Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 27 October 2013

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 25, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 15, 2008 Peer review Reviewed September 3, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
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. Architecture Mid‑importance 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 Mid This 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. Biography: Politics and Government / Core 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 supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). 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. Human rights High‑importance 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 High This 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. International relations Mid‑importance 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 Mid This 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. Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Social and political / Religion / Modern Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Aesthetics Social and political philosophy Philosophy of religion Modern philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance 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 High This 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. United States: Presidential elections / Presidents / Governors Top‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Top-importance). United States: Government 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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. Virginia: Albemarle County Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. 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:

• Smithsonian Museum
• :American President: A Reference Resource" from the University of Virginia
• United States National Park Service Jefferson Biography. currently offline
• Monticello, etc.

-- 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)

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?

*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.

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class Architecture articles
• Mid-importance Architecture articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• B-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class philosopher articles
• Mid-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• B-Class Aesthetics articles
• Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
• Aesthetics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• B-Class Modern philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Modern philosophy articles
• Modern philosophy task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States governors articles
• Top-importance United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States governors articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Top-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles