Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Sub-headers and placement on Hemings section

I added some sub-headers to try to define the controversy and changing scholarship. Put Mayer and Wallenborn in where they belonged chronologically in the history of the controversy. (Wallenborn's wife was in the TJHS, as I recall, whose findings were discredited on grounds of historical practice by the Natl Genealogical Society.)Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson retirement library

Why was the discovery of Jefferson's retirement library edited out? Wikipedia needs to keep up with new information on Jefferson. In my opinion, Jefferson's retirement library discovery is historically valid. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The section was edited out because it wasn't needed. He's got a section on personal interests; however, if you look at it, you'll see that I placed some of your work on that library there. So some is still there. I did the same with the other editor who added content after you; his edits repeat things over and over, and he's done that to this article many times. We've got limited space, and need to think of the importance of these topics. We can only add so much.Ebanony (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I appreciate your edit, Ebanony, however, the main focus on the NYT article was the retirement library discovery. I can add just a sentence to mention the discovery. I agree that saving space in the article is good. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not against adding some things, but these don't need their own sections. The previous article was too crowded, and had too many topics. I'd suggest also combining Inventions and improvements with the preexisting parts. Yes, he did many things, but it's easier to mention the more important things briefly than to give each a section.Ebanony (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I combinded sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Inventions and improvements

There needs to be a brief section on Thomas Jefferson's inventions and improvements of other inventions. He invented a gravity powered Great Clock and improved the moldboard wood plow and the polygraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a section because there already is one. Better to add the info to Interests, inventions and improvements [1] This should also be brief, though.Ebanony (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Concensus Sally Hemings

What source says there is concensus with Thomas Jefferson being the father of Sally Heming's children? I read the paragraph and there was no source cited. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the lede is based on the content of the article, which discusses at length the changes in Jeffersonian scholarship. It does not usually require separate sourcing but I put it in as the issue is controversial. Consensus is indicated by the fact that her work has changed Jeffersonian scholarship - writers now start from the basis that he fathered Hemings' children. The major awards made to Gordon-Reed's work are the result of numerous juried processes among distinct scholarly bodies - those awarding the Pulitzer and various history prizes. Her book, The Hemingses of Monticello, is based on Jefferson's relationship with Heming and paternity of her children. I used the MacArthur Award paragraph as a way to sum up that sense - that's what they mean by saying that she has changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship. The recognition given to her work and its conclusions is discussed in the Hemings section.Parkwells (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
agreed, but this detail belongs in the article on Gordon-Reed, not Jefferson. All we need do is cite her as a RS. This is not a historiography of Jefferson --such an article is needed and will cover many influential scholars. Rjensen (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This has gotten into more historiography because of some editors who keep bringing up those who disagree with the changes in scholarship. I agree it would be better elesewhere, but it keeps getting brought it, as some editors earlier would not accept references.

The Pulitzer is in concensus with Gordon-Reed's book. That does not neccessarily mean all or a majority of historians concur with Gordon-Reed. I suppose the difficulty is defining what historical concensus is, then, applying this criteria to Jefferson and Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Her book is based on Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children. Those 16 awards represent separate group decisions by leading historical associations in the field that her work is worthy of award, including her conclusions on Jefferson-Hemings.
This defininition of concensus is taken from Wikipedia:"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first – general agreement and, second – group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together.[1]It is used to describe both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

For example, Sally Heming's descendants can't be buried at Monticello. That is an ongoing controversy. The TJF also stated that the evidence is not conclusive. Has there been resolution and/or mitigation with the burial controversy and TJF view point on Jefferson and Sally Hemings? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough already! We already have a consensus here that the position of the Monticello Association does not represent academic consensus nor professional historians; their position on not admitting Hemings' descendants also goes against the conclusions of the National Genealogical Society. The lineage society is taking a narrow line and not wanting to change their criteria for membership application.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added a quote to the article by Stein, a curator at Monticello, who estimated in 2003 that "90 percent of professional historians agree" about Jefferson's relationship with Hemings. You're picking out only part of what the TJF posted - they repeated the 2000 statement by their committee, as well as numerous facts about Jefferson-Hemings. They say that the evidence as to the type of relationship is not conclusive - they invite visitors to make up their own minds about "the nature of the relationship". We are not going to continue to turn the article inside out because of your concern about a few outliers. You are giving them too much weight.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Stein source is valid. I am not sure how Stein arrived at 90%, however, the article needed some source that mentioned concensus. Thanks Parkwells. I do not call barring burial rights to almost 250 descendants of Sally Heming's insiginifigant from Thomas Jefferson's graveyard. Remember concensus requires resolution and/or mitigations to minority objections.Hemings' Descendants Meet That controversy remains. Even in the Stein article there was mention of Sally Heming's descendants barred from being members of the Monticello Association. I never mentioned turning the article inside out. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My point was that the Monticello Association issue does not represent an academic controversy, but the decision by a private lineage society not to alter their rules at all to accommodate different criteria for membership for the Hemings descendants. This is a private organization; they are choosing to follow people whom they commissioned, willfully misreading the DNA study, and denying the statements of the National Genealogical Society, among other major groups that agree with the consensus on Jefferson's paternity.Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The MA is in charge of Thomas Jefferson's graveyard. The MA does not endorse that Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Heming's children and bars them from membership into the organization. Even if the MA followed "people whom they commissioned, willfully misreading the DNA study, and denying the statements of the National Genealogical Society, among other major groups that agree with the consensus on Jefferson's paternity." concensus by definition requires "resolution or mitigation of minority objections". As of yet there has been no mitigation or resolution with Sally Heming's descendants with the MA. The MA wields power over whom is buried at Monticello and in essence has denied the opinion of 90% of academic historians. My suggestion is to change the section title from "Consensus" to "Academic consensus" or "Academic agreement". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I added material on differing opinions to the Monticello Association article, which is where it belongs. They are judging based on their own criteria for membership, which is different than what others are evaluating - although they have also ignored the statement of the National Genealogical Society. Too much space in this article is already given to those who cannot accept the body of evidence. Academic consensus sounds good, as generally the article has relied on the published works of historians.Parkwells (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Parkwells. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for vote

These are explanations for how I voted in the "FIVE PAGES FOR HEMINGS/CONTROVERSY??" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"For reducing the "Controversy" section as long as content is kept."
Reasons: The first five paragraphs can be summarized into one paragraph. Dr. Foster information can be summarized into one paragraph. The conclusions and critisism can be reduced to one paragraph. That would leave three paragraphs for the "Controversy" section. Since the information is good, any paragraphs taken out of the Thomas Jefferson article could be used in the Sally Hemings article, if needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"Against reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections."
Reasons: There may be undo weight with Gordon-Reed in the "Academic concensus" section. To be honest, that section reads as if Wikipedia is attempting to convince or prove a point, rather then state there is academic consensus. As Rjensen suggested the information would be good in the Gordon-Reed article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Much of this material got added because you kept raising objections, saying there wasn't evidence, and, given the outcome, you have given too much space to critics and opposing historiography. It can be condensed.Parkwells (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
My objections were on concensus, not Gordon-Reed. I am for keeping the "Academic consensus" section. I would just rephrase the Gordon-Reed section in terms of directly related to consensus. Does winning a Pulitzer award automatically imply concensus? The part about the Monticello Association should be kept in the article, although reduced to one sentence. The content in the current article should not be lost with the reduction of paragraphs. My primary concern is that content be kept in the article that discusses any objections or conclusions of any research groups, foundations, or associations in regards to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some text issues (yes, one of them is with the lede)

I was reading the lede today and there is an issue with the following text: "However he owed his fortune to tobacco plantations worked by hundreds of slaves."

  • Technically, nowhere in this article is his ownership of any plantations sourced. As a matter of fact, the only place the word 'plantation' is used is within the lede.
  • Nowhere in the article are the crops of any plantations mentioned. Monticello is mentioned within the article but not what was grown on its land or on any of Jefferson's landholdings. The crops of his landholdings in the Virginia counties of Bedford and Goochland are not mentioned.

Also, this sentence is in the Slavery section: "'Jefferson inherited slaves as a child, and owned hundreds of black men, women and children all his life."

  • The above appears to be a mischaracterization of Cohen's work. From the online copy I was able to find here, the only time Cohen mentions the number of people Jefferson held as slaves is in the first sentence of: "It seems paradoxical that Thomas Jefferson, one of the enduring heroes of American democracy, should have been the owner of more than 180 slaves at the very time..."

