Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

On Slavery

Someone claimed that Jefferson was an "outspoken abolitionist" and was "ambivalent" in his views on slavery; this isn't even controversial, it's just plain false. He was a slave owner, and supported slavery; the selective quotes don't prove otherwise. I had to remove some of these statements, and add information left out on the Slave Trade and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 because these were not abolitionist positions, though that's what the writer claimed. The entire article needs clean up using factual data, including the section on Native Americans. The entire section titled "On Slavery" is biased, and need work.Ebanony (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been another edit to present Jefferson as an "abolitionist", though this is in fact incorrect. Abolitionists do not own slaves. Secondly the source (monticello) doesn't use the term abolitionist, and I call into question its use, as there are plenty of historians who disagree with that intpepretation, and presenting the Northwest Territory as "anti-slavery" is not accurate. Many slave owners opposed it because of economic reasons, not abolitionsm, which was not even popular then. They knew the Southwest Oridinance of 1790 would allow slaves in the south, and that's well documented. I've changed it to "Jefferson was a slave owner who owned slaves all his life", which is something even Monticello knows. Ebanony (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And someone reverted the edit again, putting up the same Monticello website which cites an author who claims Jefferson was an abolitionist. There are historical errors in that, and the first starts with the fact the owned slaves; the second is that real abolitionists denounced Jefferson for his stance on slavery. I asked the person who made this edit to discuss the validity of making these claims on the talk page. As of today, he/she has not done so, but continues to make these assertions of "abolitionist". Many websites and books claim lots of things; that doesn't mean they are good sources. And the neutrality of Monticello? Ebanony (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation - On slavery

The opening paragraph has been copied from this website http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=11 I and other editors have tweaked one or two words in that paragraph recently ("abolitionist" and "owned slave all his life); neither I nor that person wrote the paragraph itself. See above on this talk page for details under section "On Slavery" where I explian my edits.

The copying of copyrighted text was done by someone else, and more text in this section is also copied from other places; I've warned one of the contributors. Seems this is a pattern on the article and the "Thomas Jefferson and slavery" article as well.

offending text:

Biographers point out that Jefferson was deeply in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he could not free them until he was free of debt, which never happened.[90] As a result, Jefferson seems to have suffered pangs and trials of conscience. His claimed ambivalence was also reflected in his treatment of those slaves who worked most closely with him and his family at Monticello and in other locations. He invested in having them trained and schooled in high quality skills.[91] He wrote about slavery, "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

text from copied website

Jefferson owned many slaves over his lifetime. Some find it baffling that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves yet was outspoken in saying that slavery was immoral and it should be abolished. Biographers point out that Jefferson was deep in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he chose not to free them until he finally was debt-free, which he never was.[1] Jefferson seems to have suffered pangs and trials of conscience as a result.[58] He wrote about slavery, "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."[2] Ebanony (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

False assertion of copywrite violation

The de-fact-o article gives credit to an earlier version of this Wikipedia article {"Thomas Jefferson. (2008, February 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 01:18, February 12, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&oldid=190449829"). There is no copywrite violation and I will be removing the banner and restoring the text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked the page, and it does have the wikipedia link. My apology for missing it. However, I can assure you these articles do have numerous example of copyright; see the main article on Jefferson and slavery in the talk page. I've posted an example already, and the LIFE magazine does not give persission - as far as I know - for direct copy and paste. Ebanony (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation is a serious matter. Please don't make unsubstantiated or overly broad claims of copyright violation. If you become aware of an instance of copyright violation, the recommended response is on WP:COPYVIO. You need to be careful to keep WP:AGF, and especially WP:AGFC, in mind; everyone is assumed to be opposed to copyright violations. If there is a violation, everyone is assumed to want to correct it. You mention a specific violation on some other article. Are you aware of any specific issues on this page? Celestra (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted, this appears to be plagiarism of copyrighted text (not defacto though). Thanks for posting the correct code. For the examples see "Thomas Jefferson and slavery" article; the talk page has url's and a list of possible plagiarism under "copyright".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

The "George Washington and slavery" article has these propblems too. See the talk page "possibly 10 Copyright infringements"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington_and_slavery

I also assume people would want to correct these, but since informing others, little if any action has been taken since. That's why I've posted these examples & am asking others to review them. Ebanony (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are saying that you aren't aware of any copyright violations here. Is that correct? I saw the Jefferson and slavery talk page. There were 18 questionable parts of which eight seemed like problems. Were you looking for help correcting those? Is there a conversation about dividing the work? Ill look at the other page tonight. Since none of this is about improving this article, let's close this thread and talk on those pages. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Modified topic title regarding Sally Hemings' children

Not a single study has been able to definitively substantiate without qualification that Jefferson fathered any of Hemings' children, only that someone in his family did. Ergo it remains an allegation. To simply title it "Children by his slave Sally Hemings" is loaded and biased.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be POV pushing. Short of digging up Thomas Jefferson and testing his DNA there will never be "absolute" certainty. However, there is a great deal of qualitative and circumstantial evidence. In addition to the "Nature" study, which linked Eston Hemmings to the Jefferson family line, Annette Gordon Reed did an in-depth analysis of this subject. Whether or not it is true is debatable, which is why the reader should be able to draw their own conclusions. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

...

Rape

... (archived)

Look mate. You asked, and I answered. As an editor you should already be familiar with these facts. You can believe whatever you want, but these things I did not invent, and there is scholarly waork behind thrm. I told you at first this is not a forum for debate, though we can discuss somthing if there is a need. You offer no information on improving this article, just criticism of those you disagree with.Ebanony (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And then, clearly, there's the possibility that Sally Hemmings looked at Thomas Jeffersen and liked what she saw . . . Santamoly (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Historians are divided over whether Jefferson allegedly "raped" Sally Hemings. Slaves had no rights whatsoever in colonial Virginia. The alleged rape took place in France and one would have to investigate French laws on what constituted rape during the 1700's if there were any. If there were laws against rape in France in the 1780's, then, since Hemings was a free person in Revolutionary France there would be a possibilty she was legally raped by Jefferson, had Jefferson in actuality forced himself upon her. Hemings had rights in France as slavery was made illegal briefly after the French Revolution. Jefferson's wife had died and the alleged rape took place after her death. That would put some context, not an excuse or defense, for Jefferson's actions. Sally Hemings and the DNA test would answer why Jefferson never remarried. There seems to be no love between Hemings and Jefferson, or at least Jefferson never treated Hemings as a wife; more like a slave concubine with special priviledges. Hemings was a slave when she returned to Virginia and was never freed by Jefferson in his will. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I just found a book on sexual assault in France during the 1700's. Abduction and rape were crimes while Jefferson was in France. One would believe that Jefferson wanted to avoid scandal and that is why he offered freedom to her children. Here is a link to the book cited. It appears sexual deprevaty was common in France during the 1700's. A history of rape: sexual violence in France from the 16th to the 20th century --The book was written by Georges Vigarello in 1998. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rape is not determined on "forcing" oneself on the victim alone. Rape is also coercing a person to engage in a sexual act when she is not in a position to refuse. Hemings was never in a position to refuse as a slave. Therefore any sexual act by a person in authority over her, say an overseer or a slave owner, would have been a coerced sexual act. They had the means to torture her if she refused (sanctioned by law) & the courts to back them up. Jail, beatings, whippings, denial of food, threat of selling a child, threat to sell the girl herself further south etc were all possibilities.

The geographical limit of France is not the question, for mixed race children were born after her return from France, several times. There is no question Sally Hemings was raped on a regular basis as a concubine - or sex slave. There is no "allegation" of her being raped. The only question is whether it was Thomas or another male relative. Historians are not "divided" on this. Either it was TJ or it wasn't, and the DNA test concluded it was "probable" one child was his. Obviously some don't want the answer to this question. However, Thomas Jefferson's child/children or not, it was rape. And if you're serious about it, look at the surname "Hemings". It's not African. Sally herself was the product of an earlier slave rape involving Jefferson's father in law & the dispute with the Englishman Hemings, the person this goes back to. Fact is sexual relations, and this is indisputable, involving slaves and owners were rife in the US and that family in particular. Anyway the whole "debate" is utterly debased. There is no "good" slavery or slave owner. The fact people were hed at gunpoint & forced to do things against their will is what matters. Rape makes it worse, but even without rape, kidnapping, forced deportation from Africa & holding slaves for hundreds of years is one of the worst crimes in human history. Ebanony (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying that slavery was a crime and Jefferson partcipated and protected the institution. I believe the best way to approach Hemings, however, is to mention DNA evidence along with circumstancial evidence suggests that Jefferson after his wife died took Sally, Jefferson's wifes half sister, as his slave concubine and had children by her. I do believe that her freedom in France was signifigant. This was France before the dictator Napolean, Jefferson's allie as U.S. President. Jefferson who was reluctant to release any slaves tells her she will free her children. If you read that book link on sexual assault, rape was a common crime in Revolutionary France, and Jefferson potentially may have been held liable since Hemings was not his slave while in France. The book even has a case of a man being charged and convicted with raping a servant. I personally believed that Jefferson raped Sally Hemings, however, this is just opinion and should not be in the article. Her condition after returning to France was a return to slavery. Had Sally stayed in France as a free person she would have been a pregnant teenager without a husband. How would she support herself and live? Regardless this remains a controversial subject and I am sure is a sensative issue with many historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with what you want to discuss in the article - that looks fine. But it's only a "sensitive" problem for those historians who want to create myths, a topic Finkelstein looks at. Some don't want evidence, and ignore the facts. Many more admit the facts nowadays: There was rape on that plantation, and if it wasn't Thomas Jefferson (a strong possibility it was), then someone/several others were raping the women. Doesn't matter who did it. Either way, he allowed slaves to be raped & condoned it.Ebanony (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there is also the possibility that Sally Hemings enjoyed having sex with TJ, and the possibilities it offered for her and her children. The two of them could have been trying to make the best out of an awkward situation, and found that life was quite tolerable, considering the circumstances. Maybe even quite delicious, when it was just the two of them alone under the covers on a dark and stormy night. After all, Sally was not an uneducated woman; she was literate and articulate and likely enjoyed the position she found herself in. Girls genuinely like a man who is willing to take care of them. Just guessing, mind you . . . Santamoly (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The agenda to make sure that Thomas Jefferson is labled a rapist isn't even hidden. It's out in the open for everyone to see. I would love to know what the point is. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV section : on slavery

This problem refers on to the section On slavery.

There is bias in presenting the personal pov that Jefferson was opposed to slavery; the whole hypothesis of it rests on it & can be summed up as: Jefferson worked his whole life to end slavery, and here are some examples.

A few writers have suggested this, but undue weight is given to their arguments, and this is a copy of it - directly.

The entire section, except some parts on Notes on Virgina, is written pushing this pov. I do not believe the others can be salvaged; they should be deleted. Lemens, Burgesses, banning the slave trade in 1788, the Ordinance are a case in point. Recently I adjusted these last two & added citations, but the whole framework of the argument is faulty, and while I corrected some of it, there is clear incorrect presentation of it (including facts).

This is aggressive pushing of a certian pov; it's in this section as well as the main article on Jefferson and slavery. I had to cite that article for same reasons - it is almost identical. Ebanony (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any examples here, all I see are generalizations. You have to be more specific. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider what I stated: the paragraphs themselves are a thesis arguing Jefferson was anti-slavery. This isn't as simple as saying there's a few offending sentences. The entire basis of the article is the problem. I gave specific examples: "Lemens, Burgesses, banning the slave trade in 1788, the Ordinance". Half-truths & some placed in a way to make Jefferson look good. Here's a few different ones

"he could not free them until he was free of debt, which never happened."

the assumption is that he planned to free his slaves; second problem is it's a copyright violation, direct cut & paste

But on February 25, 1809, Jefferson repudiated his earlier view, writing in a letter to Abbé Grégoire:

No. Jefferson wanted to deport all blacks. That was his idea. The whole sentence is wrong. The quote shown above it is from 1821. So how could he "repudiate his earlier view" when the letter to Gregorie is supposed to be from 1809? Letter or not, he proposed deporting them. End of story.

There is a clear bias.Ebanony (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems as good a section as any. Poor phrasing: "She was said to have been a half-sister to Jefferson's late wife" - was she 'late' when Sally was born, when Tommy got her, or just when people were saying they were related? ("was said" is very weak) Can't we make it either "Jefferson's wife", or better "half-sister to Jane Randolph"? I mean, every person in the article is 'late' Now. Political Correctness- "slave plantation"? It hardly makes sense that the plantation existed for the purpose of growing slaves. But maybe I'm wrong. Either way, poor phrasing. And BTW, I know it's against the rules, and go ahead and delete me if it makes you feel good, but please let's get a grip. Some perspective, eh? Suppose in a hundred years that burning fossil fuels is illegal and morally reprehensible: They'll look back and say that we knew all along that it was evil, yet we continued to do it because we just couldn't help ourselves. The abolition of slavery was 7,000 years in coming, please let's try to have some perspective Besides *Our Own*. And the 'Racist' accusations? There was no concept of it then, let alone any scientific consensus of 'racial equality'. 173.57.26.204 (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"And the 'Racist' accusations? There was no concept of it then, let alone any scientific consensus of 'racial equality'."

This is in reference to?

Why do you oppose the term "slave plantation"? What should it be? Here we're looking for ways to improve the nuetrality of the article as per policy WP:NPOV. Can you assist with that?Ebanony (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After going through a rewrite to match more closely the main article on Jefferson, and having addressed the NPOV problems, the NPOV designation should be removed.Ebanony (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Review Required: Citation needed for Appearance and Temperament Section

It has come to my attention that a piece of transcript under the Appearance and Temperament may not be necessarily correct, and is certainly not cited.

Full Text: Jefferson's writings were utilitarian and evidenced great intellect, and he had an affinity with languages. He learned Gaelic to translate Ossian, and sent to James Macpherson for the originals.

I have heard this tidbit in no other source, nor is it listed in the Ossian or James MacPherson sections of Wikipedia, leading me to believe that the information may be (and probably is) false. At least a "citation needed" tag should be considered. Being a new user, I am unable to access the article to edit it myself for the first few days, so would someone mind doing this for me?

Thanks- HeroicXiphos15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroicXiphos15 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. FurrySings (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Here's my signature that I so amateurishly neglected to place: HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC) (Not current of course, but it's the idea that counts, I suppose).

Mother

Just phrasing / grammar: His mother was Jane Randolph, daughter of Isham Randolph of Dungeness, a ship's captain and sometime planter, first cousin to Peyton Randolph, and granddaughter of wealthy English and Scottish gentry. Just doesn't work -- His mother was "a ship's captain and sometime planter", or her father was "first cousin to Peyton Randolph"? How about: "His mother was Jane Randolph, daughter of ship's captain and sometime planter Isham Randolph of Dungeness. She was first cousin to Peyton Randolph, and granddaughter of wealthy English and Scottish gentry." 173.57.26.204 (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Father of a university

"He also became increasingly concerned with founding a new institution of higher learning, specifically one free of church influences " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.51.44 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an opinion and it is at odds against Historical Documents.

Prior to the University of Virginia many institutions had a Professor of Divinity who taught a specific Christian sect. Jefferson wanted all Christian sects on a equal footing.

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why would he then establish the duty of the Professor of Ethics to teach Christian values in a way that does not hold one Christian sect above another.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefRock.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

“In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics; to which adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, a basis will be formed common to all sects. Proceeding thus far without offence to the Constitution, we have thought it proper

-442-“

_________________________________________________________

Further prove religious study was taught…

It was not, however, to be understood that instruction in religious opinions and duties was meant to be precluded by the public authorities as indifferent to the interests of society. On the contrary, the relations which exist between man and his Maker – and the duties resulting from those relations – are the most interesting and important to every human being and the most incumbent on his study and investigation.

Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, p. 414, Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822. http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

___________________________________________________________

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why didn’t he object to this prayer being said at the laying of the cornerstone for the University of Virginia?

“May allmighty God, without invocation to whom, no work of importance should be begun, bless this undertaking and enable us to carry it on with success -- protect this College, the object of which institution, is to instill into the minds of Youth principles of sound knowledge. To inspire them with the love of religion & virtue, and prepare them for filling the various situations in society with credit to themselves and benefit to their country”

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Jef1Gri.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=47&division=div1

___________________________________________________________

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why did he order the University Rotunda be used for several things including religious worship and why was it “expected” that students attend religious worship services of their respective sects?

Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, pp. 449-450, “A Meeting of the Visitors of the University of Virginia on Monday the 4th of October, 1824.” http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship

Was wondering where the entire section on Separation of church and state went?

I posted links from the Library of Congress showing Jefferson held church in congress during his presidency and asked how this played into the “separation of church and state” and it was deleted.

The Second of the five pillars of Wikipedia states Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

I guess when someone finds the truth of a nation's history at odds with their own personal belief they just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. This article is poor. It's just a narrative of the man's life without any critical analysis, appraisal or academic discourse on the subject. It's all: "he did, he said". So don't get upset by the fact that anything controversial is blocked and deleted. Like yourself, only editors who have a vested interest (sic agenda) in their subjects will fight over articles. I mean you wouldn't find a NASCAR fan getting aggrieved over differences in Chinese politics as much as a music lover is hardly going to protect articles on Honduran cave art. Blockers already have a personal view of the subject that is why they oppose you. I have read a few books about Jefferson and they all contradict what is written here, so who is right? Scholastic academics who have spent years pouring over papers, journals, diaries etc or a group of amateurs copying out of secondary books? I personally take umbrage over how Jefferson was the progenitor for the genocide of the Native Americans. He basically said they can either become like us or die! Wonderful empathetic words from one the most influential founding fathers of the United States. But his words became gospel (Manifest Destiny) for the Europeans who displaced and killed off the indigenous populations throughout the 19th century. Again just my opinion but considering the number of politicians who used Jefferson as their precedent to justify such killings, only marks the man and his values. But is it discussed here? Of course not, because the agenda makers are patriots and they don't want to get icky over such unpleasantness. If you want to learn about the man get a few books from the library and read them instead. Then form your own opinion rather than relying on those who spend all their free time protecting their versions of history. The lone voice in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.28.146 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery mentioned in lede

Slavery should be mentioned in the lede since there were millions of slaves in America at the time. Just a sentence that Jefferson, a slave holder himself, was a complicated American icon who was unable to solve America's controversial institution of slavery. Any objections?Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call Cmguy777. The "lede" or introduction has problems with undue weight, and is innacurate in some parts. It should be "a concise overview of the article." Jefferson was one of the largest slave owners in Virginia, and slavery was the basis of his wealth. Hence a major factor in his life. The lede needs to "explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." There's a section on the rape controversy with Sally Hemings & a whole section on slavery (Alleged mixed-race children & On Slavery), major controversies in academic literature.

One other point, "Jefferson envisioned America as the force behind a great "Empire of Liberty"[3] that would promote republicanism and counter the imperialism of the British Empire." In part true, but Jefferson at the same time promoted the American empire at the same time, so the use of the word "liberty" here makes it seem he opposed colonialism, empires or the conquest of land; Jefferson was a major supporter of those policies. Both shoud be changed. [[1]] Ebanony (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have amended the introduction to include a paragraph on the fact Jefferson owned slaves, did not oppose slavery as a politician, and the allegations on Sally Hemings & the children. Citations added as well. These controversies should be there; they get their own sections in the article, and have their own articles.Ebanony (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What does "did not oppose slavery as a politician" mean? Jefferson did include a paragraph in his initial draft of the DoI that indicted Britain's role in the slave trade, but this was deleted from the final version. JimWae (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Segment break 1 proposed changes

2 changes to the article should be made: First, the section On slavery was a major component of Jefferson's life - all his life. It should get greater prominence, and should be moved to a section before Posthumous. It gets its own article, and is covered in the Introduction. The other change is related to the Sally Hemings controversy: the title shoucld be changed from Alleged mixed-race children to something like "Alleged relationship with Sally Hemings & paternity". This should likewise receive far greater attention than being at the bottom of the article. These two things make up a large number of scholarly works, and have sparked great interest and controversy. They're being treated as mere footnotes, an apparent violation of due/undue weight.Ebanony (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson with requested on slavery

You removed the text that Jefferson "did not oppose slavery as a politician". But the source supports it. Your justification: "he also wrote a phrase in the DoI against slavery - which was removed to secure wider agreement amongst signers". [2] Jefferson never condemned slavery in the Declaration; he criticised King George on the slave trade, and for inciting a "domestic insurrection". He was upset the King was using slaves in battle & promising them freedom. Let's be clear: Jefferson opposed the British attempt to free slaves in the Declaration (both versions). So I undid your edit [3], and then added a citation on the Declaration [4] (even though this part is not about the Declaration, you wanted more evidence -ok) Was Thomas Jefferson an Authentic Enemy of Slavery? David Davies, Oxford, 1970, pg 6.

Now you raised another objection, saying you want a quote. You justified it with "he also wrote that slavery was bad for both races" [5]. Again, that's not quite accurate. Jefferson's words have been misused by some scholars: "[T]he whole commerce between master and slave is...despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other". Recent scholars say: "This sentence suggests that Jefferson may have been concerned about the effect of slavery on the slave. The rest of the paragraph, however, says nothing about the slave, and concentrates only on how slavery corrupts the master class." What "this passage illustrates", when you read the whole thing, is "Jefferson's understanding of the inherent danger of slavery to republican society", and "that Jefferson's only concern here was for his own race and what slavery might do to its members." Nothing on the abused children or women or "smaller slaves". Nor was his solution to help blacks. Jefferson wanted an apartheid (all white) society. See Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On, Paul Finkelman The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 203-4.

