Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 41

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Finkelman sources and information

I added two Finkelman sources and information to the article. I added a Finkelman 2012 quote because I believed the article needed more historical critical assessment on slavery. Not trying to stir the pot or create trouble but rather improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I added the Thomas Jefferson Foundation source and information to increase neutrality. Let's face the fact there is a deep division among historians concerning Jefferson and slavery. Scholars are saying the exact opposite of each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkelman is fringe and is the only historian that claims "Jefferson hated the negro". Finkelman wrote an editorial called the "Monster of Monticello". When it comes to Slavery, there are plenty of other objective sources that yield "critical assessment" on Jefferson. You need to stop holding this character up as an icon of critical assessment. Yes, you have stirred the pot, and I believe you knew this from the start. We've been down this road a dozen times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Any additional commentary or "critical assessment" will have to be balanced out with additional facts. There are still many facts about how Jefferson treated and provided for his slaves that are still missing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: not long ago you mentioned that Annette Gordon Reed took exception to Finkleman and his take on Jefferson and slavery. Do you know of the source for this information? Do you also know on what particular topics she differed on? This would add perspective to Finkleman's narrow minded and presentist estimation of Jefferson and would also help to reveal that Finkelman is way out of step with both modern and earlier scholarship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkelman is not a "presentist". In fact Finkelman says he looks at Jefferson compared to his contemporaries. Yes. Finkelman is a harsh critic but adds critical assessment of Jefferson to the article. Readers can reject or accept Finkelman's view on Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Stirred the pot" The article was lacking historical assessment on Jefferson and slavery. Finkelman gives credibility to the article in my opinion just as much as The Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Finkelman also gives the years Jefferson freed his slaves and how many slaves Jefferson freed during his lifetime and in his will for a total of 8 slaves freed. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Compares? Can you show us where Finkleman covers Jefferson's treatment of slaves and the lengths Jefferson went to to provide for them, and then his comments about this regarding comparing his treatment to other Jefferson contemporaries? I can tell you I've never have read a single thing from Finkelman in this regard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkelman (1994) p. 199 "Thus, to understand Jefferson's relationship to slavery and race, we must not impose late twentieth-century values on a man of the eighteenth century. Rather, we must examine Jefferson on his own terms and on the terms of his own age. In doing so, the test of Jefferson's position on slavery is not whether he was better than the worst of his contemporaries, but whether he was the leader of the best; not whether he responded as an average southerner and as a planter, but whether he was able to transcend his sectional background and economic interests to implement the ideals he articulated." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you said Finkelman was a Presentist...The above quote shows he does not endorse presentism. For Finkelman's assessment on Jefferson's treatment of slaves and views on race please refer to Finkelman (1994) pages 214-226. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

While I personally disagree with Finkelman's portrayal of TJ, he is not "fringe" but is highly regarded in academia:

He is an OAH Distinguished Lecturer.
A review at H-Net says he "is probably the reigning dean of legal studies concerning slavery."
Brian Leiter ranked him as the 5th most highly cited legal historian in 2013. (Google Scholar confirms he is highly cited.)

My interpretation of Finkelman's claim of examining TJ "on the terms of his own age" as quoted by CMGuy is that Finkelman was unfair in expecting TJ to be in the vanguard of liberal thought instead of the mainstream of Southern planter thought. To me, Finkelman did exactly what he was claiming not to do. If someone can find a RS that discusses that aspect of Finkelman's assessment of TJ, this article can point that out. YoPienso (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We should confine conversation with article improvement in mind. If there is something specific that the article is in need of we can talk about that and decided which source(s) are best suited to cite it. Please don't put the cart before Finkleman. These repeat debates have long since gotten old and this is not a forum to carry on any more than we have about whether Finkelman is fit to source a controversial topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

CMGuy was attempting to improve the article with a specific addition and citation.

I have no idea what you mean by "Please don't put Finkleman before the cart."

You were the one who debated whether Finkelman is "fit to source a controversial topic." (See your paragraph beginning, "Finkelman is fringe . . .") YoPienso (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To confine the conversation to article improvement, if we are to include the bit of Finkleman-centered historiographic essay in this biography of Jefferson, more needs to be said to balance it. Yopienso’s comment that "It's misleading to tie Gordon-Reed's name to an article signed by Christa Dierksheide” is mistaken, Dieksheide’s representation of Gordon-Reed stands uncontradicted by Gordon-Reed. The full copy edit for balance should be restored,

However, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which draws on the insights of many historians, including award winning Annette Gordon Reed says the opposite, "Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. 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. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. The webpage cited was written solely by Dierksheide and has no "representation of Gordon-Reed" save for listing her The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family under "Further sources." Finkelman's "Jefferson and Slavery: Treason Against the Hopes of the World" is also listed, which would imply giving it equal weight and erases the notion that he is "fringe."

I'm at a loss to know why you believe Gordon-Reed--one author in a list of eminent Jefferson historians--should be named in the sentence we're discussing. YoPienso (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought you had found the reference I had previously referenced from Gordon-Reed. Okay, we can drop the names in the mini-historiographic graduate school lesson, then refer to Finkleman's position as "historian assessments of Jefferson range from one extreme to another", provide the Finkleman phrases, then recap TJ Foundation direct quotes from Jefferson to balance it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with TVH. Yes, opinions vary from one extreme to the other, with Finkleman obviously on one side of the extreme and, well, whomever, on the other side. (Is there actually a converse equivalent to Finkleman?) Do we really need to pursue this yet again? We already have one such statement regarding historians -- This idea has always been expressed in the narrative -- for years : Historians remain divided whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery, as he was silent on emancipation during his presidency and only freed three slaves during his lifetime. We should leave individual names out of the equation as, once again, there are 100'a of historians for Jefferson, and cherry picking, even quoting, one of the extreme POV's is obviously rank POV pushing. With all due respect, this entire debate is repetitive and unneeded. We need to stop trying to add fifth wheels to the narrative every few months -- always initiated by the same editor who has had the same reservations addressed time and again. Why do we even bother talking if we're back here again in a few months? i.e.Waste of our time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have (had) a statement about what historians think:

Historians remain divided whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery, as he was silent on emancipation during his presidency and only freed three slaves during his lifetime.::

We don't need this one, esp from someone who harbors such an extreme POV. Finkleman was the only one mentioned by name regarding historians and their moral take on Jefferson and slavery so it's been removed.

Opinions vary on Jefferson and slavery. Evaluating Jefferson in a New York Times editorial, historian Paul Finkelman said "Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery" and called him "a creepy, brutal hypocrite."

Once again, we need to make the general statement regarding historians and let the facts and Jefferson's quotes speak for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So you take Jefferson's words (a primary source, with a massive conflict of interest, who indeed is know to have carefully shaped his legacy), but not those of a recognised third-part expert? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson's quotes and position on slavery has been cited by (very) many historians. We are not using any primary sources to cite Jefferson's quotes, treatment of slaves or his position on slavery. Are you suggesting that we not quote Jefferson at all? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that we cannot let "the facts" (I suppose that's "Jefferson owned over 200 slaves and freed only a minuscule number of those", "Jefferson sold slaves as punishment and as commercially advantageous", "Jefferson's lifestyle with posh architecture and imported French wines was only possible due to a slave economy" ... ?) and Jefferson's quotes speak for themselves. Instead, we look at modern expert interpretations of those "facts" and quotes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I added two references Finkelman and TJF to add credibility to the article. Editors are to supply readers historians accessments of Jefferson. Neither TJF or Finkelman references should be censored. The article states division and giving readers a glimpse of this division makes the article better. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit break 1

@Cmguy777 and Stephan Schulz: I've no problem with using Finkleman as a source along with others to cite the 'division' among historians, just so long as we don't cherry pick/quote him while we ignore other quotes, not to mention Jefferson's. Again, we can say historians are divided, as we have always done. This is an encyclopedia. We include the established facts. Readers don't need historians to tell them what to think at every juncture, esp since there are so many and varying historians/opinions out there. We've always treated this controversial issue with a neutral statement and have let the facts fall where they may in the minds of the readership. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: No one opposes putting the facts in and letting the reader decide. But the job of wikipedia editors is to put in third party opinions of historians. Finkelman's views, although critical, have been deleted and only the TJF views have been stated. TJF I believe has a direct financial interest in Jefferson, i.e. people visiting his Monticello estate in Virginia. Finkelman is used to show the reader there is division i.e. TJF and Finkelman oppose each other. Finkelman and TJF represent this division. The current article says there is division but only shows unity in the text. This is confusing to the reader. To increase neutrality I specifically added the individual slaves Jefferson freed during his lifetime. I listed the number slaves freed by Jefferson in his will. This is a total of eight slaves freed by Jefferson. Washington never freed any slaves while he lived. But that is another person and article. Adding a Finkelman quote adds neutrality to the article and strengths the articles reliability. Just to put a onesided view of slavery in my opinion is not enough. The Finkelman quote should be reinstated. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkleman is not merely setting out to be a neutral third party observer. He seeks to test whether Jefferson is the leader of the best of abolitionists in American history. This is not a standard of neutrality for use in an encyclopedic Jefferson biographical article such as here at Wikipedia. As Finkleman is quoted above, "...the test of Jefferson's position on slavery is not whether he was better than the worst of his contemporaries, but whether he was the leader of the best; ...whether he was able to transcend his sectional background and economic interests to implement the ideals he articulated.”

Of course, to implement the ideals Jefferson articulated he could not go the way of George Washington and the defunct Federalists. To implement ideals in a national federal republic required a sustained, nationally articulated coalition of his contemporary Senators from the states and Representatives from the people. To do so, Jefferson would not be the political leader of the best of the abolitionists, he had to take the wolf by the ears, which is not the same thing as embracing it.

The Finkleman “leader of the best” test is a snide, cynical one of a post modern historian, in that it assumes a presentist absolution of racism among the American people by 1800. But as a matter of historical record, slavery is abolished in the country in 1865 to punish the treasonous slave-power rebels who heedlessly cost the nation 600,000 dead. Then the Reconstruction fell apart under the persistence of racism North and South in the late 1800s. This is not a responsibility that Jefferson can fairly carry in the early 1800s before the Civil War. Some believe that racism yet persists here into the 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow--you can't dismiss Finkelman just because you personally disagree with his views. Jefferson revisionism is a major trend. Finkelman v. Wilson illustrates the polarity of the issue of TJ and slavery. But these two men are only strong representatives of two opposing schools of thought.

Some historiography:

Leonard Levy: "Probably the opening blast in this modern criticism of Jefferson was Leonard Levy's Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side ( 1963)."

Freehling. Wilentz. YoPienso (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Yes, there is a polarity of issues, which is why the Jefferson biography has always said that historians are divided about Jefferson and slavery -- our article even says why, i.e.Jefferson didn't free all of his slaves, silent on abolition during presidency. Again, since there are 100's of accounts on Jefferson, we can't cherry pick commentary, esp ones that are obviously in the extreme. Btw, the Finkelman v. Wilson link above doesn't lead anywhere but to a page with a search box. I did a search for Finkleman there and got no results. Would love to read this account, so if you can get us a link to it that would be great. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. Let's see if my fix works. YoPienso (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

POV

The article right now cites Finkelman only for points that make TJ look good. Yet, Finkelman is known for exactly the opposite. We need to represent his views. YoPienso (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

To allow zero criticism of Jefferson in the slavery section is POV when Finkelman is writing as a third party historian. TheVirginianHistorian and Gwillhickers can disagree but editor opinions in and editor control of the article are not Wikipedia policies. All that is being asked is to let Finkelman represent why historians are divided concerning Jefferson and slavery. This is tandemount to censorship and is turning the Jefferson article into a Jefferson blog. ~~A POV tag in the slavery section maybe in order.~~ The TJF is free to have its own opinions of Jefferson understanding that the TJF is financially linked to Jefferson's Monticello estate. As far as I know there is no financial link between Jefferson's Monticello estate and Finkelman. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Insert : @Cmguy777:} -- TJF is of the opinion that Jefferson is the father of Hemings' children, and we use TJF to cite the "most historians" claim, so your attempt to infer that TJF, who is also staffed with African American historians, has been bought off so they can say nothing but good things about Jefferson comes off a little transparent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that African American historians magically should come to different conclusions than "other" historians? Why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, lets look at the historiography that YoPienso offers us. As Freehling points out, “Others are driven by a New Leftist contempt for reformers who repudiate radicalism”, and Jefferson as a successful politician forging six consecutive presidential terms for his party, was a reformer, not a leader of the best radical abolitionists, which is where Finkleman in his POV gets lost at sea and over his head. In contrast, Wilentz observes, "On similar grounds, of course, almost every politically prominent white southerner of Jefferson’s time (with notable exceptions such as Jefferson’s law teacher, George Wythe, and the Virginia jurist and emancipationist St. George Tucker) could be excluded from being honored in ours.” Gordon S. Wood reports, "And so it has gone for much of our history--Jefferson standing for America and carrying the moral character of the country on his back. No historical figure can bear this kind of symbolic burden and still remain a real person.”

Rather, by Wood’s assessment, "Not only did Jefferson not have an original or skeptical mind, he could in fact be downright doctrinaire, an early version of a "knee-jerk liberal.” … "The human Jefferson was essentially a man of the eighteenth century, a very intelligent and bookish slaveholding southern planter, enlightened and progressive no doubt, but possessing as many weaknesses as strengths, as much folly as wisdom, as much blindness as foresight.”

Let’s not have “zero criticism of Jefferson in the slavery section.” Wood’s assessment has the tone and feel of neutral balance required of an encyclopedic article, without the New Left cant and presentism that holding up Finkleman as some sort of exemplar of modern historicity would involve. I note that in the articles on historiography that YoPienso offers, Finkleman is not notable among the Jeffersonian historians. It seems his specialty is slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian: linking Finkelman to the "New Left" is a political statement that does not belong in an article discussion and labeling Finkelmen a presentist is not accurate when Finkelman condemns presentism. The bottom line is always no critism of Jefferson. Give Jefferson special treatment over other Presidents. In fact one of Finkelman's main contentions is that historians are always protecting Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkleman condemns presentism, then advances it in the same paragraph by seeking to judge Jefferson only as a leader of the best abolitionist radicals of his time, as I pointed out above. Jefferson of course fails Finkleman's presentist test. Finkleman is merely talking out of both sides of his mouth, wanting to have it both ways. Pointing out that Jefferson was not a leader of abolitionist radicalism of the early 1800s is not "always protecting Jefferson and slavery". I look to George Wythe for idealism and James Madison for political leadership as personal inspiration in the time rather than Jefferson, who was Wood's "knee-jerk liberal". For instance, Jefferson is credited with Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedom because he composed it, but he failed as Governor to enact it. It took Madison's floor leadership in the General Assembly, returning for the purpose after service in the Congress. Again, we are agree, let's not have zero criticism of Jefferson in the slavery section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Insert : Exactly. Finkelman has been accused of presentism on numerous occasions, which is why he repeatedly claims, in so many words, "I am not a presentist" -- all the while he speaks at the teen age level with his Jefferson, the "monster" -- a "creepy brutal hypocrite" phraseology, as if he's completely unaware of Jefferson's track record regarding his numerous attempts to advance abolition legislation, treatment, writings about slavery, etc, etc. I'm not impressed with his attempts at damage control. Again, we need to use objective sources that acknowledge and doesn't gloss over a lifetime of facts when it comes to Jefferson and slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not up to wikipedia editors to critisize historians or to judge their motivations and intent. We can simply put in that Finkelman believes Jefferson supported slavery and that TJF believes Jefferson condemned slavery. Let the reader decide. Not allowing criticism of Jefferson and slavery is making this article into a Jefferson blog. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Entirely wrong. Wikipedia editors decide what are reliable sources and which ones will be used to cite the article. There is no official list of RS's that we must chose from. We decided. We've been through this time and again. We have a neutral statement regarding Jefferson, historians and slavery. Once again, because there are 100's of reliable sources for Jefferson it would be inappropriate to cherry pick from one so you can insert your "creepy, brutal" commentary. You have made repeated attempts at an end run with the obvious intention of inserting the most ugly commentary you can find into the article, all under the guise of "critical assessment". At your initiative, this talk page has been led around in the same circle time and again. We have a neutral statement for Jefferson and slavery. You have been reminded repeatedly that the article is not a Historiography on Jefferson. We mention, whippings, overseers, treatment, Jefferson's numerous attempt to pass abolition legislation, etc. etc. You yourself not long ago said that the article was neutral and went on to make contributions elsewhere, yet you come back as if our discussions never occurred. I have tried to extend good faith towards you in the face of numerous attempts by you to do what you are attempting to do now. You have been accused several times of having a POV agenda, and I stuck up for you, but I'm afraid at this late date I must reevaluate this claim in light of your highly questionable intentions here. Disappointed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkelman is not fringe. He is a legal historical scholar and the New York Times is not fringe either. There is no need to attack me or my intentions Gwillhickers. That is also a detour to the real issue of criticism in the article on Jefferson and slavery. The POV is only allowing one position on Jefferson and slavery, the TJF position. It has been awhile since this discussion took place. Articles are not allowed to have commanding generals. What critism is there of Jefferson and slavery in the article ? I am not pushing Finkelman but believe he is not fringe and criticism should be allowed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Insert : Sorry, claiming Jefferson was a "monster", that he "hated the negro" and referring to him as a "creepy brutal hypocrite" are fringe statements. Not even Gordon Reed, an African American historian, or TJF, who is staffed with African American Historians and whose president is an African American, all of whom support the idea of Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, don't even come close to this sort of opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record it was me who added the TJF position to the article in addition to the Finkelman position. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have a neutral statement regarding divided historians, which even points out why. i.e.Jefferson's silence, etc. You have made numerous attempts to include exceptionally ugly commentary. This needs to be mentioned, esp at this late date. I point this out along with my subsequent disappointment. The article is neutral. Claiming that it isn't because you can't insert Finkleman's "creepy, brutal" commentary doesn't wash. Please don't carry on like we all arrived here yesterday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The opinions are not mine Gwillhickers but Finkelman's and you still don't give me credit for adding TJF views to the article whom you kept in the article. Saying Jefferson freed only a few slaves and was silent is not criticism but historical observations not entirely accurate on Jefferson and slavery. I did tell the exact number of slaves Jefferson freed a total of 8 slaves. No credit given for me there either. I am feeling underappreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz supported Finkelman calling him a third party expert. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You can regard Finkleman as an "expert" if you like, but his views are obviously still fringe, or highly exceptional, if you prefer, and we are still dealing with cherry picking commentary for an article that already addresses Jefferson, divided historians and slavery, and we say why. Your insistence that we include Finkleman's odium and commentary, repeatedly over the years, indicates that you strongly share his views, so yes, his views are yours, which is why you have cherry picked Finkelman, out of 100's of other sources, over and over again. Again, please don't carry on like we just arrived here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkelman's views are Finkleman's not mine. Criticism is in all Presidential articles. Finkelman's main contention is that historians protect Jefferson and slavery. I could say you Gwillhickers strongly share the views of TJF. Regardless Jefferson is being "protected" in the article from criticism. Finkelman was chosen because he is Jefferson's worst critic while TJF is Jefferson's strongest proponent. I added both to be neutral. I added two views to the article not just Finkelmans. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I fixed a bad link above. Will paste it in again here with a pertinent excerpt. This if from p. 209 of Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy, by Francis D. Cogliano.