So I have attempted to verify how many human being Jefferson held as slaves. This source states that Jefferson had 110 dower slaves when he married Martha Wayles, that in 1798 he held 141 people, two years later he held 93 and after his death, 130 people were sold to pay his estate's debts. The Monticello website states that Jefferson did hold a total of 600 individuals as slaves during his lifetime, most of the number coming from the women having children born into slavery. The website states: "He acquired approximately 175 slaves through inheritance: about 40 from the estate of his father, Peter Jefferson, in 1764, and 135 from his father-in-law, John Wayles, in 1774. Jefferson purchased fewer than twenty slaves in his lifetime,..." According to my understanding, ledes don't have to necessarily have inline citations but sourced material in them is supposed to be contained within the following article so it appears to me that these issues should be addressed.
Also, the last paragraph ends with: "His views on the inferiority of blacks, and his likely sexual relations with one of them, have severely damaged his reputation among scholars in the 21st century." The only other person mentioned in the lede is mentioned by name. That's all. -- Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson's slave population at Monticello fluctuated. Owning hundreds of slaves is historically accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"a mischaracterization of Cohen's work." Not true. Jefferson did own hundreds of slaves at that point, and it fluctuated over the years, but total aggregate exceeded 180. Solution: find a better source. Second, read the manual of style, the "lead should [have] reliable, published sources" WP:LEAD. But these sentences in question appear in the slavery section; all text needs sources WP:V.Ebanony (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting

This is a very long article that digresses into too many topics. Here are some sections that should be summarized here, but get their own articles:

Purplebackpack89 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Martha Radolph

Gordon-Reed source does not mention Martha Randolph. Removed:

Martha Randolph was mistaken about where Jefferson was at particular times, as shown by Dumas Malone's documented timeline of his life. Did Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson Love Each Other? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Shortened controversy section was shortened

Made a first cut. I kept all the former material and am working on a draft controversy article, with all the cites.Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to bring some sanity to the Jefferson page. The 'controversy' section has been reduced from more than four pages to about one +, thanks you, but there is still way to much redundant material that does not belong in any biography. Also, more work is still needed in the lede. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

I believe the sentence "Many people disliked his tenure, and he not win office again in Virginia." in the introductory section should be "Many people disliked his tenure, and he did not win office again in Virginia." Stevemuckle (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done- thanks for catching that.--JayJasper (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy Sally Hemings

On the "relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings" the TJF says that "the evidence is not definitive". The site also says, the "paternity of one or more of Sally Hemings' children cannot be established with absolute certainty". This needs to be in the article for balance. Why was this information edited out from the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why they put in all those qualifiers - most historical evidence cannot support "absolute certainty". I think if you use only those qualifiers, it does not indicate the sense of that web page, which has the committee's saying Jefferson's paternity was probable. You'll note the page ends with saying the nature of the relationship may never be known - but not that there is a question as to whether there was a relationship.Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cmguy, I think you're misreading the TJF page. Even an early Monticello Association opponent of admitting the Hemings descendants, David Works, said this about the TJF position: "I agreed pretty much with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation conclusion that the simplest and most reasonable explanation was that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings."[1]Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is how the NY Times interprets their position: "For several years now, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns Monticello, has held the position that the third president of the United States probably had one if not several children with Hemings, based on DNA analysis and persuasive circumstantial evidence; namely, that Jefferson seems to have been at Monticello whenever Hemings conceived."/"As a result, the tour-guide talking point for the centuries-old gossip about Jefferson and Hemings has changed from the “possible but not likely” of a decade ago to the “highly likely” of today."[2]Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Parkwells. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The controversy section is looking good, fair, and balanced! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FIVE PAGES FOR HEMINGS/CONTROVERSY??

What in the world is going on with this page?? There is currently FIVE PAGES of material on Hemings/controversy. This is a clear undue weight issue. The section needs to be reduced immediately and material removed/moved to the Hemings (and other) page(s) where this material is already covered. Enough talk/speculation/theory/conjecture. Weigh in please: (Please don't use this section for discussion. Vote/explanation only. Start new section if necessary.)
For or against reduction/removal with brief explanation for vote. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, Willickers, WP talk discussions shouldn't be used as a vote Purplebackpack89 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Against - As an historian, I can tell you that there is already a consensus on this topic. We cannot sanitize history and have not been charged to do so. This was a controversy that he experienced in his own time and it is still relevant. The POV pushing occurring on this subject is extreme. Removing whole chapters of historical consensus is tantamount to idol worship. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede

How is it that Hemings is referred to, by name, in the lede when there is no mention of even people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin or even his wife, Martha Jefferson? 'Does anyone remember her?' These are all people who had had a direct bearing on Jefferson's revolutionary and political involvements and are -completely- pivotal to Jefferson. -- In the second paragraph the topics of.. wartime Governor and 1st US Secretary of State, the 2nd VP, the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark ..are all crammed into one sentence! In this sentence mention is made that Jefferson was 1st Secretary of State, but did not mention under Washington. Meanwhile mention is made of slavery and not only is Hemings mentioned by name, there is additional info' present 'in the lede' for it. There is even mention of DNA analysis and historical studies and leading scholars. There are EIGHT references for the paragraph that has been given this topic -- while the the other THREE paragraphs in the lede have only 'four' ref's. The first sentence in the slavery/Hemings paragraph has FOUR references. Has the writer(s) here lost all sense of proportionality and UNDUE weight? Jefferson's slaves by all means warrant mention in the latter part of the lede with one sentence and a link to the section on slavery, where this topic should get no more than one page of coverage, if that, and in summary form only. There it can link to where this information is expounded on to the editors in question heart's delight. -- Again, the Hemings sections, (yes, more than one) has 4 to 5 pages. What's next? DNA charts? This topic has gotten the most coverage in the lede and in the body of text -- BY FAR. This flagrant violation of undue weight needs to be stopped immediately. The talk has gone on long enough and the page just worsens. It is no wonder to me why this page has lost its GA status. I am going to bring this problem to the attention of someone, I am not sure who, someone who is best suited to be presented with a problem of this proportion and duration. This is not the first time the Jefferson page has had this much Hemings material crammed into its pages. If any of the other seasoned editors know of other administrators or others who can effectively deal with this situation, please direct them to this talk page. Btw, we need more than a 'Request for Comment'. A clear line should be laid down. One sentence in the lede; No more than one page for the slavery/Hemings topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite a normal process for anything that is controversial. It gets mentioned, then someone starts adding qualifiers and claiming undue weight, then others add more qualifiers and sources to show the weight, and so on ad absurdum. IS this WRITING style the NEW cool THING? AM i doing IT right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I only came in recently, but believe it lost the GA status before that. Agree the larger section has undue weight, but findings that change the course of Jeffersonian scholarship about an issue at the heart of American history are not trivial; they are important because they point to more than Jefferson and Hemings.Parkwells (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what the Sally Hemings controversy section in July'08 looked like. One page, about 3-5k worth of text and code, depending. As I have pointed out before, about one year ago the section looked like this with its four pages. it was scaled down to less than a page and moved and linked to the Sally Hemings page, but over the last year the same thing has occurred all over again, the section, little by little, has fattened to gross proportions, and in the midst of redundant and rehashed talk that has only proven to be disruptive, often discouraging other historians and writers. The page changes by the hour sometimes. It's been doing this for reasons apart from maintenance edits and such. The last time I looked the controversy section had more than four pages of text, still. After more than a year of talk history, here also, has repeated itself. It was and is time to tally up consensus so everyone can take constructive and definite steps about correcting this prolonged and continued violation of undue weight policy. I also suspect that some are merely content with keeping the controversy alive here at Wikipedia and care not about the biography overall. More than a year's worth of edit history and the repeated inclusion of gross amounts of additional information with its often selective and narrow wording is certainly consistent with that idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


