Misplaced Pages

Talk:Thomas Jefferson: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:33, 27 October 2013 editGwillhickers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,352 editsm Moral position on slavery← Previous edit Revision as of 18:47, 27 October 2013 edit undoGwillhickers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,352 edits Source for "coaching" of Madison HemingsNext edit →
Line 603: Line 603:
:::::::I am fine with the lede as it is, reflecting well established facts and sources. We end up discussing the "same old stuff" only because the 'same old reasons' present themselves from time to time as we saw just recently, i.e.skewing the DNA statement, etc. Then of course once in a while a new comer arrives, sometimes making one-sided edits with no concern for past discussions, neutrality, and we have to go through the same thing all over again until they come up to speed and get matters straight. Joe Bob', I have no problem with stating that "most modern historians" subscribe to the Jefferson paternity theory because we must go by the sources, even when we disagree, as I obviously do. My position however is that there is a wide body of other reputable historians, scholars, professors from notable universities and elsewhere who don't follow along with the Jefferson paternity theory and that their views are just as viable and significant as that of "most historians". This so called "minority" constitutes a significant view and as such is due fair representation in this biography, ], as I have maintained all along. I resent attempts by anyone who tries to skew the controversy, or any topic, with one sided opinion, leaving out other viable opinions and often important facts. This article has a long history of this sort of editing. Too long. Yopienso, thanks one again for being the voice of mediation and compromise. I was comfortable with the lede statement as you wrote it and was ready to move on days ago. -- ] 07:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC) :::::::I am fine with the lede as it is, reflecting well established facts and sources. We end up discussing the "same old stuff" only because the 'same old reasons' present themselves from time to time as we saw just recently, i.e.skewing the DNA statement, etc. Then of course once in a while a new comer arrives, sometimes making one-sided edits with no concern for past discussions, neutrality, and we have to go through the same thing all over again until they come up to speed and get matters straight. Joe Bob', I have no problem with stating that "most modern historians" subscribe to the Jefferson paternity theory because we must go by the sources, even when we disagree, as I obviously do. My position however is that there is a wide body of other reputable historians, scholars, professors from notable universities and elsewhere who don't follow along with the Jefferson paternity theory and that their views are just as viable and significant as that of "most historians". This so called "minority" constitutes a significant view and as such is due fair representation in this biography, ], as I have maintained all along. I resent attempts by anyone who tries to skew the controversy, or any topic, with one sided opinion, leaving out other viable opinions and often important facts. This article has a long history of this sort of editing. Too long. Yopienso, thanks one again for being the voice of mediation and compromise. I was comfortable with the lede statement as you wrote it and was ready to move on days ago. -- ] 07:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::The position of Jefferson/Hemings doubters on the continuum of mainstream to minor to fringe is more toward fringe than mainstream. We should not entertain the doubters with as much weight as a supposedly "viable and significant" minor viewpoint such that this minor position be stated clearly in the lead section. Rather, we should clearly state the mainstream position in the lead section and relegate such minor/fringe viewpoints to the article body because of their failure to gain traction. In his survey of the literature, Kenneth Morgan of London says that the 1998 DNA research combined with historical evidence shows that Jefferson was sexually active with Hemings "beyond reasonable doubt"—that TJ fathered at least one child by Hemings. Morgan is nothing if not objective about the dispute across the pond. ] (]) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC) ::::::::The position of Jefferson/Hemings doubters on the continuum of mainstream to minor to fringe is more toward fringe than mainstream. We should not entertain the doubters with as much weight as a supposedly "viable and significant" minor viewpoint such that this minor position be stated clearly in the lead section. Rather, we should clearly state the mainstream position in the lead section and relegate such minor/fringe viewpoints to the article body because of their failure to gain traction. In his survey of the literature, Kenneth Morgan of London says that the 1998 DNA research combined with historical evidence shows that Jefferson was sexually active with Hemings "beyond reasonable doubt"—that TJ fathered at least one child by Hemings. Morgan is nothing if not objective about the dispute across the pond. ] (]) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::You're echoing the same old speculations. DNA points to many paternal candidates, and there is not one piece of circumstantial evidence that narrows the matter down to Jefferson alone. At this late date there is also a lot of unanswered questions about why DNA analysis was handled in Britain, not in the USA, ''who'' funded and oversaw the experiments and how the DNA samples were handled. These are fair questions, still unanswered and quite warranted considering the way Britain's ''Nature'' magazine reported and skewed the facts in the typical fashion still practiced today. Were the DNA samples compromised? Were they kept at the right temperature during the flight to Britain? Were the samples subjected to X-rays during security checks? Aside from the evidence being far from conclusive, even if samples were handled correctly, these questions remain unanswered. And why are modern day Hemings descendents refusing to cooperate with further DNA investigations? Speculation is a two way street. -- ] 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:47, 27 October 2013

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Jefferson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Jefferson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Former good articleThomas Jefferson was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 3, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Controversial (history)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Thomas Jefferson. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Thomas Jefferson at the Reference desk.
? faq page Frequently asked questions Q1: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why? A1: In all probability what you added was trivia, unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly. Articles on Misplaced Pages require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented; consequently, any information added to an article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion. Q2: I tried to edit this article but couldn't. Why? A2:This article has been indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism or violations of content policy. Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Misplaced Pages) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. Q3: I want to add some sourced information with references but don't understand the referencing style. A3: This article's established referencing is a specific type of Harvard style citations, making use of anchored references, using the hashtag symbol to anchor the references to the cited sources. The nomenclature looks like:

<ref>], p.123</ref>...placed as an inline citation within the text, which then creates a shortened footnote in the References section.
{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Alex |title=book title |year=2000 |publisher=publisher name |ref=abc }}...placed in the Bibliography section.

If you do not understand how to write up a reference for this article but want to add information & a cited source, post your request on the talk page and someone will try to help you.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArchitecture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government / Core
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Social and political / Religion / Modern Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Aesthetics
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Modern philosophy
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPLibertarianism

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections / Presidents / Governors Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconVirginia: Albemarle County Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albemarle County, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
Template:WP1.0

Controversy representation in lede

Lede should reflect what the body of text says, that other historians have noted that all the evidence, most notably that DNA evidence points to other possibilities. This is a controversy and should get fair representation in the lede. There are dozens of notable historians who don't buy into the socio-politically motivated claims by much of the so called "mainstream". We've discussed this before. -- Gwillhickers 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just made a compromise edit. Please see these sources:
Guilty:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/enigma/ellis.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rah/summary/v034/34.4bay.html
Insert : "Guilty"? This is what the closing statement says on the JHU souece :
"On both sides of today's debate, as is also true in older considerations of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship,
Hemings is largely a cipher—a blank slate on which any story can be...
Not guilty:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/07/challenging-the-jefferson-hemi
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/jefferson-hemings-revisited/30273
Insert : This 'list' leaves much to be desired. There is a large list of descending historians and professors in talk page archives. If we must trudge through all of this stuff again I'll produce it. I'm hoping we've learned from past debates so we can move on to something else besides this reoccurring sideshow. If half the time and energy spent on the controversy went in to overall page improvement, this article would have been a FA a long time ago. This will never happen so long as it remains a controversy amongst us. No one will ever know the truth about the Jefferson - Hemings story for sure, so we should all learn to accept that, keep the presentation neutral and move on. -- Gwillhickers 00:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Also please compare the credentials of Joseph Ellis and Mark_Tooley. Basically, it's the fringe at TJHS that disagrees. Yopienso (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the compromise -- don't appreciate your choice of words here. This so called "fringe" happens to comprise a large body of historians and professors from many notable universities. This "fringe" also includes Herbert Barger, a noted Jefferson historian who worked side by side with Foster when he was doing DNA research. It also includes a former TJF research committee member, Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, who exposed that committee for having made up their minds before they even evaluated the evidence. Agenda, peer driven, POV pushers, the lot of them. In any event, this is not a contest to see whose list is bigger than the other's -- there are enough historians and professors on both sides of the fence to warrant giving fair representation in the lede to both views. The evidence is far from conclusive so all we are doing is presenting opinion about a theory. Some buy it, other's don't. Frankely the lede should just mention a controversy and be done with it and should only give coverage to established historical fact. i.e.Jefferson was the main author of the DOI, etc. As it is, this controversy, this fuzzy theory, is covered more than any other topic in the lede -- and I'm getting sort of tired of having to drag another forget-me-not or half-clueless new comer through these points here on the Jefferson talk page all over again. In any case, thanks for keeping the Jefferson page neutral. -- Gwillhickers 00:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, you present an article questioning the Hemmings story, written by Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, "a conservative religious thinktank noted for its critique of liberal religious groups," which is called "Challenging the Jefferson-Hemings Orthodoxy". Readers of this articles want to know about what informed people think, not fringe views. TFD (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
(Insert : edit conflict) "Informed"? FYI, I didn't introduce the Tooley story -- and parroting weasel words like "fringe" only tells us how little you know about who's who out there. The 'rah, rah rah, hooray for our side' sophomoric approach doesn't change the facts, all of which point to other paternal candidates as well. Kindly not speak on behalf of all readers in some underhanded attempt to justify not keeping the section neutral and inclusive of all viable views and facts, and please keep the POV weasel words off the page. The article already mentions "most historians". -- Gwillhickers 04:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The mainstream view is that it was TJ's seed, not just some unnamed male family member. Once the male Jefferson line was implicated, historians zeroed in on which person was most likely, and it is TJ. There's no need to overstate the minor viewpoint which attempt to clear the name of Thomas Jefferson without actually naming someone else. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Any facts that they used to 'zero in on' Jefferson with also point to other paternal candidates, very easily. This will make about the 50th time this has been discussed. The article already mentions "most historians" only because a couple of highly biased sources (TJF, Brodie, etc) were arrogant enough to make such a claim. It has never been proven, not even qualified (i.e.did they conduct a poll?). There are simply too many others reputable people who can articulate the other viable possibilities, including Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, former TJF committee member who exposed the TJF committee for having made up their minds before they even evaluated the DNA and other evidence, all circumstantial. And btw, someone else has been named. His name is Randolph Jefferson. Once again, this page is not the place to educate the uninformed who come here with their minds already made up and a chip on their shoulder. There are more than enough other sources for this article to give neutral coverage of the various opinions out there. Trying to brush it off as "fringe" only reveals an inability to address this reality honestly. -- Gwillhickers 05:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
As stated roughly umpteen times before, opinion had significantly shifted over to TJ paternity before the DNA tests. The DNA tests only led to further confirmation of what was already the majority opinion back then. How does the fact that Jefferson was with Hemings every time she conceived, and that she never conceived when he was not with her "very easily" implicate Randolph? Anyways, sources are near unanimous, the only thing happening is that the so-called "Scholars Commission" has finally managed to publish their report as a book --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : When DNA results were first released several publications, like Nature magazine, flat out said that the results proved Jefferson was the father. Many others news rags followed in kind eager to sell papers. Eugen Foster, the genealogist who conducted the DNA testing, Herbert Barger his historical consultant and others were outraged. This was in the 1990's and of course there was a big whoooo.. for some years that followed as most of the people in the 'get Jefferson' camp couldn't be, or didn't want to be, bothered with all the other considerations. That was then. The year now is 2013, and many have reevaluated not only the DNA evidence but have considered many other things that got drowned out and swept under the rug with all the political and racially charged hoopla. Considerations such as Randolph Jefferson and his four sons, all of age, who were known to fraternize with slaves at night, up playing his fiddle at late hours in the night. Yet we're supposed to believe that after Callander went public with his Jefferson paternity rumor, with news papers running the story while Jefferson was running for president, that Jefferson, while president, returned to Monticello and fathered two more children by Hemings, right there on the estate with family friends and house keepers all about the place. -- Gwillhickers 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Why wouldn't Jefferson go on sleeping with Sally? Callender's story had fizzled the first time - no because nobody believed it, but because it was commonplace in Virginia for white planters to father children with their slaves. It was not unusual, and it was something that polite society politely ignored. Note that e.g. Sally's father was John Wayles, Jefferson's father-in-law and a reasonably well-off member of the planter class. Sally actually was a half-cousin of Jefferson. That did not cause enough of a scandal to make Martha Wayles a bad catch. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The homecoming of Thomas Jefferson would occasion the overnight stays of Randolph Jefferson. If Thomas Jefferson's parentage were certainly so --- the same editors would include the observation that widower Jefferson then followed the French (Haitian) manumission practice to free all his children by a slave, and describe the 'affair' as a Virginian common law marriage by seven years' cohabitation. But they do not use their speculation on parentage in scholarly pursuit. That implies they are not sure of their parentage 'evidence' as grounds for the observations which would necessarily follow. Sensationalism is not scholarship, after all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "very easily" is not the same as "very far-fetched. So we are now to believe that Randolph came over only if Jefferson was at Monticello, and had nothing better to do than jump into bed with Sally Hemings every time over a period of more than ten years, but that he never ever sneaked in a visit when Jefferson was not at Monticello? Also note that the chance for a couple that actually tries to get pregnant are about 20-25% per month - and that's assuming they have sex often enough (or planned enough) to hit the women's fertile period. So chances for an occasional visitor to father 6 children are very low - whoever was the father would have to be in a long-term relationship with Sally Hemings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Exactly. As I've maintained numerous times, any evidence that is used to "zero in" (revealing remark) on Jefferson can also be used to support several other paternal candidates. The similar appearance? Didn't Randolph, Jefferson's brother, resemble Thomas? Times of conception? Jefferson received family visitors every time he returned -- and besides, this was his home. It's not much of a coincidence that he was around when Sally was, who also lived there. Had this been some odd place and Hemings and Jefferson were both around during times of conception, that would be compelling evidence. There was also a lot made, spun, of the fact that Jefferson freed Hemings' children -- yet he didn't free Sally. As I said, much has been reevaluated since the 90s. We've gone over this time and again. The Jefferson page has remained stable for the past several months, for the first time in a while. At this point, if someone wants to further embark on the issue they should (do their homework) speak in terms of what they want to add and/or remove to/from the section, per reliable sources, not cherry picked. -- Gwillhickers 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The point about the lede is not whether TJ was in fact the father of Hemings's children, but that the consensus of modern historians is that he was. No one (either scholars or WP users) is saying the case is shut. Ellis, however, says, "How then to put it? To say that Jefferson's paternity of several Hemings children is proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' sounds about right." There is no reason for me to begin to cite the many experts who concur.
Ellis further says, "No one had mentioned Randolph Jefferson as a possible alternative before the DNA study. He is being brought forward now because he fits the genetic profile. This belated claim strikes me as a kind of last stand for the most dedicated Jefferson loyalists." VaHist, do you have a source for "The homecoming of Thomas Jefferson would occasion the overnight stays of Randolph Jefferson"? Bay says, p. 411, "An infrequent visitor at Monticello, Randolph was never previously suspected as a possible partner for Hemings."
I suggest changing
Owing to DNA and other evidence, the consensus of most modern historians is that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. A minority note the evidence also supports the possibility that other male members of the Jefferson family could have fathered her children.
to
Despite on-going controversy, DNA and other evidence has led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children.
Yopienso (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I like your second version for its trim elegance. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Absurd. The statement as it reads suggests that the matter has been factually concluded. Again, there are enough historians and professors on both sides of the fence to give fair representation to both views. Again, "most historians" is an unproven opinion from highly biased sources (esp TJF) and is not grounds to be skewing the presentation here. Again, the article already says "most historians". The section should remain neutral. -- Gwillhickers 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Historians are competent to determine what "most historian" think. Weight requires us to determine the relative acceptance of different views and it makes more sense to consult historians that to make the call ourselves. If you think the view that Jefferson was not the father should be included, then you need to establish the degree of acceptance it has in mainstream sources and we need to explain that in the article. TFD (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Typically you are speaking of historians as if they're all in lock-step on the same page. They're not. Far from it. Hence the controversy. If it were just a few obscure opposing voices howling in the wind there would be no controversy, would there? "Historians are competent"? Would that include those in the extensive list of prominent historians and professors below? -- Gwillhickers 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede statement for Hemings

The argument for "most historians" is academic, has never been proven and smacks of POV, made by one side arrogant enough to do so. Since we are only discussing opinion, about a theory far from proven, this topic should take a back seat to the established historical facts mentioned in the lede. Here is a statement that presents no POV and is intellectually honest.
Since the early 1800s there has been an ongoing controversy over whether Jefferson was the father of one or more children of Sally Hemings, a house slave at Monticello. However, DNA and other evidence has not proven the claims of either side of that controversy to this day.
Please leave opinions about unproven theory out of the lede. These are special details that are not afforded to any other topic in the lede. Mention of opinions, "most historians", etc should be covered in the section. -- Gwillhickers 17:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe this would work:
Since the early 1800s there has been an ongoing controversy over whether Jefferson was the father of one or more children of Sally Hemings, a house slave at Monticello. While DNA and other evidence have not definitively proven the claims of either side of that controversy, the consensus of most modern historians is that he was. Yopienso (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Awkward wording, especially the ending. I liked your previous suggestion: "Despite on-going controversy, DNA and other evidence has led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children." Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree. Do you think this is better than what we have at the moment? Yopienso (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
alternate: There is an ongoing controversy among historians whether Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings’ children, but their DNA has been scientifically linked to his family. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two ways to do this in summary form, which we can support with sources, as WP:Lead would have us do, and this general article demands: 1) go with one of our longstanding iterations on "the consensus of most historians" or 2) don't bother to directly mention that there is misgiving from some minority viewpoint quarters, which is how Britannica deals with it ("Finally, in 1998, DNA samples were gathered from living descendants of Jefferson and Hemings. Tests revealed that Jefferson was almost certainly the father of some of Hemings's children." ) . Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I like this solution, but placed in the section addressing Sally Hemings, not in the lead. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Most historians"?

Below is a list of historians, professors and org's who clearly do not go along with the TJ paternity opinion.

Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, former research committee member at Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Herbert Barger, Jefferson Family Historian at Norwich University
Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
Dr. Harvey C. Mansfield, Harvard University
Dr. David N. Mayer Professor of Law and History, Capital University
Dr. Robert F. Turner (Chairman), Professor, University of Virginia
Dr. Paul Rahe, Professor of History, University of Tulsa
Dr. Forrest McDonald, Distinguished Research Professor of History, Emeritus, University of Alabama
Dr. Alf J. Mapp, Jr., Eminent Scholar, Emeritus, Professor of History, Old Dominion University
Dr. Robert H. Ferrell, Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus Indiana University
Dr. Lance Banning, Professor of History, University of Kentucky
Dr. Charles R. Kesler, Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College, author of American History

Eliot Marshall, author/historian
Dr. Walter E. Williams, George Mason University
Dr. Jean Yarbrough, Professor of Political Science, Bowdoin College
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS: Scholars Challenge Jefferson-Hemings Allegations
J. Patrick Mullins, Ph.D, University of Kerntucky
Dr. Thomas Traut, University of North Carolina
Dr. James Ceaser, University of Virginia
Monticello Association, Url2
William G. Hyland, author of 'In Defense of Thomas Jefferson:The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal' and 'A Civil Action: Sally Hemings v. Thomas Jefferson'
Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., author of The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, Section Head (Supervisor), DBPH, Library of Congress (1974-78)
Dr. James P. Lucier, historian, journalist, foreign policy specialist, appointed as 'Scholar' in the Congressional Reading Room, Library of Congress,
served on the U.S. Senate staff for 25 years.


As I once said back in April 2012 this is not a 'challenge' to remove the statement 'most historians'. I just wanted to point out, that these people, given their prominent backgrounds, shed considerable doubt on the claim of "most historians" and any claims of "fringe" used to sweep other views under the rug. -- Gwillhickers 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

Why are we discussing this again? It was settled long ago and nothing has changed. Multiple reliable sources say there is a consensus among historians. The lede's purpose is to convey information in a summary fasion, and 'most historians conculsions are' is summary information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's not mix issues. No one wants to remove "most historians" from the section, only that fair representation be given to both sides in the lede. You simply can't ignore the other side simply because an outfit like TJF has said "most historians", esp in the face to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That claim, unproven, not even an explanation offered, does not cancel out the scores of differing opinions from the many scholars listed and elsewhere. None of the other topics in the lede are treated as the Hemings topic is, and they're all established historical facts. How do established facts get less coverage than an unsolved theory with a lot of opinion? Opinions are tangential details. Yes, nothing has changed, all we have is a couple of biased opinions, not "multiple", from highly biased sources like TJF, an outfit one of its own leading members, Dr, Wallenborn, is not in agreement with. Hemings should not be treated any differently than the other topics in the lede, none of which have quasi and unproven opinions attached to them. Keep the lede simple and neutral like all the other topics and keep the commentary and opinions in the section. Knowing how many other historians disagree with the likes of TJF I'm a bit disappointed at the effort to hide or obscure this reality. -- Gwillhickers 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the same type of argument that is presented to support weight for fringe theories on 9/11, the Kennedy murder, climate change, evolution, free energy, and conspiracy theories of all kinds. Even if a number of historians hold a contrary view, they need to submit their findings to academic publications so that the academic community can assign weight to them. A brief check on some of the people listed shows that they seem to be right-wing. Harvey Mansfield is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, David N. Mayer is a "close associate" of the Atlas Society and his publisher is the Cato Institute, Paul A. Rahe is a fellow of the Hoover Institution and host at the National Review, and Forrest McDonald is a "paleo-conservative". TFD (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Except you keep forgetting that opinions that state Jefferson was not the father are not at all "fringe". Sorry, there are simply too many prominent historians and professors who have articulated their views for you to be making such silly assertions. And noting someone is a conservative doesn't come close to impeaching their credibility. We could say the TJF is a "leftist liberal" organization, some of them members of the NAACP. To impeach their credibility we would have to take the ball further than that, as Dr. Wallenborn did, and as you have not, here. -- Gwillhickers 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
False dichotomy. The "Thomas Jefferson Society" did not recruit its researchers based on ideology. More importantly their findings have been accepted by historians, which is how we determine their weight. The approach of the TJ Heritage Foundation is typical of how views held by a very small group of people are promoted. Recruit a small number of experts who are known to share one's views. Have them write a report which could never be accepted for publication in an academic journal. Promote it heavily through sympathetic partisan media (the "echo chamber"). Hope that mainstream media picks up on it and the average person believes that there is a controversy among scholars. And if anyone points out that there is not - then accuse the academic community of being dominated by liberals, big business, communists, or whomever one perceives the elitists to be. TFD (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the org you are referring to in your first sentence is the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, not Society and you are only guessing if anyone has recruited or selected scholars in the manner you claim. Do you have a source that maintains the Scholars Commission said "liberals need not apply" or turned away anyone on the basis of ideology, religion, politics, race...anything? No, you don't. None of your speculations and wishful guessing changes the fact that these scholars are accomplished historians and professors from some very prestigious Universities, etc. As recruitment goes, when the TJF conducted their research they didn't allow any independent outsiders to participate, unlike the Independent Scholar's Commission. Sorry. As for the "liberal media, communists, etc", this is all conjecture. From what source are you making these claims -- the same one's who've jumped to the conclusion that Jefferson is the father? It's like you're referring to a source written by Yaser Arafat to write about the PLO-Israeli controversy. Not a very objective opinion. Pass. -- Gwillhickers 03:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The following is from the TJHS website. The bias is starkly obvious.
Purposes of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
To further the honor and integrity of Thomas Jefferson, and to promote his vision and ideas and their application in our times and in the future.
To stand always in opposition to those who would seek to undermine the integrity of Thomas Jefferson.
Yopienso (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they have a bias against anyone trying to promote falsehoods based on racially charged speculations based on sketchy evidence that would never stand up in a court if law, at least not in the free world. If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF, starting with TJF board member Julian Bond, President of the NAACP and Dianne Swann-Wright, Director of African American and "special programs" at TJF. -- Gwillhickers 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that because these two people appear to be African-American, they have acute bias? TFD (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god it just gets worse. Gwillhickers, your inference is egregious and wrong that the TJF staffers must be biased because they are African American. This is a racist reaction pure and simple. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
A belated 'just for the record': I was claiming they were biased because of their involvements, not 'because' of their race. -- Gwillhickers 02:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
A quick check of your original comment confirms that you said nothing specific about involvements of Bond and Swann-Wright. Rather, you said "look at" these staffers. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Presentation of "most historians" claim

The idea of "most historians" is indeed a claim and it should be presented as a claim. The section should say,

it has been claimed by some historians who feel that Jefferson is the
father of Hemings' children that their view is in the majority
.

We can't pass this off as a fact, not in the face of overwhelming evidence that says otherwise. There are plenty examples where commentary has been added to the effect that it reads, Historian Smith says 'this' and Professor Jones says 'that'. The "most historians" claim should be treated no differently. -- Gwillhickers 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That is unsourced POV, there is no source that says that, and that's not how reliable sources present it:
-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
(Insert -edit conflict) Presenting a self serving opinion (i.e.most people agree with us!) as a fact is the worst sort of POV. There's nothing that says we can't say Some highly visible sources in the public eye have claimed their opinions are held by a majority of historians.' In any case, we need to keep opinionated commentary out of the lede regardless if you feel their opinion is fact for the simple reason that none of the other more important topics in the lede have such opinionated window dressing attached to them. Claims and commentary from selected sources belong in the section, if anywhere. -- Gwillhickers 03:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This issue has all been discussed in tedious detail before. For whatever reasons you reject the sources others accept on this matter. Your reasons have not changed nor improved. Anyone who reviews the archives of this talk page will realize that you are attempting to revive a WP:Stick issue. So, please let's talk about something else, like the still repetitive slavery section - that's always calming :).Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Really, one might as well suggest that the Global warming page should state: "according to some scientists, their view that anthropogenic global warming is occurring is a consensus view". FurrySings (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Gwillhickers, just wow. Some historians claim their view is the majority? An amazing suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This is indeed a controversy, so self serving views should be presented as such, esp since these are unqualified claims, not proven, made by orgs in the public eye under a lot of peer, political and financial pressure. -- Gwillhickers 03:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Most historians means numerically there are far more historians holding that view and it is reflected in peer-reviewed articles and books. On any subject there will always be people who do not accept the generally accepted view. But unless they are publishing articles in the academic press then it is insignificant to the topic. TFD (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Give us something more than opinions. Many of these historians teach at major Universities and have indeed published many books. I at least provided a list. Even TJF's own committee member saw the railroading and goading of opinion going on over there. Eugene Foster, the one who conducted DNA testing, along with H. Barger his history consultant didn't jump to 'conclusions' and were outraged at the way their findings were presented. What can you come up with except generic claims about the academic press? Think about it. You're going along with something only because you've apparently been led to believe it. Not sure why. Do you have a lot of peers looking over your shoulder? How do you actually know "most historians" have made such ridiculous 'conclusions'? I say 'ridiculous' because the evidence is far from conclusive as there are other candidates more likely than Jefferson. How could anyone not be open to all possibilities? Jefferson was and is singled out because he's a prize catch in the 'get America' crowd who haven't grown out of the 60's yet and for those who have a racial axe to grind. There are others. Politicians and public institutions go along because they're afraid they'll be labeled "racist" by pressure groups like the NAACP who are instrumental at this sort of thing and who now dictate policy at the TJF. That's how the propaganda game works, and if you don't think that has factored into this controversy then you're twice as naive as I thought. But never mind all of that. Show us a list that at least supports your notion that "most historians" (are idiots?) go along with the Jefferson paternity theory. The only published books that I know of that claim "most historians" are by Fawn Brodie and Paul Finkleman. Maybe John Ferling. Hardly representative of "most". -- Gwillhickers 16:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
AlanScottWalker gave you a list of four reputable sources that make the claim "most historians" believe in TJ's paternity. You sounded shockingly racist in your 04:25, 3 October 2013 post. Yopienso (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh please. If you think it's above beneath the NAACP to have any racial or political bias simply because of race then it would seem you're the one who harbors racist views, so stop with the high school spit ball approach and personal attacks please. I treat anyone, black, white, whatever, equally, and hold their feet to the same fire as anyone else, regardless of race, thank you. And don't think for a minute it can't be seen that you're dodging the bias issue with this cheap stunt. -- Gwillhickers 01:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, please apologize for addressing me in that tone. We simply cannot have constructive dialogs like that. Your earlier comment seems to discount Bond and Swann-Wright because they are African-American and/or because they are involved with African-American institutions. Yopienso (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yopienso, please apologize for saying I sound "shockingly racist", as there was nothing I said that was remotely racist and saying so was just your way of not actually coming out and calling me a racist directly. Then please apologize for disrupting the discussion surrounding bias with such underhanded tactics. Then kindly review this page. -- Gwillhickers 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, you once had credibility at this page but you shot it away with today's racist observation, "If you want to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF...", the comment linking to photographs of African American staffers. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The NAACP and Swainwright are not above bias, and saying so is not at all racist. Your assertion that I should not say so because simply because they are African American and involved with racial politics and social issues is what is racist. If you have a personal issue with me you should take the matter up on my or your talk page. This sort of (not so) veiled personal attack has nothing to do with the improvement of the Jefferson page, so you need to take the soapbox elsewhere. All you are doing is attempting a personal end-run around the fact that you can't argue the points honestly. -- Gwillhickers 19:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You based your accusation of bias on the appearance of these staffers as African Americans rather than on any of their actions, or on the published observations of others saying that they are biased. Your reference to their appearance is what is fundamentally a racist observation. You should stand down and let uninvolved folks address this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Making reference to their race and racially based politics is not racist. Many others have made the same observations. I could easily document the number of times the NAACP has been embroiled in their own racism, so please take the soapbox elsewhere and discuss the issues directly please, if that's possible. All you are doing is trying to upstage your failed arguments with personal attacks. -- Gwillhickers 00:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers! I most certainly will not apologize to you. I suggest you submit your comment to WP:DRN to find out if only the few of us here see racism in it.
I believe you edit in good faith, but it appears you do not understand what is meant by academic consensus. The academics could certainly be wrong! Consensus does shift! Next year we may have to change our statement. For now, most mainstream academics in the field of history believe TJ fathered at least one child with Hemings. Please see pp. 170-184 and note 20 on p. 194 of Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy.
Quotes: p. 170--"By the late 1990s there emerged a new scholarly consensus, which accepted that a sexual relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was probable." p. 171--"the new consensus"; p. 184--"That, by 2001, the primary 'defense' of Jefferson was maintained by a fringe group espousing reactionary politcs and employing hysterical rhetoric is testimony to how quickly the historiographical consensus regarding the Jefferson-Hemings question shifted in 1997-8." Yopienso (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"Hysterical rhetoric" says it all. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Their views were articulated well, and the fact that no one here has squared off with any of the points made more than suggests that the only "hysteria" here comes from the one's pointing a finger as is evidenced by your personal attacks and your repeated failure to address issues and points directly. -- Gwillhickers 00:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There isn't any question that the NAACP's agenda is racist.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that what "most historians" have concluded because a reliable source says so. I also know that Jefferson was an American president because sources also say that. Can you provide any sources that say the JHFTJHS's views have entered mainstream publications? TFD (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You know it's so because a reliable source says so? That's really rich. Several of the books listed are used as RS's on the Jefferson page. Do you believe them too? Do you have a list of publishers that are on the "mainstream list" and ones that are not? And if such a list even exists, tell us, who decides which publishers belong and which do not. The 'God of Published Works'? Your argument is not even academic. This is just too easy. All you are trying to do is sweep other views under the rug by attaching labels like "fringe" and claiming they are not mainstream because of an obvious inability to confront any topics raised directly. Easy to see. -- Gwillhickers 01:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you addressing me or GWillickers? Do you mean TJF or TJHS? Yopienso (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I was addressing Gwhillickers and referring to the TJHS. TFD (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all; I was just wondering. :-) Yopienso (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ASW, there are indeed sources that make the claim about "most historians" as you've pointed out and I never said there were none that did. As such we get to say this on the page, as we have already, but as I maintained, we should at least state that this is a claim, not an established fact, as no one has established it, again, not even qualified with an explanation, let alone factual proof. It is a claim made with no footnotes or reference to any bibliography on the online pages these claims are made. It should be treated like any other commentary that has even been made on the Jefferson page. e.g. Finkelman says...etc. Also, no other topic in the lede is treated with opinionated commentary, so any commentary there needs to go. I believe that is fair and objective given the controversy and biases associated with this topic. -- Gwillhickers 01:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources making that statement. Unless you find a significant reliable source stating that there is no consensus, we describe the consensus like the sources do. Also see WP:NPOV, WP:CLAIM. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no policy that says we can't say a particular source has claimed or asserted an opinion. Commentary has been introduced to this page time and again in similar manner. Btw, Paul Finkleman once referred to Jefferson as a "monster". Are you saying we can make this statement? "Jefferson is a monster." Nonsense. If a source only makes a claim regarding a controversial topic, without qualification, explanation, let alone proof, we need to make clear to the readers that the assertion is indeed a claim, which is the truth. -- Gwillhickers 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The policy which has just been pointed out to you is WP:NPOV. Considering this article is about Jefferson, who is notable for many things far more important, a fringe dissenting opinion from mainstream historiography deserves little if any mention. TFD (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes NPOV means giving both views equal representation. At this point, after all that has been pointed out, your line is beginning to sounds like a chant. "Fringe" only tells us you have no idea of who's out there. The dissent comes from major players in the controversy along with a long line of established historians and professors. Got it this time? -- Gwillhickers 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
No it does not. It means giving every view the same representation as it receives in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The policy is found at WP:WEIGHT. 03:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
And people like Dr. Foster, Dr. Wallenborn, Barger and all the prominent historians and professors mentioned give the other side of the controversy plenty of weight. That's why it's a controversy. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? -- Gwillhickers 05:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Which means that among the thousands of historians in the U.S., a handful believe that Jefferson was not the father and they have been unwilling or unable to publish their views in the academic press and have received nil acceptance of them. The same is true with virtually any fringe theory you care to name. Ergo, any controversy exists outside the mainstream and deserves little or no mention here, per policy. TFD (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, you seem to have slipped back one level. We are not talking about Jefferson and Hemings sex live, we are talking about the current historical discourse. Have any of competent historians among them (and that includes neither Barger nor Hyland) claimed that there is no consensus against their position? Have they done so in a reliable publication so that we should give weight to it? Or is it your own original research that tells you "if there are so many opposed, there can be no consensus"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary in the lede

Either we present a balanced commentary in the lede or we should remove all commentary, esp since no other topics are treated with commentary. Simply because some high visibility websites have claimed "most historians" does not mean there is no appreciable number of others who don't agree. If there was not an appreciable number and they were all fly by night sources, there would be no controversy. There is one and it needs to be presented fairly. These attempts to skew and hide this reality are beneath anyone who tries to author a history article, which should be objective, balanced and neutral. Also, if there is no controversy, then the topic needs to be removed from the lede completely, as that was the reason for its inclusion when it was first debated back in 2011. -- Gwillhickers 19:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Hemings material is significant to the historiography of Jefferson, no matter whether we think the question is now settled or whether it is still open to debate. As such, the Hemings note must stay in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Hemings issue started with a rumor and remains far from proven to this day, regardless of opinion, much of it racially and politically motivated. In order for it to be a controversy there has to be an appreciable number of people who haven't jumped to conclusions over evidence that clearly points to other paternal candidates as well. If the topic is indeed a controversy, then it needs to be presented fairly and objectively. If it is not a controversy, it is not significant to the historiography of Jefferson any more than other rumors with no factual and conclusive proof and doesn't belong in the lede, as this was the justification for having it there in the first place. Is it a controversy or not? Please don't play musical chairs with the issue. -- Gwillhickers 19:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that the findings are "racially and politically motivated" - can you provide any evidence for this in mainstream sources? TFD (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You're kidding right? This very article mentions that the original accusations were made by a disgruntled journalist who was denied an appointment by Jefferson. Callender was making good on threats he'd made to Jefferson that there would be consequences if he wasn't given the postmaster job. There's plenty of racial motivation in interpreting the results of the DNA tests - many incorrectly treat them as definitive and there's an active faction here who want to do so - which is how the article read for a long time - except the facts don't back them up. The irresponsible, sensationalist title of the original Nature article didn't help matters.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidently there's much you haven't seen. As I said, this talk page is not the place to be educating the uninfomred, but you have insisted:

  • William G. Hyland, Jr. speaks of such bias in his book In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal pp.22, 119, 166, 280, published by the award winning Macmillan press, Fifth Ave New York, a major and long established publisher.
  • David N. Mayer's books are published by the University of Virginia. His essay Sally Hemings Myth and the Politicization of American History, is featured in Dr. Robert F. Turner's book, published by the North Carolina Academic Press. (Turner is a Professor at University of Virginia.)
  • Turner's also writes about how DNA evidence was handled and presented in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal: The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings
  • Dr, Wallenborn, former TJF committee member himself accused TJF of political bias.
  • Dr Foster and his historical consultant Herbert Barger have accused the TJF and others of bias noting that some members like Swann-Wright were African American and heavily involved with racial issues, which is a fair observation. Racial motives are constantly considered in courts of law and other places -- but not here??
  • The University of Virgina Magazine has an excellent article of the various biases that have played a central role in the controversy.
  • Francis D. Cogliano's book Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy, p.124 talks about how the civil rights movement pressured Montecello into making slavery the central theme in the tour of TJF Montecello.

Dr. Foster, H. Barger, Dr. Wallenborn along with the many other prominent historians and professors deserve fair representation in the lede and in the section. They are not an inconsequential, or a "fringe" group by any means, esp since Foster, Barger, Wallenborn and others were at the center of the controversy from the time DNA evidence was misrepresented. Their accounts are represented in the mainstream which is largely why the issue is controversial. If their accounts were only published by some fly by night news rag, etc, there would be no national controversy among historians and professors.

Since this has been well discussed now and there are more than enough reliable sources, we also need to mention that bias has played a major role among those who have misrepresented the evidence from the start and who have "concluded" that Jefferson was not only the father of one, but all of Hemings' children. We also have more than enough sources to mention in the lede that there are other points of view among a good number of historians. This is not Stalinist Russia guys. We need to make the article fair, balanced and objective. The website sources that say "most historians" allows us to say that, but that's it. It is not grounds to be ignoring the many other accounts as something that is inconsequential. If you maintain all of these people, Dr. Foster, Dr. Wallenberg, Barger, professors at Harvard, Virginia, et al, are of no consequence, which is absurd, then there is no controversy and we remove it from the lede. Btw, there is indeed a controversy, it should have mention, fair mention, in the lede and my advice to you would be to educate yourself on matters before you take part in a debate you evidently know little about. This debate is getting old, has been attempted before several times and has failed each time for the same reasons outlined now. Past participates that share these views are not present at this particular time no doubt because they're tired of repeating the same points over and again. -- Gwillhickers 00:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first source is a Google book search of Hyland's book for the word "bias." Page 22, which is your first reference, says, "What was their bias or...." It appears to be discussing the DNA testing. Also, I asked for evidence in "mainstream sources". Find an article in a history journal that supports your views. TFD (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
GWillhickers, the book to which you refer in your last bullet point is the same one I quoted from in small print above. Your hurried search caused you to utterly miss Cogliano's main point. I urge all editors to read pp. 123-124, from which I quote:
When, in 1998, DNA testing confirmed that Jefferson was the likely father of at least one child by one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, this development too was incorporated into the house tour. Having conceived Monticello as a patriotic shrine to Jefferson . . . the Foundation neglected or ignored slavery during its early years. Eventually, in response to the growing literature on Jefferson's relationship to slavery . . . the Foundation began to consider slavery as an aspect of Jefferson's legacy. As an inevitable consequence of such an approach, the heroic image of Jefferson as Apostle of Freedom . . . was impossible to sustain. Yopienso (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The text indeed says that the Civil Rights movement fueled in part their decision to make slavery the central theme at Montiecllo. It is Jefferon's home and legacy. How is it that slavery takes a front seat to almost everything? -- Gwillhickers 05:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Well certainly it can't be that there are any racial motivations involved...</sarcasm>TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And it says the TJF acted "in response to the growing literature on Jefferson's relationship to slavery - itself a product of the broader study of slavery in the United States fuelled in part by the Civil Rights movement", not that "the civil rights movement pressured Montecello into making slavery the central theme in the tour of TJF Montecello." None of which supports the claim that their findings on paternity were "racially and politically motivated." TFD (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The same feelings about slavery directly connect to Hemings who was also a slave, much of the sentiment politically and often racially motivated. Both slavery and Hemings were viewed through the same lens by many if not all the staffers at TJF and elsewhere. It has been easily demonstrated that there is a wide body of descent among people, many directly involved in the controversy along with many prominent historians and professors at major universities across the country. The evidence still supports other possible and viable candidates while there are plenty of important people who have published works in enough mainstream publications to warrant better representation of both sides of this controversy. The attempt to write it all off as inconsequential remains ludicrous and smacks of pushing a POV regarding a controversial topic. There is not one piece of evidence, DNA, looks of children, times of conception, that points to Jefferson any more than it does Randolph Jefferson and others. If so, spare us the 'fringe' rhetoric and name one. Most of the weight should be placed on the facts, not the opinions. The bulk of anything said in the lede and the section should be devoted to facts, with brief mention of the opinions out there on both sides. We can still say "most historians", but that is all you can say. It's not a license to stick your head in the sand and ignore and misrepresent everything else. -- Gwillhickers 05:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss evidence and methodology. The fact is that historians have accepted the TJF's findings and ignored your group's findings. It could be that you are right and the TJF is wrong, but it does not matter, because policy tells us to follow NPOV. If you want equal weight for fringe theories, then get Misplaced Pages to change that policy. TFD (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You have cited no policy that says we can't coverage both sides of a controversy, and your claims about "fringe" remain refuted. The fact remains that historians are widely divided as is easily demonstrated, that many of them are from prominent universities and that much of their work is published by mainstream publications, also demonstrated. Once again, people like Dr, Eugene Foster who did the DNA experiments, Herbert Barger, his history consultant, Dr. Wallenborne who exposed the TJF research committee, all central figures in the controversy, are also in the group who have not taken inconclusive evidence and have jumped to such singular conclusions. You've tried to brush off all of these people as "fringe", but one look at the number of people, their backgrounds, their involvements and their publishers and that claim falls flat on its face. When you say this is not the place to discuss evidence, it only shows us that you have to stay away from the facts as far as possible to sell your opinionated and unproven claims. ASW has presented four websites that claim "most historians" and though I challenge that idea I have never said we have to remove this from the page. This is yet another distinction that seems to escape you. My only position is that we need to say something more about the other views as there are enough of them to justify doing so. Naturally you object because as soon as the other side has fair representation much of the weight to arguments shifts to the other side. -- Gwillhickers 16:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The policy is "neutrality". I have never called anyone fringe. People are not fringe, ideas are. What makes ideas fringe is not that they are inaccurate, biased, poorly reasoned, not supported by facts, or that their authors are unqualified - the opposite might be true. Lots of ideas that are now generally accepted were considered fringe when they were first advocated, beginning with Ptolemy's theory that the Earth is round. Ideas are fringe when they do not attain acceptance in the mainstream, in this case, in academic writing. TFD (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
A "fringe" idea is highly unusual, weird even, with few or no facts to support it. An idea isn't fringe simply because it's not held by "most historians", whatever that amount is supposed to be. As I've said, it's an unproven mostly partisan claim. In any case, there are too many historians, professors and people central to the controversy who don't follow along to be writing off their views as fringe. The reason the Hemings topic is a controversy is because there is great opposition to the conclusions jumped to. If the opposing views were just held by a few fly-by-night websites or books there would be no controversy to speak of. As you know, there is one to speak of, which is why the topic is allowed in the lede. The opposing views have also been published in many mainstream publications as I've also pointed out. -- Gwillhickers 18:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:FRINGE defines a "fringe theory" defines them "in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." Fringe theatre is theater outside the mainsteam, fringe events at party conferences address minority issues, etc. In this case the dissenting view has received little or not notice in the mainstream, and "neutrality", which is a policy, requires that we provide it with the same prominence. If you dislike the term, then just say outside or ignored by the mainstream. Incidentally, it is not up to us to evaluate a theory based on whether there are facts to support it. That is the role of secondary sources. And of course mainstream can ideas, such as DNA, can be weird. TFD (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary in the lede2

You keep ignoring several items. One, that opposing views are indeed prominent and covered in mainstream secondary sources as was pointed out several times now, and two, WP policy says, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints. The opposing views are indeed significant and is why there is a controversy. There is also a quote from Jimbo Wales in that same section which says If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. (emphasis added) This was done, quite easily. The opposing views are indeed held by a significant minority, as is evidenced by numerous and established historians and professors from numerous major universities and people central to the controversy, like Dr. Eugene Foster, etc. Commentary should be limited to the section and differing views be given fair representation. Such details do not belong in the lede and not be given the same weight as the established historical facts, like the DOI, Louisiana Purchase and slavery. -- Gwillhickers 23:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "neutral" is; you posted that racist bit about "to see acute bias all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF", pointing to the photos of black staffers. That dropped your neutrality stock to nil. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't try to 'ace' the discussion with such shallow rant. You're trying to take 2 + 2 and come up with 100. I would have said the same thing about anyone involved in such a capacity, regardless of race. My referral was quite warranted. IMO, most of the NAACP, esp Julian Bond, who has a long history of divisive rhetoric and racist slurs, are stark racists and depend on 'individuals' such as yourself to hound those who may hold their feet to the same fire as they would anyone else. Please stop with your not so veiled personal attacks and use the talk page for its intended purpose. Got any thoughts on WP policy and the other finer points of the discussion? Feed that melody into your mixer and see what you can come up with. A.H. -- Gwillhickers 02:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Your racist remark is applicable because you are here arguing a finer point about how race relations are to be presented in this biography, especially with regard to slave/master relations with all the attendant need for sensitivity. We all know Misplaced Pages policy but sometimes there are judgement calls, and this is one of them. I don't think your judgement can be accepted here regarding race matters. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel the same about your assessment, given your shallow jump to conclusions. I made reference to black staffers with racial bias, as was warranted given Julian Bond's history, remarks, etc. This is not (braawk!) "racist", or do you feel they are above such scrutiny because they are black and I'm not? Read: Conditioned response. Please keep the dialog focused on WP policy and how we're supposed to present these issues to the readers. -- Gwillhickers 02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You pointed to what Julian Bond looked like, not any of his history, remarks or deeds. Just his appearance—inferring very clearly that a black staffer must be biased. It is quite different to refer to deeds and say that someone has demonstrated bias, which is what I am doing now. I have no idea what you look like; I just know what you wrote. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Bink, I understand your point, but I did mention that he was a member of the NAACP -- and while what they stand for on the surface is commendable (equal rights, etc) too many of their members are no different than some extremist who wraps himself with the flag as a justification to do and say what he pleases. -- Gwillhickers 17:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Folks, apropos the lead, historiographic footnotes do not belong there.
  • The issue is raised, should the phrase "consensus of modern historians" be applied in the lead. I would say no. Even were it so, it belongs in the section discussing the Sally Hemings affair/marriage.
  • Further, it seems from the discussion above that the phrase at issue should be amended to the "consensus of is , the consensus of " is ." and that observation be placed in a footnote. WP should be a place of greater information. This level of scholarly back-and-forth is not relevant to a narrative on Jefferson's life for the general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. WP isn't interested in the consensus of institutions A, B, and C, but in the overall consensus of the academy--the leading scholars of history. They are not necessarily correct, but they are the arbiters of mainstream thought. Francis D. Cogliano presents an excellent historiography on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy on pp. 170-198 of Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy. The online format has two large gaps; any person in the U.S. can readily find the book at their local library or ask there for an inter-library loan. A careful reading of Chap.6 of that book should end this debate.

Half of p. 183 is given to David N. Mayer's defense of TJ, summed up by a short quote from John Works: "Defending Thomas Jefferson, therefore, has come to mean defending what America means, and we feel compelled to rise to that defense." Cogliano immediately follows with, "Among scholars, this defense has been ineffective." Both Mayer and Works are members of the TJHS, which Cogliano tells about on pp. 180-183. Wrt their report, he writes on p. 181 that "it shows that the work of the TJHS, while cloaked in scholarly objectivity, promotes an explicit political agenda." Cogliano concludes on p. 191,"Now that most scholars accept the Jefferson-Hemings relationship as a fact it will be necessary to re-evaluate Thomas Jefferson's life and character . . ."

This is who Cogliano is. Yopienso (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TVH, the lede should be a summary of Jefferson's life and any topic should not get treated any differently than all the other topics there. Opinionated commentary belongs in the sections and since there is a significant minority of descending opinion regarding the Jefferson paternity theory from notable people in many mainstream sources their views should get fair representation. The attempts to obscure and hide these things from the readers are disappointing. -- Gwillhickers 17:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yopienso, Cogliano indeed mentions that "most" scholars accept ...as a fact. 'As' a fact. The idea of Jefferson's paternity is still a theory and remains far from proven. As such, we need to be clear about that and not deceive the readers. You should be looking for legitimate ways, per WP policy, to do that, because that's the truth. -- Gwillhickers 17:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The article currently reads, "These indicators have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. That seems to address your concern that we do not present it as a fact, and may even understate the degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
In all likelihood it may even overstate that degree given the many prominent historians, professors and other notable people (tip of the iceberg) who haven't jumped to such a narrow conclusion. In any case, giving commentary in the lede for this topic is giving it special consideration and weight over all the other established facts presented there and needs to be confined to the section.-- Gwillhickers 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide any academic paper that any of these professors have published? There are of course always experts who doubt orthodoxy, but unless they publish and their views obtain recognition it is of no relevance. TFD (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide any published from anyone in the TJF or any other web-cite sources that has claimed "most historians", etc? The Smithsonian, PBS, etc? Heck, these orgs have simply made the claim and we don't even know anything about most of the individuals there 'standing behind the curtain', pulling the ropes, so let's not start inventing requirements that WP policy has not even stipulated regarding reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yopiensko just provided you with a book published by the University of Virginia Press. TFD (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You're jumping to another topic again. You have provided no published academic paper so asking for me to provide one is more of the foot dragging that continues to characterize your (lack of) arguments. -- Gwillhickers 17:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, the members of the TJHS are all (maybe most?) recognized scholars and more renowned than Cogliano. All or most have published, some prolifically. Not all are TJ specialists. Almost all are old white men; some are dead. There's an old white woman and an old black man among them, and one or two middle-aged men. That's the problem: they are from the passing generation, and no longer represent the mainstream, but have become reactionaries. This happens every generation or so as the trends in historiography swing lke a pendulum. For better or for worse, right now the trend is not to write hagiographies, but to paint feet of clay. Yopienso (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Not interested in speculations about which source may be more recognized than the other, esp since WP policy has nothing to say about that, and esp since sources like TJF, PBS don't even have actual names of historians or professors attached to them. Again, commentary in the lede for one topic, a theory, should be removed. The topic has the most text devoted to it than any other topic in the lede, and again, this is just theory. We're here to write a factual biography and any opinions and theory can be mentioned in the section with fair representation for all significant views. Btw, Dumas Malone was an old white man when he wrote his award winning biography of Jefferson. He is still a reliable source regardless of his race or the fact that he is now deceased, so let's stop inventing rules and keep our line straight. Most modern sources only offer new opinion and simply copy the older sources. I have further reservations about many modern sources as many are undisciplined, are acutely presentist in their thinking and often plagued with a lot of peer driven trendy attitude. Ergo, sources should be evaluated on an individual bases and prejudice toward old white men should not be a determining factor. -- Gwillhickers 17:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You should be arguing your case on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You're confused again. I was only pointing out that no WP policy was presented in any of these arguments about sources. Is there a source that says we can't use sources written by old or dead white men? Once again, opinionated commentary needs to be limited to the sections. Ultimately only facts directly associated with Jefferson's life should be summarized in the lede. Modern day speculations, either way, about a theory should not receive more weight and coverage in the lede, or anywhere, than do the established historical facts. -- Gwillhickers 20:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
No, this biography should touch upon the changing historiography of the topic. There is no remit to limit the lead section to a fraction of the article content. Rather, the lead section is a summary of important article content. The historiography is especially important for TJ as it is subject to recent reevaluation. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the biography should 'touch upon' all historiography, but not in the lede. Everything is subject to reevaluation. The lede is no place for the 'historiography' of one topic, an unproven theory no less, the importance of which is also opinionated. If we must keep such commentary in the lede, then it should reflect all significant views. You can't have it both ways. Either we keep commentary in the appropriate section or we give all significant views fair representation in the lede, as well as in the section. If Jefferson's paternity was a proven fact, beyond the shadow of numerous doubts, then opinions in the lede about the topic might be warranted, but no more than any other topic, none of which are typed out in the lede in paragraph proportions. None of the other (very) important established historical facts in the lede are treated with any commentary from selected sources. -- Gwillhickers 03:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the lead section the way it appears today, including the paragraph about slavery and TJ's relationship with Hemings. If you are proposing to delete that paragraph then I am against that suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Except you've failed to explain how this topic, a theory, deserves more weight than all the other established facts. Either we remove the commentary, or we have it include fair representation for all significant views. Btw, we don't have to remove the entire paragraph, just the commentary. There was no one sided commentary about historians before July when some new user came in and claimed Jefferson "got off far too easy". This editor then edited the lede to say that DNA matched Jefferson, only, an obvious attempt to pass the paternity matter off as fact. This is underhanded BS and an obvious deception. Not too long ago ASW balanced the commentary by including "A minority note the evidence also supports the possibility that other male members of the Jefferson family could have fathered her children. Before that throughout most of 2012 the commentary included, some historians have noted that the evidence can also support other possible fathers, which is the truth. Any commentary in the lede needs to reflect the whole truth regarding DNA evidence and other significant views as it did before. In any case, commentary is only given to this one topic/theory and more text is devoted to it than any other topic by far, and now it's one sided. The current lede poses a clear undue weight and POV issue. -- Gwillhickers 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't value your argument enough to rebut it. This is a race issue and I don't think you can be neutral. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
None of you're arguments didn't stand, and since you can't wiggle your way around the above points just made, all you can do now is play the race card. Sorry Bink, who are we kidding? Even if I were the 'racist from hell' it doesn't change the facts and issues like undue weight, POV, significant minority views, etc -- none of which you could square off with and address effectively. -- Gwillhickers 00:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
No one is asked to be neutered, we are only asked to use reliable sources to contribute information to the encyclopedia. We are to be even handed, admitting conflicting scholarly views unless there is a preponderance of evidence which makes a POV WP:fringe. Which is why I would like to include all associations of differing reliable source scholars on any given topic dispassionately -- without the explicit agism appealed to heretofore by some of our contributing editors. I would like to hear from Alanscottwalker again, since his proposal and mine are so close, and I endorsed his above, for the body of the article narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert: (edit conflict) Agism and racism. Opposing sources were recently ridiculed: "Almost all are old white men..." No reference to political and racial agendas and orgs with a long history of racist and divisive slurs, just old white men -- and our finger pointing friend here had zero to say about it because he's on the same side of the fence. This is what you're dealing with at the moment. Just so you know. -- Gwillhickers 00:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I have taken this off my watchlist. Discussing it again, for the many reasons discussed previously, is not worthwhile. In the years this has been discussed, I am still of the opinion that "consensus of most historians" or something like it belongs in the lede as summary information. As to the rest, good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
ASW, even though we disagree about most things regarding Hemings I don't mind saying that you were/are a significant contributor and your edits were a big part of the reason why the article remained stable until just recently. Hope you don't go. -- Gwillhickers 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There is little left to say. It was stable until you started changing it again, and then reopened it here. But to say it all again: look at the sources. Ample sources directly support "most historians." The major source offered to quibble, here, the TJHS report overall concludes: "don't know" and "resonable persons disagree" (individual members have a range of doubts, some are "almost" certain its not true, some are skeptical, Paul Rahe says more likely that Jefferson is the father of Eston - and says even the argument that it's Jeffeson's relatives reflects extremely poorly on Jefferson), and none of that expressly contravenes "most historians" which is what we are relating as sourced. In ordinary language "most" has never meant "all" and does not do so here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary in the lede3