Although neither Douglas L. Wilson nor Paul Finkelman addressed the other's work in their near-simultaneous examinations of Jefferson and slavery, each seemed to epitomize the historiographical tradition against which the other directed his criticism. Wilson explicitly defended Jefferson against charges such as those of Finkelman and posited that Jefferson was opposed to slavery and did what he could, within the limited range of options available to him, to undermine it. This might be termed the emancipationist interpretation. Finkelman dismissed defenses such as Wilson's and concentrated on the record of Jefferson's actions rather than his words. He found that Jefferson did not measure up to the standards set by his contemporaries, some of whom took much more substantive action, such as manumitting their own slaves, than Jefferson contemplated. Two years after he delivered his paper (which was published in 1993), Finkelman published a follow-up article that directly addressed the charge of presentism made by Wilson. In an article in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Finkelman reviewed the analyses of Jefferson's defenders, including Wilson. He accused them of presentism . . ."

I read this book about 3 years ago and recommend editors of this article read it. The chapter on slavery starts on p. 199 and show how TJ deliberately shaped his public reputation. The section on Wilson and Finkelman begins on p. 208, at an academic conference. Cogliano then launches into a chronological historiography of revisionist biographers, starting with Robert McColley, Winthrop Jordan, and William Cohen in the 1960s, then moving on to John Chester Miller, Fawn Brodie, Tim Matthewson, Roger G. Kennedy, and Garry Wills. Then he covers the turn against revisionism, starting with Freehling.

Gwillhickers, it's important that you accept that Finkelman is not "fringe." On p. 214 Cogliano writes, "By 1980 the main contours of the emancipationist and revisionist interpretations, later rehearsed by Douglas L. Wilson and Paul Finkelman, were in place." On p. 216 he calls him "perhaps Jefferson's most prominent and persuasive scholarly critic on the slavery question." He commands such high honorariums my state university couldn't even consider inviting him to speak. YoPienso (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, it occurs to me we may simply be using different definitions of the word "fringe." I refer to WP:FRINGE and to Fringe theory: "an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters. [...] The term is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship." You may mean "extreme," to which I would agree. I believe Finkelman is unduly harsh, but my opinion has no place in accepting, rejecting, or citing a recognized authority. YoPienso (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I was the one who added "a creepy, brutal hypocrite." Here's the diff. As it stood, the passage distorted the source. First, it said Finkelman called TJ a monster, when in fact the word "monster" was used only in the title, which Finkelman may not have written. Worse, it improperly tied Gordon-Reed's name to the TJF. I read that as an attempt to legitimize the source by tacking on a Big Name. My edit rectified those problems.

The worst thing Finkelman actually called TJ in that editorial was "a creepy, brutal hypocrite," which is arguably better, and certainly not worse, than "monster." Also, word count gave more weight to the TJF than to Finkelman, which I object to, so I omitted some of the quote from the TJF.

Unnecessary italics were a small flaw I corrected in subsequent edits.

The section no longer tells the reader that opinions vary on Jefferson and slavery. That topic sentence and its paragraph should be restored. They were deleted here, so now we have only the hagiographic version. I propose we totally rewrite the paragraph, based not on our own opinions, biases, and gleanings, but on Cogliano's scholarly historiography.

Sample: Opinions vary on Jefferson and his stance toward slavery. Francis D. Cogliano traces the development of competing emancipationist and revisionist interpretations from the 1960s to the present. He wrote in 2008, "Despite the best efforts if Jefferson's defenders, such as Douglas L. Wilson, the more critical view--epitomized by Paul Finkelman's work--is predominant at the time of writing (Cogliano, 224). YoPienso (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit break 2

Apparently Gwillhickers has taken control of the article and does not allow criticism of Jefferson. It seems only pro Jefferson authors are allowed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Can you tell us how Gwillhickers was able to override consensus and "take control" of the article? Such language only tells us you're incapable of objectivity when you're faced with debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be well to avoid posting half-baked calumny in the article. "Creepy" is a wp:weasel word. If Finkleman does not think widowers should take mistresses, or men should not have a preference for women of similar looks (blondes, brunettes), or that men should not date women half their age, or like John Adams, that as a rule of propriety, masters should not have intimate relations with their servants, then he should have the wherewithal to say so. Misrepresenting a thoughtful scholar with a trivial sound bite made off handedly for effect is not respectful of Finkleman's actual scholarship. Victorian sanctimony is not appropriate in these pages, it is not scholarship even if it comes from a scholar seeking large speaking engagement honorariums. In the modern era, "creepy" is merely an artificial construct of snide hypocrisy meant to titillate the reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please respond to my ~~proposal~~ recent edit? Please review WP:WEASEL. I've inserted a neutral concluding paragraph to the slavery section. YoPienso (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yopensios paragraph is a good start. There should be one paragraph that discusses historical assessment of Jefferson and slavery. Mentioning Finkelman is good. All the reader needs to know is that he is critical of Jefferson. We don't know if "monster" was his title or the New York Times. I am not for using the words "monster" and "creepy" in the Jefferson slavery article section. Gwillhickers is free to edit the paragraph. I would say Finkelman is the leader of the revisionist movement. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Finkleman is inappropriate in this instance as he is the only one that embarks on such divisive and extreme language. There were/are many critics of Jefferson and slavery before Finkleman hit the fan, and none of them employ the sort of language he resorts to. Finkleman's behavior is not representative of Jefferson's critics. IMO, finkleman employs such grandstanding hype to increase his book sales. Like they say, if it bleeds, it leads -- if it smells, it sells. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the section has improved whether Finkelman is included or not included. Allowing a historical assessment section is a good thing for the article concerning Jefferson and slavery. Maybe there was a rough start but I think the readers have a better understanding of the division between historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

INSERT: Gwillhickers, I believe you didn't notice Finkelman was mentioned in a direct quote from Cogliano. We can't edit the quote to suit your opinion of Finkelman. He is currently in vogue, i.e., mainstream in academia as a scholar of Jefferson and of slavery, and must not be omitted from this article. YoPienso (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree, somewhat. The article already said historians were divided, but the section is a bit more comprehensive. My only and obvious reservation was over the cherry picking of Finkleman's narrow and hyper-opinionated commentary while holding him up as some modern day scholastic icon, representative of all Jefferson critics. From what I've seen, and I like to think it's substantial, most critics of Jefferson express doubt, they don't come off with the sort of odious diatribe Finkleman resorts to. Btw, as I'm sure you'll now admit, Jefferson always had his critics. What gets me is how some "scholars" will ignore Jefferson's many attempts to advance abolition legislation, all of his writings regarding the evils of slavery, the lengths he went to care for and treat slaves like people, his representation of slaves seeking freedom, etc, etc, (i.e.he did much more than just 'talk') while they ignore slave owners like Jackson who didn't lift a finger in that regard. Hence I can only conclude that many of Jefferson's critics have political and/or social motivations, which is nothing new. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The fundemental issue Finkelman has with Jefferson is the issue of race. Finkelman believes Jefferson was proslavery because of money, status, and racism. Whites were endentured servants at Jefferson's time, but did Jefferson use white indentured servants ? No white could be a slave during Jefferson's times. The Romans enslaved all races except Roman citizens. Americans only enslaved blacks and Indians. Jefferson mixes race into the equation in his Notes on the State of Virginia. Finkelman represents the polar extreme of Jefferson's criticism on slavery and race. I don't think he should be excluded from the article. The current version of the section at least gives the reader better understanding on the division by historians on Jefferson came during the 1960's Civil Rights Era. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

As is evidenced by his language, Finkelman has little to no capacity for objectivity, therefore it's best to stay away from his 'view' where controversial issues are concerned. He shot himself in the foot, no one else did that for him. Any commentary should come from the average Jefferson critic, as well as the average Jefferson admirer. Cherry picking commentary from the likes of Finkleman will suggest to the naive reader that all of Jefferosn's critics are like minded. Btw, Indians were almost never used as slaves. As a people they were highly intractable and more prone to run away back into the environment they were entirely familiar with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not cherry-picking. You're censoring to suit your opinion.

Insert : Once again, picking a source, whose views are hyper-excessive, out of 100's of others who simply express doubt or mention inconsistencies with Jefferson, is indeed cherry picking. No one comes close to Finkleman's language. And "censorship" would sound a bit more believable if I were trying to keep all criticism out of the article. Objecting to POV pushing is not "censorship". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What you don't get is Cmguy and I aren't picking the source; we're citing to reliable secondary sources that do. On this page I've quoted Cogliano, Ellis, and Estes. They pick Finkelman. Quoting them isn't POV-pushing. Excising mention of Finkelman from their quotes is. YoPienso (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read Joseph Ellis, particularly the "Historians Rethink Jefferson" and "The 1992 'Jeffersonian Legacies' Conference." (That's the conference Cogliano tells about in my link above.) Quote, referring to the 1960s-70s:" Jefferson's captivating contradictions had come to be seen by many historians as massive hypocrisies, his elegant articulations of the American creed as platitudinous nonsense."

Skimming through this historiography by Todd Estes would reveal how the tides turn in academia. Page 25 is relevant to our discussion. YoPienso (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic note: Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. YoPienso (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of reading to mull over, and I don't have to be convinced that opinions have changed. Was there an item (excerpts would help) that actually nails Jefferson as a man who really "supported" slavery? Upon cursory examination the linked article merely looks like an expose' on selected modern speculation. Not many will argue that Jefferson's proclamations were not consistent with his ownership of slaves. And I'm sure peer-presure being what it is in the professional world, many scholars go along with the tread, but unfortunately in the process they must ignore many of the facts -- and there are many to consider. There is nothing that can be said about Jefferson that says he supported slavery other than the fact that he owned them. Any "inconsistency" about Jefferson is easily explained. e.g.His silence during his presidency? ...An issue best left alone in the face of a greatly divided House, with a Northern confederacy threatening (recently discussed 1, 2). Jefferson didn't free his slaves? Releasing them in those days with no means of support would have been a fate worse than slavery, esp for women and children. Jefferson didn't regard slaves as human? Looking at the lengths he went to to provide for them, not over work them, etc, etc, that modern day notion, also, is easily dismissed by anyone not afraid of what their peers will say. I believe Jefferson's actions speak louder than opinions from afar.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is that Finkelman is an important voice in the historical discussion of Jefferson and his legacy. He is accepted by the academy and therefore a key source in writing an article that reflects current debates about Jefferson. Weincek's recent book is more virulent, but it has been panned by the experts. Likewise, Robert F. Turner is more defensive of TJ than Wilson, but his arguments are rejected by the academy. I've cited to both Cogliano and the more well-known Ellis to demonstrate Finkelman's influence in the academic conversation. We simply can't have a neutral, well-balanced article that omits him.

You say, "There is nothing that can be said about Jefferson that says he supported slavery other than the fact that he owned them." But of course owning slaves entailed breeding, feeding, working, disciplining, constraining all and recapturing some, and, worst, making gifts of or selling them. How can you not see all of that supported the institution, practice, and economy of slavery? And by actions, not words.

I urge you and all participants in this article to wade through some of the literature to more fully inform yourselves of the current academic mainstream.

Ellis calls TJ's defenders "the Charlottesville Mafia." A few excerpts from his essay showing the academic change of opinion:

What we obviously needed from the next generation of Jeffersonian scholars were some less fastidious and less friendly biographers who did not have their hearts or headquarters at Charlottesville.

In 1970, McKitrick had the temerity to ask whether it might not be time to declare a moratorium on the generally benign and gentlemanly posture toward Monticello Man that was the hallmark of Malone's and Peterson's works. "What about those traits of character that aren't heroic from an angle?" asked McKitrick, mentioning Jefferson's accommodation and dependence upon slavery as well as "the frequent smugness, the covert vindictiveness, ...the hand-washing, the downright hypocrisy.

In effect, the canonization of Jefferson as our preeminent political saint, Wood was suggesting, virtually assured his eventual slide into the status of villain.

As more Americans became aware of Jefferson as a slave-owning white racist, Onuf suggested, this flaw had the potential to trump all his virtues. The critical, even hostile, judgement of scholars was a preview of coming attractions in the larger popular culture.

Onuf described the emerging scholarly portrait of Jefferson as "a monster of self-deception," a man whose felicitous style was a bit too felicitous, concealing often incompatible ideals or dressing up platitudes as pieces of political wisdom . . .

And from Estes:

John Chester Miller sharply criticized Jefferson's inconsistencies of words and deeds on slavery. Paul Finkelman excoriated the whole founding generation and Jefferson in particular for their hypocrisy. YoPienso (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkelman's contention is that Jefferson supported slavery. By argueing Jefferson was a "kind" slave owner that by its very nature says Jefferson supported slavery. He could have freed all his slaves. But who would Jefferson be without his slaves ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso: I'm very impressed with your resourcefulness, but must say, while you have outlined well various modern day opinion, there is still much left that is unexplained. If Jefferson was all talk, much of what you have outlined here would be easier to accept. The (many) facts remain. While Jefferson owned slaves, which he obviously had to buy, and then sell if not needed, he still made many attempts to advance abolition. What was that, just an act? He still went through great lengths to provide and treat them well. Another act? He represented slaves seeking freedom. He wrote extensively about the ills of slavery, how it effected both master and slave. At age six he embarrassed his father in the company of friends when he asked, in so many words, 'how come we own slaves?' There are just too many facts that can't be dismissed by what I see as modern day presentist opinion, much of it the product of peer pressure. From what I can see, Jefferson has been crucified for not being perfect. We now have a section that briefly outlines this academic advent, thanks mostly to Cm', notwithstanding my objections to highlighting Finkelman and cherry picking his commentary. Jefferson was not a "creepy, brutal" man, by any means, and the fact that Finkleman asserts such a calamity should tell you right off that he has a few bees in his bonnet and that his assertions are not entirely inspired by the truth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that all aspects of the academy need to be represented in this article, especially as it relates to Jefferson and “hypocrisy". — hypocrisy requires professing moral standards as a pretense. In the case of Jefferson, there is no pretense involved in saying slavery is an evil and defending a black man’s freedom from slavery in court as a young man, actively proposing gradual emancipation as Pennsylvania did in middle age, publicly condemning the vigilante lynching of suspected slave conspirators of Gabriel Prosser as a mature politician, or freeing your own children in slavery at death.

Jefferson was a reformer, not a radical. His life’s work regarding slavery was done in an environment of free holders of 50 acres. He publicly proposed and spent political capital to expand the suffrage to leaseholders of seven years, and tax-payers in towns, and militiamen. This would have increased the Virginia anti-slavery vote ten-fold. But the suffrage could not be expanded in his lifetime. When it was expanded slightly in 1830, with constitutional convention delegates appealing to Jefferson’s democratic principles in the face of slave-holder opposition, the lower House of Delegates voted for gradual emancipation in 1832. But the state Senate, apportioned on a mixed basis of population and slave property, failed to pass it. Where is the pretense and hypocrisy for Jefferson in his time before 1830? There was none.

The hypocrisy is in the hands of presentists critical of Jefferson who suppose that there were votes to be had against slavery where there were no such majority to be had in the 50-acre electorate nor in the malapportioned legislature. This during the exact time in Virginia history when slavey changes from generally being held as an evil to being held by the voters as a positive good in society. Jefferson remained staunch in his condemnation of slavery, and actively promoted a life of individual freedom and republican independence for freed blacks in Africa before his death, before the expansion of suffrage in Virginia made any alternative possible. By the 1850s, those who sought statewide election who had once stood for colonization had to demonstrate their bonafides supporting slavery as having purchased some few slaves themselves, not merely inheriting them in numbers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems as if Finkelman is the source of contention in the article. Original research and editor opinion should not ban Finkelman from the article. It's Finkelman's view the Jefferson was "creepy" and a hypocrite. That is not enough reason to bar him from the article if editors disagree. The readers should be given credit for making up their own minds concerning Jefferson and slavery. All that needs to be mentioned is that Finkelman supports that Jefferson supported slavery. Is that the real issue going on here the view that Jefferson supported slavery rather then Finkelman ? Cmguy777 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, as I just explained, Jefferson supported expanding white male suffrage and the population basis for apportioning the state legislature, both ways of undermining slavery in Virginia. That is not original research, only recognizing that Jefferson dealt with the electorate and the legislature of his time. The anti-slavery sections were badly under represented, see Shade, “Democratizing the Old Dominion” 1996, and Sutton, “Revolution to Secession: Constitution making in the Old Dominion” 1989, and Gutzman, “Virginia’s American Revolution: from Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840” (2007).

Jefferson sought to redress both violations of what he believed to be natural rights in suffrage and apportionment; his oldest grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph proposed abolishing slavery in the 1829-30 Constitutional Convention in his name. An unsupported cynical, carping and dismissive POV of presentism ignoring Jefferson’s world of the 50-acre electorate and the mixed basis (population and slave property) in legislative apportionment should not be given equal weight in the article. Does Finkleman not consider Jefferson’s leadership effort to expand suffrage and equalize apportionment by population as anti-slavery efforts -- as do Sutton, Shade and Gutzman? Then his unscholarly speculation in a area of inadequate study should not be considered for inclusion here, regardless of achievement in other realms. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Insert: TheVirginiaHistorian: I said original research because editors here seem to be arguing that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Editors are to put in the opinions of scholars whether we agree or don't agree with their conclusions. Finkelman is a scholar. I admit he at times is careless with his wording. I don't understand how giving the votes to whites helped stopped slavery in light of thousands casualties during the American Civil War. Slavery was not eradicated by the stroke of the pen. It took a civil war. Thomas Jefferson Randolph is not Jefferson. The slaves had no vote in apportionment. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: thanks for the opportunity to fill in some Virginia history context for Jefferson which scholars professionally locked into the artificial time constraints of academe's historical eras cannot comprehend. As I cited above, see Kevin R.C. Gutzman, at Western Connecticut State University, 2007 Lexington Books, William G. Shade, at Lehigh University 1996 University Press of Virginia, and Robert P. Sutton, at Western Illinois University, 1989 University Press of Virginia.

While personally opposed to the injury done to individuals under the institution of slavery, white and black, and objecting to it on principle as a violation of universal, natural rights, and adopting policies that would restrain slavery or lead to its abolition, Jefferson also supported policies which allowed slavery to expand. For instance, the Louisiana Territory’s agricultural states to be were thought to be a counter to the industrial northeast in the Union, but three of the eventual nine states from that territory allowed slavery, so some historians interpret the one-third effect as “pro-slavery” national policy on balance, which it is not by a factor of two-to-one.