I tried to fix the lede to emphasize his achievements rather than the list of offices, and to put the slavery issue in context and explain what it did to TJ's reputation, with a cite to Appleby. Rjensen (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is an improvement, really. It takes out Hemings name (which provided a natural link to find more info), it implicitly but unconditionally describes Hemings as "black", which is only correct for the one-drop rule or similar definitions of "black", and it trivializes the affair by omitting the long-term aspect and the children. I also think that the sources used so far are very useful (although they may not all need to go into the lede). And finally, I don't think Jefferson's reputation among scholars has been "severely damaged". Scholars are used to complex, differentiated persons and situations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
the reason scholars debate the Hemings issue is primarily one of Jefferson's reputation, and as Appleby and many others say, it has taken quite a hit. If his reputation had NOT been damaged then Hemings gets one line in the text and none in the lede. The lede should summarize the main text rather than attempt to prove points independently of the main text. For example in Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: history, memory, and civic culture (1999) by Jan Lewis et al, we read " Jefferson's reputation depends on how we think he handled himself in this relationship." p 251. His reputation is greatly affected by the slavery issue, as pointed out in The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Jefferson (2009) by Frank Shuffelton p 2Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that "has significantly changed the public and scholarly perception of Jefferson" is a more neutral formulation. The slavery issue in general and Hemings in particular are, as far as I can tell, somewhat independent issues. The hypocrisy of a slaveholder declaring that "all humans" are endowed with the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a different hypocrisy from the one of a white supremacist having sex (and children) with a mixed-blood person. The first affected Jefferson's reputation long before Hemings became a major topic. Of course, as Lewis et al point out, there are potentially more serious accusations depending on how one views the Jefferson-Hemings-relationship. But I don't see a perception, scholarly or public, of a Legrand-like Jefferson forcing himself onto an innocent little girl. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think what some people were saying in 1999 about Jefferson re: Hemings is different than current opinion; how much they had been holding him up as an icon and denying interracial relations in VA probably relates to how much they thought his reputation was "damaged". Many African Americans and people who studied Southern history objectively were not surprised at all by the "news", especially his descendants by Hemings. His reputation re: his general stand on slavery is a different issue. There is some separation between public and private life. The reason for addressing Jefferson-Hemings in the lede and article (I agree, not to the extent here), is because the later controversy, coverups and denials are so symbolic of the issues of race at the heart of Southern and American history - that's where the controversy was, with historians deciding they had to "protect" him from his own actions, life and truth. What he did was ordinary among planters and white men with power. The work by Gordon-Reed is too important to be glossed over, as the direction of Jeffersonian scholarship has changed.Parkwells (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Within this article, it should have a brief mention in a section which leads the reader into a sub-article where all of this can be fleshed out. We shouldn't let modern sensationalism pervade and throw historical context out of whack. This article isn't about "later controversy, coverups and denials are so symbolic of the issues of race at the heart of Southern and American history...". The undue weight issue is clouding over the more significant aspects of the article subject. It isn't glossing over but rather it is putting it into perspective. Hemmings shouldn't be mentioned in the lede...she wasn't really significant herself and the modern issues, although interesting, should not be an overriding theme.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The MacArthur Foundation is hardly a sensationalizing organization, but it awarded a fellowship to Annette Gordon-Reed for her work in "changing the course of Jeffersonian scholarship, and disentangling interracial relations of colonial and early federal Virginia", re: Jefferson and the Hemingses. I think Hemings should be mentioned in the lede as she is the way his relationship was known, and she deserves her own name, not just to be called "a slave". We need to follow the scholarship here.Parkwells (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. History is about more than dead white males. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
While the fuller discussion belongs in the "Historiography of the Controversy", this is not just a case of "modern issues", as Berean Hunter said above. The fact that male historians worked so hard to deny the reality for 200 years is why it is important beyond the present.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The entire subject of Hemmings is a modern view which is largely toted for its sensationalism and the fact that it sells copy. Hemmings herself wasn't notable and if it weren't for the modern controversy, none of her descendants were/are notable either (do any of them have articles?). The controversy is article-worthy but should not trump this article. The objections stated in the !vote consensus amounts to giving correct compartmentalization of subjects to disallow a skewed POV. Personally, I don't believe any modern historian needs to be mentioned in the lede section of any article...the article isn't about them, they should be mentioned appropriately and within context. And this article is about a dead white male and his impact on history, law and other significant matters. Hemmings is nothing more than a footnote in historical scale. No great significance. Just a modern issue that sells copy. It should not be taken out of perspective...a perspective that may be seen when searching through sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
James Callender in September, 1802 broke open the contoversy. That is why historians over the centuries have determined to destroy Callander's reputation. Also, Methodist and Baptist churches and ministers during Jefferson's time supported black equality and freedom from slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The above "!vote" has been heavily canvassed and up less then a day. Claiming "consensus" based on it is, at best, premature. See Eston Hemings for your question. Yes, this article is about Jefferson. That includes the major factors is his life - like the woman he almost certainly took to bed over 38 years and had several children with. Nice tool!. Of course, we must avoid recentism, but we must avoid systemic bias just as much. The fact that Hemings only came to prominence recently has as more to do with the civil rights movement and improved scholarship than with a desire to "sell copy". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
My point was that Hemings deserves to be named, as a reflection of current scholarship, rather than referred to as "a slave" in the lede. Jefferson made her important, yes, or his followers did. What is important to the controversy is how it affected scholarship for so long. By the way, both Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings Jefferson have articles, as do other of their descendants, including John Wayles Jefferson, a Union colonel in the Civil War, and Frederick Madison Roberts, a California congressman. I do not think historians need to be named in the lede. This is not just a modern issue that sells copy. The book on The Hemingses of Monticello (2007) won the Pulitzer Prize for history and 15 other major historic awards. We have an obligation to reflect that the scholarship has changed to acknowledge the fuller history.Parkwells (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

edit-break1

You know the old adage, "If you do some something right, they never remember; if you do something wrong, they never forget." Here is a prime example of a man's writings now holding less truth, because he had sex with a slave. Obviously men are not created equal, because Jefferson was a slave owner. Therefore, since he wasn't perfect, he lacks credibility. So we shouldn't tell our children to not smoke pot, because maybe we did. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Nobody (*) is perfect. That does not mean that we should cast all ideas and ideals aside. But it's very much counterproductive to put Jefferson or anybody onto a false pedestal. His ideas are worthy not because of what he was, but for their intrinsic value. Prop up the idea, not the man. (*)Possibly your (generic you) religion describes a small integer number of perfect humans. They are irrelevant for this discussion. And I disagree ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The Founders Intent comments are off the topic of improving the lede. I think it's likely that most historians don't care that Jefferson had the relationship. The lede as it stands overlinks the "reputation" issues of his policy and expressed thoughts on slavery, for which historians' comments were sourced, ,and his relationship with Heming for which no reputation issue is sourced. Stephan Schulz and I both suggested changes to this paragraph to represent scholarship changes and the widely accepted facts. My changes were reverted. What is there is not consistent with current scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Gwillickers...in general, there aren't many references in leads. I agree with you that a paragraph in the lead and many paragraphs in the body are too much for this particular article. I disagree with doing anything more than reducing the content in this article, and I believe that if the content is reliably sourced, it belongs someplace. I also think you perhaps need to tone it down a notch Purplebackpack89 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC
Hello Purplebackpack89, What I am advocating is reduction and removal of redundant and excess specialized information. As for my tone, I believe at this point it is called for. This controversy has kept the Jefferson page in disarray for more than a year and has occurred before in the same gross and inconsiderate proportions. 'Talk' has been going on for some time and the page was getting worse. In practice the issue of undue wight continued to be ignored. Consensus needed to be clear and established. The 'vote' is nothing more than what occurs when editors try to sum up consensus. Now that consensus is quite defined, it's time to take positive action and to see to it that policy is observed and that the topic in question gets no more summary treatment than the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence has gotten. No other biography, anywhere, has gone so far afield on such a small topic. Much of the controversy is orchestrated with the typical in you face tactics, with the ignoring of basic WP policy, and with the sort of tone we have witnessed in the lede and elsewhere. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
As we have not come to consensus on the last paragraph, I have removed most of it for discussion here:

Rjensen has suggested: Historians Jan Lewis and Peter Onuf distinguish between Jefferson's beliefs and his public legacy, contending:

