Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Lead section a bit clunky

We currently have five paragraphs in the lead section, but their content doesn't flow very well.

Paragraph 1 says why TJ is important but then it concludes awkwardly with "He was a land owner and farmer."

Paragraph 2 is a brief biography from birth and early career but not including presidency. This is fine.

Paragraph 3 is a summary of his presidency. This is fine.

Paragraph 4 describes prominent interests such as architecture, philosophy, and talks about his writings and his stance on religion. The farmer bit could be worked in here.

Paragraph 5 is a grab bag, with odd stuff thrown together. It has TJ's slave owner status, possible sex and offspring with his slave, then it jumps back to career highlights and how much he is loved today. Then it jumps again to criticism of his behavior as a slave owner then it jumps again to how great is his current status. This is where a clear-headed editor is needed to impose a smooth flow. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been active on the Jefferson page for many months, but I've no objection to anyone improving on the narrative flow, etc in the lede, so long as we accurately summarize what's in the body of text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 - last sentence
I have a real problem with this sentence so am trying to tease out its actual structure here:

A proponent of democracy, republicanism, and individual rights motivating American colonists to break from Great Britain and form a new nation, he produced formative documents and decisions at both the state and national level.

Subject of the sentence is "he"/verb->produced/object->formative docs.
So then if we look at the first part of the sentence "A proponent of democracy, republicanism, and individual rights motivating American colonists to break from Great Britain and form a new nation", what is the subject/object of that incomplete phrase?

"proponent" [with the descriptor "of democracy, republicanism, and individual rights"] motivating [American] colonists->to break [from GB] and (to) form a new nation

This phrase is a descriptor to "he" but seems somewhat grafted on to the main part of the sentence but when I tried to break it down (I do remember some of my lessons in sentence diagramming.) it doesn't quite make complete sense. I think "proponent of who motivated..." reads a little better and have changed it accordingly along with some other copy-edits. Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

General lede C/E:

I have tightened up some of the style and prose, there was a lot of repetition of "He [did this]" and then "He [did that]" in Paragraph 4. I am not thrilled with the last sentence in Paragraph 5, but can't seem to get it right at the moment. Shearonink (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your good offices. Now only the fifth paragraph is problematic. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked Paragraph 5 a little more. Deleted the "Top Prez" sentence since it is only mentioned in 1 sentence in the Historical reputation section, seemed a little bit undue. Shearonink (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Shearonink. I really like the first four paragraphs, but have some reservations on the last. How does this look?

Jefferson's legacy is mixed. Presidential scholars consistently rank him among the greatest presidents and have generally lauded his public life, including his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy of religious freedom and tolerance in Virginia, and his oversight of the Louisiana Purchase. Numerous modern scholars have been more critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out the discrepancy between his ownership of slaves and his liberal political principles. He owned several plantations which were worked by hundreds of slaves, and there is evidence that after the death of his wife in 1782, Jefferson fathered at least one of the children of his slave, Sally Hemings. YoPienso (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would add TJ as the leading spokesman for democracy and republicanism in the era of the Enlightenment. Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say "there is evidence that Jefferson fathered at least one and probably all of the children of his slave, Sally Hemings". There is no evidence for multiple fathers that I'm aware of. Suggesting otherwise is misleading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorporating these suggestions, though we always have to compromise:

Although regarded as a leading spokesman for democracy and republicanism in the era of the Enlightenment, Jefferson's legacy is mixed. Presidential scholars consistently rank him among the greatest presidents and have generally lauded his public life, including his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy of religious freedom and tolerance in Virginia, and his oversight of the Louisiana Purchase. Numerous modern scholars have been more critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out the discrepancy between his ownership of slaves and his liberal political principles. He owned several plantations which were worked by hundreds of slaves, and there is evidence that after the death of his wife in 1782, Jefferson fathered children with his slave, Sally Hemings. YoPienso (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

try this: "Hailed as a leading spokesman for democracy and republicanism in the era of the Enlightenment, Jefferson's legacy is consistently ranked by Presidential scholars among the greatest presidents. They have lauded his public life, especially his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy of religious freedom and tolerance in Virginia, his creation of one of the first two modern political parties, his purchase of Louisiana, and his leadership in making the international slave trade a crime. However in recent decades his private life has come under attack for his ownership of hundreds of slaves and his begetting slave children by his mistress Sally Hemings." keeps public and private lives clearly distinct. Rjensen (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate anyone's efforts to hammer out a lead section for this article but the tone of some of the adjectives above ("hailed", "lauded") seem somewhat hagiographic to me. Jefferson's reputation has waxed and waned over the centuries. I think an overview re:reconciling the public persona with his private life as it touches on his historical reputation is meaningful and worthwhile. Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus is that's fine. The present version is still clunky. Something for all of us to keep in mind is that the lede section is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article, it's an introduction. Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"begetting of slave children with his mistress" is not good language, nor an appropriate or acceptable way to word this particular part of the critique against Jefferson. Yopienso's wording is much more in line with the sources which do not critique mostly the fact that he owned slaves, but precisely the discrepancy between his slave ownership and his liberal principles. And also calling Sally Hemings his mistress is not correct, she was his slave, and their children were just children, born into slavery - but not "slave children".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

the Sally Hemings issue is all about his having sex with his slave, which is demonstrated by the DNA tests on the descendants. "mistress" is the usual historical term. For example the leading specialist Annette Gordon-Reed writes, "Jefferson kept one of his slaves, (Sally Hemings) as his mistress and had children by her." and "Might not Sally Hemings have thought being the mistress of a slave master a suitable role?" As for "begetting" it meets scholarly standards as in the title of Mongrel Nation: The America Begotten by Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings by Clarence E. Walker (U of Virginia Press 2009); Walker is Professor of History, University of California, Davis. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion including the "historical rankings" as somewhat of a standalone bit in the lede is somewhat undue - I think it is important that the rankings are tied to people's different thoughts/feelings/writings about the dichotomy between his private life and his public accomplishments. Something all of us need to keep in mind (myself included) is that we're not writing the article all over again, we're giving readers an introduction to the subject, delineating an overview of the main body of the article.

P5 - I've done some tweaks & C/E. Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

While I was writing the following, Shearonink was editing the article. I mainly like those edits, specially switching the good and bad parts of the legacy so as to end on a positive note. I like having the ranking bit, which seemed to me well-incorporated into the paragraph and not stand-alone. Not a biggie, though. So I'm going to go ahead and post what I had written, for what it may be worth.

My last two cents for now:

Although regarded as a leading spokesman for Enlightenment values, Jefferson's legacy is mixed. Presidential scholars consistently rank him among the greatest presidents and have generally lauded his public life, including his primary authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy of religious freedom and tolerance in Virginia, and his oversight of the Louisiana Purchase. Numerous modern scholars have been more critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out the discrepancy between his ownership of slaves and his liberal political principles. He owned and worked hundreds of slaves on several plantations, and there is evidence that after the death of his wife in 1782, Jefferson fathered children with his slave, Sally Hemings.

Wrt Rjensen's proposal:

• I think "hailed" is somewhat peacock-ish.
• TJ didn't actually create the modern Democratic party; that was more Van Buren's doing.
• Although TJ perhaps should be given more credit for helping end the trans-Atlantic slave trade, he isn't really hailed as greatly influential in ending it. I think a lot of historians balk at praising him for putting down British competition while continuing to breed, work, and occasionally sell slaves at home.
• Although Finkelman, for one, has indeed attacked TJ, I think "has come under attack" is too strong for the lead.
• Although true and synonymous, somehow "his begetting of slave children with his mistress" doesn't have the same ring as "Jefferson kept one of his slaves, (Sally Hemings) as his mistress and had children by her." I don't want to poke Gwillhickers or anyone else in the eye. YoPienso (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry if I stepped on your efforts Yopienso, I just would like to get the lead finally fixed-up and in as stable a state as anything can be around here. And then maybe we could move on to other aspects of the article. It would just be wonderful to get this article to GA status someday and sooner would be better than never.

When I decided to try to take this on editing the lead section, I started looking at other American Presidents' (especially the ones who were slaveholders) articles and at Founding Fathers' articles, keeping in mind their tone and structure. Does George Washington's article end about his slaveholding? How about James Madison's, Monroe's, Jackson's, Van Buren et al? None of the ones I read ended commenting on their slave-holding, they all end on these men's historical legacies and how they are regarded by "History".

Also, after looking at the other articles it does seem that ranking the presidents (or something along those lines) is mentioned in almost all of them. I am going to recraft P5 again keeping in mind YoPienso's points and adding the rankings bit back in.

To me the important aspect of P5 is that folks have mixed feelings about Jefferson & about his legacy especially the singular dichotomy of owning slaves, yet championing individual liberty.

As I said above, I've recrafted it a bit more and am done for a while, hope this latest version is sufficient. I think it does read more smoothly than the original one referred to above by Binksternet. Shearonink (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It was democracy and republicanism he is identified with-- "Enlightenment values" is too vague. the first two modern parties were Federalists and Dem-Rep. (not the modern Dem Party) and creation is a major event in US history. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Try this: Jefferson is a central figure in early American history, highly praised for his political leadership, but also criticized for the role of slavery in his private life. He championed democracy and republicanism, attacking aristocratic and monarchistic tendencies. He was a leader in American independence, advocated religious freedom and tolerance, and opposed the centralizing tendencies of the urban financial elite. He formed the second national political party and led it to dominance in 1800, then worked for western expansion and exploration. Critics decry the contradiction between his ownership of hundreds of slaves and his liberal political principles, and argue that he fathered children with his slave mistress. ---There's no need here to mention other people such as Washington, Hamilton, Madison, or Hemmings. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That would work too. And so would YoPienso's. All of the versions put forth here would work, we just have to come to an editorial consensus about what we generally want for the fifth paragraph and then maybe interested editors can move on to other areas of the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, I don't feel like you've stepped on my efforts! In fact, I'm gratified you've used some of my suggestions. My text was intended as a springboard. While I would still use my version if this were my article, I'm very happy to see the collaboration here and am thankful for the improvements you've made. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, Rjensen, I like your most recent suggestion. YoPienso (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you should drop the word "mistress". Men do not own their mistresses. The word mistress in fact even implies the opposite power relationship since it is etymologically the feminine form of "master". It really is inaccurate to call Hemings "mistress", even if some books continue to do so. A better idea would be to write "argue he fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The latest version, ending with Shearonink's tweak, is quite good. The fifth paragraph communicates successfully the contradictory issues. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen's proposal overall looks good, but we should perhaps stay away from words like "hailed" and "highly praised". I went ahead and substituted 'famed' for "hailed" in the opening sentence. The idea of fame is a bit more neutral and doesn't automatically lend it self to ideas concerning praise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I revised one sentence to read: Some modern scholarship has been critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out the contradiction between his ownership of slaves and his famous declaration that "all men are created equal." -- replacing the vague term "liberalism" and putting by far his most famous quote in the lead. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Reads well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I have with using "all men are created equal" quote in P5 is that the quote itself is not used by our cited references as a way to highlight its contradiction with Jefferson also being a slaveholder within the main text. The historical rep section, the slavery section mention Jefferson's championing of individual rights & liberty, mention that he believed in republican virtues & republicanism, that he espoused democratic ideals, and then also mention that he owned slaves but the actual quote of "all men..." is not stated in this fashion (as a way to delineate the contradiction between the private man and his public actions & writings). Shearonink (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC).

Really? Surprising. It's something one would think most readers of Jefferson material would have seen sourced (eg., [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) perhaps we need fix something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

and add: 1) "The hypocrisy of a slaveholder declaring the self-evident truth that all men are created equal was not lost on his contemporaries, and it is the most enduring stain on his legacy." T. Jeremy Gunn, ‎John Witte Jr. - 2012 ; 2) "Jefferson, chief author of the Declaration of Independence, with its claim that “all men are created equal,” was a slaveholder. Slavery was the negation of American ideals of liberty, and the founding generation was almost as painfully aware of the fact as was Lincoln's own." Steven E. Woodworth - 2010. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

edit break

There are still some issues here. The existing sentence in the lede now reads:

Some modern scholarship has been critical of Jefferson's private life, pointing out the contradiction between his ownership of slaves and his famous declaration that "all men are created equal.

This is a rather particular statement, not a general one, about one point of Jefferson's character, one contradiction, which is not even covered in the body of the text, while the existing sentence should read apparent contradiction, or as before, "discrepancy", because it was the 'created equal' value that motivated Jefferson to advance anti-slavery legislation during his political career, and before. It's well covered. Jefferson had grave reservations about releasing unprepared slaves into freedom, with no shelter or means to provide for themselves. Therein is the confusion. Meanwhile Jefferson made numerous attempts to advance gradual emancipation. Presently all we have is another statement in the Historical reputation section about what historians think of this "contradiction". i.e.They're "embarrassed". This is not very informative. The apparent "contradiction" needs to be covered in relation to how Jefferson felt about freeing slaves, while the lede is no place for this one selected detail. We already have a general closing statement in the lede about historians and how they've evaluated Jefferson and other presidents. We should put the lesser details about historians and their opinion about particular topics in the Historical Reputation section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The sentence could be changed to: Modern scholars debate contradictions between Jefferson's ownership of slaves and his view that "all men are created equal." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

yes--good phrasing. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's library

I would like to add this link describing the three institutions who have replicated Thomas Jefferson's libraries in part or in whole. I would like to add the note at the end of this sentence (where the X is):

Retirement and later years Further information: Thomas Jefferson and education Following his retirement from the presidency, Jefferson continued his pursuit of educational interests; he sold his vast collection of books to the Library of Congress, and founded and built the University of Virginia.[205] X

All the best,

BarbPrior (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

1. 1Lib1Ref

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

This should be added as a source in that it gives the exact geographic location of the site. https://billiongraves.com/grave/Thomas-Jefferson/18711396 Annajyoung (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

Please add https://billiongraves.com/grave/Thomas-Jefferson/18711396 as a source for the burial of Thomas Jefferson, as it is geotagged and available for the public Annajyoung (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: A significant, reliable source is already linked in the body text for Jefferson's burial at Monticello. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

70.162.226.36 (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)what in 1992? the George town became popular

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In the memorials and honors section of this article I wrote that Charlottesville, Virginia has a city holiday in honor of Jefferson on or near April 13. It was deleted. Is it possible for someone to edit the article and place this information in it? Verification can be made by visiting http://www.charlottesville.org/business/city-holiday-schedule. In addition to Charlottesville honoring Jefferson with a paid holiday, Albemarle County, where Jefferson was born, also closes their offices on his birthday. Verification here:https://www.albemarle.org/event.asp?info=event&id=22678&displayed_date=. Thank you.