I can give you a quote if you want, but the premise that Jefferson opposed slavery as a politician is false, and the sources I cited support the text. Maybe we can work together to tweak the wording. Do you propose an alternative?Ebanony (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not the one proposing an assertion in the text. I am questioning your assertion and asking for a quote. I also note that finding one source that might agree with you does not make it a fact, it would need general agreement among scholars. There are sources that indicate he was publicly opposed to slavery -- even if the reason was NOT sympathy for the slaves. There are also sources that indicate he intended to free his slaves. JimWae (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If he wrote, as you seem to indicate above, that he was against slavery because it corrupts the master class and endangers republican society, then you have provided evidence that he publicly opposed slavery JimWae (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I made no "assertions", and I didn't rely on "one source". Everything I said is mainstream scholarship. Looks like you didn't read the sources:

"Jefferson's 'hatred' of slavery was a peculiarly cramped kind of hatred. It was not so much slavery he hated as what it did to his society. This 'hatred' took three forms. First, he hated what slavery did to white. Second, he hated slavery because he feared it would lead to a rebellion that would destroy his society. Third, he hated slavery because it brought Africans there and kept them there. None of these motivated him to do anything about the institution." See Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery, Paul Finkelman. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pg 203. This is why it's important to read the source instead of assuming it "provided evidence he publicly opposed slavery" (it doesn't). And Paul Finkelman is no fringe scholar; he's mainstream, and his work is too. "President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy and Senior Fellow, Government Law Center" & "He is an expert in areas such as the law of slavery" [6]. See also [7]. His articles & books are reviewed, and often cited.

David Brion Davis says that Jefferson did nothing to end slavery in his book on pg 179 (I don't have the copy with me at the moment, but he defiantly says it). See Davis, David Brion The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823, 1975 pg 179. And before you go on with minor POV's, know he's a well respected Yale historian (Harvard graduate) whose works have won many awards including the "Pulitzer Prize, the Bancroft Prize, the American Historical Associations' Albert J. Beveridge Award, the National Book Award, and the 2004 Bruce Catton Prize of the Society of American Historians for lifetime achievement." [8]. This particular book was "Winner of the 1975 National Book Award, the Bancroft Prize, and the AHA's Beveridge Award". He's reviewed by the NyTimes, NY Review of Books, and it was said of his: "His book is a distinguished example of historical scholarship and art."--From the citation for the 1975 National Book Award [9]

Nothing minor or fringe about what I wrote. Now, what "sources...indicate he intended to free his slaves"? That is a straw man argument. It would change nothing. Many people freed slaves & did not publicly oppose slavery - George Washington for example. But unlike Washington, Jefferson only freed the Hemings in his will. The rest were auctioned off to pay for his lavish lifestyle. The David Brion Davis pg 176 is the "quote" you wanted. I'm adding that citation, which is justified.Ebanony (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You want to include the assertion he "did not oppose slavery as a politician". I mentioned on the Talk:TJ page that the meaning of this is somewhat vague. TJ did oppose slavery in that he was against it and wrote against it - AND he was a politician AND he publicly opposed it (for whatever reason he had). Perhaps you want to say, in line with your sources, that he neither proposed nor took any steps to end the institution of slavery (though he signed the law ending importation of slaves). Why this is noteworthy about TJ (and not noteworthy about every other politician who did not press for abolition) is, I suppose, that TJ wrote "all men are created equal". JimWae (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if he proposed separation, he would seems to be proposing an end to slavery. He had little power to DO anything about the institution beyond persuasively remarking on its evils. Even Lincoln held it was not within his power to abolish slavery where it existed until the country was at war over it. Perhaps we should assert that he never joined an abolitionist society?

Maybe you want to say "He did not propose any legislation to abolish slavery"? --JimWae (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the disagreement here is stemming over the phrase "oppose slavery". As JimWae points out, there are many types of "opposition" to slavery, and some of TJ's works seem to fall within this class of "ideas that are critical of slavery". What is important however, is to provide some context and meaning to the word "oppose". Why did Jefferson make statements critical of slavery, and how did Jefferson act in relation to his stated views. We shouldn't just say "Jefferson opposed slavery." That might give the image that he was empathizing with slaves, or that he opposed slavery in action as well as in public rhetoric. In reality, he felt that slaves posed a cultural and economic threat to the U.S., and felt that the United States must be ethnically cleansed of all of the so-called inferior races. This is a form of opposition, so that shouldn't be removed, but we should also explain what type of opposition it was, and what concrete actions taken by Jefferson indicate about what he actually thought vs. what he said. (This is especially true of Jefferson, who it is widely agreed was one of the most duplicitous of the Founding Fathers). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

First, JimWae, you say: “TJ did oppose slavery in that he was against it and wrote against it - AND he was a politician AND he publicly opposed it (for whatever reason he had).” - No. He never publicly opposed it. What historian makes this claim? “Against it”? That's what you say. Please see V policy. My statement: Jefferson “did not oppose slavery as a politician”. JimWae's narrow interpretation: Because Jefferson made some vague & mostly private statements about slavery, and happened to be a politician, he was against slavery (in private & as a politician). But this is incorrect.

section break

... (archived)

JimWae's proposal presupposes that he wanted to make such laws: "He did not propose any legislation to abolish slavery"

My proposal incorporates a direct quote & advice from both Jrtayloriv & JimWae: Jefferson relied partially on slavery for his wealth. Despite signing the law to ban the slave trade and making some statements that might seem to oppose slavery, Jefferson failed "to come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level", and took no actions to oppose the institution of slavery in his political offices. This uses the sources: Finkelman, Brion, and others currently there.Ebanony (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You acknowledge that Jefferson signed law banning the slave trade, yet almost in the same breath you go on to say.. ..took no actions to oppose... Also, your comment ..making some statements that might seem to oppose slavery.. is ambiguous at best. 'Might seem'? He indeed made many such comments. As to what they may seem like is another matter for the discussion page. If you would like to somehow qualify what Jefferson indeed wrote in opposition to slavery with conjecture about what he didn't do, or what he should have done them please attempt to do so. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers What evidence do you have that banning the slave trade was opposition to slavery? None. What evidence do you have that my sources are faulty? None. I've reminded you ad nauseum that personal opinions do not meet WP:RS policy, and we cannot use them for edits. You violated that policy here by directly contradicting the sources cited [10]. Regarding the alternative sentence, you've either 1) not read the sources or 2) have ignored the sources. They specifically say Jefferson said things that looked like he opposed slavery, but in context the opposite was true. I'm happy to discuss those "statements" Jefferson made in detail in the slavery section, but we cannot do it in the Lead WP:LEAD. Your evidence that (other than your opinion or interpretation of primary sources) this is faulty? Your proposal for an alternative sentence?

Now this "ambiguous" or "vague" argument doesn't hold water. Read the policy on it: [11] "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." The following sentence is crystal clear & accurate & as concise as it should be for the Lead ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" WP:LEAD:

Jefferson relied partially on slavery for his wealth. Despite signing the law to ban the slave trade and making some statements that might seem to oppose slavery, Jefferson failed "to come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level", and took no actions to oppose the institution of slavery in his political offices. This uses a direct quote & a paraphrase from 2 highly respected scholars, and tries to accommodate JimWae's "He did not propose any legislation to abolish slavery". I'm willing to remove "and making some statements that might seem to oppose slavery", look at alternatives or tweak the current proposals. However, I will not entertain this erroneous assertion of a "contradiction" in banning the slave trade. They did it in part to preserve slavery & prevent a rebellion like the ones in Jamaica or Haiti; Jefferson opposed attempts to free slaves in Haiti - directly. Ebanony (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

- What does "failed ""to come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level"""" mean? And note that "failed" is not inside the quotes. Where is the source for "failed" and for "might seem to oppose slavery"? Where is the source that EVERY statement that "might seem" to oppose slavery did not "really"? Even with a source, how does one sources opinion become the voice of wikipedia? In view of his signing the the bill to end importation (as prez), his proposing a successful bill to ban further importation of slaves into Virginia (saying it "stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication") as well as several other (failed) attempts at political action against slavery "took no actions to oppose the institution of slavery in his political offices" is either incorrect or misleading because it is too simplified for the lede.JimWae (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

JimWae, your comment reveals that you have not read the source. Otherwise you would know that the writer uses the word "failed" in the very same sentence, and that I shortened it for clarity without changing the meaning (removing one word). There is nothing ambiguous about not coming to terms with slavery "on a personal or political level". You blokes claimed he was against it in both senses, and I've given historians' quotes that say otherwise, and they are not fringe, and have others. Each statement is supported. You raise objections, but present no evidence to the contrary. So I ask you "Where is the source" for your statements? At any rate, the sentence Jefferson "took no actions to oppose the institution of slavery in his political offices" is correct, but I'm willing to tweak it. How about: "did not support any legislation against slavery when in office".Ebanony (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have some other things to do than read every source you mention, and I need only read what is here to see when a specific forced wording is proposed to support a one-sided view. Have you read our article? It says that in 1776 he was in office in VA & proposed legislation to end the importation of slaves to VA, saying it "stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication". It is only by suggesting that his only reason for doing so was an ulterior motive that one can insist that this was not in any way support for "legislation against slavery". Let's try something more balanced and shorter - especially for the lede - that doesn't paint a picture which ignores the many public writings in which he does say that slavery is evil JimWae (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because he was not an out-and-out enemy of slavery does not mean everything he did had some ulterior motive & he did absolutely nothing to oppose it. He was a deeply flawed person, but a one-sided presentation on this reads like an agenda-driven hatchet-job JimWae (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Insert: All you are doing is making generic reference to basic policy and carrying on about everything but the point I made. And I offered no personal opinion about your sources or anything else other than on your presentation of matters, so please try to keep your line straight here. Again, the lead should not make erroneous claims. If Jefferson signed a law banning the slave trade you can't say he never opposed it as a politician. And your notion that outlawing this trade is not any form of opposition to slavery is sort of ridiculous. If it was not opposition, then what would you refer to it as..something that promoted it?? Gwillhickers (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

First, Gwillhickers you adjusted my comment by placing your text inside of it [[12]]. “Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.”WP:TPO I strongly object to this practice, and am asking you not to do it again. There is plenty of space below to write what you please. I moved your edit below to reflect the edits as per the time log.

You say "And your notion that outlawing this trade is not any form of opposition to slavery is sort of ridiculous. If it was not opposition, then what would you refer to it as..something that promoted it??" It's not "my notion" or opinion. Conspicuously absent is a reliable source (or any) to back your claims. Enough said on your regurgitation of debunked 20th century mythology. Yes, banning the slave trade was done in part to prevent slave rebellion (slaves from freeing themselves, something Jefferson strongly opposed - say in Haiti & in the Am. Revolution). There in no dispute on that. We're discussing a man who owned hundreds of slaves; he tortured his own slaves, hunted down runaways, asked for slaves to be killed for trying to get free. That is undisputed as well. Ebanony (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR violation reported

Just a heads up that after noticing nine consecutive nonconstructive reverts by Markglad, I have reported him on the administrator's noticeboard. _{_WikiMan^One 17:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)}

comment

(Discussion page is now Waaaay too long: much of the redundant or dated has been archived) Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Seperation of Church and State

I have reverted the edit again that added information about Jefferson attending church services in the House of Representatives and specifically about him attending church services 2 days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. The source for the information is a primary source that says he did it. I do not believe that source is enough to add the material. IMO the placement of the information leads to the assumption that attending church services in the House of Representatives is incompatible with supporting of seperation of church and state. If the edit is just to show that Jefferson attended church services, it is not notable enough to be in the lead. On the other hand if it is there to show Jefferson was inconsistent in his statements as I am reading the material, then we need a much better reference for that. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I will not take a stance on the content, however, the editor who made the tenth revertion to that content has a total of three previous mainspace edits, two of which constituted vandalism. So fully 75% of his contributions have been detrimental. _WikiMan^One 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

“The source for the information is a primary source that says he did it. I do not believe that source is enough to add the material.”