"Jefferson's articulation of the fundamental principles of modern democracy -- government only by the consent of the governed, freedom of conscience, the right to privacy, the independence of religion from the state -- have outlived not only him but also his limited capacity to find in them a way to terminate slavery."[3]
I don't think it is right to omit the change in scholarship re: Jefferson and Hemings.Parkwells (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not omit anything from the last version but added a point made by leading scholars: Their point (Lewis and Onuf and Jack Rakove too) is that people are talking on the one hand about Jefferson-the-person (his reputation is seriously damaged) and on the other Jefferson-the-thinker....the latter influence is stronger than ever -- look at Tunisia Egypt and Libya these days for example regarding consent of the governed. (Jefferson, by the way, sent the Navy to Tripoli, an issue under debate this week). Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I had suggested a change that reflected the change in Jeffersonian scholarship that now recognizes he had a relationship with Sally Hemings (she should be referred to by name rather than as "a slave", both because she was a person and her name is highly identified with the controversy.) That was reverted altogether by an editor who told me we had not reached consensus here. We have not reached consensus on your suggestions either. Again, people are saying his reputation is damaged because of his stand on slavery. I have not seen much recent reflection on this saying his reputation was damaged because of his actions with Hemings (and it would still be because it took people so long to learn the truth about him, which was a truth typical for many planters of his time.)Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
First, Gwillhickers and one other complained there were too many sources in the lede on Hemings & slavery. Well, that is what the manual of style of stipulates: "it should...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" and "must be carefully sourced as appropriate" WP:LEAD. So we shall disregard those objections (this comes from a person who adds things to articles with no sources at all).
Second, "a modern view which is largely toted for its sensationalism and the fact that it sells copy. Actually, it's not "modern"; it's a 200 + yr controversy - it's not new. Resolving it, now that is new. "Sensationalism"? No, you mean efforts by white writers to misrepresent African American slave women and to disregard their humanity; and it's disrespectful not to mention her name. Third, there is no consensus on removing Hemings from the lede, and it should be mentioned, at least in 1 sentence. THAT is the most important work scholars did on Jefferson in decades. Ebanony (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you implying it (relationship with Hemmings) now deserves a higher proportionate representation in the article, because it took people so long to learn the truth about him? Frankly I think historians always knew about this, but modern politics (which articles must be guarded against) has brought increased emphasis to this part of Jefferson history. At the start of this thread it appears that the chief complaint was an OVER-emphasis on Hemmings (especially in the lede), and some of this should be move elsewhere. BTW, I don't mean to imply that the politics is yours, just in society general. Maybe the conflict over liberty for all and slavery within Jefferson (and as a societal issue) deserves a focused article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm saying the lead guidelines say some topics require a larger amount of space. That doesn't mean it should be too long, but Hemings is required in the lead: "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It's size: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." WP:LEAD) Hemings is very important to Jefferson & studies on him, and it's the major area of study for quite some time. The lead on Hemings should be at least 1 sentence, and could easily be 2-3 according to this. Most are happy with 1-2 good sentences on it. As to the main text, a section with 2 -3 paragraphs is perfectly reasonable, and that's actually about the same size as the section on slavery and Native American policy. So I'm saying it needs at least the same coverage as other topics. Some on here demand a reduction of this, and a removal from the lead. That is the problem: they ignore the guidelines.Ebanony (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this topic still raging? We have already been down this road and continue to be taken down this road by a few POV-pushing editors. The Hemings information listed on this page is appropriate. At some point, once a consensus has been reached, this topic should be permanently closed. The way some of these editors are conducting themselves, by continually bringing up the same topics over and over again, is nothing short of abuse. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

This is a general proposal for the lede, which still mentions Hemings. As the lede is just short of undergoing an edit war, and because it continues to change several times inside hours I am posting the paragraph the way it reads at the time of this posting. Previous versions still attempt to single out Jefferson as some sort of cruel entity with unusual views towards Africans in his day.

Jefferson continues to be hailed and memorialized as the leading American exponent of liberty and democracy and though he depended upon his tobacco plantations worked by hundreds of his own slaves, and struggled with the idea of an institution he was born into, he would eventually give many of them their freedom. He held the same views towards Africans common for that period and his likely paternity of several children with his slave Sally Hemings have complicated his legacy since the middle of the 20th century.

This is the tone the lede should have. No POV pushing about "reputation" in lede. Please speak of Jefferson with neutral tone that does not single him out or that casts solely negative aspersions. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson only freed two slaves while he was alive. He freed 5 slaves in his will after his death. That makes 7 out of 130. Let's see. Jefferson freed a little over 5 percent of his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Which translates into what, that he didn't struggle with the idea, or that he had no feelings towards the Hemingses and others? Are you saying the lede should cast only the negative conotations while reflecting nothing else in this matter? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it shows that "he would eventually give many of them their freedom" is plain false, and hence should not be in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe the lede needs to be an overall broad perspective of Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd says "needs to have an overall", but apart from that I agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is my proposed lede:
Jefferson's legacy as a champion of enlightenment values has been challenged by some historians who find his ownership of hundreds of slaves at Monticello to be in contradiction and problematic to his radical rhetoric on freedom and the equality of men. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Cmguy777's numbers are on the conservative side. Jefferson owned hundreds more over his lifetime, so it's not even 5%. It's like 1%, and it wasn't something he volunteered to do. And, no. He had no intention of ever freeing them (despite Gwillhickers comment saying otherwise); that is the sanitised version. Further, equality did not refer to blacks, especially not to slaves. The older comments on slavery & Hemings - with her name and fact there is a consensus - is well documented and appropriate. Gwillhickers just doesn't want it in - period. Let's restore most of it. It's not like these blokes asked to remove it, they demanded it, and so now we're supposed to accommodate them? That's not acting in good faith.Ebanony (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Ebanony misrepresents two items. From the beginning the consensus roundly acknowledged that there was far too much material in the body of text for this topic, and too much additional mention of topics in the lede. The issue has been undue weight. There were almost five pages and several sections committed to this topic. It has been scaled down nicely since consensus was finally outlined. Secondly, no idea of "sanitizing" the text was made by this editor. The issue that was always foremost asserted was undue weight and the volume of material committed to this one topic. Please make more of an effort to keep your line straight. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Ebanony misrepresents" nothing. I myself in February said the sections on Hemings in the main text were too long. That has nothing to do with the lead, though. There is not now nor ever was a consensus to remove Hemings from the lead - you're confusing that with the comments on the text in the main article. The lead guidelines are clear WP:LEAD: lead should cover "any prominent controversies". Hemings is a notable controversy. And your claim of undue weight in the lead on Hemings is based on the the wrong part of the Manual of Style. You selected the part on living persons. Yes, you misquoted it.
I've told you this about 8 times; it indicates you are not acting in good faith. Nor can you support the claim that Hemings is not a notable controversy, so instead you've made outrageous claims that fall into a) WP:FRINGE theories and b) WP:OR - namely "Hemings has had no impact on American history" (Jan 29th [2]); that "there is only a 1 out of 25 chance that it was TJ who was the father" (Jan 25th [3]); and that "And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love, and who sought out real companionship where ever he could find it" (Mar 2nd [4]). You also said "Why is this not even reflected in the lede and elsewhere??" Because you're making things up, and do not have WP:RS. "Sanitising" is a nice way to describe the nonsense you're pushing. Ebanony (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, all I have and continue to 'demand' are great reductions of Hemings opinions. If this is your idea of "sanitizing" I can only say that this sounds sort of typical of the stretches that must be made for these sorts of accusations to sound believable. Last, your concern about speaking in 'good faith' comes off less than sincere when you refuse to acknowledge the absurd amounts of 'controversy' material that was piled up in the Jefferson biography and when you attempt to thwart and ridicule efforts to correct this obvious and ongoing problem. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanitizing to pointlessness...