"Bidding her a solemn farewell"

This is the fourth time in one day that Gwillhickers has placed the misspelled phrase "biding her a solemn farewell" into the article. I have removed it three times because it's mawkish and melodramatic. It's poor writing, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Any other opinions about it? Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the part about solemn and corrected the spelling error, but let's be clear -- this is not about a misspelled word, especially since you said nothing of this in edit history, if that indeed was/is your motivation around here. As for being "melodramatic", indicating that someone was feeling sorrow, or that the person was being solemn is not "melodramatic". In another example, when Jefferson's wife died, he was feeling depressed and suicidal, and went for long rides in the woods by himself. Would saying so be "melodramatic"? It seems you are reaching for excuses to justify your rather malicious behavior. e.g. Immediately after I restored one of my edits you went rushing off in an apparent fit of anger to my talk page and made one of your deposits, accusing me of not only vandalism on the Jefferson page, but making multiple IP edits. Tells us, how can any one perform IP vandalism on a page that is protected?? And now you're back, making more reverts. i.e.Jefferson signed an act, he didn't sign the Wikipedia article entitled Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, and using this phrase in a sentence with all capital letters is poor writing. Even the actual act isn't spelled with all capitol letters. We should just link the word Act and refer to it with the correct prose in sentence form as I did. Here also, you didn't explain your revert. And swearing in Edit history as you did is not only melodramatic, it's hostile. Please stop this edit warring and refrain from using Wikipedia articles as a tool to vent disgruntled feelings towards other editors, as you did here and on my user Talk page. It seems you have little concern about edit waring, as your very long block log reveals. You have some nerve accusing anyone of being melodramatic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both of you: Gwillhickers' additions, imo, don't improve the article, and Binkersternet's responses have been churlish.

I suggest removing the "bidding her farewell" part because the rest of the sentence implies as much.

I suggest Binksternet apologize to Gwillhickers for posting a misguided and insulting template on his talk page.

I suggest deleting or rewording this sentence: So impressed with Jefferson, Wythe would later bequeath his entire library to him because the first phrase is ungrammatical. YoPienso (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning the epitaph, by itself, could imply many themes or ideas. I removed the term 'solemn' out of compromise. We should at least indicate that the epitaph was a farewell, for comprehensiveness. re:Wythe and his library. I'm not sure what the grammatical issue is there, but that such a renown and notable figure as Wythe leaving his library to Jefferson ties in with his great admiration for Jefferson and the fire that later consumed his library, including books left to him by Wythe and his father -- which in turn ties in with the theme of Jefferson and his great love of books. i.e."I can not live without books." If you can think of a better wording by all means edit the sentence there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It just makes sense to me that if a man writes an epitaph for his sister, he's saying good-bye to her.

"Impressed with Jefferson, Wythe would later bequeath his entire library to him" is good English, but adding the "So" sounds wrong to me. I prefer something more like the line in the George Wythe bio: He remained particularly close to Jefferson, and left Jefferson his substantial book collection in his will. YoPienso (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggested in my edit summary that details about Jane's death be on her bio page, but I see she doesn't have one. Nor should she, I suppose. Still not sure many details about her should be in a brief encyclopedic bio of TJ, either. YoPienso (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone's biography should at least mention family deaths. Also, there's nothing wrong with mentioning the epitaph was in Latin, it's just a couple of words -- it ties in with Jefferson's Latin studies. Anyway, your edits look good. Thanks! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Yopienso, for this excellent rewording.

Forgive me, Gwillhickers, for my fat-fingered mistake placing the wrong template on your talk page; I had intended this one instead, a warning against potentially breaking the three-revert rule. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Miswritten name under scholarly studies

Please correct the miswritten name of the author of "Thomas Jefferson's Ethics and the Politics of Human Progress: The Morality of a Slaveholder". The author is Ari Helo, not Ray Helo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppoosi (talk • contribs) 07:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done YoPienso (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson as land owner, slavemaster, and farmer

After careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that the final sentence of the first paragraph ("He was a land owner and farmer.") portrayed an incomplete and incorrect picture of Jefferson:

My read of this sentence was that it was an attempt to describe Jefferson's status (land owner) and work (farmer) separate from his political career. As such, slavemaster was at least as important as farmer and potentially as important as land owner as well.

I have seen this edit immediately undone by three different editors without justification despite its historical certitude. I would like to understand the rationale for this. If it is an attempt to sanitize and whitewash Jefferson's biography, this is clearly not the place to do it. And if there is a belief that it is somehow secondary to Jefferson's status as land owner/farmer, I would like to hear the logic behind that assertion.

Thanks! jsmathematics aka Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmathematics (talk • contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello "Mathman"! First, I applaud you for coming to the talk p. about this. I understand your position—the slavery issue is one that gets alot of attention. There is a genuine effort on the part of many to make sure this is addressed adequately while not sacrificing the goal of WP to adhere to its overarching goal of WP:NPOV. The talk page is the place to work this out and you are doing the right thing to bring this here before crossing the line to an edit war. I would strongly suggest that you first complete the creation of your user page. You will greatly facilitate your ability to initiate a discussion if you do that. If you get stuck, don't hesitate to use the help link to the left margin. After you have completed the user page, I would suggest you check the archives of the talk page above and you will undoubtedly find a discussion of the issue. This will help prevent completely retracing previous ground. Very briefly, I would say that it will help to remember that you are arguing that the point be made in the first paragraph of the lede. This raises the bar of importance to its highest point—I'm not taking sides just alerting you to the argument you will want to prepare. Again, thanks for your approach. Hoppyh (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, Jsmathematics, please read the note I left on the talk page I created for you. YoPienso (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will attempt to create a user page as suggested. I did review WP: NPOV but find that my edit is still an appropriate and important one. Here is my rationale.

1. The fact of owning slaves isn't a viewpoint at all but rather a historically indisputable fact. If there is any viewpoint expressed at all, perhaps it is that slave ownership is a required descriptor in conveying Jefferson's status.
2. In colonial Virginia, it should be noted that "farmer" implied ownership of a small plot worked mainly by the family. Where slaves were used, the number was very small.Source Meanwhile, the number of slaves owned by Jefferson was 135. See Thomas_Jefferson_and_Slavery.
3. In modern times, since one could argue that "farmer" as used in the article is to be given its modern meaning, there would be no use of slaves at all. So again, this fails to describe Jefferson accurately.
4. The gentry status that Jefferson held in Virginia was 100% tied to his having a large amount of land and a large number of slaves.
5. To leave the description as "landowner and farmer" does not support NPOV. Rather, it ensures a bio of Jefferson that is not simply incomplete but incorrect.

Sincerely, jsmathematics (aka Jason). 1:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmathematics (talk • contribs)

I agree with you, Jason, but knowing the history of this article and its major contributors, I doubt "slavemaster" will be included. I myself would suggest "slaveowner," but I don't expect that to be included, either. A compromise would be to replace "landowner and farmer" with "plantation owner," which at once connotes land ownership, slave ownership, and farming. YoPienso (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that I've examined the lead--which I haven't done for a while and should have done before joining this conversation--I'm boldly making a more radical edit. I'm altogether removing "landowner and farmer" from the first paragraph because it doesn't belong there. The slaveowner bit is thoroughly treated in the last paragraph of the lead. I'm prefacing the first sentence of the fourth paragraph with, Primarily a plantation owner, lawyer, and politician... YoPienso (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps employ a link, as follows...plantation owner ? Hoppyh (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I did rather more than I set out to do, and am going offline now. Please adjust as you see fit. :) YoPienso (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing that "more radical edit" of removing the land owner/farmer sentence altogether. However, I do believe it would represent an improvement to the bio. I don't mind making it, but I suspect it would carry more weight coming from your keyboard. Jsmathematics (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

See changes attempted in paragraphs 1 and 4. Hoppyh (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL, Jason--in my haste I forgot to remove that. Hoppy's done it, and now I've tweaked his improvement. He may now tweak mine. :)

Thanks, Hoppy! I've done a few quick edits on the lead. Most importantly (and most likely to be questioned), I inserted planter--with a link--where I had had plantation owner. I think this is important because it was his livelihood and he spent hours and hours on plantation management every year of his adult life, though he was forced to neglect it while in Washington. I removed mention of it from the line about his being a proponent of democracy, etc., because owning slaves seems to oppose, not support, the principle of freedom inherent in democracies, republics, and individual rights. YoPienso (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the lede is a bit protectionist of Jefferson, who was a slave owner. Jefferson used slaves in his house, nail factory, and fields. Jefferson was an overseer of slaves. Should this be swept under the rug of history ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

Thomas Jefferson's biography should be edited so that the phrase, "greatest men *that* ever lived" reads "greatest men *who* ever lived"

This phrase appears under "Political, social, and religious views" Maezeppa 15:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maezeppa1 (talk • contribs)

 Done While I personally share your opinion that people are whos, not whats, that's not an actual error. I've changed it to suit our fancies. YoPienso (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

English usage

This newly added sentence isn't structured correctly: Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves worked on his plantations or nail factory that some modern scholars believe contradicted his famous declaration that "all men are created equal." I reverted the change and then worked on the paragraph. YoPienso (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't both free and not free slaves.

In the Slavery section, the following line is found:

Upon his death in 1826, Jefferson freed five male Hemings slaves in his will.[327]

In the "Final days, death, and burial" section, this line is found:

He gave instructions in his will for disposal of his assets,[251] including the freeing of Sally Hemings's children;[252] but his estate, possessions, and slaves were sold at public auctions starting in 1827.[253]

I realize both lines have cited references, however they contradict one another. While the instructions in the will clearly indicate he intended to free the Hemings, it did not happen, as is most strongly suggested by the line as currently written.

I am unclear how to correct this while maintaining the integrity of the original source material, but it must be corrected, as it gives a false impression. Nothing stopped him from freeing them while he lived, and he would have known his level of debt would hinder the desired execution of his will. To outright say he freed them is to utter a historical falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblamont (talk • contribs) 10:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The 1827 auctions were without any contradicting effect upon his will: https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/, the 1830 census. As for what would have stopped him from freeing them while he lived, society likes to consider it's well ordered. The psychology of the remaining enslaved people, their expectations, that of the population at large played a role on whether the freed slaves would be to enjoy peace, and prosperity beyond the bare benefice of their legal freedom. --Askedonty (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it was a great read. I guess my concern would be the "but" in the sentence in the "Final days" section. In context, it sounds like he meant to, but was unable to, free them. It also leaves out the fact that he did, in fact let two of the children leave to pass into freedom prior to his death (as mentioned in the link you cited). Boblamont (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Just wanted to note that Thomas Jefferson considers authoring the Virginia Statute of Religious freedom one of his greatest accomplishments, yet there's almost no mention of it in the article :) I'm new to Wikipedia so sorry if this is in the wrong place!

LNej375 (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Children Section

In the interest of making the section in Jefferson's box listing his children more complete, could someone link Harriet Hemmings as well? 2601:642:4401:114F:B934:BF53:4ED9:515A (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Recently we have Catherine Kerrison, Jefferson’s Daughters: Three Sisters, White and Black, in a Young America (2018). She is an associate professor of history at Villanova University, where she teaches courses in Colonial and Revolutionary America and women’s and gender history. She holds a PhD in American history from the College of William and Mary. Her first book, Claiming the Pen: Women and Intellectual Life in the Early American South (2005), won the Outstanding Book Award from the History of Education Society. --

But this one is published by Ballantine Books. Comments? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Jefferson the father of Libertarianism?

Could Thomas Jefferson be described as the father of what we call Libertarianism today in America?75.128.82.247 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Mind you, Jefferson has had an influence on American ideology across the spectrum. TFD (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

The opening sentence should include the fact that he was an enslaver along with his being a statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, and Founding Father. Ditto the articles about Madison, Monroe, Washington, Jackson, etc. SomeoneInATree (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he was a slaveowner is already in the lede and not so prominent in his notability to warrant mention in the first sentence.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

There are numerous additions I would like to make. I want first my 15 books added to the biblio.

Holowchak, Mark (2013). Framing a Legend: Exposing the Distorted History of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-6161-4729-7. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2020). Rethinking Thomas Jefferson’s Views on Race and Slavery: “God’s justice can not sleep forever,” Cambridge Scholars Holowchak, M. Andrew (2020). Jefferson and Religion: The Incredibly Simple Religious Views of an American Messiah, Abilene Christian University Press. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2020). Thomas Jefferson: Psychobiography of an American Lion, Nova Publishers, ISBN 978-1536166576. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2020). Thirty-Six More Essays, Plus another, on the Probing Mind of Thomas Jefferson: “A sentimental traveller,” II, Cambridge Scholars Press, 2020. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2020). Thirty-Six Short Essays on the Probing Mind of Thomas Jefferson: “A sentimental traveler,” Cambridge Scholars, ISBN 978-1527541856. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2019). The Cavernous Mind of Thomas Jefferson, An American Savant, Cambridge Scholars, ISBN 978-1527538641. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2019). Jefferson’s Bible: Text with Introduction and Critical Commentary, Berlin: DeGruyter, ISBN 978-3110617566. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2017). Thomas Jefferson, Moralist, McFarland, ISBN 1476669244. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2017). Jefferson’s Political Philosophy and the Metaphysics of Utopia, Brill, ISBN 978-9004339415. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2017). The Elusive Thomas Jefferson: The Man behind the Myths (contributing co-editor with Brian Dotts, UGA), McFarland, ISBN 1476669252. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2014). Thomas Jefferson’s Philosophy of Education: A Utopian Dream, Taylor & Francis. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2014). Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision, Prometheus Books, ISBN 1616149523. Holowchak, M. Andrew (2013). Thomas Jefferson and Philosophy: Essays on the Philosophical Cast of Jefferson’s Writings, Lexington Books, Holowchak, M. Andrew (2013). Framing a Legend: Exposing the Distorted History of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, Prometheus Books, Holowchak, M. Andrew (2012). Dutiful Correspondent: Philosophical Essays on Thomas Jefferson, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 1442220422. Mholowchak (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:COI and WP:BOOKSPAM. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Date of Effect of Slave Importation Law

I don't have the privilege to modify this page. But I believe that the law on prohibiting the import of slaves went into effect 1808 not 1818 as said here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward ruggeri (talk • contribs) 22:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry

I added a question at Talk:Early life and career of_Thomas Jefferson#Ancestry (which doesn't have the readership of this main article). If someone knows of the information about Samuel Jefferson and Christopher Branch, that would be much appreciated!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect statement and I can't edit it

Since I don't have the silver permission I can't edit a glaring inaccuracy; maybe someone else can. The article erroneously states that after Jefferson resigned from Washington's cabinet, Washington never spoke to him again. This is patently untrue. The article cites Ron Chernow's book Alexander Hamilton as the source, p.427. I have the book and p. 427 does not even discuss Jefferson at all, let alone his resignation from Washington's cabinet. Washington's "dissatisfaction" with Jefferson is discussed on pp. 499-500, but even at that point Jefferson is still in Washington's cabinet.