Slavery in the early Virginia proposals would be eradicated not by the stroke of a pen, but by actuarial progression. As of a date certain, living slaves died and subsequent blacks were born free. This is how it was done in Pennsylvania, where it southeastern counties adjacent Delaware had such concentrations of slave population that one of the first two Senators from Pennsylvania was a slaveholding easterner. It is true that anticipating the change, some Pennsylvanians sold their slaves south into permanent slavery in a process of black removal. That individual injury to blacks held as slaves led some anti-slavery Virginians to favor colonization of freed blacks, which some historians take as being soley one dimensionally racist, which is clearly was not.

The myth of a majority of whites for slavery in Virginia is due to the myth of the Lost Cause historiography-propaganda. In 1861 Virginia votes in convention to stay in the Union, then under the drawn pistol of secessionist former governor Wise, vote for secession when told that unauthorized secessionists were capturing Harpers’ Ferry and the Norfolk Navy Yard that day, precipitating war. The conditional Unionists caved, claiming that Lincoln's maintaining the Federal Fort Sumter in Charleston SC Harbor was war on Virginia. The secessionists found a majority for the subsequent referendum only by including regiments in Confederate army camps which had occupied Richmond before the referendum, voice voting in front of their commanders, while excluding the votes from the western anti-secessionist counties which later became West Virginia. After the first year of war, a majority of the Virginian soldiers in rebellion went home at the end of their enlistment, and only returned when the Confederate government instituted the first compulsory draft on the North American continent.

In both Virginia Conventions of 1829-30 and 1850-51, western delegates had a history of proposing abolition plans, and anti-slavery mass meetings in the west had sent petitions to the legislature to abolish slavery. Jefferson was aware of these developments in the late 1700s persisting into the 1800s, and knew the consequences of his policy to expand western Virginia suffrage and reapportion the legislature. And with even a small expansion of the suffrage, the lower House of Delegates voted for gradual emancipation in 1832. A majority of the Virginian white male voters of that year and their representatives were for abolishing slavery. The bill failed in the Senate only because of the malapportionment by mixed basis of both population and slave property.

But by 1850, the arguments on the reformer side were limited to free white suffrage and proposals in convention were dropped. Nevertheless, the opposing eastern slaveholder delegates did not forget, and continually charged in 1850 that western Virginians could not be trusted to perpetuate slavery in Virginia if they were to get the vote, and that they would by their proposal, allow free blacks the vote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

edit break3

@Yopienso: Vogue is just a fashion magazine, so while this necessarily doesn't hurt Finkelman's status, it isn't anything that actually helps it. He's obviously targeting the complacent and naive audience, just as he did with his NYT "Monster of Monticello" editorial. The idea that Finkelman is the leader and representative of modern scholarship on Jefferson and slavery, despite the fact that some historians mention him, is an opinion, and is easily contested and put into perspective when we consider the many facts that he routinely ignores, by necessity. Including all the facts along side his sort of conjecture would undermine his approach in short order. The fact remains, he resorts to virulent and exceptional language that is not employed by any other Jefferson scholar, including Annette Gordon Reed, or the African American scholarship at TJF. Finkelman never highlights Jefferson's personal involvements with slaves, abolition legislation, etc, etc. This, coupled with his fringe language, reveals him to harbor a bias and a narrow POV that we simply can not ignore. If we can't omit Finkleman from the article, then I have a list of historians that we can not omit either. If we start quoting Finkleman, or anyone, then we must include other quotes. Again, it's best to keep away from selected quotes and just relate the message that historians remain divided, along with the reasons why, use finkelman as a source/citation if we must, and let (all) the facts fall where they may and be done with this circular debate. This proposed POV will render the article perpetually unstable. If we concentrate on the established facts, without conjecture, we avoid advancing a highly controversial POV. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: No one is employing "original research" here. This is another straw-man, as is this quote of yours "...the New York Times is not fringe either." Finkleman's editorial was called fringe -- not the NYT. You only aggravate the debate by resorting to this sort of thing. I believe we are all knowledgeable and intelligent enough to not invent items of contention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: This has been the best disussion on Jefferson and slavery in a long time. Productive. As mentioned above I said original research because editors are arguing in the talk page that Jefferson condemned slavery. The job of editors is to put in the opinions of scholars even if we disagree with those scholars. I admit Finkelman is careless with his wording sometimes. He unfairly blames Jefferson for one of his former slaves suicide a slave that Jefferson set free. Also Finkelman does not point out the Washington never freed any slaves during his lifetime while Jefferson did. But, any opinions I have are moot and should not exclude Finkelmans research and scholarship in the article. The New York Times is not known for promoting fringe and radical theories. Very few historians are completely neutral in their historical outlooks. That alone does not make their respected views fringe. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Another straw-man? No, criticism alone doesn't make a view fringe -- acutely odious and exceptional language, not repeated anywhere, is what makes it fringe. And the idea that we "should not exclude Finkelmans research and scholarship in the article" is also sort of a straw man. Finkleman is one historian among very many. Because the issue of Jefferson and slavery is highly controversial, we need to scrutinize 'all' commentary, not just Finkelman's, as I've mentioned several times now. I have no problem with citing a statement using Finkleman that says Jefferson has been sharply criticized for his ownership of slaves. In fact, Finkleman would probably be the best source to cite such a statement. In any case, it's encouraging to see you actually mention another one of Finkelman's faults. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Academic historians are not a "complacent and naive audience."

For clarity's sake, let's use the WP:FRINGE definition of "fringe" and stop applying it to Finkelman.

We could also differentiate between "support" and "advocacy." While TJ supported slavery by his deeds, he never advocated for it with either words or deeds.

There is not a single quote from Finkelman in this article.

Please stop making racist comments about "African American scholarship at TJF." Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe Finkelman's "odious and exceptional language" referred to by Gwillhickers is "...the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite." That is Finkelman's opinion of Jefferson and in my opinion are careless words. But Finkelman's statement, "Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience." and this was the quote I put in the article, is criticism without the name calling and I believe accurately represents Finkelmans revisionist view of Jefferson and slavery. I think it is clear Finkelman is a critic of Jefferson but his beliefs are not fringe. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso: My reference was to the readership of Vogue magazine, which Finkelman was obviously writing for -- I was not not referring to "academic historians". And there is nothing "racist" by citing the African American scholarship, who, if I may assume, are more sensitive to the idea of slavery for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who was and is awake in the 20th and 21st century. That was the scope of my reference, so I don't appreciate you trying to spin this into something it isn't. No one comes close to the sort of juvenile name calling finkelman stoops to. The fact that he claims that Jefferson was "deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks" is equally ridiculous and equally fringe and flies in the face of a life time of Jefferson's efforts to help the welfare of blacks. If Jefferson was so hostile to blacks, why did he make numerous attempts to advance abolition legislation? Why did he represent blacks seeking freedom? Why didn't he over work them? Why did he provide them with living conditions common to most people in those days? How did you manage to not get that? Most critics of Jefferson express doubts and disappointment over Jefferson for not freeing slaves, for his silence during his presidency and note inconsistencies. That is crux of the main stream criticism. Can you cite one RS that slams Jefferson with the sort of name calling Finkelman resorts to? Can you cite one RS that claims Jefferson was 'deeply hostile to blacks', or that he "hated the negro"? Finkelman seems to think he can gloss over all of Jefferson's efforts by playing the race card. In the mean time, I will look through other sources, including the one you were good enough to provide, and decide what is suitable enough to cite the edit you recently deleted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I never heard of anything by Finkelman appearing in Vogue magazine. When I said, "He is currently in vogue, i.e., mainstream in academia as a scholar of Jefferson and of slavery," I meant he is popular with the academics and considered mainstream, not fringe. He gained prominence at a 1992 conference referenced by Cogliano and Ellis. The conference was planned to be revisionist. See here. They compiled the presentations as essays in a book.

The way Wikipedia works, we're not suppose to judge experts according to our own opinions; we're supposed to faithfully reflect the opinions expressed in reliable sources.

The NY Public Library says, "Jefferson was deeply hostile to the presence of free blacks. In a letter to Edward Coles, shortly after he left office, he referred to them as 'pests' in society." There's a slight difference in being hostile to blacks and being hostile to their presence.

To modern-day sensibilities, suggesting persons of a certain ethnicity will think in a certain way is considered racist. Anyway, all the people I've been able to find who are associated with the TJF are white. I would assume various ethnicities are represented among its staff. YoPienso (talk)

The news article you linked to, in the last paragraph says: "Julian Bond ... is scheduled to talk about Jefferson's importance to the civil rights movement." Bond, before he died, was president of the NAACP.

Re Jefferson's reference to "pests". Here is the entire quote by Jefferson, in his letter to Edward Coles, this time, presented in context: -- "In the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them". -- He is not claiming that they were pests 'because' of their race, but because of their surrounding circumstances, and this doesn't come close to the idea of "deeply hostile". Big difference. Are Jews in Israel "racist" because they built a security wall to keep Palestinians from crossing over from Gaza ... or are they simply mindful of social/political circumstances, realities, and the threat of terrorism from these people? There is nothing "racist" by noting common occurrences among any group of people if it's true and mentioned with no hostility in mind. In any case, I asked you to provide any RS that shows where other established Jefferson scholars resort to Finkelman's sort of language. The NYPL article you linked to is written by an unknown person, and in any case, doesn't come close to the sort of language Finkelman resorts to. Again, is there another modern day historian, in the order of Gordon-Reed, Onuf, Ferling, Woods, etc, that comes close to Finkelman's sort language? Even Cogliano, who mentions Finkelman, doesn't resort to his sort of personal castigations.

Again, editors decided which sources are RS's -- to do this we must employ scrutiny and yes, make judgements. Original research issues can arise when we use any source to advance a new or radical opinion outside the mainstream, as has Finkleman, who once again, is the only "scholar" who employs such excoriating language and makes such radical claims. I'm sure there's an area of overlap between Finkelman and others, but he parts company with greater bulk of main stream critics with his "creepy, brutal" claims about Jefferson being "deeply hostile to blacks" and claiming he actually "hated the negro". Highlighting this individual as representative of the average Jefferson critics, out of 100's of modern day Jefferson scholars, is cherry picking a POV and simply flies in the face of a life time of Jefferson's efforts aimed at helping blacks in the new world. We need to break out of the two dimensional Finkelman approach to this issue. Some seem to think that if Jefferson was not a complete saint he was therefore some sort of demon who "hated" the black race. In spite of all his education, Finkelman still comes off rather naive imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, obvioulsy you have contention and hostility towards Finkelman who is not a radical. This is getting too personal. Editors do not decide which sources are RS's. That is not wikipedia policy. Editors don't have to agree what sources say. Finkelman is an established legal historian. No cherry picking here. Contentious words have not been put into the article. Finkelman represents the revisionist view. Weincek represents the revisionist view but does not go as far as Finkelman. Editors are not suppose to convince other editors in the talk page how Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner who had the best interest of African Americans. There is no need to get political either concerning Jews and Palestinians that have nothing to do with the Jefferson article. Ulysses S. Grant is a president that gets historically "beat up" far more then Jefferson. Remember Finkelman really has no effect on Jefferson's overall Presidential ratings. For that matter Finkelman has no effect on the TJF view of Jefferson. Wikipedia is not calling Jefferson a racist only mentioning that racism is part of the revisionism of Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources have been rejected, by editors, time and again for a fair number of reasons, including being fringe. Once again, editors decide which sources are reliable, and we do so on the various talk pages. Once again, there is no official list of RS's that we must blindly accept. Please don't make me have to recite this a 10th time for you. And the Jews and Palestinians analogy was just that. Nothing "political". In any case, yes, as you say, now, we are not quoting Finkelman. His rancorous and outlandish claims are not employed by mainstream critics, so we should keep this sort of graffiti out of the article. As I've always said, we can use Finkelman to cite the established facts, and we can use him to cite a statement that Jefferson has been sharply criticized. He is not however, representative of mainstream revisionist thought on Jefferson, and being a scholar, by itself, doesn't automatically qualify anyone as a reliable source. His opinion of Jefferson the person is fringe, highly unusual if you prefer, and on numerous counts. It seems you've been trying to drag him into the fold for some time because you share his sentiment. i.e.You were not happy with the neutral statement that explained why historians are divided. You initiated this entire debate, yet again, with the idea of quoting Finkelman. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record the article already mentions that Jefferson held racist views that were common in his day, and I've no objection to relating that in the article whatsoever, as that's the truth. Exception occurs when someone tries to single out Jefferson as some hateful and exceptional racist freak of some sort, and that Jefferson's efforts were just some prolonged act he was putting on his entire life, as Finkelman attempts to make us believe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to be hostile Gwillhickers or defensive. This is a wikipedia article. Obviously you support the TJF view. I put in both TJF and Finkleman references for neutrality, not just Finkelman's as you claim I favor his views on Jefferson. That is a false statement. You kept TJF but edited out Finkelman then you put the blame on me. It seems as if all edits in this article on Jefferson and slavery have to be approved by Gwillhickers. Finkelman was chosen because he represents the revisionist view of Jefferson the most, not that he is fringe or says fringe things. Making disussions personal or questioning good faith edits does not help the article. My opinions on Finkelman do not matter. This discussion is proving to be unproductive and hostile. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Or, we could go with citing William Cohen’s name as the example of revisionist thinking: Francis D. Cogliano, “Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy”, page 213: William Cohen’s article, "anticipating Paul Finkelman’s analysis by a generation, is probably the most important contribution to the revisionist interpretation of Jefferson’s relationship with slavery”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am thoroughly enjoying Professor Susan Dunn's "Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison & the decline of Virginia". Now at Williams College with a PhD from Harvard, her work is described by the Norfolk Virginian Pilot as "an excoriating piece of writing...satisfyingly levelheaded". I guess that is what Gwillhickers is striving for, a reference to a levelheaded revisionist, rather than a ranter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

edit break4

Not so ironically, the term "revisionist" is rather an appropriate term for this school of thought, as they indeed attempt to rewrite history. However, virtually all attempts seem to consist of nothing more than new opinion -- I have not seen one newly discovered fact or document that pegs Jefferson as the "creepy, brutal monster" who was "deeply hostile" to and "hated the negro". There are just too many facts and events that say otherwise. This glaring shortcoming is why most of Jefferson's efforts are by necessity routinely ignored by most of this lot. We need to come up with a draft for the new section, that explains how historical assessment has changed, once again, and that Jefferson has been criticized in varying degrees. Of course, we don't want to give the impression that most critics harbor the sort of hostility and contempt that seems to haunt Finkelman. I'm more than willing to consider sources introduced by TVH, and to be fair to Cm's significant view we can also use Finkelman to cite any appropriate statement. We will definitely have continued issues if we try to pass off the likes of Finkelman as someone who represents the majority of criticism and feelings toward Jefferson, because as was pointed out, his feelings and personal attacks are not at all objective, exceptional and way outside the envelope of mainstream criticism, which objectively notes Jefferson's inconsistencies i.e.Didn't free slaves, silence during presidency, and Jefferson's "racist" views/observations towards people of African descent in his day. For perspective, we should also point out that even people like Julian Bond from the civil rights movement recognize Jefferson's contributions towards that effort, as Jefferson was among the first to introduce the ideas of God given rights and abolition during his day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

After adding a couple items of context to the new section I think at this point I'm more or less satisfied with the section as it reads. Cogliano is mentioned twice, but in such a manner that presents no pov issues, imo. If TVH can improve the content/context of the section with the sources he's introduced that would be fine also. It would be nice to add some perspective/opinion from the civil rights movement, but this it would seem is best discussed first before any additions of context are made in that area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I appreciate the positive assessment. All the reader needs to know is what the revisionist view is and that Finkelmen represents the far end of this revisionist view. Finkelman and Weincek represent the revisionist view and so does Ferling who believed Jefferson's views were racist. Jefferson revisionism has had an impact on the Unitarian Universalist Association southeast district who changed its name: Thomas Jefferson District changes name. Michelle Bates Deakin (5/6/2011) In terms of scholarship Jefferson is remains a powerful American figure and founder. The revisionist movement has only a minor impact on Jefferson's reputation as far as I know. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the article: "Proponents of the name change claimed that even though Thomas Jefferson argued eloquently for religious freedom, he was a slave holder, with troubling views of Native Americans and women." Deakin (2011)

I don't think there ever was a Jefferson scholar who didn't know Jefferson, and everyone, held views on race. It's sort of funny though to watch a few of these modern day Jefferson scholars, with all of their education, speak of these views with such amazement, as if they were introducing some newly revealed secret. What has changed here is the significance and stigmas that are attached to these views in modern times. Take Deakin's quote above : "Thomas Jefferson...with troubling views on Native Americans and women..." This is definitely a presentist statement where Deakin is obviously trying to infer and speak ill of Jefferson. Were the Indian's views of white settlers any less "troubling"? Were the Americans "sexist" because they kept women away from military life in those days, or were they just being kind and considerate? Today many people would say they were all "sexists". Ask the same question when life was generally a struggle and very unforgiving, the answer would be 'kind and considerate'. I urge you to acquire and come to terms with this perspective if you are going to evaluate people in history, and before you go off and write about them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you are entitled to your own opinions and so am I. The article is about the Unitatarian Universalist Association southeast east district changing its name from the Thomas Jefferson District. I added the link to the article to show that revisionism has had an affect, good or bad, on the Unititarian Universalist Association southeast district. Does revisionism combine presentism ? That is not up to wikipedia editors to decide. As a reader you can decide that. Does Finkelman use presentism? He said he opposes presentism. All we can do as editors is accept Finkelmans word at face value. As readers we can reject or accept Finkelman, have our own opinions of Finkelman, but can't put them in the article. I sometimes think you are mixing in your own opinions with edits in the article. There is no need to urge me to do anything. That is setting up editor control and is against wikipedia policy to dictate how I should edit on wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're ignoring and glossing over several points here. Revisionism in great part employs presentism, and as editors we should be mindful of that. Deakin, among others, provides us with a definitive example of presentist thought. Finkleman? Imo, he is the epitomy of presentist thinking, in spite of his claims he's not. He claims one thing -- his opinions and language tells us quite a different story. You are entitled of course to deny that. Meanwhile, I'll try not to "control" what goes into the article so much, even though you were able, in spite of my objections, to introduce a new section outlining the revisionist v emancipationist schools of thought. Were you not attempting to put your POV into the article when you originally attempted, once again, to quote someone like Finkleman? I like to think my opinion is based primarily on the facts, too often ignored by presntist thinking. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Finkleman is not merely setting out to be a neutral third party observer. He seeks to test whether Jefferson is the leader of the best of abolitionists in American history. This is not a standard of neutrality for use here. Finkleman, quote, "...the test of Jefferson's position on slavery is not whether he was better than the worst of his contemporaries, but whether he was the leader of the best; ...whether he was able to transcend his sectional background and economic interests to implement the ideals he articulated.”

