, etc, in the lede then there's no reason why we shouldn't use my above proposal, which is absolutely clear about DNA. It mentions Jefferson first, that he may have fathered Hemings' children (i.e.all of them), the controversy, mentions DNA while making it clear there are other possibilities -- which btw is the basis of the controversy. My proposal tells the readers why there's a controversy by mentioning Jefferson males along with Jefferson himself. If we're going to get into details, esp DNA, then there is no reason why we shouldn't use it.
Since Jefferson's time there has been controversy regarding whether he fathered his slave Sally Hemings' children, while in recent times DNA tests have linked a number of Jefferson males to one of those children..
-- Gwillhickers 18:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are no other issues I'll go ahead and include this statement in the lede. I still feel we shouldn't be including any details about DNA tests, but since this version is clear about that I can live with it. I'll wait a bit for any last comments before adding it to the lede. -- Gwillhickers 19:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion with its "a number of Jefferson males" is not acceptable. The combination of DNA, oral histories, and standard historical research have added up to a widely held belief that Jefferson fathered at least one and probably more children by Hemings. Don't try to mislead the reader otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Another concern is that the DNA only links one of several possible candidates to Eston, no all of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree w/ Bink and SS. Think I'll boldly insert my most recent proposal. Yopienso (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bink' I've already addressed your misleading comment. Mentioning DNA side by side with 'research to refer to all children with one summary sentence in the lede is not only misleading, it's underhanded. The fact is DNA tests pointed to a number of Jefferson males and have only linked to only one child. How is saying so "misleading"? Lede should be absolutely clear about DNA while the section can address, "most historians", etc. If you can't get over this then we treat the topic the same as any other in the lede and leave the details to the section. Again, the lede is only supposed to introduce the topic, not try to explain it, esp in misleading terms. -- Gwillhickers 21:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yp' having now read your latest edit/version it seems fair enough at this point. At least we're not using DNA to refer to all children, Hemings is only mentioned once and commentary has been removed, while the section makes clear that other Jefferson males have been implicated. -- Gwillhickers 21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC) -- Gwillhickers 21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Commentary overload

Gordon S. Wood is mentioned by name for commentary 11 times throughout the article, mostly in the Society and government section. Seems this needs to be trimmed down considerably. -- Gwillhickers 01:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The following is a first cut proposal which preserves all footnotes but cuts two duplications, and otherwise simply cuts the previous text of redundant sentences or reduces a few to subordinate clauses. Only the comparative intellectual history of Jefferson v. Hamilton philosophy is lost. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso's restoration without italics below.

Society and government [2]

Jefferson believed that each man has "certain inalienable rights" and "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others..."[154] A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty as a protection against tyranny from the majority.[155] Jefferson's political philosophy was a product of his time and his scientific interests. Influenced by Isaac Newton, he considered social systems as analogous to physical systems. In the social world, Jefferson likens love as a force similar to gravity in the physical world. People are naturally attracted to each other through love, but dependence corrupts this attraction and results in political problems. Removing or preventing corrupting dependence by banking or royal influences would enable men to be equal in practice.[156]

In political terms, Americans thought that virtue was the "glue" that held together a republic, whereas patronage, dependency and coercion held together a monarchy. "Virtue" in this sense was public virtue, in particular self-sacrifice. Americans reasoned that liberty and republicanism required a virtuous society, and the society had to be free of dependence and extensive patronage networks, such as banking, government, or military.[156] While Jefferson believed most persons could not escape corrupting dependence, the franchise should be extended only to those who could, including the yeoman farmer. He disliked inter-generational dependence, such as national debt and unalterable governments.[156] Jefferson and Hamilton were diametrically opposed on the issue of individual liberties. While Jefferson believed individual liberty was the fruit of equality and believed government to be the only danger, Hamilton felt that individual liberty must be organized by a central government to assure social, economic and intellectual equality. [157] Whereas Madison became disillusioned with what he saw as excessive democracy in the states, Jefferson believed such excesses were caused by institutional corruptions rather than human nature. He remained less suspicious of working democracy than many of his contemporaries.[156]

As president, Jefferson tried to re-create the balance between the states and federal government as it existed under the Articles of Confederation. He tried to shift the balance of power back to the states, taking this action from his classical republican conception that liberty could only be retained in small, homogeneous societies. He believed that the Federalist system enacted by Washington and Adams had encouraged corrupting patronage and dependence.[156] Many of Jefferson's apparent contradictions can be understood within this philosophical framework. For example, his intent to deny women the franchise was rooted in his belief that a government must be controlled by the economically independent. He opposed women's participation in politics, saying that "our good ladies ... are contented to soothe and calm the minds of their husbands returning ruffled from political debate."[158]

end proposal [2]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TVH! That's well done. Not real sure about eliminating the term "gender equality," but I couldn't come up with better wording at the end than yours. I do think Hamilton should be mentioned as a contrast. Perhaps reinsert, " Jefferson and Hamilton were diametrically opposed on the issue of individual liberties. While Jefferson believed individual liberty was the fruit of equality and believed government to be the only danger, Hamilton felt that individual liberty must be organized by a central government to assure social, economic and intellectual equality." Yopienso (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal [2] above restores Hamilton narrative, the text without italics. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job! Yopienso (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

To address the tag for too much page range in a citation, I got a paperback copy of Wood's "Empire of Liberty" in a 2009 Oxford University Press edition. The referenced page numbers do not correspond with our subject matter referenced to a 2011 edition, but the treatment of Jefferson is consistent with my recollection of other Gordon Wood treatment of Jefferson's thought...I'm searching through the index trying to find the correlated passage??? Can anyone lend a hand with the relevant chapter name? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Seven pages is not that wide a range. There are cases where the entire chapter is sometimes referred to, albeit in rare cases. We could always investigate edit history and find and then ask the contributing editor to see if he/she could narrow the range down a bit. This would seem to be an issue if we were dealing with a GA or FA nomination, but if you can remedy the situation you've got my vote! -- Gwillhickers 19:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I propose we remove the tag, which is embedded in footnote code instead of showing at the tagged footnote. I am reluctant to modify the code myself lest I bring massive red letter code fail warnings to the article page, which I suppose is the point of the tagger when he embedded the tag in a footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What tag? I have no idea what you're talking about. Yopienso (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag within the footnote. They used to be at each 220-227 page spread, they are gone, GW may have taken care of them. thanks for the follow up. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Images alignment right

All images are now aligned right in accordance with WP:ACCESS. The policy allows access to those readers with sight disabilities, including those who are legally blind. Computer screen enhancers magnify text in WP articles in such a way that it can be readily followed only with all images aligned to the right margin. For articles using the WP:ACCESS convention, the student can actively participate in group projects and in-class research available through few other formats. Without it they are severely handicapped in their topic search to locate material and in their reading speed for text comprehension in real-time classroom participation.

I propose WP:ACCESS be the governing policy for images in this article in the future. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Embargo

Section edit proposal for conciseness, all notes preserved, but that for an extended quote not in encyclopedic style (at note [134]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A political cartoon showing merchants dodging the "Ograbme", which is 'Embargo' spelled backwards, 1807.

To avoid national humiliation on the one hand, and war on the other, Jefferson encouraged passage of the Embargo Act of 1807 to maintain American neutrality in the Napoleonic Wars under France’s Continental System. In the event, he got both war and national humiliation; the economy of the entire Northeast suffered severely, Jefferson was vehemently denounced, and his party lost support. Instead of retreating, Jefferson sent federal agents to secretly track down smugglers and violators.[130][131] Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin had been against the embargo, foreseeing correctly the impossibility of enforcing the policy and the negative public reaction.[133] The embargo was a financial disaster because the Americans could not export, while widespread disregard of the law meant federal enforcement was difficult. For the most part, it effectively throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the United States suffered. [132]

Shortly before leaving office in March 1809, Jefferson signed the repeal of the disastrous Embargo. In its place the Non-Intercourse Act was enacted, but it proved no more effective than the Embargo. The government found it was impossible to prevent American vessels from trading with the European belligerents once they had left American ports. Jefferson believed the problem was the traders and merchants, who showed a lack of self-sacrificing "republican virtue" by not complying with it. [135] He later maintained that, had the embargo been widely observed it would have avoided war in 1812.[136][137]

Historians have generally criticized Jefferson for his embargo policy. Doron Ben Atar argued that Jefferson's commercial and foreign policies were misguided, ineffective and harmful to American interests.[138] Kaplan maintained that the War of 1812 was the logical extension of his embargo and that, by entering the Napoleonic Wars on anti-British side, the United States gave up the advantages of neutrality.[139]

End text edit proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

TVH, I've been looking at this the past couple of days and think it's a winner compared to what is there now. Will reduce word count and nicely referenced. By all means place it in the article. Brad (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As always, the change as a first draft was simply to shorten the passage and make it more readable without losing any sourcing. Did you have any additional elements you wanted added into the mix? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

sample reference alternate

The note can also take the following form, showing how each reference is different from the other.

1. a a (2010). a z, ed. a. p1. p. 2. ISBN 978-0812979480. "blah", b b (2011). b z, ed. b. p2. p. 4. ISBN 978-0812979480. "blah, how bb is different from aa", c c (2012). c z, ed. c. p3. p. 6. ISBN 978-0812979480. "blah, how cc is different from aa and bb". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Commentary already exists

The Jefferson page already has plenty of commentary from historians regarding slavery in several sections, including the lede.