Furthermore, after Jefferson resigned and after Washington completed his terms, the two men continued a correspondence in 1797 wherein they discussed to some extent Jay's Treaty, and when that discussion went sour they continued their correspondence with more innocuous topics such as farming techniques. They continued to correspond until newspapers printed an inflammatory letter Jefferson had written about Washington some years earlier—one he had denied to Washington he had written in which Washington was called "America's degenerate Samson and Solomon." Once Washington discovered Jefferson had indeed been the author of this letter, he ceased all communication with him. This was in mid-to-late 1797. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.150.30 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I've removed the statement for now. Station1 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Scandals section addition

I believe a scandals section is in order because I think there is enough information and enough scandals. Not that the scandals directly involved Jefferson. There appear to be a total of 7 scandals: Burr Conspiracy, Wilkinson Misconduct, The Two Million Act, The Post Office Investigation, The Miranda Expedition, Josiah Quincy's Attempted Impeachment of Jefferson, and The New Orleans "Batture" case. Banner 1974 is the source for these scandals. Any objections or suggestions ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I recommend adding three scandals to the Scandals section: Burr conspiracy, Wilkinson misconduct, and The two million act. The other scandals can be incorporated into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

...If they didn't directly involve Jefferson, do they warrant mentioning in the Jefferson article? More importantly, even if some of these are included, I do not think we should have a dedicated section for them--It seems like the WP policy on "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections applies here (see WP:CRITS).--MattMauler (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Two Million Act did involve Jefferson directly. In the Two Million Dollar Act Jefferson purposely had Randolph maneuvered to remove from floor leader so the measure would pass. Jefferson asked for an undisclosed fund. Randolph was informed that Jefferson wanted to purchase Florida for $2,000,000. Also, Jefferson allowed Wilkerson Wilkinson, who was on the payroll of Spain, to remain in Command of the Army. Jefferson did remove Wilkerson Wilkinson from being Governor of the Louisiana Territory. So Jefferson was involved with Wilkerson Wilkinson. Jefferson did put Burr on trial. The main focus is Jefferson's response to misconduct during his Administration. In the Two Million Act Jefferson himself was involved in Misconduct and deserves mention in the article. I gave my source Banner 1974 from Responses of the Presidents To Charges of Misconduct. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Also, Jefferson allowed Wilkerson, who was on the payroll of Spain, to remain in Command of the Army." Not Wilkerson. The man in question was James Wilkinson, Commanding General of the United States Army (1796-1798, 1800-1812). "Wilkinson's involvement with the Spanish (as Agent 13) was widely suspected in his own day, but it was not proven until 1854". Does it really matter whether Jefferson's Commanding General was a foreign spy? Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand, and it may warrant inclusion, but if so it should not be in a "scandals" section. The policy-based part of my objection still stands.--MattMauler (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Banner (1974) thought it mattered enough to be mentioned in the Responses of the Presidents To Charges of Misconduct book James Wilkinson in the pay of Spain chapter section pages 35-37, edited by C. Vann Woodward. I can agree not to put in a scandals section, but The Two Million Act deserves mention too, since Jefferson was directly involved. Wilkinson was also involved in the Burr Conspiracy in addition to receiving advances on his salary and payments on claims submitted to Secretary of War Dearborn. I would call that profiteering or misconduct. Jefferson took no action against Wilkinson, in part political expediency, and because Jeffeson needed Wilkinson to testify against Burr. Jefferson believed Wilkinson was a hard worker. At the time, there was not enough evidence against Wilkinson. This is being written on modern evidence Wilkinson was on the Spanish payroll. I would put it this way. The United States highest ranking General, the person in charge of national security, was on pay from a foreign government. We don't know the extent of Wilkinson's duplicity with Spain. At one point Wilkinson was partners with Burr's attempt to break from the U.S. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Two Million Dollar Act is a bit complicated. Jefferson wanted West Florida. At first he claimed that the territory was under the Louisiana Purchase. This was rejected by Spain and France. Monroe's diplomatic mission to acquire the territory failed. Jefferson wanted to declare war against France/Spain and ally with England. This was rejected. In the end Jefferson decided to secretly buy-bribe the Territory for two million dollars. To pass the legislation Jefferson had to remove his rival Randolph as the floor leader. A newer source: Karen S. Hoffman (2010) Popular Leadership in the Presidency Origins and Practice Chapter 4. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The Two Million Dollar Act has wp:significance here at 'Thomas Jefferson' because we treat significant events of the time during his presidencies and those events of immediate consequence for subsequent US history during the Antebellum Era. In the sub-section Thomas Jefferson#Louisiana Purchase, along with the existing last paragraph beginning "After the purchase",

Should there be a two-paragraph sub-sub-section, "Aftermath", with paragraph(s) on "After the purchase...[assumption of Spanish law]", and on The Two Million Dollar Act WITHIN the 'Louisiana Purchase' subsection? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks TVH. I think a sub section in the LP section would be appropriate. The bill, although secretive, is not necessarily the controversy. It is Jefferson removing Randolph from the House leadership to get the bill passed. I believe that is the central controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the subsection. I did not use the term "bribery" since the money was legally allocated for an unspecified purpose by Congress, although influenced by Jefferson. Although the allocation of the money could appear to have been to be used to bribe the French governement to pressure Spain into an annexation treaty. Napoleon, however, did not take up the offer. I emphasized Jefferson maneuvering to remove Randolph as leader of the House to get the House to approve the money allocated. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the two million dollar act be called a bribe offer to France ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The introductory line is incomplete.

It reads: "Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743[a] – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, and Founding Father who served as the third president..."

It SHOULD read: Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743[a] – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, slave-owner and Founding Father who served as the third president..."

That last bit is a significant portion of who he was, more so than the each of the other individual parts. le Boojam (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Also read all of the discussion of this issue in the talk page archives. Sundayclose (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Jefferson's being a slaveholder is very important to who Thomas Jefferson was, and what he accomplished, and failed to accomplish. It absolutely needs to be a part of the introductory summary. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that that topic should be addressed more prominently. The incongruence between Jeffersons enlightenment principles and his ownership of slaves is a major part his story. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"More so" um, yeah I'm gonna need a source for that comment that Jefferson being a slave holder was a "more significant portion of who he was" than the President of the United States or the writer of the Declaration of Independence or a Founding Father. So that's a no vote for me on changing the intro. A.S. Williams (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sally Hemings

I request that you change the wording with regards to Sally Hemings. The article says that Jefferson has relations with "his slave" Sally Hemings. She was enslaved, not a slave. And she is referred to as a "mixed race woman". She was in fact a "mixed race child" when Jefferson began to have sexual relations with her. 32.211.91.212 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, "enslaved" kinda implies that she was "a slave"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, please be more mindful. The whole world is rapidly moving toward the language of "enslaved people" rather than "slave", since "slave" necessarily objectifies and essentializes the people who bear that mark. And that Hemings was a child when Jefferson "got" her is a fact, and he most likely began raping her when she was between 14 and 16. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding this: if that is the case, Wikipedia should, per policy, naturally lag behind such a change, not anticipate it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change slave to enslaved, you need to discuss the issue in the policy guidelines, rather than across thousands of articles that use the term slave. TFD (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Enslaved person is more correct that calling someone a slave. To call someone a "slave" makes it seem as if that is all that there is to say about someone - now or in the future. Enslaved person is used throughout Wikipedia and I have seen it used more often in the past year or so. See the second sentence in Slavery, for instance. I cannot see the harm in making this edit. (See Enslaved vs. slave.)

I think it would be good to bring this up at a forum to get consistency in approach, but I am not sure where I don't see anything in WP:MOS about slave or enslaved now... and am not sure where to take it: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, something else.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You can find appropriate language to describe black lives in an archivist's group based out of Philly. https://archivesforblacklives.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/ardr_final.pdf Many archivists and librarians are adopting these terminologies because LOC is slow to create and implement new terms - for example, the LOC subject heading Indian to describe Native Americans and indigenous peoples is still active. Feministkilljoy (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Slavery

In 1801, Jefferson indicated that slavery needed to be eliminated in the US. Source. Christopher Hitchens. Not sure about his primary source. Johnvag814 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Saying that someone notable said something without having a reference for it, means that the statement is still unsourced... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

The fact that Thomas Jefferson was a "plantation-owner, slaveholder" is totally irrelevant to the facts about Mr. Jefferson. He was one of the Founding Fathers who wanted to end slavery immediately, but compromised and included the ending by not allowing the further purchase of human beings for servitude. Also, since when is "plantation owner" hyphenated. We do not say car-owner or home-owner. You DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO MAKE MY IP ADDRESS PUBLICLY VISIBLE. I DO NOT AGREE TO THAT TERM AND YOU MUST HEREBY ABIDE BY THAT. 204.9.108.202 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The two words had been recently added and have now been removed. Both true, obviously, but discussion might continue about their prominence within the lead. While the international slave trade was made illegal under Jefferson, his opposition to it is widely acknowledged as hypocritical, and even experts unwilling to evaluate him in moral terms note the contradictions inherent in his life/actions.
It is made very clear in the message on your screen before editing, above the edit window, that your IP address will be made visible if you save your edit. The only way to avoid this is to create an account (which requires no personal information whatsoever, not even an email address).--MattMauler (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite--Jefferson worked his entire life to end the international slave trade. In his lifetime that was the #1 objective of antislavery forces in USA, Britain and worldwide, and Jefferson took the lead in Virginia and in USA and succeeded. No hypocrisy there. Rjensen (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Apologies--I can see how my comment was unclear: When I said "his opposition to it," I meant opposition to slavery itself, not opposition the international slave trade. He did consistently push for abolishing the latter, yes. I was saying, though, that popular sources (and common sense) would call it "hypocrisy" to own around 600 slaves over the course of one's life and still denounce slavery as evil (and still state that all are created equal). Expert sources avoid this moralistic characterization ("hypocrisy"), but they do generally note the inherent contradiction, as I said.--MattMauler (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Again. This is a summary article. Jefferson opposed the international slave trade. Jefferson owned over 600 slaves during his life time. These are facts needed to said in the article. Let the readers make their own conclusions on Jefferson and hypocracy. Jefferson apparently was for the domestic slave trade, since he bought, sold, or hired out slaves, and apparently had children by them, at least one. Jefferson may have demanded his slaves that ran away to the British, be returned, after the Revolutionary War. There is no evidence Jefferson was agaisnt the 3/5 person slave clause in the Constitution, allowing Southern whites to have more representation in Congress. Jefferson's notes on the state of Virginia, subject to interpretation, did not want blacks to mingle with whites, a segregationsist. There is no evidence Jefferson opposed the Electoral College, that gave slave owners a better chance of being elected President. 4 out of 5 first Presidents were Virginia slave owners. The British outlawed domestic slavery in 1833 effective August 1, 1844, apparently without a fight. The U.S. outlawed slavery in 1865 after a costly Civil War. Virginia was part of the Confederacy. This article just needs to state facts without judgement. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

On a personal note, I don't think Jefferson was a hypocrite. He certainly was not perfect. He maybe leaned toward agnosticism or atheism. He owned slaves. Jefferson was Jefferson. He lived that life he wanted to live. I don't believe the Founders should be worshipped, but not judged. Let God be the judge of people. These are just my opinions, not to be held as facts. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

The dna study of Jefferson proved that he did not Father her child as claimed. The study was based on haplotyping and the shared Mitrochondrial dna. The retraction in Nature was reported by a small handful of papers of the over 200 that claimed him to be the Father. The science clearly eliminates Jefferson while identifying some other member of the Jefferson family. The best article I have found on it is by the historian David Barton. It is not healthy to base this conclusion on hearsay or the popular vote of modern historians. My studies in haplotyping enabled me to study the evidence and agree with the retraction. Why would we ignore the science of this case?

https://wallbuilders.com/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-search-truth/ Leapingfrog (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 11:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"My studies in haplotyping enabled me to study the evidence and agree with the retraction." Orginal research is forbidden by Wikipedia. This article is only reporting what the concensus of historians believes. The 1998 DNA study said there was a high probability Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings. The DNA was taken from the line of Jefferson's paternal uncle, not Jefferson directly. Since Jefferson's DNA was not taken, there is no direct genetic proof Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings. This is not a paternity court case, either, such as payment of child support. Let the historians have their opinions. To date there has been no court case or judicial determination of the parternity of Sally Heming's children. Wikipedia is a summary article, not here to prove or disprove any DNA test. Respectfully. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, neither Sally Hemings', Jefferson's, nor Eston Hemings' DNA were used in the 1998 DNA test to establish paternity, something that is essential. In my opinion, the 1998 DNA test is a little shaky, but this is wikipedia, and the consensus of historians is what counts. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For neutrality, I would not be against adding "Neither Jefferson, Hemings, nor Eston Hemings DNA were used in the study." Any objections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. What is the reason for the addition (or what does it have to do with "neutrality")?--MattMauler (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I gave my reasons in the above paragraphs. The 1998 DNA test is shaky. Jefferson was never tested. Neither was Sally Hemings, nor Eston Hemings. The reason is given in the sentence. Wikipedia policy is Neutral point of view. To be an accurate and neutral DNA test, Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and Eston Hemings DNA would need to be tested. To find the paternity, you test the DNA of the suspected father, not the DNA of the suspected father's uncle. The DNA of Jefferson was denied I believe. So the tester(s) used Jefferson's Uncle. It is like the tester(s) is/are seeking to prove something, so they used Jefferson's Uncle, since the tester(s) could not use Jefferson's DNA. That would be a biased test. There appears to be a biased effort to prove Jefferson was Eston Hemings father. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of expert historians is not that the test is "shaky." Historians on both/all sides of the issue are aware of the fact that it wasn't Thomas Jefferson (or Eston Hemings) but the family line (edit: this is clear in the article already too), AND they are all aware that this means that several different members of the Jefferson family could have fathered Eston Hemings. Still, the majority/mainstream say that he was the father because of the "preponderance of evidence," not only DNA, but "genetic, circumstantial, and oral historical." You say, "To be an accurate and neutral DNA test, Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and Eston Hemings DNA would need to be tested." This is your own non-expert evaluation, as is your contention that there is a biased attempt to make Jefferson out to be the father. The consensus among historians is that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston (at least). Yes, there are a few scholars that disagree, but that has already been noted in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the SPLC ("About David Barton"), his "scendant star as a self-taught “historian” and influential leader of the evangelical far right crashed in a storm of ridicule when the world’s largest Christian publisher recalled Barton’s 2012 book, The Jefferson Lies, for too many serious whoppers — the kind of gross factual mistakes that are a death knell for any real historian." So there is no reason why we should rely on anything he writes. And note that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the SPLC is a reliable source. If you have a problem with that then you have to get that changed rather than argue with us on this page. TFD (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove Jefferson was the father. I never claimed to be a DNA scientific expert. I was only making an assessment of historical concensus. The historians using the 1998 DNA test are trying to prove Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings with a DNA test that does not even include Jefferson's DNA. In my opinion, I would call that bias. That is the "shaky" part. No Jefferon DNA was used in the test. I am sure the DNA 1998 test was perfectly accurate. That's not the issue. And yes Barton is a historical flake. I don't want to go around in circles. My addition was only a suggestion to be put in the article. Stick is dropped. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"most historians believe that Jefferson had a sexual relationship with his slave Sally Hemings,"

I could be wrong but I thought DNA testing answered this question. What historian disagrees?96.240.128.124 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur. It's beyond good faith debate now. I'll edit accordingly. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

PBS - Frontline: "8 Jeffersons Could Have Been the Father of Eston. This DNA study testing the Y chromosome found that there was a link to "some" Jefferson, but not necessarily Thomas, having been the father of Eston, Sally Heming's youngest son. These DNA tests indicated that any one of 8 Jeffersons could have been the father of Eston and there was nothing to indicate it was Thomas. The 8 possibilities identified by the DNA tests are Thomas, Randolph (Jefferson's brother), Randolph's 5 sons, and a cousin George and in 5 of Randolph's sons, who were in their teens or 20s when Sally Hemings was having children. Since no one has ever denied that it was likely that "some" Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Heming's children, these recent DNA tests only provide more certainty to what we already knew or suspected. Since the only available DNA evidence comes from direct male lineal descendants of persons who have descended from a common male line with Thomas Jefferson (father, grandfather, etc.), the test is inherently nonspecific. The same Y chromosome existed in Mr. Jefferson's brother Randolph, who lived 20 miles from Monticello, and in 5 of Randolph's sons, who were in their teens or 20s when Sally Hemings was having children." PBS - Frontline Jerry Stockton (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jerry Stockton: What you say may be strictly true in an 'evidentiary sense' at a jury trial on a felony charge, where the test is "beyond a reasonable doubt". But even in law, there is a less demanding "preponderance" of evidence used in civil suits. - - - The accepted practice in academic "soft, social sciences", the test for 'using the results' is the less demanding 'preponderance of evidence.' Likewise in statistical data analysis: the 'history' and 'sociology' social sciences require meeting only a two (2) standard deviations (~68% sure) test on the data to be ruled soft-science' significant, while the 'physics' and 'chemistry' hard sciences demand a very much more stringent hurdle to meet a three (3) standard deviations (~99.7% sure) test to be ruled hard-science' significant.

- It is of some interest that Jefferson was a life-long Francophile. The ancient regime French colonial practice of slavery was influenced by Roman Catholic practice. In the late 1700s French Caribbean Islands, it was common for the offspring of a master and a slave (regardless of father, see the child's skin color), to be freed as an adult at twenty-one. - - - (a) It is important in the development of multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-racial sailors in every port surrounding the North Atlantic Basin in commercial-societies connected to the Triangle Trade. (b) This historical context is important for any serious treatment of developments in the Haitian Revolution.

- (c) It is precedent for "gradual emancipation" in 1780s Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York. All born enslaved were to be freed at 21 by uncompensated statute, and that led to a 1790s surge of Virginia in-migration from slave-holder sales of 12-14 year-old 'servants' from north of the Mason Dixon Line into permanent hereditary slavery. - - - (d) It is uncontested on all sides: Jefferson only manumitted mixed-race children among his house servants, and he manumitted them all, by deed or by practice, in the French colonial manner, as though he were their father. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Enough information should be in the article that will allow the readers to make their own decisions on whether Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings. Are there any sources that say Jefferson fathered all of Heming's children ? Best to just let the reader make their own judgements on Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Most readers don't want to be presented with all the evidence and decide what really happened, they want to know that most experts agree that Jefferson was the father. Especially when they come to an article about Jefferson, rather than one about the parentage of Hemings' children. If they want to examine and weigh the evidence, they can go to a daughter article. Jefferson's role in the American revolution, his presidency and his contribution to U.S. politics are their main interests, rather than his personal life. TFD (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are. In fact, they are cited in the article already: Since the results of the DNA tests were made public, the consensus among academic historians has been that Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings and that he was the father of her son Eston Hemings ... Please see the footnote after that sentence for a list of sources and quotations from them. It includes academic historians commenting explicitly on this "consensus." All of them say that historians agree that Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings; two of them (expert sources, remember) say in addition that Jefferson fathered all six of Sally Hemings' children. The phrase, though some experts dispute this conclusion, ends that section because of what the next paragraph states: There are some (a very few) experts who continue to say that there is insufficient evidence. I think the section accurately reflects the debate. There is a broad consensus, but some few experts who disagree. Presenting the evidence and letting the reader decide isn't what WP is about, but presenting legitimate expert views is, and they should be included with due weight on the mainstream or accepted view.--MattMauler (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Readers can make their own choices and are free to disregard any source. Wikipedia is a summary article on Jefferson, not a trial of whether he fathered children. Concensus of historians ? Is DNA evidence proof that Jefferson fathered children ? Historians agree that Jefferson fathered one or more children. Does that make it so ? I personally believe Jefferson fathered all of Hemings children, but Wikipedia needs to be neutral on the subject. Also, my opinions in the talk page are not statements of fact, just opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Meacham (2013) discussed Jefferson and Hemings in his notes starting on page 522 Thomas Jefferson the Art of Power. Concluded evidence is lacking the other persons fathered Jefferson's children. Meacham said Jefferson had the ablility to carry on a long term relationship with a female slave he could control. Meacham agreed with the 2000 Committee and Annette Gordan Read. "Honorable people" can disagree. Once DNA evidence is brought in it sounds like Jefferson is on trial. Wikipedia is not a format to put Jefferson on trial. Meacham said the 1998 DNA study lead to a "scholarly reevaluation of the en-tire question of the Jefferson-Hemings connection" The 1998 DNA testing then was apparently only made for historians to evaluate, not neccessarily to prove Jefferson had children by Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Meacham's term "Jefferon-Hemings connection" is a much more neutral term than "Jefferson-Hemings controversy". That should be used for the title section, in my opinion. The controversy only seems to be between historians, and right now, seems not to be a controversy at all, since historians agree Jefferson had one or more children. Any suggestions ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, not everyone agrees, even if those who doubt the "connection" are a minority. You might have a look at the recently expired RFC at Sally Hemings: [8]. Attic Salt (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not put "majority" or "minority" of historians that agree. I just used the term "historians" or "scholars". The emphasis is that this is just a debate among historians. The DNA 1998 test was not meant to convict Jefferson of paternity. Jefferson is not on trial. The Jefferson-Hemings connection, a term used by Meacham (2013), is only a debate among historians, not a legal court battle. Historians can debate all they want but only Jefferson and Sally Hemings know what happened. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But as a matter of Wikipedia MOS writing style for each section, each article should be focused on informing the general international reader about the scholarship related to each topic, in this case, the life of Thomas Jefferson. As a matter of historical record from multiple sources across two centuries with an array of "axes to grind", there is ample documentation of a Jefferson-Hemings "connection", not to say "friendship". At gatherings in Jefferson's Monticello parlor room, the two were known to converse in French with one another in the hearing of a guest about the topic of general conversation.

The wp:editorial voice in academic or popular issues that are currently controversial, should faithfully represent the conclusions of major schools of thought in wp:reliable sources, allocating relative emphasis by wp:due weight. But in my opinion, the article spends far too much space on academic debate, rehearsing the data points of controversy over Jefferson's paternity for all of Sally Hemings children. I do find the scholarship persuasive in Catherine Kerrison's Jefferson's Daughters: Three sisters, white and black, in a young America.

Nevertheless, the focus of the narrative must be Jefferson's life. These elements of academic and public and legal controversial debate can be all be reduced to article Notes, so as to avoid interrupting the narrative flow about Jefferson's life. I CONCUR with the 6 September post by The Four Deuces above. A 'top-hat' "Main article: Sally Hemings" should be otherwise sufficient. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My view for this article is to emphasize that the Jefferson-Hemings connection, JHC, is just a debate among historians, not an indictment of paternity by Jefferson. The DNA test (1998) is just more added data or information for the JHC debate. JH term was used by Meacham (2013). I think "connection" is a better word than "controversy". There maybe legal ramifications for potential Jefferson descendants. Jefferson kept his word. He freed Sally's children. I am not sure why the descendants of Sally Hemings would seek legal action against the Jefferson estate. That is seperate from the JHC debate. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The actual "controversy" is that Sally Hemings' descendants want to be buried on the Jefferson Estate. I can't find anything that says Heming's descendants sued the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. They were denied burial rights on the estate grounds. Thomas Jefferson's descendants unite over a troubled past February 14, 2019 CBS This Morning CBS News Cmguy777 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You want to "emphasize that 'JHC' is just a debate among historians, not an indictment of paternity ..." What is the significance of this distinction? It is a claim that Jefferson fathered at least one (and maybe all six) of Hemings's children, but the current wording doesn't "indict" Jefferson any more than any unflattering historical fact in the biographies of the founders. Nothing we say here about Jefferson has any legal implications whatsoever; this is not a BLP, and what's in the article is in literally hundreds of secondary sources, textbooks, etc.
Is a change being recommended to the article, and if so what is it? (In other words, what specifically is wrong with the current wording?) It has gotten lost in the conversation in this section I think. I do not think coverage of this topic should be reduced to a hatnote, if that is what is being recommended--It is an important part of his life and comprises only a small part of the article as it is. Besides, we already have such a note leading to the article about the Jefferson-Hemings [whatever] at the beginning of the section.--MattMauler (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure where the 8 paragraphs on Sally Hemings is in the article. The 1998 DNA study said "high probability" Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings. Let's say historians are correct that Jefferson fathered all of Sally Hemings children. That opens up the right to be buried at Monticello. That goes beyond debate. So far none of Hemings children has taken any legal action to be buried at Monticello. The reality is Jefferson's children by Hemings are not recognized by the Jefferson Foundation, regardless of historical debate. My proposal would be to add information, possibly a sentence, that Heming's descendents want to be buried at Monticello, but were denied. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Information added to the article. The debate really is not settled until Sally Heming's descendents are allowed burial rights at Monticello. Historians might agree, but certainly the Monticello Association does not. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the primary issue here is that Sally Hemings was black. Had Hemings been white would there be any controversy? Being black, probably was the main reason for her descendents being denied burial rights, despite the DNA test in 1998, concluding Eston Hemings was probably the son of Jefferson by Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: I did not mean to deliberately fork the main point of your discussion. I only meant to widen the discussion. See #Jefferson family household with Sally in it below.

But to your point, My view for this article is to emphasize that the Jefferson-Hemings connection, JHC, is just a debate among historians, not an indictment of paternity by Jefferson. Since initial misgivings in 1970, today in 2020, a SH-TJ "connection" is taken for granted in the mainstream scholarship of Jefferson's life. THE EDITORIAL ISSUE HERE revolves around the question, How much wp:due weight to give the person SH in the biography of TJ? I suggest that their relationship should be EQUAL to that historians give Abigail Adams in the biography of John Adams. I am beginning from the EDITORIAL JUDGMENT that Sally is equally important as Abigail in their respective relationships in the lives of the respective Presidents of the United States. So, two paragraphs for Sally in Tom's bio is warranted, and maybe more, but NOT four-times more.

FOR REFERENCE, Sally Hemings at Thomas Jefferson, besides mention in the Infobox, and a sentence in the article introduction, (as does Abigail Adams @ John Adams bio) she has one [1] paragraph on Hemings-as-Jeffersons in ‘Minister to France’, one [1] paragraph in ‘Final days, death, and burial’, three [3] paragraphs and two [2] paragraph Notes in ‘Jefferson-Hemings controversy, and one [1] paragraph in ‘Historical reputation’ = eight [8] paragraphs on Sally Hemings. EDITORIAL JUDGMENT: Sally Hemings should NOT be treated with four (4) times wp:due weight in Thomas Jefferson biography as that of Abigail Adams in John Adams biography.

Proposal: STOP: (1) Don't keep adding more on topics related to four extraneous interests in the Thomas Jefferson biography: (a) Hemings genealogy, (b) DNA methodology, (c) comparative evidentiary tests in science, courts of law, and historiography, and (d) public relations debates over private Foundation policy concerning alternative reburial sites for Hemings descendent remains, and their funding. START: (2) Trim the article's detailed discussion on the historiography related to Sally Heming’s genealogy and related topics in this, the biography article on Thomas Jefferson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and TheVirginiaHistorian: I don't think the Federal Rules of Evidence, or any rules of evidence for courts of law, should be considered to be standards for historical inquiry regarding encyclopedias. Those rules need to be treated holistically and efficacy of the burden of proof standards in court cannot be understood without courts' restrictions on evidence such as hearsay. In History, we need to consider hearsay, and there was a lot of conflicting hearsay regarding Thomas and Randolph Jefferson. Most likely, I would agree that Thomas Jefferson was the biological father of at least some of Hemmings' children. However, we should acknowledge that debate exists surrounding the subject. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

CONCUR. All Jefferson's personal relationships should be noted, balancing both evidence and hearsay, hearsay, so something might be said about BOTH Martha Wayles and Sally Hemings. Editors should allocate wp:due weight proportionately in no more than two or three paragraphs in toto to cover everything related to the most prominent.