This is presentism in the same quote Finkleman objects to presentism. Jefferson is to be “able to transcend his sectional background and economic interests” of his time. This is a test of presentism in Finkleman's own words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As Cmguy says, "All the reader needs to know is what the revisionist view is and that Finkelmen [sic] represents the far end of this revisionist view." This, gentleman, is the point. We aren't to debate the merit of Finkelman's arguments, but report them in the context of the academic discourse on Jefferson. YoPienso (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: How is quoting Finkelman, an established legal scholar writing opinion in the New York Times word for word, POV? I quoted word for word the TJF view too. Attacking editors is not the way to get Jefferson to GA and FA status. As readers we don't have to agree with Finkelman. I did not quote Finkelman's personal view of Jefferson i.e. the name calling because Finkelman was inserted to represent revisionist thinking. Finkelman said he does not support presentism. It is not up to wikipedia editors to argue in the talk page he does not. That would be original research. I appreciate letting the historical assessment section into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood me; I'm supporting that statement you made. YoPienso (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Thanks Yopienso. Yes. I was responding to Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Let’s read Cogliano a bit further in the interest of NPOV, p. 218-20. ‘Contextualizers’ a third group of historians, include Joseph J. Ellis, author of American Sphinx, point out Jefferson’s changing thinking between 1783 and 1794, a “shift toward passivity and procrastination”, or in the view of Ari Help and Peter Onuf in a William and Mary Quarterly 2003 article, Jefferson limits himself by public opinion.

If we are to use Finkleman, on the “far end of this revisionist view”, then let’s use all three of Cogliano’s historiographic categories for Jeffersonian analysis in the narrative here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! The paper I wrote, mentioned below to Gwillhickers, is titled, "Thomas Jefferson: Accolades, Controversy, and Censure," because those were the three views that I found scholars hold. They are along a continuum from positive to negative, which is what this article needs to tell the reader. YoPienso (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing narrative

Gwillhickers, I have undone your most recent edit on the article because the source cited doesn't say TJ treated his slaves well. Many RSs do; please feel free to find one, insert the info, and cite it. YoPienso (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: since the quote from Cogliano contrasts Wilson and Finkelman, why introduce the Thomas Jefferson Foundation? Why not stick with Wilson? Here's an article of his that could be used. YoPienso (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso: The article from Wilson you provided a link to is an excellent read. Perhaps this excerpt is best representative of the objectivity and historical perspective he presents the reader with:

How should we remember the leading figures of our history? By their greatest achievements and most important contributions or by their personal failures and peccadilloes? Can one category cancel out the other? In a sense these reversals of fortune are inevitable, inasmuch as nothing ever keeps its place in a world of incessant change. It is perhaps an instance of what the historian Henry Adams called the law of acceleration -- the tendency of change to come faster and faster -- that John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.,whose murders elevated them to martyrdom, should both come in for reappraisal while their memories and legacies are still fresh. Do the revelations about such things as Kennedy's womanizing, his not-so-heroic war record, and his non-authorship of a book for which he accepted the Pulitzer Prize detract from his positive accomplishments as President? Do the revelations about King's philandering and his plagiarism as a graduate student have any bearing on his conspicuous achievements as a civil-rights leader? ... In this climate the difficulties of judging a figure like Thomas Jefferson by an appropriate standard are considerably compounded.
. . .
But if Jefferson's beliefs add up to a kind of racism, we must specify two important qualifications. First, that Jefferson offered his conclusions as a hypothesis only, acknowledging that his own experience was not a sufficient basis on which to judge an entire race.
— Douglas L. Wilson

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious to us all that this is the view you personally embrace. Wikipedia requires, however, that we represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We cannot represent this one view alone but must also neutrally represent those that you personally reject, including revisionism and presentism. YoPienso (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not all that's obvious. I base my view on the facts. You base your view on opinion that ignores too many of the facts, and there are just too many to ignore. No one has represented any one view alone here, so once again, please get a handle on matters and not fill up the discussion with your straw men. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't even know what my personal view on TJ is. Two and a half years ago I presented a 10-page historiography on Jefferson, so I do, in fact, hold an informed opinion, but it's not relevant to editing this article. (My research included an email discussion with Paul Finkelman and another with Robt. F. Turner wrt their extreme views.)

You're still holding court yourself on TJ and his historiographers instead of working to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." YoPienso (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Forgive me, I was a bit hastey myself -- thought I was replying to Cm here. (pew!) In any case, I like to think that I have always strived towards neutrality -- best done by not ignoring the facts, and not glossing over those facts with piled on opinion, which has occurred in this article many times before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing superfluous narrative from "Historical assessment" paragraph

I have removed "The emancipationist view, held by the various scholars at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, maintains Jefferson was an opponent of slavery all his life and thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, noting his many attempts at abolition legislation, the manner in which he provided for slaves and his advocacy of their more humane treatment" because it gave too much weight to the emancipationist view. There was no such explanatory sentence for the revisionist view, nor does there need to be. The paragraph is a quick summary. More explanation may be appropriate at Thomas Jefferson and slavery, but is undue here.

All editors, please refresh yourselves on WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NB: without editorial bias See specifically:

WP:BALASPS. Excerpt: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject.

WP:BALANCE. Entire section:

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

And especially WP:IMPARTIAL. Entire section:

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. [Emphasis added.] Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

Debate about whether Wilson or Finkelman or Cohen or Dunn is right does not belong even on the talk page, much less in the article. The article should not attempt to persuade the reader one way or the other. YoPienso (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Let's back up. First off, a comprehensive paragraph on Historical assessment, in summary, is fine for purposes of this biography since Jefferson and slavery has been debated by historians, esp in modern times. Secondly, you previously deleted an edit, then told me I could restore it if I provided the correct citation. You even went ahead and provided a source to that effect. Then after I do so, and after all our discussion you now come along and gut the paragraph, with no discussion to that effect, and to the point where this section is no more comprehensive on the subject than the article was before Cm' introduced the new subsection. It only introduced a claim. i.e. The Revisionist view is predominant. Weight? Both views were represented fairly well with this one exception. I'm restoring the section to the point it was before, and will add a bit more weight to the revisionist POV to show good faith. The paragraph as you left it was devoid of the the important facts, which must be present if we are to evaluate opinion intelligently. Last, after all your linking to POV and neutrality and lecturing we still had Cogliano telling us that the revisionist view is the predominate view. That is not neutral and entirely debatable. This needs to be corrected also. TJF says Jefferson opposed slavery his entire life, but since this is debatable we don't say that. We should do likewise with Cogliano's opinion on what view is predominant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Point taken; I apologize for a too-hasty edit.

I don't think it's debatable that the revisionist view is currently predominant. (That doesn't necessarily been it's correct or enduring.) Do you have a RS that says otherwise?

Joseph Ellis, in his article for The Encyclopedia Britannica, writes, "His image within scholarly circles has suffered, however, as the focus on racial equality has prompted a more negative reappraisal of his dependence upon slavery and his conviction that American society remain a white man’s domain."

Let's analyze the paragraph as it now stands so I can explain my objection:

Scholars remain divided on whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery.

Good topic sentence. Only quibble might be the use of "remain" instead of "are." "Remain" seems to link back to a prior discussion that I don't see in the preceding paragraphs.

Francis D. Cogliano traces the development of competing emancipationist and revisionist interpretations from the 1960s to the present.

Good; tells the reader about the debate. (Note above that TVH would like to also mention an intermediate view.)

The revisionist view, represented by Paul Finkelman and others criticizes Jefferson for racism, for holding slaves, and for acting contrary to his words, as Jefferson never freed most of his slaves, and he remained silent on slavery and abolition during his presidency.

Good but could be better; I would delete "to his words, as Jefferson never freed most of his slaves, and he remained silent on slavery and abolition during his presidency" since it seems too detailed and somewhat redundant. Imo, would be improved by deleting "represented by Paul Finkelman and others" if there's a consensus to drop "Despite the best efforts of Jefferson's defenders, such as Douglas L. Wilson, the more critical view--epitomized by Paul Finkelman's work--is predominant at the time of writing." I favor restoring that quote.

The remainder of the paragraph deals with the emancipationist view. I don't know why you introduced the TJ Foundation, since it is not in the source (Cogliano). Imo, we should either not ascribe the view to anyone or restore the sentence I just quoted, being faithful to the source that names Wilson and Finkelman.

Unsurprisingly, I most favor my own edit:

Scholars remain divided on whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery.^[1]^[2] Francis D. Cogliano traces the development of competing emancipationist and revisionist interpretations from the 1960s to the present. The emancipationist view holds that "Jefferson was opposed to slavery and did what he could, within the limited range of options available to him, to undermine it."^[3] The revisionist view criticizes Jefferson for racism, for holding slaves, and for acting contrary to his words.^[4] Cogliano wrote in 2008, "Despite the best efforts of Jefferson's defenders, such as Douglas L. Wilson, the more critical view--epitomized by Paul Finkelman's work--is predominant at the time of writing."^[5]

I would particularly like to keep the footnotes that reference Wilson's and Finkelman's writing. YoPienso (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes to Historical assessment

^ Alexander, 2010; Davis, 1999, p. 179
^ Finkelman (1994), p. 215; Finkelman (2012)
^ Cogliano, Francis D., Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy, University of Virginia Press, 2008, 224.
^ Finkelman (2012)
^ Cogliano, p. 209. For examples of each historian's view, see Wilson, Douglas L., Thomas Jefferson and the Issue of Character, The Atlantic, Nov. 1992. Retrieved 23 May 2016, and Finkelman, Paul, Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson, 2nd ed., (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001), 129-135.

The section is quite short to begin with, so I don't see any problem with the length of this summary. As I said, we need to include basic facts along side of opinion so the reader can evaluate these things without having to fish around other parts of the article, or hop to another page and fish around there -- most readers will not do that. WP did a study on links, discovering that most readers do not click on most of the links. They like to read things in a continued fashion. Our brief section does this for them. Silly readers.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I like Gwhillickers idea of placing short representative quotes for the three schools in Jeffersonian historiography. I’m not sure how to integrate them into Yopienso’s draft. But taking Yopinso’s draft as a starting place, I like the use of footnotes to name examples of the work of Wilson, Finkleman and another, contextualist author. I like Yopienso’s first four sentences, but take exception to the fifth. Cogliano, more than seeing the “contextualists” as intermediate between emancipationists and revisionists, sees the Jefferson historiography rather as thesis, antithesis and synthesis: emancipationists, revisionists and finally contextualists. That is, although Finkleman is the “predominant" scholar among the revisionists, the best current scholarship is to be found among the contextualists. To Yopienso’s draft paragraph, I would include the contextualists in the second sentence, I would end the paragraph with a different fifth sentence which states, thus:

"Scholars remain divided on whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery.[1][2] Francis D. Cogliano traces the development of competing emancipationist, revisionist and contextualist interpretations from the 1960s to the present. The emancipationist view holds that "Jefferson was opposed to slavery and did what he could, within the limited range of options available to him, to undermine it."[3] The revisionist view criticizes Jefferson for racism, for holding slaves, and for acting contrary to his words.[4] Contextualists emphasize a change in Jefferson’s thinking from emancipationist before 1783, noting a change toward passivity and procrastination on issues related to slavery, yielding to public opinion by 1794 as he began his first presidential campaign against Adams.[5]" TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinions

It's important to remember that scholars' opinions are allowed and often required in articles but our opinions never are. YoPienso (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I would have to clarify that inasmuch as editors decide which sources, and opinions, are allowed. As we have always done with controversial topics, we say there is division in opinion, and we cite this advent on both sides of the fence, which is what the article did even before Cm' rehashed this debate all over again -- while attempting to drag in a quote by Finkelman. This is why I have always stressed that we include the established facts and let readers decide matters of morality for themselves. Any more attempts to wooo the reader into an opinion (e.g. 'Our view is predominate') should not be allowed, esp when there is no way to validate such a fuzzy and subjective claim. However I have no objection to using footnote [5] below. Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding citations. Considerable work was done to clean up url links embedded in the text and to employ 'one' citation convention -- necessary if this article is going to pass a GA, and esp a FA review. Of course, with this usual rehashing on the same old topic, a nomination don't seem like it will occur any time soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The bibliography already has four sources for Finkelman, with a fifth just introduced for use in the foot note Yopienso wanted to add, so I simply used an existing source, The Myth goes on, for the reader to look into Finkelman's opinion here, rather than introduce yet another one of Finkelman's many books. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Who is wooing readers into an opinion? I gave both TJF and Finkelman as sources. ~~No where in the article does it say "Our view is predominate".~~ If editors decide what sources and opinions are allowed, then this article is a blog rather then an encyclopedia neutrally presenting different reliable historical perspectives of Jefferson. Editors then will team up against each other to put in their select authors, sources, or opinions. Revisionism of Jefferson is having an affect on American society, good or bad, at the same time the TJF foundation continues to thrive and Jefferson's reputation as president remains high among historians. Editors should work together to make the article as neutral, current, and reliable as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Cogliano, a RS, said the revisionist view is predominant, and we ascribed it to him. Nothing wrong, but everything right, with that. Did you miss my quote from middle-of-the-roader Ellis? Here it is again:

Joseph Ellis, in his article for The Encyclopedia Britannica, writes, "His image within scholarly circles has suffered, however, as the focus on racial equality has prompted a more negative reappraisal of his dependence upon slavery and his conviction that American society remain a white man’s domain."

That means his reputation has declined because of revisionism.

As the 1998 introduction to Merrill Peterson's 1960 book says, TJ's evolving image "is highly complex, never uniform and never stationary. . . it is a sensitive reflector, through several generations, of America's troubled search for the image of itself." This article must show that at this moment, TJ is not as highly regarded as he was when you and I were young. YoPienso (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply about citations: I confess that although in real life I can cite in MLA, APA, and Chicago styles, I have not learned how to cite in Wikipedia except by using the little book-with-bookmark icon. I've tried, but find it overwhelmingly confusing. I appreciate your clean up work. YoPienso (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Cogliano's quote was taken out. I think that refered to Finkelman's views being predominate. That was in 2008. Revisionism covers more topics then slavery including Jefferson's views on women and Indians. Are Finkelman's views predominate among scholars ? I don't have his book so I am not sure of the exact context of his quote. Can you Yopienso put in Cogliano's quote in the discussion page ? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that if Jefferson's reputation has declined in present day primarily because of his views on race, which was common place in Jefferson's day, they he is indeed being judged by present day standards, and political peer pressure, all the while his efforts at emancipation, etc, are roundly ignored. i.e.Jefferson was among the first to advance abolition during his day and a strong proponent of inalienable God given rights, which formed the basis of not only the American revolution, but inspired such revolutions around the world. In great part, contempt for these ideals, forms the basis of the motivation behind many of Jefferson's critics. If Jefferson's reputation has declined in the eyes of some then it would seem he is being judged not by objective historians with the ability and capacity to consider Jefferson's entire life, but by social activists with Phd's who can't (or refuse to) look any further back than the 1960's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
As a compromise we can mention that some historians like Cogliano maintain that the revisionist view is predominate, and use him for the cite. Since this is a highly subjective claim we should stay away from quoting him, as again, there are just too many historians who have not been heard from here. There would definitely be POV issues if we were to only quote one person on this note. Aside from various individuals in academia I suspect that Jefferson's reputation has declined among the young and/or naive mostly, many of whom were no doubt goaded into an opinion and who just go along so they can get along. History repeats itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
For balance we should include opinions from various members of the civil rights community. Since Jefferson was among the first to introduce, and pursue, the idea of abolition he evidently was/is admired by people like Julian Bond who claims that Jefferson made valuable contributions to the civil rights movements. Evidently Bond was not consumed by opinions of race in those days and possessed the intelligence and capacity to see the larger picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A good read about Julian Bond and his views on Jefferson
For more perspective on the civil rights view of Jefferson we could also mention that Martin Luther King quoted Jefferson in his 'I have a dream speech'. "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: -- ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: This is article respectfully is not a blog to convince readers and editors Jefferson was an abolitionist. Finkelman reminds us that Jefferson's contemporaries freed slaves...Washington freed all his slaves in his will...Robert Carter III freed all of his slaves over 400. Are we to tell the readers Jefferson was more of an abolitionist then Washington and Carter III ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The article previously maintained that historians are divided and presented the facts, allowing readers to decide matters of morality for themselves. You even commented that the article was now neutral and went off to make contributions elsewhere. After several months with no issues here you then came along wanting to advance a POV and quote the likes of Finkelman, and here you are now complaining that we are not using Cogliano's quote which mentions Finkelman again. We're now looking further into how Jefferson has come to be regarded in modern times, and it seems that the only yardstick that has been used by some individuals are slavery and his views on race, such that they were. Would you like it better if we just said Jefferson was a "racist" and the revisionist view is predominate, and base this on just a couple of sources? Or do you think that since there are 100's of historians and others with opinions on Jefferson that it is incumbent on us as editors to look into a diversity of sources to give the readers a more broad and realistic perspective? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers: You have not answered my question. Carter and Washington were more abolitionist then Jefferson. "more broad and realistic perspective". Neutral and reliable are Wikipedias rules. I added two sources Finkelman and TJF for neutrality. It does not matter what I "like" but what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Carter and Washington were more abolitionist then Jefferson."? Okay, good for them too. Did Washington try to advance abolition? No? Well, he must of "supported" slavery and had "troubling" opinions of Africans. Correct? re: "Neutral and reliable sources". Apparently that would explain your attempts to quote Finkelman, out of the 100's of others -- par with your past attempts which more than suggested that Jefferson and his defenders were/are akin to "white supremacists". It would appear that the 21st century yardstick you've been clutching is only inches long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
From what I can tell on my end, your heart is in the right place, but your views fall short of many things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTICE: I had a few days there with time to participate but have just plunged into summer activities that curtail my WP time. Best wishes to all for progressing on the article! YoPienso (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes Yopienso. Have a great summer and drop in when time allows. Thanks for your insightful and in depth resourcefulness. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso for your help. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Editor opinions should not be put into the article. I keep telling you that I also put in the TJF quote and reference for neutrality but you keep insinuating that I only put in the Finkelman quote and reference. You have yet to give me credit for putting in the TJF quote. Carter III was the leader of the abolitionist movement in Virgina having support from religious churches. Jefferson despised the clergy. I have critcized Finkelman as a source but I don't support censorship of reliable sources. Washington did advance abolition by freeing all his 123 slaves in his will. Yes. Carter III freed his all his slaves while he was alive over 400. Jefferson did advance abolition by freeing 8 slaves out of the 600 he owned. All presidents starting with Washington's 1793 Fugitive Slave Act to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation supported slavery. It is quite possible Jefferson supported and condemned slavery. But editor opinions should not be put in the article. Editors should also not convince other editors whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery. I don't support or push Finkelman's views on any editor. Neither Jefferson or Washington seemed to be motivated by religious faith. Interesting the abolitionist movement started in the churces. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another straw man. No one has proposed that we put "editor opinion" into the article, so you should not carry on as if someone has. Any statement about Jefferson is supported by reliable sources -- and ones that don't resort to highly presentist mud slinging. Yes, you added other quotes to your credit. However, you spoil this when you turn around and try to cherry pick a highly subjective quote from an individual like Finkelman. Also, to your credit, you have ceased in this effort. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Carter III and Washington were historical figures just as Jefferson Gwillhickers. No strawman here. No cherry picking here. Finkelman is an established legal historian. I quoted his exact statement. Why do you keep blaming me for Finkelman's opinions ?

More straw men. No one said Jefferson was not a historical figure. And Finkelman may be established, but his opinions and name calling of Jefferson are fringe and not used by any other and in the process compromises the integrity and honesty of his work. On numerous occasions you've attempted to use his sort view in the article and on the talk page while ignoring the greater body of other sources. And no one "blamed" you for Finkelman's opinions. This is yet another straw man. You need to not carry on as if no one can't read the passage you're responding to, for your own sake. How are editors supposed to take you seriously when you continuously respond to things that aren't even there? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Manumission 1800s consequences

As previously observed in the historical context of Jefferson and judgements about him failing to personally emancipate slaves in place, an interesting element at George Tucker (politician) which is up for FA nomination, UVA law professor Tucker expressed doubt about the wisdom of emancipating his five slaves on relocating from Charlottesville to Philadelphia, when he learned that three of them had, by law, been exiled from Virginia, and shortly thereafter died. The free black exile law was not in place at the time of Washington's emancipations, he had trained up slaves as farm managers on plantations before their manumission, and he provided acreage sufficient for their independent self-sufficiency along with their freedom on Martha's death.

Like Washington, Jefferson also believed that every black man's life was best lived in liberty, just not in the racist 1800s Virginia as it developed after Washington's death. So Africa seemed a reasonable alternative for relocation at the time of Jefferson, subsequently agreed to by American black nationalists of the 1900s. Generally the modern term "racist" means those who wish to disenfranchise minorities in permanent powerlessness here, whereas Jefferson wanted to empower blacks in their own independent republic, so I am not sure the term fits as a modern concept. He insisted on the fundamental humanity of blacks, endowed with all the God given natural rights of any human being, even when enslaved. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The term "racist" is mostly a 20th century invention which has taken on "monsterous" dimensions in present day and plays on the emotions of the ignorant and naive, esp when they are surrounded by their peers, e.g. in the class room. In the 1700-1800's the term probably didn't even exist, or was rarely used. 200 years from now we may all be regarded as environmental "tyrants", "arrogant" polluters and "heartless" meat eaters who "exploited" defenseless animals. In the process the historical accounts that resort to such (presentist) terminology will gloss over the hearts, minds and basic good intentions inherent in most people today. And just think of all the conjecture, any individual who's so inclined, could spin off of these advents. e.g. They "bought and sold" animals while they "calculated profits". e.g."They polluted the air so they could enjoy a comfortable lifestyle." "Monsters!" This is why we should scrutinize any source that resorts to this sort of closed minded thinking, and any time we must use such sources they should be presented in conjunction with other more objective sources, and most importantly, with the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Your POV is present. You are siding with the emancipationst views and are trying to convince editors to side with the emancipationst views. Readers and editors should have the freedom to make their own minds up on Jefferson. Our job is to put in the opinions or assessments of scholars whether we agree with those assessments. Wikipedia editors can't stop revisionism. Its out there. It has already had an effect on society with a Unitarian southeast district dropping Jefferson's name. There are plenty of sources that remain that are emancipationists. We need the reader to have room to think for themselves. Respectfully. I appreciate your edits and interest in Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I'm siding with the abundance of established facts. And I side with the accounts that acknowledges these facts, not with presentist (and often ill inspred) thinking which routinely ignores these facts. For that I am indeed 'guilty'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Freeing slaves. Jefferson had taken out many loans against his slaves and if I'm not mistaken, was prohibited by Virginia law to simply free them as such. In any case, he shared Tucker's reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into the 1700-1800's environment. The existing section on slavery seems to cover these ideas fairly well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The first Virginia law passed in ~~1784~~ 1782 had no restrictions until the 1806 law. Jefferson had 22 24 years to free his slaves unrestricted. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait for a second opinion on that, but for the moment, let's assume you're correct about the law here. Jefferson still took out loans against his slaves, and releasing them so would not only have been dishonest to the people he made agreements with but would have passed on a tremendous debt to his family in the process. And he was still concerned about releasing unprepared slaves, esp women and children, into an early 1800's environment with no means of support. As TVH points out above, when Tucker released his slaves some of them died in short order. Does anyone know the fate of the slaves Washington set 'free' -- did they go on to establish a home, farms, shops, some sort of trade and support themselves and or raise their own families? Evidently Jefferson was wise and compassionate enough not to put ideology before the welfare and ultimate survival of these people. That you seem to find all of this amazing suggests that your approach to history is patently presentist. Editors on this very talk page have taken the time to explain these things to you before, yet you still seem set on ignoring this reality. We're done here, Cm'. If you have any ideas for article improvement let's try to stay focused on that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Virginia manumission law without restrictions was enacted in 1782. Antislavery Timeline Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Did Virginia Law Prevent Thomas Jefferson From Freeing His Slaves? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article, but as it says, the prospect of freeing slaves what not something necessarily in the best interest of the slave:

...the law required that a freed slave promptly depart the state or else reenter slavery, thus making it almost impossible for an emancipated slave to remain near his or her spouse, children, or family members who had not been freed. Many, therefore preferred to remain in slavery with their families rather than become free and be separated from them.

The reality of releasing unprepared slaves was still a major consideration for anyone who was concerned about their welfare, as it would seem Jefferson was, given the lengths he went to and the way he treated and provided for slaves under his care. Though he lived at Monticello, Jefferson was not a wealthy man by any means, was deeply in debt and had borrowed heavily against his slaves. Before anyone tries to burn Jefferson in effigy they might want to give some serious thought to that reality. It would be interesting to track the welfare of slaves who were freed and just turned out into the early 1800's environment. It doesn't require a lot of figuring to realize that "freedom" for unprepared slaves in those days was a very risky and uncertain prospect, one which I would think an intelligent man like Jefferson was more than aware of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The first law in 1782 was unrestrictive Gwillhickers. All that was needed was a deed. The 1806 law was restrictive, but Jefferson still could have freed more slaves under the law. Jefferson had unrestriced freedom to free his slaves. He freed two. Jefferson had unrestrictive freedom to free his slaves while President from 1801 to 1805. None were freed. Carter III freed over 400 slaves. He should be credited for being the abolitionist Virginian leader. Carter III was affiliated with churches, while Jefferson was more of a scientist and naturalist for his times. Abolitionism seemed to be linked to the churches. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again you're avoiding all the valid points made above. Yes, Jefferson had legal unresrtictive freedom to free slaves. So why didn't he? Any ideas, at all? I tried explaining the realities involved. Do you have any ideas what happened to these slaves by and large, with their new found 'freedom'? Were these freed slaves just released with a pat on the back and good luck wishes? Do we know whether these slaves, esp women and children, 'all' wanted to be released from a world where shelter, food and everything else was provided for them -- into an early 19th century world where they had to come up with everything on their own -- a world where even many white people were struggling? Once again, you seem to be assessing matters from your 21st century view from afar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers : Editors are not suppose to do original research. Carter III had none of your issues you have provided freeing 442 slaves and for that matter neither did Washington freeing 123. Carter III freed more slaves then Washington and Jefferson combined. Honestly it sounds as if you are trying to make excuses for Jefferson rather then just state the facts. When Freedom Broke Out — My 7th Greatest American Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Carter III was influenced by the Baptist church. Neither Washington nor Jefferson were Baptists. The church or religious faith apparently was a key factor for being an abolitionist during Jefferson's times. Carter III rented his land to freed slaves for profit. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert Carter (1728–1804) Robert's conversion to the Baptists influenced him to free his slaves. Jefferson did not convert to the Baptist faith. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the above link: "Although Carter inherited and owned hundreds of slaves, his growing opposition to the institution echoed the antislavery sentiments of many Baptists in the 1780s. On August 1, 1791, he executed a deed of emancipation for more than 500 of his enslaved African Americans. It was probably the largest emancipation by an individual person in the United States before 1860. Because of Virginia's restrictive laws, the emancipation was gradual, and the young slaves received their freedom when they reached adulthood. Carter spent his remaining years working out the details and schedule, an effort that embroiled his agents and executors well into the nineteenth century." Robert Carter (1728–1804) Cmguy777 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

edit break5

You provided good articles to read and when I comment and ask questions you cry 'original research'. As an experienced editor you should learn someday that O.R. is not an issue unless you try to advance a new position, in the article, not supported by the sources. You're the one pointing to Washington and Carter to 'conclude' Jefferson wasn't opposed to slavery and seem to be basing your entire position on this one idea, while you (must) ignore all the facts involved during the course of Jefferson's life, which is typical of the narrow revisionist approach. The fact that Jefferson opposed slavery all his life is not only supported by the sources, new and old, it's supported by a myrid of established facts to that effect. That he wasn't able to free all of his slaves because of legal and financial commitments to his lenders doesn't cancel this out, anymore than King's plagiarism doesn't cancel out the fact that his proclaimations were heart felt. The earth is not flat, Cm. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: The reader can decide whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery by sources and references given on Wikipedia. The "original research" is in convincing editors in the talk page Jefferson was an emancipationist. You used the term "narrow" in describing the revisionist approach showing your POV. Carter III had no issues freeing over 400 slaves. Carter III rented his lands to his freed slaves and made a profit. Jefferson could have done the same thing. The difference is Carter III was a Baptist and Jefferson remained a loyal Episcopalian. Jefferson's finances may have been an issue not releasing his slaves. But the real issue is motivation that was missing from Jefferson provided by religious faith. Carter III was the leader in the abolitionist movement in Virginia and for that matter the U.S. Washington only freed his slaves after his death. He and Jefferson were not Baptists. Jefferson was scientifically trained and child of the enlightenment. He took the miracles out of the Bible. But this is all speculation. From a reader point of view putting in that Jefferson could not have freed his slaves because he was "broke" sounds like an excuse more then an actual reason. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the readers can decide, based on the sources and, more importantly the narrative we give them, as most readers aren't going to click on every citation as they go along. Discussing weight, wording, based on which sources is not original research. You've discussed the validity of the so called revisionist view, I likewise have done so with the other. So if you must accuse, I suppose I could accuse you of trying to convince me of the revisionist take on history. If you don't want to discuss these things then fine, don't, and don't accuse me of what you've been doing from the start.
As for original research, your claim that differences in religious beliefs (Episcopalian v Baptist) is something that determined Jefferson's 'failure' to free his slaves has got to be probably the worst sort of original research yet, which even goes as far as to advance a new position. I have not seen any source, on either side of the fence, that ever came close to this idea. But that's okay Cm, this is a discussion, and what you say can weigh in on how we select sources and write the narrative, based on those sources, and we're not advancing new views or ideas in the article -- just the facts and some general commentary about divided historians, and as usual, having to recite the abc's of editorship here gets a bit rife.

Also, why did Jefferson have "legal and financial" commitments ? Lavish spending overseas and parties at Monticello ? The Baptist's and Methodists accused slave owners of living the "high life". Is there a source that says "legal and financial" commitments kept Jefferson from freeing his slaves ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There are sources that say Jefferson took big loans out against his estate, which his slaves were part of. It is common historical knowledge that Jefferson was more than $100,000 in debt, and in those days, this amounted to a fortune. We don't however say verbatim that this was in fact 'the' reason he didn't free all of his slaves, nor do we say anything about Jefferson being an Episcopalian, not a Baptist, as a reason. Below is a passage from a TJF article that gives a summary about the debt and loans Jefferson had hanging over his head in his final days. TJF doesn't say anything here about this being the reason Jefferson didn't free slaves, they just present these facts as is, with no opinions attached.

During the period of his retirement, Jefferson's greatest challenge was to balance his substantial debts with an unpredictable income. His entanglement in the legal issues arising out of the estates of his father-in-law and his deceased wife Martha Wayles Skelton's first husband seemed to be unending. Furthermore, a good deal of the correspondence in this volume relates to Jefferson's efforts to pay off his own "unfortunate deficit at Washington" through the assistance of his agents, John Barnes and George Jefferson, and friends such as James Madison and Tadeusz Kosciuszko , from whom he obtained short-term loans.

Jefferson's slaves were part of his overall estate, which he was trying to sell. He went through great lengths trying to liquidate it all at once so he could settle his debts and not leave his daughter holding the bag. Jefferson died while this was occurring. Here's an informative article that covers this affair. Again, we don't say 'this was the reason' or 'that was the reason', either. We just present the facts Cm'. Was there something in particular you'd like added or not added to the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson had apparently had legal and finincial issues, but the article does not specifically say that is what caused him not to free his slaves. What I would like to add if there is a reliable source that has information on whether the Anglican Church or Diests supported slavery or were indifferent to slavery. The Baptists were against slavery. Carter III was a diest and Anglican like Jefferson but he converted to becoming anti-slavery Baptist freeing his over 400 slaves. I would add something about the Anglican Church being either pro anti or indiferrent to slavery since Jefferson attended Anglican church. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting article: Episcopal Church apologizes for its role in slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This article says that Anglicans or Episcopalians did not take as stand on slavery because it was a secular concern rather then private and was afraid that the Church would split up. The Summative History of the Episcopal Church Policies Regarding Slavery and Segregation Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Insert : I don't see anything to the effect that the Eposcopalian church actually advocated slavery. They mentioned that people looked the other way, but so did many people, unlike Jefferson, who squared off with the idea and took actions that dealt directly with this institution. i.e. Defending Africans seeking freedom, the abolition of the slave trade, numerous attempts at abolition legislation, treatment, writings, etc. -- Btw, this church is calling for reparations for slavery. Will they be asking for reparations from the descendents of the many African tribal chiefs who sold other Africans into slavery also? This modern day organization, aside from barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong century, seems highly political and also seems to have many emotional stigmas they need to deal with in the 21st century. Reparations is a form of blood revenge that seeks to punish all white people for the alleged sins of the father, in spite of the fact that most people didn't own slaves. What are they proposing -- a reparations tax affixed to the income of white people only? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Potential edit: "Jefferson's Anglican-Episcopalian church believed slavery was a secular concern and feared coming out against slavery would create a schism." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Carter III could be mentioned in the article since Carter III and Jefferson were friends. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson had many friends, but unless there is just more than a friendly association between the two there's no reason to mention Carter III, who btw was very wealthy, not buried in debt and could afford to help freed slaves.
Jefferson was a diest, and in his adult life didn't subscribe to any one particular organized church. And though he attended the Episcopal church from time to time, with his daughters whom he wanted raised in the Christian faith. it would be a stretch, not to mention original research, to advance the idea that its influence was responsible for Jefferson not freeing his slaves. It's rather well established that Jefferson was heavily in debt and simply could not afford to free his slaves from his estate, let alone care for them, set them up as paid employees, etc after they were freed, esp since Jefferson was living out his final days and had long since stopped most plantation operations. The last thing in the world Jefferson wanted was to leave a tremendous debt on his daughter's shoulders. Jefferson was not in a position to save the world, including slaves. This should be easy math. The notion that Jefferson just up and had this change of heart causing him to not free his slaves is just that -- a notion not supported by a life time of facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The linked article below will outline Jefferson's relationship to organized religion. There's nothing in it that comes close to supporting the idea that the Episcopal church is what shaped his views on slavery. By most accounts, Jefferson was his own man on matters of political philosophy, morality and religion. He factored many things into what shaped these views. The idea that one organized religion, an advent he took strong exception to, shaped his views on slavery would be, once again, the product of original research, not supported by the facts. Thomas Jefferson and Religion -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any source that directly links Jefferson's debt to not freeing his slaves ? Was Jefferson's debt due to lavish spending and parties ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You're typically not responding to the discussion and throwing out new questions, which are easily addressed, btw. One step at a time please. You keep dodging the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: The article states: "Jefferson became a governing member of his local Episcopal Church in Charlottesville" . It is not orginial research to state that his church did not oppose slavery because it was a secular issue. Also. This explains why Jefferson did not speak in public concerning slavery. His church did not support it. I gave two sources: one an apology and one that the Anglican-Episcopalian church did not oppose slavery. There was no original research since Jefferson was both a diest and an Episcopalian. Did Jefferson spend lavishly and party ? From a readers view that would make Jefferson look irresponsible. I believe there are sources or possibly a source that states Jefferson had parties and was a liberal spender. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This link says Jefferson and Washington financially supported church segregation. The Church Splits Cmguy777 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This link says the Episcopal Church actually owned or used slaves Institutional Slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Many Africans were taken into homes as servants, cooks, etc by Christians and were given room and board as an act of good will and benevolence. This was common in New York, Philadelphia and other cities. This is yet another chapter in history that revisionists and the reparations crowd have to avoid. Editors should make efforts to rise above modern days stigmas surrounding slavery and look at history more objectively. In any case there are no sources that says Jefferson actually subscribed to the precepts of the Episcopal church, esp in the manner you are suggesting. i.e. 'guilty by association'? We know that Jefferson in his early adulthood began to embrace the Deist and Enlightenment philosophies, which opposed slavery. He supported many different churches and in light of his Deist and Enlightenment beliefs his church attendance was conciliatory. This attempt to align him with the Episcopal church in such a manner doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny.

Records of Thomas Jefferson's church-going habits are far from complete. However, evidence does exist of his involvement with and attendance at local churches throughout his life. His accounts record donations to a number of different churches in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and in Charlottesville.

In any case, it's an established fact that Jefferson was heavily in debt and was trying to sell his entire estate to satisfy his lenders and not leave his daughter with that debt, so it requires no stretch of the imagination to see he couldn't free his slaves (let alone assume the responsibility of caring for them thereafter) without further compounding his situation, legally, financially and ethically. Trying to infer that Jefferson's affiliation with the Episcopal church, which no one has really established in terms of what he believed, is what made him not free his slaves is something of a wild stretch, reaching and is obviously the product of original research. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no guilt by association or original research. Jefferson was an overseer of the Anglican-Episcopalian church and that makes the Anglican-Episcopalian church Jefferson's church. Jefferson was quiet on slavery in public and he admitted to being publically silent. That was the position of the Anglican-Episcopalian church. No edits have been made in the article. This is a discussion on how possibly to improve the article. As far as Diest and Enlightment thinking goes I am not sure these were anti-slavery groups. The Baptists that Carter III joined had a personal connection to God. This was why they opposed slavery. Carter III abandoned the Anglican-Epsicopalian Church and Desism to become an anti-slavery Baptist. As far as debt it has not been established why Jefferson was in debt. Lavish parties and liberal spending ? Carter III rented out his land to free slaves for profit. I would say there needs to be some source that directly links Jefferson's debts to not freeing his slaves. Somewhere slavery should be mentioned in connection to Jefferson's debts. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We've already covered how Jefferson was affiliated with 'many' churches, so your attempt to align him with the Episcopal church only, in such a manner, doesn't fly very far -- and his silence during his presidency has also been discussed in depth on this talk page, with concern for a divided House, so much so that a Northern confederacy was threatening. The article already mentions this, and his debt, but as I said, we don't say this was 'the' reason he didn't free slaves, nor do we say, in fact, that anything else, esp his association with the Episcopal church, among many others, was the reason either. Tired of going around in circles with someone who refuses to get it. If you have something more than a speculative fifth wheel you'd like to add to the article let's hear it. So long for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The insights of the “contexualist” historians regarding Jefferson and slavery also can be applied to Jefferson and religion. Recall Jefferson was on an Anglican vestry in his early life when election to that then self selective body was one of the entries to public service such as election to Assembly Burgess before the Revolution. Jefferson avoided formal church membership during his maturity after the Revolution, although he encouraged his daughters to be church goers. Of course Jefferson and Carter III could be friends because they both opposed slavery for individuals to achieve their greatest potential as human beings, regardless of relative supposed capacities among races. And although a Diest, Jefferson generally approved of the self-restraint and public virtue which adherents to orthodox Christian Trinitarian faith exhibited in republican society. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Religious faith was what motivated Carter III in his conversion to Baptism and personal God relationship to free his slaves. Jefferson apparently had no such conversion and remained affiliated to the Anglican-Episcopal church. I only mentioned this because religious faith motivation was lacking in Jefferson in freeing his eight slaves compared to Carter III who freed all his slaves. Freeing slaves was not just a money issue it was a religious issue too. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree religion could make a difference, although two delegates of the generally anti-slavery Quaker faith in the 1829-30 Virginia Constitutional Convention voted pro-slavery provisions along with their fellow eastern planters. Jefferson indeed had no publicly professed evangelical personal relationship with Jesus as his Savior-God in the way that Baptists require before membership in their churches. His affiliation with the Anglican church had lapsed, he was no longer on a vestry after his young manhood, and Jefferson was only tangentially engaged alike with the Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Baptist churches in the Charlottesville area by contributing money to them and visiting them in rotation in his later years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

This edit request to Thomas Jefferson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "deism" to "Deism"

Original: |religion = deism or Christian Deism

Suggested: |religion = Deism or Christian Deism 38.104.242.134 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Done.--JayJasper (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton Addition

Someone needs to add a category, "In Popular Culture" and tell about his presence in Hamilton: An American Musical. He is portrayed by Daveed Diggs and someone needs to add it. TroylersDorito (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Confirm Wilson quote?

