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.
::::::::::Purposes of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
::::::::::Purposes of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
::::::::::To further the honor and integrity of Thomas Jefferson, and to promote
::::::::::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.
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.
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.
Thomas 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.
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.
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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.
This 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.
This 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
I just removed one of twelve paragraphs in the section about slavery, for reasons of synthesis. More paragraphs should be removed, reduced or condensed so that only two or three remain. Per Misplaced Pages:Summary style, most of the detail about the sub-topic should be placed in the main article about that issue: Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Only the major themes should be presented here. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
In the various Jefferson articles there is sometimes a rather large area of overlap as content goes, especially when a given article lends itself to a subject just as, or near, as much. This is not to say that the the biography here should have as much coverage, or weight, as a dedicated article(s) covering a topic, sometimes. Many topics are just as pertinent to the Jefferson biography as they are to the other various pages that (may) cover any given subject. As for synthesis, you didn't articulate this idea much at all. You may want to review that policy so as not to make the typical mistake/oversight that is common to this policy. i.e OR and advancing new positions, which has not occurred on this page. -- Gwillhickers05:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Wha..? There should never be a "large area of overlap", not to the tune of 12 paragraphs.
As far as synthesis goes, believe me, I know the policy. You should not be using various primary sources to arrive at an interpretation of Jefferson's thoughts and actions. Binksternet (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to put your horses in front of your cart. Please explain your issues before coming in and making sweeping changes. Most of the content on the page here was arrived at by, often lengthy, discussion. Overlap exists everywhere on WP, sometimes considerably so, and rightly so, so readers don't have to hop around from page to page to read about a topic that is well suited on a given page. You also might want to peek into some of the dedicated pages to see if they're covering things as well as you seem to be claiming they are. Have you done so first before coming here, perhaps half blind? Where are these "twelve paragraphs" -- all on one other page? I don't think so. Again, highlight your issues and then if need be cite the exact policy that you feel may support it rather than coming in here with a disruptive approach. Also, the listing in the infobox was arrived at by much debate and including 'architect', then 'amateur architect' was agreed on as a compromise. Please review the discussion to see if it covers any issues you may have here also. If not, feel free to raise any issue that wasn't addressed several times already. -- Gwillhickers16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, have you read Misplaced Pages:Summary style and WP:NOTPAPER? While I understand the desire for well-rounded articles, summary style is a long-standing and widely respected guideline. It sometimes leaves somewhat jarring holes, but, on the other hand, if we put everything of interest into this article, we will arrive at something akin to Dumas Malone's Jefferson biography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
If you would like to scale down the slavery section kindly make specific points below. We can do this so long as the section doesn't read like a police report without any balance. 'Summary style' doesn't mean giving a depleted and out of context account of the issue. We've all been down this road, but if you prefer to ignore the rest of the article for the next several months we can discuss what has been discussed many times -- all over again. -- Gwillhickers17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, with this edit you have violated WP:BRD. Your talk page response here is just general stonewalling rather than reasoned defense of specific paragraphs that I removed. The burden is on the person who wants to include text, not remove text. The burden is on you.
Certainly, this section of the biography has been the subject of past discussion. In August 2009 at the GAR discussion, Cmguy777 noted that the article lacked any mention of slave life at Monticello, and that it should have "one or two paragraphs" of such material. Cmguy777 was commenting on this version of the article in which the slavery section was already too large at 1158 words including some long quotes sourced to primary documents. This version of the article lost its GA status in September 2009. The slavery section crept larger and larger but was intermittently reduced again, for instance this large cut by User:Brad101 in May 2012. The slavery section was the focus of a lot of back-and-forth editing activity in July and August 2012. By mid-August, Brad101 observed that the slavery section was "full of cherry picked quotes" and was too large at 641 words. The tempering hand of Brad101 stopped appearing here later that month. Without him, your version today has ballooned to 1453 words, wasting the reader's time with details.
Gwillhickers, I can see in past discussions on this matter you have had to defend the article against editors who seemed to want to paint TJ as a cruel slave master. Counter complaints were lodged against you that you wanted a white-washed version instead, with slave life at Monticello depicted as an idyl. Count me out of that discussion—my only concern here is brevity. I will leave it to topic experts to compose two or three succinct paragraphs about the most important themes relevant to the biography and to decide which portions should be taken to the sub-article. I'm not going to weigh in on the question of what kind of slave master was TJ; I trust you and the other editors here to get it right. The result should be a summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
All of the fussing and fighting over this article is but only one reason why I've been gone almost a year now. I'm sick to death of this article because of Gwill and CMguy. They've held this article hostage for over two years with this bullshit. I've stated here repeatedly until I was blue in the face about the article size and it's really not a surprise that it ballooned up again while I wasn't looking. Also not a surprise are the boatloads of discussion wasted arguing about something as stupid as 'architect' and forgetting about any main objective to move the article along. And CMguy still hasn't learned how to indent his responses. Good luck. I'm done with this crap. Brad (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
As painful as it must have been, thank you for weighing in. I think it's important to have the perspective of editors such as yourself who were active on this article a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Blinkerset. "Amateur architect" is what Jefferson is refered to by sources. Gwillhickers edit, in my opinion, was extremely conservative and done out of compromise between editors. The slavery section, possibly could be resummarized, but we really worked hard on the first paragraph, the most important in the slaves and slavery section. Please do not change that first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Working on summary of slavery
Here are what I think are the main themes of the slavery section:
TJ lived in a slave society
TJ believed slavery was bad for the slave and the master
TJ believed slavery was economically necessary for agriculture in the South
TJ owned and sold many slaves, about 600 over his life, about 130 at Monticello
TJ believed the Negro race was inferior
TJ proposed slavery should end in the West after 1800
TJ drafted 1778 Virginia law forbidding slave importation
TJ was criticized for allowing slavery in the Louisiana Purchase
TJ's views on Gabriel's Rebellion
TJ opposed the Missouri Compromise, he thought the slavery issue would split the country
TJ signed into law the 1808 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves
TJ was in favor of a gradual phasing out of slavery in the US
TJ was against international slavery
TJ was relatively kind to his slaves, providing for them relatively more generously
TJ eschewed the extremes of violent punishment of slaves, though this wish was not always carried out
Here is what I believe to be excessive detail for this biography. (The details can be taken to Thomas Jefferson and slavery:
Whether TJ's debt influenced his owning slaves
Missouri "exploded" the issue of slavery
TJ refuses one case where overseer kills slave by whipping. (This is just one case, after all.)
I agree. I would add 1774 attack on King re slave trade; 1780s law fobid slavery in all territories (lost by one vote but incorporated into NW Territories law). You can drop "TJ was criticized for allowing slavery in the Louisiana Purchase" (that was never on the table); and *TJ's views on Gabriel's Rebellion . Maybe add haiti. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Binksternet and Rjensen, and think his view of Haiti was important. Also, I believe that TJ thought that freed slaves could not be integrated into U.S. society and should be repatriated to Africa, which should also be mentioned. TFD (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Also largely agree, but do you mean by TJ being against international slavery that he was against the trans-Atlantic slave trade?
My major disagreement is that I think TJ's debt was such a huge factor in his refusal/inability to free any slaves that it should be mentioned. Also, because the Hemings drama looms so large in the public mind right now, I do not strongly support getting rid of the preferential treatment they received. At the least I would say they were the only slaves ever freed. Yopienso (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yopienso, my take on the slavery section is that it should be about Jefferson's general views about, and public practice of slavery. The Hemings material has its own section and was not part of TJ's public discourse. I think any Hemings info should be in the Hemings section but not in the general slavery section. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see a proposal for consideration written along the streamlined lines suggested. As for debt, its complicated, and therefore may need to be relegated to the daughter article. TJ's wealth was slaves, was it not? More so, than land or anything else. So his borrowing was secured against his wealth (slaves). His income was slaves work, so he was sevicing his debt through slavery. (a bit of a chicken and egg problem). As long as our summary says he personally was economically dependent on slavery - that may cover it. As for the few slaves he freed (or let go) that may be a brief sentence at most: "Jefferson personally freed very few slaves; most were related to Sally Hemings." (or some such). As for Haiti, what is the wording of that proposal? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I am for taking a more conservative approach to scaling the section down. How Jefferson treated his slaves is important for the biography article. Jefferson's view on the Missouri compromise is signifigant. He predicted the Civil War. Jefferson's letters are important in order to establish Jefferson's views on slavery. Although Jefferson stopped the Atlantic slave trade, slavery was allowed to expand in the South. General Tadeusz Kościuszko is a difficult situation since if Jefferson took on Kościuszko he probably would have been challanged by Kościuszko's family. That would be best left addressed for the Jefferson and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
First things first
Seems we're getting ahead of ourselves here, discussing 'tactics', while no overall strategy has been agreed on other than we need to scale down the section. As we can see, there are a lot of issues to sort out. Not only do we have to chose which ones will be covered (not done) we will also be pitted with the task of 'how', and 'how much' each topic will be covered (also not done yet). To make life 'simple', we also have Hemings to deal with. Much controversy and debate has occurred, repeatedly, on that topic alone. So how do we cover all this stuff in the space of one page without the section reading like a dictionary or police report? As the topic of slaves and slavery is complex, with how they lived under Jefferson making it even more complex, we are going to need at least a page to cover this adequately. Just recently for the first time in a long time, the talk page was involved in a long debate about a topic other than slavery. In spite of disagreements it was nice to dig, review and further explore one of the many neglected topics on this page, for a change. Now it seems were all set to tie up the talk page about slavery, once again, while the other topics rot on the vine because all the editors are dragged into the same debate that has gone on over and over, and this is my optimistic assessment. Yes, editors are free to edit other sections, but it's sort of difficult not to get pulled into the fray when the section and its topics are being skewed, under represented while other topics are highlighted. The existing section, while almost two pages long, is much better than it once was. Hemings coverage all by itself was five pages long when I called for a consensus to scale it down back in March of 2011. It was a long painstaking process but we did it. Take a look at the names who were 'for' and 'against'. Some of them are with us now and at least one has changed his tune. In any case, to cover this section fairly we are going to need at least a page, and no doubt we will have to ignore certain topics to do that. Okay. What topics do we ignore? Which one gets the most coverage? Or do we give one sentence to each topic and pile one on top of the other so we have something that looks like a list in paragraph form? -- Gwillhickers17:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Bink has taken the time, now, to provide a list of topics about which ones should and should not be covered. I disagree with several items already. We need to chose which topics will get covered, first before we start pecking away at individual items. -- Gwillhickers18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we could also see the proposal first. Others are suggesting their quibbles, with Binks lists (few though they maybe, so far). As for the Hemings Controversy section that would seem to be a model, to aim for, since it ultimately was edited down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
While we're dealing with slavery, once again, the Hemings subject also needs to be addressed. It has its own section. There are many topics about slavery. Does Hemings get its own section, or should it also be included in the slavery section and given summary attention like the other topics? Perhaps now you'll understand why I was opposed to the initial bulldozer approach. There is much to consider here. At least now we're beginning to do that. Given the complexity and variance involved I believe the section is okay, each topic gives special insight into Jefferson, the person, while the Hemings topic should have its own section, as this was a major controversy effecting Jefferson biographies everywhere. If anything we can do without Coles and Kościuszko's last will, but that should be about it imo. -- Gwillhickers18:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it does not seem that complicated. Both "Slavery and" and "Controversy" are separate related articles to this article, so they have their own summary section in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually it isn't that complicated if we agree. The Controversy' has its own section, so now lets look at this section through the same summary lens we are looking at the Slavery' section. Will the Controversy' section be the standard we use in the slavery section to determine the summary of the many important topics there? Seems we have achieved that already, all of us, to a great degree. I like to think that what we've been doing here for the last three years wasn't a waste of our time and effort. We need to think about more than just the reduction of text space here and remember that we can easily skew a picture by leaving out some of the topics, facts and context. We can trim a few topics, but overall both the slavery and controversy sections, though on the lengthy side, have achieved optimum content and balance. GA and FA goals were recently mentioned. Many lengthy and in depth pages have achieved GA and better. One of the FA requirements is having a subject that has been extensively covered and well written. The one thing that has stood in the way of this page from achieving GA or better are the major and disputed changes that have occurred on a monthly, sometimes weekly, basis. Thanks to most of us here the sections for the first time in a while have remained basically unchanged because we've made them that way. They point to Jefferson's inconsistencies but there is balance and context about. Seems we should keep that in mind if and when we start scaling down the text, if we decide to do that in the degree we all of the sudden seem to think we should employ. I have no problems with omitting coverage of Kościuszko's last will, and Coles correspondence with Jefferson, and we can always grammatically scale down some text, but not the facts. -- Gwillhickers22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
In the Slavery' section I just removed a couple of topics, some redundant phrases and a few other excessive items, (e.g.wool for slaves, etc). I also moved a small paragraph about Hemings to the Controvery section. If anyone is opposed to these edits go ahead and revert and we'll discuss it. -- Gwillhickers22:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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. -- Gwillhickers20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just made a compromise edit. Please see these sources:
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...
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. -- Gwillhickers00:33, 2 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. -- Gwillhickers00:14, 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". -- Gwillhickers04:59, 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. -- Gwillhickers05:24, 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. -- Gwillhickers17:09, 2 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)
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. -- Gwillhickers17:09, 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.
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. -- Gwillhickers17:09, 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? -- Gwillhickers18:13, 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. -- Gwillhickers17:23, 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)
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. -- Gwillhickers17:51, 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. -- Gwillhickers21:06, 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. -- Gwillhickers21:26, 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. -- Gwillhickers03:12, 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.
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. -- Gwillhickers21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That is unsourced POV, there is no source that says that, and that's not how reliable sources present it:
(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. -- Gwillhickers03:11, 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)
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. -- Gwillhickers03:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
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 
.svg)
