Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Modified topic title regarding Sally Hemings' children

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

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

???....You have it utterly backwards. Attempting to assert as fact that which is only speculation is POV pushing. The dispute isn't whether there's a link to the Jefferson family line but whether it stems from Thomas Jefferson. No matter how much "qualitative and circumstantial" evidence there is, it remains only that and not definitive and the title should reflect that.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no serious doubt even without the strongly suggestive DNA data that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. Motive, means, and opportunity, all check. Witnesses. Contemporary remarks on how Jeffersonian the children look. The DNA data simply clinches it. Note that the few opponents really have a Mystery Father of the Gaps approach - essentially, it's everybody but TJ. When one hypothesis is conclusively ruled out, the next absurd one is dragged out - without ever considering the obvious one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of doubt. After extensive investigation there is no one who can state with irrefutable scientific certainty that Jefferson fathered children by Hemmings. No matter how much you parse and dance and how much you want it to be, you cannot change the facts - conclusive evidence that Jefferson fathered a child with Hemmings doesn't exist. If you feel you can do so, publish it and become world famous. Speculation and gossip by family, journalists, colleagues and acquaintances does not constitute such proof.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"irrefutable scientific certainty" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing in science. The standard for parentage is "weight of evidence" - if it would go to court, it would be a civil matter. Gordon-Reed alone is enough for that. Even the white-wash (what an ironic turn of phrase) by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society returned only a "not proven" opinion, and one that has generally been seen as unfounded wishful thinking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What you mean is that it doesn't align with YOUR wishful thinking. You cannot state with the level of certainty afforded by current science that Jefferson fathered a child with Hemings. Go ahead and submit a paper to a science journal stating otherwise and see what kind of reception it gets. If you could no doubt you'd be making big bucks on the speaking circuit, not trying to promote your agenda on Wikipedia. As far as weight of evidence, betcha you'll be the first one to talk indignantly out the other side of your mouth when a minority prisoner is exonerated after they were previously convicted based on "weight of evidence".

"..the white-wash (what an ironic turn of phrase).." - Such editorializing only serves to demonstrate your POV and undermine your credibility. Maybe he did but it can't currently be proven, and for the record Jefferson denied it. I personally don't have a dog in this fight other than a desire that speculation be separated from fact, particularly in this era when revisionism regarding Jefferson seems to be in vogue as with the Texas school board's attempt to rewrite history and insinuate a religious right-wing agenda.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"My agenda"? What on earth do you think that is, and why should I have one? And you should really learn about the different levels of proof in different settings: Civil trials: Weight of evidence. Criminal trials: Beyond reasonable doubt. Historical method: No need for a verdict, give the evidence. The evidence clearly shows that Jefferson's parentage is much more likely than any other option - indeed, the only current alternative was not even considered before the DNA tests eliminated most of the other excuses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

""My agenda"? What on earth do you think that is, and why should I have one?"" Good question, why do you have an agenda? Seems every time I run into you in an article you're trying to control the content. Look at the global warming scientists articles. I wonder how many have quit because you act like it's yours. Tell me one good factual thing you have to say about Thomas Jefferson. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The "weight of evidence" clearly shows what your agenda is. Things like "...eliminated most of the other excuses..." meaning that which doesn't fit with your pet foregone conclusions - foregone despite that the evidence doesn't support your level of certainty. Unless they exhume Jefferson and attempt to test his DNA directly, the only direct evidence does not conclusively indicate him. The rest is speculation, family stories, gossip, hearsay, much of which stems from someone known to hold a bitter grudge against Jefferson. The fact is there *were* other Jefferson males whose conjugation with SH would produce the same results. Since they can't all be ruled out, they must be considered. I gather SH was a nice looking girl, if men then were anything like they are today, she might have caught the eye of many of them. Who knows what clandestine, undocumented rendezvous' might have occurred, who Jefferson might have been covering for. Not much is known about her, the fact that she was a slave doesn't preclude her having had a "liberal" libido. That some offspring bore a resemblance to Jefferson isn't ironclad evidence. I've got a cousin who's virtually a dead-ringer for my dad but circumstances utterly preclude him having sired the cousin. Some people make a living off their resemblance to celebrities they have no relationship to. Write a paper with your ironclad evidence that no one else has managed to discover and become a celebrity.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ironclad evidence" is a strawman, since nobody claims it. The evidence has been presented, by Brodie, Gordon-Reed, the TJS, and others. There is plenty of evidence that strongly supports TJ as the father. There is basically no evidence to suggest someone else. You are talking only about possibilities, not about probabilities. There is, for example, no credible evidence that RJ was near to Hemings at the time of the conception of Easton (or indeed any of her children). There is, however, conclusive proof that TJ was there in time for all the children - unearthed, among others, by Dumas Malone who tried to show the opposite. Yes, again, nothing of this is "ironclad" - maybe we live in a giant computer simulation and the aliens are messing with our simulated minds. But it is extremely strong evidence, especially in combination. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"..since nobody claims it.."-- Yet you're more than happy to take the position of "...but all us right-minded folks know what the truth is." No - you don't. All those studies are still speculation regarding history which is at best incompletely chronicled. Again, I'll bet you're the first person who huffs indignantly when someone is shown to be innocent of something they were previously convicted of based on similarly sketchy "evidence". Whether it fits your world-view or not there ARE plausible, alternative explanations. Life happens 24/7, there could be large chunks of time and numerous events which are completely undocumented. Could you account for your exact activities from last week? Last month? Let alone from 200 years ago. Even in this era of electronic audio/video it's often difficult to precisely get the whole story, let alone in an era where there existed nothing but quill pen and parchment paper. There's been difficulty among scholars even decisively placing in a timeline when Jefferson wrote certain things he explicitly meant to write about and you're insisting you've got clear insight on events that were sparsely documented at best. What does exist is tainted accusations, inconclusive evidence and Jefferson's explicit denial. --TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Schulz. Annette Gordon-Reed's work showed in detail how historians and biographers had worked to ignore evidence that would have been sufficient in other circumstances to conclude that someone had fathered certain children. In addition, the National Genealogy Association said that the weight of historical evidence, plus the DNA, makes them conclude that he was the father of Hemings' children. That should be reflected here.--Parkwells (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

thomas jefferson also had 2 girland 3 boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.215.243 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone look over the recent spat of User:Gwillhickers edits? I think they have changed the tone of the article. In particular, the use of quotation marks around evidence is certainly inappropriate. 128.112.139.195 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you somewhat about the scare quotes, but overall I think his changes are in keeping with WP:WEIGHT. The speculation about whether he fathered any children with Sally Hemmings is great fun and the documentaries get good ratings, but that content is well handled in the other articles and doesn't need to be repeated here. Celestra (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about moving most of the material on Jefferson's mixed-race children to the Hemings article. It is of interest because of Jefferson, not because Hemings had mixed-race children by someone else. It is of interest both because of denials by Jefferson, and because of denials for so long by historians and biographers of him, including well into the 20th century. As such their reactions reveal much about US views on race and Jefferson. As Annette Gordon-Reed's Pulitzer Prize-winning work showed, the historians worked hard to ignore evidence that would have been sufficient to believe paternity of anyone else. This is why it is important to have in the Jefferson article. --Parkwells (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with removing this content. It is noteworthy. Whether he fathered the children or not there is clearly claims from reasonable sources that state he may have or may not have. The fact that it is controversial need not be avoided by Wikipedia but merely observed. In other words, I don't understand why Wikipedia would try and make a definitive call here instead of simply stating the reasonable and educated opinions of experts. CáliKewlKid (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to agree w/ Parkwells. Sorry to point out the fact that daily sexual assault by slaveowners is well known by scholars, and it's definatley something that former slaves wrote about, including Harriet Ann Jacobs & even some of the slave ship captains who admitted to doing it in their own dairies. That's just for starters. We could discuss the "breeders" or African women men bought just to have chldren with them and then sell them all into slavery, which was a pretty common practice. William Wells Brown discusses that, and he's not the only one.

Why would historians go to such lengths today? He wasn't the first in such high office to do that stuff. Richard M Johnson was a VP who openly did that very same stuff too, which was the only reason he was denounced, cause he brought attention to it. The fact that some historians choose to support that narrative despite the evidence is revealing about the US intellectual culture. As to those here who feel that rape, sex slavery & children by this man is not exactly what it was because of who he was, they reveal that they are far from neutral contributors, as the evidence is...well, it speaks for itself. For those of you who prefer the sanitised & "disputed" version, I have no objection to the comment by CáliKew. I don't eexpect much from wikipedia or those who bow down to the altar of Jefferson or other presidents. That's their civil religion, and what some historians say is like heresy to them because the clean image of benevolent, slave owners eager to spread democracy and human rights is so ridiclous it's down right laughable. That's not even touching the comments Jefferson makes (or his bahaviour) that are so racist it's hard to miss. Oh, well... Ebanony (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rape

This entire section was changed "===Alleged mixed-race children===" in the past 24 hrs by "67.180.211.101", another unnamed account with no comment in the talk page or anywhere else. Not just the title, but everything! These people won't even discuss the possibility their "dear leader" raped his slaves. This was reported back in the 1810s. Why is it taboo now? The very concept that their great hero could have engaged in crimes against humanity ie slavery and genocide of native peoples violates their civil reigion of "leader worship" in the US. Kim Il-Sung would be proud if his followers were as devoted to his cult worship as some are to Jefferson and other American leaders. Anyway, Favonian addressed the issue. Ebanony (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear leader? Jefferson? Excuse me but, you obviously don't understand the term. Please show your proof of rape. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate rape, see the above tirades for that. As you well know, this was revealed in the early 1800's by a close associate of Jefferson & by DNA evidence in 1998. I'm not here to apologise for the crimes of people like Jefferson, I'll leave that to you who worry about their "intent" as opposed to their actual crimes, of which there are many and include the Genocide of N American peoples & slavery. Where are the Native Americnas. Or do you need evience for that? The slaves being raped daily was a common practise, and Jefferson was no exception. That violated the tenets of your Dear Leader type cult worship, but that is the reality.Ebanony (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You leveled the charge, not me. Why don't you trying adhering to facts, instead of fictions? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Levelled what charge? What are you talking about? What fiction? Jefferson was racist salve owner who raped Sally Hemings & the DNA evidence proved it. That's not fiction. You can disagree with it, but then again this isn't a forum for that. His racism appears in his writings: see Notes on Virginia where he says blacks are inferior. His racism against Native Americans is in numerous letters. The rape was daily practice in the US by slave owners, and that's what former slaves said like Harriet Ann Jacobs (who was herself abused), historians etc. Jefferson&s 1998 DNA test was done by an independent lab. What is the problem? Please point to the specific innacuracy so I can understand your concern.Ebanony (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So just because James Callendar leveled a charge of rape in the newspaper, that makes it so? And of course a biased Jefferson hater would immediately repeat the unsubstantiated charge throughout a dialogue. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not familiar with the evidence against Jefferson raping Sally Hemings. It's not based on what his ex-friend said, being upset about not getting a job. When people investigated his claims, they had some merit. There's plenty more, such as why only certain slaves were freed etc. Then there's DNA & investigators have looked at more than I can cover here. You can dispute that with them. However, by definition rape is coercing or even asking a person to engage in the sexual act when he/she is not in the position to refuse. Slave owners did that on a daily basis. Jefferson is just of many who did it. That was Virginia 200 yrs ago. Look up the terms "breeders". Men purchased women just to rape, breed children and sell them all into slavery. William Wells Brown discusses it, and so do historians. As to rape for pleasure & domination, that was another daily pracitce on the ships transporting slaves (plenty of evidence on that), as well as by overseers & slaveowners on the plantations/farms etc. The reason Jefferson was vituperated is because this information becomming public was embarassing, after all they claimed to be helping slaves. They had no problem about this provided it was kept quiet, and the daily rape of slaves was not even considered a crime under the slave codes, something Jefferson did nothing to change.Ebanony (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with all that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV section : on slavery

This problem refers on to the section On slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is in reference to?

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

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

Edit request from 75.73.232.205, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Im not sure if this has been done correctly but under the religion portion of the article it states that Jefferson described himself as a Christian. The reference provided does not reflect this as the full quote states

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he (Jesus) wished any one to be;

sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to

himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."

He was stating that he considered himself as having the attributes which Jesus would wish anyone to have, not saying that he was a Chrisitan.

Resources

http://www.hbu.edu/hbu/DBM_T_Jeffersons_Life_and_Morals_of_Jesus.asp?SnID=4 http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

75.73.232.205 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: I see your point but unfortunately disagree with you. As I see it, he is saying that he is saying that he is a Christian, but only because he follows the rules of Christianity, but isn't involved with the religion any further than that (i.e. maybe he doesn't regularly attend church, doesn't celebrate Christian holidays, etc). Additionally, because the citation for this quote in the article shows this portion of the quote, I don't see the need to bring more light to this technicality. Oxguy3 tc 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Note: This edit request refers to a statement in the "Religion" section of this article. Oxguy3 tc 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The person "75.73.232.205" raises a valid point. According to the source "Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethics of Jesus were the best in the world" & that he "believed that the New Testament was written by unlearned apostles who often misunderstood Jesus and misrepresented his teaching." So yes, good ethics & an accusation that the apostles were not being honest (he's saying the new testament is incorrect on purpose).

The source does not say Jefferson was a Christian: "but he did not believe Jesus was God or divine." This needs little explaination for he rejected the very foundation of Christianity (Jesus being god's son & of divine origin). The speculation of attending church & following Christian rules is opinion & not sourced & highly questionable in itself. This statement is an interpretation, but not the logical one. Historians discuss his religious views, & they should be referenced, not a website that is taken out of context. Who made this edit? Ebanony (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a normal wikipedia author or anything. I was using the source listed on the page for a report and noticed that the text of the article doesn't fit with what the source seems to be saying. I felt the article was changing the meaning of the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.232.205 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Partly done: Ebanony's explanation seems logical, so I made a change. Instead of "'Christian'", I put "a follower of Christian doctrine". Is that acceptable? -Oxguy3 (logged in as Oxguy the 3rd) talk 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "Christian doctrine" usually is understood to include Trinity. He said "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others". The paragraph is discussing HOW he self-identified --JimWae (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not criticising you "75.73.232.205", I just don't know your id. You're not an editor, but you do good work & I hope you'll consider joining Wpedia. We need people with an eye like yours, and you're helping with a real problem on here. We appreciate your efforts because the goal is an accurate article. Ebanony (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I use wikipedia alot to get resources for whatever paper I happen to be writing. It bothers me when the article does not reflect what the source is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.232.205 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just so people know, when the edit request has been fulfilled or otherwise addressed, please substitute the template by changing it to {{tlf|edit semi-protected}}. Otherwise it still shows up on Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue of the OP's request. If the quote is correct, then he was a Christian, simply because he said that he was. Seriously, which sect's definition shall you use, especially since he's stated that he subscribed to none? He states clearly that he is one, as he defines it himself. Giving him the Unitarian label in-addition, under modern definition, seems fair. He states just as obviously that he does not follow Christian 'doctrine'. Really, the language is not that hard to follow - don't get caught-up in semantics. 173.57.26.204 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Review Required: Citation needed for Appearance and Temperament Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother

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

Slavery mentioned in lede

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

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

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

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

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

Segment break 1 proposed changes

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

Jefferson with requested on slavery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section break

About those "statements", Finkelman says “None of these motivated him to do anything about the institution." This includes politics: "He failed ever to come to terms with the institution on either a personal or political level." Please read Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery, Paul Finkelman. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pg 203, 194 [10] Davis quote on Jefferson doing nothing: “After his return to America [in 1789] ...the most remarkable thing about Jefferson's stand on slavery is his immense silence.” Davis, David Brion The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823, 1975 pg 179. [11] This is an impeccable source: [12] Again, you're incorrect.

Excuse me JimWae, but just who is making "assertions"? You should withdraw that comment. I've provided ample sources. You wrote only your opinion. Now I agree when Jrtayloriv says these "statements" need to be qualified. Some historians have purposely used some quotes to support the mythology that Jefferson was anti-slavery. But the details do not belong in the Introduction for it would be too long. JimWae's proposal: “Perhaps you want to say...that he neither proposed nor took any steps to end the institution of slavery (though he signed the law ending importation of slaves).” You said it can't be "vague". Well, the old man Jefferson claimed he wanted "a general emancipation and expatriation...if it could be effected". But he knew it was impossible. For "he would have lost his slaves' labor and the luxuries it provided" & the slave states "the three-fifths clause" (the only reason why Jefferson was elected). "These possible consequences help to explain why Jefferson placed impossible conditions - such as expatriation - on any scheme to end slavery". Finkelman (1994) pg 206 [13] Nothing more than empty, racist talk from one of the biggest slave owners of a country without blacks. It's not "slavery" he was opposed to, it was the presence of black people. Sincerely I ask, how should that be worded? Apartheid, segregation, ethnic cleansing? Ebanony (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "slavery" he was opposed to, it was the presence of black people. Sincerely I ask, how should that be worded? Apartheid, segregation, ethnic cleansing? -- Ethnic cleansing is the term for removing people from other cultures and races from a territory, apartheid/segregation is when you separate them within the territory. Jefferson's support for extermination, assimilation, or Western removal for the Indians, and Africa for the blacks, is support for ethnic cleansing, not apartheid. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, but since he wants it less vague, I'm asking you what is an edit everyone can deal with without going into too much detail in the Intro. His last proposal looked more reasonable to me, but I'd prefer a tweak: "though he wrote several times about the evils of slavery and proposed alternatives, he never sponsored any legislation to abolish slavery". It's something I can probably deal with. How do you feel about it? It seemed reasonable to mention the part on the slave trade. Your thoughts? Also, we should probably address his "opposition" in the slavery section, something covering his claims to remove the African population so as to avoid future disputes like this one.

BTW, Gwillhickers just changed it to a totally separate thing, which is wrong & not what the sources say (he's confusing the slave trade & slavery): [14]. We're in the process of agreeing on an alternative, so I restored it to the last version by JimWae: [15]Ebanony (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to conversation on Gwillhickers discussing this for any interested in this added converstation[16]

We are talking about a passage in the lead section, a general claim. This is the passage before my edit:

He relied partially on slavery for his wealth, and did not oppose slavery as a
politician,[vague] although as President he did sign the law that banned the slave trade.

Your digressive comment aside, the sentence in question remains a contradiction. The lead can not say that as a politician Jefferson did not oppose slavery. Any action taken, towards the trade or anything else is opposition to slavery overall. Further, opposition can come in many forms, not just by the passage of legislature. This is yet another 'item' the sentence before my edit did not distinguish. Please make sure the lead doesn't make sloppy or erroneous general claims again. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I reiterate: 1) provide reliable sources RS for claims; and 2) make sure edits reflect sources. WP:V material must "be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". Your edit [[17] had no sources, & did not match the sources: Herbert Sloan, Principle and Interest (2001) pp. 14–26, 220–1; Thomas Jefferson, David Waldstreicher, Notes on the State of Virginia, pg. 214, 2002; Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery, Paul Finkelman. pg 205-9. Now you said: "Any action taken, towards the trade or anything else is opposition to slavery overall." Gwillhickers". That's your opinion. You call my edits "sloppy or erroneous" and "a contradiction". The above sources do not agree with your edit or opinion above, and I've provided ample evidence to the contrary. We've seen objections by editors who make unsupported claims about Jefferson being "anti-slavery", but they've all been refuted. So Gwillhickers, if you have any reasonable suggestions, please share.

Excuse me, I was just pointing out a general comment made in the lead section about info' that was already sourced. If Jefferson signed law that opposed the slave trade, as existing sources maintain, then the general comment that as a politician he did nothing is in error. This item was stuck in the lead section. All this side-winding into sources misses this (what should be) obvious point so please don't try to over complicate an issue with the hopes that the average reader has less than ten seconds in his or her attention span. And again, please watch the less than tidy general claims. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Gwillhickers What evidence do you have that banning the slave trade was opposition to slavery? None. What evidence do you have that my sources are faulty? None. I've reminded you ad nauseum that personal opinions do not meet WP:RS policy, and we cannot use them for edits. You violated that policy here by directly contradicting the sources cited [18]. Regarding the alternative sentence, you've either 1) not read the sources or 2) have ignored the sources. They specifically say Jefferson said things that looked like he opposed slavery, but in context the opposite was true. I'm happy to discuss those "statements" Jefferson made in detail in the slavery section, but we cannot do it in the Lead WP:LEAD. Your evidence that (other than your opinion or interpretation of primary sources) this is faulty? Your proposal for an alternative sentence?

Now this "ambiguous" or "vague" argument doesn't hold water. Read the policy on it: [19] "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." The following sentence is crystal clear & accurate & as concise as it should be for the Lead ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" WP:LEAD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, Gwillhickers you adjusted my comment by placing your text inside of it [[20]]. “Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.”WP:TPO I strongly object to this practice, and am asking you not to do it again. There is plenty of space below to write what you please. I moved your edit below to reflect the edits as per the time log.

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

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

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

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

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

section break2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

What are the facts relevant to TJ and slavery?

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JimWae, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." And "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source" WP:PRIMARY. Your interpretation of it is not backed up: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" WP:OR. So yes, he railed against the slave trade & the British for freeing slaves, something you distort. On the next topic, David Brion Davis discussed Jefferson's "soul"? Try reading the work. And though you want to exclude his writing, (for something he didn't do), he is "he Sterling Professor of History Emeritus at Yale university" & "Davis is considered the most pre-eminent historian of slavery as Ira Berlin claimed 'no scholar has played a larger role in expanding contemporary understanding of how slavery shaped the history of the United States, the Americas, and the world than David Brion Davis.'” [22] Your objections are groundless, and based on your opinion, which you've used to prevent me from making edits well supported by main stream academics, and that is not acting in good faith or according to policy. You don't want to discuss improving the text, and I offered you many opportunities. I'm asking for comment.Ebanony (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

02:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Response to third opinion request:

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

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

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

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

Father of a university

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

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

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

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

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

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

-442-“

_________________________________________________________

Further prove religious study was taught…

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

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

___________________________________________________________

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________

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

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

Nav-box a mile long

Isn't the Nav-box at the top of the article just a bit too long? There is so much info in the box that the basic info that this box was meant for tends to be obscured. Most of the material in the Nav-box should be covered in the body of the text (perhaps in another info box) where the reader can encounter this material in context. As it is, the reader has to scroll down more than two pages to see basic info' i.e.Jefferson's Birth, Death, etc., at the bottom of the existing Nav-box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV dispute – Native American policy

I would like to propose the following additions: [23]. Any objections to adding it in? Tobby72 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Tobby72 in your first edit [24], on the Lewis & Clark Expedition wrote: "There were very few hostile encounters, and relations with most tribes were as friendly as Jefferson had hoped they would be" & cited [25] Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition p.174.

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

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

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

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

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

Tobby72. You added only a select POV which presents Jefferson in a positive light. 3 editors (myself, Stephan Schulz & Jrtayloriv) have questioned your recent edits here. #1 You falsely claimed WP:RS on a credible source [26]. #2 You used a clear euphemism [27] WP:EUPHEMISM in place of "extermination". #3 You ask if people have a problem with your edit, then ignore them & accuse them of "censorship" when they disagree with your edits, saying it's "sourced content". The text you cited above was 1st undone by Jrtayloriv "Natives moved west to "improve their lot"?!?!)" [28]. Correctly so. I removed it when you restored it. You clearly do not have WP:CONS; your edits lack neutrality by giving undue weigh to that argument (they were helping the Native Americans?) WP:UNDUE. What about other POV's? You have the obligation fairly represent them, not make this changes & demand others do it. Stop demanding we all go by your edits, & stop reverting consensus decisions. Just because it's in a book, that doesn't mean it has to be added here. You downplay the "extermination" & ethnic cleansing. No good. Ebanony (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And Tobby72, how can you criticise anybody for "removal of sourced content" when you yourself deleted this source? [29] in this edit: [30] You made all kinds of false assertions on the Lewis and Clark main article [31], demanding others use that very same source you used here (Woodger & Toropov) [32]. But even on this article I asked you about the Lewis and Clark Expedition edit you made on Jan 16th; you refuse to reply [33]. The source is the same encyclopedia by Woodger & Toropov, not written by Lewis and Clark scholars like Robert Miller or James Ronda. Friendly, huh? Lewis stabbed a man in the heart; another soldier shot a man. White traders later recorded the Expedition had "murdered" the Blackfeet men. Lewis directly threatened to destroy Black Buffalo's nation in a separate incident. He possibly held his son hostage 2 years before. Years later, Clark directly took part in Jackson's "Indian removal", and ordered Native Americans to be killed. You found a source that called it friendly. You obviously selected the nice version.

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

"Jefferson's writings on Indians are filled with the straightforward assertion that the natives are to be given a simple choice -- to be "extirpate[d] from the earth" or to remove themselves out of the Americans' way." Finkelstein cited the very same letter to Dearborn in the section Forced removal and extermination "if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe...we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi". Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine University of Minnesota Press, 1996, pg 104-121 as well as James Ronda (Lewis & Clark expert), Thomas Jefferson and the changing West 1997 pg 10 mention this, among many others. It was not a question of if the "Indians attacked whites"; the opposite was true, and you know it. It's obvious why you chose an "encyclopedia" or that other book and not someone like Drinnon, Ronda or other academics; perhaps this is the reason you used a WP:EUPHEMISM[34] to change the name of the section. It's not a "minor addition". Try that on the Holocaust pages. I've seen your lack of neutrality on several pages, all on the same topics.Ebanony (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony & Jrtayloriv. You have added only a select POV which presents Jefferson in a negative light. Also, you are pushing your POV by deleting the sourced text which is against your point of view. I've added NPOV dispute tag.[35]

Ebanony, your assertion: The text you cited above was 1st undone by Jrtayloriv "Natives moved west to "improve their lot"?!?!)" [36] and Now, as to saying Jefferson believed forceful removal would "improve their lot" - that is outrageous.

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

And Tobby72, how can you criticise anybody for "removal of sourced content" when you yourself deleted this source? [37] in this edit: [38].

I just imitated your comrade-in-arms Jrtayloriv: "use of non-RS (e.g. class notes from an English course)." [39] Tobby72 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Jrtayloriv, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.[40] Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

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

Removal occurred because of an incessant demand for Indian lands.[41] Demands for Indian land resulted from rapid American population growth [42] (see Thomas Malthus). You judge Jefferson by today's standards and depict him as a cruel heartless monster, taking statements and events out of context, but Jefferson's tough views should be seen in a broader context of his time per WP:NPOV. Tobby72 (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72, 1st you make changes without consensus here, and you tell Jrtayloriv he can't remove your NPOV. There was no reason to add it. When we said your edits were poor academics, you claimed NPOV & "sourced text". Not all text is equal, see WP:UNDUE weight. You do this a lot. The Lewis and Clark Expedition article, as well American Indian Wars. You claimed "science" & "exploration" were the main goals - that is myth; you questioned Native American sources (The 1st time you singled out Thornton for being Cherokee & used weasel words [[43]] & the 2nd time you claimed another source was not verified [[44]]; you gave no evidence they had problems). Then you presented a fringe pov & earlier discredited scholar (Kroeber) who gave low numbers on the population numbers of North America - a classic example of early scholars minimising Genocide.

You then added NPOV when people disagreed in the LC article & in this very article [[45]] But it gets better. You ignored the talk page & removed your own NPOV sticker once you made the edits you wanted - despite not having consensus or even caring it was a violation of undue weight to minor writers [[46]]'". That's at least 2 highly questionable NPOV claims, and the talk page is a testament to it. [[47]] You lecture Jrtayloriv on removing NPOV. Looks like you will say anything to get your edits in.

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

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

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

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

Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded). - Ebanony, 00:28, 27 October 2010[48].

Then you presented a fringe pov & earlier discredited racist scholar (Kroeber) who gave low numbers on the population numbers of North America to deny there was any Genocide. - Ebanony, 15:52, 17 January 2011[49]

You seem to promote "EuroAmerican historians" - Ebanony, 06:31, 30 October 2010[50]. you questioned Native American sources. - Ebanony, 15:52, 17 January 2011[51].

Your arguments on US population growth prove nothing. - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources [52], [53], making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Tobby72 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tobby72 you claimed "The Indian removal was suggested by Thomas Jefferson as the only way to ensure the survival of Native American cultures." [54] (ur edit, no?). This is false. On Jefferson's removal of "Indians", scholars say "He tried to justify his policy by claiming it was in the best interest of Indian nations to put some space between them and the land-hungry Americans." [55] Robert Miller, Native America: Discovered and Conquered, pg 90. Jefferson claimed it; so did Jackson. Your source is "digital history", some website & "online textbook" without so much as an author's name. Read policy ". Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." WP:RS No way that's better than Miller.

So yes Tobby72, the population did increase as the census you cited indicates; however, there is no mention of anything related to this topic here No Jefferson, Native Americans or removal. See: [56]. Looks like WP:OR. Policy says "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." (my emphasis) Your edit has that problem: [57].

Rjensen removed Miller's work claiming "rephrase without heavy-handed POV". [58] He cited Jennifer McClinton-Temple, Alan R. Velie (2007). "Encyclopedia of American Indian literature" p.295. Sorry but Robert Miller is an expert in the field. That's WP:UNDUE weight to an encyclopedia & a website (who?). Further, that edit Rjensen made does not quite reflect the source, which also says: "pro-removal advocates...argued that the Native Americans were being destroyed by contact with Euro-American civilization". Yes, and it lists Jefferson as someone who "argued" that "removal was the only 'solution' to the Indian problem". Compare it with the edit: "The Indian removal was suggested by Thomas Jefferson as the only way to ensure the survival of Native American cultures". [59] Putting aside the obvious reference to the "Indian problem", "removal" & the clear 20th century images scholars link it to, it is clear from both Miller & that Encyclopedia that was nothing more than an expedient political argument, arguments we need not take at face value, particularly by the "architects" of "Indian removal". These edits have no business in the article.Ebanony (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop

I suggest you both stop squabbling over personal attacks and get back to discussing content issues. Let's just try to calmly assess how it is reasonable to portray modern scholarship on Thomas Jefferson's Indian removal policy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is, if you have a problem with something in the article, talk about it here, providing reliable sources that back your assertions. If you have a problem with each other's behavior that requires lengthy discussion, then please take it to your user talk pages. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with the content problems - several times above. I will repeat for clarity:

1 reduce the size of the von Humboldt letter to about a sentence or 2.

2 remove this "Jefferson believed assimilation was best for Indians; second best was removal to the west. The worst possible outcome would happen if Indians attacked the whites."[124] This is not correct.

3 Replace with this quote or a paraphrase: "He tried to justify his policy by claiming it was in the best interest of Indian nations to put some space between them and the land-hungry Americans." [60]

4 Jefferson's letter to Henry Dearborn should include the part where he says ""in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". Also, it should say why Jefferson said this - ie this is how he wanted to deal with tribes who resisted him (the Prohpet). As it is, the quote is out of context.

5 The quote from Notes on Virginia is too long & its context/purpose unclear. It should go.

6 The quote an 1803 letter to William Henry Harrison should be a sentence or 2 with commentary by experts.

Some of this text was already present & removed without consensus. [[61]] They should be restored, and the additions I proposed should be added as well.

Lewis and Clark: Keep this "Lewis and Clark Expedition established relations with many indigenous nations. Remove this: In his instructions to Lewis, Jefferson emphasized the necessity for treating all Indian tribes in the most conciliatory manner." Definitely remove this: There were very few hostile encounters, and relations with most tribes were as friendly as Jefferson had hoped they would be." Or otherwise we must add that they disobeyed orders, and things were not so friendly: and they killed 2 Blackfeet, threatened the Lakota (more suited for the main article than here).

More important than "relations" is the impact of the Expedition: to establish US sovereignty over indigenous lands, claim discovery rights to the Pacific Northwest & control the fur trade: "Trade and diplomacy, commerce and sovereignty were all parts of the engine that drove American expansion and guided the Lewis and Clark expedition." pg 9 Lewis and Clark among the Indians, James Ronda [62] Toropov is not a major POV, but an encyclopedia by many writers (some not well known) and should not be used. Stick with the experts like Ronda & Miller who explain this was part of Jefferson's plan to get Native lands - totally uncontroversial.Ebanony (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony:

• "I dealt with the content problems - several times above." -- I'm aware that you've been dealing (well) with content issues. What I'm concerned about is that the discussion above was starting to devolve into a personal dispute. The two are not mutually exclusive.
• "1 reduce the size of the von Humboldt letter to about a sentence or 2." I think the entire quote is important as is, because it is saying "assimilation isn't working, so we have to exterminate them". If you remove the first half, you remove the "assimilation isn't working" part. If you remove the last half, you remove the "we need to exterminate them" part. Either way, the meaning of the statement is altered if any part of it is removed. I think what we should focus on, is placing the quote in it's proper context so that the reader cannot misinterpret it. We need to discuss common historical myths in this article as well, because most serious scholarship gives weight to it.
• "2 remove this 'Jefferson believed assimilation was best for Indians; second best was removal to the west. The worst possible outcome would happen if Indians attacked the whites.'[124] This is not correct." -- I agree. I've fixed it.

I'll respond to your other points momentarily. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In the interest of moving forward, I will remove my previous edit.Ebanony (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson letters

Re: Jefferson's views on slavery

Here is an excerpt from a letter written by Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper that might shed some extra light on Jefferson's views towards slavery.

---

editor H.A. Washington

New York : H.W. Derby, 1861

To Dr. Thomas Cooper.

Monticello, September 10, 1814.

Dear Sir,_I regret much that I was so late in consulting you on the subject . . .

(excerpt)

. . .

And has not the British seaman, as much as the African, been reduced to this bondage by force, in flagrant violation of his own consent, and of his naturalright in his own person ? and with the laborers of England generally, does not the moral coercion of want subject their will as despotically to that of their employer, as the physical constraint does the soldier, the seaman, or the slave ? But do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery. I am not justifying the wrongs we have committed on a foreign people, by the example of another nation committing equal wrongs on their own subjects. On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity. . . . - Thomas Jefferson

I have the entire letter if anyone would like to see it. Of course, it's public domain so it shouldn't be too difficult to acquire otherwise.

Also, there is a good cite that features Jefferson's letters that contain his views and ideas about this forsaken institution.

Here is another sample excerpt that seems to be worth consideration.

SLAVERY / JEFFERSON'S PLAN TO CONVERT TO FREE TENANT FARMERS

. . . -- Notwithstanding the discouraging result of these experiments I am decided on my final return to America to try this one. I shall endeavor to import as many Germans as I have grown slaves. I will settle them and my slaves on farms of fifty acres each, intermingled, and place all on the footing of the metayers (medietani) of Europe. Their children shall be brought up as others are in habits of property and foresight, and I have no doubt but that they will be good citizens. Some of their fathers will be so, others I suppose will need government; with these all that can be done is to oblige them to labor as the laboring poor of Europe do, and to apply to their comfortable subsistence the produce of their labor, retaining such a moderate portion of it as may be a just equivalent for the use of the lands they labor and the stocks and other necessary advances. . . . - Thomas Jefferson

There are a fair number more of these letters to consider also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are, of course, primary sources. They are useful, but they contain what Jefferson wanted to present at a given time to a given person. This may or may not be what he believed at that time (it's certainly not how he acted in the long run), but it requires competent historical analysis to determine it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with what some interpreters would have you to believe. Typically they recite the obvious as if you are unaware of it and then fall back on empty conjecture. From a mile away. Good luck with the maybe's. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I was of the opinion this thread should have been deleted, and it probably should. At any rate, there is no question to Jefferson's opinion, actions, behaviour or position regarding slavery. It's discussed by well respected historians, many of whom are cited in the article. Stephan Schulz is correct to point out that politicians, particularly those worried about their legacies, used rhetoric that cannot be taken at face value. Jefferson is a case in point.Ebanony (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The narrow assessment of Jefferson can't be taken at face value either. There is little basis that establishes that Jefferson had 'no qualms' about slavery either, your cursory reference to respected historians with the idea that they are all on the same page with this issue notwithstanding. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for people to argue over their own interpretations of Jefferson's original writings, but to present material from valid, third-party sources - scholars, who discuss these issues.Parkwells (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, that's why I said it should be deleted. I think it meets the criteria "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." WP:TPNO. Parkwells, if so, feel free to do it.Ebanony (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson and Hemings

Editors are not here to justify their own ideas about the topics but to represent valid, reliable sources. The Monticello Foundation, National Genealogical Society and leading Jefferson specialists (including some who changed their minds after the DNA results), have concluded that the weight of historical evidence supports the conclusion that Jefferson and Hemings had a long-term relationship and he was the father of all her children. Trying to avoid that gives this article serious POV bias. Yes, there are still historians who disagree, and we can say that, but we can't deny what leading scholars do agree on.Parkwells (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Monticello Foundation has much material about Eugene Foster's DNA findings and take the same position as did Foster himself when he told the British science journal 'Nature' that the DNA evident hadn't proved Thomas Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings's children. It merely showed that he was one of twenty-five males in the Jefferson clan who might have been the father." -- So not only are we still dealing with theory, but there is only a 1 out of 25 chance that it was TJ who was the father. -- As for the foundation itself, it does not receive any state or fed tax support and relies on private donations entirely. If they were to insist on absolute proof about T.J. the controversy orchestrated against the foundation would likely result in the loss of much if not most of their funding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're choosing to disregard what they said, given the weight of all the historical evidence: "In January 2000, the committee reported its finding that the weight of all known evidence - from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data - indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children listed in Monticello records." Of course they can't say for sure, but it's wishful thinking to assume Jefferson was not the father - there were no contemporary rumors of different fathers. Also, the National Genealogical Society has stated their support for the conclusion that Jefferson is the father, given the weight of all the evidence. It should not be left as ambiguous as it is in the lede as it stands.Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

UnDue Weight to Hemings

Who put an entire paragraph for Sally Hemmings in the lead?? Hemmings, regardless of any relationship with Jefferson, had no effect on Jefferson's role as President or in American history overall. If you were to write a biography about Bill Clinton, would you include an entire paragraph about Monica Lewinsky (A factual affair even) in the lead section? Enough with this stealth vandalism. If the parties in question are so interested in Jefferson, why don't they give equal time to Jefferson's entire life and many many accomplishments?
The undue weight given to Hemmings by certain individuals only reduces their credibility and NPOV standing here. The paragraph in question has been moved to the slavery section and has no business in the lead. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The allegations of TJ's paternity of the Hemmings children, while not central to his presidency, have dominated the media landscape for the past several years. Thus, they need to be addressed briefly in the lede, and some of what you removed should be restored. So I don't agree with the 'stealth vandalism' charges, but I do agree that the issue of TJ's paternity shouldn't come to dominate this entry. That, indeed, would give short shrift to his many contributions. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "undue weight" to the Hemings controversy. Your edit [63] ignores the guidelines for writing a lede, the lead "should...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". The Hemings controversy is without question a major controversy (there's like 5 wikipedia articles on this!). I reverted it [64]. This is either a serious lack of NPOV or possibly vandalism WP:VAN. You've made arguments against including text/writers (including removing them) who discussed Jefferson's role in slavery, claiming bias (unfounded).Ebanony (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony -- To have an entire paragraph talking about Sally Hemmings, in the lead of an encyclopedia article on Thomas Jefferson's entire life, is absurd. The lead should maybe have 3 to 5 sentences about Jefferson and slavery in general -- with a heavy focus on the broad/general. And in five sentences, there are many more important things that we should be talking about besides Hemmings -- things that are of much greater historical relevance. Hemmings should be reserved for the section on Jefferson and slavery. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There should not even be a single sentence in the lead about Sally Hemmings. For there to be an entire paragraph is absurd. We should, of course, cover it briefly in this article (summarizing content from Sally Hemmings). But not in the lead. The lead should have a brief discussion on Jefferson and slavery in general. But if we've only got 3 or 4 sentences to summarize the entire historical debate about Jefferson and slavery, Hemmings is not anywhere close to significant enough of a topic to warrant inclusion in those 3 or 4 sentences. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree Ebanony is clearly obsessed with this issue, has exposed himself to be completely without NPOV and in my opinion acts out of malice given this grossly disproportionate inclusion of Hemmings material. If the lead says anything about Hemmings it should be the last sentence.

Ebanony, First Prominent controversies is an ambiguous term. Prominent to whom? To me, the prominent things Jefferson did FOR millions of people is far more important than some theory various friends of America have been (obviously) preoccupied with. Hemmings has zero effect on ie.The US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark Expedition, War of 1812. 'All' of these items are mentioned with a couple of sentences in the lead -- while we have a whole paragraph about Sally Hemmings! (??) This is absurd, out of place and again gives undue weight to a THEORY, no matter how many people want to believe it, or hype it out of proportion for their own sordid reasons, it is still just that, a theory with a lot of other variables to consider, or sweep under the rug, as your case may be. Consensus does not support your hyper-representation of Hemmings in the lead. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To all: I will again remove this grossly disproportionate amount of Hemming's material from the lead and will give it no more mention than what the Declaration of Independence has received there.
Is there consensus? Gwillhickers (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1) I agree Hemings should not be a paragraph (2-3 sentences is plenty), and it should be together with the part on slavery in a few sentences. But it was not a whole paragraph on Hemings alone. Someone added to it, then it was deleted outright - without any discussion. The Manual of Style says the lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." WP:LEAD This is definitely a prominent controversy, going back 200 years with numerous studies, like Jefferson DNA data in Nature magazine url=http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Jeffersons.pdf, the Monticello Foundation, the National Genealogical Society. There are at least 4 articles on wikipedia dealing with this (Jefferson DNA data; Sally Hemings; Eston Hemings; Thomas Jefferson and slavery), and quite a number of books, newspapers articles etc. First people objected to even mentioning slavery in the lede (it had been absent for a long time), and now it's Hemings. We can't pretend Jefferson wasn't a slave owner who was not involved in controversy. I'm content with 1 sentence on Hemings. Let's agree on the content & size, but to excise it all?Ebanony (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the lead should not mention the Hemmings business. Jefferson was famous for scores of reasons - the Declaration of Independence, his political offices, his writings, etc. If no one had heard of whatever happened between him and Hemmings, he would still be extremely notable. Including info about her in the lead is both undue weight and a disproportionate focus on present-day concerns. Hemmings's lead paragraph should mention Jefferson (he's the only reason she's notable), but his should not mention her. --Coemgenus 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the amount of attention paid to the subject in recent years, I think it's appropriate to mention it briefly in the lede. The current (11:30, 24 January 2011) edit by Ebanony looks about right to me. WCCasey (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the controversy has been overstated, as was evidenced here, and orchestrated by agenda driven interests. That is the only viable explanation for the preoccupation over something that has had zero effect on Jefferson's role in history. There are 25 different Jefferson males who could have also been the father. Why do some individuals hope/insist it was TJ? -- In any event mention of Hemings in the lead has been reduced from near paragraph size to a sentence that is worded acceptably, however, it still can be argued if it belongs in the lead at all, given the gigantic events it is mentioned along side of, giving it undue weight. In all fairness, mention to slavery should be made in the lead and Hemings should be briefly mentioned in that section where it can be linked to the Sally Hemings page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for including an item in the lede is defined in the Manual of style:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.WP:LEAD

Hemings is controversial. The question is if it is a "notable controversy". Beliefs/thoughts; questions over guilt/innocence; fair/unfair treatment by the media; the impact Hemings had on history; helping/hurting Jefferson's reputation - none of these things can serve as reasons to make a decision. It's either a notable controversy or it isn't. Other leaders have things like this in the lede: Clinton with Lewinski; Dominique de Villepin with his court problems; Bush with Katrina etc. Those were notable controversies, regardless if they were innocent/treated fairly by the media etc. Maybe each of those persons would/wouldn't like those things discussed. But editors don't write history.

The NYTimes said "The enduring rumor that Thomas Jefferson conducted a 38-year liaison with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, is a story that won't be put to rest." [65]. That was before the DNA test, and 38 years is a about half Jefferson's life. This was his wife's half sister (his in law). The Times page on Jefferson [66] has at least 8 out of 32 articles on slavery/Hemings (including the ones at the top). Reed's is "winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in History for her book The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. That's pretty notable. Her 1st book on him THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS: An American Controversy - look at the title. That's just one writer. Since I have been accused of bias, I will not vote on this; I have said my point, and leave it to the consensus to decide if Hemings should be in the lede. Does it meet requirements for inclusion as per the Manual? Ebanony (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For someone who stuffed a whole paragraph into the lead section about Hemings, your reference to rules and policy at this point in time comes off a little less than sincere. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

UnDue weight to Hemings, still

Hemings is not more important than the Declaration of Independence, War of 1812, etc. and should get no more mention than these LANDMARK events in the introduction. Controversy no excuse for UnDue weight. Once sentence for slavery and Hemings please. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR violation reported

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

Seperation of Church and State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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