I don't have the sources in front of me, but note ~~355~~ 356 says that Wilson referred to Jefferson as "not a great American."

But I'm pretty sure it was Hamilton of whom Wilson said, "He was a great man, but not a great American." I think this would be consistent with Wilson's political leanings, also.

I encourage someone with access to the sources to doublecheck and respond here.

I have the honor to be your obedient servant,

Jeffholton (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wilson said that of BOTH Jefferson and Hamilton. on Jefferson see http://books.google.com/books?id=sHttQqlEb50C&pg=PA86 (and even more on p 85). On Hamilton see Wilson's statement at http://books.google.com/books?id=keQx-6j_P5EC&pg=PA91 Rjensen (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I sit corrected. Thank you! Jeffholton (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jeffholton and Rjensen: On page 85 of Woodrow Wilson: The Essential Political Writings, Wilson notes Jefferson's devotion to the cause of the people, referring to this quality as a "genuine Democrat, a nature native to America", but then refers to this as un-American only(?) because Jefferson's thinking was abstract, refined (i.e"aerated") and not practical. Seems his opinion is a bit subjective here. In any case I added a touch of context (in bold) to Wilson's quote, that Wilson thought of Jefferson to be "though a great man, not a great American." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things

Can anyone explain why most of the #TJF refs lead to the generic/main Foundation webpage instead of to the individual articles - I think I counted at least 31 different #TJF references that look like they are individual references but that actually link to the main Foundation webpage. I was thinking it might have been instituted perhaps as a space-saver because of the length of the article but this method of having numbered references, that when you click on them lead the reader to the Web sources/"Thomas Jefferson Foundation". Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Retrieved January 30, 2016./"Type in title name in TJF search window to access source"... so then the reader goes to the main TJF webpage, puts in the title, a page of results comes up... this seems somewhat cumbersome to me. I am sure there's a good reason and was wondering where the discussion is in the Talk page Archives or what the consensus has been on the talk page.
I am not familiar with the hashtag referencing style that's used in this article (don't even know what to call it). Could someone point me to a Help or WP page that explains how to do this style? I mostly use the Cite web/book/news etc but like to be familiar with other ways of referencing around Wikipedia.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller?... Shearonink (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"@Gwillhickers: Shearonink, Gwillhickers may be able to help you; he spent a lot of time improving the article's citations. YoPienso (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I know there are some editors who seem to work on this article quite a bit (like yourself, User:Cmguy777, User:Rjensen, User:Hoppyh, etc.) Heh, I guess I thought when I posted my original query that a reply would come pretty quickly since this article has over 1100 Watchers. I just have no idea how to construct the "# references", I know they're anchored but I don't understand all the steps, etc. And then there's the linking of the multiple "#TJF" items which I am puzzled by and am wondering what the discussion was and if there are/were any other solutions. Shearonink (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a leave of absence from this article. The only way I know how to cite is to use the <ref> format, which can be generated by clicking the bookmark icon. YoPienso (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink and Yopienso: Since there were about two dozen citations that linked to various TJF articles I instead made a common link that simply links to one entry in the bibliography with a note there to simply "Type in title name in TJF search window to access source", per citation, in an effort to keep so many individual web cite sources out of the bibliography. It's unconventional, but it seems to suffice. The alternative is to add some two dozen different urls for each and every TJF citation with a respective entry in the bibliography for each one. Whenever possible I replace a web cite source with that of a publication, but that requires a lot of searching and reading and in practical term takes a lot of time, effort and patience. If anyone is up to the effort any such replacement(s) would be welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to take it on, but it really does look like such a massive job... I am concerned that there are a fair number of readers (especially younger students & non-English speakers) coming to this article being unfamiliar with Wikipedia and with finding information/sources. I think it is a good thing to make the actual references as accessible to our "customers" as we possibly can. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: reference style. There are a fair number of citation styles available at WP, unfortunately this can get tacky when a single article attempts to employ different types, or simply uses none, inserting urls and other source info in the body of the text, making mark-up navigation, reading and editing very difficult at times. When I was cleaning up the citations and using one citation convention for this article I outlined the style that was used most in the article, back in January . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the link to where this was posted about in the talkpage archives... I did try to search for it and was unsuccessful. Just wondering, does this "anchored" or "hashtag-style" have a specific title/WP-page or is it just particular to the Jefferson article? If it is specific to this article and is basically something new, might be nice to have it written up as a WP-page of some type and get it all down for other editors.

Concerning references, a while back I adjusted User:DBigXray's talk template I found here on WP & I share it on editors' talks (especially new editors) that seem to be having issues (bare URLs, incomplete information, etc) with citations: {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} It's useful in that all the steps are laid-out.Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The citation convention used in this article is used in many other (often Featured) articles and uses the same basic syntax as the harvard style, with the exception of the anchor (ref=harv v ref=abc). From my experience, the Harvard style doesn't link up to a citation template if it is lacking a |last= parameter, and since many website sources don't provide first and last name information this can cause problems when trying to link a harv citation to a cite web template. When you designate your own anchor e.g.(ref=abc or ref=Smith, etc) the citation will link up to the template even when there is no last name parameter. The standard citation convention (for want of an official name) used here links up to all templates, regardless of any |last= parameter so long as the anchor in the citation matches the ref= parameter in the given template, be it cite web, cite book, cite journal, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The search citations can be put in the External links section of the article giving readers access to search the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. It is best to have solid references in the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Cmguy777 - I am not sure what you mean. I only want to clearly delineate the Foundation references that already exist within the article to link to the actual articles at the Foundation's website, not just to the general/home page. If there is some objection to this that I am not understanding, feel free to post here or on my talk page if you like. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink - I am not objecting. I am for linking the references directly to the article. But the search part of the Thomas Jefferson article can be transfered to the External links section, so readers can freely search the website. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok...got it. I'll go ahead and duplicate it into that section. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Code for citations (Harvard references, Harvard-style referencing

<ref>[[#abc| Author name, 2000]], p.123</ref>
{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Alex |title=book title |year=2000 |publisher=publisher name |ref=abc }}

I am placing the above example code - for the anchored/Harvard referencing-style that is in use for this article - here on the page from January 26 2016/Archive 39 so I can have it easily at hand and so that other editors can see what I am doing. This all started for me because I wanted to clearly state the exact reference/s for the sale/s of Monticello from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, especially the initial sale from Jefferson's heirs to James Turner Barclay. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Bear in mind, inserting a url address for each and every article at the TJF isn't necessary, just as it isn't necessary to provide a link to the exact page number of a reliable source. All we need do is cite the source, publisher, page number or chapter and the general url address if available (which is not required). Of course if anyone is up to the task of getting the exact url's for all the individual TJF articles, working them into individual cite web templates, listing them in the Bibliography and providing respective citations which link to them, they will get no little objection from me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm going to be doing. Slow going because I am more familiar with the general usage/cite web/cite book/cite ref/etc. My whole thing is I just want to make the sources as transparent and accessible as possible to the general WP readership. Shearonink (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The TJF sources are already transparent and accessible as each of the existing TJF citations will link you to the bibliography entry which in turn links you to the TJF main page/search window. All you'll really be doing here is simply sparing the few readers who follow up on the source the 'inconvenience' of having to type in the article name. We don't provide links to the exact page to any book we cite, we simply give them the author name, title and page number(s) and ultimately a link to the book when available, but again, it's not required. If you're still set on going the distance with this, well, I hope you realize the work involved and thank you for the effort. Just in case you didn't know, about a year ago I was the one who took approximately 20 TJF 'cite web' templates, removed all the redundant TJF info and urls in each template, and consolidated them all into one listing, with one url to the TJF main page. If you want to type in a separate cite web template for each TJF article cited, with links to the citations in the body of text, I only offer a passing objection inasmuch as it's really not that necessary, imo. Don't go getting cross-eyed on us now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your previous work on the #TJF refs. Heh, and I won't go cross-eyed - I'll just keep on plugging away, adjusting a few at a time. I think it is important, in the spirit of verifiability, that our customers, the people who read Wikipedia, the people who read this article, that they have a clear path to the sources (even if it is just a few people who will follow the information to the end). I guess I am thinking that when an article only provides the general website link, it could be seen as reminiscent of providing a book cite but maybe no page numbers... I did go back and check to see where this Sfn-variant came from and you provided a linkage to it previously on this talk page, so yeah, I knew you had done the work, which is why I wanted to discuss it here on the talk page. I don't like taking on an editing change like this if it flies in the face of consensus. Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the words, esp where the readers are concerned. Some time ago, the citations/references on this page was something of a mixed bag of nuts. There was many more website sources than there were even before I condensed the TJF sources. Whenever I could I would replace a web site source with that of a RS/publication. This would be a good time to ask that if you think you can cite something with a publication rather than a TJF reference, please do so. Sometimes simple points in the biography are cited by web site sources when they don't really need to be.
Making a separate subsection (not linked to TOC) for all the TJF references (that will be) in the Bibliography seems like a practical idea. I'll go ahead and do this -- don't think there's any policy that says not to, nor can I think of any reason not to. I'll move the existing TJF sources there, keeping the general TJF main page listing at the top. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you did put in a separate section - makes sense to me. I am thinking I will convert all the #TJF refs to point to the actual articles at the Foundation's website and then go back and parse through them to see if the info can be sourced from some other reliable source, etc. Shearonink (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Many of the books listed in the bibliography offer ample amounts of partial viewing, while there are many dozens in the public domain that offer full viewing (and downloading in PDF form). Our public library while having a good assortment of Washington biographies and such, unfortunately doesn't have many Jefferson biographies. One of these days I'm going to get the complete Dumas Malone biography on Jefferson. Ebay often has the complete 7 volume set, in various conditions. Almost any topic on Jefferson can be found there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

TJ External links

{copied from user talk page)

Do you think this section could be trimmed? All the various "Jefferson's Papers" linkages seem like they might be redundant...

The TJ Foundation is useful in that it is easily accessible both in term of content and design, plus it is often thought of one of the first sources to be consulted.
The Mass Historical Society information is digitized & searchable.
Oddly enough, I think the UVA link is not as useful as it could be for people searching online - their digital collection is only accessible to UVA students & staff.
National Archives is searchable, and presents the information in full.
The World Digital Library presents images of the pages of Jefferson's personal copy of "A Summary View" AND it is searchable.
The Avalon Project (Yale)...seems like it duplicates the material at the TJ Foundation/Mass Historical Society/National Archives.
Project Gutenberg...seems to duplicate some of the materials presented by other institutions BUT they are available for download.
Internet Archive...has over 2000 books listed, many of which are biographies. Doesn't seem completely necessary.
LibriVox seems really good, presents information in audiobooks, making the information available to those who might benefit from this type of information source.
LifePortrait/CSpan seems good, in the sense that it presents information in an audio & video format.

Any opinions? I feel funny thinking about deleting any of these sources but am not sure they are all really necessary. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. External links should offer supplemental information and not merely offer what the Wikipedia article already covers. Sites that offer primary and secondary sources, editorials, new discoveries, etc would seem to be among the most appropriate for an external link, while those that merely link to other Jefferson biographies and such would be redundant, not only to the WP biography, but to the Bibliography where many accounts can already be found. I've removed two such links. Others might do well to be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation links

@Shearonink: Ref [313] doesn't link to the correct TJF source in the bibiliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I'm working on it. I've come across some oddly-formed references - trying to get everything working right. Will be able to get it all fixed within at most an hour or two. Shearonink (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: We still have a few lingering items here:

Refs [158]-TJF: American Indians, [347]-TJF: Italy – Language, [348]-TJF: "Public speaking", don't link to anything (Ref [158] might need to link to same source as ref [60].)
Refs [347] and [348] only link to TJF main page entry .
Some of the TJF refs [22], [231], [236] are spelled out, (i.e.Thomas Jefferson Foundation) while most others simply use the TJF designation.. Need to make them all consistent in format. i.e.TJF -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I know they are all not in a finished state. I am aware that there are still some lingering issues with the #TJF refs. Some of the #TJF refs had pre-existing issues from before I started, so those had to be fixed as I went along. Am going to finish up within the next day or two and then go back for general clean-up, make everything "nice and purty". Shearonink (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanx We have the Thomas Jefferson Foundation spelled out once in the bibliography which is readily seen should any reader click and hop to the biblio' to check on things, so TJF works nice, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson and slavery: criticism

The final sentence of the article's introductory section currently reads: 'Although in recent times he has been critized by some historians over owning slaves, presidential scholars overall continue to rank Jefferson among the greatest presidents'. I have two issues with this. First, would it not be truer to say that the criticism relates not so much to the owning of slaves per se, as to the inconsistency between his slaveholding and his clearly stated views on human rights and freedom, which exposes him, in the eyes of at least some, to charges of hypocrisy? Secondly, I don't see why criticism on this score alone should be contrasted with scholars' estimation of Jefferson as one of the greatest presidents; surely he has been criticized on other grounds too? Given both these issues, would it not perhaps be better to reword along the following lines (I offer this as merely a tentative draft): 'Although in recent times he has been criticized on various grounds (not least for the inconsistency between his stated views on human rights and his continued ownership of slaves), presidential scholars ...' etc. Any thoughts? Chronarch (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to resume the article's content. "Various grounds" would hint at political criticism, in the case of Thomas Jefferson you could add twice possible economic maladresses. But they all do not relate to "recent criticism" (::Historical reputation). --Askedonty (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input. What about: 'Although he has been criticized on various grounds - most recently for inconsistency between his statements and actions in the context of slavery - presidential scholars ...' etc.? Chronarch (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I know aspects about it have been precisely discussed in past discussions ( it is about it, and the TJF in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_41#Removing_superfluous_narrative_from_.22Historical_assessment.22_paragraph. See also precedent archives). Where I'm concerned your proposal is conceptually correct, yet, stylistically it would involve a shift in the time of reference ( right after discussing the Sally Hemmings controversy we are in a still heated contemporary controversy which is certainly the reason for the current simplified assertion ), so I'll remain in the expectation of other users' comments, for now --Askedonty (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - as you say, let's see if anyone else has a view. Chronarch (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Contemporary criticism of Jefferson centers on his continuing to own slaves after penning the Declaration of Independence which requires an anachronistic suspension of historical context. Others take askance at his political stances including some equivocating slave policies which helped to forge a national political coalition winning presidential and congressional majorities in six consecutive presidential terms over the last third of his lifetime.

Also personal aspects of Jefferson’s slave ownership are held up as remarkable which were more benign than most in Virginia, --Virginia’s regime being more benign than those found in the Deep South of the United States — the American Deep South being less horrific than the regimes found in the Caribbean among British, French, and Spanish and they less atrocious than the Portuguese in Brazil where most slaves of the forced African migration to the Americas were worked to death without issue. But this context has little to do with Jefferson’s reputation among presidential scholars, nor can it be addressed economically in the introduction, as a matter of style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing an academic source for this fascinating hierarchy of atrociousness. Certainly if correct Jefferson deserves praise for having been the least atrocious of slave-owners and the US for being the least atrocious nation founded on slave-labor. Particularly I think it is interesting that most the African slaves in the Portuguese colonies apparently died from exhaustion without issue which is surprising to me given the rather siezeable afrodescendant population of modern Brazil.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus: Ira Berlin, "Many Thousands Gone: the first two centuries of slavery in North America". gives some international context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As I read Berlin he is not in the business of setting up hierarchies of atrocity, much less one in which Virginia is the least atrocious of slave societies. He describes that there are different patterns of violence in societies with slaves in which slavery is incidental and dispensable and in societies where it is integral to all social functions - but he does not claim that one is more atrocious or evil than the other - although one generates the conditions for genocide and the other the conditions for more "sustainable" forms of oppression and violence. Incidentally it seems that the few time he uses the words cruelty and atrocity in reference to planters' treatment of slaves it is in reference to planters in the Chesapeake region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

And what is the time frame of that assessment for the Tidewater Chesapeake? Is it the same for 1740-1820s of Jefferson's time in the Piedmont growing tobacco, then corn? Unsustainable conditions of slavery such as found in Spanish mines and on the Haitian and Brazilian plantations is a form of genocide in my opinion, although were we to try to describe those conditions in scholarly terms, I’m reluctant to use the term anachronistically, in the same way that Berlin avoids it.

As to the Chesapeake, you may be referring to the1600s cruelty of Virginia's first fifty years when the labor laws governing indentures and slaves are the same, and when Christian slaves from Angola land other converts are freed after seven years’ service the same as English indentures. Yes, they were cruel times for all those bound to labor in English society of the 1600s, including the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread...perhaps nowhere so as much as sailors at sea in the British Royal Navy. It is only after life-long slavery is made legal in 1661 that the mass migration of free blacks from Virginia into Maryland takes place, and only after 1712 that race-based slavery becomes hereditary by the mother’s status. Of course, the tradition of free black and white political community as practiced before 1670 and restored briefly during Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 is kept alive among only a minority of white Virginians until the mid twentieth century. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Jefferson's oldest grandson ends a promising political career in 1832 by proposing a plan of gradual emancipation which would have resulted in a substantial community of free blacks in Virginia. But that legacy of Thomas Jefferson sustained in the western (non-Chesapeake) parts of Virginia has been deprecated in these pages. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Berlin describes that Virginia experienced a gradual transition from a "society with slaves" to a "slave society" in the period until 1720 as slavery was gradually institutionalized and the slave-owning class became the de facto political elite. And the words atrocity, callousness and cruelty are used specifically about pre-1720 Chesapeake planters. So certainly Jefferson would be a part of the "slave society" period in which slavery was enforced through less spectacular and more institutionalized forms of violence meant to keep the slave class alive but under total domination. I do not see however any attempt by Berlin to compare different levels of atrociousness or create a sliding scale suggesting that some forms of slavery are more ethically defensible than others, in the way you suggested above. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Virginia Historian, for your very helpful input. Looking at the passage in question again, I wonder whether - if we're reluctant to actually reword the existing text - a simple change in punctuation might help, viz. : 'Historical opinion of Jefferson has generally been exalted over the years, although in recent times he has been criticized by some historians over owning slaves. Presidential scholars overall continue to rank Jefferson among the greatest presidents.' This would address the main point which threw me when I first read it, i.e. the somewhat odd linkage between slavery and the assessment by presidential scholars. Would this be acceptable to you and to Askedonty (and to anyone else who may wish to chip in)? Chronarch (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, 'Jefferson has been generally well regarded in historical opinion' rather than 'exalted' which is liable to be critiqued as puffery. But I agree the assessment of contemporary scholars in the field of African-American studies is at odds with the assessment by presidential scholars and most of American historiography, and the sentence as written is awkward. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Historians distinguish between Jefferson's personal and public life. In general, historians laud Jefferson's public life and his presidency. In terms of Jefferson's private life historians today critisize Jefferson concerning Sally Hemings, his ownership of slaves, and his massive debts. It may help to seperate Jefferson's public and private lives in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It doezz. Jefferson in his prvate life always can be suspected of having given model to the heartless mother who keeps on always stealing all of her own son money (!). By chance, the kid has a grand-mother and he owns some fabric stuffed rabbits. Well, I can't say that I'll praise the ending paragraph of the lede for its straightforwardness, but it's much more accurate and complete than it was and I did not find myself inspired to a better version while reading it. And now how will our inspirator Chronarch may be ? --Askedonty (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

proposal

Historians generally praise Jefferson's public life, lauding his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy of religious freedom, and the Louisiana Purchase while he was president. Scholars are more critical of Jefferson's private life including his ownership of slaves and acquiring large financial debts. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Much better, though I prefer "modern scholars" to "scholars". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that Chronarch is right that the actual critique tends to be his failure to include black people under the umbrella of "created equal", and his failure to free his slaves (even after his death, as many other slaveowners did) in spite of his explicit principles. This may or may not be an anachronistic suspension of historical context, but if we can agree that the charge from the civil rights history perspective is more a charge of hypocrisy than a charge of cruelty, then I think this ought to be included regardless of whether we consider this to be the case. I would suggest the wording "Historians generally praise Jefferson's public life, lauding his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy of religious freedom, and the Louisiana Purchase while he was president. Modern scholars are more critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out for example the discrepancy between his actions a slave-owner and his liberal political principles, as well as his large financial debts. "·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Maunus' wording seems very appropriate to me. Shearonink (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I like Cmguy777s first sentence, then maunus' second sentence idea, amended to “Modern scholars are more critical of Jefferson’s private life, including his life-long slave ownership and large personal debt.” The manumission of Jefferson's enslaved children following the French Caribbean practice is treated in the body of the article and need not be addressed in the introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the first sentence is settled. Here is an alternative second sentence version: " Modern scholars are more critical of Jefferson's private life including his ownership of slaves, while espousing personal liberty for male European Americans, and his acquirement of large financial debt. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think my wording is more elegantly structured, and also more accurate since he didnt precisely espouse personal liberty for European Americans, but as a general ethical principle - from which he simply exempted Africans even though he recognized that they should ideally be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Maunus. I do not object to your second sentence being in the article. I was trying at a compromise on the second sentence. Yes. Jefferson exempted African Americans, women, and Indians from his liberal political principles. Historians are critical of Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia and his negative view of African Americans. Not all of Jefferson's principles were liberal. But the reality is Jefferson's liberal political principles only applied to male European Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but your wording makes it sound as if the limitation on liberty is an explicit part of Jefferson's ideology - this is not the case as he explicitly recognized that liberty was a general value that also women and africans would enjoy - he just did not consider them capable of doing so responsibly, nor consider it a practical way to structure society. I.e. Jefferson himself seems to have been aware of the inherent contradiction between his ideology and practice, whereas your wording suggests that there was no contradiction because he only meant the the principles to apply to euro-americans. I hope I explain myself. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Praise" and "laud" may be too flowery. We should also mention why they praise him. The proposed wording takes for granted that independence, religious freedom and the Louisiana purchase were positive goals, which is consistent with modern opinion. But they were controversial positions when Jefferson first supported them. TFD (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The reality is Jefferson's political liberty only applied to European Americans or whites. African Americans, women, and Indians were excluded. But I don't want to get side tracked concerning Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Historians admire Jefferson's public life, noting his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence during the Revolutionary War, his advocacy of religious freedom and tolerance in Virginia, and the Louisiana Purchase while he was president. Modern scholars are more critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out for example the discrepancy between his actions as a slave-owner and his liberal political principles, as well as his large personal debt." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I made changes to reflect editor discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus and TVH. Cm's version looks somewhat okay, but we should use laud, as historians did more than simply "admire" Jefferson -- he was indeed widely praised for his views on human rights, religious freedom, etc. Also, having a debt isn't something Jefferson was usually criticized for as was the case for slavery, so this should be left out, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Historians have lauded Jefferson's public life, noting his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence during the Revolutionary War, his advocacy of religious freedom and tolerance in Virginia, and the Louisiana Purchase while he was president. Various modern scholars are more critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out for example the discrepancy between his ownership of slaves and his liberal political principles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There appears to enough agreement for the modified proposal to be put in the article. I can change "admire" to "laud". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Along with TFD, I still think that "laud", like "exalt" above smacks of wp:puffery, but I can concur with something more than "admire" until someone challenges it. I was pleased when the descriptor for Jefferson icon on my homepage was changed from "worships" Jefferson to "greatly admires and respects". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides laud we have, according to Webster's Thesaurus, compliment, praise, bless, celebrate, exalt, extol, glorify, honor, tout. Admire is too fuzzy; compliment is an understatement; the remaining alternatives, like extol, are overstatements, though in Jefferson's case that could be debated. Seems laud is the most accurate of the bunch. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I made the edit using the word laud. That fit the narration best. Editors are free to make changes for context; clarification; or narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I like extol, it relates to public virtue, and because historians do have elevated praise for Jefferson's expansion of democracy through Democratic-Republican party efforts nationwide (not so much in Virginia, his outspoken objections to the indiscriminate hanging of slaves following the Gabriel Conspiracy of 1800 damaged his domestic purchase there), but it does not have the connotation of rhapsody that laud has, nor does it have the context of worshipful praise "lauding" the Lord God in contemporary church services. But I relent if Cmguy777 has no reservations in this case because I believe he is better acquainted with modern usage than am I. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, for alternatives of Extol Webster offers the same basic words, with the addition of, elevate, blazen, talk up. As for the modern reader, a few years back I saw a study {there are other similar studies 1, 2, etc) which claimed that the average vocabulary of an 18 year old was close to 50,000, before television dominated the scene -- since then it has dropped below 30,000. Texting, with its truncated, slang-like vocabulary isn't helping the situation either. Do grade schoolers know their times tables by heart in "modern" times? :-) Many school/college curriculums have been dumbed down and filled with liberal arts courses, instead of math, science and history related courses, so on that note we may want to use a word that will be readable by most. Personally it doesn't make much difference to me whether we use laud or extol. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is right about the faltering vocabulary. Here's where we can help. Wikipedia is the #1 info source for these people and I believe we have a duty to help stretch their minds as to facts and also vocabulary. Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If Finkelman is correct then historians do laud, praise, and worship Jefferson. He is a very protected historical figure. In elementary school I was taught Jefferson could no no wrong, but that was the late 1960s and early 1970s. Finkelman, attempted to demythify Jefferson, but I think he failed, or had minimal impact. Sally Hemings has not had that much of a historical impact on Jefferson's reputation. The good thing, in my opinion, is that historians are discussing Jefferson and slavery, something that apparently was discouraged or neglected in the past. Laud is a good word choice. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Historians have from the start been critical of Jefferson, even with slavery. Finkelman has a habit of speaking for the entire lot of historians. Perhaps he's trying to surround his pedestal with straw-men. That's a different topic. In grade school, children are taught the important basics, and later are taught, usually in college, about the more personal or controversial matters that may be involved with a given subject. Hopefully the students come to the knowledge by someone who doesn't have multiple axes to grind. Another topic. Agree, laud or extol are good terms it seems, even if Finkelman may use them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What 19th historians prior to the Civil War have been critical of Jefferson and slavery ? It was probably after the Civil War during Reconstruction that Jefferson was not as popular because he represented slave power. However, during the Jim Crow era Jefferson was popular, but probably not as popular as Jefferson Davis. It is not until the second civil rights era 1960s that historians began to critically evaluate Jefferson and slavery. But even then scholars rank Jefferson really high so not even slavery has signifigantly hurt Jefferson, maybe a few dents here and there, but not much. At my grade school in Southern California Jefferson and all the Founders were treated as gods. I really did not learn a lot about Jefferson and slavery until I went to college. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Before the Civil War publications like, Randall, 1848, discusses slavery several times; Tucker, 1836, discusses slavery, its bad effects and dilemmas it presented to Jefferson. Many others of the 19th century likewise examine slavery, though they don't sling opinion/conjecture around like a Finkelman. As for being "treated as gods" this seems to be your own impression. With so many great things Jefferson and others are noted for, it's apparently easy for you to feel they are treated like gods. As I said, in grade school, famous figures are noted for their great accomplishments, and when it comes to people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant, there are many to speak of, naturally. I would stay away from modern day criticism by those who routinely leave out and gloss over (the many) facts and only fulminate one sided anachronistic opinion. We've been through this. Unless this discussion relates to our original discussion or article improvement it seems we should stop beating the same ole dead horse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson himself was not viewed as having a "dark side" by 19th century historians as he is viewed today by some modern historians such as Finkelman, Weincek, or the Smithsonian Institution. Grant's reputation was obliterated by early-mid 20th century historians mainly due to scandals and his prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan. The initial discussion matter has already been settled. No need to "beat a dead horse". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of INFOBOX "religion"

Interestingly, Alsee is removing religious affiliation of the Revolutionary Generation, including several Virginians, claiming “per consensus WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes, which I do not see in the RfC discussion. It is characterized there in the closed discussion as an airing of various points of view only at the Village pump, roughly evenly divided among contributing editors. What am I missing? Is the Village Pump a central policy making forum for Wikipedia? Of course, religion should not be listed in an info box if it is not addressed in an article...but what if it is discussed with an editor consensus arrived at as it has been here? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of the field in most cases. In the good old days, one's religion was very much a public thing, especially when there was an established church. But it was more about which church was a member of rather than what one actually believed. One's denomination affected one's taxes, where one went to school, what public or private offices one could hold, etc. Since Jefferson attended the Anglican/Episcopal church he might be described as Episcopalian. Hence it is better left to the body of the article. TFD (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought the procedure peculiar, sort of presumptive, that is, claiming consensus on an RfC without one, and the venue on a non-policy, discussion-only page. You will find religion listed for elected members of Congress for all but one, a Representative I believe the last time I checked, in the Congressional Biographical Directory. So the classification is not so much of the "good old days" alone. I'm not sure the "religion" in the info box should be deleted for public office holders who claim one in their official self-written biographies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

VillagePump is the central forum for encyclopedia-wide business. The RFC was properly closed, with the closer citing the count as 36 to 12 (and one for renaming it). The decision was to (eventually) remove the religion parameter from the infobox template completely. That one edit will shut off display of the religion value for all biographies, even if it not removed here. (Except for clergy-specific templates, which will retain the parameter.) Religion can be discussed as normal, in the body of articles.

Someone else already dealt the infoboxes for the current presidential candidates, including primary-candidates who failed to get the nomination. I edited presidents 1-through-11, working in order. I paused at 11 mainly to see if there was going to be resistance to the first batch of edits. Alsee (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha! I found it. Thanks. I see ethnicity is also under consideration for removal, I would also omit wife, mistresses and children which are also treated in the body of an article and not paramount characterizations of the subject themselves. -- I suggest their removal here. -- Often the genealogy of a Founder even makes it into the introduction, which is simply a reflection of the ancestor worship by folks whose favorite past time is climbing the family tree: a POV which should not translate into encyclopedia articles imo. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Party elder section

Imho, this article could use a new subsection detailing Jefferson's role as a "party elder" between 1809 and 1826, when Jefferson's party dominated American politics. Jefferson's actions/opinions regarding the War of 1812, the Madison/Monroe split and reconciliation, the Missouri Compromise, and the election of 1824 (as the party began to fracture) all seem worth including in this article to me. I could attempt to add this myself if others are agreeable to the idea but don't have the time/motivation to act on it. Orser67 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Something needs to be clarified

In the section Political career, and the subsection Declaration of Independance, there is this passage, which I think is not clear: “He sought out John Adams who had emerged as a leader of the Congress, along with his cousin Samuel Adams.” That could mean that Jefferson sought out both of the Adams, or else only one of them. I think it needs to be reworded to make clear which meaning is intended. Then it goes on to say “Jefferson and Adams established a permanent friendship, etc.” I think the given name must be used, since two Adams are being referred to in this passage. Also Jefferson and John Adams didn’t “established a permanent friendship”, since they had a falling out and a reconciliation. For that reason it may seem that Samuel Adams is intended. Any suggestions? GodWhat (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

This edit request to Thomas Jefferson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

maybe you should add his first wife that he had. thanks Msnider22 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

Should this have been nominated for Good Article status now, 3vango? Knope7 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the nom. When an article is submitted to GAN the person behind the nom should be willing and able to follow up with the review. A driveby nom only results in an editor spending their time reviewing an article that won't pass GAN. That's what happened last December. Brad (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Below is the closing comment from the reviewer:

Instability over a one month period has led me to fail this review. I took two weeks off from the review (one week last month, one week this month) in the hopes that you folks would get a clue. Instead I saw two different edit wars, major rewrites and revisions of content I had already reviewed, and cluelessness over the GA criterions which have been explained ad infinitum. I can only conclude that this article was not ready to be nominated. While the primary reason for failing is a lack of stability over a one month period, the secondary reason is a failure to understand the summary style criterion. The third reason is recent concerns over close paraphrasing that have neither been addressed or fixed to my satisfaction due to confusion over the differences between quoting and paraphrasing. Before nominating this article for any future review, I suggest y'all decide on a stable version that doesn't change from day to day. Viriditas (talk) 5:17 pm, 6 December 2015, Sunday (1 year, 12 days ago) (UTC−5)

The article went back to its typical habit of several different editors at war with each other. Future noms needs less cooks making broth and instead learning GA criteria. Brad (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I started this section because there was another subsequent nomination, after the review quoted above, that looked like it was a driveby nom. When this article does get nominated again, I hope that it's from an editor has put in significant effort. That said, I am not at this point particularly invested in this article, but if there any tasks where I could be of assistance, I would gladly help. Knope7 (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

New sources for Jefferson

Onuf, Peter (2016). "Most Blessed of the Patriarchs": Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-1-6314-9078-1.
Kilmeade, Brian; Yaeger, Don (2015). Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates: The Forgotten War That Changed American History. Penguin Press. ISBN 978-0-6981-9741-1.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sistine, Johathan (2016). Thomas Jefferson: The Failures and Greatness of an Ordinary Man. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-5238-3448-8.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Critics of the Catholic Church category

Article is locked so can someone add this? Sources;

Notes on Virginia, 1782. Published in The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition, Paul Leicester Ford, ed., New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904, Vol. 4, p. 80.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson#Anti-clericalism.2C_anti-Catholicism.2C_and_anti-Calvinism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.226.161 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

GA

This article underwent a Good Article review in November 2015 that the reviewer failed due to edit wars. This article seems pretty stable over the last few months and seems to be of pretty high quality overall. Would anyone who's an expert on Jefferson be willing to nom the article for GA again? Orser67 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with the work but I was the last one to make the GA nom so I will defer to another for the nom. An improved willingness among the editors to collaborate constructively will be required. Hoppyh (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done a bit of ce, and do think the article is close to GA quality. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend that the nominator first check the archive of the last GA review in an attempt to perhaps avoid the snake pit(s) we fell into last time. Hoppyh (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

GA

This article underwent a Good Article review in November 2015 that the reviewer failed due to edit wars. This article seems pretty stable over the last few months and seems to be of pretty high quality overall. Would anyone who's an expert on Jefferson be willing to nom the article for GA again? Orser67 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with the work but I was the last one to make the GA nom so I will defer to another for the nom. An improved willingness among the editors to collaborate constructively will be required. Hoppyh (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done a bit of ce, and do think the article is close to GA quality. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend that the nominator first check the archive of the last GA review in an attempt to perhaps avoid the snake pit(s) we fell into last time. Hoppyh (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs documentation or change.

This article makes the statement, "Both groups saw Hamilton as vindicated by history, rather than Jefferson..." with no supporting reference. Though the "progressives" clearly agree with this statement as is demonstrable in many articles / quotes, I can find no instance of a prominent "conservative" agreeing to this. Either documentation for this should be added or the statement corrected. Ddbltrbl (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Misleading and unproven statements on page

In the fifth paragraph of the article, the author writes of Thomas Jefferson "he had a relationship with his slave Sally Hemings and fathered at least one of her children".

This is not factual, but is defamatory. This allegation originated from a study done by retired pathologist and author, Eugene Foster. He and a group of European molecular biologists announced in Nature magazine that they had found DNA sequences in the Y chromosome of the Jefferson family that matched DNA from the Hemings family. However, since the time that study was conducted, many scholars are skeptical, and some have agreed that the most likely father of Eston Hemings (Sally's son) was not Thomas Jefferson, who was 65-YEARS-OLD at the time Eston was conceived, but Jefferson's brother Randolph, 12 years his junior, who lived near Monticello. Other likely candidates include Randolph's sons, all of whom had the same Y chromosome as their father and uncle. -Science Magazine Vol 283, Issue 5399, 153-155, 8 January 1999

All of this is to say that we should not allow something to be posted as fact when there is no viable evidence. It is all circumstantial! Therefore, if it must be mentioned at all, I suggest the wording be changed to: "some historians suggest he may have had a relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, and may have even fathered one or more of her children. However, this has not been substantiated".

We are requesting help from the Wikipedia community to correct this page so that it reflects a factual statement instead of conjecture regarding an American founding father. Thank you.