- The PROMINENCE may be determined as editors choose among four (4) criteria I can think of, THERE MUST BE others: (a) by time spent together - from still-birth to "adult relationship" of 11-40 years; (b) by RS word-count referencing someone in TJ biography relative to the others mentioned; (c) by RS due weight in the contemporary press across Jefferson's life, whether as plantation mistress-wife Martha, daughter First-Lady Martha or as concubine-scandal Sally Hemings; or (d) lastly by an alternative I deprecate, by volume of letters extant - zero for Martha Wayles and Sally Hemings.

- I am arguing for an upper limit for the article space allotted to titillating asides for the personal, the family and sexual matters among the acknowledged acquaintances among Jefferson's men-and-women-related personal connections. Coverage should be proportionate to other presidential biography at Wikipedia. I brought forward here the numbers of paragraphs allotted to the WIVES of John Adams, then George Washington. I argue for Sally Hemings to get no more than "EQUAL SPACE" by length-of-time engaged in acquaintance.

- NO EDITOR in George Washington's biography article has undertaken to address the controversy surrounding Martha Washington's legacy beyond three sentences concerning the tens of millions lost in litigation delays surrounding building the Washington National etc., etc., Airport parking-deck on top of three courses of brick foundation from a home Martha Washington lived in before she married George. Millions of dollars, over a decade, effecting the commuting experience to DC for literally hundreds of thousands of travelers. HUGE- but controversy alone does not make noteworthy.

- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Jefferson family household with Sally in it

@MattMauler: My specific three-part recommendations on this topic for changes in the article are found in paragraph #3 and paragraph #5 following. --- INSERT --- This editorial judgment is MUCH INFLUENCED by the insight that "Thomas Jefferson had three daughters": MARTHA, MARIA, and HARRIET. All three sisters were raised at Monticello, and by their mid-twenties, each had chosen a lifestyle in married white society living for the most part in the District of Columbia. Martha acted as 'First Lady' hostess and with her husband joined Jefferson at the White House. Martha was joined by Maria and husband with their first surviving child shortly before Maria's death. Harriet of color entered Washington society during president Monroe's terms, just as Martha's husband retired from Congress due to ill health. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

- First, SALLY HEMINGS AND FAMILY. In 1784, Congress appointed Jefferson to Paris to negotiate trade treaties. Thomas took along older daughter Martha at 36, and Sally’s brother James at 20, to be trained as a French chef. At Thomas youngest daughter Lucy’s death, he sent for surviving daughter Polly at 7, to join him in Paris, accompanied by Sally at 14. After their two-years stay in Paris, both Sally and James were eligible for freedom under ancient regime law. --- JAMES HEMINGS chose the life-style of a Jefferson house-cook slave over that of a Parisian kitchen-chef during the French ancient regime. SALLY HEMINGS chose that of a Jefferson servant and companion with her children trained as freed American artisans over the prospects of raising her children as a Parisian house servant in the same period. --- SALLY’S SONS were educated, taught to play violin in chamber music with Jefferson; they both mastered carpentry. SALLY’S DAUGHTERS were educated and became spinners and weavers. Beverley at 25, and Harriet at 22, were allowed to escape in 1822. Madison at 22, and Eston at 19, were freed at Jefferson’s will in 1826. Some of them or their children chose the lifestyle of married life as white Americans in the Antebellum United States. Jefferson lived married to Martha Wayles 1772-1782, eleven years.

- Thomas Jefferson lived married to Martha Wayles 1772-1782, eleven (11) years. He lived in common law marriage with Sally Hemings from 1786-1826, forty (40) years; for reference, John Adams was married to Abigail Smith 1764-1818, fifty-five (55) years. An argument can be made that Sally Hemings should have no more space at Thomas Jefferson than Abigail Smith has proportionately at John Adams, rather it should be at a ratio of 40:55 or so, all other things concerning the two women and their respective partners being equal (Sally was fluent in French).

- FOR REFERENCE, Abigail Adams at John Adams has a line in the Infobox-married, a sentence in the introduction, one paragraph in ‘Law practice and marriage’, residence mention in eight sections. A mention in two policy sections, a mention at death and grave. THAT CAN BE EQUALLY MATCHED by Sally Hemings at Thomas Jefferson with the existing line in the Infobox-children, a sentence in the Introduction, and ONE-TWO CHANGES: (a) a sourced anecdote about Thomas-Sally public events as host-and-hostess at Monticello after daughter Martha’s marriage, and (b) a sentence to the effect, “Sally Hemings lived at Monticello as a house servant, friend and confidant of Thomas Jefferson from after his wife’s death, until Jefferson’s own death.”

- An argument can reasonably made for an equivalent coverage for Jefferson’s family as that for Adam’s. Though Sally Hemings and her family are indeed of interest, and readers should have linked access to related Wikipedia articles, this Thomas Jefferson article should mirror the wp:due weight of ‘family’ found in the article at John Adams. FOR REFERENCE, Sally Hemings at Thomas Jefferson has one (1) paragraph on Hemings-as-Jeffersons in ‘Minister to France’, one (1) paragraph in ‘Final days, death, and burial’, three (3) paragraphs and two (2) paragraph Notes in ‘Jefferson-Hemings controversy, and one (1) paragraph in ‘Historical reputation’. --- FOR REFERENCE, Abigail Adams at John Adams is featured as the topic of one (1) paragraph at ‘Member of Congress’, and one (1) paragraph at ‘Correspondence with Jefferson’.

- PROPOSAL-PART THREE: Editors should trim the eight (8) paragraph treatment for Sally Hemings in Thomas Jefferson to match the two (2) paragraph treatment for Abigail Adams in John Adams. HINT: drop the article's detailed discussion on the historiography related to Sally Heming’s genealogy in this, the biography article on Thomas Jefferson. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Abigail Adams would not be a useful comparison, in my opinion. Jefferson's connection to Sally Hemings was a source of controversy for Jefferson during his life, and an aspect of his complicated legacy today. It's not similar in this way to the Adamses' marriage. Also, calling the Hemings section here 3 paragraphs, while literally true, isn't a great approximation. The last two of those are very short.
2. If sources go along with an anecdote like the one you describe, I wouldn't be opposed in principle.
3. I would be very strongly against the phrasing you recommend ("house servant, friend and confidant of Thomas Jefferson ..."). There were amicable aspects to their relationship; it was longterm; and historians acknowledge the complicated nature of their relationship (Gordon-Reed puts it bluntly: "Did they love each other?"). BUT we have a word for "house servants" who are unpaid and literally owned by their employers. The passage seems euphemistic to me, and I would have to be convinced with very strong sources for words like "friend," etc. if such sources even exist.--MattMauler (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Jefferson’s ENEMIES defined the issue. The problem was NOT a legal problem, it was a social controversy, nothing like it until the Jackson administration’s cabinet scandal over Peggy Eaton, wife of the Tennessee Senator, then Jackson’s Secretary of War. Jefferson was accused in the Federalist press as taking Sally Hemings, a woman of color, as his CONCUBINE. The religious reference was prominent and repeatedly used against Jefferson at every opportunity. --- The Christian-faith-grounded Federalists (YES! the deist Jefferson and his Congressional allies will destroy our Christian churches if he becomes president! He reads the Koran!) Federalists knew what they were talking about, even if the “presentists” among us in the ‘godless, secular’ 21st century do not.

- In the Old Testament, which virtually every American male voter with property was acquainted with at the end of the 18th century, a CONCUBINE is a woman whom a man takes into the intimacy of his family household with a social and legal ranking second only to his wife(s); Jefferson's wife was dead. In the secular world of the ancient Roman republic and the ethics of the Stoics that Jefferson and his allies sought to shape American government and society, and in the more fashionable meaning for Euro Enlightenment philosophes, now enacted in modern French Republic law, the MAN and his CONCUBINE are free persons who “do not want or cannot enter” into a full marriage, so they enter a civil union.

- The Federalist political controversy that arose in the 1790-1800s against Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemings was NOT that Jefferson acted the plantation overseer and raped a field hand. That, as it happened, was horrific, immoral, but then legal * widely practiced on plantations with absentee owners. The problem Federalists saw with Jefferson’s home life at Monticello, was that Sally Hemings was publicly a hostess for Jefferson there. It was widely known that Sally did NOT stand silently against the parlor wall with a pitcher of water to top off guest goblets. She was educated in the French scholarly manner of the salon as were Jefferson’s daughters (Girls! Don’t start reading novels, Read history and law!), fluent in French and at ease with gracious manners.

- The problem that the Federalists had with SALLY HEMINGS of color was because widower THOMAS JEFFERSON (why isn’t he married yet?) publicly associated with Sally as an equal, and expected his guests to do so! Now, THAT’S A SCANDAL affronting establishment churchgoers in New England, AND at the same time BONUS, slaveholders in the SOUTH, Jefferson’s political base, you see. ---p.s. @MattMauler: I take from your last post that there are modern RS that definitively refute the Federalist charge that Sally Hemings was Thomas Jefferson's 'concubine', that is, Thomas and Sally were not in the same household, they were not in a committed relationship, and they were not friends, for sure, the Federalists were wrong? were they?

• American slavery scholar Ira Berlin has established that both enslaved house servants and enslaved field hands could and did negotiate their work conditions with resident masters. Valued slaves could runaway to a neighboring plantation for a week, protest their overseer excesses, and the owner was known to dismiss the overseer rather than compromise the master's 'moral' standing in his slave-quarter community. Where states provided for independent master manumission, enslaved workers also negotiated the terms of "buying their freedom" and and that of their families, often first the mother with children so the children could be free, then the family's father. As a freshman Burgess from Albemarle County, in 1768 as Jefferson began building Monticello, his bill to allow masters to unilaterally free their slaves in Virginia was enacted by the General Assembly.

- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We do not need sources that "definitively refute" them. We would need mainstream, scholarly sources to establish/affirm them before the material is added to the article (See WP:BURDEN).--MattMauler (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Our understanding of slavery and the article's editorial voice

From what I understand about slavery, slaves could not marry, so Sally could not have legally married Jefferson while a slave. I don't see Jefferson as a "Romantic". He was a pragmatic, shrewd, man of the Enlightenment. He may have had a strong libido as demonstrated with his relationship with Sally in France, his first wife's many pregnancies, and his alleged affair while he was younger. Was Sally raped by Jefferson and impregnated in France, in the 1780s, where she was considered free ? I am not saying Jefferson was a rapist, nor should the matter be discussed in this article, but it certainly shows there was no "romance" in their relationship. The Jefferson-Hemings connection was a matter of practical convienence, and the power of a slave master over a slave. The article should not push a romantic relationship between the two historical figures. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

At the same time, the editorial voice in the article should NOT assume there were never, nor could there ever be, any mutual or respect between any white and any black during the two-hundred-year period of Virginia's hereditary slavery, 1676-1876. That includes the manifest friendship between Thomas and Sally. This is not to dismiss the overall usefulness of the Cmguy777 analysis of social-gender-hierarchy power-distribution generally describing ANTEBELLUM American slavery -- especially for the 85% held as field hands on cotton and indigo plantations with absentee master-owners in the Deep South of SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA & TX.

Nevertheless, we should remember that Thomas Jefferson lived in the Border-state Valley of Virginia, west of the Piedmont during the Federalist period for 30 of his 40 years with Sally, when most of THOSE Founders believed that the morally compromising institution of slavery in a democratic-republic would extinguish over time. Hence Jefferson's bill to make master-manumission easier by making it autonomous, and restricting its spread and economic entrenchment. That was, of course, PRIOR to the 1830s massive relocation of enslaved population to the Old Southwest, underwritten by a cotton gin that was industrialized to a size that was housed in barns. --- NOT the lap-top model we see at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, or pictured in most hight school history texts.

It may be helpful to picture in your mind's-eye a white-black relationship in the historical-fiction Lincoln (movie), in a setting well after Thomas Jefferson's death and the onset of "King Cotton". It portrayed the living arrangement between Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith, of similar coloring to Sally. Sally's daughter Harriet and son relocated to the District and chose the white-married-lifestyle of Washington society in a way that Lydia could not due to her known antecedents.

(a) It seems that the antebellum master of Pamplin plantation south of Petersburg that is now a Virginia State Park, may have manumitted his slave to live as man and wife in common law marriage. (b) In Norfolk, the friend of an unethical master observed his enslaved commercial boat-captain pay for his freedom by contract two times over, and at the third time of purchase, took his white friend to court on behalf of the boat-captain who did not have standing to sue his master at civil suit on his own under Virginia law. The white man and black man won, so the master-slave contract was enforced by the Norfolk court, resulting in the manumission of the boat-captain.

(c) At Edward Coles' out-migration from Virginia, the neighbor and friend of Thomas Jefferson took his nineteen enslaved plantation north to the Ohio River, where he presented them all with freedom papers and arranged to purchase homesteads for each family in Ohio and Illinois as the chose. (d) In the iron-working industrial cities of Virginia such as Lynchburg, the eastern-slave holder Tidewater had a constitutionally-gerrymandered majority in both the House of Delegates and in the Virginia Senate. The letter of Virginia statute required any free or freed black in Virginia to out-migrate within a year of their freedom. Nevertheless, the majority (80%) of the Piedmont-Virginia ironmongers of Lynchburg who were or became free blacks were never arrested by county sheriff nor were any adjudicated back into slavery as the law called for in the history of city or county.

- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Thaddeus Stevens relationship with Lydia Hamilton was open, not secretive. Pamplin's relationship with his common law black wife was not secretive and he emancipated his wife. Jefferson kept Sally as a slave and had a secret relationship with her. That is the difference. She was not acknowledged by Jefferson publically, as he was known with his first wife. There is no way to know whether their relationship had any romance or love, for that matter, since the relationship was kept secret. Jefferson did free her children and kept his promise. In that sense he kept his word to Sally. That would be the only thing, that could possibly described as Romantic or un Jefferson like. He kept his word to a black woman. Jefferson should get credit for that. He was honest with her. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

His status as an owner of enslaved people should be more visible in the lead

...because right now it's in the fifth paragraph, buried in the second half of a lengthy sentence. That's pretty embarrassing. If you think this isn't all that important, well. If you think Jefferson wasn't all that bad, here you go; flip to p. 264. Pinging Stevenmitchell, Stephan Schulz, A.S. Williams, RandomCanadian, who spoke on these matters earlier. RandomCanadian, you can't just whisk this away as "presentism". Rather, this is a matter that should have been addressed, and acted on, a long time ago. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It is presentism: using modern opinions on the matter to condemn something which was seen as perfectly normal by the vast majority of the population at the time (besides the Quakers and the slaves themselves). We can of course mention it with due weight, but the fact is he is not notable mainly for being a slaveholder. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Aha. So your poll does not include the enslaved people (yes, words matter). Not much of a poll there. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The difference between "slaves" (definition, from the Oxford Dict.: "(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.") and "enslaved people" seems like hair splitting to me. Isn't it the Atlantic slave trade and not the Atlantic enslaved people trade, anyways? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please take a breath and think what it is to be called a slave vs. a man, woman, or person. It is limiting and demeaning. I am a white person, and I may not have this right, but my understanding is that there have been a lot of terms to limit the value of African Americans - like "slave", "boy", etc. - it is part of the systematic racist practices over the past four centuries. I responded with a query in the previous discussion about the use of "enslaved" person, man, or woman by historians. Wikipedia is not leading the use of "enslaved; It is following the practice of historians. If we can at least have content that recognizes the harm that was done by enslaving people and begin to label people without being limiting and demeaning, IMO that is what we should do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC) And, no, there does not need to be a change in African slave trade, as far as I know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to be offended about trivial semantics ("slaves" vs. "enslaved people", which however you want to put it, refer to the same historical fait accompli at least in the context of US history), good for you. However, Wikipedia is not censored (even in far more egregious cases than this, eg. 1), and neither is it to place to defend a noble cause, however chivalrous (and frankly, semantics seem to me like quite a poor hill to die on). Looking at the references in the "Slavery" article here, a lot of them are using the word "slaves" without controversy, often directly in the title (since this is after all the most precise and common term to describe this). If there were a change in terminology in scholarly sources due to recent events (such as change seems unlikely IMHO, but hypothetising), now would certainly be WP:TOOSOON to determine if usage has shifted and whether is should be reflected on Wikipedia, which again lags behind such changes per our policies on verifiability and neutrality. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You lost me at "trivial semantics".–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand the (admittedly very modern) term "privilege"? Keep up. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you proposing exactly? Arkon (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I don't get what the relevance of the term "privilege" (likely referring to this) is to the discussion about hair-splitting terminology or Jefferson, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The weight we provide to different descriptions of historical figures depends on how they are seen in modern reliable sources. What is important changes over time, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect those changes not lead them. Most of the U.S. Founding Fathers were either slave owners or involved in the slave trade some how. George Carlin described the revolution as a revolt by slaveholders who wanted freedom. TFD (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A more insightful (if maybe incomplete) rendering of the above could be "...who wanted freedom from taxes". Obviously the American elite has not changed much in the past 2 and a half centuries... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

By not acknowledging his contradictions in upholding freedom and yet owning people you're upholding white supremacy And if you're looking for modern scholars that identify these issues: please read Annette Gordon Reed's booksFeministkilljoy (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is suppose to be a summary article. The 5th paragraph reads a little academic or argumentative, focusing more on Jefferson's apparent contradiction in owning slaves rather than he owned over 600 slaves during his lifetime. Also, the treatment of Jefferson and slavery should be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view "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 the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." How is writing about Jefferson's contradictions re freedom not neutral? If a personal of color or a black person were reading the intro text - which is arguably too long to begin with- would they feel that this was a fair article about Jefferson or one that only spoke of his achievements while whitewashing his views on slavery and black people? Acknowledging his biases on slavery is fair, especially since 4 other paragraphs exalt his other achievements. Feministkilljoy (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't and never should have a particular reader in mind. Let alone their emotional or moral feelings, or personal thoughts on what is 'fair'. RandomGnome (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that where it is written in the lead is the proper spot ~ Jefferson is most notable for being the third president and a writer for the declaration of independence ~ only recently has the slave issue come about. Abraham Lincoln spoke of Jefferson and the other writers "that the Founding Fathers had tolerated slavery with the expectation that it would ultimately wither away"~mitch~ (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

How we perceive history changes over time. We have to pay attention to how the slavery issue is treated in reliable sources going forward. The weight of this article should reflect them, not be based on our personal assessments. TFD (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

From the perspective of an encyclopedia, the most notable details should be stressed. Most wealthy men in the South owned slaves at the time, so Jefferson's slave-owning is not particularly notable. It would be like describing a man from the same period as a horse-owner and slaves were viewed and treated like horses. Put it this way: there are plenty of slave-owners in history who don't merit mention in an encyclopedia. Now, slavery was an extremely important aspect of history, and slavery is definitely an important aspect of Thomas Jefferson's life, but it just isn't its most distinguishing aspects. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was born in the Colony of Virginia

In 1774 Thomas Jefferson himself wrote the following: "Resolved that it be an instruction to the said deputies when assembled in General Congress with the deputies from the other states of British America to propose to the said Congress [ . . . ] colony of Virginia [ . . . ] colony of Virginia [ . . . ] to quiet the minds of your subjects in British America against any apprehensions of future incroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony thro' the whole empire, and that that may continue to the latest ages of time, is the fervent prayer of all British America." A Summary View of the Rights of British America, July 1774, Papers 1:121--35 [9]

The Colony's name was not Virginia, the Colony's name was the "Colony of Virginia". Thomas Jefferson used "colony of Virginia" in his papers. It should not be necessary to click on a link to find out Jefferson was not born in "Virginia", but that he was born in the "Colony of Virginia". Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Jefferson was born in the land that was known at the time, and thereafter, as Virginia. It was obviously not the "State of Virginia," or more correctly the "Commonwealth of Virginia," as such had not yet been created by its ratification of the Constitution in 1788, but it was, nevertheless, known as Virginia. While Jefferson, like his contemporaries, was not necessarily consistent in his use of capitalization, he was certainly educated, and it is instructive that he referred to it as the "colony of Virginia" (i.e., Virginia, a colony) rather than by the proper name "the Colony of Virginia," which might support your argument. Since he did not, we will not either. General Ization ^Talk 01:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that several terms were used, including "Province of Virginia." That was the most common description of American colonies and was retained in Canada. You would need a source that says what the official or most common name was. TFD (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be the OP's responsibility to find and present a source to support his argument to change the convention here. The source he presented does not. General Ization ^Talk 02:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's "Virginia". The cited document with the written words "colony of Virginia" doesn't establish anything like common usage. "Virginia" is found in a great many contemporary sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The common name of the colony was Virginia, and rendering the link to the "Colony of Virginia" article as "Virginia" in the infobox is perfectly accurate and apropos. Drdpw (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Showing Jefferson was born in "Virginia" when he was in fact born in the "Colony of Virginia" is not "perfectly accurate". Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your disagreement is noted. However, the consensus is clear. Unless you have additional information to present that might change the consensus, and citations of reliable sources to support it, the article will not be changed as you propose. General Ization ^Talk 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@General Ization and Jerry Stockton: I tentatively believe there is a subtle difference between the terms used that was relevant in the context of The Proclamation of 1763 and a few court cases. The "Colony of Virginia" referred to settled and claimed areas and "Virginia" referred to Western territory that was claimed by not actually settled. I don't think this distinction matters for a general encyclopedia though. Maybe if we were writing a specialized summary for historians or dealing with legal documents, the distinction would be relevant, but for general knowledge, I don't think it matters. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"consensus among academic historians" ? Jefferson-Hemings controversy

How is consensus defined among acamemic historians concerning the Jefferson-Hemings connection (controversy) ? Was there a meeting or formal vote among historians ? The word "consensus" is unclear. Is there another word other than consensus that can be used ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is some text, cited sources, and exerpts from cited sources from the Sally Hemings article: "A consensus began to emerge after the results of a DNA analysis in 1998, which showed no match between the Carr male line, proposed for more than 150 years as the father(s), and the one Hemings descendant tested. It did show a match between the Jefferson male line and the Eston Hemings descendant."

A consensus of who ? The term "academic historians" is not followed by "consensus of". Also began to emerge is not that same as there was a consensus. What it a consensus of the TJF ? Who and how many "academic historians" agree enough to make a "consensus" ? Not trying to be nit picky. There appears to no actual survey among historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Academic consensus is defined the same way it is in any academic subject. Take for example the theory of evolution. No one met in the basement of the Frankfurt school to decide this. It's treated as a proven fact by academic journals and textbooks. That doesn't mean that every single scientist believes it or that a journal might not publish a novel refutation of the theory. TFD (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a term commonly used to describe a general (even if not literal 100%) agreement among scholars (scientific "consensus" that climate change is at least in part caused by human beings; historical "consensus" that slavery was a major cause of the Civil War; etc.). Besides the sources provided in this section, in the footnote after the line in the article there are four sources describing this consensus--meaning four reliable sources stating that there is general agreement among almost all academic historians on this point. Two of the four sources use the exact term "consensus" to describe this general agreement (Ellis and Wilkinson). There was no literal survey, just scholar after scholar writing books and articles weighing in on the issue. If a WP editor decided to call a certain number of historians a "consensus," it would be inappropriate and WP:OR ("Five major historians? That's a pretty good number, I'll call it ___"), BUT besides numerous concurring sources, we have many RS (including experts) that call it this.--MattMauler (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but wikipedia is connecting the sources as one source. PBS Frontline is dated 2000. Frontline is not a historian. Frontline is a tv show. One source Nicolaisen, Peter (2003) says "no longer seem to question the truth" That's not exactly reassuring reliability. Jan Lewis (2000) says " if not proven, at least sufficiently probable that virtually all professional historians will accept". Using any 2000 sources is a bit dated at 20 years ago. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The monticello.org 2000, not 2014, says "This study by itself does not establish that Hemings's father was Thomas Jefferson, only that Hemings's father was a Jefferson." Not exactly a consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Because the study only looked at the DNA evidence and not the other circumstantial evidence such as the fact that Hemmings lived with Jefferson. That's frequently how circumstantial cases are proven in court. No single piece of evidence is conclusive, but taken together the evidence may allow no other reasonable conclusion. TFD (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, not a statement of fact, the article looks sloppy claiming a consensus of historians and then giving a hodgpodge of references, not connected or related to each other in any manner. Especially, the Front Line 2000 tv show I believe on PBS. Is there any 2020 reference that says there is a historical concensus among historians Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Monticello website says, "Years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson fathered at least six of Sally Hemings’s children. Four survived to adulthood and are mentioned in Jefferson’s plantation records: Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings."[https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/} So I suggest we just state it as a fact and avoid the compromise language. TFD (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. A statement of fact followed by one reference, the Monticello website, is better. That avoids the awkwardness of having a mixed bag of references, mostly outdated. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My reading of the linked Monticello Organisation source is a bit different. Sure enough, the first sentence of the source says "Years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson fathered at least six of Sally Hemings’s children." But the rest of the Monticello source is more measured, not definitively saying that Jefferson was the father of Hemings's children. I note, for example, that the words "probable" and "probability" both appear in the Monticello source in their summarising the evidence. So, I'd say that the first sentence of the Monticello source is inconsistent with the rest of the source. This represents something of a lack of quality control on the part of the Monticello Organisation. We can, however, take stock of the other sources cited in this article. They depict the evidence, I'd say, in more measured language. For this reason, I inserted the word "probably" in the lede sentence on this subject [10].

And, by the way, TFD provides a link to the Monticello source, but it is dead. This one works for me (at least for now): [11].

Attic Salt (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind probable in the sentence. Overall the introduction paragraph reads better. "fathered" is a better wording than "sexual relationship", the latter is to modern of a term. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"was elected vice president because of a mistake in voting for Adams's running mate"

What is the basis for this claim of a "mistake" and where is this described in more detail? Jefferson became vice president in the 1796 election because he came second in the electoral college. This was the system prior to the 12th amendment. It's true that lack of coordination between electors likely led to a different result than the parties envisaged, but I'm not convinced this amounts to a "mistake" as the article seems to suggest. Kidburla (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur Kidburla. There was no mistake as this was prior to the 12th Amendment. What is being misunderstood or incorrectly explained is that Hamilton believed that he had come up a with a scheme whereby a friendly vice president could be elected--and it was Hamilton who was mistaken in his approach to how it might work -- and the Vice Presidency went to the 2nd Place finisher as it had always up until that point. See: https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/VP_Thomas_Jefferson.htm Cglenn3932 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Misleading use of "introduced" in "Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, at age 16 and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small. Small introduced Jefferson to George Wythe and Francis Fauquier along with British Empiricists including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton."

In the context of the paragraph here, "introduced" is being used in two senses here: Small made introductions between the humans Jefferson, Wythe, and Fauquier; that is to say, these people all met each other in the real world and had subsequent direct interactions. By contrast, Small (presumably) introduced Jefferson to the ideas of Locke (deceased 1704), Bacon (deceased 1626), and Newton (deceased 1726/7). Given that Jefferson was born in 1743, we can assume that Small did not introduce Jefferson to them in the same sense as Wythe and Fauquier.

Smarter editors than I should figure out a better way to rephrase this.

174.57.79.121 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)JTB

Thanks for your suggestion. It has been rephrased, though another editor may continue to tinker with it (It is now clearer, though). I changed it to "Small introduced Jefferson to George Wythe and Francis Fauquier, and under Small's tutelage, Jefferson encountered the ideas of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton."
I considered preserving the word "introduced" in both senses and simply adding the word "ideas" as you did, but I thought that would lead to too many confusing conjunctions.--MattMauler (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Might we consider changing:

Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, at age 16 and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small. Small introduced Jefferson to George Wythe and Francis Fauquier, and under Small's tutelage, Jefferson encountered the ideas of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. Small, Wythe, and Fauquier recognized Jefferson as a man of exceptional ability and included him in their inner circle where he became a regular member of their Friday dinner parties where politics and philosophy were discussed.

To:

Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, at age 16 and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small. Under Small's tutelage, Jefferson encountered the ideas of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. Small introduced Jefferson to George Wythe and Francis Fauquier. Small, Wythe, and Fauquier recognized Jefferson as a man of exceptional ability and included him in their inner circle where he became a regular member of their Friday dinner parties where politics and philosophy were discussed.