Actually the recent round of edits and debate started here when you reverted an edit that added balance to the Hemings presentation in the lede as the page had recently. (This is not to see it's all your fault.) The page was stable when it reflected both significant views in the lede. As I've always said, it's not my wish to remove most historians, only to give fair representation to the significant views as the lede did one before, and as you also added to the lede. I would like to remove the commentary from the lede and treat the Hemings topic no differently than the others, but if we must keep commentary there it should reflect both significant views. Don't think that compromise is unreasonable. -- Gwillhickers 19:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted a single word that made no sense in the sentence back to its stable version. Obviously, I think it should have ended there. But it did not because more and more was then changed - and that word did not find its way back into the sentence, which sentence already acknowledged that agreement was not universal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
"Non-conclusive" evidence made perfect sense, but I apologize, there was a similar attempt by TDOL before that where Bink reverted. Yours was the second revert, involving non-conclusive evidence, which is the truth btw. Then later you came back and added balance to the lede as I pointed out above, which sort of surprised me, but that too soon disappeared, which didn't surprise me. In any case no one has submitted any legitimate argument for not giving the readers the whole truth here. Opposing views are significant, numerous, widely published in mainstream sources, as was pointed out numerous times now. If there's going to be commentary for this one topic, which smacks of undue weight over all the other established facts, btw, then it should reflect both significant views as it did up until July when some redlink user came in with no discussion and made the change -- and went so far as to say DNA matched Jefferson, period, with no mention of the other numerous possibilities. Yet another deception. Commentary in the lede needs to say something to bring balance back as it did before. -- Gwillhickers 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Why are we having the same discussion. Most here don't see us hiding anything. We are to provide a summary of sourced information in an article lead. See ; . "Most historians" is sourced summary information, and it does not mean all historians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no one has even come close to justifying adding commentary in the lede for a theory when there is none for the other more important factual topics. How does an alleged affair come off more important than topics like the DOI, Louisiana Purchase, Presidency, slavery?? I say 'more important' because the Hemings theory is given more coverage by far than the other topics in the lede. This is clearly a POV undue weight issue. Secondly, claiming "most historians" by itself is ambiguous and doesn't represent the wide body of the other significant views. So not only do we have to put up with commentary for one topic in the lede, but for it being skewed to represent one side. Now an other editor has added even more commentary about "oral tradition" and "places Jefferson at home in time to father children..." and has almost turned the lede into a section about Hemings. There was no discussion or consensus to add all of this other stuff so it needs to go and balance brought back to the commentary along the same lines as your edits to the lede recently did. -- Gwillhickers 23:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I just added the POV tag to the article. Many weeks were once devoted to making the article neutral and fair and all the way up until recently the article, and the lede, was basically neutral and reflected both significant views, so there was a consensus to begin with. There has been no discussion or consensus to add all the details that were recently added to the lede about Hemings. This has taken the article completely backwards and snubs all the editors who spent time discussing these matters to make the article fair and neutral. -- Gwillhickers 23:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No discussion? No consensus? Both of those assertions are dead wrong. Discussion has taken many kilobytes, and consensus is clearly against you. At this point you have decided to tag the article with a badge of shame simply because you have not been able to convince others of your position. Such an action is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
There was no discussion to load up the lede with all the details you dumped into it a few days ago. There was a consensus and many weeks of discussion in 2012 to make the article neutral and it remained so up until recently until another editor with an obvious axe to grind skewed the DNA statement to make it read that DNA evidence only pointed to Jefferson. Don't ya' just love the honesty? If you want to get an in depth consensus we can always call for a poll. It is allowed if handled correctly. The "badge of shame" comment I suspect is just more of your par-time indignation that only comes to life when you can't address the actual points while you turn the other cheek when someone tries to brand opposing sources as written by "old white men". There shouldn't be any commentary and lengthy coverage for any one topic in the lede in the first place, but if we're going to have it then it should be fair and neutral. The commentary at present is the whole truth. i.e.most historians, and evidence that also points to other potential fathers. If you can live with that we can remove the tag. If not, then we can slug this out the hard way. I know there are plenty of other editors around that want fairness and neutrality for this article because this issue has reared its pointed little head several times before you came along and repeated history. -- Gwillhickers 09:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwhillickers, the unfortunate fact is that the historical community has accepted a view which you for whatever reason disagree. This is not the place to correct historians however. TFD (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwilhickers' modest proposal is to acknowledge for WP editors here that there is no such thing as your imaginary "historical community" in a class-conscious monolith; there is controversy over this point regarding Jefferson's slave children which is still unsettled. My previous point is, this straining at parentage in the lede is WP editor as the puppy in tall grass, lost in the weeds of detail, inappropriate to the introduction.
BTW, you may enjoy the Booknotes 9/21/13 with Henry Wiencek on his "Master of the Mountain". He pointedly refuses to label Jefferson a "hypocrite" in the talk and Q and A, Wiencek only observes a transition descriptively from pre-1790 emancipator Jefferson to post 1790 justifier Jefferson. He makes no reference to "a preponderance of historians", only refers to specific schools of thought and individual scholars, just as one might expect from a serious historian -- if you will pardon the expression.
It seems without entrepreneurial, industrial, financial or commercial genius, the South required some sort of independent basis of wealth to balance the sections in the republic. The unmechanized monoculture of tobacco, cotton, rice or indigo could not compete with diverse mechanized agriculture in the north, so the sole source of independent wealth in the South was --- slavery. At the loss of slavery, I suppose the antidote was to be found in the post-Civil War entrepreneurship, industrialism, financiers and commerce of the "New South", with a dose of political, economic and social justice by the end of the 20th century. But it aint over yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
A person's parentage, marriage or significant other and children is typically included in ledes of biographical articles. No allegation is made in that Jefferson was hypocritical. Your offbeat views on South vs North have no relevance to the discussion.
Wiencek btw is a journalist not an historian and his book was published by the popular press and was widely panned by historians. Regardless, whether or not he comments on what weight should be assigned to various views, the policy of neutrality requires that we make that determination.
TFD (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
TDF you tip your hand on several accounts as to your knowledge of basic American history and regarding the value of particular sources like Wieneck and historians altogether -- not a monolithic entity by any means. The economic situation in the south was indeed as TVH has articulated well and while it certainly doesn't justify slavery it does explain why it persisted and many attempts were made to better the livelihood of slaves in the USA as was evidenced by Jefferson and many others like them, unlike slavery in Brazil and the Caribbean where the life expectancy of slaves was only seven years. Re:Your (yet another attempt) to shoot the messenger (Wieneck) rather than point out any factual errors in his work, I can only ask you to adhere to such standards when you blindly go along with high visibility politically/peer driven sources like PBS, TJF, etc who don't attribute their work, claims, to any author, much less a historian. You're partially correct about one thing, that a person's biography should mention the wife or significant other but you're trying to stretch this idea to include theory and rumor far from proven -- to the point where it should even get commentary. -- Gwillhickers 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The TFD "offbeat views" on South v. North bases of wealth in my post are those of Wiencek, although I find "slavery" as the South's basis of wealth a plausible thesis, not TFD "offbeat". Wiencek purports Jefferson parentage of Hemmings children not only Jefferson-family, but Jefferson-personally, as does Annette Gordon-Reed --- which I disagree with as a certainty, as male DNA tracks to males in a family, no matter who wears the biggest hat in TFDs eyes. Now TFD holds Annette Gordon-Reed as "offbeat" on the subject (?), and we are back into the weeds where the introduction should not go. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That the basis of wealth in the South was slavery is accurate, the "offbeat" comment is about the other things TVH historian said that the South was not entrepreneurial and could not compete with the North. Regardless it has nothing to do with whether or not Jefferson had illegitimate children. TVH, it is not up to us to evaluate the reasons why historians have come to their conclusions, that is better left to Southern heritage discussion groups. We just report what they say in accordance with the policy of neutrality. TFD (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Weincek savaged TJ and was taken to task for it my Gordon-Reed and Stanton. Yopienso (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see TFD savage Wiencek, I really thought he would enjoy the Book TV presentation, as Wiencek had his best foot forward for the cameras. TFD has a contrarian career ahead of him for a lifetime to demonstrate to a preponderance of historians that the antebellum South out-competed the North in any metric but slavery and slave-produced monoculture...and mules v. horses, maybe. Nice to have another fringe niche, I suppose, let a thousand flowers bloom... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not "savage" the book, I merely said it was non-academic and widely panned by historians. And the South had a thriving economy and presented a serious challenge to the North, which had to rely on protectionism to encourage economic development. 75% of U.S. exports came from the South. TFD (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
And now you must determine from your own fringe explorations whether those Southern exports were in any way related to slave labor monoculture. It seems I cannot help you in this as in other things. The "thriving" you speak of was percentage growth up from previous poverty, at a slower rate of increase. It was, as David McClelland at Harvard explained in The Achieving Society, a cultural thing. That retarded Southern growth and allowed the North to advance at faster rates of growth to proportionately ever greater dominance in every field of endeavor but slavery. Without expansion of slavery the South's economy was doomed in a democracy as it supported relatively fewer population in ever diminishing proportion.
In the case of Virginians, an escaped slave blacksmith in Massachusetts invented the toggle harpoon, McCormick invented the mechanical reaper, the Assembly would not charter his manufacturing company, he relocated to Chicago. In the case of Georgia, Whitney could not get his cotton gin patent protection enforced on plantations, so he removed to New England to begin mass production of weaponry (see Civil War for unintended consequences). etc., etc. and so on and on ... in the face of reactionary slave-power adverse to any improvement for any purpose ... Virginian Edmund Ruffin vainly calling for application of guano to restore exhausted tobacco soils and his business attempts thwarted, opposing French transplant Crozet, former engineer for Napoleon and his calling as chief state engineer for a future of railroads instead of the canals merely reinforcing existing river-planter dominance ... pick a state, any antebellum Southern state ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I said, "the basis of wealth in the South was slavery". No idea how you read that as saying southern exports were unrelated to slavery. Perhaps you support that minority view that Southern slavery was a pre-capitalist institution, and the South was a Gone with the Wind society, with ladies and gentleman lacking in enterprise. TFD (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You were very good to concede when confronted, that the basis of wealth in the South was slavery. But then you said southern economy was "thriving" based on aggregate economic data -- for your ladies and gentlemen of local power in a Moon-and-Magnolias fantasy -- regardless of the overwhelmingly impoverished majorities of slaves and poor white populations surrounding them. You have a habit of ignoring people in your fixation on places.
Certainly plantations were a form of capitalism, pernicious, immoral, AND they were relatively unsuccessful for the societies which allowed slavery to persist, both in absolute and in relative economic terms for their communities. For an alternative capitalist-plantation model of monoculture, see the English corporate cattle ranches in Texas. The slave owners in the South increasingly through the 1800s invested in Northern and English industry to finance their in-town living such as Richmond or Charleston SC. The evidence is that overseers in their absence maintained a more oppressive regime than plantations with on-site masters, and such was the case during Jefferson's absence at Monticello, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not "concede" anything, I corrected your misrepresentation of what I wrote. Your statement that the planters invested in the North does not support your belief that the plantation system was unprofitable. Where did they get the money to invest? That they did not provide an equitable distribution of wealth does not mean they were unprofitable. TFD (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I said the South was not relatively or absolutely entrepreneurial as the North, not as widespread, to the degree, or as successful as the North by either distribution of wealth or by aggregate profits – for unchallenged compounding decades. TFD direct quotes: And the South had a thriving economy and presented a serious challenge to the North… way too fringe to be taken seriously, and That they did not provide an equitable distribution of wealth does not mean they were unprofitable. But the profit to a narrow few had consequences. It so exhausted the soil that it beggared the remaining populations who then migrated to less oppressive regimes, over 50% migrating from antebellum Virginia went to Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, another 40% to Kentucky and Missouri. Virginia, the largest Southern state slips from fifth to seventeenth in state ranking. Your analysis improves if you were to look beyond elites at the people, the masses, whatever.

Lift your gaze from the moonshine and magnolias surrounding stately mansions for a moment to see that very big houses built on loans secured by slave collateral was no challenge to Northern economic dominance, however profitable for a generation or two a plantation might be. Most plantation families lasted in a homeplace no more than three generations before the land was so exhausted that it was good only for empoverished tenancy by poor whites left behind. Monticello was no exception. Numerous Union diaries comment on the equivalent life-style of the poor white and slave throughout the South, in some cases poor whites suffered in the comparison.

It might help in your analysis if you distinguish between capitalist versus entrepreneurial, commodity transport versus diverse commerce, financial indebtedness versus capital accumulation, agricultural colonialism versus industrial independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of holding on to views that you have adopted without reflection, then searching for evidence to support them, you should suspend your beliefs and read mainstream sources through unbiased eyes. If you want to think that Gone with the Wind is a history book, that slave owners were aristocrats running feudal estates, or that capitalism always ensures equality of outcome, that is fine, but please discuss it with someone else. TFD (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
TFD has a fixation on "Gone with the Wind" without regard to mainstream economic analysis of historical contexts. More TFD imaginary America, compounded with TFD responding to imaginary posts on WP. I have said nothing of the kind related to feudalism, but pointed out TFDs narrow pedantic capitalist analysis as the one dimensional elitist pap that it is, resulting in a TFD fringe conclusion that the South was economically competitive with the North over the antebellum period.
TFD: "And the South had a thriving economy and presented a serious challenge to the North…" which is patent nonsense, TFD ignoring slaves and poor whites in the elite's surrounding community, just as long as his favorite fixations had large white mansions on their plantations. The South had NO challenge to the North on any metric not directly related to the economic colonialism asserted by the British and Northern mills over the South's slave-based cotton commodity. They were NOT William Byrd's "masters unto themselves" as Biblical patriarchs or TFD's GWTW.
Forget the pretty ionic pillars. Look around at the people at the time and in the place, and compare them to the people in the North, both white populations were 85% engaged in farming...which economic regime brought greater prosperity and supported larger numbers? The North did -- without any substantive challenge from the South as TFD might imagine (apart from Richmond or New Orleans with substantial free black populations) . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
TVH, you're starting to sound like Gwillhickers.
The South's cotton was essential to northern manufacturing. The Union imported cotton even during the Civil War. I don't have the time now to dig out the texts I studied in an upper level Civil War course, but Economy of the Confederate States of America says, "Ironically, the largest amount of cotton exports went to the United States." The source would require a subscription, but it's well cited. Here's a webpage. Yopienso (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes cotton was exported from the south, your source is correct, and unchallenged by me. And TFD is correct, the scholarly contribution of Marxist scholars such as the Genovese’s introduced the notion of slave plantations as proto-capitalist enterprises of the extractive sort. I acknowledge Marxist contributions, so TFD says I adopt GWTW as historiography, but of course TFD is not serious here or elsewhere, only disruptive.

Non-marxist business analysis now counts four factors of production: 1) entrepreneur management of an ongoing business, 2) labor and their technologies fabricating goods or delivering services, 3) capital accumulation and financial investment and 4) resources including land and raw materials. TFD discounts entrepreneurship which would conduct an ongoing business, innovate labor practice, grow capital in local banks, and preserve the land as was done in the North.

The South allows itself to become economically a commodity colony of the North and Britain for self-seeking local elites. Its narrowly constrained wealth is extractive in nature, exhausting the soil within sixty years at each plantation -- so the South’s “capitalism” is not an ongoing enterprise as it was practiced in the antebellum North. Northern diverse farms produced greater absolute wealth, and in the event of the Civil War its exports of wheat during the Continental drought of the 1860s trumped the dollar valuation of a Southern cotton export which was simply substituted by Egyptian and Indian cotton. There are exports and exports.

Jefferson went to wheat, innovating labor practices, calling on slave use of complicated machinery versus rolling hogsheads of tobacco, including maintenance and fabrication of wagons, etc., and so actually demonstrating the humanity, self-reliance -- free-ability (?) -- of his slaves...but that is another post. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

IOW it required entrepreneurship to run a small farm in the north but none to run a huge plantation in the South. And the success of an entrepreneur is not measured by how much wealth he accumulates, but on how wealth is distributed among everyone in society. Incidentally, it was a Marxist view that the South was not capitalist. Just as with Puerto Rico, you are arguing a left-wing theory and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being left-wing. (Marxists excluded the South because by their definition of capitalism, labor must be paid. True, their definition of capitalism, which they shared with 19th century liberals, did not include entrepreneurship, but that is not relevant here.) TFD (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Extractive profit-making is not entrepreneurship. Hence the Dutch commercial empire surpassed the Spanish extractive empire.
  • Distribution of wealth-creating enterprise is a measure of a regions entrepreneurship. The South cannot be characterized as entrepreneurial as a region, the example of Richmond notwithstanding. The South offered no TFD “challenge” to Northern economic supremacy; no scholar says it did.
  • Jefferson had no plantation in Puerto Rico. Marxists today deny Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. as does TFD, a fringe unsourced position which is contradicted by USG primary, USG secondary and modern scholarly sources from political scientists and constitutional scholars.
  • Eugene Genovese is widely regarded as a Marxist scholar who did not agree with Marx in all things, as he characterized plantations as proto-capitalist versus feudal. That is the nature of scholarship, it advances even within a school of thought.
Southern plantations had a form of capitalism which we are agreed to, but profit alone is not entrepreneurship as I explained in the last post by using non-Marxist analysis... Plantation cotton -- narrowly held -- did not make the South as entrepreneurial as the North, nor as industrial with plantation cotton gins the size of barns, the chosen plantation regime did not make the region as prosperous, nor did the South “challenge” the North in any substantive economic way.
TFD is not so much leftist though he objects to conservatives as disruptive and he dismisses rightist think tanks. He may be more a moonshine and magnolias fringe, asserting Texas and Puerto Rico can lawfully secede from the Union, arguing brown-skinned islanders can never be included in the American federal republic though now mutually citizens represented in Congress, etc.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not usually one to shut down a discussion, but are you sure that you are still contributing to improving the article? I have the feeling this has drifted quite a bit, and not always into a useful direction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's plantation, Jefferson's territories

Thanks for your support. My points being, 1) Jefferson's slaves suffered more during his absence, 2) Monticello failed as an ongoing enterprise during his lifetime (debt is not capital accumulation), and 3) Jefferson's plantation-slavery regime exhausted the soil and so contributed to the Virginia and the South's economic decline in absolute terms of wealth beggaring the surrounding poor white majorities, and relative to 85% Northern population on free labor farms. I also have an interest in how population migrations alter the course of history and how the US expanded its territory. So one of my contributions to the Jefferson article is the narrative section at “States admitted to the Union”.

A related thread refers to Jefferson’s view of citizenship and incorporation into the U.S. first as a territory, then as a state. Jefferson was on the congressional committee negotiating Virginia’s cession of its claim to the Northwest Territory. He made a contribution as chair of the articles congressional committee to provide for the subsequent admission of states through stages of territorial U.S. citizenship, presidential then self-government, territorial delegate, “Member of Congress”, petition for statehood and Congressional admission.

Key to making Louisiana a state and securing New Orleans away from any Spanish claim was as international law requires, settlement of populations of citizens to establish the U.S. claim. Instead of a basis of English Common law, one of the reasons for Louisiana maintaining the Code Napoleon to this day was the requirement as Jefferson saw it for French citizen residents to mutually become U.S. citizens. New Orleans Territory achieved self-government and territorial representation in Congress in the same manner as proto-states in the Northwest Territories.

So historians say the Louisiana Territory was incorporated into the United States, regardless of its controversial antecedents under international law as a transfer from Spanish to French to U.S. administration. The section on Louisiana Purchase should be expanded to include some of these considerations, especially as they have modern application. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposition for lede

Jefferson opposed slavery all his life in his speeches and writing, but he took little political action to emancipate slaves. He owned hundreds of slaves himself, and freed only a very few of them. Since the beginning of his career, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship Jefferson had with his slave, Sally Hemings. Inconclusive DNA investigations and circumstantial evidence have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. Yopienso (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, while I do appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground I ask you at this point to step back and take a good look at the amount of text we are devoting to Hemings -- more than slavery itself, an established fact. (!) Having said that I can go along with your proposal for now until we can better the lede in accord with the convention used for most biographies per consensus. However, I would scale down a couple details that are well covered in the section:
Jefferson opposed slavery all his life but took little political action to emancipate slaves. He owned hundreds of slaves himself, and freed only a few of them. Since the beginning of his career, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship Jefferson had with his slave, Sally Hemings. Inconclusive DNA and other circumstantial evidence have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children.
There's no mention of other historians, but your language is well enough and indirectly reflects their views. If you add this version to the lede, which is the way it was (+ -) all along, you'll get no objections from me. -- Gwillhickers 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but the evidence is that one of Jefferson's family fathered one or more of Heming's children, and Jefferson circumstantially one of them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
That's covered in the article, TVH.
GW, thanks for the collegial reply. I think we should show the difference between TJ's words and actions, which could be done by inserting one word into your abridgment: Jefferson verbally opposed slavery all his life but took little political action to emancipate slaves."
The DNA evidence conclusively linked Hemings' children to a Jefferson, but not to TJ. I think the article covers that OK. Will wait for more input here. Yopienso (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
(Insert) Saying "verbally opposed" would suggest, esp to naysayers with their minds half made up, that Jefferson was all talk an no action. He made notable attempts to abolish slavery, starting with the clause he included in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence. This clause was stricken before the DOI was finalized and sent on to his kingship in England. Jefferson blasted the king for introducing slavery to the colonies. He also proposed abolishing slavery in all territories to the west after 1800 in his draft of the Land Ordinance of 1784, that provision was stricken by Congress.-- Gwillhickers 04:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you can say the DNA evidence was inconclusive, which would mean that anyone could have been the father. The term "circumstantial evidence" is a little misleading, since circumstantial evidence is the only kind that can prove paternity. TFD (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you suggest we say? 'Conclusive evidence'? If the evidence was conclusive, there would be no controversy. As is common knowledge with anyone half familiar with this topic, the DNA evidence pointed to more than 20 other males in the Jefferson family, per Y chromosome handed down through the male line, most notably Randolph. The other circumstantial evidence is just that. Circumstantial -- all of which applies to other males, including times of conception, as Jefferson was frequently surrounded by family members when he was around. Please familiarize yourself with what reliable sources have to say before you make attempts at throwing a monkey wrench into the discussion. -- Gwillhickers 04:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert: Your argument that Randolph was a frequent visitor of Monticello is inaccurate. Randolph was an infrequent visitor of Monticello. His letters to his brother provide proof of this. Both Winthrop Jordan and Annette Gordon-Reed have produced extensive timelines of Jefferson's movements to and fro to Monticello, which circumstantially happen to coincide with "all" of Hemings' conception dates. Please provide sources for your statements about Randolph, or other Jefferson relatives visitations to Monticello. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Stephan, this: Some historians maintain that the evidence does not exclude other possible fathers is an improvement, but is not real accurate. I think all historians realize the DNA results do not exclude other possible fathers. Even more accurately, the DNA results don't (and can't) pinpoint Thomas Jefferson as the father. It may be better to leave off the first words, The DNA evidence does not exclude other possible fathers.
Which leads to my newest suggestion:
Jefferson verbally opposed slavery all his life but achieved little toward the emancipation of slaves. He worked hundreds of slaves, yet freed only two. Since the beginning of his career, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship he had with his slave, Sally Hemings. Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children, although the DNA results do not exclude other possible fathers. Yopienso (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, the DNA evidence was conclusive because scientists were able to conclusively match the DNA of a member of Jefferson's family with a descendant of Hemings. Had it been inconclusive, they would not have been able to do that. If you disagree, please provide a source. TFD (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) There is more evidence than the DNA evidence. There is the timing of the birth, the special treatment of the children, the fact that the children looked like Jefferson (to the degree that the similarity with a Jefferson statue was pointed out by strangers), and there is the oral history of the Hemings family. Before the DNA study, the only fathers seriously considered were Jefferson or the Carrs. Nobody had included any other Jefferson in the calculation, because really no evidence points to them even now unless one excludes Thomas by assumption. So I think the difference is really between the large majority that think the overall evidence overwhelmingly points to Jefferson, and a small minority that maintains that there are other possibilities (and that often point to Jeffersons moral standing and integrity to rule him out). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Insert : Times of conception: Sally was around -all the time- because she lived at Monticello. Jefferson was around often (not rarely) because this was also his home. Had Monticello been a place that neither Jefferson or Hemings went to often, then, the times of conception evidence would have more weight, and even there, it would be far from conclusive. We've been through this. Appearances: Didn't Jefferson's brother Randolph look like Thomas? What about Randolph's sons? Any of them could have produced children that resembled Thomas and Randolph. We've been through this. Oral History: What about the oral history of the Easton Hemings who claimed Randolph was his father? We've been through this also. There is not one shred of evidence that exclusively points to Jefferson. Btw, 200 year old "oral history" isn't exactly evidence either way. All we have is a lot of racially and/or politically motivated wishful thinking based on sketchy evidence to make Jefferson their political poster boy simply because he was a US president -- and because he owned slaves they feel it's okay to lie about matters if they have to. Easy to see. -- Gwillhickers 22:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
And we have been here before, too. 4 of the 6 confirmed children of Hemings were conceived while Jefferson was Vice President or President. Especially during the later 8 years, he spend a large proportion of his time in Washington, living in the White House. But he always went back to Monticello in time for Hemings conceptions. As for the rest: Have you finally read Gordon-Reed's American Controversy? My offer stands - let me know an address (in private - my email is enabled), and I'll have Amazon ship you a copy at my expense. I think we do agree on one point: There is indeed a lot of racially and/or politically motivated wishful thinking in this affair - and has been for 200 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Schulz, you never cease to amaze me. That is a most generous offer. Yes, Jefferson came and went while in office, however, every time he returned he was surrounded by family and friends who always showed up when he returned. I don't need Reed's book to confirm this, it's pretty much common knowledge as the topic goes. After all the accusations and newspaper scandals Jefferson went through about Hemings, I just don't see him coming back to Montecello, around all of those people, friends and family no less, and doing what Callander accused him of, esp while he was POTUS. That would have been reckless and foolish and highly uncharacteristic of Jefferson. In any case, we should be very clear about DNA evidence if we are going to have commentary in the lede at all. -- Gwillhickers 08:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Just because you 'don't see him coming back to Montecello, around all of those people, friends and family no less, and doing what Callander accused him of, esp while he was POTUS?,' does not make it factual? What you are describing are feelings, nothing more. Feelings are not based in fact, but in emotion. People risk things all the time. Especially politicians. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I admire your passion. I just hope you'd employ it with a better understanding (where "better" = "more like mine", of course ;-). As I wrote above, Callender's accusation fizzled because it was "not news". Southern planters taking concubines, even quite publicly, simply was a routine event. Both Sally Hemings' mother and grandmother lived in quite open relationships with their respective white partners/masters/common-law husbands. In the case of Hemings' mother, Betty Hemings, that partner was Jefferson's father in law. Sally's sister Mary Hemings lived openly in a common-law marriage with Thomas Bell, who bought her from Jefferson. And, from a slightly later period, Mary Boykin Chesnut wrote "Like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines; and the mulattoes one sees in every family partly resemble the white children. Any lady is ready to tell you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household but her own. Those, she seems to think, drop from the clouds." Maybe take another angle. If Jefferson had real feelings for Hemings, would he refrain from that love simply for fear of scandal? Especially when he already knew from personal and family experience that this kind of scandal was, at most, a minor inconvenience? What kind of craven coward do you take him for? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you're grossly downplaying the scandal. It hit the newspapers just before Jefferson ran for president, so I think he did more than blink. Then for him, as a standing President with the eyes of the nation, his family and friends (he had many and important ones) upon him, to turn around and go to Monticello, of all places, and have affairs that produced two more children would have been reckless and foolhardy. Seems to me if there was any feelings of love for Hemings, esp if she was the mother of TJ's children, he would have freed her also. -- Gwillhickers 18:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The scandal "hit the newspapers" like an eiderdown feather hits a anvil. Despite the story, Jefferson beat the incumbent President (who had beaten him 4 years earlier) with nearly two thirds of the popular vote. So again, it shows that the reports, while certainly not pleasant to Jefferson, did not have a major effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I suggest "Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing. Monticello.org is reliable on the DNA: as I just wrote above, "The DNA evidence conclusively linked Hemings' children to a Jefferson, but not to TJ." The case for TJ's paternity is convincingly strong, but not air-tight: there are other possibilities. Yopienso (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, the introduction is now miscast through compounding contributions, as the paragraph on Jefferson's domestic life should have Martha and her children first, Sally and her children second. Jefferson did not relate to Sally or her children as he treated slavery elsewhere -- either on his plantations or in his politics -- the introduction should reflect that by putting his domestic relations with Martha and Sally apart from the slavery discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I just put Martha ahead of Sally, which is proper both chronologically and wrt their respective "ranks." I did not separate Sally from slavery since we had pared the slavery down to just a medium and a short sentence. Sally was a slave so I left the paragraph together. Let's see what develops . . . Yopienso (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
While I am still not thrilled about commentary for one topic in the lede, the lede version now is better than I had expected. Thank you Yopienso and Schulz for not being rigid and completely unyielding. Schulz, as I said, I'm satisfied with the lede version but there's one point I would like to make clear. The DNA evidence was not conclusive in terms of singling out Thomas Jefferson -- it was conclusive in terms of narrowing down paternal candidates to only Jefferson male family matters. One last item, Jefferson did much more than 'talk' about slavery's end, so we should strike the word 'verbally' as again, this more than suggests that Jefferson only talked about ending slavery. While it can be argued that he didn't do enough, he nonetheless did much more than talk, he took action. Other than that, the lede looks okay. -- Gwillhickers 18:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Then please reinsert the clunkier "in his speeches and writing," which means the same thing. And you're welcome, and I appreciate your own flexibility. Yopienso (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not exactly a "clunker", but it still doesn't reflect Jefferson's political actions. If we simply make the statement opposed slavery this imo is well enough. And let's not forget the lede still says he achieved little toward the emancipation of slaves and was criticized by many modern day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery. -- Gwillhickers 19:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DNA evidence is circumstantional. In fact all paternity evidence is circumstantial. TFD (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is. In Jefferson's case, there are so many gaps in the evidence that if the case was presented to a court of law it would never even make it to trial. -- Gwillhickers 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Change of photo

Anybody but me think the other photo was better? Yopienso (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Naw, it was too much of a closeup and the likeness wasn't that similar with most other illustrations, imo. -- Gwillhickers 04:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, so much for discussion. Someone went ahead and added another version of Jefferson's portrait. Looks okay I guess. -- Gwillhickers 06:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That's the one I meant. I like the other one better because it shows him in the prime of his long life, looking vigorous and intelligent. The one we have now has an ugly background and makes him look like an old man. It looks better in green on the $2 bill! :-) Yopienso (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
To be pedantic, we don't have any photographs of Jefferson ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
You are coe-rect. Yopienso (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Opposed to slavery

Well, one editor wants to say "verbally opposed slavery" which doesn't reflect the action Jefferson took, while another editor has just added "politically opposed slavery" which now reflects the action he took but doesn't really reflect Jefferosn's all around indifference to slavery on a moral level. By simply saying "opposed slavery" this covers it all. This is a minor issue, and I guess I can live with whatever we use here but imo the clause is best left in its simple form to reflect, verbally, politically and morally. i.e.A general lede statement that is qualified in the sections in several cases. -- Gwillhickers 00:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked up the word "verbally" here before adding it. The OED and Merriam-Webster lean more towards RJensen's definition, though, so I acquiesce to his edit. For the record, my thought was as the OED explains: "It is sometimes said that the true sense of the adjective verbal is ‘of or concerned with words,’ whether spoken or written (as in verbal abuse), and that it should not be used to mean ‘spoken rather than written’ (as in a verbal agreement). For this strictly ‘spoken’ sense, it is said that the adjective oral should be used instead. However, it goes on to say, In practice, however, verbal is well established in this sense and, even in legal contexts, a verbal agreement is understood to mean a contract whose accepted terms have been spoken rather than written. (Emphases in original.)
I am not OK with saying TJ "opposed slavery" because he also supported it and was supported by it. Maybe we should say he was philosophically opposed it? Yopienso (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Whoa--I skipped my main point: TJ wasn't consistently "politically" opposed to slavery, which is why I suggest "philosophically." He was politically opposed to the slave trade, and to the extension of slavery, but he failed to alleviate the slaves' lot as a Virginia assemblyman. Yopienso (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I looked up verbally myself and along with the common understanding of it, 'spoken as', which is what I suspect most readers will read it as, there are also the definitions you've outlined. Jefferson did not 'support' slavery. Though he owned slaves he went out of his way to treat them as and work them no more than free farmers. This is an idea that many 'modern' thinkers with their peer-driven two dimensional analysis fail to grasp. And 'failing' to do something is not 'supporting' it either. Every time Jefferson introduced legislation or took political action to oppose or end slavery he was blocked. There is not one defining word or action taken by Jefferson that amounts to 'supporting' slavery. One could say he 'supported' slavery because he owned them, but that's conjecture and is no different than saying you don't support clean air because you drive a car. Having said that I'll settle for Rj's edit also as it has greater scope. -- Gwillhickers 06:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "treat them as and work them no more than free farmers" is simply historical nonsense - unless free farmers were whipped, and bills for runaway free farmers were routinely posted. Jefferson may not have been Simon Legree, but he was a slave holder with everything that entails - including buying and selling humans against their will and using barbaric corporal punishment to force helpless people to conform to his desires and work for his economic benefit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
None of this has anything to do with the allegation that Jefferson 'supported slavery', and you're repeating tried and failed assertions. Jefferson only had slaves whipped, a rare event at Monticello, as a last resort for stealing, fighting, etc. Not beaten, hung or shot. Whipped. Free farmers and others were often hung for stealing horses. Slaves were whipped. Young "free" white boys were often subscripted into service marched off to war and ordered to march into a hail of gun fire. They were routinely shot if they disobeyed orders. The numbers of boys and men shot for disobeying orders or desertion in those days is staggering. But that's okay, they were "free". Your "barbaric" assertion is blatantly presentist and seems to lack the perspective of the time period in question, completely. And again, Jefferson only worked slaves as much as free farmers were expected to work and is well established in various sources, though I seriously doubt the likes of Finkelman would ever admit it. In any case, having an unruly slaved whipped is not supporting slavery, and that is the issue you seem to want to cloud. -- Gwillhickers 09:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@ Stephan Schulz. Abolishing the whipping post for white farmers guilty of theft was an important reform of the Jacksonian Era of the Common Man, North and South. Abolishing flogging for white and black sailors came later. Abolishing whipping for blacks in Virginia ended in the 1870s in part because it had been used as a way of restricting the vote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
there is no prominent man of Jefferson's lifetime who so consistently opposed so many aspects of slavery when he was in public office. No one in the US (I think John Jay comes in #2)-- perhaps no one in Europe comes close. The biggest issue of the day was the international slave trade, and he was the #1 person in its abolition. The second issue was the spread of slavery into the territories (an issue that led to civil war in 1861), and again he was the #1 opponent. That's more impressive than anyone else. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede paragraph about slavery

We've been working toward a better paragraph. Currently, it reads:

Jefferson politically opposed slavery all his life and played a major role in ending the international slave trade and blocking slavery from the Northwest Territory. He owned hundreds of slaves, yet freed only two. Since 1800 controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings. Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children.

A main point about TJ was his ambivalence. A trouble with crowd-sourced writing is keeping a lucid style. We do not need detail in the lede. RJensen has now added some detail and deleted other. I favor his deletion, having noted I kept it only to keep others happy. This seems better to me:

Jefferson's ambivalence towards slavery has long baffled scholars. While he played a major role in ending the international slave trade and in blocking slavery from the Northwest Territory, he also was a major slaveholder and a white supremacist. Since 1800, controversy has surrounded an alleged sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings. Circumstantial evidence and DNA testing have led to a consensus among most modern historians that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings' children. Yopienso (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the first version. I do not think historians are baffled and the term "white supremacist" seems anachronistic. TFD (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with TFD. "White supremacist" is modern day hyper speak. Virtually everyone in Jefferson's day was racist to the extent that they favored their own race. People favored their own family, people and race first. It was understood, and expected of you. If you use that term today we may as well just call Jefferson a nazi. And we need to qualify the DNA evidence statement as it was inconclusive. This is not a "view", this is a fact. DNA pointed to more than 20 possible fathers. We are playing musical chairs with the lede all over again it seems, removing some details adding others. I've qualified the DNA statement with one word, so it reflects what we agreed upon. If we are not going to mention other historians as we just got finished talking about then we need to make a clear and factual statement about the DNA evidence. No more half truths. -- Gwillhickers 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


If we are going to allow commentary and extra details in the lede for the one topic then we need to make clear what the important facts are. The DNA and other evidence -- all highly inconclusive, implicating many other Jefferson family males. These underhanded attempts to skew the language with half truths to make it seem that DNA only points to Jefferson needs to stop. We discussed this and agreed with not mentioning other historians. Yopienso came up with a version that was not misleading and stable and it went into the lede so we should have a version that reflects that as was done simply by adding one word: Inconclusive. Apparently the editor who just changed the lede has something against making clear statements. -- Gwillhickers 19:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And again: The DNA tests were conclusive. They conclusively excluded the Carrs. They conclusively pointed to a Jefferson. Claiming they are inconclusive is wrong and misleading. If there had been no connection to Jefferson, that would have been an inconclusive result (because the male line might have been broken in any of the subsequent generation by an illegitimate father). What they don't do by themselves is to absolutely implicate "the" Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I've already addressed this. The DNA evidence was inconclusive in terms of singling out Thomas Jefferson, and this is the Jefferson biography. Making efforts to not make this fact clear is underhanded and frankly is getting pretty creepy. Yopienso came up with a lede that while not mentioning other historians, made this point very clear. If you have a problem with inconclusive then kindly replace it with the clause that Yopienso had originally included: ...although the DNA results do not exclude other possible fathers. -- Why are you so opposed to making this fact clear for the readers? -- Gwillhickers 22:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The DNA evidence points to the Jefferson male line, and the great mass of other evidence points to Thomas Jefferson himself. Why are you protesting this point so much? Wait, I am remembering your racist comment about black staffers being obviously biased. I think you need to stand down on this issue: you are unable to contribute neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The "great mass of other evidence" points to other males also, and I've already addressed your par-time concern for so called racist remarks and have explained the racial bias that is evident from black staffers at TJF...not because they are black but because of their history and involvements, so keep banging on your tin pot if that's what you think it takes to get over in this debate. Btw, in edit history you claimed "the DNA testing was conclusive regarding the Jefferson male line", so this is essentially what I've added. -- Gwillhickers 06:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I think you're not understanding that it is the circumstantial evidence and the DNA testing combined that point to TJ. I'm basing this on the fact that you twice changed the plural "have" to "has." Evidence and testing together form a plural subject that must take a plural verb. We are not saying the DNA testing alone points to TJ. The DNA testing points to a Jefferson, and the other circumstantial evidence points to Thomas Jefferson. Together, they make a case strong enough to convince the majority of mainstream modern scholars that TJ fathered at least one child by Hemings and likely all of her children. Yopienso (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the claim, the mantra even, that 'taken together the evidence points to Jefferson', which of course is an opinion not shared by everyone, and I suspect maybe not even by "most". We don't know for sure, all we have is some high visibility web sites and maybe a couple of authors making the claim, patting themselves on the back no less. I've just recently addressed Schulz's comments on the evidence above. In any case we need to be clear about the evidence if we are going to have commentary at all in the lede for this topic so I'll replace the clause that you were good enough to include originally. TDOL made a similar edit not too long ago, and this is the way it was (+ -) for the longest time until recently. -- Gwillhickers 06:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortened the clause Yopienso included, simply saying that "...DNA testing implementing several Jefferson related males...".
Shultz, once again thanks for your last edit (and the grammar lesson). Now that we have commentary for this one issue in place, with "most modern historians", and "politically opposed", and DNA (a lot of details guys) I'm hoping we can get some rest and move on to more enjoyable things. TDOL, this last round of debate started when you added "inconclusive". Though I agreed with your edit I gotta tell you, I'm a little bit disappointed with your hit and run style. Not a peep from you the entire time. You should have stood by your edit and faced the music. -- Gwillhickers 18:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Position on slavery

In the spirit of compromise I thought I could live with how the lede, now, presents Jefferson's position on slavery, but I can't. We are glossing over Jefferson's feelings about slavery entirely. Just saying he was only "politically opposed" borders on weasel wording. Jefferson wrote at length about his moral feelings about slavery, saying it "degraded slave and master alike". This is a moral conviction. He also spoke out against slavery at a very early age. The clause he had included in the original draft of the DOI also more than confirms such convictions. There are scores of letters where he expressed his moral feelings about slavery. We should remove "politically" and simply make the plain statement i.e. opposed slavery as the lede did all along up until recently. The body of the text already establishes his moral position and is well sourced:

Although a slave owner, he believed slavery harmful to both slave and master.
Jefferson was opposed to slavery during his youth, a conviction that became greater throughout his life.

The lede should summarize, accurately, what the article says. -- Gwillhickers 01:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your racist remark of 4 October ("all you have to do is look at some of the key staff members at the TJF") eroded your authority at this article. You cannot hold this article hostage with POV templates or never-ending talk page discussions that cover the same territory over and over. Let it slide, man. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Bink, there was nothing racist about my remark, pointing to someone else who has proven to be racially biased himself with a long history of racially divisive remarks. This is what runs the TJF today, and all you are doing is bending over saying, 'thank you sir, may I have another'? You need to give up your par-time phoney indignation and address the topics fairly. As I intimated earlier, even if I were this racist you're so ever ready to accept, and I am not, sir, thank you, the points I raised still stand on their own ground regardless and are obviously what has you banging on your tin pot once again instead of squaring off with the ideas put on the table. Jefferson expressed a moral conviction against slavery his entire life. The lede should reflect this and what the body of the text also says. Sorry Bink buddy. The 20th century is long gone. You're going to have to do more than cry wolf to turn heads here in the 21st century. Kindly keep your cheap remarks off the talk page and use it for its intended purpose if you are capable. -- Gwillhickers 04:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The secondary sources I have read disagree. Jefferson opposed slavery in the abstract. In the concrete, he participated in the system and profited from it. Over time, he became increasingly less vocal about his opposition to slavery. And at least does not support your claim. I don't have the other two sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Source 22 is available in Google book form, missing important passages, of course. Search for "slavery" and start on p. 142. It explains TJ's participation in slavery; the blurb supports my claim of his ambivalence puzzling or baffling scholars.
Source 200--On p. 997, Peterson shows what he calls a delusional Jefferson supporting, in 1820, the extension of slavery "because by spreading them over a larger surface their happiness would be increased, and the burden of thier future liberation lightened by bringing a greater number of shoulders under it." (The copyright date is wrong in the note--it was 1970.)
Monticello.org says, "Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed." It also says, "Although Jefferson continued to advocate for abolition, the reality was that slavery was only becoming more entrenched." And then it goes on about his belief blacks and whites could never live in the same society. Yopienso (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the paradox is evident. Jefferson was outspoken against slavery from his youth, put such sentiment into the DOI, (not exactly "abstract" opposition) yet on the other hand he profited, which by itself doesn't translate into support. If anything, the fact that he was politically opposed to it is more of an abstract idea than his moral opposition -- esp since he took little political action against slavery while he was president, though he was up against a congress that largely supported it. There is no question that he struggled with the idea in the moral realm. Perhaps the lede should read:
Though Jefferson owned slaves he was morally opposed to slavery but did little politically to abolish the institution.
It just seems the present lede statement doesn't peg the idea, morally or politically, very well. Thoughts? Btw, the details about ending the international slave trade and blocking slavery from the Northwest Territory should not be in the lede, either. -- Gwillhickers 15:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Image

OK, I couldn't stand that ugly picture of an old, grim TJ. I tried to use this one, but didn't know the proper formatting, so an unwanted title also appears. I would appreciate it if someone would fix it. I'm OK with the one Nickelfan removed on 13 Oct., too. The colors are better, but this one is facing left, which looks better in its right-hand position. Both were done in 1805, halfway through TJ's presidency, which I think is appropriate since he is mainly known as the 3rd POTUS. (Yes, he would have a WP article even had he not been POTUS, but wouldn't be as well known today.) Yopienso (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't exactly crazy about the prior picture myself, with TJ's forehead all lite up and while the lower half of his face looking like he just finished eating a chocolate fudge cake, almost. The current picture is better, but I think the one that was there for the longest time is the best. -- Gwillhickers 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)-- Gwillhickers
I've removed the unwanted title (by the simple method of removing it from the image link ;-). I have no particular preference for one image or another. Standard formatting advice is to have the subject look towards the text, so by that criterion, the current image is ok. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Stephan. Yopienso (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The old image of him, the one that was there until a few weeks ago, is the best one. It's a great-looking painting and the most realistic looking. It's also probably the most famous picture of Jefferson, so there's also that. Plus, it is his presidential portrait. 158.83.86.110 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Profession" in infobox

Also decided I couldn't stand the oxymoronic "amateur architect" as a profession any longer. I would be pleased to list "lawyer, planter, diplomat statesman" and would even agree to including "architect." But after so very much squabbling, to have to look at Profession: amateur __________ (anything), I think it's easier to simply avoid the category. Neither Washington nor Adams have a profession listed. (Madison and Monroe do.) Yopienso (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "amateur" architect is sort of academic. Ben Franklin was a self taught scientist yet discovered electricity and experimented with it like no other contempoary. No one called him an "amateur" scientist. Same with Da Vinci. We are using 20-21st century phraseology to define someone who was ahead of his time in the field of architecture. -- Gwillhickers 04:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The term amateur has acquired a connotation of being inferior, but that is not its original meaning. Da Vinci and Franklin were amateurs, so were Darwin and Einstein. Olympic athletes are amateurs. TFD (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Olympic athletes are modern day entities so referring to them as amateurs is appropriate and reflects the standards of the time period in which they live. Jefferson, et al, were not considered amateurs because there was no 'professional establishment' for their fields of study in their day and were among the leaders in their field of study. Many artists and musicians, even today, are considered professional, having never gone to a school for art or music and receiving a diploma. Are all the many listed artists and musicians here at wikipedia referred to as amateurs? In Jefferson's day, he was not considered an amateur, so we should not anachronistically refer to him as such with 20-21st century labels. I seriously doubt any reader or historian coming to the page is going to look at the infobox and say 'hey!'. Those are my thoughts. I'm not going to push it any further because we had a long discussion and established a consensus. Just asking for a reconsideration as I believe Yopienso has done. -- Gwillhickers 17:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Round and round we go. We had a hard-fought compromise. Jefferson was not a professional architect and would have been surprised if someone referred to him as such. As before, I prefer "lawyer, planter, politician", leaving his hobby horses like science and architecture for the main text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
(Insert) Yes, round and round indeed. I'm okay with the profession filed as it is, but I must say, you're downplaying matters entirely here. Designing landmark buildings, Washington DC's infrastructure, etc sort of takes the profession out of the realm of "hobby". Ya' think? A hobby is something you do to amuse yourself, like collecting stamps or butterflies. As soon as you do something for the benefit of people, society, government it becomes a practice or profession. Calling the practice a "hobby" is a gross distortion. -- Gwillhickers 23:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry to go at it again; see my reasoning above, where I've struck "diplomat" and replaced it with "statesman." Statesman at once includes politician and diplomat and elevates both to the level TJ occupied. Yopienso (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Good idea - I like the statesman idea! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yopienso, I didn't realize you had the intention of removing the profession field entirely. If you are going to use the Washington and Adams articles as justification for its exclusion then I'll use all the other president's articles as a reason for its inclusion, esp since Jefferson had several noteworthy professions. I have no problem with using statesman instead of diplomat, but let's get more than a pat on the back from one or two editors before we make that change also. -- Gwillhickers 23:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:BOLD
Would you agree to "Statesman, Planter, Lawyer"? That would be my first choice. Second would be "Statesman, Planter, Lawyer, Architect." Third would be "Statesman, Planter." Fourth would be those same 2 or 3 or 4 designations rearranged in any different order.
I'm not trying to belittle TJ's architectural skills; I just can't bear the "amateur" part, which I realize was included out of the best of intentions as a compromise. Yopienso (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
How about "Statesman, Planter, Polymath" (he gave up the law practice early on), Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. TJ was certainly a polymath, but I don't think "polymath" is a profession, though. Yopienso (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, polymath isn't a profession, not unless you're certified in 'polymathism' (ho ho). I think we're sort of getting into a tunnel vision approach here. We should just list the professions, or 'practices' in the one case if you prefer, and let the readers just assimilate the facts for themselves. Facts come first, opinions are a dime a dozen. -- Gwillhickers 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Facts in the lede

Just revised a statement in lede regarding position on slavery. It's an established fact that Jefferson opposed slavery on moral grounds but didn't accomplish a lot politically. There are plenty of sources that support these facts while there are also plenty of differing opinions regarding how 'sincere' he was, but the facts remain, that he did in fact make numerous statements, orally and in writing, opposing slavery throughout his life. Let's not confuse opinions with facts. -- Gwillhickers 11:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: The site also says, Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. --Yopienso
REBUTTAL: Merwin quotes from the same book--Notes on the State of Virginia--in which TJ alleged African mated with orangutans and found blacks "inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body and mind." --Yopienso
REBUTTAL: "Jefferson's view of slavery was deeply conflicted . . ." p. xi. Jefferson always showed deep ambivalence about slavery. In theory, he opposed slavery as an offense against human beings' natural rights. And yet, for him, other issues entwined with slavery in ways that sapped his reforming energies. For him, the racial differences separating whites and blacks were of overriding importance. Because, in his iew, those differences defined whites as superior and blacks as inferior, he believed that black could not be trusted with freedom. p. 40. --Yopienso
REBUTTAL: Need I continue? Yopienso (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

( More sources forthcoming) -- Gwillhickers 12:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Somebody who was "morally" against slavery would not have kept hundreds of slaves. Binksternet (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
More of your 2+2=100 analysis? There were numerous considerations about just turning slaves free with no place to go, no food and means to care from themselves in a largely racist society, which, btw, most of the world was in those days. Jefferson and others wrote at length about these dilemmas, but apparently you know better than all the scholars who have articulated these points. Add : If this is the way you 'feel', why did you put the previous statement back in the lede? Jefferson's political opposition was inconsistent, unlike his moral opposition. It is a fact that he made moral objections throughout his life, and the sources say so. It is only your opinion that he was less than sincere, which I suspect you can't support other than with the sort of conjecture you used above. We must report the facts. -- Gwillhickers 13:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Slave owners who wished to free their slaves had to pay for their resettlement and of course they were not allowed to remain as freemen in Virginia. Even if they could, there would have been no employment for them. The fact that it was illegal to educate slaves, meant that most were illiterate. Emigration to Canada or Africa were not yet viable options. Jefferson helped to bring about the end of the transatlantic slave trade, which was an important action. His view was that slavery could be phased out. He could not have known that in 1840-1860, slavery would make a dramatic resurgence. TFD (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well said. Although in practice, freed slaves could remain on their 'home' plantations, such as James Hemings at Monticello (1796), or later (1806) Lucy Jane Langston, freed mother of John Mercer Langston. Didn't one of Sally Heming's freed children migrate to Canada? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Binksternet's recent attempt to improve the troublesome paragraph. I think, though, that some of us thought the excellent points RJensen added were too detailed for the lede and more appropriate within the article. Gwillhickers linked to a July 11 version that I think is a good starting point. Should we restore it and work from there?