More evidential references: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/primer.html | https://www.tjheritage.org/constructing-ethical-guidelines-for-biohistory | http://www.bluexray.com/science-insights/ | https://www.tjheritage.org/works-jefferson-hemings-controversy-image

--Tit4tat (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful if dead people can be defamed, at least legally. But anyways, you fell victim to a very one-sided presentation. While the original Jefferson-Hemings story was based a spiteful newspaper attack in Jefferson's time, it has been corroborated over and over since. It started moving into mainstream consideration with Fawn Brodie's 1974 Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, and was certainly widely accepted after the publication of Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy in 1997. The 1998 Nature paper (online here) was just the icing on the cake. Many modern biographers treat the story as fact (e.g. Christopher Hitchens in Thomas Jefferson: Author of America). About the only hold-outs are the members of the so-called Scholar's Commission of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation, whose founding principle was basically to deny this story. In Jefferson's times such affairs were not at all unusual or remarkable - indeed, Sally Hemings is generally acknowledged as the daughter of Jefferson's father in law, and thus a half-sister of his wife. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We can be confident in our beliefs, and the relationship is plausible, but all the players are centuries dead and neither Jefferson nor Hemings left explicit letters that confess a relationship. The research is extensive and credible, but even with DNA and old documents it can only be probable, not certain, and a bit more humility in ones certitude is required.

How about this: "It is generally believed that he had a relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, and even fathered one or more of her children, but these conclusions have their critics and the evidence is imperfect." GeeBee60 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

His Early Career

Jefferson was born at Shadwell in Albemarle county, Virginia, on april 13, 1743. His father, Peter Jefferson and his mother Jane Randolph were members of the most famous Virginia families. Besides being well born, Thomas Jefferson, was well educated. He attended the College of William and Mary and read law (1762-1767) with George Wythe, the greatest law teacher of his generation in Virginia. He was admitted to the bar in 1767 and practiced until 1774, when the courts were closed by the American Revolution.

He had inherited a considerable landed estate from his father, and doubled it by a happy marriage on Jan. 1, 1772, to Martha Wayles Skelton. He was elected to the House of Burgesses, when he was 25, he served there from 1769 to 1774, showing himself to be an effective committeeman and skillful draftsman, though not an able speaker.

The Revolutionary Era

From the beginning of the struggle with the mother country, Jefferson stood with the more advanced Patriots, grounding his position on a wide knowledge of English history and political philosophy. His most notable early contribution to the cause of the Patriots was his powerful pamphlet A Summary View of the Rights of Brittish America (1774), originally written for presentation to the Virginia convention of that year. In this he emphasized natural rights, including that of emigration, and denied parliamentary authority over the colonies, recognizing no tie with the mother country except the king.

Prelude to the Presidency

As a member of the Continental Congress (1775-1776), Jefferson was chosen together with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingstone and Roger Sherman in 1776 to draft the Declaration of Independence. He wrote the declaration all by himself and was amended by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.

Jefferson left Congress in the autumn of 1776 and served in the Virginia legislature until his election as governor in 1779. He was governor from 1779 to 1781. {subst:unsigned|Yorlenyss|05:49, 14 October 2017}} During this brief private interval (1781-1783) he began to compile his Notes on the State of Virginia, which was first published in 1785. In this document there are some of his thoughts on the question of slavery. From 1783 to 1784 he was a member of the Continental Congress.

Minister to France

Jefferson's stay in France (1784-1789), where he was first a commissioner to negotiate commercial treaties and then Benjamin Franklin's successor as minister, was in many ways the richest period of his life. He was confirmed in his opinion that France was a natural friend of the United States, and Britain at this stage a natural rival.

Toward the end of his mission he reported with scrupulous care the unfolding revolution in France. Eventually he was repelled by the excesses of the French Revolution, and he thoroughly disapproved of it when it passed into an openly imperialistic phase under Napoleon.

Because of his absence in Europe, Jefferson had no direct part in the framing or ratification of the Constitution of the United States (17 sept. 1787), and at first the document aroused his fears. His chief objections were that it did not expressly safeguard the rights of individuals, and that the unlimited eligibility of the president for reelection would make it possible for him to become a king. He became sufficiently satisfied after he learned that a bill of rights would be provided and after be reflected that there would be no danger of monarchy under George Washington.

Secretary of state and vice-president

During Jefferson's service at this post as secretary of state from 1790 to 1793, Alexander Hamilton, secratary of the treasury, defeated the movement for commercial discrimination against Britain, which Jefferson favored. Jefferson's policy was not pro-French, but it seemed anti-British. Hamilton was distinctly pro-British.

By late 1792 or 1793 the opponents of Hamiltonianism constituted a fairly definite national party, calling itself Republican. Early in 1795 the Virginians in Congress forced Hamilton to quit his office.

Jefferson retired as Secretary of State at the end of the year 1793. During a respite of three years from public duties, he began to remodel his house at Monticello and interested himself greatly in agriculture.

He was supported by the Republicans for president in 1796, and running second to John Adams by three electoral votes, he became vice president.

Presidency

President - first term

Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr defeated John Adams in the elections of 1800. Jefferson's own title to the presidency was not established for some weeks because he was tied with his running mate under the workings of the original electoral system. The election was thrown into the House of Representatives. The Federalists voted for Burr through many indecisive ballots. Finally, enough of them abstained to permit the obvious will of the majority to be carried out. And so Jefferson became the 3d president of the United States of America. And what also was important that the transition was effected by strictly constitutional means. Jefferson emphasized this in his conciliatory inaugural address.

His first term as president was rather succesfull. That had various reasons. First, he was the undisputed leader of a party that had aquired cohesion during its years in opposition.

Second, he had loyal and competent lieutenants like the secratary of State, James Madison, and the secratary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin.

And, last but not least, he was very popular because of his policy of economy and his tax reduction.

Dispute with the judiciary

Jefferson restored the party balance in the civil service, but he was relativly unsuccesful in his moves against the judicirary, which had been reinforced by fresh Federalist appointees at the very end of the Adams administration.

The effort to remove partisan judges by impeachment was a virtiual failure, and the Federalists remained entrenched in the judiciary, though they became less actively partisan.

The Louisiana purchase.

The most notable achievement of Jefferson's precidency was the purchase of Louisiana in 1803. Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe were sent to France to negotiate with Napoleon. The treaty they sent home aroused constitutional scruples in Jefferson's mind. It seemed to him that this vast and large acquisition of territory would change the charracter of the Union. And so it should be authorized by a constitutional amendment. But he recognized that there was no time for such a slow procedure otherwise the purchase could be in danger. And so became Louisiana, for 15 million dollars, a part of the United States.

President - second term

Although he was still the undisputed leader of his party, Jefferson encountered greater difficulties, on both the domestic and foreign fronts, in his second term than in his first. One of the domestic problems was the Burr-Conspiracy. Former vice president Burr stood on trial for treason. But the rulings of judge John Marshall made conviction impossible. And Jefferson erred gravely in saying in advance that Burr's guilt was beyond dispute.

One of the largest foreign problems was the Embargo adopted in December 1807. It was regarded by Jefferson as the only alternative to war and submission. The act barred all exports to Britain and France. But it had less effect abroad than had been expected and caused economic difficulty at home. Toward the end of his administation, he assented to the embargo's repeal, to save the Union, he said. Amore moderate measure was adopted, but it did not avert war with Britain in 1812.

Retirement

Jefferson was succeeded as president in 1809 by his loyal lieutenant, James Madison. During the last 17 years of his live, Jefferson remained in Virginia. As the 'Sage of Monticello' he engaged in a vast and rich correspondence with John Adams and others. Jefferson's last great public service was the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819. He died at Monticello on July 4, 1826 on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorlenyss (talk • contribs) 05:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

About why that content was removed?

(edit conflict) Re this edit summary - the archiving bot is to blame. No one had posted to that thread since the end of May 2017, it is now almost December and the timeframe for archiving is to archive threads with no posts in 14 days with a minimum of 4 threads kept on the page.. The archiving for this page has been set up that way since March of 2016. Shearonink (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Same ol' controversy

@Binkstenet: Before going any further with your constant reverts you should better familiarize yourself with the Hemings controversy. Anyone familiar with the controversy knows that the DNA evidence also pointed to a good number of Jefferson related males, and that all the evidence was highly circumstantial. There are very many reputable historians who do not agree with the circumstantial jump to conclusions. Some critics have noted that if this was a paternity lawsuit trying to prove Jefferson was the father there would not even be enough evidence to go to trial. It's very possible Jefferson could have fathered one or more of Hemings' children, but it is also just as possible that one or more other Jefferson related males could have done so. As a controversial issue, both views need to be fairly represented. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There are few if any historians who question the paternity. And paternity can only ever be proved circumstantially. The suggestion that Jefferson's brother managed to impregnate the same slave woman on six occasions during his infrequent visits is wholly implausible. TFD (talk)

I am done restoring my reverted edits. Apparently we will have to resolve this another way if certain individuals are determined to censor important facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

To answer the question from your edit comment: The GA section was automatically removed by an archive bot in this edit. This is usually easy to find out via the talk page history. As for Randolph: I'm pretty sure we had that discussion more than once. He was never considered as a candidate before the DNA evidence, and then was shoehorned in as a desperate measure by the so-called "Scholars Commission" assembled by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. These are about the only historians pushing that point. And even there the opinion is not unanimous. I'm not aware of any other scholars taking this suggestion seriously. I also note that your edit has no source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Stephan, long time, no hear from. The only act of "desperation" was trying to single out Thomas Jefferson on such scant and circumstantial evidence. Randolph was introduced as an alternative because the DNA evidence, along with other evidence, pointed to him. Also, here is a list of historians that did not jump on the POV bandwagon. i.e.many historians. We've been through this. In any case, I'm done trying to restore my edits. Evidently we need to discuss this all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor energy to tinker with the article or engage in a long discussion, but for the record, the "many historians" are mainly a bloc of old codgers working together with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. They could be represented as such (in more encyclopedic terms) as one dissenting voice from the mainstream consensus. I find Joseph Ellis's change of opinion compelling: To say that Jefferson's paternity of several Hemings children is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" sounds about right. (See also pp. 366-67 of the 1998 edition of Ellis's American Sphinx.) YoPienso (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Insert : "Block of old cloggers"? Prejudice towards seniors aside, (are you still a teenager?) how do you know their collective and average ages? They are all independent and notable historians and professors who came together with their views, just the same as the group of historians have at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation who support the Jefferson paternity theory. That by itself is hardly a way dispute the issue. All the "evidence" is circumstantial, most of which also points to Randolph Jefferson who was a frequent visitor at Monticello during his life and was known to fraternize with slaves at Monticello late at night. There is no concrete proof, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, that Thomas was the father. If Jefferson was just some clerk or farmer, no one would have even blinked. But because he was a U.S. president he has been assailed by publishers trying to sell books, and of course by the 'friends of America' crowd. Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Bloc of old codgers. Look 'em up. Two have died since you posted that list in 2011. The youngest is my age, and it's been decades since I was a teenager.

Also, lots of dead links in that list, and, as Stephan has pointed out, your second link includes the statement, "Most historians now believe that Jefferson and Hemings had a long-term sexual relationship."

Joseph Ellis is an old codger who disavowed the TJ/Hemings relationship in the first printing of his American Sphinx, but in the second printing he acknowledged that the evidence had caused him to change his mind. I quoted him just above.

You're ignoring the fact that there is a great deal of evidence besides the DNA evidence. YoPienso (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Going through that list, I've found nothing on the topic at the first one (Library of Congress), but the second one (the Miller center/Onuf) explicitly acknowledging the claim: "Recent DNA evidence presents a convincing case that Jefferson was indeed the biological father of Heming's children, and most historians now believe that Jefferson and Hemings had a long-term sexual relationship" (emphasis mine), from the Life in Brief subsection of your second source. I'm going back to sleep now, but my offer of having Amazon send you a copy of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, originally published a year before the DNA results, stands. My email is enabled - just let me know the address privately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of us involved here know the position of the various historians, and I've long since bought Reed's book, but I do appreciate the offer, but don't quite appreciate your assumption that at this late date I'm not familiar with her position. No matter. So far the most absurd 'reaction' I've heard (not from you) is that DNA evidence has "proven" Jefferson was the father -- made in complete ignorance that DNA evidence has narrowed the possible paternity candidates down to some 20 and more possibilities. Almost as absurd is the claim, implied or outright, that Jefferson must be the father because most historians (debatable) say so. All I've ever done, just recently, and in the past, is outline both possibilities and try to maintain some neutrality in the article. I added 'circumstantial' to the lede statement, but even that was twice reverted, so there is, as always, definite POV pushing going on with the article, not to mention a troubling lack of honesty on the part of some individuals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Before the DNA results, the only Jefferson DNA carrier considered as the father was Thomas. The most frequently suggested alternatives were the Carr brothers, none of which shares Jefferson's particular strain of Y-chromosomal DNA. The DNA test refuted the old explanation, so from that previous contentious but undisputed status quo it did "prove" (in the weak colloquial sense) Jeffersons paternity. Only after that result did some people of the "it can't have been TJ, because he can write nice English and is on Mount Rushmore" school try to find some other explanation - of course, in a strictly logical sense, that is possible. Indeed, in a strictly logical sense, it's possible that if you swallow the red pill, you will awake from the Matrix. But it's about as plausible as the 5th story of a burglar whose alibis keep getting busted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly natural to contest evidence when it is entirely circumstantial and far from conclusive, esp when it involves famous and widely loved individuals. You seem to be suggesting that such an effort is somehow wrong or dishonest. Yes, DNA evidence refuted the Carr claim, but at the same time introduced Randolph and some 20+ other candidates, which were ignored by Nature Magazine when it first 'reported' the event, and of course by other individuals for a variety of sordid reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"It is perfectly natural to contest evidence when it is entirely circumstantial and far from conclusive, esp when it involves famous and widely loved individuals."

That is precisely the problem with your editing on this article: your admiration for TJ prevents you from looking at him objectively.

Historical note: TJ was feared and hated by many during his lifetime. After his death, Monticello was sold and deteriorated. He wasn't "widely loved" until FDR tied his New Deal to a re-imagined Jeffersonian legacy. See The Jefferson Image in the American Mind by Merrill D. Peterson. YoPienso (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree w. YoPienso on this. We don't need any editor to act as TJ's defense attorney, we just need to summarize what the highest quality contemporary sources say about him and his life. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

edit break

Yopienso Regardless of an author's age, most of whom are advanced in years, the list I offered, regardless of link status, is of prominent historians who didn't jump to conclusions on the scant evidence, falsely reported by Nature magazine, and casts considerable doubt on the "most historians" claims -- not that should matter. The "most historians" claim is just window dressing to make the Jefferson paternity theory seem more believable. It doesn't change the facts either way. Also, your assumption that I have a "problem" because I admire Jefferson doesn't amount to anything, as I've always edited according to what the sources have said, thank you. Most WP editors share my "problem" as they tend to edit articles about people and subjects they admire, so again, you've offered nothing but window dressing to the debate here also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Maunus You're right, Jefferson doesn't need a defense attorney, because if this involved a paternity lawsuit there wouldn't even be enough evidence to go to trial. However, what we do need are editors to see the subject is treated in a balanced manner, as at one time the section on Hemings was pages long, and it took the consensus of objective editors to bring it back to sane proportions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that your idea of balanced means not in conflict with your personal idealized image of Jefferson, whereas in the context of Wikipedia balanced means whether it adequately and neutrally represents the contents of the best available sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's best not to speak of other editor's opinions in terms of fact, esp since it is not consistent with my overall editing on the Jefferson page. The page certainly was not balanced before attention was given to the once bloated section on Hemings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly consistent with my impression of your editing on the Jefferson article over a number of years.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's consistent with my impression, too, and others who have given up and moved on. YoPienso (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Schulz Regarding the "most historians" claim: this is a bit spurious, as any source that makes such a claim is always trying to reinforce their own opinion. e.g.'Most people agree with my opinion'. A weasel like claim. No one has even been able to prove the claim beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the list I've offered casts considerable doubt. No matter, I can live with the lede as it is now -- at least we're truthful enough to say the evidence is circumstantial. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You are aware that the source you are now criticising as weaselly is from the very list you collected, right? Maybe you should re-check how many of your sources actually support your position. At least in part they do disagree with it. "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" is not a standard used in historical research. Indeed, it's not even a standard for conviction in criminal legal cases - the common-law standard is beyond reasonable doubt. History is is not happening in a court of law, but paternity cases would be a civil issue, where the standard of proof is weaker - in the case of paternity in the US it's clear and convincing evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You might want to reread what I said. My reference to "most historians" is general, not directed at any particular source, and again, such a claim doesn't lend credence to various assumptions as to what is fact. Yes, "clear and convincing evidence", which in terms of Jefferson's paternity remains far from clear, though I won't contest that some individuals are convinced anyways. Unfortunately some historians don't need much concrete evidence to make their statements. Let's remember that editors decide what sources are reliable. There is no official list of reliable sources that we must blindly follow. I've seen a number of so called reliable sources undermined by other reliable sources. So we must approach topics, esp controversial topics, with scrutiny and discretion and not merely and blindly copy-paste what various (cherry picked?) sources may say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The article passage as it now reads seems balanced to me, the circumstantial DNA evidence is convincing to most contemporary historians of Jefferson’s paternity for Hemings children, and some historian disagree with concluding Jefferson fathered all the children in an unqualified assertion. That seems clearly conveyed in an unbiased manner.

I would add in connection with the “controversy” relative to the Jefferson-Hemings relationship itself, that Jefferson manumitted all Hemings' children (and he did so for no others among his slaves). It seems that extension would only muddy the waters here, but that is my only reservation to the passage as it now stands, and it only relates to describing the long term relationship itself, not the subject of the historical controversy in the section title. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was asked in an edit summary about "evidence". This is not an exhaustive list but to respond, if it is helpful, although I think everyone who has worked on this article should already know this stuff: First, Sally was Thomas' slave, not any other Jeffersons' slave. Second, Thomas had sustained and extensive access to her (Thomas grandson, not only admitted Thomas was related by blood to Sally's children (plural), he showed a biographer she lived in the connected wing of Thomas' home, and archaeologists found her quarters near Thomas' bedroom [1]) and, third, historians detailed life timelines also show Thomas' extensive access. Fourth, Sally's son, Madison Hemings identified Thomas, as his and his siblings father (no one else). Fifth, Israel Jefferson, another person with extensive experience with Thomas did too. Sixth, Elijah Fletcher, a local school master and visitor to Jefferson wrote in his diary that Thomas and the slave, "Sal" had a number of enslaved children (plural) together, and their relationship was a "sacred truth." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160813155430/http://www.apsmuseum.org/jefferson-and-native-america/ to http://apsmuseum.org/jefferson-and-native-america/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] Alexander, 2010; Davis, 1999, p. 179

[Finkelman_1994_p._215-2] Finkelman (1994), p. 215; Finkelman (2012)

[3] Cogliano, Francis D., Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy, University of Virginia Press, 2008, 224.

[4] Finkelman (2012)

[5] Cogliano, p. 209. For examples of each historian's view, see Wilson, Douglas L., Thomas Jefferson and the Issue of Character, The Atlantic, Nov. 1992. Retrieved 23 May 2016, and Finkelman, Paul, Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson, 2nd ed., (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001), 129-135.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]