Basically we're separating out the tutelage from the meeting of people, and creating a clearer flow into the following sentence ("... recognized Jefferson ..."). 174.57.79.121 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)JTB

Makes sense (Done). Thanks.--MattMauler (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

96.5.241.167 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If thid is not already in there add his birth day death day and the fact that he was the 3rd president

 Already done: that's all in the article. Volteer1 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Please remove the template "J Adams cabinet", as the vice presidency wasn't yet a cabinet position. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Zicke523231 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is something missing in the Thomas Jefferson It doesn't explain how he died.

You need to request a specific edit with source, not a suggestion for article improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Add Cultural Depiction Request

Someone please add that Jefferson is depicted in "Our Nation's 200th Birthday, The Telephone's 100th Birthday" by Stanley Meltzoff for Bell System? https://www.jklmuseum.com/tag/stanley-meltzoff/ 47.152.71.253 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Epicureanism

Thank you, Philos Armonikos, for restoring and citing Epicureanism as an influence. The only trouble now is that we have something in the lead that nowhere appears in the body. In the past I've fought hard to keep the article to a reasonable length, so I'm surprised at myself for now saying somebody should add Epicureanism to the body. YoPienso (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

98.179.157.202 (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
i am lerning about hin

 Not done: Not a request for an actual edit. Loafiewa (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

His first Vice President shot Alexander Hamilton second one died in office wife died in office his daughter was second wife from 1801-1809 his first one was from 1800-1801 his second one was from 1811-1812 the death of George Clinton he died on the same day July 4 1826 47.138.36.205 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Inventions

Can I add a list of his inventions in the inventions section Vinceroldz (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is a good idea. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Beekeeping religion - really?

In the section on Religion we read that "He thought Americans would rationally create "Apiarian" religion, extracting the best traditions of every denomination." The link goes to beekeeping which is clearly wrong. I wonder if "Arian" is meant, Arianism being a well-known Christian heresy, but cannot verify this with online book sources. Is anyone able to find out what the source actually says? Bermicourt (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Extracting the best traditions of every denomination", or, not about any preliminarily established denomination. It seems "Apiarian" could be not capitalized, and the link could redirect instead to the Bees proper. It'd require there best some other type of narrative though. Regarding capitalization, I do not remember precisely but I think it was capitalized however. I'd be delighted to access that source too. --Askedonty (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this shed any light on what Jefferson meant by "freedom of religion" where he wanted a utopia of blended faiths? That would mean possibly he did not want distinct faiths, living peacefully independently of each other, but he wanted to keep the peace by blending the best of all faiths. Are there any sources that define was Jefferson meant by "freedom of religion"? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether he advocated it or merely proposed it I wouldn't know - regarding OP, at least Google and its engines doth not agree ([12]), that the reference was correctly attributed. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

But why the link to bees or beekeeping? There's nothing at either page that helps the reader understand what is meant here. Bermicourt (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Apiarian factually means "related to beekeeping": wikt:apiarian. The sentence assimilates the proposed "traditions extraction" process to the process of bees collecting pollen, extracting the best of every flower in view. --Askedonty (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but is that the word used in the source? If so, fine. But there is no point directing readers to an article on bees unless there is some explanation there about its application to religion. My sense is that it would be better not linking it, but adding an explanation here. It's not an everyday term, especially with that connotation. Bermicourt (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The original quote seems to be "Were I to be the founder of a new sect, I would call them Apiarians, and, after the example of the bee, advise them to extract the honey of every sect." Without the extrapolations as we have it a link explaining Apiarians factually would not seem so unexpectable. Though a more usefull link perhaps would be to wikt:apiarian. Or then maybe also, another link to rationality? --Askedonty (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like the quotations I've seen. I think it would be useful to elaborate on that in this article, then the link to either beekeeping or wikt:apiarian would be fine. I don't see a connexion with rationality though: as a theologian and scientist, I can tell you that Jefferson's suggestion is anything but rational to anyone with a genuine faith lol. No wonder it never came to anything. Actually the word rational is not in the original and may be WP:OR if it's just been added by an editor who thinks his idea is rational. So maybe that needs to come out as well. Bermicourt (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't follow the trail just exactly like this. We are considering an assertion which appears to be self-sufficient, but taken out of context, in being deprived of it's premice, famously "a man must be very clear sighted who can see the impression of the finger of God on any particular one of them". That finger I guess was the one used for applying the sticker "reason" onto the fridge. --Askedonty (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sally Hemings

"In January 2000 (revised 2011),[374] the TJF report concluded that 'the DNA study ... indicates a high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings.'[374][375][r] The TJF also concluded that Jefferson likely fathered all of Heming's [sic] children listed at Monticello.[374][s]"

Those are bald-faced lies. I won't bother citing the evidence, because at [WP] all true sources are denounced by the commissariat as "unreliable." 2603:7000:B23E:3056:3C85:C72D:C12D:6829 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Requests for edits must be made in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I just raised the same issue that there is no concretely evidence of Thomas Jefferson fathering her children. Beatcop49 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy embed?

Hi, I think it would be appropriate to embed the philosophy infobox into Jefferson's infobox. I think it would be appropriate since he is to a large extent known for his philosophical work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanclerz K-Tech (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Burwell

I am considering writing an article about Rebecca Burwell. (I found out about her when writing the article for her daughter Elizabeth Jaquelin Ambler Brent Carrington. The two key areas of interest for me are that 1) she was orphaned as a child and raised by William Nelson and his wife and 2) she was a love interest of Thomas Jefferson beginning at about age 17. I am finding enough sources to build an article for her, including Some prominent Virginia families, Mr. Jefferson's Women, [Love and War], mention of her in Founders Online, newspaper articles, correspondence by her daughter, etc.

If I write the article, I would like to connect her to Thomas Jefferson - perhaps in the main article, in the Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson article, or perhaps another that I am not aware of.

Do you have any thoughts about whether this is a good article to write - and, if so, the most appropriate place to connect her article to Jefferson?

I will take no responses to mean that there's no opposition to the article - and will figure out where to add Burwell - most likely the Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson article.

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sally Hemings was racially designated as white

"by blood they were legally "white"....Sally, appeared as free whites in the 1830 Albermarle County census" -page 10 https://www.tjheritage.org/scholars-commission-pdf

In this census data for 1830 there are racial categories for "white, colored and other". by 1850 the designation mulatto appears. By 1890 (60 years later). The designation quadroon and octaroon appears. https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/race/MREAD_1790_2010.html

"These children were three-quarters white, and, following the condition of their mother, they were enslaved from birth" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Hemings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:B05F:C789:EFD8:4AF (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Eston Hemings changed his racial identity to white and his surname to Jefferson after moving from Ohio to Wisconsin in 1852." https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/monticello-affirms-thomas-jefferson-fathered-children-with-sally-hemings/

"the idea that white slave-master fathers would sell their own children in slave markets raised Northerners' concerns." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_slave_propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:B05F:C789:EFD8:4AF (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sally Hemings children.

There had been no concrete evidence that Thomas Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings’ children. There is Jefferson DNA no doubt, it that only indicates that a Jefferson was involved with her. Beatcop49 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The many historians cited in the article refer to more than just DNA evidence. Moreover, there is mention in the article already of a minority scholarly view disputing the overall historical consensus (that Jefferson fathered her children, or at least Eston Hemings).--MattMauler (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, often overlooked in the literature for context, TJ the Francophile freed his slaves in the French-colonial manner (see Ira Berlin). Prior to the French Revolution in Haiti and elsewhere, French-Caribbean slave owners who fathered children by their slaves then freed those children when they turned 21 by their wills -- Jefferson freed ONLY the children of Sally Hemings among his 'servants' and 'field hands' at the same time he was creating something of a social stir among his local neighbors by making Sally his hostess at Monticello.

- As noted in visitor diaries, while entertaining and discussing serious political subjects with his guests, TJ carried on side-conversations in French with Sally apart from the wine selection, and in the presence of those who were not fluent in that language -- as I remember the passages, but editors will want to reliably source that to the editions and pages before relying on the factoid, as is our practice here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The citation for "many historians" or some kind of consensus here amongst historians is always just a book Annette Gordon-Reed wrote that you cannot check the citation unless you purchase the book. It appears the consensus amongst historians is the book being cited for that is historically flawed to the point it looks intentionally tampering with the historical accuracy by the author to fit a narrative. The DNA test is not conclusive. At best it proves, a Y DNA relation to a Jefferson Paternal DNA line to a single Hemings. This leaves 25 suspects in Virginia. On closer scrutiny, How many people living in Virginia, or even Paris, are distant relatives? Considering Sally Hemings shares 75% of her DNA with Europeans with a 1700 world population of half a million. Furthermore, from 1830 to the present there's roughly 200 years to "contaminate" that DNA with a paternal relative of Jefferson, botching the evidence completely. The DNA test is not a smoking gun. This is not sound stuff in history, science or wiki project. The entire thing is "reaching" at best. With wiki citations checking obfuscated by hiding them behind paywalls to increase the likelihood its uncited. Furthermore there's a complex and sore historical network of slavery ties and familial ties, where we know Jefferson and Hemings are relatives by Jeffersons wifes blood relations to Sally Hemings, Along with leaving things to your slaves in wills and oddly paying them salaries and buying things like 100 head of cabbages from them. So, any descendants could declare relation as matter of course either through Familial relations like common law relatives/adoption or, in this case blood relation by law.

"at the top of the enslaved hierarchy. Betty Hemings' other children and their descendants, also mixed race, were bestowed privileged assignments, as well. None worked in the fields." this wiki quote on the Sally Hemings page rubs me the wrongest. Considering there's historical records for 100 head of cabbage being purchased by Jefferson for $2. In some attempt to denigrate the importance of food production or something. With the same uncited citations from a single book you should buy from an author who's work, there, is scrutinized by a majority of accredited historians. This one we have proof that this is entirely opinion and patently false by that author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:A96B:63CC:FEF7:B892 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The level of historical revisionism, we've entered into is just bizarre, and has long entered into levels of crazy town. I say we just go full bore down that path and say no white people ever farmed anything and Thomas Jefferson rode his relatives around his plantation like little horses. If you want to see the citation then buy my book(self published on Amazon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:A96B:63CC:FEF7:B892 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That last one that rubs me the wrongest. Is a certain level of implied denigration and disrespect to the ancestors of Hemings, former slaves, their ancestors, farmers, gardeners or anyone that ever reaped the fruits of their labor. To imply those 100 cabbages never existed and whitewash them from history. to reap the rewards of your work and time dedicated to 100 cabbages, must be a proud moment. That's alot of success. And 160 years later some one comes along to try and deny that ever happened, for whatever motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:A96B:63CC:FEF7:B892 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Im starting to wonder if this is all a setup where it creates an environment to go full Pol Pot and eliminate the intelligentsia and academia and Im starting to have less of a problem with that if academia is dedicating themselves to historical revisionism of uncitable falsities, like Jefferson rode his relatives like little horses, Because at that point, to academia, you no longer serve a purpose and your time would be better spent forced into a life of farming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:A96B:63CC:FEF7:B892 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Slaveholder Status

We would like to add "slaveholder" to the initial list of President Jefferson's identities/accomplishments (first sentence); it was an important part of his existence, and this is the most likely thing that people will read to get a glimpse of his history. Enslaving others tells us more about a person's life and character than being an architect. So the proposed first sentence would be "Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743[a] – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, slaveholder, and Founding Father who served as the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809." Flowersfastly (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence in a biographical article addresses / establishes the primary reason why the subject is notable. Thomas Jefferson was a noted statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect (to a lesser degree), philosopher, and one of the nation's Founding Father who later served as the nation's 3rd president. He was not, however, a noted slave owner. Now he did own 600+ slaves, and that fact that is appropriately noted in the third paragraph of the lead section. Drdpw (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There may be a source that accurately says the number of slaves Jefferson owned. He was a wealthy Virginia slave owner. He bought and sold slaves. His great estate at Monticello was run by slaves. I would call owning hundreds of slaves worth noting. We can't hide the fact that Jefferson was a prominent slave owner and he went out of his way to say blacks were inferior publically in "Notes on the State of Virginia" work. Wikipedia should neither judge nor protect a historical figure's reputation. Just state the facts. I do not object to adding "slaveholder" to the first paragraph, since he was a prominent slaveholder. Owning hundreds of slaves is prominent. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the source that says Jefferson owned over 600 slaves. He owned more slaves than any other President. The Enslaved Household of President Thomas Jefferson Historian: Lina Mann (November 20, 2019) Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Drdpw above. His existence as a slaveholder, though extremely important to his personal identity and internal life, has very little to do with his notability, especially when held in light of his political, intellectual, and diplomatic importance. His notability does not change in light of his owning of enslaved people. As a result, it doesn't belong in the lede. I agree that it is appropriately explained and noted later in the article. Anwegmann (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That said, I also think that the lede contains too many descriptors. "Lawyer" and "architect" are superfluous. If those remain, "slaveholder" should be included, as I agree that his owning of slaves is as important, at the very least, as his status as lawyer and/or architect. It does not come close to his status, though, as a politician, diplomat, philosopher, or founding father of the United States. Those four descriptors should alone appear in the lede, and the rest should be (and are) explained as important to his life but not to his overarching notability as a historical subject. Anwegmann (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree. His notability as a lawyer and architect is almost negligible when compared to his notability as a statesman and philosopher. "Lawyer" and "architect" should come out of the first paragraph. Station1 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Anwegmann: it unquestionably belongs in the lead, which should summarize the entire article. We are talking about the first sentence. VQuakr (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We should perhaps say he was a planter, which was his source of wealth and means inter alia that he was a large slave-owner. I question though whether he should be termed an architect or philosopher, because he did not have a significant influence on those fields compared with his political career. TFD (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

His influence on American and even late Enlightenment philosophy, especially in the Age of Revolutions, was wide and important. His status as a philosopher is well beyond question. Lawyer and architect, though, I think are of far less importance. As for "planter," I agree with your reasoning, but that's an aging term that serves as more of a euphemism for slaveholding than anything else. Indeed, in US historiography, it's largely on its way out. Anwegmann (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

See A New History of Western Philosophy, Anthony Kenny, OUP 2010. No mention of Jefferson in the book. Jefferson never wrote any texts on philosophy or had made any original contribution. Of course he read philosophy, but I think the term is used very broadly when he is called a philosopher. TFD (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is on mentioning Jefferson as a slave-holder in the first paragraph. Can we please keep the discussion on slavery? Has anyone read the Lina Mann article? Since Jefferson was a two-term President with the most slaves, over 600, I believe that is very notable. Jefferson ran every venue at Monticello, including overseeing his slaves. Jefferson was an apologist of slavery in Notes on the State of Virginia. He was trying to justify slave ownership. "All men are created equal" Then why are there slaves in America? I would not call Jefferson a philosopher, but an apologist for America, and a notable slave owner. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This article says Jefferson made "made slavery fit into America’s national enterprise." That is what makes Jefferson notable. The article also says, Jefferson "[he]" "rationalized an abomination to the point where an absolute moral reversal was reached". Article: The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson Henry Wiencek (October 2012), Smithsonian Magazine Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is another article: Founding Fathers and Slaveholders To what degree do the attitudes of Washington and Jefferson toward slavery diminish their achievements? Stephen E. Ambrose (November 2002) "Jefferson was born rich and became well educated. He was a man of principle (except for slaves, Indians, and women)." Jefferson was a man of principle except for slaves. I would call that notable because Jefferson is a Founder of the United States, in addition to the fact Jefferson apparently is attributed the author of the "All men are created equal" statement. There were certainly other slave-holders in Virginia, but Jefferson was a Founder. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Many of the founders were slaveowners. This doesn't warrant mention as a defining characteristic in the first sentence. The lead is currently structured as seven (rather short) paragraphs, though, and I would support mention of the complications to his legacy related to slavery and Hemmings later in the first paragraph of a restructured lead of ~4 longer paragraphs overall. VQuakr (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A more critical assessment can be added to the last paragraph concerning slavery. It is important to mention Jefferson was a "wealthy" slave owner. He made money off of child slavery at his nail manufacturing business. That could be mentioned in the last paragraph. Sally Hemmings should not be over emphasised. In my opinion, I believe it was common for slave owners to have children by slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: not sure if this was intended as a direct reply to me; if so feel free to trim my indenting along with yours. To clarify, our opinion is not relevant, nor is how common the practice was. We determine weight of coverage by looking at the level of coverage in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have given three reliable sources to back my opinions. Please read them. I have given the links. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead sentence is supposed to say what made the person notable. There were approximately 1,000,000 slaves when Jefferson was president of which he owned 600 or 6/100s of 1%. If he had not pursued a political career, this article would probably not exist. Certainly his slave ownership is a key fact about him, but so are his political ideology and religious beliefs which are not in the first sentence. Also, being a slave owner is not an occupation. See also his article in Encylopedia Britannica.[13] It omits slave owner from the entire first paragraph. TFD (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

How did Jefferson make his living? Through his slaves. He was a lawyer, but he did not make a living from being a lawyer. Jefferson made a living by using slave children to make nails. He made a living through the growing of grain, using field slaves. It is not judging Jefferson either, just a fact. As far as his "religion", Jefferson was basically an atheist. He took out the miracles in the Bible. Jesus to Jefferson was just a moral teacher. No one is denying his contribution to the Declaration of Independence. No one is saying Jefferson was a bad person. Jefferson was modern in one respect, he had a scientific approach to his ideals and in his writings. He was a highly intelligent ambitious person. We should not deny the fact he was a slave owner. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No one is denying anything. There's an entire article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. It's an important facet of his biography. It's just not his defining attribute. Neither is being a "planter" or an architect or a lawyer or a musician. He's most notable for drafting the Declaration of Independence and being the third President. Then ambassador, Governor, Secretary of State. If he was just an 18th century slave-owning planter and did nothing else, he probably wouldn't have an article. Station1 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

While he made his living through his slaves, he did so as a planter, which the lead sentence should say. You say he made his living through growing grain, but don't advocate putting that in the lead sentence. Lots of American businessmen today earn a living through slave labor in third world countries and/or exploitation of workers in the U.S., but we don't put it in their lead sentences. I think you missed the point about my mention of his religious views (or views on religion.) It was s key fact about him, but rightfully not included in the lead sentence either. TFD (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I said: "He made a living through the growing of grain, using field slaves." I did mention he used slaves to grow grain. I am not against saying Jefferson used slaves in the lede paragraph of the introduction. We are talking about Jefferson. Yes. Slave labor is used in third-world countries making American businessmen very wealthy. Particularly in the cell phone and computer electronic industries. I believe slave labor is used in China or other east Asian countries. If there are sources on that, then it should be in their articles. Similar to the British using West Indie slaves to grow sugar during Jefferson's timeline. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In the introduction Jefferson is said to be a proponent of democracy. How can that be when Jefferson owned and worked slaves at Monticello? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The Jefferson's legacy contains contradictions like this, as the article makes clear. It's possible for him to be both, at least according to reliable sources, which is what we go by.--MattMauler (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well. I think it is clear Jefferson wanted limited democracy for landowning white males. Wikipedia though should not serve as some sort of propaganda platform for the Founders. Having black slave children whipped for not making enough nails (above source), goes beyond any "contradictions". By his own standards, Jefferson could be considered a "tyrant", as Jefferson referred to King George. Historians have hinted the Revolution was about land grabbing and creating a slave empire. That would make the Founders no different than Romans or Cortez. I am digressing here. What then is a reliable source? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"That would make the Founders no different than Romans or Cortez." No shit, Sherlock. A bunch of oligarchs keeping all power and privileges for themselves, abusing commoners, and using armies to expand their own lands and wealth. What kind of a republic they had in mind is not that different from the Roman Republic, and their ideology resembled the Optimates. Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Elitism, and Conservatism. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

I don't love the current phrasing either (I agree that "oral history" should probably be rephrased, e.g.), but the fact that DNA evidence could implicate other Jefferson males appears to be exculpatory in your proposed wording. Is that your intention? In the absence of any other evidence, yes, it could have been other Jeffersons, but experts look at all the relevant evidence and weigh in. I have already mentioned the consensus, and it is clear in the section itself. The view that treats it as an open question is a tiny minority among historians. This is why "alleged" does not fit and why deliberately inserting the minority view doesn't make sense in the lead IMO, unless it is clearly labelled as such. I am open to discussion on some aspects your edit, but there were parts of it that were deliberately casting doubt in a way that seems a bit misleading.--MattMauler (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@MattMauler: My only intention is to see that important facts are not suppressed. The relationship is indeed alleged because the evidence to that effect is very inconclusive. And your opinion that only a tiny minority of historians support the Jefferson paternity theory is also misleading. There have been and are dozens of historians, entire commissions from notable historians from Harvard, and elsewhere, that don't share the assumed "popular" view. This has been discussed at length before on this talk page. Popular opinion does not cancel out the truth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, the evidence is only "inconclusive" to this minority of historians. I am not talking about popular opinion:

• Wilkinson, A. B. (2019). "Slave Life at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello". American Quarterly. 71: 247–264. doi:10.1353/aq.2019.0017. S2CID 150519408. The general consensus among historians now agrees with Madison Hemings's version of the relationship between his mother and father ...
• Lepore, Jill (September 22, 2008). "President Tom's Cabin: Jefferson, Hemings, and a Disclaimed Lineage". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 21, 2019. [T]oday most historians agree with the conclusion of a research committee convened by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, at Monticello: Jefferson 'most likely was the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children.'
• Ellis, Joseph J. (2000). "Jefferson: Post-DNA". The William and Mary Quarterly. 57 (1): 125–138. doi:10.2307/2674361. JSTOR 2674361. PMID 18271151. [T]he new scholarly consensus is that Jefferson and Hemings were sexual partners ... Whether Jefferson fathered all of Hemings's children is still unclear.
• "Updating a Life: The Case of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings". Library of America. December 9, 2011. Most historians now agree that a preponderance of evidence—genetic, circumstantial, and oral historical—suggests that Jefferson was the father of all of Sally Hemings's children.--MattMauler (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For a list of notable historians that don't subscribe to the Jefferson paternity theory see: Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 19#References don't support claim. Then review other discussions here and here, for starters. The article already mentions that " they note the possibility that additional Jefferson males, including his brother Randolph Jefferson and any one of Randolph's four sons, or his cousin, could have fathered Eston Hemings or Sally Hemings's other children." A simple statement to this effect belongs in the lede if the lede is going to include anything about Jefferson's paternity based on DNA evidence. The DNA evidence to this effect is factual - it is not a "view". Important facts should not be censured because some individuals think it is not the popular view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the DNA results on their own only narrow the fathers down to Jefferson and his immediate male relatives. But it is conclusive that Jefferson is the father when combined with other evidence. It's not reasonable that Jefferson's brother managed to impregnate the same slave six times or that he and his sons took turns impregnating her. TFD (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I wasn't a fan of the recent changes. Felt watered down. Arkon (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty clear the proposed changes don't have agreement. They also "feel" like an editor arguing the issue rather than reflecting the historical consensus. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No one is claiming that Jefferson's brother, Randolph, got Hemings pregnant six times, though that is entirely possible, no less possible than it would be for Thomas. As for the other 'evidence', it is all highly circumstantial and can easily be applied to other Jefferson males. e.g.DNA evidence points to more than 20 other Jefferson males. Dates of conception? Yes, Jefferson was around during times of conception, which is nothing amazing really. i.e.Monticello was his home, and he always had family and friends about when he was there, which was often. Had Hemings been at some other location, every time Jefferson was then that would carry legitimate weight for consideration. Some claim Hemings' children resembled Thomas, but it is entirely possible that his brother or other male relatives had a similar appearance and therefore so did Hemings' children. There is not one item of evidence that can only be applied to Thomas Jefferson. If there is, I'd like to see it.
In any case, the lead reads like it is presenting a fact, not a view, or a consensus by historians. When the police arrest a suspect, he or she is alleged to have have committed a crime if there are no eye witnesses or other solid evidence. It doesn't matter if the entire police population across the country believes the suspect is guilty, any action the suspect is accused of is alleged. If this was a paternity law suit against Jefferson there would not even be enough real evidence to go to court with, let alone a trial. In Jefferson's case, we are talking about events that occurred well over 200 years ago, with no witnesses of them even being together at night, or in some other secret meeting place — and Sally never admitted that Thomas was the father of any of her children. I've no issues with having the lead read that there is general consensus among historians that Jefferson had a relationship with Hemings based on DNA and other evidence, but as it is, the lead reads, "Since Jefferson's time, controversy has revolved around his relationship with Sally Hemings..", as if any relationship was an absolute fact. It is not, regardless of how many people (or police) think so. Any relationship is believed to be, or alleged, and to say anything else would be misleading and an affront to Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

Your analogy is inapt. We have WP:BLP to protect the living and apply an exception standard of care to, for example, contemporary criminal cases. Jefferson has been dead for almost 200 years so we can treat a historical consensus as fact. WP:NPOV doesn't say what you say it does. Your quote from the lead is 100% factual regardless: Jefferson and Hemings absolutely had a relationship, if nothing else as master and slave. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Your reply is unresponsive and a rather poor attempt to evade the point. The statement that refers to a "relationship" is in reference to Jefferson's (alleged) paternity. Please read the lede.
"According to DNA evidence from surviving descendants and oral history, Jefferson fathered at least six children with Hemings, including four that survived to adulthood.[12] Evidence suggests that Jefferson started the relationship with Hemings when they were in Paris, where she arrived at the age of 14 when Jefferson was 44. By the time she returned to the United States at 16, she was pregnant."
Hemings was already a slave long before she arrived in Paris. Once again, I've no objections with stating that most historians believe Jefferson's paternity, but this is not an excuse to leave out important facts surrounding the case -- and the fact is, DNA evidence is far from conclusive as it points to 20+ other males in the Jefferson family. The DNA evidence was not extracted from Jefferson, it belonged to Field Jefferson, Jefferson's uncle. This is why the DNA sample can not single out Thomas Jefferson and points to so many other Jeffersons. Regardless if a subject is alive or dead, we include the established facts. After that, we can mention opinion. Thus far I don't see much of a willingness to include some important details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the excerpt of the lede you quoted. We already say "evidence suggests that..." (as you quote but not bold yourself) and go into more detail in the body. Changes just aren't warranted, at least not for the reasons you state. VQuakr (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It should read "the evidence suggests Jefferson started a relationship". It shouldn't read that he started the relationship, as if a sexual relationship was a foregone conclusion. Popular opinion, such that they claim exists, does not make something, i.e.a relationship, a fact – and to be completely honest it should say an alleged relationship. Since this is a controversial subject clarity is needed and certain details need to be presented, so yes, changes along those lines are completely warranted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't controversial. We reflect a historical consensus and note the minority viewpoint in the body. But as it happens, "the evidence suggests..." qualifies the entire section. I'd be fine with changing "According to DNA evidence from surviving descendants and oral history..." to "According to DNA and historical evidence..." as less awkward and more concise for the lead. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Jefferson-Hemings issue is probably one of the most controversial topics in American history. You should be clear on that. Also consider that the only ones who are claiming their view is in the majority are the ones who hold that view. Such claims are about as credible as one saying that more people like me than you. There are dozens of credentialed historians who have refuted claims about Jefferson's paternity as being factual. Here is a partial list - largely ignored by the news papers who paraded the DNA issue around as singling out Jefferson. In any case, any changes you can effect in the article in terms of neutrality would be welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How about this? " Historians generally agree Jefferson fathered six children by Sally Hemings based on a 1999 Y-DNA study and through oral-written history." Cmguy777 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed: (BA)

1. There is no source for it. 2. William & Mary writes that Jefferson's course of study at W&M lasted for two years, and he then went on to read law for the next five years under George Wythe. If he had manage to get a BA after two years, I am sure it would have been mentioned at that site and aslo found in the standard biographies of Jefferson. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Sally Hemings is described as "mixed-race", which is offensive. "Mixed" comes from "mixed-breed" which dates back to when black people weren't acknowledged as human beings. Please change it to say "biracial" 2603:7080:CC3B:3F00:D72:871E:6016:5406 (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I have had written the term "biracial", which was later replaced by "mixed race". This is an interesting article, which boils down to: "Today, 'mixed race' seems to have won out in academic writing. A Google Scholar search for that term results in 2.5 million results. Results for 'biracial' and 'multiracial' combined offer up about half that. But the debate continues, inside and outside the ivory tower." It will be interesting to see how the question is resolved here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In the context of her times, I believe Hemings was considered "black". Her being fathered by a white man seemed to make no difference on her servitude. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)