This statement fully proves the author’s non neutral point of view in violation of Wikipedia NPOV which states articles should “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources”.

It appears the author of the statement did not read the source, possible because it conflicted with personal preconceived believes. There are five primary sources documenting his presence along with a host of other sources with relative information of the topic of the Separation of Church and State. In fact it has the original restored letter before Jefferson edited it as recovered by the FBI Laboratory.

“I do not believe that source is enough to add the material.”

That source which is not worthy to add to Wikipedia, in this authors view, IS the Library of Congress, the research arm of Congress and is recognized as the national library of the United States. Seems like some people don’t want to lower Wikipedia’s standards!

Wikipedia may not be able to be cited in most college campuses but the Library of Congress can be, so clearly it is a reliable source as dictated by Wikipedia standards. So the author here did not check the source or verify it before they so freely edited it, that clearly shows a non neutral point of view.

Now is the point that as the article stand it is clearly non neutral, to say “Jefferson supported the separation of church and state [4] “is clearly not a “fairly, proportionately view” because it doesn’t tell where when how and why. Of course the link to the Library of Congress does all of this. But various excuses have been used to thwart the representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources”.

I don’t know how most of you define vandalism, but deleting something that is true, from a more reputable source then this site solely for the sake of suppressing the information is what I call vandalism. - Markglad

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).

Then read WP:Primary.

After you've done that, then maybe you will see that 95% of YOUR problem is understanding the Wikipedia process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So 5 primary sources that are held by the secondary source of the Library of Congress who make analytic or evaluative claims about them.

From the link you posted “Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.”

And yet this is MY problem?

Also from your post “and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.”

Already covered that!

Have any other red herrings for me to chase down? -Markglad

Do us all a favor Markglad? Your comments are near impossible to read, try using paragraphs without large spaces, please? I'm not even going to try to read the above comments because it hurts my eyes. Suffice it to say, your eight reverts did nothing to improve the article imo.

Why am I not surprised of another unsubstantial post trying to get off topic? Do you want to bring something to the table or just banter? If your already biased I guess it would sound good to you. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in the lede

Torture? That's a new one. I suppose you can throw that one on the pile of other unproven theories and speculations that have frothed from the mouths of pot-head college prof's and their mentors since the 60's. (That occurred in the 20th century also, btw.) Why is torture not even mentioned in the article? In any case, mention was made about your comment in the lead. Again, it was an erroneous general comment which has been spelled out for you before, ("..did not oppose slavery as a politician..") that overlooked much and required other clarifications. As such it had/has no place in the lead. All the routine digressive claims about "debunked theory" is just more of the canned, stand-by, window dressing that's often employed to avoid moments like these.
-- Also, if sources like Finkelman are as you claim and are in goose-step with your (very) narrow vision of Jefferson why is not 'torture', or anything that comes close to it, even mentioned in the article?
-- Regarding your sentiment about the 20th century, a century I am assuming you were born and raised in, and debunked theory; what startling revelations have occurred in the 21st century that endows you with such 'new' insights into Jefferson's legacy? Gwillhickers (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you highlight Finkelman and rail against "pot-head college prof's and their mentors since the 60's". He and Brion are living people, and "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". I suggest you remove that comment: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." This "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLPTALK & WP:BLP.Ebanony (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If sources like Finkelman are as you claim and are in goose-step with your (very) narrow vision of Jefferson why is not 'torture', or anything that comes close to it, even mentioned in the article? Gwillhickers (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not your tutor. You can believe the slaves voluntarily worked on Jefferson's plantation - like all others - because they loved him and wanted to make him rich. Or you could do a little research into the only way that they became slaves & stayed slaves for hundreds of years: violence. Yes, it happened at Jefferson's too. Not in the article? Since were not discussing including it, enough said.Ebanony (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I never even hinted that his slaves loved him, etc, so you are again carrying on about yet another one of your straw men. You make the claim that scholarly accounts support torture, rape, etc. I ask you for clarification and we get more of your digressive nonsense that attempts to avoid that issue. This is your quote: We're discussing a man who owned hundreds of slaves; he tortured his own slaves, hunted down runaways, asked for slaves to be killed for trying to get free. That is undisputed as well.. -- Again, why isn't torture mentioned in the article if this is "undisputed"?? Can you also tell us specifically which historian uses terms like rape and torture in no uncertain terms, and then explain why you haven't mentioned and referred to that in the article name space? Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims about rape? That's not in my quote. You doubt the rest? Then go research it. Start with Sandy, a runaway slave Jefferson hunted down [[13]]. The talk page is not a forum for discussion of the subject matter WP:TPG, though I can't stop you from denying the facts.Ebanony (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who has claimed to have done all this research, yet you fail to cite what I have asked. Again, why isn't torture mentioned in the article if this is "undisputed"?? Please answer the question. Can you also tell us specifically which historian uses terms like rape or torture in no uncertain terms, and then explain why you haven't mentioned and referred to that in the article? Who are we kidding? If the sources you wear on your sleeve referred to torture I am sure you would have been the first to plaster this news all over this discussion page. You have not, still. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I told you clearly, "rape" is not the quote of mine you cited. Perhaps you're confused. I remind you, the talk page "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." WP:TPG No one proposed any such changes to the main space; therefore there is no discussion on it. End of story. I did not claim Jefferson "raped" anybody. So stop the charade, and follow talk page guidelines. Ebanony (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

section break2

JimWae, you outright say that you don't need to read the sources before deciding to exclude sentences, even when they're direct quotes. Ok then... I've assumed good faith, but wikipedia says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V There is no trouble verifying my text or sources. I cannot say the same for your claims.

I haven't discussed "ulterior motives". Your evidence that he did so to oppose slavery? We need sources, not opinions. Just because Jefferson said slavery was evil does not mean he opposed it. Few slave owners denied its evils then until about the the 1830's. Jefferson's words must be looked at along with his actions, the position of the majority of historians. Concerning his "opposition" or "hatred" of the "evil" slavery:

"Jefferson's 'hatred' of slavery was a peculiarly cramped kind of hatred. It was not so much slavery he hated as what it did to his society. This 'hatred' took three forms. First, he hated what slavery did to white. Second, he hated slavery because he feared it would lead to a rebellion that would destroy his society. Third, he hated slavery because it brought Africans there and kept them there. None of these motivated him to do anything about the institution." See Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery, Paul Finkelman. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pg 203.

Here's what I said: Despite signing the law to ban the slave trade and making some statements that might seem to oppose slavery, Jefferson failed "to come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level", and took no actions to oppose the institution of slavery in his political offices. VS your own suggestion "He did not propose any legislation to abolish slavery". Now I'm willing to remove "and making some statements that might seem to oppose slavery" and use instead “Despite signing the law to ban the slave trade and saying slavery was evil, Jefferson failed "to come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level", and did not introduce legislation to ban slavery.” It is not good, and the presupposition that Jefferson had some intention or desire to ban slavery is not correct, but I'm trying very hard to compromise with you two.Ebanony (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to keep this proposed text accurate and not have this article missing important text in the lead, I have asked for comment at the noticeboard. I do not feel any reasonable compromise is attainable when editors seem to ignore policy, make edits that contradict sources & apparently claim they don't need to read the text they've called into question. Perhaps a neutral party can help find a reasonable solution. [[14]]Ebanony (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clear he publicly opposed slavery in his writings - no matter whether sources say he opposed it "for the right reasons" or not. In what is supposed to be a short summary lede, to go on and on about his shortcomings for sentence after sentence -- AND neglect or even denigrate his public opposition is WP:UNDUE. Also see WP:ATTRIB JimWae (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore "failed to come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level" is a vague, fluffy evaluation that may be OK in a book where it can be further explicated in the next sentences, but it is just padding an agenda in a lede paragraph. JimWae (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"It is clear he publicly opposed slavery in his writings - no matter whether sources say he opposed it "for the right reasons" or not." What is clear is that evidence doesn't matter to you. You can't even cite these writings when challenged. You've also admitted not having read the the text I cited (which support it), and claim you don't need to. You make claims that have scholars have been refuting since the 1960's, and now make accusations of bias. You insist that one of the largest slave owners opposed slavery (my original text didn't discuss his personal views, just political actions), and no matter what sources people furnish to the contrary, you see as an attack on Jefferson and people pushing an "agenda". good faith and V sources are wikipedia policies, not mine. This is why a neutral party is needed.Ebanony (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said I do not have to read the source material ever. I did say all I need to do is read what you want to add to recognize WP:UNDUE, one-sided piling-on JimWae (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What are the facts relevant to TJ and slavery?

He owned numerous slaves
He wrote a passage in the DoI labelling slavery as an evil, but it was removed by others
As a legislator in VA, he successfully proposed a law outlawing slave importation to VA
As president, he signed a federal law outlawing slave importation to USA - after the moratorium declared in the Constitution had expired. Jefferson did not veto any laws while president
After his wife died, he is alleged to have had several children by one of his slaves. This is unconfirmed
He freed some of his slaves, but financial problems voided his expressed wishes (including terms of his will[?]) to free them all. It is alleged some of the ones he freed were some of his children
He wrote that blacks were inferior -- though he did say some had reasonable intelligence
He favored a segregated society over an integrated one (not at all unusual for the time) and supported colonization
He wrote repeatedly about the evils of slavery, remarking on its evil effects upon both races.
He wrote "all men are created equal"
He did not champion the abolition of slavery (not unusual for his time)
In his writings, he said that he expected slavery to become extinct (not a popular view then)

Which of these are to be in the lede? All of them? (no, too long). Just the positive ones? Just the negative ones? Just the positive ones that can be denigrated?--JimWae (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Please feel free to continue or give more complete facts below--JimWae (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1820, commenting on the Missouri Compromise, he repeated his desire that slavery could be ended, but fearing what would happen if the slaves were actually freed, he repeated his support for colonization. He opposed the 36 30 line, saying slaves would be happier if they were not concentrated by being restricted in territory, and predicted the line would become a border splitting the country apart. JimWae (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Jim, some things you say are correct (#1); some are not (#2 - TJ did not label slavery as evil in Declaration, and I cited source above). I'm not interested in correcting your errors. " Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." WP:TPNO I will only discuss proposed changes to the article based on WP:IRS reliable sources. Opinions of primary sources by yourself do not count; secondary sources by historians do. I made several concessions & ask you to reconsider the proposals I made.Ebanony (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what is presented in the lede should focus on what virtually no scholar can disagree with about Jefferson - not on vague evaluations by authors trying to ascertain TJ's "soul" (such as "failed to come to terms with") that really say zilch to the reader other than "he had many faults" JimWae (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the following amounts to saying that slavery is evil, even if the word "evil" does not appear. Much of it is a condemnation of the slave-trade, but it is clear that even those born into slavery do not have "liberty". (It is also clear that the liberty denied by slavery cannot be ended if slavery remains freshly supplied.) JimWae (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

he [the Crown] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

I also think that authors who claim to have insights into TJ's (or anyone's) "soul" need WP:ATTRIB -- rather than simply having their views adopted as wiki-fact -- whether those "insights" be in the body or the lede JimWae (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

JimWae, the text above is a primary source, and your interpretation cannot be used: "I'd say the following amounts to saying that slavery is evil, even if the word "evil" does not appear'...(It is also clear that the liberty denied by slavery cannot be ended if slavery remains freshly supplied.)" The majority of academics have a very different view:

Jefferson "made no mention of emancipation but condemned King George for enslaving innocent Africans, for encouraging the 'execrable commerce' in men, and for inciting American Negroes to rise in arms against their masters." The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, David Brion Davis, 1975, pg 173. He points out Jefferson criticised the king for the slave trade (not slavery), and for freeing slaves to use in the King's army to fight against the Americans (the British armed slaves and used them; Jefferson opposed it, and said it right here).

"Congress omitted this passage altogether. I'm glad it did...the discrepancy between the fact and the representation is too flagrant. Especially, in view of the subsequent history of the slave trade, and slavery itself...the charges against the king lose plausibility...it is the part in the Declaration in which Jefferson conspicuously failed to achieve literary excellence" Carl Becker p 214. If you read Merril Peterson, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation 1970 pg 91-2, he agrees. See also Jefferson the Virginian, 1948 pg 222 by Dumas Malone.

JimWae, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." And "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source" WP:PRIMARY. Your interpretation of it is not backed up: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" WP:OR. So yes, he railed against the slave trade & the British for freeing slaves, something you distort. On the next topic, David Brion Davis discussed Jefferson's "soul"? Try reading the work. And though you want to exclude his writing, (for something he didn't do), he is "he Sterling Professor of History Emeritus at Yale university" & "Davis is considered the most pre-eminent historian of slavery as Ira Berlin claimed 'no scholar has played a larger role in expanding contemporary understanding of how slavery shaped the history of the United States, the Americas, and the world than David Brion Davis.'” [15] Your objections are groundless, and based on your opinion, which you've used to prevent me from making edits well supported by main stream academics, and that is not acting in good faith or according to policy. You don't want to discuss improving the text, and I offered you many opportunities. I'm asking for comment.Ebanony (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}}02:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that the point of contention is whether or not "Jefferson did not oppose slavery as a politician" is a valid addition. Instead of trying to say it so concisely, maybe the new proposed addition could be something considerably longer citing quoted fact from the sources mentioned above. It seems like there's a lot of depth to this debate, and I see no reason the facts therein shouldn't be in the main article. Instead of picking a side on this one, the article can list the main points from both sides, maybe even in its own sub-section under "Political philosophy and views". Just a thought, worth what you paid for it. Eikou (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I admit that I did not read the whole discussion above, however, I believe that I am able to make a suggestion. I suggest that rather than including the phrase "Jeffersion did not oppose slavery as a politician" in the lead (as it appears the discussion is over), or not including it at all, I suggest that it be included under the subsection "Slavery as an undesirable institution" in some form. If I have misread something, please accept my apology in advance, if I can be of more help my talk page is open. _WikiMan^One 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)— _WikiMan^One 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. We can discard that phrase. How about:

Jefferson, born into a prominent slave owning family, owned hundreds of slaves throughout his life; he held contemporary views on the racial inferiority of Africans.

Sources: Thomas Jefferson, David Waldstreicher, Notes on the State of Virginia, pg. 214 2002; Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time Vol 1:114, 437-39; Jack McLoughlin, Jefferson and Monticello, 34; Stephen E. Ambrose, To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian (2003) p 4. Is this something editors feel is fair in the lede? Anything to keep/change?Ebanony (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pillars

Your recent edits of Feb 6 were removed for several violations of policy that you were specifically warned about several times before by a variety of editors. [16]. Please see the note there, and discuss any changes you want to make, and use WP:RS before changing the main space.Ebanony (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the "variety of editors" that said you should not devote a whole paragraph in the lede for a topic that has far less weight than other historical landmark events that effect millions of people. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is talking about the lede paragraph; your edits here [17] and here [18] were in the Hemings section. Your claims were Original research without any source, and that is not allowed WP:OR WP:V WP:NPOV. 4 editors told you that information was incorrect, lacked proper sources, and was fringe with a lack of neutrality. They did it on Jan 22 [19], Jan 28 [20]; Jan 29 [21] and Jan 30 [22].You ignored them, presented no new evidence and added it to the main space in Feb 6. Yes, a completely different editor removed them here [23]. Please follow policy.Ebanony (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The passage: "In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children" ..is not original research, it is a fact. No one can say for sure. The next quote in question: "..though for one reason or another they prefer to ignore the other possibilities for Hemings' children, preferring rather to believe it was Thomas Jefferson." ..is also not "original research", it has been demonstrated by yourself and other like minded individuals repeatedly. Please make more of an attempt to be truthful with your claims. I am sure there is a policy for it. Speaking of policy, please observe undue weight for topics that do not compare to other historic landmark events, like the DOI, War of 1812, etc. This also has been pointed out to you by a variety of editors on several occasions, yet you continue to ignore this policy also, treating the Hemings issue as if it had any effect on American history and on millions of Americans and others. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers this information was for your talk page; it was already addressed above here [24]. Since you remove my edits from there, I must inform you here that your edits have been referred to the OR noticeboard WP:NORN Ebanony (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More of your inappropriate, evasive and robotic reference to policy? Again, no one can say for sure if Jefferson was the father. This is not the product of "original research". Lot's of luck trying to convince anyone that it is, esp since you can not prove otherwise. Your appeal to WP:NORN is so convoluted and evasive I seriously doubt you will get any help. Also, since you have done the research as you claim, please cite the source that uses terms like "torture" and show us that this is "undisputed" as you have claimed. Then kindly explain why you have not used this "undisputed" material in the article with the appropriate citation. Your appeal to WP:NORN only waves a flag signaling to everyone that there is no such referral, as I am sure you would have presented it on this discussion page by now. Again, you have failed to do this.

Also, please observe undue weight for topics that do not compare to other historic landmark events, like the DOI, War of 1812, etc. This also has been pointed out to you on several occasions, yet you continue to ignore this policy also, treating the Hemings issue as if it had any effect on American history and on millions of Americans and others. Good luck with WP:NORN. Gwillhickers (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not History of the United States, this is a biography of Jefferson. Whom he did or did not take to bed and had children with is important to the man Jefferson. Take a look at another historical figure with a similar controversy. Nelson's article mentions Emma Hamilton in the lede. As I pointed out above, "in the final analysis", nobody can say anything beyond Descartes. But we don't do "the truth" anyways. We record what reliable sources say. And reliable scholarship overwhelmingly considers Jefferson the father of Heming's children - not with absolute certainty (which does not exist in science or history), but with enough conviction that e.g. today he would have to pay child support. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hemings' reflection on "the man", Jefferson, might amount to something if it could be proven that Jefferson, "the man", was indeed the father. Landmark events like the DOI, Louisiana Purchase, which are established facts, also reflect on "the man" Jefferson, much more than any 'roll in the hay' with Hemings ever will. And I seriously doubt any court would make someone pay for child support if there was more than 20 other distinct possibilities. Sorry guys, try another approach. Gwillhickers (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it: There is no "20 other distinct possibilities" (the other day you claimed "25"). You need to use WP:RS for claims that go in the main space. You've provided none, and my comments in no way (despite your earlier claim) provide any support for these fringe theories. The question is not if Jefferson did it; our job is to accurately report what experts have written, and none I'm aware of supports your claims of "20" or "25" other possibilities. Field Jefferson had how many sons? Stick to the facts & report what they say.Ebanony (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And I told you about 5 times, STOP with this charade of "rape". I do not claim Jefferson "raped" anybody, and you keep trying to change the subject. I will not discuss in the talk page anything unrelated to proposed edits in the main space; this is policy, though you continue to ignore it WP:TPG. As for your sources on the "25" (now you changed it to "20") other possibilities, you added it to the main space, and that is why you must demonstrate where the info comes from WP:OR. Doesn't come from any source I posted. I didn't remove your edits; several other editors did because they saw the problems too. Ebanony (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, would you kindly stop barking orders please? This discussion involves more than what you have asserted. Rape was mentioned before, per Hemings' situation, that she was not in a position to object to sexual advances. And you have indeed said that "torture" is "undisputed". I have asked you several times why you have not used this term in the article and have also asked what source you have based this opinion on. Thus far all you have done is what you have done all along -- evade the issue in your usual 2-dimensional, myopic fashion. Also, there is far too much undue weight given to Hemings in this article; it has gotten more attention that the other landmark events. Heming's has her own page and the section on Hemings on the TJ page is much larger than sections about Drafting a declaration, Governor of Virginia, Member of Congress...and very little coverage of the War of 1812. Please correct this glaring oversight and remove most of the material that is already covered on the Hemings page , or I will do so. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment replied to above here [25]. Please go there and say your piece.Ebanony (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unproven"

In a strict sense, nothing is ever proven in science or history - proofs are the realm of pure maths. We make no claim that the allegations about Hemings are proven, and we don't need to make any that they are unproven. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree; it is not up to the editors to prove or disprove anything; it is not our opinion that is looked for here - it is up to us to report what reliable, third-party sources have said and to indicate the weight given by different parties. Trying to deny the consensus of major groups on believing that Jefferson is likely the father is trying to impose POV opinion on published research. Yes, some people disagree, and that has been reported, too. But no one has to satisfy individual editors on this topic. We need to report accurately the state of consensus in the field. Parkwells (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Archiving at talk:Thomas Jefferson

Archiving is now automated via Miszabot. Please do not delete or modify other users contributions.

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.

[Note:This discussion was copied from my talk page so that others can know about what is being done to the discussion process. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)]

Hi Gwillhickers! I saw that you are manually archiving some parts of the talk page. However, the page is archived by User:MiszaBot IMiszaBot. If it gets to long, I suggest simply reducing the 90 day age for archiving. Mixing manual and automatically generated archives is not impossible, but tricky - it's probably best to attach the manually archived material to the youngest existing archive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we have to do something. The discussion page was a mile long, making it more difficult to follow more than one discussion when editing. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you once: You archived some of the discussions I had here [26]; you did not do so properly, and chopped off text in mid stream, which is confusing, and distorts meaning. Please make an immediate correction to any and all text of mine you moved by restoring it to the talk page. The talk page has guidelines, I've warned you about them before. You don't have my permission to do that, and there is a 90-day bot for a reason. WP:TPO.Ebanony (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion page was a mile long and needed reducing. It would seem that filling the talk page up with nonresponsive redundancy, habitual evasiveness and meaningless generic overlinking at the rate you have been dumping it into the discussion is what has distorted much of that discussion. Out of consideration for all of the others, on both sides of the fence, you should really give that some thought. btw, Guidelines only mention that one should stop such archiving if someone objects. If you really think there is an actual need to restore certain material of yours from archives please feel free to do so. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This belongs on your user talk page, which is why the editors above went there, and not here. "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." When you archived my text, you took it upon yourself to do the job of the bot, and I asked you to restore my text. Now you refuse? This is explicitly clear: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." WP:TPO You're making it difficult for people to follow these conversations correctly; arbitrarily removing my comments distorts the conversations here. Please restore my archived text (it's current). Ebanony (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to not dwell on this any longer, it's unlikely to be useful. However, this page is set up for automatic archiving now, and the bot will archive any discussion stale for 20 days or more. So please do not do any manual archiving, and in particular, do not delete any content without archiving (unless its obviously grossly inappropriate, on the "My teacher stinks of POOO!" level). If you think a particular discussion has wandered off-topic too far, consider putting it into an collapsed box, using Template:cot and Template:cob, or use Template: Archive top and Template: Archive bottom, as I will do with this section now. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (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.

NPOV dispute – Native American policy

I would like to propose the following additions: [27]. Any objections to adding it in? Tobby72 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the letter from Jefferson to Harrison? It's a primary source, sure, but its certainly reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72 in your first edit [28], on the Lewis & Clark Expedition wrote: "There were very few hostile encounters, and relations with most tribes were as friendly as Jefferson had hoped they would be" & cited [29] Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition p.174.

You must know that is false since you worked on the main article, and I specifically warned you about that source since that book is by minor writers. "Friendly"? Lewis & one of his men killed two Black Feet in a fight over horses & weapons. When the Expedition returned to a nation they'd been to before, they directly threatened Black Buffalo & his nation with war. They disregarded Jefferson's instructions to be friendly. I reverted your edit. Now you changed it to say: "Treat them in the most friendly and conciliatory manner". That is a primary quote from Jefferson & you added commentary that is redundant. I'd suggest using the quote or just "In his instructions to Lewis, Jefferson emphasized the necessity for treating all Indian tribes in the most conciliatory manner." But you should also address the problem on how it was not always friendly.

2nd you claim Harrison's letter is not "reliable". You made the accusation. Stephan Schulz & I want to know how you can say that.

3rd you changed Forced removal and extermination to War and removal west. See policy on WP:EUPHEMISM where it says "Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use ... ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide". You know very well it's discussing the forced removal of indigenous nations & extermination, policies Jefferson discussed in the the 1807 letter to Dearborn cited in the article, where he said "driven beyond the Mississippi" & "we shall destroy all of them". I am reverting the edit. Try an "Impartial tone", see WP:NPOV.Ebanony (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Indian removal was suggested by Jefferson as the only way to ensure the survival of Native American society. Jennifer McClinton-Temple, Alan R. Velie (2007). "Encyclopedia of American Indian literature". Infobase Publishing. p.295. ISBN 0816056560 Also, as the American population grew from 3.9 million in 1790 to 7.2 million in 1810, Hugh C. Prince (1997). "Wetlands of the American Midwest: a historical geography of changing attitudes". University of Chicago Press. p.105. ISBN 0226682838 more arable land had to be found. Kristie C. Wolferman (1997). "The Osage in Missouri". University of Missouri Press. p.48. ISBN 0826211224

Ebanony, feel free to balance this claim with writers who say the opposite, but please STOP censoring and removing sourced content from Wikipedia. Tobby72 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72. You added only a select POV which presents Jefferson in a positive light. 3 editors (myself, Stephan Schulz & Jrtayloriv) have questioned your recent edits here. #1 You falsely claimed WP:RS on a credible source [30]. #2 You used a clear euphemism [31] WP:EUPHEMISM in place of "extermination". #3 You ask if people have a problem with your edit, then ignore them & accuse them of "censorship" when they disagree with your edits, saying it's "sourced content". The text you cited above was 1st undone by Jrtayloriv "Natives moved west to "improve their lot"?!?!)" [32]. Correctly so. I removed it when you restored it. You clearly do not have WP:CONS; your edits lack neutrality by giving undue weigh to that argument (they were helping the Native Americans?) WP:UNDUE. What about other POV's? You have the obligation fairly represent them, not make this changes & demand others do it. Stop demanding we all go by your edits, & stop reverting consensus decisions. Just because it's in a book, that doesn't mean it has to be added here. You downplay the "extermination" & ethnic cleansing. No good. Ebanony (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72 -- WP:RS is based around the quality of sources, and is to be applied in concert with WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Much of the information in your edits is misleading to the point of falsehood (such as saying that Native Americans moved west to "improve their lot"). We have several high-quality sources that clearly demonstrate that this is a false assertion, and we don't have to give creedence to the fringe and manifestly false viewpoint that you are promoting here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, if I were you I'd be careful about what I say. Calling someone a liar could get you banned. Saying something is misleading or incorrect is one thing, but telling someone they've written falsehoods goes beyond an assumption of bad faith editing. If you apologize, maybe we won't have to take this to an administrator. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that he introduced falsehoods in bad faith. Perhaps he actually sees things this way. I haven't had enough experience with Tobby72 yet that I feel that this was deliberate deception. At this point, I'm still assuming good faith on his part. But the fact is that he has portrayed some events here in a manner that is misleading and not widely accepted by serious scholars. I'm not attacking him by telling him that something he included in the article was not accurate or was misleading. If it was taken as an attack, then I apologize, and wish to make it clear that this is not what was intended. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I find it odd that you felt it was very important to threaten me for telling someone that something they said was false, but didn't feel motivated to respond to Tobby72's dubbing Ebanony my "comrade-in-arms" which seems to suggest a battleground mentality, and implies that myself and Ebanony (who I've never - to my knowledge - collaborated with on any article before this one) are somehow "comrades" who are colluding to prevent people from improving the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If it was taken as an insult, you have my apologies. Tobby72 (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And Tobby72, how can you criticise anybody for "removal of sourced content" when you yourself deleted this source? [33] in this edit: [34] You made all kinds of false assertions on the Lewis and Clark main article [35], demanding others use that very same source you used here (Woodger & Toropov) [36]. But even on this article I asked you about the Lewis and Clark Expedition edit you made on Jan 16th; you refuse to reply [37]. The source is the same encyclopedia by Woodger & Toropov, not written by Lewis and Clark scholars like Robert Miller or James Ronda. Friendly, huh? Lewis stabbed a man in the heart; another soldier shot a man. White traders later recorded the Expedition had "murdered" the Blackfeet men. Lewis directly threatened to destroy Black Buffalo's nation in a separate incident. He possibly held his son hostage 2 years before. Years later, Clark directly took part in Jackson's "Indian removal", and ordered Native Americans to be killed. You found a source that called it friendly. You obviously selected the nice version.

Now, as to saying Jefferson believed forceful removal would "improve their lot" - that is outrageous. He knew full well what he was doing, which is why in that 1807 letter to Dearborn he spoke about the "Prophet" (Tecumseh's brother) & how he was reversing Jefferson's plans to take their lands.

"Jefferson's writings on Indians are filled with the straightforward assertion that the natives are to be given a simple choice -- to be "extirpate[d] from the earth" or to remove themselves out of the Americans' way." Finkelstein cited the very same letter to Dearborn in the section Forced removal and extermination "if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe...we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi". Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine University of Minnesota Press, 1996, pg 104-121 as well as James Ronda (Lewis & Clark expert), Thomas Jefferson and the changing West 1997 pg 10 mention this, among many others. It was not a question of if the "Indians attacked whites"; the opposite was true, and you know it. It's obvious why you chose an "encyclopedia" or that other book and not someone like Drinnon, Ronda or other academics; perhaps this is the reason you used a WP:EUPHEMISM [38] to change the name of the section. It's not a "minor addition". Try that on the Holocaust pages. I've seen your lack of neutrality on several pages, all on the same topics.Ebanony (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony & Jrtayloriv. You have added only a select POV which presents Jefferson in a negative light. Also, you are pushing your POV by deleting the sourced text which is against your point of view. I've added NPOV dispute tag.[39]

Ebanony, your assertion: The text you cited above was 1st undone by Jrtayloriv "Natives moved west to "improve their lot"?!?!)" [40] and Now, as to saying Jefferson believed forceful removal would "improve their lot" - that is outrageous.

My edit: Also, as the U.S. population grew from 3.9 million in 1790 to 7.2 million in 1810, "Population: 1790 to 1990". U.S. Census Bureau there were more people (it means in the context of this sentence "more American settlers") who hoped to improve their lot by moving westward. "United States Geography - Settlement Patterns". Library of Congress Country Studies

And Tobby72, how can you criticise anybody for "removal of sourced content" when you yourself deleted this source? [41] in this edit: [42].

I just imitated your comrade-in-arms Jrtayloriv: "use of non-RS (e.g. class notes from an English course)." [43] Tobby72 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there is not a POV being presented. There are a set of historical facts that are widely accepted in the scholarly community, backed by high-quality reliable sources. What is being excluded is your repeated insert of the now fringe POV that Jefferson was a benevolent white grandfather figure who was just trying to do what's best for the poor Indians. Historical research has clearly demonstrated that this is a myth, and that he willfully enacted harmful policies on the Native American tribes. You might not like this, but it's not a POV. It's simply a widely accepted fact. There is an enormous body of scholarship that supports these assertions, and none that I know of that questions the accuracy of the way it is depicted here.

On the other hand, empty talk about people "improving their lot" doesn't belong here. Given the enormous amount of informative and accurate scholarship that has been done on this subject, we don't need to include that sort of thing, unless it's in a section talking about the historical myth itself. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.[44] Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

On the other hand, empty talk about people "improving their lot" doesn't belong here.

Removal occurred because of an incessant demand for Indian lands.[45] Demands for Indian land resulted from rapid American population growth [46] (see Thomas Malthus). You judge Jefferson by today's standards and depict him as a cruel heartless monster, taking statements and events out of context, but Jefferson's tough views should be seen in a broader context of his time per WP:NPOV. Tobby72 (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72, 1st you make changes without consensus here, and you tell Jrtayloriv he can't remove your NPOV. There was no reason to add it. When we said your edits were poor academics, you claimed NPOV & "sourced text". Not all text is equal, see WP:UNDUE weight. You do this a lot. The Lewis and Clark Expedition article, as well American Indian Wars. You claimed "science" & "exploration" were the main goals - that is myth; you questioned Native American sources (The 1st time you singled out Thornton for being Cherokee & used weasel words [[47]] & the 2nd time you claimed another source was not verified [[48]]; you gave no evidence they had problems). Then you presented a fringe pov & earlier discredited scholar (Kroeber) who gave low numbers on the population numbers of North America - a classic example of early scholars minimising Genocide.

You then added NPOV when people disagreed in the LC article & in this very article [[49]] But it gets better. You ignored the talk page & removed your own NPOV sticker once you made the edits you wanted - despite not having consensus or even caring it was a violation of undue weight to minor writers [[50]]'". That's at least 2 highly questionable NPOV claims, and the talk page is a testament to it. [[51]] You lecture Jrtayloriv on removing NPOV. Looks like you will say anything to get your edits in.

No one called Jefferson a monster or judged him. We merely quoted him & respected scholars who discussed his letters on "exterminated" & "kill all of them" - direct quotes. Try a scholar:

"Jefferson's writings on Indians are filled with the straightforward assertion that the natives are to be given a simple choice -- to be "extirpate[d] from the earth" or to remove themselves out of the Americans' way. Had these same words been enunciated by a German leader in 1939, and directed at European Jews, they would be engraved in modern memory." Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine pg 104-121.

That is in context. We can be more explicit: "Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicability of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for ...the Indians in the wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination -- by starvation and uneven combat -- of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." John Toland, Adolf Hitler, pg 702. An obvious reference to the removal policies of Jackson - the very same ideas Jefferson discussed. Your arguments on US population growth prove nothing. Nobody forced them to steal land & kill its owners. We're discussing "ethnic cleansing" (or worse). Jefferson wanted that land, the whole continent, control of trade & to rival the British. He didn't go as far as Jackson, but to him, the Natives were just "merciless Indian savages". A common view among men like him at the time (he was not the worst by far or a monster, but no saint either). But it was not for the Natives benefit. Did the Germans expel the Jews for their benefit? No. But you know better than to use that rhetoric on the Holocaust pages. Why here? Ebanony (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Did the Germans expel the Jews for their benefit? No. Ebanony, how can you compare Nazi extermination camps to Indian reservations or Indian Territory? Btw, Hitler's alleged thoughts are completely irrelevant. Hitler wasn't a respected scholar of American history.

Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded). - Ebanony, 00:28, 27 October 2010[52].

Then you presented a fringe pov & earlier discredited racist scholar (Kroeber) who gave low numbers on the population numbers of North America to deny there was any Genocide. - Ebanony, 15:52, 17 January 2011[53]

You seem to promote "EuroAmerican historians" - Ebanony, 06:31, 30 October 2010[54]. you questioned Native American sources. - Ebanony, 15:52, 17 January 2011[55].

Your arguments on US population growth prove nothing. - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources [56], [57], making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Tobby72 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). -- I agree. And the view that Jefferson was benevolent and trying to help out the poor Indians, rather than methodically destroying their cultures so that he could steal their land is both absurd (given that we have written evidence of Jefferson himself suggesting the contrary) and also not widely accepted by the scholarly community. As I've said, I do think that we should mention this myth briefly, but only in the context of talking about the mainstream view that it has been thoroughly debunked, and other common myths that have been debunked by serious scholarship.
Now, regarding your arguments related to population growth, I don't think they say nothing, as Ebanony suggested. I agree with you that it is a mainstream view that population growth led to an increased demand for Indian land, which led to the ethnic cleansing of the Eastern tribes. I'm not suggesting that population growth, and other drivers of settlement, should not be mentioned. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be portrayed in a euphemistic and partial manner.
As far as "portraying Jefferson as a cruel and heartless monster", I'm not "portraying" anything other than statements of fact from mainstream reliable sources. If you feel that some of the things Jefferson said about exterminating and exploiting Indians are cruel or monstrous, then so be it, but I'm not including statements that say that sort of thing. If we had several paragraphs talking about how monstrous Jefferson was, then that would be a problem. But we don't. We've just got a neutral presentation of the historical narrative that is most widely accepted by the scholarly community. Some of the things that Jefferson did are monstrous, both by today's standards and by the standards in Jefferson's day. I don't think we should obsess about how monstrous they are, but we should try to accurately depict what happened: namely Jefferson realized that white settlers wanted more land, and engineered a plan to exterminate and assimilate native peoples so that their land could be taken. Unpleasant? Yes. But WP:NPOV is not about making history pleasant. We're under no obligation to make it sound nice in the name of neutrality by adding some debunked historical apologies, any more than we are under and obligation to make the Armenian Genocide sound nice . -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72 said: "how can you compare Nazi extermination camps to Indian reservations or Indian Territory? Btw, Hitler's alleged thoughts are completely irrelevant." First, I didn't make any comparison. John Toland & Norman Finkelstein did. I cited their "reliable, published sources" which are the majority (despite your unfounded accusation of a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Many scholars say it like Joachim Fest: Hitler modelled his "continental war of conquest...with explicit reference to the United States" Hitler, Harcourt Brace, 1973, pg 214. You gave no evidence they were "unreliable", "fringe" or a violation of NPOV, and should withdraw that claim by using (~~HTML strikeout tags~~).

As you know, Hitler also cited the Armenian Genocide as part of his inspiration, and no respected scholars denies the relevance (he knew his history). When scholars tell the other half of his inspiration, you say it's "irrelevant" and "unreliable". That shows your lack of NPOV, not mine. After all, you present no sources for those claims, but have the nerve to talk about "reliable sources" & "NPOV". That is hypocrisy, and I see it as a personal attack. Further, you copied my quotes above, but made no arrangement. You can't deny you used a discredited scholar (Kroeber) in that talk page for your fringe views on similar topics (more of your NPOV), and you attacked the writers! You presented another straw man argument here & with the population growth above, as both Jrtayloriv pointed out: you refuted nothing. You keep changing the topic. Notice how you didn't even respond when I called your NPOV statement on Lewis & Clark (friendly by killing & threatening people). You just jumped to something else.

Jrtayloriv is correct. No one called Jefferson a monster or put things out of context. But you made an uncivil comment at him calling him my "comrade-in-arms". Best to read policy "1. Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling" WP:CIV. It should be changed using (~~HTML strikeout tags~~). As to your personal attacks on the scholars above, and your accusations of bias against me with my edits or of collusion with Jrtayloriv, they're groundless. Tobby72, best to read "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" WP:PERSONAL. Avoid warring WP:EW & demanding people do things your way by disregarding consensus & making so many undo edits (how many did you do this week?). I'm warning you to stop it or we ask for comment since you've done this on 3 or 4 articles. Ebanony (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others — Molière :) Tobby72 (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72 you claimed "The Indian removal was suggested by Thomas Jefferson as the only way to ensure the survival of Native American cultures." [58] (ur edit, no?). This is false. On Jefferson's removal of "Indians", scholars say "He tried to justify his policy by claiming it was in the best interest of Indian nations to put some space between them and the land-hungry Americans." [59] Robert Miller, Native America: Discovered and Conquered, pg 90. Jefferson claimed it; so did Jackson. Your source is "digital history", some website & "online textbook" without so much as an author's name. Read policy ". Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." WP:RS No way that's better than Miller.

So yes Tobby72, the population did increase as the census you cited indicates; however, there is no mention of anything related to this topic here No Jefferson, Native Americans or removal. See: [60]. Looks like WP:OR. Policy says "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." (my emphasis) Your edit has that problem: [61].

Rjensen removed Miller's work claiming "rephrase without heavy-handed POV". [62] He cited Jennifer McClinton-Temple, Alan R. Velie (2007). "Encyclopedia of American Indian literature" p.295. Sorry but Robert Miller is an expert in the field. That's WP:UNDUE weight to an encyclopedia & a website (who?). Further, that edit Rjensen made does not quite reflect the source, which also says: "pro-removal advocates...argued that the Native Americans were being destroyed by contact with Euro-American civilization". Yes, and it lists Jefferson as someone who "argued" that "removal was the only 'solution' to the Indian problem". Compare it with the edit: "The Indian removal was suggested by Thomas Jefferson as the only way to ensure the survival of Native American cultures". [63] Putting aside the obvious reference to the "Indian problem", "removal" & the clear 20th century images scholars link it to, it is clear from both Miller & that Encyclopedia that was nothing more than an expedient political argument, arguments we need not take at face value, particularly by the "architects" of "Indian removal". These edits have no business in the article.Ebanony (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

section break 1 Extermination

I would like to propose the following changes: [64]. Any objections to adding it in? Tobby72 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I've moved your comment "extermination" here, since it's the same material we've already covered above. Second Tobby72, you made this same edit and had it reverted by consensus several times. You say "rmv exaggerated title, he never fulfilled his threats, plus add entire quote". That is just plain nonsense, and you know it. Miller did not "exaggerate" Jefferson's role. Nor did Finkelstein or the other scholars. Jefferson's plans were put into effect; they did go after the people mentioned in that letter; they did remove those tribes; they did kill a whole lot of them. Do you deny that, or that Indian Removal (Jefferson's policy) occurred under Jackson? We don't need superfluous sentences that obscure the point: Jefferson said to remove or kill those who resisted his policy. So yes, extermination in the title is appropriate. We told you about that sort of editing when you did it before [[65]], and how it's a violation of policy by using a WP:EUPHEMISM. Extermination is just that; it's not helping Indians, like you were saying earlier. There are direct links between US policy and the Holocaust, and though you denied that too, you couldn't offer any evidence for your fringe ideas.Ebanony (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes to this section from Jan 15th did not improve the article, and added irrelevant primary source materials (with no secondary sources) from Notes on Virginia, as well as long quotes and info on population etc. I've restored it to the version before that date since it's clear some edits lacked NPOV.Ebanony (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, your edits lack NPOV and did not improve any article [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. The U.S. population growth led to an increased demand for Native American land. This is a mainstream view. Although the policy of Indian Removal would be rightly denounced as ethnic cleansing in today's human rights terminology, I don't see any direct links between Nazi extermination camps and the Indian reservations or Indian Territory. Once again, Hitler's mindless thoughts (your "source") are completely irrelevant. Hitler wasn't a respected scholar of American history. I've restored sourced content, removed Jackson's Indian policy (this article is about Jefferson) & added Expert needed tag. Tobby72 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72, you added Notes on Virginia with no secondary source, so its use isyour interpretation WP:OR. Lewis and Clark - no room for that stuff. 2nd the article paraphrases secondary sources, and uses their select quotes of Jefferson ie “exterminate” and “we shall destroy all of them”. You claim bias. Miller uses those words on pgs 92, 93 [71]. SO that is nonsense. You added other parts from that 1807 letter that make Jefferson look nice, but without a secondary source so it's WP:OR. Miller says Jefferson had “genocidal views” (pg 93) because he said to remove or exterminate any tribe that resisted Americans illegally taking their lands. You claimed on Jan 30th "extermination" was "rmv exaggerated title, he never fulfilled his threats" [72]. However, in 1779 Jefferson "ordered the Virginia troops to exterminate the Shawnee Nation or drive it from its lands". Miller pg 93. Your claim is wrong, and you violated WP:Euphemism policy by removing “extermination” and by changing “forced removal” to “removal west”.

Hitler is not in the main space - more straw man argument. But you deny the Jackson link that you removed from the main space: "removed Jackson's Indian policy (this article is about Jefferson)". Miller says: "Jackson carried out most of the forced physical removals thereafter. But it was Jefferson who first devised this relocation program." (pg 90) [73].

We discussed this above in January, but you continued editing it [74] - reverted for policy violations [75]; Again, [76] - reverted for policy violations [77]; someone else joined you, repeating the same it didn't happen nonsense (Jefferson DID order extermination of the Shawnee, Miller pg 93) [78] - I demonstrated its folly in a several day discussion [79], and then reverted to an earlier version before these disruptive edits Jan 15th, (he offered no evidence for his edits) and offered to work to make changes [80]; you changed it again [81]; I reverted your edit for policy violations [82]; Yet you changed it again [83], and Jrtayloriv, reverted your edit again [84]. Ebanony (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've partially restored sourced text i.e. U.S. population growth (once again, it is a mainstream view that U.S. population growth led to an increased demand for Indian land), added Jefferson’s opinions (relevant, notable, cited) & changed POV title "Forced removal and extermination" to slightly more neutral "Forced removal and threats of extermination" (it seems Ebanony gives undue weight to the views of Robert J. Miller [85]) & kept Jackson's Indian policy. Tobby72 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Break 2 Request for comment

Interestingly, Jrtayloriv wrote recently: ...Now, regarding your arguments related to population growth, I don't think they say nothing, as Ebanony suggested. I agree with you that it is a mainstream view that population growth led to an increased demand for Indian land, which led to the ethnic cleansing of the Eastern tribes... -- Jrtayloriv 19:34, 17 January 2011 [86].