"He held the same views towards blacks common for that period, for which he has been criticized by historians." - which views are those? That they have two arms? That they are dark-skinned? And what does "same" refer to here? Also, Sally went away. Not an improvement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Counterproposal: "Jefferson regarded slavery as a national moral evil. However, he was a slaveholder and shared his societies views on the inferiority of blacks. Jefferson most likely had a nearly four decades-long relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, which resulted in several children. Nevertheless, he is memorialized as a leading American exponent of liberty and democracy." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson did not see slavery as a national anything; he saw it as an danger and a scandal for Virginia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sidepoint. Madison used the phrase a lot. Substituted "moral evil", a phrase Jefferson used. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The relationship with Hemings was nearly four decades long, with six children, four of whom survived to adulthood.Parkwells (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The current lede is protectionist and in essense tells the ready not to dare question Thomas Jefferson and slavery. The previous lede was accurate and to the point. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede at that point did not attempt to persecute Jefferson and did not promote only a negative estimation of the man. The lede did not suggest to the reader "not to dare", nor did it suggest the topic be ignored. After all, Hemings is still mentioned by name, and linked, while Washington and the American Revolution are not even mentioned. The issue is UNDUE weight. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Telling the reader that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves is accurate. There is no need to suggest in the lede that just because other contemporary persons participated in slavery (or viewed blacks as inferior), therefore, Jefferson owning hundreds of slaves and being a champion of liberty need not be questioned. The Wikipedia bio article does not judge slavery as evil or good, just that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and stated "All men are created equal". Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things are accurate. Including them in the lede in the previous proportions is another matter. If it is going to be stated that Jefferson had certain views towards Africans it should be done so in the context of his surroundings and time period. To mention his views singularly more than suggests he was usual in these views and assumes a negative conation in relation to the world around this individual. No matter. The lede has since been corrected on that item. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion: "Jefferson is memorialized as the leading American exponent of liberty and democracy but he did not extend these rights to enslaved blacks, and depended on slaves to work his plantations. Since 1998, Jeffersonian scholarship has generally changed to acknowledge his relationship as a widower with his slave Sally Hemings and paternity of her children. Jefferson freed only two slaves in his lifetime, and five more in his will, all males of the larger Hemings family." I think talking in the lede about who he freed is getting into too much detail, but certainly he did not free "many". Parkwells (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "but he did not extend these rights to enslaved blacks" rings quite right. He did, in theory. He did not realise this theory for a number of reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz's proposal seems reasonable and balanced to me. It summarizes the issue fairly well without bringing too many details into the lede. The last sentence, perhaps, is a bit too negative ("nevertheless" implies that this is the opposite of the obvious conclusion). Maybe this would work: "Jefferson's views on slavery were complicated. He regarded slavery as a moral evil, but was a slaveholder and shared his societies views on the inferiority of blacks. Jefferson most likely had a decade-long relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, which resulted in several children. --Coemgenus 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The lede is finally starting to look more adequate. Now it should mention other prominent topics greatly relating to Jefferson, starting with the American Revolution, an event officially initiated by the Declaration of Independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
What source states that Jefferson believed slavery was a "national" or "moral evil"? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Jefferson himself was quite clear on this. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote ""In the very first session held under the republican government, the assembly passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this great political and moral evil, ...". And in a letter in 1814, referring to slavery, he wrote "On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." See e.g. [5] for a collection of quotes. His original draft of the Declaration of Independence also listed slavery as one of the evils of King George: "he 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"[6]--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Jefferson's biography must consist of actions he did, not just words he said. Jefferson believed slavery was morally degrading to white people, not blacks. Jefferson states slavery is a "moral and political deprevaty" and yet actively participated in the institution. This contradiction needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Jefferson believed slavery degrading to both sides: A man's moral sense must be unusually strong, if slavery does not make him a thief. He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own, can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force. (Letter to Bancroft, 1786, quoted on the same site.) Without slavery, he believed whites and blacks have the same moral sense (and therefore could write and maintain that they were created equal). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has done this: "attempt to persecute Jefferson and did not promote only a negative estimation of the man.", as Gwillhickers falsely claimed; a total lack of good faith.
As to the proposal, there is nothing "complicated" about Jefferson's views; second, with respect to Stephan Schulz: "His original draft of the Declaration of Independence also listed slavery as one of the evils of King George". No. In reality, Jefferson condemned the King for the slave trade, not slavery. He then condemned the King for freeing slaves (you left out that part); he also in that 1814 letter told Coles not to free his own slaves, and said he wanted blacks deported (you left out those parts). Cmguy777 is correct to ask for a source. Stephan Schulz responded using only primary sources, which is WP:OR, and inapplicable. The secondary sources on the topic disagree, and rightly so. Some scholars in the past misrepresented Jefferson and created myths we'd best not repeat. The old lead was accurate & most should be restored. Now you see why.Ebanony (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. You are applying today's standards to a man who has been dead for 8 generations. Jefferson was, by today's standards, a racist, but he also was aware of this bias and that it was based on shaky foundations. He opposed slavery in the abstract, and we have plenty of evidence that he worked to abolish it, especially in his younger years. However, he enjoyed its benefits in the concrete. He was a man of his time, constrained both by the legal and social framework he lived in. It would have been very likely impossible for him to free his slaves unilaterally, and it would certainly have ruined him if he had tried. Now, maybe he should have done this anyways. But then, maybe I should lay off chocolate, butter, and white bread - a much less existential change. You guess it, I'm not. We can criticize Jefferson for his hypocrisy, but that does not negate his other thoughts and actions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course his views were complicated. If they were simple and obvious, people wouldn't have been debating them for decades and this talk page would not be nearly so long. --Coemgenus 13:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, nothing I said has anything to do with "today's standards"; I didn't even use the word "racism" in my last comment. You changed the subject because you can't refute what I said: the quotes you cited from the D of I, the 1814 Coles letter, relied on WP:OR & older, discredited research to draw those conclusions. It is myth "that he worked to abolish" slavery. Believe whatever you want, but that's not stuff that can be in the article. Complicated? No. Jefferson didn't want free blacks in the US; either keep slaves, or deport all blacks to Africa ie a segregated all white society; his position it can't be any clearer. Those clear political agendas made that stuff up - including some overt racists, if you want to be serious about it. The old was fine; no need to argue this stuff again. Ebanony (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't myth. He didn't work very hard, and be accepted defeat after his colonization plan failed to pass, but it did exist. No, he didn't want free blacks in the US; he wanted free blacks elsewhere - he held that slavery had made blacks and white separate nations, just as George III had made the English and the Americans separate nations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Look, it's not personal, but I'd say it's that some of you haven't read other pertinent research. Septentrionalis does not understand his deportation plan - it never passed. When did he introdice it to the government? We must have missed that. As to your part on George III, it makes no sense. The Americans fought for their independence ie the American Revolution.Ebanony (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I said that his plan "failed to pass", I am puzzled where the misunderstanding lies. It was introduced as part of his general project of Revision, of the mid-1780s. As for independence: Jefferson would have said, and did after all write, that the Americans were independent of Britain as of 1776 (some of his writings claim that the Americans were independent from 1607); they were separate nations. From his point of view, the British insisted on war (for what was, after Howe's offer of 1778, a purely nominal dependence). It would be a curiously Conservative view that the Americans were not independent until the Peace of Paris. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The "misunderstanding" lies in misrepresentations of the facts,Septentrionalis. What "colonization plan failed to pass" in the mid-1780's? None. You could say it "failed to pass" because Jefferson never submitted it. You're relying on the same discredited scholars who misstated the facts (the same who denied the Hemings affair). Yes,your version is myth, and they've been debunked by serious scholars. You're over 20 years late. I call into question your removal of Hemings from the Lead today [7]. There is no "party view" as you claimed, and you removed sourced content without a valid reason. You should restore it. To assume good faith, I'd have to call you uninformed. Get your facts right before making such erroneous statements & edits. Ebanony (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, saying Jefferson "was a man of his times" is a circular argument. Why not say the earth is the earth, or a ball is a ball. There needs to be some explanation and research. Baptist and Methodist, during Jeffesron's time, taught black equality and abolition. Many of Jefferson's laws against blacks were conservative for his time. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Another specialized section for Hemings?

The section Academic consensus is not biographical to Jefferson. This is a biography and the existing section is specialized and additional information that should be treated with one or two sentences, and ones that do not try to push a POV in either direction. The editor who included this good faith contribution should remove the section, there are already three others, and should scale the text down to one or two sentences and link items as best seen fit. This would help balance undue weight and would help to shorten the article (currently at 115k) that is way beyond the size guidelines allows for. There are legitimate reasons for long artilces (i.e.many different topics). Hemings is one topic. Currently this issue takes up at least four pages, largely because of extra and specialized information that runs at length about this particular topic, as can be witnessed in the existing controversy section and is largely responsible for the page's over-sized proportions. There is still undue weight / NPOV considerations here also. One or two simple sentences with links is all that is necessary for inclusion in a summary biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it properly referenced? If it is, split it into its own article, such as Historiography of Thomas Jefferson. If not, toss it. Purplebackpack89 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The peer driven musings of contemporary 'Academia' are already discussed at considerable length on the Salley Hemings page. 'Academinc' considerations involves additional and specialized information and by itself can not make POV conclusions regarding "reputation" and such. No matter, there is way to much ado about this, and it most certainly should not have its own section -- one that is larger than sections for other topics. There is only call for brief mention about 'academic' assertions and controversies in a summary style presidential biography, or any biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
This was not some simple academic controversy. We are supposed to be following the scholarship here - published valid sources, preferably in peer-reviewed sources. It is not often that there is such a longstanding controversy over a major figure and a major change in the direction of scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The controversy now is largely one of repetition, with the same things being said over and again. Controversy still does not justify UNDUE weight with its large proportions of additional and often specialized material that has been unloaded into this biography, again, and esp since this matter is already well covered with dedicated pages on the topic. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As people have pointed out, Hemings is not notable for her own life, but because of her relationship to Jefferson. The controversy was about him, because of his status, not about her at all. I think there should be an article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, to which both their articles might be linked - that material should only be summarized in her article, as we are planning to do in this one. I'm working on drafting the separate article. Parkwells (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur with his sentiment. There are already separate and dedicated articles for Hemings where these things are discussed in full. The controversy section here needs to be scaled down to the same proportions as the average section, and then link to the Sally Hemings page. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, please do not repeat already refuted red herrings. Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb talks about readable prose limits. The 115KB you cite is gross article length. "Readable prose" excludes lists, references and TOC. The readable prose of this article is 54 KB at the moment, less than half of what you claim, and well below the "Probably should be divided" limit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
In case no one realised, Gwillhickers is now back at his tirades demanding almost everything on Hemings be removed. This nonsense is ruining the article, and the fact there are now what, 8 different sections on this alone in this 1 week (not counting his diatribes in January), is a testament to his determination to get rid of Hemings. She should stay, and his red herrings & straw man arguments show how much HE repeats himself (see the old talk page & this one). Over and over "remove Hemings". Uh...no. And he had the nerve to call me "obsessed"?Ebanony (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Ebanony once again misrepresents my account. As can easily be ascertained from edit history and from the existing section, recommendation was made to reducing the almost the 4-5 pages of text that ran at considerable length about Hemings and moreover about 'scholars' and 'legal historians' and '21st century historians' while it also mentioned others by name, like 'Peterson' and 'Adair'. Please be reminded also that MOS - lede section says in the lead of a biography "notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm". At one point this one topic had more coverage in the lede and also took up a grossly disproportionate amount of page text, almost five pages for the 'controversy' section. Aside from not relating directly to Jefferson, per his biography, more was being said about the 'controversy' than was about Hemings herself. (!) MOS also says always "pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. i.e.'with skepticism'. MOS here also says Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. The section obviously went far beyond just presenting the facts, it expounded on what other selected historians thought and was definitely POV pushing. Please be mindful of this in the future. This is a biography, not an outline of academic opinions about a controversy, and this is the second time this page has had to have a major clean up and reduction of material about this one topic. Also and once again, please keep your line straight when you refer to my account in the future. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've responded elsewhere. But before quoting the manual of style, try focusing on the correct part ie you went to the part on "living persons"; maybe you have trouble understanding the simple fact that Jefferson's bio doesn't fit into that category. Start with the first paragraph WP:LEAD "notable controversies". You're misstating the facts. It's ok, you usually do. I'd say you're confused and need to go back and read the manual till you understand it; if that's too difficult, then I don't know what to tell you. As to your fringe theories, well...believe what you want. But don't demand the article conform to your conspiracy theories. Wasn't it you who complained there were too many sources in the lead? "There are EIGHT references for the paragraph..." [8] Didn't you say just above always "pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources - how ironic. You're the same editor who adds WP:FRINGE theories to the main text of the article with no sources [9] & [10], which can correctly be called denying Jefferson's role. For a person who pushes WP:FRINGE theories, ignores WP:RS, perhaps it might strike you as odd that people are a bit bored with your groundless accusations, some of which you're guilty of yourself. No wonder the article isn't improving. Ebanony (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was I who quoted MOS for saying pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, which I also emphasized means with skepticism, let's not leave that little point out. If MOS for bio's of living people says you should be scrupulous with reliable sources, of which you seemed to agree, I can only ask why you disagree when that same source says let the facts speak for themselves. Also, there is nothing in 'controversy' policy that justifies gross undue weight. Controversy policy only says why and where the topic may be mentioned. This is another distinction you have always glossed over regarding this item. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Gwillhickers, there is no undue weight; 1-2 sentences on Hemings is perfectly appropriate in the lead - including mentioning her name. You just don't want Hemings in, and have recycled these excuses for months. As to the MOS, you're misquoting it to manufacture support for your extreme position. The biography rules on living persons differ, and that is why it is in a separate category. As to proper sourcing, that's for all material: "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." WP:V The information on Hemings in the lead was properly sourced, and you know it. In fact, you complained to had too many sources [11]!

One minute there's too many sources, now you go on about poor sourcing.

You've got the nerve to discuss "reliable sources" when you yourself posted this original research/fringe conspiracy theory with no sources in the main space on Hemings [12] & [13]. The verification policy is a pillar which you ignored in the 2 examples, among others. So before you tell others to be "scrupulous" with, you're not being truthful. We were scrupulous and you demanded it be removed. It's you who violate that policy. You have no credibility. You're not trying to improve the article; you're trying to dictate it according to your fringe theories. We told you no. Get off it.Ebanony (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Asserting the idea that no one can say for sure is not a theory, it's a fact. You said I was espousing theory. And your concerns about being "truthful" fly in the face of every editor who has witnessed you make one lie and distortion after another in this discussion page, and in edit history. I don't think the others who may share some of your views appreciate someone who makes habitual lies representing their views of the issue. At least do them the favor and make an attempt to clean up your act. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Gwillhickers that Jefferson had 6 kids with Hemings is not a "theory"; it is historical fact, and only a denier would say otherwise. The only one discussing "theory" is you with your "conspiracy theories". That is why there is a noticeboard for "fringe theories". This is what they said about your ideas: "I see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians" [14]. So, I also remind you that false accusation of "someone who makes habitual lies" can be understood as uncivil behaviour & a personal attack. Remove those comments.Ebanony (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive topic