Historians disagree over how committed Jefferson was to the anti-slavery cause. Though he opposed the institution all his life in his speeches and writing, he took little political action to free slaves, owned hundreds of his own, and freed only a fraction of these in his will. Since 1802 historians have been divided over the controversy of whether Jefferson was the father of one or more children belonging to Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello; though recent DNA evidence indicates a match between Hemings' descendants and Jefferson. Yopienso (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I would get rid of the modifier political as TJ freeing his own slaves would not have been a political act, at least not necessarily. Also, the DNA evidence is not presented in a vacuum; it indicates Jefferson because of the more usual historical evidence combined with the DNA evidence. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hemings Discussion needs to be shut down

I decided to visit this article after a two year absence. I see that Gwillhickers is still POV pushing and attempting to rewrite Jefferson's obituary, namely with regard to Sally Hemings. I'm an American History professor/historian at a well-known American University. I can tell you that, yes, most historians agree that it is highly likely that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children. It's not even controversial. My question is why is it controversial here? I'm a white male, but after seeing this debate languish on for years, I have to ask--is there some sort of racial purity agenda at work here beyond just legacy protection? No other figure in history has had to pass such stringent criteria for proof of paternity, even those who had children with mistresses. Excluding digging TJ up and disturbing his eternal resting place, I'm afraid this debate will continue. At some point the mods need to shut this discussion down. It's been going on for years and it's being fueled by one person. As for Sally Hemings being in the lead paragraph, I think it should remain. Just my opinion. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Apparently 'Joe bob' is on the attack. The debate ended days ago. The last debate before that was about Jefferson the architect. Up until recently there were many months that passed where there was no Hemings debate. Yet here you are in an obvious attempt to get one going again. What POV have I pushed? All I've ever done is insist on the fair representation of the facts and that they not be obscured, or replaced, by cherry-picked opinion. The fact that you feel the Hemings issue isn't controversial on your campus only echos what I've heard so often in that life on some campuses sort of exists in a bubble and when it comes to issues like this the faculty's heads are all stuck in the same jar. As I've outlined before, there are plenty of professors and historians from major universities and elsewhere that don't follow along with the PC, peer-driven, goose-stepping and have not jumped to conclusions on such sketchy evidence. To refresh your apparently selective memory, the debate here started a couple of years ago when the Hemings and slavery topics took up more than five pages of text with much of the language skewed. There was an overwhelming consensus to fix the problem and make the page neutral and it was accomplished, however there was a little back-sliding recently when attempts were made, once again, to render statements about DNA evidence to read as if it implicated T. Jefferson only. POV pushing indeed. I didn't initiate it that time either -- or now. No one has said anything in this debate for days, yet you come back, make personal attacks and then say the debate is fueled by one person. Unless you have specific things in mind for page improvement, please keep such tacky and hypocritical musings off the talk page. -- Gwillhickers 10:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Stating that this discussion needs to be shut down due to a particular POV pusher is not an attack. You have been POV pushing on this subject for several years now and unless my eyes deceive me, you have restarted the Heming's discussion above, specifically about Heming's in the lede. Consensus had already been reached, yet here you are again after two years, POV pushing on the same topics. My statements above is for the 'page's improvement." At some point the editors need to keep in mind that this has been happening for quite some time and it needs to stop. As for your statement about backsliding. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back, Joe bob. I don't remember you, but I only came to this article in Jan. 2012. Seems longer. I've put your comment here where folks can easily find it and where it won't be quickly archived. Yopienso (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You are correct on most points, but I wouldn't suggest a racial purity agenda. You do realize GWill has posted a pretty impressive list of historians who have not accepted the current consensus. (You can find my comment on that here.)
Thanks for moving. I haven't been here in a while. You can visit my talk page and see GWill's comments to me in 2011. As a historian I have to disagree. This is what I do for a living. This is all I do--research. These people are typically referred to in the historical community as "deniers," legacy protectors, or revisionists. Most respected historians agree, that in all likelihood, Jefferson fathered the Hemings' children. I could post a source list as long as my arm to this effect. Respectfully, people can find source material supporting just about any historical theory. It doesn't mean that theory is accurate. So I beg the question, why has this controversy continued for 2 years on this page? Consensus has already been reached in the historical community and on wikipedia. Perhaps GWill is hoping to wear people down after another two years. In another two years there will be a different round of editors. At some point this needs to stop. And I am sorry if this comes across as offensive, but the only reason I can think this continual line of POV pushing continues is some form of racial prejudice. It seems unfathomable to some that Jefferson could have a romantic relationship with someone of African-American heritage. These Hemings' debates need to end. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : You make a string of divisive statements and then say the debate has to stop in the same breath. This overwhelming consensus among historians, and here, is alleged and can't be proven. Consensus doesn't change the facts, which is apparently why you must refer to it as gospel. If it were true here there would have been no effort to fix the page in 2012 and before. I didn't do it by myself. Attaching labels like "deniers" and playing the race card are typical and divisive tactics used by those who can't carry the debate on a factual and rational basis and, by necessity, have to resort to such underhanded methods. 'Chicken Little' said the sky was falling. Naturally there were deniers. This is not a classroom where you apparently expect naive students to follow along. Again, if you have specific ideas in mind for page improvement please present them and keep your personal screeds confined to your own user page. -- Gwillhickers 10:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : I have a PhD in American History. I have also taught American history and World history for almost 20 years, as have most legitimate historians. I mean no offense by this, but I am not simply a hobbyist historian. As for your comment about the "race card." As a white male, I find it difficult to "play a race card," but I find such a statement to be offensive. I'm keeping my comments to the POV pushing and the article. I suggest you do the same. Consensus has been reached on this subject. However, I will be glad to provide a list of credible and reliable...again. However, I doubt that would satisfy this situation, as you are clearly POV pushing and unwilling to entertain credible sources contrary to your belief system. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I just came across this yesterday in a literature anthology. The context is an introduction to Clotel by William Wells Brown. The book was printed in 1853 and the commentary in 2012.
For his depiction of Jefferson's fictional slave daughters, Brown took seriously the rumor that Jefferson . . . had had sexual relations and children with his slave Sally Heming (DNA testing in 1998 and historical research suggest that the rumor had its source in fact). Nina Baym, ed. The Norton Anthology of American Literature, 8th ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012: 943.
I think the phrase in parentheses is exemplary wording for a tertiary reference. We could say in the lede, "DNA testing in 1998 and historical research suggest that Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemings's children." The section on Sally Hemings in the article gives the details and makes the claim for academic consensus. Yopienso (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Maybe 'widower Jefferson fathered' might accommodate legacy perspectives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
When you examine Jefferson's dealings with slaves and slavery honestly it actually exemplifies his legacy. Late 20th century revisionists gave us the flat-earth version of slavery at Monticello and pushed the Hemings issue thinking that because Hemings was (part, a fraction) Black it would 'automatically' tear down Jefferson's legacy. Now here we are in the 21 century and the issue has sort of backfired. So now all they can do is clamor about "consensus", such that it is, and try to stay as far away from the facts as possible. -- Gwillhickers 11:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing has "backfired." Just like in his day, Jefferson has today survived the taint of scandal because of the knowledge that it was common practice at the time. Comparing the Jefferson–Hemings union to flat-Earth fringe is inutile hyperbole. Nearly everybody at this talk page understands what Joe bob attacks said about sources: that if we cared to compile a list of historians who accept that Jefferson had sex with Hemings, the list would be very long indeed. Nobody cares to compile such a list because the effort is not needed. There is only Gwillhickers and sometimes TheVirginiaHistorian who are taking contrarian positions. And long-suffering editors here will probably agree with me that Gwillhickers would not stop pushing for his preferred version even if a gigantic list of mainstream historians was assembled. This debate must be shut down as having reached consensus. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I've provided a long list of professors, historians and others, including TJF's own board member who blew the whistle on the likes of TJF and their biased disposition. Conversely, no one else has, ever, because after they point to outfits like TJF, PBS -- a media source, and a couple of authors like Brodie and Finkelman their little consensus parade comes to a halt. No doubt there are some others, but you'd have to guess at that also. And yes the issue has and continues to backfire which is why today's Hemings descendants refuse to have William Hemings, Madison Hemings' son, (also: 2, 3) exhumed for a DNA check, after being coached not to. They were willing at first. See also: New Thomas Woodson DNA Tests.) All you and "Joe bob attacks" have done is revive and continued the debate, making the usual vaguely supported claims about "consensus", staying clear of the facts, while you make a pathetic statement about TVH and myself as the only ones here who have differing views, suggesting the existing article is such without any consensus. Very dumb, Bink. Then after you've vented you turn around and say we should shut the debate down. I didn't revive the debate this time, nor the last. Before that the article was stable with no Hemings debate for many months. (You really need to check recent edit history and then archives and stop self assuring yourself with falsehoods.) Shut the debate down? Okay. You first. Stop talking about it -- starting now. -- Gwillhickers 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should refrain from referring to your fellow editors as "dumb" because they disagree with you? Secondly, there are a plethora of credible sources that document the likelihood of the Hemings relationship. I will be glad to provide them--yet again. However, I sincerely doubt that would shut the debate down. I believe that a majority of the editors need to agree that consensus has been reached (which it has) and further restrict continual Hemings debates. If not, I'm sure if I return to this page in 2015, I will no doubt see you here POV pushing this very same subject. This has been ongoing since 2011, not 2012. Thirdly, you should not allow discussions about POV pushing to get you this upset. People are people and as such are subject to passionate emotions. Thus, I am not judging you for POV pushing. I am simply stating that you are in fact POV pushing and have been for quite some time. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Re:Dumb. I was speaking to one editor, not "fellow editors", and simply said what he has claimed is dumb, which imo was, suggesting that the article is in its present state on my account alone. In any case, the lede and the section says that "most historians" have concluded TJ is the father, as there are sources that say this, such that they are. So I'm not sure what POV you think I'm trying to push. You weren't exactly clear about that either. All I have ever insisted on is fair representation of all significant views and the inclusion of important facts. Trying to obscure facts and under representing other significant views is POV pushing, so your accusations are sort of backwards. I have made more than my fair share of concessions in this article because of this thing we call 'consensus', so I really don't appreciate the inference that I call the shots around here and that it's me alone who keeps the debate going. It takes two, or more, to debate. Your whole approach was uncalled for. We had a debate about how some statements in the lede should read. We struck a compromise, it went back and forth a couple of times with other edits, and then it ended. Several days later, you come along and say the debate has to stop, after it had done so already. (!) Then you single me out, make personal accusations, stopping short of pointing to anything factual. As long as there are those who make attempts to skew the statements, like what was done with the DNA statement not long ago, there will be a debate. Yes, the debate has gone on for some time, but it is not I who had introduced reasons, edits, that brought about the debate, nor did I ever cause this page to be blocked from editing on several occasions with BS edits and refusal to abide by discussion and consensus. Most of my edits, save bibliography work, general fixes etc, have been preceded with discussion -- esp ones involving slavery and the Hemings controversy. After all you've said, you still haven't singled out any actual item, POV, that was forced into the article by me. From this point on, please direct any statements made on this talk page at article improvement. -- Gwillhickers 01:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
My comments are intended for article improvement with hopes that this POV pushing will cease. Your comments about the lede are what I believe to be persistent and pervasive POV pushing. This has been ongoing for two years now. I'm under the impression that the discussion about the lede is ongoing and that you are suggesting additional changes. If this is not the case, then I will move on from this point. However, I am still gathering a detailed response to your claims with sources. I believe that some of your claims in this article have been based on feelings and not factual evidence. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Any statement in the lede was arrived at by discussion and the debate that you think we should shut down, and which this time you alone have initiated and escalated. Any "POV" I have advanced reflects the facts and what sources say and you have yet to point at anything specific -- just the usual and vague overages about POV. And when you take exception to any POV I may try to advance you only wave a flag which says you have your own POV, as do all of us. Kindly not accuse me anymore of pushing a POV while trying to advance your own. -- Bink, I took the time and posted a string of sources that support Jefferson's moral position regarding slavery. You had very little to say about that as usual, as the bulk of your talk on this page has been personal and gut level with little academic or intellectual substance attached to it. If you want to make a change in the lede kindly discuss it. Oh, that's right. We should shut down this debate and just jump in and start editing as you just did. Very smart. -- Gwillhickers 11:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Also please source your statement that the descendants of Madison Hemings' have been "coached" not to allow their ancestor William Hemings be exhumed. I was under the impression that they (like the Wayles/Jefferson family) did not want their relative's remains disturbed. Hemings was buried in 1910. I have not seen evidence that they were coached. Thanks. Joe bob attacks (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Since I'm not trying to introduce this topic into the article I don't see any particular need to further expand the debate in that direction, yet, as we have enough on the table already, thanks to you in great part. If you would like to continue this line of discussion, I will be more than happy to further your scope in a topic that you don't think we should be discussing anymore. Before I do I ask that you get your thoughts going in the same direction, because you're flip flopping, saying we should shut these discussions down all the while you are escalating them. Now you want to pursue yet another topic regarding the controversy you say doesn't exist. I came across this claim some time ago. i believe it was Herbert Barger, the historian who assisted Dr. Foster (who gathered DNA evidence). Barger has extensive knowledge about Jefferson family history and through historical research and investigations located all the graves from which DNA was extracted and who has also located William Hemings grave not too long ago. Modern day Hemings descendants weren't even aware of it, so such a glaring gap in their knowledge of family history doesn't reflect very well on any "oral history" they have to offer. I will look for the source again. In the mean time you might want to avail yourself to some basic information regarding the William Hemings topic. (See the New Woodson DNA Tests and Grave of William Hemings Located sections.)-- Gwillhickers 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

editbreak1

Insert : So I guess what you're saying is that you don't have a source. With regard to my understand of the Hemings' family, I certainly don't need an instructional on Madison Hemings from you. I'm simply asking for you to source your comment, which you have been unable to do so. As for the POV pushing, I thought I was specific, but I will get into the weeds per your request. Your entire discussion about the lede is an example of POV pushing.
1) You continue to POV push to establish the paternity on Randolph or his sons, but neither you (nor your sources) have provided any proof of timeline of their visitations to Monticello. In fact, Randolph visited Monticello infrequently as was evident from his letters . Whereas, both Winthrop and Gordon-Reed have produced detailed timelines of Jefferson's movements to Monticello during key conception dates.
  • Randolph's paternity is a viable possibility and is a significant view among many scholars, so from time to time it comes up in these discussions. Your apparent insistence that I not mention him as such because there are no specific records of actual times of visitation doesn't cancel out the fact that he indeed visited Jefferson when he returned to Monticello, and your apparent attempt to sweep him under the rug as a possible paternal possibility is POV pushing. But that's okay, POV's are discussed on talk pages. Unwarranted introduction of such into the article is another matter. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, this is not the consensus. If you are going to put forth the debatable theory that Randolph or his sons were indeed the father, then please provide a sourced timeline for his visits to Monticello. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
2) Your discussion of the DNA tests-- Nature has continued to stand by their DNA tests, which eliminated the Carr men as candidates and proved that Eston Hemings was in fact a descendant of the Jefferson line. There has been no backtracking on that. Jefferson did not have any "recognized" male descendants, which is why they tested his Uncle. These facts have not changed, yet you continue to say that they have. The only way to make absolutely certain is to dig up TJ himself for a DNA tests, which the Wayles/Jefferson family has refused. However, unlike your statement about the Hemings' family, you do not claim that the Wayles/Jefferson family has been "coached."
  • Nature magazine skewed Foster's report on the DNA findings, much to Foster's outrage, claiming that the DNA pointed to Jefferson only proving he was the father. I have already provided links to articles that say the Hemings family changed their minds. I will continue looking for other sources. I believe Herbert Barger, whose original website is now '404', made the statement to the effect that the Hemings family was coached and hence changed their mind. Since DNA from William Hemings could dispel the theory that all of Sally's children were fathered by Thomas Jefferson it's certainly understandable why they were advised, or coached, to change their minds. Apparently they are more concerned with making a statement than they are with the truth. If the getting to the truth was their priority they would insist on further DNA investigations. This sort of behavior has become typical among many individuals in the 'Get Jefferson' camp which is why they are tripping all over themselves here in the 21st century. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The results were not skewed. They have always stated that Eston Hemings was an heir of the male Jefferson line. Prior to this test many people assumed the Hemings children were descendants of the Carrs, which was proved false. Those results are not up for debate, as they have been proven. Neither you, nor Barger have been able to provide any sourced material to indicate that Hemings was involved with another Jefferson. You also made a somewhat controversial statement when you indicated that the Hemings family were coached to not allow the exhumation of their ancestor. I assume you are insinuating that they do not want their ancestor tested because they're not really related to Thomas Jefferson? Why not apply that statement to the Wayles/Jefferson family? They don't want their ancestor dug up either? But you accuse the Hemings family of being coached and you can't seem to source it. However, I agree with you that this statement has no place here. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Gwillhickers, if William Hemings would be shown to also be descended from Jefferson, would that in any way change your opinion? Or would you simply assume that both Eston and Madison were children of Randolph or some other unspecified Jefferson? On the other hand, if William Hemings does not show Jefferson ancestry, that would not eliminate Thomas even as the father of Madison, since the line could have been broken at his wife Mary - it's not as if all children of a wife are necessarily the children of the corresponding husband (and that does not even require unfaithfulness - I suspect that rape was a very real risk in the 1850s and 60s). So while it would be nice to have that extra bit of data, it's a marginal win of information either way. If, on the other hand, we had a full set of Thomas Jefferson's DNA, with modern methods it might be possible to distinguish him from the other Jefferson's (probably not on the Y chromosome, but using whole genome techniques). So I very much see the point of the Hemings family - why should they allow a disturbance of the grave for a minimal gain in information when another exhumation could contribute a lot more to a definitive answer? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
3) You claim that Jefferson wouldn't go on sleeping with Hemings because in your words: "you don't see him coming back to Montecello, around all of those people, friends and family no less, and doing what Callander accused him of, esp while he was POTUS?." This is POV pushing. This is a gut feeling, which cannot be sourced. This is POV pushing.
  • Statements come up in discussions everywhere. And other sources have expressed similar ideas, that it would have been reckless and foolish for Jefferson to return to Monticello, esp while POTUS, and confirm Callander's accusations, so you need to stop playing talk page cop for your POV, demanding a source every time someone discusses things they have read over the years. If I have intentions of introducing any such ideas into the article then I will further entertain your concern for sources and POV pushing. If you want to challenge any of these ideas here on the talk page, feel free.
WP:NPOV dispute : POV-pushing is a term used on Misplaced Pages to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point
of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Calling someone
a "POV-pusher" is uncivil
, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not
necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them.
  • You just described your activities. In fact an editor above directly accused you of using fringe sources. And you are in fact presenting minor ideas. The majority of historians have already reached a consensus on this issue. Just b/c there are some that haven't, that doesn't discount the majority.
And just for the record, there have been a number of times, once just recently, where I have made a similar complaint, that this subject has dominated the talk page too often, that it's difficult to avoid when someone comes along and starts skewing the language or simply makes flat out lies. Just so you know. And now here you are, dominating the talk page with the very subject you initially said needed to be shut down. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to that. I simply returned to this page out of curiosity and I was surprised to see you still engaged in the same debates after two years. I have no plans to remain on this page, as I have other things to get back to. But I do hope to return in another year or two. I hope that in another two years this topic can finally be put to bed. If you are truly done debating this topic, then I will bow out of this discussion. Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
4) "Seems to me if there was any feelings of love for Hemings, esp if she was the mother of TJ's children, he would have freed her also." Yet again, another "gut feeling" statement. Hemings was in fact "released" after Jefferson's death, although not officially. Her other children were also released (or "escaped") at various points in time. These are just a few examples of your pervasive POV pushing. Much of which cannot be sourced. If you would like, I can go through and read your other posts as well. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Be my guest, but so long as they are discussions on a talk page regarding a controversial and sketchy theory they will continue. Again you are mistaking discussion of ideas for POV pushing. Many things come up in discussion, esp when evidence and records are sketchy. However, if they are wrongly introduced into the article with no sources then you can go ahead and parrot your POV claim. That hasn't happened. As I said, everyone here "pushes" a pov simply by discussing things, including yourself, so all you are doing is insisting that I not even discuss matters, as is evidenced by your title head for this section, Hemings Discussion needs to be shut down, which is becoming quite a novelty since you have escalated the debate more so than it has ever been in many months. -- Gwillhickers 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, don't congratulate yourself so much upon reaching a compromise. Your version of the sentence about Jefferson's moral and political position on slavery was not accurate. Jefferson was not so ineffective as you portray; he accomplished some of his political goals with regard to slavery. You have him morally against it, but I don't think the lead section should be the place for Jefferson's notional morals. He may have been morally against slavery but he practiced it, so what the hell does that mean to our typical reader (who may very well be a school student.) Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Binksternet, part of the nuance to be conveyed on Jefferson and slavery is his change of public and personal policy over the years, especially contrasting pre-1790s and post-1810. Your rhetorical question is akin to asking what it can mean to the typical reader if a divorced man advocates public policy encouraging marriage among all sexual orientations. He practiced the dissolution of marriage, what more can possibly be said about the man, according to your last frame of reference. Is not this "identity politics" anathema to academe? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent point. This sort of two dimensional analysis is so typical. i.e. Since the man wasn't a saint, anything he had to say about love and human kindness is therefore meaningless. -- Gwillhickers 11:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Moral position on slavery