I also noticed that the main contributor to the Native American policy section was Jrtayloriv.[87]

Once again, I've partially restored repeatedly deleted material i.e. U.S. population growth per earlier consensus with Jrtayloriv, added Jefferson’s opinions (relevant, notable, cited per WP:NPOV and WP:RS) & added references per WP:RS. Jrtayloriv & Ebanony, why did you add to the article his "extermination" remarks, cherry-picked and out-of-context, while all the time deleting his other comments regarding assimilation etc.? Please explain to me. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, all significant views should be included.

I think that the best way forward would be to raise request for comment. Tobby72 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72, the whole Native American policy section is extremely POV and does require a fundamental rewrite, if you choose to try to do so, you have my full support. One example that I could cite in its inaccurate portrayal is here:

Andrew Jackson is often erroneously credited with initiating Indian Removal, because Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830,[114] during his presidency, and also because of his personal involvement in the forceful removal of many Eastern tribes.[112] But Jackson was merely legalizing and implementing a plan laid out by Jefferson in a series of private letters that began in 1803 (for example, see letter to William Henry Harrison below).[112]

Jefferson's first promotions of Indian Removal were between 1776 and 1779, when he recommended forcing the Cherokee and Shawnee tribes to be driven out of their ancestral homelands to lands west of the Mississippi River.[112] Indian removal, said Jefferson, was the only way to ensure the survival of Indians.[115] Also, as the U.S. population grew from 3.9 million in 1790 to 7.2 million in 1810,[116] more arable land had to be acquired.[117][116]

How is Jackson initiating Indian Removal erroneous? Jefferson did propose it, he might have recommended it, but he didn't initiate it. Jackson was the one that initiated it as government policy, whether or not the idea came from Jefferson, this is clearly written with an anti-Jefferson pov. I hope the whole section gets a makeover. _WikiMan^One 16:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jrtayloriv & Ebanony started reversing all my edits. I think I have no chance to improve the section. Best, Tobby72 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't give up, instead suggest changes on this page and if they are more npov than that one, I will certainly support them. They can't undo your edits if they are the result of consensus on this page. _WikiMan^One 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not suggesting that population growth, and other drivers of settlement, should not be mentioned. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be portrayed in a euphemistic and partial manner." 17 January Jrtayloriv. This was in response to statements like this by Tobby72 #1 "Removal occurred because of an incessant demand for Indian lands." and cited [88]. But that is Not what the book says.

What Prince actually says after discussing the population (pg 102), is "Many young men and women were ready to seek their fortunes in the bluegrass country beyond the Appalachians" -ie they went there for financial gain, NOT a lack of space. Prince says Natives were removed because: "Native Americans who had professed support for Britain were presumed by white Americans to have forfeited their lands and were expected to be removed" (pg 103) - nothing about space.

Jefferson agreed: "As early as 1776 Jefferson called for the extermination of the Cherokee Nation and its removal west of the Mississippi because the Cherokee people fought for the British in the Revolution." Miller 93 [89] - nothing there about space.

Prince likewise says "On the frontier, native Americans were enemies to be killed or driven away." (pg 103) Again, Jefferson agreed: Also, during the Revolution, when he was governor of Virginia, Jefferson ordered Virginia troops to exterminate the Shawnee Nation or to drive it from its lands" Miller pg 93. So removal did not occur just because of "incessant demand for land" - there was more to it, and it included orders of extermination by Jefferson, not just "threats".

2nd "Indian removal, said Jefferson, was the only way to ensure the survival of Indians." Jefferson did say that. But Miller says "He tried to justify his policy by claiming it was in the best interest of Indian nations to put some space between them and the land-hungry Americans." - ie he made an argument for it.

Tobby72's own source, Temple, agrees with Miller & says it was just a political argument by "pro-removal advocates": "pro-removal advocates...argued that the Native Americans were being destroyed by contact with Euro-American civilization". It lists Jefferson as someone who "argued" that "removal was the only 'solution' to the Indian problem" [90]. Tobby72 obscures that is was a political justification.

3rd "Also, as the U.S. population grew from 3.9 million in 1790 to 7.2 million in 1810, more arable land had to be acquired." Yes the population grew, and they wanted land. But the clear implication that the Natives were in the way, and their land "had" to be taken (& they removed or killed) is NOT what the source says. Your sources cited: Wolferman [91] & Prince [92]

Wolferman pg 48 lists population, the Louisiana Purchase and then says "People took advantage of the vast expanse of American land and moved from eastern states." Nothing about they "had" to do it for land. They chose to do it. "What about the Native Americans who already occupied the land between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi River? Jefferson assumed that they would continue to move west of the Mississippi to keep from being engulfed by white settlers." No support in Wolferman's book.

Prince pg 105 "The Louisiana Purchase...was perceived by Jefferson as a means of both satisfying American land hunger and providing adequate reserves for the Native Americans". White Americans "had" to move there? No. He says it was to "satisfy...land hunger", not a necessity. He does not even hint that it was inevitable (ie the manifest destiny argument) or had to happen - no support for this.

The WP:EUPHEMISM word games of removing "extermination" and adding "threats of extermination" have no justification; these words have support in Miller, Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine 1996, pg 104-121; James Ronda, Thomas Jefferson and the changing West 1997 pg 10; Richard Drinnon, Facing west pg 96 [93] and more.

Now if Tobby72 is serious about improving the article, he can start discussing changes before he makes them, and can then go by what the books say, and actually show some respect instead of ignoring all the editors' concerns. 13 pov pushing edits & not one source to back these claims (yeah, population grew. We know, but it changes nothing). As to "How is Jackson initiating Indian Removal erroneous?" Man I didn't write the text, and also disagree with "initiating", and have always been willing to compromise to fix the article. Your proposal?Ebanony (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a bigger issue than I thought, let me rephrase that, I will support the addition of sourced material and the reworking of the section to a more npov. This includes not taking it to the other extreme in pov, I don't have a dog in this fight. _WikiMan^One 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Man I offered to make changes, but these guys (the other who felt no evidence was needed) just refused my offers [94]. I have tried. All I got were policy violations & edit warring. I didn't write this section, so I have "no horse" either. None of these blokes propose any alternatives, except ones that violate policy - and they rammed them in 13 or so times. One example, Tobby72's last edit on Feb 6th, which you were willing to support, was more edit warring & a direct violation of copyright: "Once again, I've partially restored repeatedly deleted material" just above: [95]. Tobby72's numerous violations of copyright have been referred to the noticeboard, where they decided additional problems were evident [96]There's a serious NPOV problem in his edit, and a violation of WP:euphemism by denying "extermination", and promoting mythology, so I'm not sure you realise what is going on: it looks like fringe theories or apolegitics. If you go back and read the above 2 sections, and review the edits, a very different reality emerges. This is by someone who repeatedly questions any Native American source (alleging bias), highlights their ethnicity in the main space (& only theirs), and has used weasel words. This is easy to demonstrate. As to moving forward, you'll notice he's still proposed no viable alternatives, and no one has responded to mine. Ebanony (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose the following changes to the article:

Indian removal, said Jefferson, was the only way to ensure the survival of Indians. Jennifer McClinton-Temple, Alan R. Velie (2007). "Encyclopedia of American Indian literature". Infobase Publishing. p.295. ISBN 0816056560 Also, as the U.S. population grew from 3.9 million in 1790 to 7.2 million in 1810, Hugh C. Prince (1997). "Wetlands of the American Midwest: a historical geography of changing attitudes". University of Chicago Press. p.105. ISBN 0226682838 more arable land had to be acquired. Kristie C. Wolferman (1997). "The Osage in Missouri". University of Missouri Press. p.48. ISBN 0826211224 Wetlands of the American Midwest: a historical geography of changing attitudes". University of Chicago Press. p.105. ISBN 0226682838

It's relevant, and useful, I think. Of course, I will accept any consensus. Tobby72 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with some stuff you say, & submit an　alternative to what you keep posting over and over again:

As the US population increased, Americans increased their demand for Native owned lands. Pro-Indian Removal advocates "argued that the 'savage' Indian never could never coexist with the 'civilised' white", and wanted them removed & to be replaced with white settlers (McClinton-Temple, Velie p 295). Some of them, like Jefferson, claimed that Indian removal was "the only solution to the Indian problem'" (McClinton-Temple, Velie p 295). Commenting on this, Miller says "Jefferson tried to justify his policy by claiming it was in the best interest of the Indian nations (Miller p 90)." Under his and his successor's administrations, no fewer than 53 treaties were signed, which ceded large areas of Native lands (to the US (Wolferman p 49).

I quoted directly from the sources you cited, and only from Miller once. However, none of the texts you cited supports your statements as in NO. 1 "more arable land had to be acquired." This is WP:OR & WP:FRINGE theory, and misrepresents Wolferman's book Ossage. The clear implication is that Indian Removal "had" to happen because the US was too small for its population, so the Indians were in the way by wasting land and had to go. It's apologetics, and Wolferman made no such claim on any page you cited. We told you here [97] and [98] & EXPLICITLY [99] what here book says. You're engaging in WP:OR or just making stuff up. You keep posting this same stuff, & have been since before [100] Jan 16 when you claimed the sources supported this stuff. Like I said _WikiMan^One, he wouldn't make any new proposal. This is why we argue. He demands his way - no matter how fringe - over and over again.

No. 2 "Indian removal, said Jefferson, was the only way to ensure the survival of Indians." It must be clear that this was a political justification for what we today would term ethnic cleansing: policies which resulted in the wholesale dispossession thousands of miles of land, many thousands dead (Trail of Tears?), and is the source of current litigation in US courts. Saying/implying Jefferson wanted to kick out and, in the process kill those Indians who refused to leave (which he & scholars said), as being an effort to help them "survive" is apolegitcs, and has NO support in ANY text you cited. Period. Jefferson knew he wasn't kicking people off their land to help them (or that it was a mostly empty land with only a few natives). Just because he said it doesn't mean we repeat it without appropriate secondary sources that comment on it. For example, Jefferson's race or his absurd & racist claims about black women & relations with primates. We, as editors, do not give credence to such nonsense. You do. Why?

My proposal takes into account your concerns & YOUR sources, but it doesn't minimise Jefferson's role, or exaggerate it. I included your info on population & your sources - directly. That's compromise. Maybe after a month you'll offer something new. It's getting ridiculous. Ebanony (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I still have some doubts about neutrality, but let's wait and see what the others have to say about your proposal. The key is to gain broader consensus for what you suggest. Btw, I did not give any credence to racist claims about black women. Please se WP:CIVIL. Tobby72 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My apology for any confusion: I never said or meant to imply you gave support to racist claims about Jefferson's comments on black women; I said you give support to fringe Theories on Native Americans which I document above, and that is something not allowed even IF some here agree - the books say one thing, you say another. That's not "uncivil"; that's the fact: No WP:OR & no WP:FRINGE theories; these are wikipedia pillars, as in WP:V which requires direct support in the text: a look reveals no such statements/evidence in the sources you cited. You have "doubts" about neutrality??? I directly quoted from the sources you yourself supplied, and only took 1 quote from the book by Miller. You're now saying the sources you provided lack neutrality? Or do you claim my edit does not reflect the books? They are direct quotes.

Further, I don't want to add this to the article; I've only agreed to discuss certain changes because you've demanded them for over a month; those changes must reflect WP:RS, not your opinion. My proposal adheres to policy, whilst including some of what you want ie your info on population & your sources. You requested "comment" after everyone told you no to your edits, not I. I wasn't the one trying to change the section. Ebanony (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)