One again an attempt was made to corrupt the lede section. This article needs to follow the same guidelines as any other. There is way too much Heming's coverage in lede and in the sections. This is the Jefferson page, not a forum for orchestrated controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only thing disruptive here are your permanent absolute demands. The rest seems to have a spirited but overall constructive debate. Why don't you lay off for a week and see if you like the result? Or at least can live with it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz is correct (and we don't always agree). But Gwillhickers goes round removing any mention of Hemings, and declared he would do it regardless of what others said (in January). He ignores consensus. Gwillickers is what is disruptive. It DOES follow the WP:LEAD guidelines, which you blatantly ignore & misrepresent. It's not "corrupt". There is no "orchestrated controversy" - ie a conspiracy theory. Your objections are ridiculous and without foundation. Find the part in the manual of style that agrees with you. Rather it says "notable controversies" should be in the lead. Gwillhickersobjections are nothing more than a WP:FRINGE theory based on WP:OR and discredited research. "orchestrated controversy"? LOL. Now we know why there's 10 sections dedicated to arguing with this bloke. He's off on one. Ebanony (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I can appreciate your desire for me to stop making demands and to just go away. Otoh, you two could disappear into the Hemings page itself and hang Jefferson dart-boards all over the sections until your heart's content. Talk has been tried for more than a year. It has gone around in a convoluted circle and has kept other editors scattered while the 'sections' for Hemings continued to grow to absurd proportions. The time for friendly chit chat with some individuals is obviously over, and not by my choice. Schulz has made some definite strides with correcting matters while Ebanony instead has devoted much of his time complaining about me and making repeated misrepresentations of my account on this subject, and in full view of my existing edits to this page. Amazing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Was she fourteen every time she conceived? Discussing possibilities in relation to sketchy theory I would think you would welcome. Yes, the more attention brought to this discussion the better. This way the various parties in question can see the sort of petty nonsense you resort to and your habitual tendency to make false accusations about editors, in full view of what they have actually written. Lots of luck with your effort. Btw, if you want to put a fire out, why are you throwing petrol' on it? Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Nobody said you should go away or stay. "Misrepresentations"? No, that is nonsense. But it's what we expect from you. Your tirade does nothing to improve the article, and instead is just more attacks on me. Stop accusing us of bias: "dart-boards"; false statements: "misrepresentations"; and a tonne of other stuff. But, since you brought it up, if you can't contribute to improving the article, or following the talk page guidelines, then you really should stop making posts.Ebanony (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You complain about items like 'dart-boards' yet you use terms like "tirade" in the same breath. Again, you need to pay more attention with what is going on around you, as you also accused me of removing Hemings' name from the lede when I did not. And I have helped greatly in the effort to improve the article by pointing out the absurd amounts of material that was twice dumped into the biography over the last year. As for misrepresentations, you continue to make these, first when you claim I want to "sanitize" and outright remove almost everything on Hemings, in full view of the section where I clearly indicate what should be done, and now this. Currently there is at least five counts of misrepresentation of my account made by yourself, all the while you attempt to dodge the obvious problems of undue weight and continue to not even acknowledge that the controversy section was inflated to absurd proportions. Fortunately this problem is being corrected but with very little help from you, as your preoccupation since this new development has been with me, which I must admit I can well appreciate also. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, nothing will prevent the Jefferson article from changing, no matter what we agree to this month or year. Just as in the Lynching in the United States article, major figures and issues attract attention. As new editors learn about various issues, they get interested and want their opinions heard. That's the nature of Wikipedia, so if it bothers you, it would be better to work on more stable projects. Stephan Schultz and others also noted that what has happened here is the nature of Wikipedia (and history); that's how new information is applied and revisions are made.Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles change from time to time, surely, but you can't say what is occurring with this article is anything beneficial to the readers who turn to these pages for information. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Parkwells & Schulz edits on Hemings & the article in general have been extremely beneficial to the reader. Unlike you, Gwillhickers, they're not promoting WP:FRINGE theories or making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself on Jefferson & take advantage of him. Yes, you're inventing history! Your work is an outrage. I daresay the only reason why article is in trouble is because of you. We've all responded to your objections; then, when we've answered them, you raised excuse after excuse, and then attacked everyone calling them biased etc. These blokes did excellent work on Hemings, and by constantly complaining about it, you're actually complaining about them. You're not acting in good faith, and need to stop these incessant demands that we follow your orders. Until you learn to work with other people, compromise & offer reasonable alternative based on consensus historical data, the article cannot improve.Ebanony (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Parkwells & Schulz's edits? Does it matter whose? The issue, please, was whether or not such volumes of material on this but one topic of Jefferson's life merits inclusion in a biography. That is all. Also, your above accusation, claiming I said Hemings "force herself". Here is exactly what I said: -- And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love, and who sought out real companionship where ever he could find it. A little different than the "disgusting" account you handed us. Please watch it. This was a comment, in discussion, about the many things that are still not known about the Hemings affair. Again, you take 2 + 2 and try to pass it off as 100, one again you refuse to get it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"Please watch it."? Making threats now on top of the fringe theories? You don't even seem to understand how extreme your position is. She was about 14! Yes, your comment is a insult to her and African American slave women. You've got no evidence for such a fringe theory. I've warned you many times; I must now refer you to the noticeboard.Ebanony (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You have yet to point out any threats, and you have yet to point out any theory I have promoted. Would you kindly do this now so at least the other editors can see, exactly, how valid you concerns are here? Btw, please watch what you are writing when referring to the accounts of others. You have outright lied in edit history claiming I removed Hemings' name from the lede and have repeatedly made "disgusting" overtures about my account. Please watch it. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"you have outright lied in edit history" - What I actually said was "Gwillhickers Stop making unilateral edits to remove Hemings from the Lead - you have no concensus & this is well sourced; it's a notable controversy WP:LEAD guidelines" [15]. I didn't say you removed her name per se, but that you removed the full sentences on Hemings. I assumed you made the edit to the lead last week since you were going on and on about it, and made plenty of edits to the article. If it wasn't you who made the edit, then you have my apology. I'm not, however, apologising for restoring the information by making the edit itself. That's a far cry from a "lie"; it's an honest error in naming the person responsible. Do be reasonable man.Ebanony (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(note: Ebanony took it upon himself to remove this section to my talk page.)

Madison Hemings

Removed from Article. Gordon-Reed was talking about Douglas Adair's "The Jefferson Scandals". Gordon-Reed is summarizing Adair's work. Misleading.

In 1873 Madison Hemings claimed his descent from Jefferson in an Ohio newspaper interview. His memoir was rediscovered and publicized in 1951, but at both times, historians generally discounted his testimony. They thought the publication was politically motivated, and favored accounts by Jefferson-Wayles descendants. Historians after them did not re-examine the evidence.[4]
  1. ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131243217
  2. ^ Barry, Dan. "Atop a hallowed mountain, small steps toward healing", New York Times, 31 March 2008, accessed 1 March 2011
  3. ^ Jan Lewis and Peter Onuf, eds. Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: history, memory, and civic culture (1999) p 9
  4. ^ Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, University of Virginia Press, 1998, p. 3, accessed 9 February 2011
This entry is confusing for other editors to follow - why are those four references listed? - what was removed? Correct it if you know so much. I was trying to summarize the issues of what historians ignored without going into endless detail in this section. Historians did overlook important data and did not sufficiently re-examine the evidence, as they had non-evidentiary reasons why Jefferson couldn't have had the relationship: his "character" (Malone), his lack of sexual desire (Ellis), etc. Parkwells (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Gordon-Reed's entire book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy is the published synthesis of analyzing what other historians overlooked, discounted or dismissed in Madison Hemings' and Isaac Jefferson's testimony, as well as the evidence they overlooked in historical records and in weighing testimony from the Jefferson-Wayles family as opposed to other sources. Don't say this was an unpublished synthesis; read the book.Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I did read the passage indicated by the source. There was no mention of Peterson or Adair's point of view in the removed paragraph. In fact, according to Gordon-Reed, Adair stated that Sally Heming's "lied" to Madison Hemings. I have no issue with the source Gordon-Reed, however, her style of summarizing other historians point of views, can confuse the reader whether those are in fact Gordon-Reed's point of views, summarizations, or restatements. I do not have an issue with the paragraph on Madison Hemings being in the Thomas Jefferson article, as long as it is rewritten to acknowledge both Peterson and Adair's point of views. The reference in the article went to another article by Gordon-Reed, that was not linked to the actual book reference. I put the reference cite here so persons could actually go to page 3 to examine and compare the removed paragraph with the book. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I put unpublished synthesis because Peterson and Adair were not acknowledged in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a matter of choice - since there will be another article on the historiography of the controversy, I was trying to limit having so many individual historians' names and positions in this article, especially as they have been proven wrong. Trying to keep the focus on where we are today. Parkwells (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings

The Sally Hemings and Thomas Jeffeson issues appears to be the most contentious in this article. This section needs to be balanced as possible. All editors help and input would be grateful. If there are two historical camps on this issue, I believe modification can be done on this segment. Callender's disregared reputation needs to be addressed. A counter arguement by David M. Mayer would be a good modern refutation that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children. The issue of Randolf Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's brother, needs to be addressed also. Was Randolf Jefferson there everytime Sally Hemings got pregnant? We know that Jeffeson was. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what we know is somewhat irrelevant. What reliable sources write. Likewise, while a note on Callender is appropriate, we must be careful to avoid ad-hominems and guilt-by-association. The modern consensus opinion is not to any significant part based on Callender's claims, but on several other lines of evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Balance is not achieved by giving credence to discredited views.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The above examples for the article were only a few pointed out concerns. I was trying to get a whole concensus on the Sally Heming's issue, as far as allowing alternative theories or critisism on the majority historian consensus. I am not trying to promote any viewpoint, rather balance in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a problem mentioning this bloke Mayer, whose work you included here [16]. However, his criticism is not a majority pov, nor is it correct to say there were 25 other possibilities. He accused Gordon-Reed of being racist against whites (according to your edit). Ok to insinuate Sally slept round with dozens of men regardless of how it affects her reputation or how it promotes stereotypes of black women.
As a minority POV, his reference should be a sentence under something like the few who disagree; the 25 possibilities claim is without merit - totally. The DNA people said the exact opposite, and that only Field Jefferson's male offspring were alternatives. And only those who happened to be with Sally at the time of conception. And they said there was no evidence for any other possibility. David Mayer has what evidence for those claims? Notice how the so-called "racist" Gordon-Reed won a Pulitzer & national book award & fellowship. Did Mayer? His objection could be noted, but not in a whole paragraph.Ebanony (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I personally do not agree with Mayer, even if his 25 possibilities claim is bogus. I believe Mayer made that statement to create doubt among other historians and demonstrates the politics of history. However, that is his opinion, not Wikipedias. I put the paragraph in for balance since Gordon-Reed has two paragraphs on her works and Gordon-Reed is mentioned in 3 paragraphs. In my opinion Mayers claim that Gordon-Reed is a quasi racist is another attempt to undermine her book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. I believe Mayer best expressed the conservative views on Jefferson and Sally Hemings. That is why I put him in the article segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
People are well aware of the politics of history - Mayer was one of the last-gasp efforts at refutation soon after the DNA studies. Repeating all his concerns is not necessary. The National Genealogical Society in 2001 went into detail about the bias and failings of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report, some of whose views he represents. The proper way to do historic research and present evidence is to show the weight of evidence, which he and other deniers continue to try to avoid. No, Randolph Jefferson was not there every time Hemings conceived and was not a frequent visitor.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Article:

"after reviewing the 1998 DNA test claimed that 25 male Jefferson relatives could have fathered Sally Heming's children, including Jefferson's younger brother Randolph."

"Mayer accused Gordon-Reed of being prejudiced against white historians such as Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson."

(This is an example of an ad hominem attack lacking the historical basis to challenge her work. She showed their research was flawed.)Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This "ad hominem" reveals the intense debate on the paternity of Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mayer claimed Gordon-Reed misquoted an 1858 letter by Ellen Randolph Coolidge that claimed no female slave could have entered Jefferson's bedroom without public notice."

We can mention the objections, but it should be brief like "so-and-so claims the following... citing... & this position is not widely held". In other words, a sentence, maybe 2 at best - on the objection itself. He can't more than that because, unlike Reed, he's fringe. Lots of fringe writers to and contradict scholars on every topic, but those we mention get a line or two in general Fringe stuff (the 25 is impossible) can't be used to balance the experts like that. He made claims. Anyone can do that. We note their objections (fairly), and move on.Ebanony (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Both Mayer and Wallenborn M.D. are in the same paragraph. I was just trying to add balance to the article. I would call Mayer the opposite of fringe, rather, conservative. I would call Mayer a protectionist and Jeffersonian defender, just like Malone or Peterson. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Your edit was well intentioned; just saying it was too long.Ebanony (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I took out two sentences and part of one sentence. I am not postive that Mayer's views are not widely held in general or even dismissed. I believe a poll would need to be taken among academics and find out if there is wide spread concensus. There is concensus among historians that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children; but how wide spread is this among historians is this consensus? As far as I know the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) has not allowed descendents of Sally Heming's children to be buried at Monticello. There was controversy over that. Has anything changed? My personal view is that there remains controversy over this issue and until the TJF allows Sally Heming's descendants to be buried at Monticello, this controversy will continue. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting note. If you check out the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society four of its links to the TJF currently go to "Page Not Found". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The TJF has made a conservative statement on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account "...the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known. The Foundation encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"decide for yourself"? Experts already decided in 1999: see the first article called Taking New Measurements for Jefferson's Pedestal [17] "Most people at the meeting agreed" TJ was the father. The 1998 DNA study shows clearly why this "25" others claims in nonsense: there's an "absence of historical evidence" for any other possibility (as in that 25 others nonsense); read it: [18]. They say consider the evidence but they don't want people to; hence the bloke you posted basically called Reed a racist against whites. Based on what evidence?
That said, the Hemings section is too long, and we must condense it (it's covered in other articles) so that the 3 parts on it do not take up so much space.Ebanony (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not siding with Mayer or any ad hominems. The racist allegation was taken from the article. I am concerned with the 2003 view TJF view that the evidence was not conclusive. The lede says there is consensus. I am not saying I agree with the TJF view, in my opinion, is contradictory. The evidence is given, yet TJF states this evidence in inconclusive. I have mentioned before that the TJF has not allowed descendents of Sally Hemings in their burial grounds. There is concensus outside the TJF but not inside the TJF. My opinion is that there is not overall consensus among historians on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. The TJF view needs to be in the article for balance. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns Monticello and runs it as a museum and educational facility, with the Monticello Association, a group of elitist Hamiltonian aristocrats who think they are better than anyone else because nobody has bothered to check their claim of linear descent from Jefferson. (Exceptions acknowledged [19] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)) The Monticello freaks run the graveside, presumably to extract energy from Jefferson spinning in his grave. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Cmguy, you keep citing objections made in 2001 - we've acknowledged those people in the text. But this is today, and the MacArthur Foundation award pretty well sums it up when it says that Gordon-Reed "dramatically changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship." That means most of the field accepts her work as a starting point. Consensus does not mean absolutely everyone agrees on every point, but the direction has changed. The 16 major awards made to Gordon-Reed's second book, which went into the Jefferson-Hemings relationship in depth and referenced the DNA studies, were a consensus recognition of the value and quality of her work and research. Editors can't make up their own standards "there isn't consensus until the TJF/Monticello Ass'n allows Hemings descendants to be buried there." That has nothing to do with the state of academic studies. As Stephan Schulz noted, those people do not speak for scholars but claim to be descendants. One way to shorten this section is to reduce the space given to presenting the historiography of the people who were wrong, but I will look at it again. I am not given more space/credence to opponents than they deserve today, not 10 or 12 years ago. Parkwells (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand the Mayer and the Wallenborn M.D. quotes were 10 and 11 years ago respectively. Those are dated. If the reader reads there is concensus on Wikipedia and then goes to the TJF Monticello web page that says the evidence is not conclusive, that creates historical doubt. Not able to bury Sally Heming's descendants at Monticello is signifigant, especially to the actual descendants. My personal opinion is that TJ fathered SH's children and I concur with the "consensus". I am not attempting to rock the historical boat here, just wanted to make sure there is balance in the article. I believe the current TJF cite should be used as a descenting opinion. Mentioning Mayer, Wallenborn M.D., and the TJF disagree in one paragraph would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I know you're not siding with them. That's why I say your edit is well intentioned Cmguy777, but as Stephan Schulz points out, it is a bit confusing with so many groups. Today in 2011 the overwhelming majority say it happened, but a few voices say otherwise. They never agreed, and probably never will - no matter what. That is the point of Gordon-Reed's earlier work: some don't care about evidence. But since 1997, we've learnt a lot; so there is no reason to give "hold outs" more than a brief mention as a minority pov. To contrast everything Reed says against their claims is undue weight (we note an objection by a minority pov briefly). They claim things like black on white racism, but it's beyond absurd to think they gave a Pulitzer etc to promote hatred of white people (that's the implication). That's fringe stuff. Reed is a scholar. Can we say the same for all her critics? Consider the source. Ebanony (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The TJF is not fringe, in my opinion. Their current site has the 2003 posting that says the evidence is not conclusive. Sally Heming's children can't be buried at Monticello. Yes. Gordon-Reed is accepted in academic circles and has deserved the Pulitzer, I understand that. If Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson are accepted then why can't Sally Heming's descendants be buried at Monticello? A conservative group is keeping them from being buried. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say TJF is extreme or fringe; I said that those making those claims support a WP:fringe theory. That particular bloke you quoted is outside of the academic community's consensus, and his other claims have no support. Making accusations of racism - against Reed - need no coverage; his other claims have no foundation either, particularly with the stuff on other possibilities. There is no historical data for it, no matter what that guy says.Ebanony (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be an influence of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society over the TJF. I am not sure who, possibly Mayer, Wallenborn M.D., or some other person(s). I do believe not allowing Sally Heming's descendants to be buried at Monticello is signifigant and needs to be addressed in the article. I can give Mayer and Wallenborn M.D. one sentence each and mention the 2003 TJF position or view that the evidence is not conclusive. I do not have all the information on Sally Heming's descendants being denied burial at Monticello. Apparently there is some conservative group blocking their burial at Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Cmguy777, you said "Callender's disregared reputation needs to be addressed" - it perhaps could. But the idea that Callender began the accusations in 1802 is incorrect. Gordon-Reed says it began in the 1790's; Callender was "the first person to really put..the name Sally...in relationship with Jefferson". So, some people misrepresent the facts by focusing on Callender. This predates Callender by several years. See @15:30 [20]Ebanony (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_9&oldid=1136227891"