• Lede : has been criticized by many present-day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery...

• Louisiana Purchase : Since the Purchase historians have differed in their assessments regarding constitutional and slavery issues.

• Slaves and slavery : historians are divided on whether he truly opposed the institution because he was generally silent about it during his presidency and only freed a few slaves.

• Jefferson–Hemings controversy : most biographers and historians have concluded that the widower Jefferson had a long-term relationship with Hemings.

The idea that there is not enough representation from historians in the article seems to be little more than an ill inspired notion. If we are going to do anything more about adding commentary we need to hear from objective editors who have demonstrated an interest in the biography that has extended past the topic of slavery. -- Gwillhickers 20:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark

The following proposal is edited for conciseness, all notes preserved. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

After the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, Jefferson now needed to have this mostly unknown part of the country explored and mapped for expanding westward settlement. In 1804 he appointed Meriwether Lewis and William Clark as leaders of the expedition, exploring the Louisiana Territory and beyond, producing a wealth of scientific and geographical knowledge.[106]

Jefferson was influenced by exploration accounts of both Captain James Cook's A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean (1784), and Le Page du Pratz'z The History of Louisiana ... (1763). He chose Lewis to lead the expedition rather than someone with only the best scientific credentials because of Lewis’ experience in the woods and "familiarity with the Indian manners and character, requisite for this undertaking." In the months leading up to the expedition, Jefferson tutored Lewis in the sciences of mapping, botany, natural history, mineralogy and astronomy, and Lewis demonstrated a marked capacity to learn. [106]

Knowledge of the western part of the continent had been limited to what had been learned from trappers, traders, and explorers. Lewis and Clark recruited a company of 45 men and spent a winter preparing near St. Louis.[107] The expedition reached the Pacific Ocean by November 1805 and returned in 1806, successfully adding to detailed regional knowledge on topographical features of the country, natural resources, plants and animals, as well as the many Indian tribes of the West with which he hoped to increase trading.[108] The duration of this perilous expedition lasted from May 1804 to September 1806.[109]

end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We should mention that one of Jefferson's great hopes was also finding a water route, via the Missouri River, to the Pacific ocean. Nothing is said of Jefferson's dealings with Congress to get funds for the expedition. There's a couple of other key figures you might also want to mention, including the French guide Toussaint Charbonneau and his Indian wife Sacagawea. We should also say something about the expedition's overall experience with the Indians, without which, by most accounts, the expedition never would have survived the winter months, coming and going. Realizing there's a dedicated page for this topic, we still might want to add a little more of the basic content involved just to make the section interesting to read. Seems as if you're trying to make the summary as short as is humanly possible. This is one of Jefferson's major involvements. Don't be afraid to fatten the section up a 'bit' more. A healthy amount of contextual overlap between the two articles for key topics is good. -- Gwillhickers 07:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I admit to thinking about the northwest passage bit. But whether or not there were a water route, Jefferson was about expanding the "Empire of Liberty" westward and overlapping the British claims of mere coastal trading points with actual settlement of U.S. citizens, and so to seize the territory and perfect a superior claim to the land, whether the transit was water borne or not. And in the event transit was by the Oregon Trail, which also deserves a link, I suppose.

But reference to Jefferson's interest in a all-water northwest passage was in the Ambrose material as now noted, so it would be already sourced to put that narrative back in. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. added reference to Northwest Passage, Sacagawea, aid from Native-Americans going and coming, Oregon Trail. I'm open to other suggestions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I also added mention of Congress, Jefferson's secret message for funding and his dealings with Spanish, French, and British officials, along with mention of only one death during the expedition with link to that person. Also added comments about Jefferson's desire to establish US presence before the Europeans did, along with a link to timeline at bottom of section. -- Gwillhickers 18:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Much improved from bare bones, good readability quotient. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe Jefferson wanted to establish an American empire. The British, Russians, and Spanish were staking out claims to the Pacific Northwest. In some sense the Americans were behind the times and Jefferson wanted an American claim. Control of the Pacific would also open up trade to the Far East. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson wanted to establish an "Empire of Liberty", perpetual association voluntarily made for personal liberty and professional opportunity. See Gordon S. Wood Empire of Liberty: a history of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. The expedition opened up an American fur trading empire and strengthened U.S. claims to Oregon over Britain and Russia. However Jefferson was interested in the expedition before the Louisiana Purchase.

The section as it now reads is informed both by Jon Meacham's "Thomas Jefferson: the art of power" and more largely by Steven Ambrose' " Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West." with Junius Rodriguez' "The Louisiana Purchase: a historical and geographical encyclopedia". Addressing the Wood and Meacham perspective, in the section First paragraph: Jefferson now needed to have this mostly unknown part of the continent explored and mapped for expanding westward settlement. ,,, last paragraph: and it led the way for the Oregon Trail.

Your studies have led you to a correct conclusion elaborated by two of our four sources. It is not necessary to provide more than one citation for each statement. Did you want to add to the sources by a new perspective in the section? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded?

This RfC asks whether the article should state in wikipedia's voice that "Jefferson treated his slaves humanely" or whether this claim should be attributed in-text to the sources that make this evaluation. Please choose among the following suggested wordings, or append your own suggested wording to the list.

Suggested wordings are [additional wordings]:

A.[original wording] "Regardless of his views towards race, Jefferson treated his slaves humanely, not allowing them to be overworked"

B. "Regardless of his views towards race, according to contemporary sources Jefferson treated his slaves humanely relative to other slaveowners, for example not allowing them to be overworked."

C. "Regardless of his views towards race, according to contemporary sources Jefferson treated his slaves humanely, not allowing them to be overworked."

D. "Regardless of his views towards race, historians have generally described Jefferson as a humane slaveowner who did not allow his slaves to be overworked or excessively punished."

Survey

1. B, C or D. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Although I find Maunus's POV unacceptable for editing this article, I believe sentence D is an improvement over the current sentence. Maunus, I caution you not to try to insert your personal value judgments as to the possibility that there could be such a thing as "humane slavery." Gwillhickers makes cogent comments in that regard; WP simply cannot digress into philosophical arguments about the institution of slavery in an article such as this one. Yopienso (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
3. B or C based on a quick read of a couple sources. Came here via RfC, so uninvolved. I will limit myself to the RfC (not the length of the section generally or other statements which may need attribution). I don't find the slippery slope claim (if we attribute this sentence, we'll have to attribute lots of others) convincing as a reason to avoid fixing a poor claim. The statement that people held in a violent system of exploitation (held as property) were treated "humanely" requires specific attribution. Other claims may not be such exceptional claims and thus not require attribution. I hope this small fix can be made so that you all can constructively place the claim in a better context. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
4. B or C, but without the "contemporary" bit. Let's just state a summary of what the literature gives us. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
5. B. Despite Yopienso's comments, I find it worrisome to even implicitly suggest that slave ownership could be humane in an objective sense. The clarification that he was humane in comparison to other slave owners is important, specific, and doesn't seem objectionable on its face except to possible objections of wordiness. 24.124.99.189 (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
6. B without "contemporary" per Binksternet. United States Man (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
7. B without "contemporary". Where a source proves reliable, scholars use that portion. Where a source is unreliable, that portion is omitted. The rule applies to reliable sources from every school of historiography. One goes to "contemporary" neo-Whigs for intellectual history of Patriots in the American Revolution, but neo-Whigs do not explain Tories very well (Gordon Wood in "The idea of America"). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
8. B but saying "well relative to" instead of "humanely relative to", after the Cogliano and Harris sources provided below. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
9. B? That seems the best of the lot. C and D aren't too bad, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
10. B looks fine. C and D are acceptable, but I guess I prefer B. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
11. D seems best, but B or C could also work with a little grammatical improvement. Instaurare (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
12. D I agree with Instaurare. I think D is the "grammatical improvement" that B really needs.
13. B if its sentence structure is changed to reflect option D. (Came here via RfC) GRUcrule (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please do not single out one statement. Your request should pertain to all evaluations, including those about "most historians" and Hemings. [Add: edit conflict :] If you want to present the idea of humane treatment as opinion then the section should also include facts about all the things Jefferson provided for slaves so the readers can be clear about treatment. It is a fact Jefferson provided slaves with a 12' x 20' log cabin with a fire place and sleeping loft. Gave them Sunday's, Christmas and Easter off. Living as farmers many slaves had much free time during the winter months. They were worked no more than free farmers worked and were allowed to grow gardens and raise their own chickens. They were well clothed and were given cooking ware, wool and other items to further provide for themselves, etc. -- Gwillhickers 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No it should not. I am concerned with this particular statement. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be about issues, not just what you personally are concerned about. Most of the article has gotten to this stage not because of what one editor wants. You can't snipe at one item, with an admitted pov, and then say it doesn't pertain to the other items. If we treat the one statement as you wish, then all statements should be treated so. -- Gwillhickers 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not how writing is accomplished. Statements are different, their implications and their significance are different and are treated once at a time. We do nt make blanket decisions about sourcing in wikipedia. The difference between you and I is not that I have a POV, but that I am open about mine. But since I am not trying to insert my POV into the article or give it undue importance I would prefer if you would stop trying to discredit my argument by referring to it as motivated by my point of view. Please comment on the content not the contributer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV, the difference is, we go by what the sources say and treat the similar given statements in the same manner. No double standard. If you are going to propose an editing standard it should apply to the entire article -- not just for one particular statement you'd like to see changed. That is indeed pushing a POV. -- Gwillhickers 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That is complete and utter nonsense. Statements and sourcing are discussed one statement at a time. And now if you will be so kind as to shut up with your allegations before I shall be forced to report you somewhere for incivility.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You're 'asking' me to "shut up" while complaining about incivility?? The existing statement was well sourced, so this is not about sourcing. My "allegations" only make reference to your admitted pov. That is hardly uncivil. While you are free to discuss one statement at a time, you can't turn around and say the same editing policy can't be applied to other statements of evaluation. -- Gwillhickers 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OF course the editing policy can be applied to other statements, but I am under no obligations to make sure that it is. And yes I had asked you several times very politiely to refrain from making personal comments, and you continued, so now I stepped up the wording to see if you caught the message.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Yopienso, I would encourage you to stop commenting on the contributor and comment instead on the content. Regardles of my POV I have every right to edit any article that I please. I find you your patronizing comment offensive in the extreme and would request you to refactor it. Also if you will note my actual arguments I have not at any point suggested that the article digress into argument about slavery. What I do suggest is that it does not take one controversial POV and present it in wikipedias voice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• I see some sources have been listed but for the sake of clarity, can someone please provide details for reliable sources that would be cited to support each of the 4 proposed statements, particularly the part of option A that says "Jefferson treated his slaves humanely", using the word "humanely" as an absolute rather than a relative term and without attribution ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I could not access all the three sources used to support the statement currently, only the one in Bear 1967. Here the statement is sourced to a primary source, the testimony of one of Jeffersons overseers who does say flatly that his treatment was "kind and indulgent"[3] (i.e. not using the word humane). There are other primary sources stating it in those terms, but all the scholarly secondary sources that I had a chance to consult stated it in relative terms.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you not see Peterson, 1986 p.535 (actually page 534) via google books e.g. [4] ? Does it redirect you to the page with the 'Search inside' option ? If so, search for "he would not allow his slaves to be over-driven, or whipped unless at the last resort" to see if that brings the page up. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I do get a result for that. I dont think that actually supports the statement, since it describes his generally lenient attitude but does not claim that it was humane.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Like you, I can't see the Halliday, 2009, p.236 source, so it would help if someone could quote the content on that page used to provide WP:V compliance for the statement. As a general comment, I don't think option A is a viable option unless sources can be found that explicitly support its use in that form. Even if option A gains consensus in the RfC, it will not be a valid WP:CONSENSUS without the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, when I included A as an option I was assuming in good faith that the statement was supported by the sources given. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Halliday 2009: Amazon's Look Inside feature allows you to see page 236 (search term: "sexual"). The page is about his relationship with Sally Hemings and is generally not on the topic of his treatment of slaves in general. There is no verification of page #236. However, page 145 (visible with search term: "humane") says this: "There were, however, relatively benign ways to exercise the owner's property rights over his human possessions. In general, Jefferson tried to keep slave families together, and occasionally would make sales or purchases with that as the primary object rather than any material advantage to Monticello. He did, however, encourage his slaves to find mates there rather than on other plantations, so that their interests and his would be in accord.... Despite his humane inclinations, Jefferson was painfully aware after his return from France in 1789 that Monticello was sliding steadily into debt, and economic considerations could not be ignored in dealing with his slaves." The Halliday source seems ill-used to justify that Jefferson treated his slaves "humanely." Hope that helps. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of getting the full context: here is the finish to the Holliday quote onto page 146: "From a modern point of view, he was especially harsh with regard to teenaged children: he viewed them as capable of productive work by that age, and often gave them assignments that separated them from their parents. And in the end, all of his "good" master's solicitude for the welfare of his slave "family" (as he called it) was virtually cancelled by the ineluctable workings of the slave system itself." AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Halliday seems to be a conscientious scholar, in that he explicitly identifies when he is going anachronistic, "from a modern point of view", but his judgement as a writer seems suspect. It was for Halliday untoward for teenagers 13-19 to be worked in gangs apart from their parents and return home together at the end of the day? Slaves did not work unsupervised in gangs, only as artisans (see Harris below). But in the modern era parents ship their children off to school apart from them while they are at work, then return home together at the end of the day without untoward consequences to family life. --- Nevertheless in the time, free teen aged whites and blacks as well as slaves went to work apart from their parents. David Crockett of Frederick, Virginia drove a small herd of cattle to market in Alexandria during his early teens, alone. Even in the modern era, 18-year olds enlist in the Marines apart from their parents, and leave home. Europeans track trade students apart from academic at age 13, boosting their Algebra scores in comparison to U.S. scores whereas some states require Algebra of all students for a standard diploma, and all students are encouraged to try for it. Thirteen is an age of apprenticeship apart from parents for most of history for most populations, slave and free. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The question was "Do the sources provided support the assertion that Jefferson treated slaves humanely?" The Halliday quote was not provided to prove anything, but merely to test verification of the claim. In this instance, that verification failed. No need to think about Crockett's amazing cattle driving skills, that's not the issue here. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The verification succeeded in confirming the reliable source judgment that Jefferson acted humanely towards his slaves. From Halliday 2009, p. 145 via Abstract, we have Jefferson administered slavery by “relatively benign ways” with “humane inclinations”, --- along with specifics of Jefferson's sales and purchases to keep families together in a context which some editors here have denoted as his evil practice of the institution,"buying and selling slaves" versus his practice of a kind of social justice, Jefferson's provision "without any material advantage" --- for living with one's spouse within the unnatural regime that was slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No it didnt. The word "humane" described his intentions, not his actual treatment of his slaves. The possible contradictions between ideology and practice is the entire crux of the argument, both among scholars and here on the talkpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Some sources

Cogliano, summarizing the view of Ellis, "Finally, Jefferson embraced the role of patriarchal plantation master who devoted paternal care to his 'family' of slaves through (relatively) benign treatment." (Cogliano, 2008, Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy p.219).

"Compared to his neighbors in Virginia, Jefferson seems to have treated his own slaves relatively well, at least that is what some of his former slaves remembered in their old age. There is no evidence that he ever personally whipped a slave, nor did he separate husbands from wives or mothers from small children, and at times he bought and sold slaves in order to unite families. Some of his highly skilled slaves, such as Joseph Fosset, his blacksmith, worked virtually on their own, without supervision. But he did expect his slave to work for him, he did hunt down runaways, and he did separate teenagers from their families, and he did sell slaves "for delinquency" or to help pay his debts." (J. William Harris, 2008, The Making of the American South: A Short History, 1500-1877, p. 62)

Note how these reliable sources do not make the statement without noting that it is a relative statement and attributing it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Cogliano uses the words "(relatively) benign treatment" which means comparatively humane treatment. And most would agree with Harris, seeing uniting families as humane for the individual under the slavery regime versus general practice at the time separating families. We are agreed at the 'relative' evaluation of Jefferson's treatment of slaves.

Does the article not reflect that? The encyclopedic style does not generally admit to a long list of scholarly attribution for each point, but simply summarizes the point with authority, in WPs case, by use of inline footnotes. The number of footnotes is generally limited to two to avoid visual clutter, so footnotes sometimes contain more than one reference to the same conclusion, such as 'relatively humane treatment', just like in the old days where authors would give a sort of bibliographic essay at the bottom of a page using multiple sources. In the WP case the information is available immediately at the place at the click of a note number. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But it did not originally when I changed the sentence that we are now discussing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Then we are agreed the original needed amending. It now seems I've stepped into a buzzsaw of 'humane' vs. 'benign' below at 'return the section to a summary'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey was a ruse?

What was the point of the survey if you just went ahead and edit as you pleased before more editors could comment? You are going against what most of us agreed on in terms of summarizing the section with your selective inclusion of content. Now that you've expanded on slave treatment we have to start including other facts for balance and perspective. We also have to adjust the other statements of evaluation in the same manner as you have. -- Gwillhickers 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I had already edited as I pleased before creating the RfC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus. Because men are created free and equal in human rights, slavery is an unnaturally coercive regime. You have astutely observed that any assessment of “humane treatment” inside that unnatural state can be assessed legitimately only in a comparative way. That this was so for Jefferson is well documented. Avoiding any justification for the institution of slavery itself, it would be enough to simply say in a qualified way, "Jefferson was relatively humane in the treatment of his slaves. [note]”, would it not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is in fact all that I am asking. Though I would prefer attribution (e.g. we have testimonies from former slaves and overseers calling his treatment mild or lenient), and a statement of "relative to what" (i.e. other slaveowners in his own society).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Return the section to a summary

Thanks to our new friend, the section has bloated out while expanding on only one topic -- flogging. I don't want to get into an edit war and of course don't want to violate the 3RR, but if anyone wants to return the section to a summary form where all statements of evaluation are treated the same they have my support. The latest round of edits were done before other editors (with the exception of one) had a chance to comment. I've added other comments for balance but can see this is just going to make the section bigger all over again and will involve the same debates most of us here have been through and are quite tired of. We need to start over and discuss this one step at a time. I'm hoping Maunus will be good enough to initiate the matter. -- Gwillhickers 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The section is not excessively long given the overall weight given to the topic of slavery in the literature on Jefferson. It can be shortened, perhaps, but only if it is done in a way that is consistent with the literature in showing both the flatering and less flattering aspects of his relation to slavery as an institution and to his own slaves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've copyedited the section. Yopienso (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please editors: you make it harder for uninvolved editors trying to figure out the issues when you say that a 1,400 byte reversion of content is "copy-editing." That is not copy-editing, it is deleting content and this should be made clear in the edit summary. Your help on this issue would be much appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is misleading to call that copyedit. But on the other hand I have no problem with Yopienso's version of the section, which seems reasonably fair. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso's version is satisfactory. My one quibble is that we do not need to say "historians have generally described Jefferson"; instead, we can simply give the summary in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect, because all the histories that I had the chance to look over yesterday describe Jefferson's treatment as humane only in relative terms, i.e. that he strived to be mild and avoid harsh punishment, that he was lenient compared to other slaveowners, etc. none of them state flatly that his treatment of his slaves was humane, or mild.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that Yopienso's edit is fair, at best, but the section now is sort of fuzzy in terms of how Jefferson treated slaves. Also agree with Binksternet. Wikipedia's voice -- indeed. Are we going to say "historians claim" or "historians have described..." for every such statement of evaluation? The general and overall treatment of slaves far overshadowed the occasional punishment that was meted out in extreme cases, as Jefferson provided for his slaves in a manner that was indeed humane. (i.e.human) and he was and is noted for it -- not only by historians at large but by his slaves and contemporaries. Jefferson provided slaves with log cabins with a fireplace and sleeping loft, gave 'married' couples (not married in the legal sense) their own cabins, gave his slaves Sundays, Christmas and Easter off, did not over work them, provided them with good food and clothing, allowed them to grow gardens and raise their own chickens, gave them cooking ware, blankets, wool for making their own clothing items, etc, trained many of them in highly skilled jobs and some times paid them extra for their work. Again, we have to look at the picture through the lens of the time period in question where even the fate of freemen was often worse than those under slavery. 'Freedom' is sort of moot when you are struggling to survive. On the surface, esp looking at this through a modern day lens, this reality is obviously difficult for some people to grasp. Several historians refer to Jefferson and others like him as an Abolitionist slave owner in so many words: 1, 2, 3. -- Gwillhickers 21:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedic style does not admit to a list of scholarly attribution for each point, but summarizes the point with authority, in WPs case, by use of inline footnotes. The number of footnotes is limited to two to avoid visual clutter, so footnotes sometimes contain more than one reference to the same fact or conclusion.

In the case of 'relatively humane treatment', the footnote can contain several citations, just like in the old days where authors would give a sort of bibliographic essay at the bottom of a page using multiple sources -- well Gordon Wood, for instance. In the WP case the multiple source information is available immediately at the place at the click of a note number. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is esp so in the case of controversial statements or statements that naive readers or ones with less than average intelligence find hard to grasp. I imagine 200 years from now some people will be absolutely dumb founded that people who drove cars in the 20th and 21st centuries were against air pollution and highway infrastructures that have mangled the landscape. As I said, if multiple reliable sources report something as fact we should do the same and not cherry pick which statements we are going to render as "reported" or "described". -- Gwillhickers 17:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Visual clutter for multiple citations is easily avoided by combining them into a single reference e.g. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Good advice but the issue is and has been how various statements of fact are written per multiple sources. -- Gwillhickers 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source that says Jefferson treated his slaves "humanely" as an unattributed statement of fact without any qualifiers so that it can be provided as a potential source for option A in the RfC ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Treatment
• My first wish is that the labourers may be well treated, he wrote to his overseer Manoah Clarkson in 1792.
• Other sources covering humane treatment

If there is a consensus not to use the word "humane" then we can always outline how well slaves were treated and provided for and let the readers decide. -- Gwillhickers 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a much better and more informative way to deal with it, more encyclopedic, providing facts about how he treated his slaves and contrasting it with other slave owners rather than using a word like "humanely" that could leave readers wondering about what that entailed or means exactly. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources seem to use 'benign'. Now some assert that is a synonym for 'humane', but that is a stretch at best. Those sources above (monticello.org) all use Jefferson's own words to provide the assertion of 'humaneness'. It would be fine to attribute the claim to him. The reasonable compromise seems to be that 'humane' needs direct in-text attribution, other terms (benign, lenient) would not. Whether a note or in-text explanation of the ways he treated his slaves (note: Not "how well slaves were treated"--which begs the question) is another issue that need not necessarily weigh on the first. Added: I agree with Sean.hoyland that such an addition would be a great use to the reader. It still wouldn't seem to answer the RfC directly, however. That's my only point--I am not opposed to a footnote with good information added in a due manner. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We have reliable sources by historians which say Jefferson's treatment was either benign, that is "gentle; kindly" or humane, that is "compassionate or benevolent", and 'benevolent" means "well meaning and kindly". Then editors in their own reading of primary documents find the word 'whipping' and do not know what to do with their original research, and without any scholarly perspective, because in their own experience whipping in 21st century American schools no longer obtains, they are caught in anachronistic presentism.

We only need go with the reliable sources for sound historical use of the judicial term 'humane' as it applies to Jefferson's treatment of slaves in his time with a source, but -- simply -- add --- "relatively humane" with that source, to clarify for modern readers.

We can then locate detailed descriptions from primary sources and how historians have come up with their summary judgments in the subsidiary article on Jefferson and slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If they are the same words to you, "humane" is objectionable to some editors and RSs use the term "relatively benign", what is the problem with shifting to that? Why can't we go to a less objectionable term, used by historian RSs? AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I know from your post above we have RS for the use of 'humane'. From Halliday 2009, p. 145 via Abstract, we have Jefferson administered slavery by “relatively benign ways” with “humane inclinations”, buying and selling to keep families together, “without any material advantage to Monticello”. But I will leave it to consensus what style should be used, among yourself, Yopienso, Maunus and Gwhillickers and others, I suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• support relatively humane per reliable source Halliday's use of the term in connection with Jefferson's usage of his slaves. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• For the third time, that's not what Halliday 2009 says. He says the opposite in fact. He says: Despite that Jefferson wanted to be humane (he had those "humane inclinations), his treatment of slaves was not always humane. Halliday's preference is for "relatively benign" in reference to Jefferson's treatment of slaves. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Some editors here who say that if one or more sources call Jefferson's treatment of his slaves "humane" or "benign" then we are obliged to purvey that as a fact in wikipedias voice. By the same argument one might argue that we should describe Jefferson as a racist in wikipedias voice. Multiple reliable sources describe him as such. Cogliano (2008:218)for example writes: "Yet Jefferson, as was well established by more than a decade’s scholarship prior to the appearance of Morgan’s book, owned hundreds of slaves, held racist views and took steps to strengthen slavery in America.". Would we be willing to turn the argument there as well? Note that I am not saying that we should call Jefferson a racist in wikipedia's voice, but that using the same argumentation used by several here we should. I think also in terms of his opinions on race we should give examples and give in-text attributions for evaluations. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Racism was the norm in Jefferson's day and it was understood and even expected of you in many cultures around the world. One could very easily refer to almost anyone as a racist in those days -- if they were so inclined. Jefferson laid the ground work for abolition and anti-racist laws in America. Shall we refer to car owners as 'air polluters', period? Shall we refer to meat eaters as 'animal murderers', period? This in effect would be the same as calling Jefferson a "racist" in modern times where that word has taken on all sorts of socio' and political baggage. Indians were vehemently racist, xenophobic, hunter-meat eaters, "oppressed" women, often sold their children off, esp if they were girls, committed genocide of other tribes, took on slaves, etc. Why doesn't anyone refer to Indians as such? It is understood that we are referring to slaves. This doesn't mean that they couldn't be treated humanely. Is there a source that says specifically that Jefferson treated slaves inhumanely or cruely ? One could refer to instances of whippings, but that's about as far as anyone can take the ball. POW's were and are treated humanely by many countries. ('Gee-wiz, how could that ever-ever beeeee, they were prisoners held captive in a cage?') Enough of this label wars. If we are going to refrain from using 'humanely', even though most reliable sources say so in so many words, then we should just list the facts in terms of treatment, living conditions, etc, along with Jeferrson's quotes about slavery and abolition (presently missing in the section, entirely), we can even mention whippings, in context, and let the readers decide. -- Gwillhickers 16:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Holistic Proposal

• So the last two posts (by Maunus and Gwillhickers as well as the discussion above between Maunus and TheVirginiaHistorian) have convinced me that sean is right: Statement with fully contextualized note is the best solution to this RfC problem. To avoid squabbling over terminology until we see a complete proposal related to this, I figured I'd create that proposal for us to work from. Please feel free to edit the content as you see fit and explain why in the threaded discussion below. For my draft, I privileged Stanton who is described by Monticello.org as "recognized as the leading interpreter of Jefferson’s life as a planter and master of the lives of his slaves and their descendants." Figure it is good to start with the top scholar and at least work from there. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The proposal

"Regardless of his views towards race, historians have generally described Jefferson as a relatively benign slaveholder who did not allow his slaves to be overworked or excessively punished.[Cite Cogliano][Note]"

[Note contents] "Clear historical evidence of slave lives and their treatment is severely limited [Stanton 2012, pg. 106] and like his views on slavery generally there is an active debate amongst historians about Jefferson's own treatment of slaves. Jefferson's writings express that he sought to be more gentle with his slaves than other slaveholders on both moral grounds and economic interest grounds. Although he did buy and sell slaves for his plantation, he never engaged in the commercial slave trade to the extent of his father. To keep families together, Jefferson provided incentives for marriages between slaves on his plantation rather than to slaves on other plantations. Many of those on Jefferson's plantations were allowed to pursue their own economic activities including raising poultry, growing vegetables, and growing hops to sell to Jefferson's brewery. Jefferson generally tried to not overwork his slaves and gave them time off on Sundays. However, when his economic interests in the plantation were at stake, Jefferson had slaves whipped who ran away from the plantation, would sell those who were disobedient or violent, and leased some of his slaves to improve the economic status of the plantation.[Stanton 2012, pg. Part I]."

Threaded Discussion about holistic proposal

• Please post here your thoughts on the holistic proposal or any changes you have made to that proposal (please feel free to edit it directly above. Thank ya. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since "humane" and particularly the contradiction in terms of "humane slaveholder" is not supported by the historian RSs which prefer "benign", I went with that. Hope that with the full context provided, that change is acceptable. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort and approve your proposal. I've been loathe to bring up a writer I personally consider an outlier wrt to academic consensus and unfair to TJ: Paul Finkelman. Annette Gordon-Reed, for example, is far more generous to TJ than he. A year or two ago, these pages saw considerable support of and attack on Finkelman. He does have weight in the academy, however. He makes TJ out to be a monster. Well, sort of.--read for yourself. This article is similar or identical to Chap. 6 in his book, Slavery and the Founders. (This link requires a subscription.) Yopienso (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I did read Finkelman before writing the part above and a couple other sources. My alternative thought for the content of the note was that it not discuss the partial evidence of Jefferson's treatment of slaves--but instead the heated academic debate today. But I figured that citing Wiencek would be throwing gasoline on the fire. I do think there may be due weight on a longer note being included that draws on other sources (I focused on Stanton just for simplicity sake to get the conversation moved forward). Other opinions greatly appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely do not use the wording "slaves... were given freedom" to make money from small enterprises. They were not given freedom; they were "allowed" to make money. Regarding "commercial slave trade", Jefferson sold slaves to fund his luxurious lifestyle. He sold slaves so that he could have fine wine to drink, for instance. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes made: 1. "were given freedom" changed to "allowed" (stupid me!), 2. "he never engaged in the commercial slave trade as had his father" changed to "he never engaged in the commercial slave trade to the extent of his father". Stanton is clear that there was a distinction in involvement. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Concur with, support, approve proposal as amended #1. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone take a crack at the second sentence in the proposal. I can't get it to sound right. The point in Holliday, Stanton, (and Fikelman, Onuf, etc.) is that in Jefferson's writings he expressed that he didn't want to work pregnant female slaves too hard both because he felt it was morally wrong and because it threatened his economic interests. But in line with the particular enlightenment morality that Jefferson was a major leader in, these weren't separate things but morality drew from his individual interest in a unified form (in idealistic situations at least). I dunno--I just don't like my wording there. Any help. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever terminology we adopt we need to include at least a couple of sentences outlining living conditions and overall treatment. This will shed far more light on matters than whatever conjecture we decide to use in the section. We should also include at least a couple of definitive quotes from Jefferson regarding slavery. e.g."against the laws of nature..", etc. The section needs to contain more facts than the sort of conjecture we've just witnessed in one of the paragraphs above. -- Gwillhickers 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. But we should also mention the contradictions between ideology and practice commented on by most scholars.Another important quote is the "wolf by the ear" quote which has been commented on by many scholars. Also mentioning his repatriation plans is crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

They are contradictions only in the superficial sense. There were numerous attempts made by Jefferson for abolition but he was surrounded by a congress and others who made that prospect virtually impossible. We should also remember that during Jefferson's time there was much political instability at a time where there were wars with Britain and others (i.e.all the way up to the War of 1812). Consequently abolition pursuits were not much of a priority. Civil rights are only given (ample) consideration during times of peace -- not when you are struggling to survive as a nation with Britain and others lurking in the wings. This is yet another perspective that is often glossed over in all the conjecture. -- Gwillhickers 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not what a majority of Jeffersons biographers say. They almost all clearly present it as a contradiction that needs to be explained that he espoused ideals of freedom and equality and yet practiced, condoned and even at times strengthened slavery (objecting to manumission laws) and that even when having chance to do so at no economical risk to himself he freed much less of his slaves than many other abolitionally inclined slaveowners.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. These contradictions are widely observed in TJ biographies, and should be told to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Some, not a majority, of biographers espouse such superficial claims, almost always out of context. Jefferson advanced abolitionists ideals and opposed slavery almost his entire life. Most RS say so. Even TJF who are on record as claiming Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children as fact have claimed Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.. Any claims of "contradiction", as a rule, are made with much context absent in the conjecture. This is an old and failed argument here on the talk page. As there are 100's of biographers for Jefferson some editors have cherry picked 'commentary' to make their point, as they were, and apparently are, inclined to do, always shying away, even objecting to, the inclusion of facts. This is why we should outline the facts, per RS's, comment on historians divided on various issues, and let the readers decide for themselves. -- Gwillhickers 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Cogliano this view was well entrenched in the literature already in the 1980s. Please mention one respected biography of the 20th century that does not mention the apparent contradiction. The contradiction is of course the driving question behind research such as that of Stanton, Ellis, Onuf and Cogliano himself as well as several other historians. If they are the ones you are writing off as "superficial" then who are the deep and thorough scholars you contrast them with. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

One could easily cite sources where the idea of "contradiction" is not advanced, but if you want to say some biographers note an "apparent contradiction" then we can do so, but in context with the facts -- and there are many to consider. -- Gwillhickers 19:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do. As for the inclusion of facts, it is exactly a very interesting fact that Jefferson spoke often and loudly against the institution of slavery, and it is also a fact that he did very little to counteract it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Holistic Proposal 2

Wrong -- he did very much. Jefferson was one man and did more than most to advance the idea of abolition, but again, surrounded by an unwilling Congress and other interests and not wanting to through gasoline on a fire that was simmering during a time when the country was on the brink of civil war (during Jefferson's presidency) he was often silent on matters. This is one of the "apparent contradictions" so often referred to, by those who claim a "contradiction" that is. Btw, take a look at how Cogliano covers this "apparent contradiction" on pages 142-143 where he refers to Brodie and Willis who "offered a means to reconcile the apparent contradiction". -- Gwillhickers 19:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of the authors offer an explanation for the apparent contradiction. That does not mean that the contradiction doesnt exist - it exactly means that it is one of the central issues of Jefferson studies. Again your claim about all that Jefferson did is contradicted by a slew of reliable sources, that all offer different explanations for why he did so little.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As you say, the apparent contradictions exist, esp if you chose to see them as such. As you also say, they are most often explained by any historian with his or her eyes open, unless of course they have other objectives in mind as a few of them have evidently. We can mention apparent contradictions, while at the same time we can (easily) explain them and put them into context with the facts and surrounding circumstances. There were many. We seemed to have ventured off of the topic of slaves being treated humanely. Again, what ever phraseology is used it should be coupled with a couple of sentences that briefly covers overall treatment and living conditions along with at least a couple of Jefferson's quotes regarding slavery. This will cut through all the conjecture and any slight of wording that creeps into the section. I'm sure that's what we all want here. -- Gwillhickers 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus. Jefferson did not do little to end slavery at all. Before the advent of the cotton gin revolution in the cotton south, the founding generation anticipated slavery would die out of its own accord. The way to do that was thought to be to contain it, and it would end as the soil was exhausted under its practice (unlike the practice of family farms by Jefferson's yeoman farmers). Jefferson was on the Congressional Committee of three to get the Old Northwest free soil which succeeded, and cosponsored a bill to secure the Old Southwest as free soil which failed. He encouraged Ohio’s entry into the Union as a free state from the free soil Old Northwest, and Jefferson encouraged his Virginia neighbor Coles as governor of Illinois to make Illinois a free soil state, which Coles did over opposition of pro-slavery interests of the former-French-held slaves in the Illinois territory. Jefferson did say the end of slavery was certain and as independence was his generations job, end of slavery was a job for the next generation. But yes, Gwhillickers, let's return to treatment of slaves. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have already said, a large number of reliable historical sources evaluate that he did very little, relative to what he could have done and relative to what one would have expected him to do given his ideals. Your evaluation of what he did obviously differs from theirs and if you can find some good sources that state that he did a lot of important work to end slavery then that view can be included in the article as well.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The current proposed note includes 1/2 sentence about limited knowledge about the topic, 1/2 sentence about the academic debate, 1 sentence about Jefferson's writings against ill treatment of slavery, 1 about slave trade participation, 1 about family consistency, 1 about allowances for other economic activities, 1 about rest given to slaves, and 1 about the violence he participated in. That is 5:1 ratio the good things about slave life versus the bad things. If you want sentences to add on about these aspects in this article (as opposed to the Jefferson and Slavery article), it should work against this 5:1 ratio. It would be undue weight (based on every RS) to have more than six the positive mentions than the negative mentions. AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't add fact/statements to satisfy some ratio -- you add them as they are found and let the ratio fall where it may. If a person was known to have accomplished 100 good things and 5 that were not so good and we used this 'balanced ratio' approach we would be obscuring most of the good things accomplished. Hello? Weight should also be given to the facts and not be replaced with or obscured with conjecture and commentary cherry picked from pet sources. We can mention that historians are divided on various topics and let the readers evaluate the facts for themselves. -- Gwillhickers 19:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

But the way that the "facts" are included now do not reflect the way they are included in the sources. Relative to the main literature as far as I can assess it does give added weight to the facts that can be described as good, and less to the facts that suggest a different picture. All of the accounts that I have looked at are more balanced in that regards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As there are 100's of sources for Jefferson your first sentence is sort of difficult to fathom. You need to be more specific. -- Gwillhickers 22:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If for example you were to read Cogliano's very carefull and balanced review of the literature on Jefferson and Slavery you would realize that hardly any of the main scholars represent the "facts" in the highly selective way you do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm only going to respond to Maunus- You are 100% right. More "negative" content should probably be added per Due/Undue weight. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, this is getting more vague with each succeeding response. "Highly selective"? What for example have I ignored? -- AbtractIllusions, What "negative content" did you have in mind? Again, we cite or summarize the facts, good and bad, as they occur and the good to bad ratio is the result. We don't try to 'select' facts to fit a ratio which could very easily result in many of the facts getting left out. We're not balancing an equation here, we're writing a biography. If you want something added or removed from any of the sections please speak in specifics. -- Gwillhickers 00:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Facts-->RSs-->Wikipedia. We do not "summarize the facts", we summarize the coverage of those facts in RSs. If you want to summarize the facts, wikipedia ain't the place to do so. Right now the Holistic Proposal that I wrote has undue weight on positive treatment. The ratio was a heuristic device I used to make that undue weight clear. The issue remains: Any additional information to the holistic proposal should try to improve the weight of claims relative to the weight of claims in RSs. If facts get left out, that is ok as long as the weight relative to the weight in RSs is close. We are writing a short wikipedia article after all and not a 10,000 page authoritative biography. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

More accurately we list the important facts with which we create a summary presentation. "If facts get left out that is okay"? That depends, greatly, on which facts we are including and not including. Again, if we use your strict mathematical approach we could very easily leave out important facts just to satisfy some ratio. Such inherent fallacy could and has often led to a skewed account. Weight is given to the general and most important facts -- any ratio of good to bad that emerges is a by product. An overall accurate and inclusive picture is our objective, not some ratio. It seems you're trying to advance some rationale for leaving out important facts. -- Gwillhickers 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Holistic proposal 3

New Holistic Proposal
"Regardless of his views towards race, historians have generally described Jefferson as a relatively benign slaveholder who did not allow his slaves to be overworked or excessively punished.[Cite Cogliano][Note]"
[Note contents] "Clear historical evidence of the lives of Jefferson's slaves and their treatment is severely limited [Stanton 2012, pg. 106]. In addition, similar to his views on slavery generally, there is an active debate amongst historians about Jefferson's own treatment of slaves. Jefferson's writings often extolled the moral and economic interest reasons for not abusing slaves or treating them poorly and in many respects his treatment of slaves was less harsh than other slaveholders. Although he did buy and sell slaves for his plantation, he never engaged in the commercial slave trade as a main form of income as had his father. To keep families together, Jefferson provided incentives for marriages between slaves on his plantation rather than marriages to slaves on other plantations. Many of those slaves on Jefferson's plantations were allowed to pursue their own economic activities including raising poultry, growing vegetables, and growing hops to sell for Jefferson's brewery. In general he tried not to overwork slaves and gave them time off on Sundays. However, when his beliefs about kind treatment of slaves clashed with his economic interests, Jefferson often resorted to many of the violent tools used by other slaveholders. Jefferson had slaves whipped who ran away from the plantation, would sell those who were disobedient or who violently resisted orders, and he leased some of his slaves to other owners to improve the economic condition for his plantation.[Stanton 2012, pg. Part I]."

• Some changes incorporating in the discussions above and trying to improve weight of the discussion and fix some weird worded sentences. The contradiction is mentioned as it is front and center in Stanton and should have been dealt with. More fixes/comments greatly appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I very much prefer the detail account in the note. Good choice. Most if not all of the historiographic commentary should be placed in notes for the sake of the general reader, placing it apart from the article narrative, imho. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but we still need to get into a bit more detail about his views on slavery, his reluctance to simply free slaves, and his repatriation scheme. I also think it is a good idea to mention his paternalist approach to his slaves, both in the positive sense that they were considered "family", but also in the negative sense that they were considered as childlike in intellect and morals.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks full of holes. First off it says above that "Jefferson often resorted to many of the violent tools". 'Jefferson'? 'Often'? This clearly makes it look like Jefferson himself was doing the whipping rather than overseers, most often in his absence. According to the testimony of slaves and overseers slaves were rarely dealt with in a violent manner. 1, 2 While we can mention that runaways were whipped we should make it clear that this advent was rare and was done at the hands of overseers, several of whom were slaves themselves, like George Granger, known for his quick temper and excessive use of the whip . Secondly, above it mentions Sundays off but leaves out Easter, Christmas and much free time off during the winter months. There's also barely a word about actual living conditions. Then there is this: "in many respects his treatment of slaves was less harsh". It should not read "less harsh" which implies that his treatment was still on the harsh side. His treatement was overall humane where slaves, once again, were well treated and provided for. Stanton's claim that evidence for slave's lives "is severely limited " flies in the face of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation which has amassed much evidence surrounding slave's lives at Monticello, esp since there is much written about it in letters, accounts, farm book, etc. We need to present a more inclusive picture than the one here that selectively and questionably draws only on a couple of sources. (Btw, one of the sources used here, Lucia Stanton, is a staff member at TJF, used in the info just linked to.) We should also present a brief outline of Jefferson's political involvements opposing slavery, including the striken clause in the DOI condemning slavery, the Ordinance of 1784 outlawing slavery in the western territories, the abolition of the international slave trade along with his plans for emancipation and repatriation. We also need to include at least a couple of Jefferson's quotes for his ill regard towards the institution of slavery. -- Gwillhickers 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"less harsh" is exactly the right wording. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"in many respects his treatment of slaves was less harsh than other slaveholders" seems appropriate, since plantations regime of Jefferson was not personally Jefferson's administration alone, but through overseers on three separate properties, not only in his presence but in his absence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson owned and worked slaves on his plantation. The language on Wikipedia needs to be neutral. Whether his slaves were treated kind or overworked seems a matter of subjection. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

With that in mind we don't have to say "less harsh" or "treated well" -- we can just mention living conditions, the way slaves were provided for and mention that Jefferson didn't overwork slaves. Punishment should be mentioned, but since this was a relatively rare advent we present it as such, in context, per overseers. We've seemed to have lost track of an important idea most of us recently discussed. There was an overall consensus to shorten the slavery section, which was done. I even went along with the removal of many of the things that were afforded slaves. Now it seems we're gearing up to begin adding content -- all over again. Yopienso came up with a good summary and we all, at the time, went along. I say the section should be left to stand as it is. If there is one or two important items missing, let's hear about them, because this "holistic" debacle is getting a little fuzzy with few specific facts being discussed in terms of what will be added or deleted, with a lot of focus on the conjecture we're going to add. Again, it all comes down to facts, and most of them are well established. Seems for every one fact there are ten opinions. We need to get centered again and present the established facts, per RS's, and mention historians with their many opinions. Wikipedia's voice. -- Gwillhickers 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm out. Good luck all. Can't say I envy anyone trying to improve this article. I stand behind my RfC vote that "humane slave owner" is a patently ridiculous claim that should probably never appear and only appear with extensive attribution as Maunus said originally. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Evidently and unfortunately you can't see the issue of slavery other than in a two dimensional capacity. The issue is like a box, with its several sides. During the later part of the 20th century slavery overall was presented, over and over, with only one side of the box facing the audience, -- mostly by activists, agitators and others who used the issue for other objectives besides civil rights. Consequently much of modern society only saw one narrow picture. This seems to be how your view has been shaped. There were human beings involved all around, many of whom had religious and/or moral convictions, making for a situation that can't simply be wrapped up in terms of black and white, no pun intended, but that's the reality here. Historians overall can see most of the variables involved and while knowing slavery is morally wrong, are still able to see that this didn't always translate into the grim picture that some individuals would have you believe. Your input is still welcomed, and there is still much work to be done on the entire page, so I'm hoping your interest here extends past just the section on slavery and that you'll go the distance with the rest of us. -- Gwillhickers 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop pontificating about slavery. Your authority on the matter was dashed in these two discussion threads when you said American slaves were healthy, that they lived longer lives and that they multiplied by the millions, so slavery could not be all that bad. I wonder if you would hold these views had you been born a slave, or made a slave. I doubt it. Such views are horribly out of touch. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

These are not 'views' but history, well covered in many sources, (Clingan, 2000, p.13, Tadman, 2000, p.1534, Schneider, 2007, p.484) so it would appear you're out of touch but thanks for linking to those discussions. Now readers can compare what I actually wrote, view the sources I provided and compare them to the sort of vile distortions you've resorted to since you've been around, all of which continue to fail miserably. FYI, slaves in America indeed lived longer lives and multiplied by the millions, unlike Brazil, Cuba and the Caribbean where the life expectancy of slaves was roughly seven years, and there is nothing wrong in saying so, so you need to take your guilt ridden, apologetic and ignorant views and the personal rant elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers 19:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Cmguy, and Abstract. Jefferson is known from reliable sources to have been a) personally benevolent to his slaves, uniting families by buying and selling among relatives, and b) administering a comparatively ‘humane’ regime on three working plantations through overseers and in his absence. “Humane” as in humane treatment of prisoners, in a study of prisons, distinctions are useful.

You seem to object to scholarly judgment of treatment beyond presenting facts, but that is what the RS do. Gwhillickers answers with a concern to elaborate facts. But the summary judgment of RS on Jefferson and slaves he kept is that he was “relatively humane”. And the summary judgment of RS on Jefferson and slavery is that he was a practitioner who opposed it for society (Northwest Ordinance) and for the individual enslaved (colonization to freedom after direct emancipation efforts failed). RS help us rise above facts to context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything currently in the section reflects established facts reflected by RS's while it mentions that historians are divided on some issues. Given the 100's of historians and all the varied opinions all we can do is present the important facts and let readers decide what's what. If we get into conjecture too much it will only be a matter of time before yet another newcomer appears and says, 'hey', all over again. Given Wikipedia where 'anyone can edit', even grade schoolers, this is the only sensible thing to do on a complex topic such as Jefferson and slavery. We have a summary most of us agreed on. It is however missing a couple of important items. It should mention the exceptional and excessive cases of punishment while at the same time a sentence should be added that mentions living conditions with a word about daily life reflecting the relationship the Jefferson household had with slaves as the section once did during its stable period during most of 2012 and early 2013. I went ahead and added these things. If there are still issues, go ahead and revert, I won't restore, but at least explain in edit history and/or the talk page. -- Gwillhickers 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Binksternet, just as there as there are distinctions to be made among treatment of prisoners, there are distinctions to be made among treatment of slaves. Without flinching from the Enlightenment judgment that slavery is unnatural and a moral evil to masters and enslaved alike, let's take on your thought experiment.

I would least like to be held a slave in the Caribbean on a sugar plantation of any description. I would rather be held a slave by English or French than Spanish or Dutch. In North America, I would least like indigo cultivation, then cotton, then tobacco, then wheat (Jefferson) or cattle herding, best an Virginian enslaved artisan with half-wages coming to my own account to purchase myself, by children and my wife's freedom. In what way does your thought experiment take you down a different path of preference as a man held in slavery? The article can reflect that sensibility, were you to draw distinctions based on RS scholarly comparative context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of conversations I had with my brother when we were children. We would pose to one another such questions as 'would you rather die by getting stung by 1,000 angry bees, or trampled to death by 100 wild boars?' Note that in both cases you end up dead, so who really cares about the method? You ask would I rather be a slave under these or those conditions? I answer no, I would rather not be a slave. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Great repost, only I chose slavery as a artisan in daily performance of a craft to secure my freedom, not lifelong confinement at field labor. So the childhood parallel would be stung by one bee and dying versus stung by 100 and surviving. However I were scarred, I would choose surviving. That is, there are distinctions in circumstance that children's imagination cannot find, which scholars do through deliberate care in reliable sources.

Though I too would rather not be a slave at all, and leave the idea here as merely surmise in a thought experiment. But my point stands, there are useful distinctions in the conditions of imprisonment and in the conditions of slavery, both kinds of confinement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The word humane is a matter of subjection as well as kind or harsh. In my opinion, stating a slave was treated humanly, kindly, or harshly is indirectly condoning the institution of slavery. That is not neutrality. I agree with Gwillhickers. State the actual condition of slaves and let the reader decide if slaves were treated humanely, kindly, or harshly. Jefferson believed blacks were inferior in intelligence and whites were their caretakers. That is different then a prison system. Prison and slavery are two seperate subjects since slavery does not require the person to have committed a crime. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

One can make distinctions as to kindly or harsh treatment, it is the mark of deliberate study on a topic. There is a huge discrepancy between the treatment of various individuals within each unique circumstance. Most transported from Africa were kidnapped, some defeated in battle, fewer guilty of a crime. In west Africa, a murderer was not executed, but sold into slavery, the proceeds going to the victim's family in restitution. Each family then lost a member, the family suffering the harm then compensated by the village.

Those slaves born into captivity often internalized their captivity as inevitable, but we may agree that lifelong enslavement passed on to children was in every case unnatural and immoral, regardless of initial circumstances or subsequent treatment. Nevertheless, even with the wrongfulness of slavery as practiced in the U.S., the article isn't limited to describing treatment in specifics, it can reflect reliable sources judgment concerning the context of that treatment by Jefferson, as kindly or harsh compared to its practice a) by others, b) elsewhere and c) at other times. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Belated reply : The above analogy was not very fair. Two forms death, both equally horrible, one form compared to slavery in the American colonies, one for South America, et al where the difference between how slavery was practiced was gigantic in measure. I suspect if one were actually in such a place where those were the only choices offered, slavery in N. America would be the choice, hands down. Gordon S. Wood sums it up very well.

"Slavery in the new world was never a monolithic institution; it differed both in space and time, and slavery in British North America differed sharply from slavery in the rest of the new world. In the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the English mainland colonies imported about 200,000 African slaves, a small percentage of the millions who were brought to the Caribbean and South American colonies, where the mortality rates were horrendous. Far fewer slaves died prematurely on the North American mainland. In fact, by the late eighteenth century the slaves in most of the English mainland colonies were reproducing at the same rates as whites, already among the most fertile peoples in the Western world." (G. S. Wood, Empire of Liberty, 2009 p.509)

If we're going to stand over and judge people like Jefferson here in the 21st century we should be aware of the big picture, rather than the flat earth version most of us have gobbled up without question here in "modern" times. -- Gwillhickers 23:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tag on 'Slaves and slavery'

• I have added a POV section tag to the section on Slavery. It is non-neutral in the extreme and does not represent the literature at all. It also does not respect the ovwhelming consensus of the RfC which clearly is inh favor of the option B which sates that jeffersons treatment of his slaves can only be described as human relative to toher slaveowners in his time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Earlier you wanted to expand on a) Jefferson’s views on slavery, and b) his maintaining a slave population while c) promoting selective emancipation with colonization ---

in the context following gradual emancipation measures failing in Virginia, and master discretion at manumission having been circumscribed by the required expulsion of the freed individual from the state (that is, forcing family breakups). Jefferson sponsored a plan for freeing, training, equipping and sponsoring free and independent life in Africa or the Caribbean, believing it was worth the experiment versus doing nothing against the growing anti-freedom measures in his home state.

Would you care to craft a proposal for paragraph #1 and #2, perhaps using in #2 some variation of the Survey B such as, "Regardless of his views towards race, sources describe Jefferson as treating his slaves well relative to other slaveowners, for example not allowing them to be overworked." [note with detail] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the method for writing the paragraph (i.e. listing the most prominent "facts") but the section at is is now is tendentious in the extreme both in its selection and its representation of facts. In order to conform to WP:NPOV the section needs to include all notable views. It is without a shadow of doubt a notable view in the literature that there was a contradiction between Jefferson's ideology and his practice in relation to slavery. It is also a notable view that he did treat slaves as simple property when it came to paying of his debts and affording his lifestyle. It is also a notable view that he was an only relatively more benign than some other slaveowners. It is also a fact noted in the literature that he did personally order at least one recaptured escappe to be severely flogged and then sold him. It is also a notable fact that he manumitted less slaves than many other abolitionistically minded slaveowners, and even less than some slaveowners who were not against slavery at all. It is also a notable view that he thought that it was impossible for whites and blacks to live side by side peacefully and that the fear of retaliation by freed slaves was the main motivation behind his repatriation scheme. These views need to be in the section if it is to be neutral. I will be happy to try to write a proposal for the section, but I am a little short on time right now due to family event. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any facts mentioned in the section are general and notable facts and are well sourced. The only general fact that was missing was that Jefferson only freed a few slaves, which I have just added -- however if we're going to start comparing items like this to other slave holders it opens the door to other comparisons and there are many. Many of the sources that mention an "apparent contradiction" go on to explain it, as we just discussed days ago. The section already mentions that historians are divided on whether Jefferson truly opposed slavery, which summarizes all notable views. It also mentions excessive whippings, that Jefferson bought and sold slaves, that he thought Africans were an inferior race and that he owned some 600 slaves. If you want to add conjecture (e.g.sold slaves "like property") from selected sources, then we can always add other conjecture from other selected sources e.g. that Jefferson was an opponent of slavery all his life and that he also treated slaves like humans where we can outline in more detail how he provided for them. Esp since so very many sources say so. Any apparent "contradiction" is easily explained -- it would have been nice if you presented one that can't be. We can also add a selection of his quotes which clearly outlines his views on slavery. The section doesn't mention these items either. Major items. Not isolated and exceptional items. Overall you're attempting to fault Jefferson for what he didn't do, with an apparent desire to stay away from all the things that he did do, politically and personally. The section if anything is more negative than positive, esp since there are so many more positive things to say than not. -- Gwillhickers 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to fault Jefferson for anything. I am trying to summarize the literature. You should be trying to do that too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph #2. Slaves and Slavery draft section – numbered three sections for editorial reference.

2.1. Historians have noted a tension between Jefferson’s ideology and failed legislation attempts versus the practice of slavery in Virginia and on Jefferson’s plantations. When early attempts at gradual emancipation in Virginia failed and those delegates who persisted faced duels, Jefferson abandoned his early attempts.

2.2. Multiple sources show Jefferson treated his slaves well relative to other slaveowners, for example not allowing them to be overworked. Although according to a former Monticello slave, slaves were seldom punished except for stealing or fighting or other extreme offenses, there were some cases of excessive whippings at the hand of overseers. While Jefferson would buy and sell slaves without financial advantage to keep enslaved family members together, he also used them for collateral, borrowing to maintain his lifestyle and selling them under financial duress. While he manumitted Sally Hemings children, he freed fewer slaves than some others of the Revolutionary generation, including George Washington.

2.3 Although Jefferson personally intervened to stop revenge lynchings following Gabriel Prosser’s slave uprising, he did not believe large numbers of freed blacks would be allowed to live peaceably in Virginia society as it existed in his day. When manumission laws required expulsion of freed individuals, Jefferson increasingly sought freeing, equipping and sponsoring free and independent settlers to Liberia.

End draft paragraph #2 to meet Maunus objections. For discussion only. Not sourced for narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice writing but you do realize you've expanded paragraph 2 and have even introduced another topic, i.e. 'revenge lynchings'. While this issue reflects well on Jefferson, this also is an isolated issue, something that didn't involve slavery on his part, so I'd forego inclusion of that. IMO we already have a summary. Divided historians are mentioned so the topic of 'views' and 'conjecture' is covered, along with all the other items outlined above. The only major items missing are a selection of quotes from Jefferson himself. If we start adding selected conjecture e.g."contradictions", "opposed slavery all his life", etc, the section will be another bloated opinion piece with opinions pulling in multiple directions. The solution to this reoccurring issue over the years has always been to simply include the general and established facts with mention of divided views among the 100's of biographers and historians for Jefferson allowing readers to judge matters for themselves. -- Gwillhickers 01:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. But Jefferson did not simply make up the idea that whites of his time were not constrained by law or morality in their treatment of blacks, regardless of merit or circumstances. He personally intervened to stop a riot of lynching. I just tried a thought experiment, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other for the middle paragraph might serve. But that violates the preponderance of evidence that is on balance favorable to Jefferson on the subject. Some editors seem to be summarizing with good intent, the literature surveyed for a semester's paper. But that work is necessarily and inappropriately constrained.

On the other hand I don't have all the pages number references lined up from Meacham to argue the points, and unless some interest is shown I won't bother. The passage as written in the article is satisfactory for the most part in my view and it certainly does not rate a tag POV. I liked survey choice B above. In general, a survey of Jefferson's life like Meacham's seems to me to be of greater encyclopedic value on this topic at this summary level than alternative narrower sources "in the literature" that require editors to draw wider summary conclusions for this article than the sources themselves allow. Context is everything. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Before removing the POV tag on the version that goes directly against what seems to be the consensus in the revious RfC, I think it would be a very good idea to have one more RfC regarding what it requires for the section to qualify as neutral. I do maintain that the "unfavorable" viewpoints are so prepònderant in the literature that they require representation in order to comply with policy. As for the idea of "a semester paper", I dont know who you are thinking of. I surveyed the literature in order to make sure that the article represents it correctly and balancedly, because it was painfully clear that some editors here are more interested in writing an article that reflects Jefferson in a particular light than on actually understandinhg and summarizing the literature for wikipedias readers. Surveiying and summarizing the literature is not inappropriately constrained, that is what editing wikipedia is about.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is to lay out a narrative for the general reader of the subject, Thomas Jefferson, not make a general survey of the historiographic literature on slavery in antebellum Virginia. a) What are the three major treatments of Jefferson and slavery in the literature, how do you characterize them, and give an example of each, that we might bring a balance among them as you propose?

b) To the extent the middle paragraph goes against the RfC, I tried to craft a paragraph #2 from your post to meet your objections, including a paraphrase of RfC survey B. Where does it not succeed in meeting your stated objections made previously? c) What is your alternative language, --try one without notes for the sake of discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, the aim of any wikipedia article is to sumarize the literature for the reader, summarizing ALL notable viewpoints in the literature, it is not aim not to present a single general narrative when such a narrative may be contested. This is very basic wikipedia policy. The three major statements that should be included are the following: 1. Jefferson's relation to slavery is a contentious topic in the literature as his liberal ideology and anti-slavery position is frequently considered to be disharmonius with his slaveownership and racist view0 and reluctance to manumit his own slaves or pass abolitionist legislation. 2. That one result of this conflict was that Jefferson strove to treat his slaves as well as possible, providing them certain freedoms that other slaves lacked and considering them almost a part of his familly. Another consequence of the tension between his views and actions was that he worked for a long term strategy of abolition including the repatriation scheme rather than a short term one and that he considered it necessary for slaveowners to choose to free their slaves rather than legally requirting them to do so. 3. Some historians argue that his statements on slavery were insincere and aimed mostly at creating a legacy as abolitionist but that this legacy is belied by his actions including his resistance to manumission, others consider that he was not insincere but merely reacting pragmatically to the complex challenge of reconciling a humanitarian liberalism with a soceity based on slave labor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• TVH, I think the prior RfC was a bit under represented and a prolonged failure. There was more agreement with Yopienso's prior summary. We should simply tweak the existing section, perhaps with some of your wording/ideas, include any major facts, good or bad, that may be missing. Every time we begin work on other sections we find ourselves back here addressing the same old issue again because time wasn't taken to search through the years of talk page archives to see how this matter has been handled many times before. -- Gwillhickers 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Maunus, all viewpoints are represented by mentioning divided historians, per summary statements. This is not the place to outline all the different conjecture, most of which is easily addressed anyways. The notion that "the unfavorable viewpoints are so preponderant in the literature" is not at all consistent with the fact that Jefferson has always and continues to be rated among the top ten presidents of the US and is why he's often referred to as an abolitionist slave owner, as we already pointed out a few days ago. Most if not all all the major "unfavorable facts" are already mentioned in the section and even outweigh the favorable facts. Since there are many more favorable facts we could easily include perhaps we should keep the POV tag in place until this is remedied. And we still need to include a selection of Jefferson's quotes so readers can better judge matters. If there is any other unfavorable and general fact that is missing in the section we simply need to hear it. After all that's been said and done, this has yet to occur. -- Gwillhickers 18:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just added mention of Jefferson's silence about slavery during his presidency -- with no explanation, btw. That would involve his political dealings, or lack thereof, and should be mentioned in the appropriate subsection under 'Presidency', per an unstable and divided government during the years leading up to the War of 1812, etc. -- Gwillhickers 21:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is the place - a wikipedia article about any historical person needs to include ALL notable views, and describe any disagreements between scholars about that person. So yes it does not just provide a narrative, but also prvide a survey amnd a sumamry of the literature. That is how wikipedia rticles are written. As you will see if you read any high quality article about an historical person. There is no NPOV exception for highly rated american presidents. And "presidential ratings" have nothing whatsoever to do with the scholarly lterature or with how a person should be represented in wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus. I agree on the merits on all three of your points above. I now wonder if they could be boiled down into a "historiography topic paragraph" and introduced into, or as Gwhillickers points out in some respects they would be reiterated in, paragraph #3. Or it may be, that Gwhillickers would agree to a combination of an elaborated paragraph #3 and an historiographic note. But what you wrote for specific examples of what you meant sound better balanced than what I took as your intent from the tag/complaint against the section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• TVH, I have no objections of making a summary statement about views, but again, there are many and if we go beyond cherry picking just a few selected ones as Maunus apparently would like to do, then the section will bloat out into another opinion war, so we have to come up with a statement, no more than one or two sentences, that fairly represents all significant views. -- Gwillhickers 19:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Maunus, many presidential ratings are largely arrived at by the same people whose views you want to represent. In the lede of the Ulysses S. Grant page it says Historians have, until recently, ranked Grant as nearly the worst president. Apparently you're set on only including negative commentary as you haven't said much at all about adding anything else, to the extent where you're even ignoring facts. i.e.You put a POV tag in the section and didn't even say anything about the fact that Jefferson was silent and he bought and sold slaves as missing in the section. I had to include those. Again, the many varied views over Jefferson are already represented when we say historians are divided, which they indeed are. Evidently you want to cherry pick words like "contradiction", probably without any qualifying history or opposing view following. Okay, then we'll also have to include the popular view that Jefferson opposed slavery all his life, and that he was an abolitionist slave owner, as there are plenty of facts that easily support that. As you want to include views we must not ignore Jefferson's very own and include a healthy selection of Jefferson's quotes regarding slavery. Looking at the Benjamin Franklin page I didn't see any section committed to 'views', not even a paragraph under the Slavery section. On the Andrew Jackson page there is one such comment in the lede: Historians acknowledge his protection of popular democracy and individual liberty for American citizens, but criticize his support for slavery. On the Abraham Lincoln page historians are only mentioned once: In recent years, historians such as Harry Jaffa, Herman Belz, John Diggins, Vernon Burton and Eric Foner have stressed Lincoln's redefinition of republican values, so here also you're incorrect in assuming that president's articles must include an entire summary or paragraph about views. Any statement about historians overall should be short, neutral and represent all significant views. -- Gwillhickers 19:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)