  • Ari Helo and Peter Onuf published "Jefferson, Morality, and the Problem of Slavery" in 2003. Their position is that TJ was personally opposed to slavery but was not so troubled by its existence as much as other commentators such as Joseph Ellis would like us to think. They say TJ did not "embrace utopian notions of the ultimate moral end of the still ongoing historical process." He worked within the system to effect gradual change. Helo and Onuf say that TJ's failure to free his own slaves remains a "conspicuous" problem in defining TJ's morality. Helo and Onuf point out the irony that TJ is commonly thought to be a moral crusader against slavery even though his position was dead-set against such standout attempts to change the system from the outside. TJ thought that the efforts of crusading abolitionists would interfere prematurely with the slow progress of the white community in coming to the realization that slavery must end. Helo and Onuf say that "Jefferson did not portray himself as a member of a morally enlightened vanguard, far out in front of the American people." Helo and Onuf observe that "Modern commentators are united in their contempt for Jefferson's moralizing about George III's culpability for imposing" slavery on the colonies. They say TJ's "historical conception of morality explains both his legendary caution on the slavery issue—a caution amounting to inactivity—and his apparent obtuseness to the damage done to the human victims of the institution. His primary goal was not to free black people but to free white people from the moral evil of being slaveholders." Thus TJ's morality on the issue is shown to be inconsistent with heroic action, with a vanguard position. TJ was not a hero in his stance. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet's bold quote above sounds right for Jefferson after 1810: he “did not portray himself as a member of a morally enlightened vanguard”, --- sounds pretty much like any practicing politician building a political machine in a democratic republic which could elect presidents to six successive terms. We would not expect commentators, unlike scholars, to be able to distinguish that post-1810 Jefferson from the crusading Jefferson pre-1790 who condemned George III. It seems they have not in Binksternet's accounting.
Most of Jefferson’s post-1810 contemporaries who would rid whites of slaveholding -- advocated, funded and secured state underwriting for freeing black people in their own self-governing republic. Free blacks in America had few rights and less protection under law amid racist white communities. Gradual emancipation in the northern states had led individual slaves to be sold into permanent slavery before their milestone birthday. Contemporaries such as Henry Clay found that outcome morally reprehensible as slavery-removal elements profited from the humanitarian impulse of emancipation.
The analysis by Helo and Onuf as rendered by Binksternet seems about right, Jefferson “worked within the system to effect gradual change”, therefore, “TJ was not a hero in his stance” -- working-class heroes are hard to find among actual personages of Virginia gentry in history -- but Jefferson was a preeminent American politician of high ideals and lesser accomplishments. That would square with Meacham's 'TJ:the art of power' narrative and the RJensen take above, I think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Bink, the sources say Jefferson morally opposed slavery, a conviction that increased, his entire life.. As I already pointed out to you, there are some sources that express doubt about how sincere he was at various points in his life, but that doesn't change the fact that Jefferson expressed moral opposition to slavery on numerous occasions, so kindly stop edit waring on that point. You need to think outside the box rather than in the anachronistic and two dimensional manner you have been. -- Gwillhickers 21:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, your simplistic fascination with Jefferson-the-moral-opposer-of-slavery is undone by the complexity of Jefferson's public and private writings and his public and private actions. The actions and writings contradict themselves at every turn. Jefferson's "morals" cannot be stated as simply as you wish them to be stated. He used slavery for profit and sex, yet he worked toward ending slavery because he wanted whites to benefit from a more refined society. He did not care whether the lot of blacks was improved; he never thought that whites and blacks should participate together in the same government. He thought miscegenation would ruin society, but he had sex with a woman of mixed race, and thus produced more mixed race offspring. There is no way we can say that Jefferson was morally opposed to slavery; the literature is not that simplistic on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually yours is the simplistic view. i.e.Jefferson owned slaves, ergo, he is guilty of everything. His "actions and writings contradict themselves..."? What actions?? For openers, ending the international slave trade had little to nothing to do with benefiting whites in America. He branded that practice as inhumane and cruel. In his original draft of the DOI he said: He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and 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. The fact that he cared greatly about these people is evident in many of his writings and the great lengths he went through to provide for them at Monticello. He referred to them as servants and his extended family. Many slaves were close to Jefferson and his family. Jefferson's wife Martha in her death bed called for two slaves that were her close friends. His views about blacks and whites sharing the same government were based on practical considerations in the 18th and early 19th centuries, that the races could not coexist, as was evident in most parts of the world. I think I'm about done entertaining your sophomoric and short-sighted analysis. -- Gwillhickers 08:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

*In 1984, Charles B. Sanford wrote what became a respected analysis of Jefferson's religious views: The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson. Sanford writes about how TJ gambled his reputation on the issues that really mattered to him, the main one being the separation of church and state. Jefferson was highly aware that his insistence upon the separation of church and state hurt him politically, especially among Southerners. Sanford notes that TJ held back on the issue of slavery—he did not stick his neck out or gamble his career on it. Sanford says this issue was not so important to Jefferson, that he did not wish to martyr himself for the cause of slavery. At any rate, TJ cared more about the moral degradation of the white master than he did for the black slave. Jefferson's moral position against slavery was an empty gesture.

  • Lacy K. Ford writes in Deliver Us from Evil: The Slavery Question in the Old South, that Jefferson's notion of the morality of slavery was rife with contradictions and complexities. Ford says TJ was concerned primarily with the moral degeneration of the white masters, but that this concern was probably autobiographical—TJ was judging himself harshly, judging his sexual liaison with Hemings, and his experience of being "daily exercised in tyranny". Ford notes that Jefferson is mute on the subject of most active moral opposers of slavery in Virginia: the evangelical Christians of his day. TJ's morals are not so strong as to bring him to support these more active and effective groups. Ford says that Jefferson held consistent but private views on slavery from about 1785 until his death (he did not increase his conviction that slavery was evil.)
  • In the early 1990s Paul Finkelman published several works describing Jefferson as undeserving of the antislavery reputation which had become his legacy. Finkelman wrote that TJ's moral position on slavery was contradictory and hypocritical. He observes acidly that TJ sold 85 slaves to buy wine, art and luxury goods over a 10-year period, and that TJ misrepresented his slave sales in a letter to a friend. He notes that TJ lacked the moral fiber of George Washington who freed his slaves. Finkelman continues to hold this position as recently as 2012.
  • Winthrop Jordan wrote that Jefferson was sincere in thinking slavery was evil, but that his personal and political positions on the issue were confused and contradictory.
  • William Cohen wrote in 1969 that TJ's antislavery activities peaked (ineffectively) in 1774–1784, but that after 1784 his public opposition diminished. In fact, TJ took some pro-slavery actions as president. Cohen says "On the whole, however, there was a significant gap between his thought and action with regard to the abolition question." Cohen says that TJ was a racist who was committed to protecting the institution of slavery.
  • Joseph Ellis writes about the "moral chasm" between what TJ thought was right and what he felt he must have to be a wealthy planter and a powerful politician. Ellis says that TJ evaded the moral consequences of being a slaveholder by hiding the problem out of his sight as much as possible and by taking the position of benevolent master.
  • All of these authors describe how Jefferson's moral position cannot be taken at face value, that it is too complex to state plainly, that it is full of contradictions. My position here on this article is that we cannot tell the reader that TJ was morally opposed to slavery when so many respected historians debunk this position. The overly simplistic viewpoint promoted by Gwillhickers cannot be what we present to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
TJ certainly wrote more to white plantation owners about the moral degradation of white masters in his letter writing campaign. He also certainly achieved more than most plantation owners in securing a bar to slavery in the Northwest Territory as an Articles Congressman and admittance of free-soil Ohio as president. He also as governor publicly floated the idea of Virginia west of the Blue Ridge as free soil to the Ohio River (modern KY & WV).
  • Let’s name names for Ford's evangelicals. How is it that Methodists who are 20% black statewide, many free, and Baptists who are 50% black, mostly slave, mostly east of the Fall Line, – are “effective” on the slavery question in the state of Virginia per Lacy K. Ford, --- but Jefferson is not “effective” per William Cohen?
Do they not all, Jefferson, Methodists, Baptists, free black and slave, all live in the same resultant racist social environment on the plantation and off it in Virginia?
  • It looks like Winthrop Jordan and Joseph Ellis have the wherewithall to distinguish between pre-1790s Jefferson idealism and post 1810 Jefferson politics, as one would expect scholars to handle the subject without being wedded to bebunking ideology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You say that Finkelman wrote Jefferson was "underserving of ther antislavery reputation which had become his legacy." That suggests that Finkelman was expressing a minority view, and if his view has now become the majority, you need sources that say that. TFD (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"which HAD become." Finkelman was helping establish the new majority view, of which Jordan was a pioneer. Binksternet has set Finkelman in the context of other scholarship. Yopienso (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Finkelman and other historians are set into context in Kenneth Morgan's Slavery in America: A Reader and Guide. Morgan is a British historian at Brunel University in London. On pages 135–136, Morgan writes that historians have taken "sharply divided" positions on Jefferson, unlike historians who have studied Washington and Madison, two other slaveholding founding fathers from Virginia. Morgan writes that Miller (1977) argued that Jefferson's words were more antislavery than his deeds. Morgan says that Stanton (1993) writes sympathetically about Jefferson-as-slaveholder, emphasizing his benevolence. Morgan says Cohen (1969) shows how TJ's public antislavery efforts waned after 1784; his later writings were mainly private. Morgan says Jordan (1968) took the more traditional stance that Jefferson was trapped by the institution of slavery, but talks about TJ's racism. Morgan says Finkelman (1993) argued that TJ "had complex and contradictory attitudes toward slavery" and that "Jefferson lacked a serious commitment to slave emancipation and therefore does not deserve his antislavery reputation." Morgan goes on to identify Zuckerman (1993) as basically in agreement with Finkelman, calling TJ "the foremost racist of his era in America". Morgan observes that Temperley (1997) questions Jefferson's perplexed morality on the issue of slavery. Morgan says Finkelman demolishes TJ's antislavery credentials in a series of essays in 1996. Yopienso is correct in saying that Finkelman was establishing the new historical viewpoint in the 1990s. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Erik S. Root is another writer who puts the Jefferson/slavery literature into perspective. Root is a historian at West Liberty University in West Virginia. In All Honor to Jefferson?, Root says that his book "takes the unorthodox position that the Founders were anti-slavery." Nevertheless, Root keeps his eyes open as he describes the literature on the issue. He says Jefferson was treated generally positively by historians writing in the mid-20th century, with the exception of Carl L. Becker who questioned whether the Declaration of Independence made any useful statement about natural rights. Root says that the Founding Fathers were attacked "in earnest" beginning in the 1960s. He lists traditional Jefferson biographers who were criticized for their sympathetic portrayal of TJ's stance on slavery: Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson and Julian P. Boyd, among others. Root says that the debate "has become so acrimonious that anyone defending Jefferson is believed to be, somehow, a defender of slavery." Root discusses some of the various modern biographers who are critical of Jefferson: William Cohen, Paul Finkelman, Joseph Ellis and Henry Wiencek. Root says modern historians often point to the hypocrisy of Jefferson's moral position on slavery. (Root himself is determined to shift the focus to Jefferson's statesmanship.) Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you've taken the time to put a lot on the table here, so ignoring it would be a cop-out on my part. It is quite evident that you are putting far more emphasis on opinion than you are facts, which unfortunately has become an trademark among "most historians" of the day. Your above commentary largely draws on the summaries from the two books you've linked to. The one common denominator among these particular sources you've selected is that it's largely conjecture, based on what Jefferson didn't do, and roundly ignoring what he did indeed do and the political and financial forces he was up against. During Jefferson's presidency the rift between slave holding and non slave holding political interests was so potentially volatile that waving the flag of emancipation at this time would have brought on an early civil war during a time when the country was still recovering from the Revolutionary war, and with Britain sitting in the wings waiting for the right moment to make their moves, which they were doing all the way up and through the War of 1812. Jefferson was also dealing with the Barbary war. A divided nation would have spelled disaster during this unstable period. Jefferson had enough sense to put issues of survival before issues of morality. This is just one of the perspectives you seem to miss sitting in your easy chair from afar. I asked you in response to your quote, "actions and writings contradict themselves..." and all you've done is submitted conjecture on what Jefferson didn't do, again, roundly ignoring what he did do, which is considerable, esp regarding how he provided for and treated his slaves. Indeed the issue is complex, but your analysis remains quite narrow, selective and judgmental. And when you make the jump from an alleged affair with Hemings to "sex with slaves" this all but confirms your inclination to slime the entire picture here. -- Gwillhickers 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Source for "coaching" of Madison Hemings

William G. Hyland, Jr. claimed on p. 166 of In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal that S.F. Wetmore coached Hemings. I am merely reporting this, not supporting or attacking Hyland or his claim. I do not think it should appear in this article, but could be appropriate to Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. Yopienso (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim was that the living descendants of Madison Hemings had been coached. TFD (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yopienso, thanks for digging that up anyways. After years of reading the many different sources it gets sort of difficult to remember which source every idea came from. I agree, coverage of this part of the controversy belongs on the dedicated page. In fact, we might want to review the Controversy section and see what other details we might want to trim down. -- Gwillhickers 21:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, but as you see I misunderstood the claim, which was that Madison Heming's descendants were coached.
Did you notice my rebuttals under "Facts in the lede"? I hadn't realized till Bob joe returned and I went back in the archives how long this discussion has been going on. I think it really is time to stop discussing the same old stuff, since we editors have a consensus (a plurality, not a unanimity) that 1. TJ was ambivalent wrt slavery and, 2. there is a mainstream academic consensus that TJ fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children. I see I should drop out of the discussion and urge each editor to walk away from it. We should be responsible for keeping the article on this track. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good to me Yopienso. Thanks.Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with the lede as it is, reflecting well established facts and sources. We end up discussing the "same old stuff" only because the 'same old reasons' present themselves from time to time as we saw just recently, i.e.skewing the DNA statement, etc. Then of course once in a while a new comer arrives, sometimes making one-sided edits with no concern for past discussions, neutrality, and we have to go through the same thing all over again until they come up to speed and get matters straight. Joe Bob', I have no problem with stating that "most modern historians" subscribe to the Jefferson paternity theory because we must go by the sources, even when we disagree, as I obviously do. My position however is that there is a wide body of other reputable historians, scholars, professors from notable universities and elsewhere who don't follow along with the Jefferson paternity theory and that their views are just as viable and significant as that of "most historians". This so called "minority" constitutes a significant view and as such is due fair representation in this biography, per WP policy, as I have maintained all along. I resent attempts by anyone who tries to skew the controversy, or any topic, with one sided opinion, leaving out other viable opinions and often important facts. This article has a long history of this sort of editing. Too long. Yopienso, thanks one again for being the voice of mediation and compromise. I was comfortable with the lede statement as you wrote it and was ready to move on days ago. -- Gwillhickers 07:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The position of Jefferson/Hemings doubters on the continuum of mainstream to minor to fringe is more toward fringe than mainstream. We should not entertain the doubters with as much weight as a supposedly "viable and significant" minor viewpoint such that this minor position be stated clearly in the lead section. Rather, we should clearly state the mainstream position in the lead section and relegate such minor/fringe viewpoints to the article body because of their failure to gain traction. In his survey of the literature, Kenneth Morgan of London says that the 1998 DNA research combined with historical evidence shows that Jefferson was sexually active with Hemings "beyond reasonable doubt"—that TJ fathered at least one child by Hemings. Morgan is nothing if not objective about the dispute across the pond. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You're echoing the same old speculations. DNA points to many paternal candidates, and there is not one piece of circumstantial evidence that narrows the matter down to Jefferson alone. At this late date there is also a lot of unanswered questions about why DNA analysis was handled in Britain, not in the USA, who funded and oversaw the experiments and how the DNA samples were handled. These are fair questions, still unanswered and quite warranted considering the way Britain's Nature magazine reported and skewed the facts in the typical fashion still practiced today. Were the DNA samples compromised? Were they kept at the right temperature during the flight to Britain? Were the samples subjected to X-rays during security checks? Aside from the evidence being far from conclusive, even if samples were handled correctly, these questions remain unanswered. And why are modern day Hemings descendents refusing to cooperate with further DNA investigations? Speculation is a two way street. -- Gwillhickers 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. http://www.genealogy.edu/moodle/mod/resource/view.php?id=3543
  2. http://www.genealogy.edu/moodle/mod/resource/view.php?id=3543
  3. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6706/full/396027a0.html
Categories: