Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

New national exhibits on Jefferson and slavery

There was an interesting article about two new exhibits on Jefferson and Slavery in the Friday NY Times, Weekend Arts Section, Jan. 27: "Life, Liberty and the Fact of Slavery", at the National Museum of American History and one opening soon at Monticello. Parkwells (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources needed

Students who write papers on Jefferson want to know about Primary Sources. There is a long listing at the full bibliog, so a short selected listing is appropriate on the bio page. All the items included were actually used in the preparion of the article (whether or not they appear in footnotes--they are used to double-check statements.) Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A few other presidential articles don't follow this plan. Abraham Lincoln, Chester A. Arthur and Benjamin Harrison. The last two are featured articles. There is no benefit in listing sources used as citations and then again under a "Primary sources" listing. Primary sources are a matter of interpretation and original research. Brad (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Arthur and Harrison don't have much in the way of primary sources; for Lincvoln there are three or four main primary sources (the bio article lists one). But the point of the TJ article is to help the readers, and pointing them to basic primary resources is important. Teachers in high school ("AP") and college courses typically require students to use primary sources. Unlike the few for Lincoln there are MANY primary sources --hundreds of books--available for Jefferson (as suggested in the TJ Bibliog article), and this TJ bio article can use a handful--two are fully accessible on the web, and the others are recent and widely available in libraries. They can get students going. This is a different role than a citation in a footnote (which does not tell the reader how useful the source is.) Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

From a reader point of view I believe primary sources, if can be found, offer clarification and value on each President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Agree, primary sources are the basis on which all other Reliable Sources have built. In Jefferson's case the primary sources are easily defined, ala his Autobiography, Notes', letters, etc. There should be at least a basic listing of the primary sources for the student of history, the likes of whom account for a large percentage of the 'page viewed' statistics. From what I have seen, the list of Primary Sources that Rjensen has included in the bibliography seems inclusive of these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If several of us got together here on the talk page and picked a few books or collections and called them Primary Sources that would be original research. Is there a particular authority on what is or isn't a primary source? We can't pull together a random list because we have to be able to prove they're primary or secondary etc. Avoiding original research in this article is one of the reasons why I spun off TJ's bibliography to a separate article. It's also why Abe Lincoln has a separate biblio. WP just doesn't work the same way as academia does. Brad (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"primary sources" here means writings by Jefferson himself. There are hundreds or thousands of titles and the Wiki editors select them and identify them in the biographies. That is what Wiki editors do and it's exactly like how we select and write up the details of his life. Wiki editors use the RS and select facts and books -- biographies of TJ are pretty long (Malone's bio runs over 3000 pages and as the bibliog shows there are many thousands more pages on TJ by other scholars) so well under 10% of the facts on TJ go into this article --selectivity is what Wiki editors do in every article. It's the scholars who write the RS who did the original research; as editors we report what they found. For example, Francis D. Cogliano, Thomas Jefferson: Reputation and Legacy (2006) has an entire chapter (pp 74-105, with 51 footnotes) on Jefferson's papers and how they got published. For a briefer treatment see Thomas Jefferson, Political Writings' ed. by Joyce Appleby and Terence Ball (Cambridge University Press, 1999) which evaluates various editions on pages xvli to liii. Rjensen (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources form the basis of all other sources and allows the readers to determine what is history and what is conjecture per any given source. Seems to me justifying their inclusion here shouldn't have to be done with such exacting debate. WP policy also allows us as editors to use them in conjunction with secondary sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections of using the 'Cite book' format for listing the primary sources, consistent with the rest of the bibliography? i.e.:

*{{Cite book
|authorlink=Thomas Jefferson
|ref=Jeff_primary
|isbn=978-0-940450-16-5
|title=Thomas Jefferson: Writings: Autobiography / Notes on the State of Virginia / Public and Private Papers / Addresses / Letters
|editor=Merrill Daniel Peterson
|publisher=The Library of America
|year=1984}}
[http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=67&section=notes Url1] [http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Writings-Autobiography-Addresses/dp/094045016X Url]

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gwillhickers Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition of American Presidents: Life Portraits link

Recently I added this link: Thomas Jefferson at C-SPAN's American Presidents: Life Portraits

and it was among the links cleared out in this edit.

That link (among other things) links to numerous hours of video of discussion of Jefferson and visits to places associated with his life. I'd like to restore that link to the TJ WP page. Any thoughts from others? Thanks. KConWiki (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any issues with the website. The CSPAN links are appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks CM - I'm going to put it back, and I'd be happy to discuss further if anyone has a concern. KConWiki (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Because of many, many comments to keep this section a short summary, which the editors have agreed to, as there is a main article on the issue, I have reverted DarkOne's additions of extra content with more details. I believe that all details are included in the main article, or DarkOne can add them there.Parkwells (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A misleading summary isn't a good summary. Utterly irresponsible to not include the clarifications, which has been done in brief and belongs there. A journalist with a history of attacking others and with a grudge against Jefferson made the most prominent accusations against him - an important fact which I've noticed you've made previous efforts to keep out of the article. Ridiculous to leave out if the rumors are to be mentioned since Callender's publication of the accusations is a major, documented element of the controversy. DNA evidence is related to only one Hemings child and does NOT exclude Carr paternity for other Hemings children, nor alternate Jefferson paternity for Eston, which is not made clear by the Parkwells-approved version. It's factually wrong to imply no known denial by Jefferson was ever made. All highly pertinent and documented.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought we'd decided this months ago. Yes, by all means, restore the existing summary. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We did decide this months ago. I restored the summary that editors had agreed to, and again encourage editors who want more details to first check the main article on this topic, which is lengthy, and add them there if needed. The summary identifies that only the Eston Hemings' descendant had his DNA tested. The fact that the controversy persisted for 180 years shows that it was based on more than Callender's report.Parkwells (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversies remain alive for all kinds of reasons. Callender's smear campaign - which is exactly what it was, even if he was right - was a prominent part of the story.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

According to what verifiable and reliable sources contain, the version of "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" that was in place before this edit was put into the article with much discussion and with editorial consensus. All verifiable and pertinent viewpoints were alluded to and a link provided to a sub-article that goes into this issue in greater depth. I agree that the previous version did an admirable job of giving an overview of the various viewpoints and should be restored to the article.

The size of this article is an ongoing issue and is something that every editor interested in editing this article must keep in mind. If every possible point about Jefferson is added to the lede or added to the Jefferson-Hemings controversy section or added to the Historical reputation section or added to wherever it might belong, this article will rapidly become unloadable, and therefore unreadable, and therefore unusable for many Wikipedia readers. The size right now with these latest additions stands at 57kB, with a prose size (including html code) of 124 kB, references (including html code) at 18 kB. Many people who are accessing Wikipedia are using mobile devices or older browsers. The gold standard for page sizes used to be only 32 kB (which can take about 5 seconds for a dial-up connection to load). Anything longer than that can be difficult to display for users running older browsers on their computers or for users accessing Wikipedia using mobile devices, so "32" still remains a useful benchmark. If anyone wants to refer to this Wikipedia editing guideline about article size, take a look at Article size and Technical issues with longer articles. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and clarity is more important than kilobyte count sensibilities. The clarifications make little impact to the size while providing important information. It's not as if it's recreating the Hemmings/Jefferson controversy article, rather they're cogent, important facts that apparently many want to ignore - an accusation they're more than happy to hurl at those who don't regard the AGR take on things as unqualified gospel. DNA evidence is only related to one child and does not specify TJ - this point is muddy in the previous version and without this made clear it sounds like it's a more slam-dunk case than it is. It's bad enough that the original published report had such an irresponsibly misleading sensationalist title. And even THAT title only specified one child. The vindictive Callender wasn't the only one talking but it's ludicrous to pretend that his accusations didn't have more prominence and weight than various fencepost and drawing room gossip.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think it's important If people cannot load the entire article because of its sheer size, if that is so (and apparently some users already will have issues with the present page size) then it is immaterial what the content is or is not. I am only mentioning the page-size issue because it is a Wikipedia editing guideline and anyone who edits this article needs to be cognizant of it. And I am unaware of anyone ignoring the information in the recent changes about Jefferson & Hemings. It seems to me that the major part of the information is already in the article and in that section and in the "Jefferson-Hemings" article itself. Shearonink (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The kb size of material I added is tiny compared to the size of the article and makes a big difference in the information that's imparted. In this day and age I don't buy that even a meg or two is seriously stressing anyone's device. I'm sure this isn't the longest article on Wikipedia. Mere coincidence that the small amount of pertinent facts objected to just happens to be that which dilutes the baby-daddy theory?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The current two paragraph version appears to be adequate. Wikipedia is not to decide for the readers concerning Jefferson and Hemings. Enough room needs to be left for the reader to make any decisions the reader wants to make concerning Jefferson and Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The summary was arrived at by editors representing a number of viewpoints, including disagreement with the conclusions of the TJF and other historians who do think Jefferson is the father of all the children. An editor supporting the conclusions of the TJHS was particularly critical of the length of the controversy section, so it is not appropriate for you to make assumptions about who was taking what position. Editors of this article have been trying to better follow the WP policy of using the summary or Lede of a main article as the summary section for that topic in this article. The "TJ and slavery" section was also reduced by that process. The more details that are introduced on the controversy topic, the more people of other opinions will want to introduce the published criticisms of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society's conclusions. All that is covered in the main article.Parkwells (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just coincidence that the details you clearly don't like are ones that don't go towards strengthening the case of TJ paternity. The Jefferson/Hemings controversy article doesn't negate the need for clarity and accuracy on the subject in the TJ article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

While Parkwells has reduced much of the text on these topics and has toned some of the POV language (i.e.'most' historians v 'many' historians) some of the presentation still tends to paint an assumed forgone conclusion. Closing a paragraph with the overly used 'Simon sez' prefix seems to be an issue with this page overall. With 100's of historians, authors, professors and many other groups it is unfair to assert a point by giving lip service to a particular author. There have been and are numerous cases where we see 'Author-X sez..'. An author's name should only appear in a presidential biography for exceptional purposes, not to be routinely cherry picked and inserted into text at one's leisure. This IMO is poor authorship. As authors/editors of WP we should make the points in a neutral fashion in our own words and refer to the sources as needed. On controversial and subjective issues it is incumbent on any writer to use several and varied sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Insert- Four major biographers are noted who denied Jefferson's paternity; one is noted who challenged that view in her analysis of the historiography. Since this was an issue of how the history was written, it is absolutely appropriate for biographers' and historians' names to be used for that discussion about that aspect of Jefferson's biography. It also conforms to WP policy, which encourages explicit reference to authors and their opinions.Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we really going to re-debate this every couple of months when some SPA shows up to troll us? This is settled. Let's revert to the old consensus and move on. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As with many who like to toss around the term, clearly a "troll" is anyone who isn't in alignment with whatever cabal you happen to identify with - the "us" you refer to. Clarity and accuracy belongs in this and every article. It's clear which camp was guiding the so-called "old consensus". As a reminder the article used to indicate TJ was the father - period - with no further qualification or elaboration. While obviously satisfactory to many, the available facts don't support such a statement.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The last consensus on this was made in order to move on and stop catfighting over this issue. It did not mean everything was perfect but at the time it was acceptable for the near future. Brad (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite imperfect since it was unclear on key points and contained outright error.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and restored. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A reminder to the editors that an independent editor came up with the summary, not I, and all the working editors at the time, including Gwhillhickers, decided it was good enough for a consensus to use so that we could move on to other topics. Please address details of the controversy at the main article, where they are covered at length.Parkwells (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the article is a "detail". You don't mind there being details, what you seem to mean are details the baby-daddyists would prefer to be obscure. Fluff about "bringing her children out of Egypt" is okey dokey but not that the rumors were most prominently broadcast by someone attempting to blackmail Jefferson. Or making it crystal clear that DNA only pertains to one child and doesn't specifically indicate TJ nor does it eliminate Carr or other Jefferson paternity of other children. Interesting. Again and forever, the separate article doesn't negate that there should be clarity and accuracy in the main TJ article. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Jefferson-Hemings is a controversy, therefore arriving at a conclusion is impossible. Why is there need for "eternal" changes to the Jefferson-Hemings controversy? I understand if new "revelations" occur throughout time, and then adding more details. However, what is the point in rehashing all the old material Ad infinitum? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When it's obvious pertinent detail is missing.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

edit break1

Parkwells, yes there was a consensus to finally move on per our discussion of December 2011. The consensus was arrived at after you had reduced the content of the 'Controversy section and changed 'most historians' to 'many historians', which is the way it has read since that discussion. So I don't quite understand why making that point clear in the lede is being opposed now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to mention 'inconclusive DNA and circumstantial evidence' in the lede, but this language could be used in the section. Lede should be consistent with 'Controversy section and make clear about 'many v most'. The present wording i.e....Jeffersonian scholarship generally acknowledges..., is saying 'most historians'. As soon as the wording becomes completely neutral on this topic we'll always see someone making the same POV complaint just as archives and edit history over the last two years will reveal. That is why the issue has been "rehashed" here time and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What I added was "limited DNA evidence." Big difference between 'limited' and 'inconclusive'. It establishes the paternity of some Jefferson male, it's limited in that it doesn't specify who the Jefferson male was.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The present wording i.e. '...Jeffersonian scholarship generally acknowledges...', is saying 'most historians'... Actually it's even more biased than that with "Even though" tacked on - a dismissive wave of the hand disregarding all historians who don't see it as a foregone conclusion. As much as the baby-daddyists are dedicated to ignoring it, Jeffersonian scholarship doesn't mean "only those whom we acknowledge to be the politically-correct, right-minded historians". If the Hemings paternity issue is going to be mentioned in the lede, five words indicating what this belief is based on - circumstantial and limited DNA evidence, which succinctly sums it up - are certainly appropriate. This is the kind of balance and clarity they're apparently dedicated to keeping out of the article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The current version as written is neutral, Gwillhickers. The Wikipedia article does not state Thomas Jefferson is the father to any of Heming's children. Dr. Foster is a reliable source and his research belongs in the article. Any readers need to make their own decisions regarding Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. There is no conclusive evidence, yet, there is circumstancial and DNA evidence regarding Jefferson and Hemings. That is neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When's the last time you read the lede? The verbiage about circumstantial and limited DNA evidence has yet again been culled and replaced with utterly biased wording.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The reader does not have to agree with established historical opinion. There is nothing in the article that states the reader has to agree with historical concensus. The lead acknowledges that there is disagreement. The disagreement is discussed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The reader does not have to agree with established historical opinion - *Whose* established historical opinion? There is not unanimity on the subject. The purpose of the article is to state the verifiable facts in a neutral way, not just those that favor the opinion you like. The lead acknowledges that there is disagreement - It dismisses it as inconsequential and avoids context - what the belief is based on. Easily summed up in five words. The disagreement is discussed in the article - Only with key points avoided/obscured - the test's non-specificity, the full range of potential alternate fathers, Callender's blackmail and that TJ *did* deny it - all of which is easily and quickly summed up. This is slanted and irresponsible. It's ludicrous to not even have Eston Hemings, the subject of the DNA study, mentioned in the section - but of course this underlines that only one child is even referenced by the DNA study.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede does not dismiss anything inconsequential, since the lede is only a summary. DNA testing is not circumstantial evidence, rather gentetic, and has to do with matching chromosomes. The article does not state that DNA evidence is conclusive. This has been gone over before possibly many times. The full range of fathers could go on indefinitely. The article acknowledges Hemings could have had multiple sex partners, or that Jefferson's brother Randolph could have had been the father. Callender did not "blackmail" Jefferson concerning Hemings. TJ's denial was not definitive as far as I know. "Slanted and irresponsible" appears to be a personal attack on any editors who have edited in this article. The article states "descendant" not "decendants". Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede does not dismiss anything inconsequential - That's not what I said. I said it dismisses it - "it" being the disagreement - as inconsequential. The wording is changed marginally now but now it just amplifies the self-contradiction. "Jeffersonian scholarship" still being improperly co-opted to imply some monolithic (and OF COURSE of more importance than those silly dissenters) hive-mind that supposedly defines "Jeffersonian scholarship". "Even though" is still loaded by being dismissive in tone. Further, to say "Even though there is some disagreement" doesn't fit. If "Jeffersonian scholarship" believes such and such, then who's disagreeing? Saying it like it is and getting rid of the pompous and misleading "Jeffersonian scholarship" - saying many Jeffersonian historians believe this but others disagree - eliminates this logical flaw. Briefly summarizing what the belief is based on - limited DNA evidence and circumstantial evidence adds clarity. It can be expanded on later. No reason for it not be there...other than to obscure that it's based on *limited* DNA evidence and non-definitive circumstantial evidence.

DNA testing is not circumstantial evidence, rather gentetic - ?...??...Um, DNA evidence is one element, circumstantial evidence is another. Callender did not "blackmail" Jefferson concerning Hemings - Apparently you're not familiar with the meaning of blackmail. "Threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public" - Make me postmaster or I'll go on a smear campaign against you with these allegations - i.e. the "consequences" Callender threatened and then made good on. That's blackmail. The full range of fathers could go on indefinitely No claim for an indefinite pool of potential fathers has been made. The full range as has been referenced is quite finite. You've made several statements here that demonstrate a weak awareness of some basic facts - you apparently have no idea what the substance of the Callender issue even is, yet you're a constant campaigner to cull them from the article.

"Slanted and irresponsible" appears to be a personal attack" - Framing the views of dissenting historians dismissively, trying to squelch/obscure clarifying/balancing details - that's slant. Any whom the shoe fits are free to wear it.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to get hostile in a Wikipedia discussion page. Regardless of any personal attacks, Darkonelives, there seems be no remedy for this discussion. This is not a political campaign for having personal attacks on any editors. Wikipedia can't take sides on the Jefferson- Hemings controversy. "Dismissive in tone". No one is dismissing dissenting opinions or remotely implying that "dissenters" are "silly". Making Callander to be the "bad guy" does not answer the question whether Jefferson had any children by Sally Hemings. Callander was angry at Jefferson for not giving him an appointment, that is true, however, that does not negate his newspaper article. Dissenting opinion states that the evidence is inconclusive. This is mentioned in the article. The readers can make their own decisions. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't hostility to point out that you've demonstrated glaring non-awareness of some basic facts regarding an element in the article you spend a lot of energy trying to steer the direction of. Nor is it "making" Callender the bad guy to state the historical facts of his actions. He attempted to blackmail Jefferson to gain an appointment. He published rumor as fact as a vindictive act of retribution. None of this is disputable. "..does not answer the question whether Jefferson had any children by Sally Hemings.." - but of course you and others are more than happy to mention the rumors but leave out that there was a specific person who most vocally and publicly disseminated the allegations and what their vindictive motivations were. This omission is ridiculous. As is mentioning the DNA study and not once mentioning Eston Hemings. "..No one is dismissing dissenting opinions.." - your simply saying something in defiance of the obvious doesn't change what it is. The language is dismissive - "Even though.." - loaded, dismissive verbiage. "Jeffersonian scholarship generally acknowledges..." - No, many historians believe this, some don't. The ones that don't are also part of "Jeffersonian scholarship" but the language clearly tries to ignore this. And "acknowledges" is itself loaded - it implies a foregone conclusion. Saying "readers can reach their own conclusions" is more meaningful if there isn't an effort to exclude clarity, accuracy and balance. If they never see the Jefferson/Hemings article, there are points they should come away from the Jefferson article with, the points the baby-daddyists clearly don't want in the article. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Darkonelives, you have a couple of good points but need to cool the tone a bit. Calling editors 'babby-daddists' will only tend to divert the discussion into a rancorous dialog. -- Cmguy', this statement is not neutral: .. "Even though there is some disagreement on the subject, modern Jeffersonian scholarship generally acknowledges that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children.". -- The sentence should indicate that the "modern scholarship" is not one body of monolithic thinkers who are all on the same page. We've been through this. This is why the language in the 'Controversy section was changed from "most historians" to "many historians" and much of the text was reduced. From there we agreed to move on. On that note the lede should reflect that consensus. This is what I would recommend (+ -) :

Modern Jeffersonian scholarship varies considerably with historians generally divided on whether or not Thomas Jefferson was the father of some or all of Sally Hemings' six children..

As no one has ever substantiated the "most historians" claim, not even the TJF (they do not offer footnotes or a source for that claim) and with many prominent historians/professors offering different opinions, the lede should reflect this and not make conclusive statements in light of conflicting evidence and it should be consistent with the language in the 'Controversy section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not turtles all the way down. If a reliable source states something, we don't investigate how it arrived at the statement. We can include conflicting statements if other, equally reliable, sources make them, but we do not engage in original research to question the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Also, a NPOV does not mean artificially pretending that differing accounts are equal. It is our responsibility to represent the scholarship, which shows that generally historians accept Jefferson's paternity, not that historians are "generally divided". The MacArthur fellowship was given to Annette Gordon-Reed for "changing the field of Jeffersonian scholarship," as I've cited here before as one of many examples to show the state of the field. Yes, some historians disagree, but the fact that Monticello now has exhibits listing Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children does mean the field has changed.Parkwells (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You once again prove my point about the bias you and others bring to the article. It's not up to you or any editor to decide which account carries more weight. Remember Cmguy's mantra about letting the reader make up their own mind? He and others should put it into practice.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

edit break2

The language used by both Gwillhickers and Darkonelives is political and in my opinion would confuse the reader. There is consensus among historians concerning Jefferon and Hemings. To state that historians are generally divided is contradicting that historians have consensus. Attacking Callender has nothing to do with the historical research into the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. Wikipedia articles are not suppose to dictate what the readers are suppose to believe. Other editors are not suppose to bully editor consensus or force their opinions upon other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Insert : More Ad hominem. There's nothing political about making clear to the readers that there is a large body of prominent historians, reliable sources, who have not gone along with the politically correct assumptions about Jefferson. We've been through this haven't we? This is how we got the language changed in the 'Controversy section. All edited by Parkwells. Btw, accusing editors of "bullying" and "forcing" is in itself such an act. No one bullied Parkwells, thank you. He made major reductions in text and changed some language in the section on his own accord, after discussion. All I have done at this point in time is note that the lede language is not consistent with the 'Controversy section. It has already been established that there is a wide margin of disagreement among historians. The lede should reflect this and not deceive the reader into thinking historians all have their heads stuck in the same jar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lede has been as is for some time and in my opinion, is consistent with the summary. (I didn't write either of them; other editors stepped in.)Parkwells (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy777 feels it would "confuse" the reader to clarify:

-DNA evidence is related to one Hemings child. Muddy at best in the current article. Eston Hemings isn't even mentioned..???

Corrected that.Parkwells (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I had *already* included Eston in the article and it got 'un-corrected'.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is in there.Parkwells (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

But not clarified that he's the only Hemings child the test relates to of her SIX CHILDREN that are mentioned in the current article three times, not including the notes and references.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

-DNA evidence does not specify Thomas Jefferson

-Carr's paternity is not ruled out for other Hemings children and the pool of potential fathers for Eston and others is broader than Peter Carr and Randolph Jefferson.

-Rumor-mongering about Sally Hemings had a specific champion who had attempted to blackmail and held a grudge against Jefferson

-A letter by Jefferson has been regarded by "most historians" as a denial of the allegations.

Needs cites.Parkwells (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The mention I put in had a citation, complete with the statement that most historians view the letter as a denial. And there were other letters as well.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not political, factual. All cogent points easily cited per Wikipedia standards while making a negligible impact on article size. There's no valid reason not to include them. A desire to obfuscate them isn't a valid reason.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"..Wikipedia articles are not suppose to dictate what the readers are suppose to believe.." You keep using this phraseology about not trying to influence readers and then try to filter clarification or even mention of cogent points. Further, to state that historians are not unanimous on the topic isn't contradicting anything, it's the way it is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's letter was in reference to another letter that supposedly was a denial letter. That denial letter has been lost, apparently. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It was specific enough for many historians - "most historians" per the citation - to view it (and other letters) as a denial.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And noting that's the only one of the points I brought up you attempted to answer.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What source, TheDarkOneLives, states that "most historians" say that Jefferson had written a denial letter? Where can one view Jefferson's "denial" letter? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/cron/ - Go down to 1805 in the timeline. "Most historians believe that the relationship with Sally Hemings was one of the charges Jefferson meant to deny in the letter". However, I think they may be wrong on the point of it being the only example of a direct denial by Jefferson, as I've seen references to other letters.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This issue was covered at Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_13#Callender_issue_is_more_complicated. in which I pointed out that TJ denied the Hemings accusations but admitted to accusations about a Mrs. Walker. This was in a private letter he wrote to Robert Smith. Brad (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"This has been covered" - okay....? It doesn't change that Callender attempted to blackmail Jefferson to obtain a position and when denied the position published the Hemings rumor to make good on his threats of "consequences". Ultimately ineffective though it may have been, his publications provided the loudest voice for the rumors. It doesn't change that it's seen as a denial by Jefferson regarding the Hemings rumor. The nuances of the situation don't change any of this. Ridiculous to mention the rumors in the section without mentioning Callender. Cmguy asked for the cite - which he could have found in any of my edits that got deleted, I provided it.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that the mysterious letter cmguy wondered about was already discussed here. It's a commentary on selective memory. Brad (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Got it. Yes, selective memory/commentary seems to be a common phenomenon.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully the article has been fully protected. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Most historians believe that Jefferson "lost" letter denied he was the father to the children of Sally Hemings. That in essense is proof without the pudding. That is not the same as Jefferson denied that he was the father to Sally Hemings children. It would be nice to view the cover letter and to get some glimse of what "most historians" are talking about. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What part of the previous discussion that I linked above do you not understand? I clearly pointed out that in Malone, TJ denied the rumors of Hemings but admitted to another one about Mrs. Walker. Malone quoted directly from the letter written to Robert Smith. Malone cited the source of the letter to "Ford" which I believe is a collection of TJ correspondence. You can consult it just as easily as I did. For that matter go find the Ford collection. Even if TJ was lying about the Hemings relationship it doesn't change the fact that he denied it. Brad (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought this issue to the discussion page, since I believe this issue has yet to be resolved, not because of selective memory. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Approved version of Hemings: not anymore

About the end of December is when a decision was made on what version of the Hemings section was to be retained but there wasn't any particular version pointed out. I had been satisfied with this version so I think that would be the best comparison to the current version. It's fairly obvious that things have been fiddled with quite a bit. The National Park Service is absolutely not an authoritative source on TJ; you might as well use an Amazon.com page for all that's worth. The last two sentences have no place here; "out of Egypt" WTF? I think our resident Ferling fan was editing again. I propose we go back to the first version I linked and work from there. Apparently I should be keeping a closer eye on edits to that section. Let's forget about the lede for now. Brad (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Which means what, that for all eternity a handful of editors who clearly have an agenda - who happen to focus their attention on an article at a particular time get to hold hostage what's to be in the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit". Those with an agenda aren't going to admit their bias and are *never* going want there to be clarity on certain points ignoring that they're quite documentable. Rumors in. Brief clarification of the broader context - out. DNA evidence in, truly clarifying the limited scope and results out. Only dimissive references to dissenting historians, complete with condemning critiques of their conclusions. Yeah, I don't think so.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I did not put in the "out of Egypt" quotation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I did add the "out of Egypt, to the J-H controversy, cited from the Monticello website - why not have something that represents what this meant to one of the parties? Those children and events were not just fodder for historians. Secondly, Shearonink wrote the brief Lede paragraph that people did agree to, although some seem now to want to change their minds. I added the NPS in the controversy section as an example of a broad, general institution that relies on the current academic consensus, not to suggest they had independently developed the information.Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to 11 December 2011 version

I reverted to the version closest to where consensus was achieved. We can work from this version once again and prevent the little "slip-ins" when no one is looking. Brad (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What is with the title of this section? No one made any issue with the (former) current version of the 'Controversy section. The issue was with the lede. There was no call to go backwards. The version you changed was arrived at by discussion, and Parkwells did most if not all the editing, so I am reverting back to the version we had. Please discuss major and radical changes first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

RS are acceptable

Schulz is right; editors cannot argue with reliable sources; it is perfectly legitimate to quote (as I did) from the TJF (a recognized Reliable Source) saying that "most historians agree" on Jefferson's paternity. I provided many other sources indicating the state of the field. Editors can cite other sources who disagree; such disagreement has already been identified in the Lede and described specifically in the summary of the J-H controversy section.Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

TJF is one source, and their 'historical staff' has already been exposed for acute bias by a former TJF committee member. What happens when there is wide disagreement between the reliable sources? We accurately report that, don't we? This is why it (used to) read "many historians" in the 'Controversy section, not 'most'. After similar discussions we changed that. Remember? Seems you're taking the debate around in circles again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum about the Thomas Jefferson FoOundation or an article about them. One person thinks TJF is biased; many other scholars do not. But we're not writing an article about the TJF and scholars' opinions of it. We are reporting what various RSs say about the J-H controversy and studies. Both sides are covered here and in the main article: what they say and criticism/disagreements with conclusions. I didn't change the language in the "Controversy" section, although it would have been legitimate to do so; was noting the WP policy on quoting "most historians".Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"..We are reporting what various RSs say about the J-H controversy and studies.." - What some clearly want are -only- cherry-picked elements, while leaving others unclear/obscure or absent altogether. "..I didn't change the language in the "Controversy" section, although it would have been perfectly legitimate to do so.." - Sure, like removing editorializing verbiage about SH taking her children out of Egypt. Boy I tell 'ya, whoever put that in there is obviously promoting an agenda. Wouldn't surprise me if the rest of their edits reflect an agenda as well.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked page

Enough of the lectures. Was trying, via discussion, to make lede consistent with 'Controversy section that was reduced and corrected for pov language, arrived at by discussion. Brad, your major revert of the section without a discussion certainly didn't help. Parkwells, you need to remember past discussions and learn to stick by them. Darkonelives, you could have stepped back from editing once you saw your edits being repeatedly reverted. Now we have a blocked page. 'Way to go' guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that *none* of my edits removed or tried to obscure properly cited information already in the article, not even Parkwells' (possibly the most active editor on the article) editorializing fluff quote about "leading her children out of Egypt" - sure, they're not trying to insert any POV, of course not. I didn't remove critiques of the TJHS Scholar's Commission report. I'm the one demonstrating an interest in balance and clarity. However the same can't be said of those desperate to keep a few cogent, appropriate, clarifying facts out of the article, the substance of which I've already restated more than once. They can't say I'm lying or that the citations don't meet Wikipedia standards, they just don't want them in the article, offering only weak, red-herring excuses. Another of the most vocal editors, along with apparently not grasping that "genetic and circumstantial evidence" represents -two- conceptual entities (??) insists that James Callender shouldn't be mentioned (only the rumors he was instrumental in broadcasting) - then proceeds to demonstrate they don't even understand what James Callender's role was. I'm supposed to give credence to this? TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not make changes to the Lede. My comments on this page were about the issues being brought up here by other editors.Parkwells (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are who? No attribution tag on the above comment.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Parkwells if I'm interpreting the talk page history correctly. And if I'm not go ahead and correct. No, I wouldn't imagine you would want the lede changed given the dismissive POV tone toward dissenters.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

GW forgot to mention the part where he reverted a third time and ten minutes after that the article was locked. Could that have been the third part of the three revert rule? Just need some clarity here before proceeding. Brad (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad, you made a major revert to the section, with out a discussion, just swooped in and 'whammy' and at a time when a lot of reverts were already taking place. TDOL made three more edits to this reversion and then I simply restored this section to where it was before either of you made your edits. That was my one and only edit in seven days. Maybe I should have let the page stand as it looked after TDOL's third edit. Then what would have been done?
We're missing the bigger picture here. This is a highly unstable page because of one topic and the way it has been treated over the last two+ years. On February 24th, the block will be lifted from this page. What do you plan on doing then -- picking up where you left off? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who came in and said "way to go" as if I hadn't anything to do with the situation. That's all I wanted to correct here. Don't deflect the issue. Brad (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment was made after the fact, and given the way some edits are made on the page it was perhaps called for. All I did was restore the section that was changed without any discussion. There is nothing to "deflect", however I apologize for the 'way to go' comment. Was sort of frustrated to see this happening to the page again. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith

It might be useful if we tried to keep discussion on the article. The hostile, aggressive tone, insults of other editors's work, and dismissal of intentions of editors of differing opinions since this latest round of discussion began does not promote collaboration or acceptance of suggested changes.Parkwells (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of other editor's work on the content in the article *is* discussion regarding the article. Calling it like it is isn't aggressive, it's calling it like it is. I don't buy into the hive-mind culture that too frequently pervades Wikipedia and is disdainfully referred to as such by many, and I never will. I came to many of the same conclusions as Gwillhickers before I knew who he (?) was and ascertained we had a similar take on things. You provide example after clear example that you're trying to bring POV to the article both by your edits and your comments in the talk section. The reason the "out of Egypt" quote doesn't belong in the article is that it goes beyond factual accounting, it's editorializing/poeticizing by the author. None of my edits fall into that category and it's not by accident. If you don't want your edits - both what you try to insert and try to censor - to be labeled as biased, then don't edit in a biased way.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkOneLives, can you explain why you call yourself "TheDarkOneLives"? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cm, there are a lot of odd user names on WP, many of them are tong-in-cheek. You know that. Do you think at a time like this your line of questioning is going to help matters here? You posted your 'question' under a section named 'Assume good faith'. Don't you think we should try Parkwells' approach? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

cm are two of my initials. guy means I am male. 777 is a number I can quickly type. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good faith is being able have trust in another editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkOneLives does not have to answer any questions. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's getting more difficult to AGF when things like "out of Egypt" are sneaking into a section. Remember, this was a section that achieved consensus in December in order to cease the arguments and move on. It wasn't perfect I'm sure but it's become clear that editors are pushing an agenda by inserting little goodies. The current version should be burned at the stake. When I've gone around and visited various other TJ articles it's almost a guarantee that cmguy and or Parkwells have been over there with the Hemings and slavery agenda. Hemings was even inserted into Joseph Ellis and American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson to the point where Hemings dominates the content of both articles. It dominated here too but only after several archive pages were filled with debate has it been better. It won't be acceptable until the agenda ceases. Otherwise there isn't much sense in arriving at a consensus for something that will just be f'd with again. Brad (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, but every editor on this article has made similar mistakes, and we all have had different times of frustration. I've apologized, which is more than other editors have done. So take the sentence(s) out; the whole version does not "have to be burned at the stake." And, before jumping to conclusions and attacking me or others, editors should review the histories of articles they are concerned about. Other editors added most of the material on Hemings and the controversy to each of the Joseph Ellis and American Sphinx articles, and they were mostly not editors who have worked on the TJ article recently - all this was done well before my relatively minor edits. This is old news, after all, from 1998-2001, mostly. It is only here that it is really being argued about. Joseph Ellis is a prominent biographer of TJ whose 1996 work denied that TJ had a liaison with Hemings; after the DNA study, Ellis changed his mind, and it was his decision to speak out about that, because he felt he was wrong and that the conclusion was significant for Jefferson studies. Editors might want to read what he says himself. Other editors apparently thought that was worthy of writing about - whether it shifts those articles too much, you would have to take up on those Talk pages, but those editors apparently thought it was very big news in terms of Eliis' own opinions about his work and TJ. You can't blame me for that. Rather than thinking such discussion of the Hemings controversy is some one or two editors' personal "agenda," editors should consider that they are seeing the effects of the change in Jeffersonian scholarship, the new consensus that has been noted from multiple sources. (and, yes, not everyone agrees with the consensus, but that does not mean that there isn't one.)Parkwells (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim that you first added the Hemings material to either article; that was your interpretation. Yet it doesn't leave out the fact that you've been editing and adding to the issue all over WP wherever it might have some relevancy to the subject. Let's also recall that when writing on TJ's daughter Polly, you included a long note about the children that the Eppes' may have had with the slaves that TJ granted to them as a wedding gift. A completely irrelevant note considering this is an article about TJ and not Polly or her husband or their slaves. Why else would that note be there? The pattern is fairly clear that when an editor reduced the size of the Hemings entry here, you would come back and add to it again. That happened to me at least once. How about the Minister to France section which has more information about Hemings than it does about TJ's actual duties and accomplishments as Minister? I can add more if you'd like. It's the "out of Egypt" addition that was really the last straw as far as I'm concerned. I knew there was a bias here but after months and months of AGF and discussion that amounted to squat, something has to give. When you agree to a version via consensus that means keeping hands off and discussing changes before making them. Brad (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Agree. Brad has stolen my thunder here. As soon as one improvement occurs, other 'issues' seem to take their place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To restate a comment I made higher up in the talk page, in the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" how is it some handful of editors who happen to have their attention focused on an article at a particular time get to dictate the content of the article? Parkwells, Cmguy and others will *never* admit their bias and they'll always be loathe to have the POV tone taken out or allow certain documented clarifications related to content that's already in the article. Is it verifiable? Yup. Is it to the point and directly related to the topic? Yup. Does it briefly add factual clarification without POV editorializing? Yup. Then however much as it runs against their sensibilities and world-view they don't have a legitimate basis to keep it out of the article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What I'm interested in is stating the facts that can be verified in a balanced and clear way. The fact is there IS disagreement and there's a reason for it and this should be clear. A majority - or even a unanimous opinion - can still potentially be proven wrong, or they can be proven right. No matter what accolades have been bestowed upon AGR for whatever academic or social reasons, her conclusions are still a matter of conjecture and opinion for which there *are* potential alternate explanations and she has detractors. At this point, no definitive conclusion is possible and may never be.

Biased - "EVEN THOUGH there is some disagreement on the subject, modern JEFFERSONIAN SCHOLARSHIP generally ACKNOWLEDGES that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children." - Why is "even though" in there, at the start of the statement if not to set a tone, a bias? It's this editorializing duple that can't be documented or pinned down. There's no reason for it to be there other than to establish bias. This faceless Borg of "Jeffersonian scholarship" that's used to remove individuality is meant to exclude dissenters from the ranks of "credible" Jeffersonian historians. Except they're not the Borg, they're individuals who may have their own agendas and biases and they're not all in agreement. "Acknowledges" - means someone is acknowledging something, in this case Jefferson paternity. Except hold on, it's not an airtight foregone conclusion and there are historians who don't agree.

Neutral - "Many/most/a few/some modern Jeffersonian historians further believe, based on circumstantial and limited DNA evidence [which is exactly what it's based on], that Thomas Jefferson was likely [hedging their bets because they know they could be proven wrong] the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children though there is disagreement on the subject. [which there is]"

That the Monticello organization states something doesn't make it immutable fact or preclude that there are motivations beyond purely historical/academic integrity. They don't have any more proof than anyone else on the matter. You can't ignore that institutions and people say things for political/social expediency. In this day and age, institutions bend over backwards to avoid being labeled as racist. Ever been to Epcot at Disney World and seen their Kwanzaa display? You won't find a word about the details regarding Ron Everett aka "Maulana Karenga" and his checkered background and the controversy surrounding Kwanzaa. Nope, to hear the Disney version you'd get the impression he's some African elder from the old country, not an ex-con from MD, who did time for torturing female dissenters in his black power organization. They feel they *have* to mention Kwanzaa, but only this ridiculously sterilized version. You think Monticello is oblivious to similar pressures?

Monticello may have displays showing TJ is the father. You know what else is on the Monticello site, as of the last time I looked? A strange blurb about Thomas Woodson. It lists Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings as the parents, yet it also states in an oddly contradictory way that there's not a shred of evidence linking him to *either* of them. So why is he even mentioned? They're including him on the basis of a "family oral history". Wait...what?..?? What kind of "academic integrity" is that? What other reason would there be to do this if not as a clear sign of acquiescence to pressure to not seem like exclusionary bigots. This Black family has been making this baseless-but-persistent claim for a couple of centuries so we as representatives of the oppressive Euromale SLAVE OWNER feel pressured into including him. If it can be referenced that the Monticello organization says something, okay, but....TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkOneLives, the ownership of articles is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Telling other editors how to edit or forcing them to make edits is inappropriate and abusive. The policy states, "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor." This is specific. Another policy tells editors to keep cool. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response, here also, ignores the many points raised and only serves to deviate from the issues. Don't see anyone "telling other editors how to edit or forcing them". This sort of accusation only scatters the debate and drags things out. This will be at least the third off-topic raised since the page was blocked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you seem to be speaking on behalf of TheDarkOneLives. I was quoting Wikipedia policies. TheDarkOneLives, in my opinion, will not be satisfied or appeased until all of TheDarkOneLives edits are included in the article. This article has been put on lockdown. TheDarkOneLives had made a series of edits and then the lock down was put on the Thomas Jefferson article. There used to be group discussion and editor consensus while editing this article. I am exasperated by all the vitriol concerning Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you under the impression I feel I need a spokesperson? He's correct - you've consistently ignored the substance of points I've made. Well, in one case you made comment on an issue that demonstrated a lack of awareness. And then objected to my pointing this out. Whatever the process that's taken place on the article, it's led to a biased article on this subject. By "vitriol" you seem to mean some taking exception to the methodology of certain editors and the substance of their contributions. You can say ownership is forbidden, certain editors nonetheless seem to feel it's theirs. I didn't remove material, I added clarification to what was already there. They removed the clarifications offering specious rationale, in part that I didn't ask permission - didn't go along with the hive. What was that about article ownership? If my edits are properly referenced, pertain to the subject and aren't editorializing I don't need their permission. None of my edits reflect a POV, they've consistently and exclusively been to negate obvious POV or insert documented clarifications - not a single one of which have you or anyone else been able to refute.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"..will not be satisfied or appeased until all of TheDarkOneLives edits are included in the article.." - I have yet to see a good reason as to why the points shouldn't be made clear. There isn't a good reason.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am speaking on behalf of some of the points TDOL raised. Most of us have been 'exasperated' at one point or another, mostly from the redundant and fuzzy arguments that have no basis in policy. You might want to respond to the actual thread and offer constructive input more. Have not seen this from you since the other day. As for your estimation of what TDOL will be satisfied with, that is not exactly a stroke of good faith.
Any ideas of what we might try to do once the 24th rolls around? We can't go on with just a couple editors dominating the direction an entire section will go. It's not working. This is the second time inside a year for the block. The last one occurred on 16 June 2011‎, sparked by a pov/edit war brought on by this same issue.
Content has been reduced but pov issues still need to be addressed. We can't go on pretending they don't. And saying they don't is largely what has brought havoc back to the page. -- The lede said "generally" i.e.'most' historians. The section did not. We had a discussion about varied opinion among historians and we settled on a fair summary for the section and gave things a rest. Was all of this for nothing? My issue was with the lede language not being consistent with the section. We made progress with the section, but we can't seem to do the same for the lede because of all the highly argumentative feet dragging. The off topic stuff isn't helping either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of good faith for this article I apoligize if any of my statements were interpreted as having been inappropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for progress

In spite of temporary setbacks the page has gone through some marked improvements. However, there are the same issues that still occur. While content reduction has finally been achieved in the 'Controversy section there are still pov issues that exist in the lede and elsewhere and some of the wording regarding 'evidence' is not as clear as it could be IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me we had better start concentrating more on the issues. There is still pov and clarity issues regarding "modern scholarship", "historical" and DNA evidence, etc, that need to be addressed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest solving any controversial edits one edit at a time. For example, Jefferson's "denial letter" concerning Hemings' children. Find a valid source that other editors can look at. Then make conclusions and derive editor concensus concering any edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If all of us can agree to step back and resolve the issue of neutrality (Which I thought was done until recently - another topic) without edit warring, a request can be made to have the article unprotected - that is, back to semi-protection. Trying to edit article text on the talk page is clunky and difficult; not to mention the edit history doesn't reflect in the main article. I would like to suggest that I should go around and pick about three different versions of Hemings that have appeared in the last few months and decide which version should be restored and from there work on an acceptable version. The three I have in mind are, one version I made (which was changed right away); another would be a close approximation to the version that was up around Dec 31-Jan 1 that supposedly was consensus but yet changed again. The final one would be the most recently disputed one; that of Darkonelives. Brad (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be good if all the editors will cooperate. Doing one issue at a time will keep editors focused. What has occurred in the past is that editors including myself go on tangents and then in multiple chain reactions things get out of control. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as the language is neutral and clear and the lede is consistent with the section I am good to go. Also, we don't need to see an entire paragraph about what a particular historical group 'sez', as it does in the Jefferson-Hemings controversy section in this version. There are perhaps hundreds of Jefferson historians. Inserting 'opinion' into the biography from one or two (cherry picked) sources is not fair. As for editing approaches, there doesn't seem to be any guarantees. Direct edits without discussion usually don't work, yet the argumentative stuff that creeps into talk page discussions doesn't help, lately anyway. I think the best solution at this point is to simply have a short summary and a link to the main page. Once we get the section in shape on this page we can worry about the main 'Controversy page. If we try to tackle both pages at the same time it might get tacky all over again. Perhaps we should move one step at a time.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Yes. One edit at time. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Picking a revision

Of course we don't have to pick one of these versions below; they're just a few examples I can think of that have been in place recently. Some of the older versions have the passage listed in areas that were later moved. Brad (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• 6 November 2011
• 31 December 2011 Last edit of 2011.
• 13 Feb 2012 before lockdown.

Remember, these are the versions that led to the 'confusion' in the first place. Whatever version we use we'll still have wording and clarity issues that hopefully will be dealt with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point it probably is best to just edit with the current version. I'll enjoy seeing "out of Egypt" removed again. Brad (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

Please amend I would like someone to remove Category:American farmers as it is the parent of Category:American planters. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 06:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent responses

I'm suggesting that regular editors of this talk page please familiarize themselves with Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. This has been a problem here for quite some time. It gets to the point where you can't figure out who is responding to whom and when and what. Brad (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes! It gets very confusing otherwise. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. Good link and the article was helpful. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

As noted before, I wrote neither the Lede on Jefferson-Hemings, nor the summary on the controversy. Other editors objected to DarkOne's changes before I made any comment. There are too many items to address, but will take a couple: 1) if editors want more about Jefferson's time as minister in France or any other topic, they can add it. You criticize me for working on this, and then you criticize me for not putting in things you happen to think should be there. So do some writing yourselves. 2)According to sources I've cited, Jefferson was part of a multi-generational pattern of interracial relationships; that's why I added about his son-in-law, who likely also had an interracial liaison, as did TJ and his father-in-law. You may not think it relevant; given the discussion, I did. For the rest, if you have a new consensus on adding more details to the Lede or the Summary, go to it. Before all anyone wanted to do was keep both to a minimum.Parkwells (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My only criticisms concern pov and some of the language and wording. You have done much in the way of shaping up the section. Because of the controversial nature of the topic we just need to be more clear on some of the facts and such, as mentioned above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. You mostly edit on one issue with agenda and ignore most others. At least for me, it's difficult to work on other areas of the article with this crap about Hemings going on and on. I spend more time watching the Hemings issue and have no time left for anything else. Yet you admit to using sources like the NPS to show "how accepted the current scholarship" is on TJ. Then long notes about slavery that have no relevance to TJ and a totally POV cherry picked quote that makes Sally seem like Moses. This article cannot be a platform for showing a "multi-generational pattern of interracial relationships". Brad (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There's little reason to respond, but I've worked on many aspects of this article, including copy editing the entire thing for English. You've misinterpreted some of my comments, but there is really no point in continuing this. Other editors have had other agendas, so why don't you criticize them for their lack of contribution to other parts of the article, or for only criticizing on the Talk page and adding little content? So take it over and do what you want. I'll check in from time to time.Parkwells (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What ever happens next it should be done with some discussion and then any changes in wording will hopefully reflect a more neutral and objective pov on various points. As concerns items like 'most v many' historians -- IMO to any given reader the term 'many' can mean 'more than half, half, or less than half' and will serve as a neutral term regardless of the reader's disposition to favor one view or the other regarding Jefferrson's paternity or the scholarship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson Bible title not mentioned in religion section

I see in the religion section his compilation of the teachings of Jesus - i.e. re-writing of the Bible, the "Jefferson Bible" - is mentioned, described and there's a link to the Wiki article on the Jefferson Bible but the title isn't mentioned in the section. That's...odd...?? The title only appears in the "Writings" section. His disdain for conventional religion and religious institutions is why the TX school board has culled mentions of him in their curriculum, textbooks and - by virtue of how textbook publishing works - the public school textbooks of other states.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Before any editings the block on the article needs to be removed. I am attempting to resolve the Jefferson issue dispute by one issue at a time. The TX school board is a seperate issue from the Jefferson article. TX was not even a state during Jefferson's times. TX was admitted into the United States in 1845. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson denial letter

In an attempt to solve issues one edit at a time this edit concerns Jefferson's denial letter concerning Sally Hemings. What "book" source mentions this denial letter? Staying with book sources, in my opinion, adds historical weight. If there is a book source, non fringe author, and any page numbers for this reference, then I am open for inclusion into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of trying to make up rules as they go along to fit one's agenda...lol You mean a book source like the Nat'l Park Service? TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if you still haven't seen the first and the second places the issue was discussed. Brad (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The issue has been discussed. Has the issue been resolved for inclusion into the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What particular issue is there? Are you saying that the PBS source isn't reliable enough? And please read how to indent. Brad (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is of course doggedly acting in service of one's agenda.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an article on Thomas Jefferson. Does the PBS website have an author or is the author anonymous. Why is there no book source on this issue? An article source from an academic journal is good also. A book source adds historical weight if a non fringe source from a book or academic article mentions the denial letter. DarkOneLives, the attack phrase: "The issue is of course doggedly acting in service of one's agenda. is unwarranted. Please participate in the discussion rather then attack another editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The book source has already been pointed out to you several times as was the volume numbers. If you want to consider Malone a fringe author you've a lot to consider. For an online source the PBS site is surprisingly very neutral and sans any agenda. There are no comments about "out of Egypt" or any conclusions about "most/many historians believe" all of the facts are there and left for the reader to decide an outcome. That's exactly what needs to be done here. There is an interesting entry there by Ellis (written in 1996) who says that more details could be revealed in Gordon-Reed's upcoming book which he praised for it's completeness when focusing on the topic itself. Brad (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Malone is not fringe. What are/is the page number(s) and book for the Malone cite? I would accept the Malone cite. Then this can be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling it like it is *is* participation.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Annette Gordon-Reed (1997), Miller contention that there was a denial letter is in question. Gordon read states that "Miller has mixed up several items of corespondance". Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings An American Controversy p. 144. Apparently the 1806 "denial" cover letter then is a myth made up by Miller. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem when you go cherry picking pages with a google preview. We're not discussing Miller here but I assume that Reed is referring to Miller (1977) The Wolf by the Ears. She's dissecting Miller's research and calling him into question because he cited a letter written in 1806 as being a denial letter. He cited Malone among others but Reed is apparently correct in saying that Miller confused letters (I would have to see a copy of Miller). The letter Malone refers to was written in 1805 and sent to Robert Smith (Malone does not mention Levi Lincoln as a recipient) in which only a cover letter remains; it's suspected that the main contents of that letter were lost. As Reed says, the 1806 letter was sworn by two witnesses but does not contain anything relevant to Hemings. She goes on to claim that the 1805 letter wasn't sworn by any witnesses and proceeds finding any means possible to discredit the 1805 letter.

All of this is made even more confusing because it's wrapped around the Walker Affair and the fact that Mr. Walker was "demanding satisfaction" from Jefferson through Henry Lee who was an "intermediary". The words "demanding satisfaction" and choosing an "intermediary" relate to hints that Walker was challenging or would soon challenge Jefferson to a duel. Brad (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Big surprise that AGR takes a position of wanting to dismiss any letters. Regardless, taking it upon oneself to attempt to rank reliable sources amounts to original research. Cmguy doesn't attempt to pick as many nits regarding sources that take positions he favors.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Insert :There was debate on this topic not long ago. Attacks were made on various sources not for their content and substance but because of other menial considerations. i.e.The book wasn't on a certain list, or the writer was only a par-time professor, etc, etc. This is little more than judging a book by its cover. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading the few limited pages at the link provided it seems that Reed is doing nothing but disputing prior research by using the "glass half-empty or half-full" argument. She really hasn't found anything new on the subject. It's clear to me at least that Reed came to a conclusion first and then found a way to support her conclusion. A few pages up from the linked page she's calling Jefferson a racist by interpreting his comments and comparing them to today's standards. Certainly by today's standards they are racist statements but when Jefferson made them just about everyone had those same beliefs. Brad (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do then is get the 1805 letter. Please. I need a Malone reference. I am not taking sides DarkOneLives. Your threatening tone, DarkOneLives, is inappropriate and I politely ask you to stop your accusations that I am taking sides.

No attribution tag on this but "threatening tone"?..??. Lol...Some folks here seriously need to develop a thicker skin.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The LOC does not have a copy of the Thomas Jefferson to Robert Smith letter in 1805. The only source I found was Monticello Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's remember that we aren't supposed to be consulting primary sources. I really have no idea where that particular letter can be read. Malone cited it to a collection of Jefferson correspondence owned by a William Bixby with notes by WC Ford published in 1916 though I'm sure it has made it into other printings by now. Malone V1 on page 448 says that Callender published accusations in 1802 against Jefferson about Mrs. Walker "along with a much more unsavory one about one of Jefferson's slaves". The issue ignited again in 1805 and that summer Jefferson wrote "to particular friends because he wished 'to stand with them on the ground of truth'". To Robert Smith, Jefferson wrote July 1 1805: "You will perceive that I plead guilty to one of their charges, that when young and single I offered love to a handsome lady. I acknolege its incorrectness. It is the only one founded in truth among all their allegations against me". Malone then goes on to connect this statement as admission of Walker but denial of all others. In Malone V6 he extrapolates more on this issue but I don't have V6 at hand. Brad (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad. You bring up a good point on primary sources. The issue with Jefferson is that his letter to Edward Coles had been selectively used to infer that Jefferson was for freeing slaves. I wanted to read the Smith letter to get a better personal understanding of Jefferson's "denial". There is no original research. I found a book source that states Jeffersons part of Jefferson's letter. Hyland (2009), p. 180 can be used as a book source. From what I gather Jefferson's denial was an indirect denial, meaning he did not specifically deny Sally Hemings, however, historians state that he directly refered his denial of Sally Hemings. However, since this article is on lock down, any editing is difficult. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential edit:

In a letter to Robert Smith in 1805 Jefferson denied most of the Federalist allegations. Historians assume Jefferson was refering to Sally Hemings, however, some view Jefferson' words as ambiguous.

I don't know if you're doing this intentionally but you just wrote "From what I gather" which can be seen as original research. We're supposed to be stating things like "Hyland says on p.180 that the letter is not a direct denial". Brad (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that if you had scrolled up to page 142 on that google book preview, the Jefferson letter you so desperately wanted to read is quoted at the top of the page. Brad (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad. This is a discussion page. I was discussing Hyland (2009) source pertaining to the Jefferson denial letter. "From what I gather" was my opinion on what Hyland was attempting to state and refers to pg. 180. Thanks Brad for the letting my know where the letter was in the Hyland (2009) source. Apparently Hyland may be a fringe author, according to Parkwells. All I am trying to do is find a non fringe source that states Jeffersons denial letter. If one can be found then Jefferson's denial letter can be put into the article. However, this article is currently on lockdown. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, widely publicized primary sources, like Jefferson's, can be used by editors if used with care. If we can't find a RS that makes direct reference to this particular letter then I don't see any reason why an editor can't simply cite this source directly. It is a widely publicized and recognized source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy you're continually perplexing me with your responses. You seem to be mixing up various things that have been said here so far.

• Yes, this is a discussion page and we're discussing; what is the issue with this?
• Going back a few days I see that you did not link to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings An American Controversy as you claimed it was, but instead linked to a book called Rearing wolves to our own destruction: slavery in Richmond, Virginia, 1782-1865 p. 144.
• You said: "From what I gather" was my opinion on what Hyland was attempting to state Um your opinion? We aren't here to give our personal opinions; only those of the author if applicable.
• You said: Thanks Brad for the letting my know where the letter was in the Hyland (2009) source. I did no such thing. I referred you back to the link you misidentified as Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings An American Controversy on google. The 1805 letter is quoted at the top of page 142 but we cannot tell if it's complete because page 141 is hidden.
• You said: If one can be found then Jefferson's denial letter can be put into the article. Who was suggesting that TJ's letter should be put in the article?
• You said: However, this article is currently on lockdown. I think we all know the article is locked. How does this have any bearing on the discussion here? Brad (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Another one: All I am trying to do is find a non fringe source that states Jeffersons denial letter Some historians such as Malone, that I stated above, have interpreted TJ's letter to Robert Smith as a denial of the Hemings accusation. Apparently there are other authors who have interpreted TJ's letter to Robert Smith as not being specific enough to be considered a denial. There is no such thing as a Jefferson "Denial Letter". Were you trying to say something like "All I am trying to do is find a non-fringe source that claim's the letter wasn't a denial" ? Brad (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems Cmguy doesn't like to respond to detailed dissections of things he says. Likes to make assertions, not so keen on actually backing them up.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources

Generally it is advised to not use primary sources, but they can be used practically in some cases. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. -- We have seen hearsay 'Hemings family history' introduced as "historical evidence". We should include more 'historical evidence', i.e.Jefferson letters, auto biography etc. According to former TJS committee member Dr. Wallenborn, these are the sort of items the TJF historical committee was ignoring, anything that would tend to give weight to more open views. Hopefully we can use some of this material in conjunction with RS's, but WP still allows for their use as a stand alone source if employed with care. Per the revelation pointed out above -- I didn't realize AGR had sort of an unspoken policy for not using primary sources such as letters, etc. That doesn't seem very objective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources? The Hyland (2009) is a book source located on page 180. That is what readers want for clarification. Websites in my opinion can be notoriously biased and can change. I do not know who or what AGR is. Initially I thought TheDarkOneLives was stating I was taking sides. Once editing is open again, I suggest using the Hyland (2009) book source. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

'AGR' are Annette Grodon-Reed's initials. I share some of the same reservations about some online sources. For common knowledge and general topics org's like TJF, etc are ok as sources, but when it comes to controversial and subjective topics some of these sources are obviously biased and in that event are less than a RS for the topic. If we are to function like bots and simply 'report what the sources say', then using this one source by itself would amount to pushing a POV, whether that was the intention or not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As was noted before by other editors, it is not appropriate for editors here to be trying to dismiss authors who meet WP standards as RS. Numerous RS have been cited on each side of this issue. If you are going to start attacking RS, then read what Publishers' Weekly says about Hyland's book: "The trouble is that a legal brief is not a historical argument. Hyland has done his own research and interviewed other researchers, but he fails to see the historical context of the evidence or to provide a balanced assessment of the known facts. Surely not the last word on the matter, regrettably it's not dependable word either." (June), from the Amazon page for the book - not one of the blurbs solicited by publishers. If you don't like Gordon-Reed's argument, then you add cites from another source that addresses the issue differently.Parkwells (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My issue is with the lede and simply asserting an 'opinion', commentary, on the basis of one RS while all the other items are either unsourced or are given no special commentary. Yes, there are many RS, and I have seen a couple of editors try to dismiss some of them. Are biased online sources (or any biased source) considered reliable? As editors who base their writings on RS's isn't this our call -- or are we all bots on this bus? Also, at this (very) late date I'm getting a little tired of seeing a pov asserted by citing policy. Isn't there a way to make neutral statements by sticking to policy?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a bisasometer? Unless a source explicitly claims it wants to "further the honor and integrity of Thomas Jefferson", or "to vilify slave-holding hypocrite Jefferson", how do you determine if a source is biased? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not very easily, but in the case of TJF and characters like Onuf it isn't difficult. Again, these sources are ok for citing established history and facts, etc. We've been down this road. I think at this point we need to concede that some of our 'almighty reliable sources' carry with them a certain measure of bias, some much more than others. This is why we must be careful if we're only going to use one source in the lede for a given topic. We have to be especially prudent if we're going to single out a topic in the lede and give it highly opinionated commentary that is based on such sources. If any topic in the lede is due special historical commentary I would say it is the Declaration of Independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we agree that some sources considered reliable by some are biased. I'm not sure we agree which ones are biased. As far as I am concerned, Annette Gordon-Reed's work is one of the first more-or-less unbiased analyses on Jefferson and (the) Hemings. Indeed, her work exposes to what a degree much previous Jefferson scholarship was biased. And I think very many scholars today share this evaluation. On the other side, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society has bias written into its very principles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No one is attempting to use the TJHS as a source to establish an opinion in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

replacement for 10th line beginning with "Upon leaving office"

Deeply suspicious that the American Revolution was being subverted by the Federalists,(Washington, Hamilton, Adams) Jefferson left the Washington administration and, with his close friend James Madison, organized the The Republican Party, later(1828) referred to as the Democratic-Republican Party, and finally as the Democrat Party.

Philosophically, Jefferson stood for, continued aggressive opposition to the monarchy of England, general opposition to monarchy and strong central government, celebration of individual liberty and freedom from strong central government, and states' rights. Practically this meant opposition to the Hamilton's National Bank, opposition to national assumption of state debts, and opposition to the new national whiskey tax which seemed to favor NE business over small Western farmers. Jeb1000 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede & section statements

It seems we had better start concentrating more on what the Hemings/slavery statements will read like in the lede and the section as the 24th draws near. Below are two 'stub' sentences to start with. Suggestions for expanding and rewording them can be placed below. Like any of the other topics in the lede, slavery and Hemings are due one mention.

Lede: Sally Hemings was a slave who lived at Monticello ...

Section: Sally Hemings was a slave who lived at Monticello ...

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here is my suggestion for the lede statement on Hemings:
  

It has been alleged that TJ had as many as six children by his slave SH
and is still the subject of much controversy among historians today.

No need to mention/qualify the evidence in the lede, we can do that in the section. i.e.'limited DNA, circumstantial and hearsay evidence'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, "alleged" creates doubt. Creating doubt is not neutral. Who has alleged? Nothing in the lede states that Jefferson is the father of Sally Heming's children. A concensus of historians has viewed Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings. That is not a statement of fact concerning Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Creates doubt"? The doubt is already present because the topic is a controversy that is far from being established in fact. The term 'alleged' is a general comment about the controversy, per the accusations made toward Jefferson and is qualified at the end of the sentence. It doesn't attempt to establish any claim as to 'most historians'. The suggestion is certainly more clear than the present version:
"Even though there is some disagreement on the subject, modern Jeffersonian scholarship generally acknowledges that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children."
-- "Some disagreement"? "Jefferson scholarship"? -- The current version not only creates doubt it asserts a singular opinion and attempts to couch the topic with the 'general' consensus of historians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone reads only the lead, they should still have some idea of the broader picture. Journalistically proper to include a few concise clarifying words as to *what* the nature of the evidence is - circumstantial and limited DNA evidence. In the section you go into the specifics.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is my version attempt:

"Current historical concensus is that Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings, however, other historians disagree and view any evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings is flawed or misreprented." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking this seriously - is English not your native language?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkOneLives, please stop this disruptive behavior. Attacking an editors native language is completely uncalled for. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above is a rehashed version of the current lede statement with another commentary thrown in. It's like the discussion about giving special treatment to one topic in the lede never occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone - I'm asking a genuine question. I've seen several examples where you seem to struggle with spelling, syntax and grammar - your sentence above being a glaring example. You apparently didn't know the definition of at least one very common word. Wondering if not being a native English speaker might be the explanation. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that changing one "i" to an "a" make the sentence correct and clear English, a simple typo might be a better explanation. I have more trouble with the first suggestion above, which seems to claim that it is alleged that TJ still is the subject of much controversy among historians today (which is true, but somewhat off-topic).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats am seriousness the only errur you spotting of the sentence...inerestingful.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above lede states the current historical view of Jefferson and Hemings accurately, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected version: "Current historical consensus is that Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings, however, other historians disagree and view any evidence surrounding Jefferson and Hemings is flawed or misrepresented." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're getting closer anyway.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkOneLives. This is the second time I have asked you to stop making a personal attack on an editor's native language. If this was a simple matter of spelling, then just state. Please do not make any more offensive remarks on my first language. I have corrected the spelling mistakes. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking for clarification is not an attack. You need to get off that train of thought. I too have wondered about your reading comprehension. I left a long list of items up above here asking why your responses are so confusing. You haven't addressed those as yet. Anyway, where is this "historical consensus" you speak of? Are there particular places that claim it to be so? Brad (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking for a person's first or primary language is an attack. Please do not change the subject Brad. It is simple to abuse editors in an anonymous fashion. I don't need to "get off" of anything Brad. My responses, Brad, in my opinion, have purposely been "confused" or misrepresented. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

He's not changing the subject, he's speaking directly to your statement. It's no more an attack than your asking why my screen name is TheDarkOneLives is an "attack" - ~shake head~. You've displayed a shaky command of - and seemingly comprehension of written English, I'm just wondering if there's a mitigating reason other than you simply have a shaky command of written English. I note that your "correction" above *still* isn't grammatically correct.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've figured it out now. You and I can only read Swahili. That must be it. Brad (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Watu wenye sura mbili, unao wasimuliaTheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As already cited more than once: Quote: "Ten years later [referring to its 2000 report], TJF [Thomas Jefferson Foundation] and most historians now believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison and Eston Hemings."The National Genealogical Society has concluded that Jefferson is the father and devoted the fall 2001 issue of their quarterly to the topic. Helen F. M. Leary wrote, "the chain of evidence securely fastens Sally Hemings's children to their father, Thomas Jefferson." The MacArthur Foundation awarded a fellowship to Annette Gordon-Reed for "changing Jeffersonian scholarship," which I have previously cited here. The Smithsonian Museum of American History has a current exhibit on Slavery and Liberty, indicating Jefferson as the father of Hemings' children; Monticello's exhibits and website show that Jefferson is the father of Hemings' children. The Pulitzer Prize for History and 15 other awards, mostly from historical organizations, were made to Annette Gordon-Reed for her book The Hemingses of Monticello (2008), which is based on Jefferson as the father of Hemings' children. Books by Jefferson biographers such as R.B. Bernstein and Andrew Burstein are based on Jefferson's paternity; Burstein and the major biographer Joseph Ellis both publicly announced changing their minds on the issue as a result of the DNA evidence showing no match with the Carr line; they believe that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with Hemings, not that Eston Hemings was the only child he fathered. Gordon S. Wood's recent book about that era accepts Jefferson's paternity, etc. Parkwells (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you're source shopping to support your POV. I could source shop to support disagreement if I wanted to but that's not what we're supposed to be doing here. Going around and counting how many sources agree and how many disagree is original research. And you're often bringing up a list of authors who won some sort of prize or honor. That has no relevancy or weight in order to claim one source is more correct than the other. Your enemy Malone was awarded a Pulitzer too. Brad (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If the attacks stop, I am more then willing to get down to business on the Thomas Jefferson article. Here is a new and hopefully improved version for the lede section.

"Current consensus by most historians states Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings, however, other historians disagree and view any evidences surrounding the paternity of Sally Heming’s children and Jefferson are false, misrepresented, or misleading." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems this would be an appropriate time for a facepalm.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How about if I said: "When cmguy answers my questions, I am more than willing to get down to business on the Thomas Jefferson article"? We don't work on articles with set conditions from editors. Brad (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad. An editor does not have the right to personally attack editors. Ownership of articles is prohibited. You do not have the right to tell editors when to edit or not to edit or what self imposed conditions other editors may have concerning editing. Editors have the right to put conditions on themselves, not on other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

CMguy. There are no attacks going on here except for an editor who claims that questions are attacks and then ignores the questions. Discussing proper sourcing and neutrality for the article is not ownership. I never told anyone here when they can edit or not. Brad (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede's last sentence now reads:

"Many modern Jeffersonian historians further believe, based on circumstantial and limited DNA evidence, that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children though there is disagreement on the subject."

Is it really necessary to use both quantifying adjectives of "circumstantial and limited DNA evidence"? One or the other of those words by themselves conveys the doubts that some observers have about this issue...to put both of them together gives those doubts more weight than the opposing school of thought on this issue. Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "circumstantial and limited DNA" is acceptable. Here is an alternative sentence:

Currently there is controversy among modern historians concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children and Thomas Jefferson. Evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children, both circumstancial and limited DNA, has been disputed or viewed as unreliable by some historians. Most historians, however, contend Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Second alternative without "limited DNA" wording:

Currently there is controversy among modern historians concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children and Thomas Jefferson. Circumstantial evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children has been disputed or viewed as unreliable by some historians. Most historians, however, contend Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't convey doubt, it briefly, factually states exactly what the opinions are based on. The DNA evidence is limited to one Hemings child and doesn't specify which Jefferson was the father, there is no conclusive evidence such as a statement by Jefferson claiming any of the children as his.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I recommend the second alternative statement be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No point in using 50 words to convey less information than is currently conveyed in 36 words.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit break3

Problems consistently being overlooked with my corrections and comments:

• Currently there is controversy disagreement among modern historians concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children and Thomas Jefferson. Circumstantial Evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children has been is disputed or viewed as unreliable by some historians. Most historians, however, contend Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children.

See words to watch. The words "controversy" and "circumstantial" are not neutral. "Has been" is past tense (this is still disputed) My question about determining how the majority or minority of historians was arrived at remains unanswered. Brad (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a question I have asked on several occasions. A poll? Or is this idea simply assumed and pushed by peer/political pressure in various academic and media/entertainment circles to give the appearance of wide-spread consensus? TJF's unsubstantiated claim is spurious as this org is chaired by people very involved in race politics, including Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP who happens to preside over the board of trustees at the TJF. In 2001 Bond organized an archaeological dig at Monticello looking for buried slaves. During the 'ceremony' that followed Bond said of the Jefferson slaves that they were ' buried here as property but on this day “we honor them as people.”' That is hardly an objective statement and is indicative of a deep-seated contempt for Jefferson. Aside from that the TJF committee, once in charge of evaluating DNA and 'other' evidence, was found to have ignored historical evidence and reports before submitting their findings. IMO this org should not be used to source claims (i.e.Jefferson's paternity, "most historians") regarding Jefferson and Hemings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Any statements we make must be backed up with a source. "most historians" and "circumstantial" need cites. Preferably both of those entries will be quoted entirely from the source. I'm aware that the TJF has a quote about "most historians" but that statement isn't any stronger or weaker than stating some mysterious minority. I agree with you on points about how a politically correct agenda is making circumstantial evidence into the truth but that's not applicable to the article at hand. Just the facts please. Brad (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling the historical evidence circumstantial evidence is a neutral, factual, prima facie description of the evidence, like saying Lucille Ball had red hair. It is what it is. To call it anything else would be inaccurate and misleading. It isn't direct evidence - the conclusions of some are speculation based on what's believed to be known about TJ's whereabouts at given times. He didn't make any admission, there's no known eyewitness account stating they "spied Master Jefferson abed with Sally engaged in amorous congress" or the like.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the term 'circumstantial' is accurate and neutral, however I don't think anyone is making an issue about that. The claim just needs to be cited and treated the same as any other item in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

~shrug~ - would it need to be cited that AGR's work is called "a book"?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading the description you provided I'll agree that it's proper to use. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis Brad. As has been mentioned before, according to TJF "most historians" view TJ had children by Sally Hemings. TJF is a solid source. The lede can't mention every historian for or against and in my opinion that is a "straw man" argument that diverges from the paternity issue of Jefferson and Hemings. The paragraph, however, states there is disagreement concerning Jefferson and Hemings. The paragraph states both minority and majority opinions. Since TJF stated "most historians", that means there is a minority and majority of opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest putting the above paragraph in the article, then debate the merits of majority and minority of opinion concerning Jefferson and Sally Hemings' children. Wikipedia is suppose to represent the current thought by historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad: Agree we must have cites for "most historians" and "circumstantial" or 'inconclusive' evidence. The notion of 'most historians' has not been substantiated for us, esp in the face of a whole range of historians/professors who don't follow along with Reed and company. Otoh, finding a source that refers to some of the 'historical evidence' as "circumstantial", or 'inconclusive' shouldn't be too difficult. I'm wondering why we even have to be this definitive for the topic in the first place. It's the lede. None of the other topics in the lede get any commentary. Like any other topic Hemings and slavery should be mentioned once and cited. No commentary, no pov. Just the facts that are well established. -- i.e.SH was a salve who lived at Monticello and is believed by some to have had six children by Jefferson which is still the subject of controversy today. -- If someone wants to do more than source the facts and add historical commentary let them do so in the section where there is room devoted to this topic. I'm wondering who decided that this one topic gets special commentary in the lede in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is a discussion about the lead. It's easy to forget the focus because we'll have to take this same topic up again when it comes to the article body. I agree that a lead section does not have the room to introduce any topic or wording that's going to require buckets of explaining and citations just to place it there. A well written lead should be as brief and neutral as possible. Therefore I think your example above is a good start. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New version:

• There is disagreement concerning the paternity of Sally Hemings' six children. Evidence used to determine the paternity of Hemings' children is disputed or viewed as unreliable. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation stated that most historians accept that Jefferson was the probable father of Hemings' children. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

First your statement doesn't even define who and what SH was, and second you're carrying on with another version as if you haven't even read any of the discussions about favoring just one topic in the lede with a controversial and unsubstantiated opinion. Again, you repeat yourself and have been instrumental in dragging the debate out with non-responsive rehash, which at this point in time I'm beginning to wonder if you're doing so intentionally. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - besides being awkwardly worded overall it doesn't flow conceptually from the previous material, clumsily discussing a person and issue the reader may know nothing about without enlightening the reader as to who she is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, nothing seems to appease you concerning Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. I believe you, Brad, and the Darkonelives have claimed ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article, violating Wikipedia policy, making this discussion page caustic and unfriendly to alternative opinions. You had been chastened before by other editors on your stamp movement. It is impossible to make any headway in this article with the current negativity and personal attacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, I have made numerous concessions on this page and elsewhere. Much more than some others I might add. If this is a discussion, per talk page guidelines, then asking for your responsive participation is no assertion of ownership. Please remember that it wasn't any of the editors you mentioned who have kept these topics so disproportionate to the rest of the biography, in the lede, the sections, for some two years. 'Ownership'?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy if you really believe that ownership and attacks are taking place here please report them to the appropriate admin boards. You've been using these accusations as a distraction from the topic everyone here is trying to find resolution with. Despite what is discussed you come back with the same agenda. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to the toxic nature of these discussions, I can no longer make any contributions to the Thomas Jefferson article. Best endeavors to all editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many areas of the page that need attention. Just because there's some heated discussion doesn't mean your help is not wanted or needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dramatic exits never solve anything. WP:DIVA. Brad (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, even putting aside for a moment your obvious bias, since you're convinced there's some conspiracy afoot I invite you to present your various attempts at constructing a sentence exactly as they appear above to any English professor and ask them to critique them purely on technical grounds knowing nothing about the context - see what their response is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede edits

I removed the following statement from the lede as it had nothing to do with Jefferson's biography.: Slavery already existed in the acquired territory and Congress did not pass laws to prohibit it. This contributed to the crisis of the Union a half century later. Slavery still remains the most mentioned topic and is twice given historical commentary, unlike any other topic in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good pruning there. I just trimmed the lead of more mentions that aren't important enough to be lead worthy. Brad (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at TJF and "most historians"

The often touted quote that's causing so much debate here originates from the Monticello website; particularly from here Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings. Well ok, fine. I'd consider the TJF a reliable source but I cannot find any particular author of the page linked. Whomever it might have been has used a combination of primary and secondary sources that are noted at the bottom of the page (a good thing). Most interesting were the published reports of the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. The report (read this; not the html version) never says anything about "most historians" it uses, in two different places, the words "high probability" and "most likely" regarding paternity. One member of the committee, Ken Wallenborn, M.D wrote a minority report disputing the decision of the committee. Then there was a response and then a response to the response. BTW, Wallenborn is highly upset it appears.

On the linked page, TJF is claiming "most historians" but shows nothing except 10 year old sources while making the claim. Is this opinion? Yes. Did the TJF decide to speak for a mysterious majority? Yes. Does TJF back it up? No. Is it still a reliable source? Yes. Yet this is the often touted source that agenda keeps throwing into the mix here. One opinion by one source does not make it a majority of anything. With all that in mind, this source needs to be used with care. The passage "most historians" must be quoted directly from this source. The current article body Hemings section does none of this but is full of weasel "many historians", "other scholars", and "most historians. So far, we only have this TJF source making any claim about some majority. Brad (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All that WP policy requires is an RS for a cite such as TJF to be quoted for a phrase such as "most historians", which I did repeatedly. The website quote is based on the foundation, which runs the major public history site for Jefferson, making a statement of assessing the field ten years later. I didn't claim more for it than that. Sometimes editors didn't want the quote in the article so it came out, but I always had it cited. TJF is not required to meet some WP editors' criteria; it is a RS. Gwillhicker has commented extensively on Wallenborn's disagreeing with the TJF report. So put that in the article - that does not mean we do not use TJF as a source. As I provided with sourced, quoted information, genealogists of the National Genealogical Society and other historians writing in William & Mary Quarterly strongly criticized the TJHS Scholars Commission Report, but GW resists having that covered here. Those are RS commenting on another RS - that is how you deal with controversy, by reporting the sources. Parkwells (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't I just say TJF is a reliable source? Since you mentioned it; I do recall that at one point you and I discussed quoting TJF directly and it did get into the article and was quoted appropriately. Why it is no longer there I've no idea. According to the TJF, "many historians etc"(citation) is the proper way to handle this. Too bad this conversation has to start all over again. A source is allowed to get away with weasel wording but WP is not; therefore quoting the source directly does not give the appearance of original research or opinion by WP editors. Brad (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you think academic consensus is shown? Yes, Malone won a Pulitzer - in his generation, his work was believed to represent the best in writing. His work in fact has been used by historians as evidence that TJ is the father of Hemings children; other historians analyzed his documentation of TJ activities and the record of births in the Farm Book and found that TJ was at Monticello every time Hemings conceived, and she never conceived when he wasn't there. But Malone believed, based on family testimony and earlier historians, that the Carr nephews were the fathers. The DNA study disproved this for the Eston Hemings descendant, leading many current historians to new conclusions - that is, historians of the last 15 years or so. This is the generation that is making new contributions in the field, among them, Annette Gordon-Reed's book. Yes, I think awards such as the Pulitzer and others represent the academic and literary field recognizing top works. I wasn't cherry picking people, but writing about currently recognized Jefferson biographers, such as Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein. The TJHS historians want to say, well, all the other Hemings children may have been fathered by someone else. Helen F. M. Leary of the National Genealogical Society strongly criticized their report for bias and for ignoring the body of evidence. Joseph Ellis says it is unlikely that TJ had a one-night stand for Eston; he believes that the match for the Hemings descendant showed a longstanding relationship of TJ and Hemings. Changes in opinion? PBS noted that two major Jefferson historians went to the CBS president to prevent a mini-series being produced on Sally Hemings, adapted from Barbara Chase-Riboud's 1979 novel. In 2000, by contrast, as PBS noted in a Frontline program, "Though many quarrelled with the portrayal of Hemings as unrealistically modern and heroic, no major historian challenged the series' premise that Hemings and Jefferson had a 38-year relationship that produced children." But all this is in the longer Jefferson-Hemings controversy article. So don't use the phrase "Most historians", but I had a quote for it. Malone is a recognized Jefferson scholar; so are Joseph Ellis, Andrew Burstein and Annette Gordon-Reed. Parkwells (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"..Joseph Ellis says it is unlikely that TJ had a one-night stand for Eston.." - It hasn't been proven he had an any-night stand with SH.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From the introduction to the PBS Frontline program, Jefferson's Blood, about the DNA study and changing ideas. It does not have an author but is the overview for the many parts of the series and accompanying website:

"Now, the new scientific evidence has been correlated with the existing documentary record, and a consensus of historians and other experts who have examined the issue agree that the question has largely been answered: Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children, and quite probably all six. The language of "proof" does not translate perfectly from science and the law to the historian's craft, however. And the DNA findings in this case are only one piece of a complicated puzzle that many in previous generations worked hard to make sure we might never solve.

In this section, FRONTLINE has gathered some of the key scientific and documentary evidence which has led historians to believe in Jefferson's paternity, as well as the "dissenting views" of those who continue to maintain that the evidence is not conclusive.

at <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/> So, there is consensus and there are dissenting views.Parkwells (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Cmguy called the Frontline source a "fringe" when it was used to cite TJ's denial of Hemings. So does this mean that PBS is ok when it supports your POV but not when it cites anything else? Brad (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the PBS Frontline program on this topic was a good effort and consider it a RS; the section I quoted was an overview or summary of historians' work. Did not participate in the discussion you reference and won't comment on that. Cmguy speaks for himself.Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"...So does this mean that PBS is ok when it supports your POV..." - Of course.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you guys, unlike others on this page, I'm not trying to disqualify RS; I have consistently made the argument that we have to follow the scholarship. As noted, the Frontline program drew from the range of Jeffersonian scholarship at the time of its program. Parkwells (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

TJF biased?

Looking at the TJF main page at the top, there are several main-topics to click on. Among them are 'Plantation and Slavery', while there are no links to 'Family life at Monticello', 'Jefferson's writings', 'American Revolution', the 'Declaration of Independence', etc. Why are not any of these main topics listed on the main page?? This all by itself reveals their preoccupation and focus. The TJF is a collection of sources, IMO this privately run organization is not a source in of itself and they are wrong to speak on behalf of 'historians' unless they can qualify and cite their claim. Parroting the unsubstantiated claim of this one on-line source on WP is asserting a POV. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your opinion, and one WP editor's opinion is not enough to disqualify an otherwise respected institution as an RS. You will note that I provided another source above, the PBS Frontline program, which commented on the new "consensus" in its overview of materials representing all sides of the controversy for its 2000 program Jefferson's Blood. Brad has suggested a succinct statement for the Lede that does not mention "consensus" or "most", so why not just accept that? Parkwells (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Just a note: I have great respect for anyone trying to make sense of their history, I just have some reservations about possible political motivations and the language sometimes used. i.e.'Most'. Hope you don't see my objections as anything more than that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

We're still undecided about the lede language and which section/wording to go with. Currently the lede reads like this:
Even though there is some disagreement on the subject, modern Jeffersonian scholarship generally acknowledges that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children.. btw, this statement lacks citation. and it seems a statement like that should have more than one. Instead of making claims in the lede about what 'most historians' think maybe the lede should simply say that 'It has been alleged that TJ had as many as six children by his slave SH and is still the subject of much controversy among historians today.' An equally inclusive and perfectly neutral statement. No other topic in the lede is couched with the broad-brushed 'historians believe' statement -- only slavery and the SH topic, a controversial topic no less, get highlighted this way. The lede makes reference to slaves in general at four six different places. This is the only topic that has gotten such special commentary and coverage in the lede. Also, the entire 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the lede are without citations. Seems we should be addressing some of the more basic issues at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Adds clarity to briefly mention the basis for the beliefs - "based on cirumstantial and limited DNA evidence" which is elaborated on later.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The word/s slave/ry appear six times in the lead. Why is that? Besides that problem the lede in general is chronologically out of sorts and contains other passages besides the excess focus on slavery that should be removed. It skips around and is full of agenda. Nuke it and start over. Brad (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ledes are usually uncited. They're meant to summarize the material in the body of the article, which is cited. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Coemgenus has a point. After a quick check I found that the ledes in both the James Garfield (GA) and the Benjamin Harrison (FA) pages have no cites, however the George Washington (GA) page has a couple cites near the end of its lede. In any case, giving special historical commentary to this item while the rest of the topics in the lede get no cites or special highlighting seems inappropriate. Don't know if we should "nuke" the lede but it certainly has some issues that need to be fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Coemgenus has a point - He does? I find lots of articles have cites in the lead. In fact in a sampling of 19 articles that include historical figures, places, science topics, entertainers, they all have cites in the lead.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'one-size-suits-all' approach to presidential biographies. We often refer to FA or GA presidential pages in an effort to get this page up to speed. We do have the option however of using no, few or some cites in the lede it seems. I like to see as few links and cites in the lede as possible, using them only when they highlight a major or direct aspect of the subject. The Declaration of Independence, along with a few other major topics IMO should be the only items to get links. Most other links can be picked up in the body of the text. Currently, the Jefferson lede has more than 20 links. -- Cites hopefully will be from a source that can cover every aspect of Jefferson's life, including Hemings. It would be nice if we could source the entire lede at the end with two or three general citations. At the same time we avoid giving opinionated commentary to any particular topic as is currently the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

..I like to see as few links and cites in the lede as possible.. - because...? I was taking exception to what seems to be a baseless assertion about how "most articles" are. Curious why you think this article cries out for no cites in the lead? At any rate cites or no cites, what's most important is that what's in the lead or anywhere else be clear and neutral, something some are clearly devoted to avoiding.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who said "most articles" and I didn't say or infer the "article cries out" for no cites. Just noted examples in the ledes of presidential biographies, just to give credence to that option should it be considered. Yes, what's most important is that the lede/lead be clear on various points and that slavery and Hemings are mentioned once like any other topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

..Not sure who said "most articles".. Specifically Coemgenus said "..Ledes are usually uncited..". Usually = most.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If we go by the 'no cites in the lede' approach, per the conditions mentioned, then it seems by necessity we will have to reduce the 'specificity' in the lede overall. Since Jefferson's history, like Washington and Franklin, involves a whole range of subjects, trying to get them all into the lede, even in summary, is and will be an effort. On many of the president's pages, like Washington's, some of the common knowledge material is often uncited. IMO items of a controversial or subjective nature should be cited if they are to be mentioned in the lede. Slavery and Hemings are due mention in the lede and if cites are to be used they should come from a neutral RS and the topic given no special commentary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

editbreak0

National Museum of African American History and Culture in Partnership with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello (January 27-October 14, 2012). "Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty". Exhibition. Smithsonian Institution National Museum of American History, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution]]. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Editors might want to look at the national exhibit website to see what is being reflected in Jeffersonian scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is there - which I'm going to guess is in line with your hopes and dreams for the TJ article - still doesn't define the entirety of "Jeffersonian Scholarship". Again and until/unless proof surfaces settling the issue definitively - "Jeffersonian Scholarship" includes historians who aren't in accord with AGR's take on the Sally Hemings issue. And what would AGR have to say if it turns out TJ *was* covering for someone else? Historians need to be referenced in a way that clarifies that they're individuals, not an academic Borg.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not about my "hopes and dreams" for this article, as if I had originated the historic research. The Smithsonian is seldom regarded as the radical edge of history. Numerous historians of the current generation have been cited here as agreeing with conclusions of Foster's study team related to Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, so there is no point in referring to Gordon-Reed as if she were an isolated case. And, yes, the fact that some historians disagree has also been discussed and referenced in this article and the main one on the controversy. They do not include any of the current biographers considered to be major scholars of Jefferson.Parkwells (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"..conclusions of Foster's study team.." - You mean the Eugene Foster who said that the title of the Nature article related to his DNA study was misleading? "We know from the historical and the DNA data that Thomas Jefferson can neither be definitely excluded nor solely implicated in the paternity of illegitimate children with his slave Sally Hemings,"TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The same one who also concluded in his article that the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence was that Jefferson was the father.Parkwells (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The -whole- story that you demonstrate an ongoing inclination to ignore is that he saw it as the simplest explanation but clarified that it wasn't the only explanation in his criticism of the misleading title of the Nature article, that Jefferson's paternity could be neither confirmed or refuted.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What Wikipedia are you all looking at and concluding that "leads usually don't include cites"? Random sample of articles on Galileo Galilei, Ayn Rand, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Leonardo da Vinci, Leonardo DiCaprio, Holy Roman Empire, Quantum mechanics, Physics, Mathematics, Albert Einstein, Speciation, Amsterdam, Chemistry, Benjamin Franklin, Aretha Franklin, Music theory, Nicolaus Copernicus, Ludwig van Beethoven all have cites in the lead. And why are you spelling it "lede"? Even the Wikipedia article on News Style only has it as an alternate spelling. About.com refers to it as a slang editorial spelling.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe using "lede" is to avoid confusion over lead, (pronounced like led) like the mineral and "lead" which rhymes with "need". Brad (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm...granted there's an active participant here who insisted that James Callender didn't engage in blackmail and in the same breath demonstrated that they didn't know what blackmail means, I would posit that most people have the requisite acumen to make the distinction given the context. But then again given some of the nonsense I've seen here....

And at any rate, this assertion that Wikipedia articles don't typically contain cites in the lead isn't correct.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson scholarship

The topic of Jefferson scholarship was recently discussed here. Indeed historians are not some monolithic body of individuals with a hive mentality. I recently outlined a whole array of professors/historians, many from leading and prominent universities, who have not jumped (leaped in this case) to the same conclusions as Reed and company. This is only the tip of the iceberg and trying to lump all historians together in a statement to couch the idea of Jefferson paternity is not only misleading, it borders on intellectual dishonesty. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing "bordering" about it. It *is* intellectually dishonest to insert misleading language that tries to ignore what you've stated.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Back to the Lede

What about the following, after the material about the first family: "Since a 1998 DNA study, many modern Jeffersonian historians have come to believe that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of all of his slave Sally Hemings' six children; due to the circumstantial evidence and limits of the study, other historians disagree with this conclusion.Parkwells (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good, touches all the main points without giving any single one prominence. Shearonink (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The way it currently reads "Their marriage produced six children. Many modern Jeffersonian historians further believe..." leads with the concept of his known children then follows by introducing the notion of alleged children. That's why it's in the same paragraph. The above doesn't flow as well conceptually or journalistically and takes more words to say essentially the same thing. Details like the year of the DNA study can be expanded on in the body of the article. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I intended this to be in the same paragraph, following the information about his wife and legitimate children. The reason to mark the year of the 1998 study was because it was a time of major change for many historians and an event in Jeffersonian scholarship that readers may be familiar with. Parkwells (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Are we going to have review weasel wording again? There is only one source (TJF) introduced so far that makes any claim about "most historians" or its derivatives. Quote the source directly or not at all. Brad (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers and DarkOne earlier preferred "many historians"; this is essentially their wording, but you had nothing to say about it before. Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I just went over this at the top of Edit Break 3 and I know damn well I've discussed this at least once before elsewhere. You always seem to have some excuse about what other editors did or did not want for the way you steer the agenda. I'm sure there are times when I go away in disgust and stop discussing but most here are guilty of the same. This latest intro suggestion is the same regurgitated crap that Cmguy was presenting. To cease making these unsourced and opinionated lead suggestions I think something like:

• After a 1998 DNA study, it is believed that Thomas Jefferson was likely the father of his slave Sally Hemings' six children, which is a subject of debate.

No agenda, no cites required, no bias. Short and to the point. Brad (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, knock it off. That statement was mostly by DarkOne (here is where he defended his version: "The way it currently reads "Their marriage produced six children. Many modern Jeffersonian historians further believe..." leads with the concept of his known children then follows by introducing the notion of alleged children. That's why it's in the same paragraph. The above (referring to my earlier version) doesn't flow as well conceptually or journalistically and takes more words to say essentially the same thing. Details like the year of the DNA study can be expanded on in the body of the article." TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)). You didn't jump all over him with insults ("regurgitated crap") when he suggested it and put it in the Lede. Yes, it is frustrating to work with multiple editors who want different things at different times. I was trying to work with him; sorry that you think that collaboration is a mistake; it seemed to be what the three of you said you wanted. Yours is not the only opinion that counts. Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm close to taking another break from Hemings. I have a great book that I picked up about TJ and education. Brad (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad, a problem I see with that is by simply saying "it is believed" without qualifying/quantifying - "by some/many/a couple of historians", and throwing in the comment about disagreement at the end it gets back to suggesting the Scholarship Borg. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok; I can see that as being problematic. How do we avoid weasel words then? We can't say that some majority or minority exists unless there are cites to back that up with in the body of the article. There is the TJF source that says "most" and now this Frontline source (the same one that Cmguy called "fringe") has been introduced as another that states "most". But I guess that having two cites that claim "most" is enough to say "most historians believe TJ fathered all 6" but there are no cites that would qualify a "some" or a "minority". Or are there? Brad (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The same FRontline source refers to "the "dissenting views" of those who continue to maintain that the evidence is not conclusive." That defines the minority.Parkwells (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also a Frontline source that clearly states "most historians" regard Jefferson's cover letter to Robert Smith as a denial, but that got watered down to "many" - which I've fixed to accurately reflect what the source actually says. Article language should accurately reflect cited sources, not editor POV about what they'd like the world to think the source said.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, too. As long as there is a RS, we should use the quotes as is. This continuing attempt to disqualify sources because editors don't like them is not in keeping with WP policy on using RS.Parkwells (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What a nice little nugget you found DOL! But it said "some" until you changed it to "most". Brad (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It was my addition to begin with. It originally stated "most historians" as per the reference until I believe Cmguy most recently changed it which I only recently noticed.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there were two versions in two places in the PBS documents: "most" in the short chronology, and "some" in another location. Keeping "most" is fine as we know where it appeared.Parkwells (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the TJF page that makes the "most historians" claim. While there is a list of sources at the bottom of the page they are not referred to with in-line citations so there is no way to qualify their claim. Since this org has a history of and continues to display an unusually high degree of negative bias (ala the musings of Dianne Swann-Wright, Lucia (Cinder) Stanton, author of the book 'Those who labored for my happiness' (hardly an objective title) and who also refers to Jefferson as "elusive and slippery", and Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP.) there is considerable doubt as to the 'reliability' of this source [where controversial issues are concerned]. Any claim the TJF echos should be cited in a RS/publication, esp since there are (very) many historians who have emerged (including a former leading TJF member) who have completely opposite views on the matter. Telling the readers 'most historians believe' and then using this outfit as a source is a kick in the teeth to the idea of NPOV. We've been through this. Over the last ten+ years TJF has been transformed into a coatrack for race-politics. We need to simply say 'many historians' and let the reader decide for themselves, and again, this topic should get no special commentary in the lede, just like all the other topics do not. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know which source listed by TJF asserts the "most historians" theory. Not even Reed makes such a claim and she is listed among their sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you absorb anything from the thread above here where I covered all the discrepancies? The TJF page is reliable enough to use despite my/your opinion on how they came to the conclusion they did and the manner they use to back up their claims. We cannot say "many historians" without sources to back it up with but saying "many historians" doesn't jive with allowing a reader to make up their own mind. Brad (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there is conflicting evidence how about we just not say anything as to 'many' or 'most' and simply say that historians are divided, which indeed they are? This will still allow the readers to decide for themselves. Or are we supposed to find a source that spells this out verbatim? If one sources says 'Apple Trees' grow on Smith Hill and another sources says 'Peach Trees' grow on Smith Hill are we not allowed to make an obvious deduction and say 'Fruit Trees' grow there? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Source integrity

Editors are supposed to follow the scholarship. Other articles, such as in anthropology and archeology, use terms such as "It is widely agreed that..." and also indicate scholars who disagree. This is common practice.Parkwells (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

'Follow the scholarship'? What does one do when 'the scholarship' is greatly divided -- ignore the ones that don't agree with your view? Also, I'm finding it a little odd that some of these 'scientific' publications have assumed a historical analysis role: i.e.'National Geographic, Nature, NPS, 'Archeology' etc. Do we have any idea of who the writers are? Or are we simply supposed to assume they are reliable because they work for a notable scientific publication? It's sort of like using 'Popular Mechanics Magazine' to source information about 'Gardening'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to understand your complaints above - and this is not a forum on your discontent with academic and professional writing. Are these complaints in general or related to sources cited in this article? I don't recall either National Geographic or Archeology being cited here, but obviously archeologists have made substantial contributions to the understanding of national and local history. I have cited the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, not National Geographic. It has certified genealogists whose specialty is family history and who are educated to evaluate historic records and many kinds of documentary evidence; their quarterly is peer reviewed and respected. The Nature article was written by the researchers who did the DNA testing, all scientists qualified to report on their work. The William & Mary Quarterly specializes in early American history. The National Park Service directly employs numerous historians with PhDs, and hires others as contractors; they also rely on published academic histories; they run the National Register of Historic Places; they provide historic interpretation at numerous historic sites and battlefields across the country and online. Yes, according to WP:RS, professional journals are understood to subject their writers to peer review and professional editing; and, yes, you are supposed to believe that they are RS, according to the criteria they identify in WP:RS. If this is such a problem for you, to accept writers with whom you are not familiar although they are publishing in professional journals, perhaps Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for you to pursue your interests.Parkwells (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

When it came to sources I was recently held to a rather rigid and unyielding standard when mention of a simple given like 'treason' in the DOI was suggested. Another editor insisted that the idea only be sourced from a Jefferson biography. Yet I don't see the same rigid scrutiny be applied to some of these online sources. Seems we're just accepting them as RS's because of their name recognition. -- Unknown writers who use e.g. Nature magazine as sort of a Trojan horse, a way to get their pov through the gates. In the last several years I've seen National Geographic go the same route. i.e. highly opinionated historical documentary couched behind the cover of a respected 'scientific' publication, typically written by writers unknown. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Complaining about National Geographic here is really beside the point.Parkwells (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Source integrity, esp where it concerns controversial and partisan issues, is indeed the point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum on WP:RS and sources. Please take your complaints about National Geographic, Archeology, unknown writers, TJF and other topics to the appropriate policy or noticeboard.Parkwells (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors have every right to determine/discuss whether or not a source is reliable. Is there some WP-list of RS's that says 'never question these sources'? Since you have had plenty to say about some of these media/online sources I find your 'directive' somewhat curious. Again, for controversial topics we need a well publicized, neutral, RS whose author can be identified -- not any media/online source you drag in off the internet with a piece written by some unknown writer(s). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has disqualified some sources, so the Noticeboard is the place to take your complaints. If you think the website of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation is an unreliable source, or the website for the program Jefferson's Blood, full of sourced articles for the Public Broadcasting Service's Frontline program is not reliable, you should take your complaint to the RS Noticeboard. Then you can get satisfaction. My reading is that they do meet the critieria for RS. These are hardly "any media/online source ... dragged in off the internet". Both present much information by a variety of qualified professionals writing in peer-reviewed, academic journals and presses, and national media. They are not someone's personal blog. Please review the WP standard, as you seem unwilling to abide by it for determining RS. Parkwells (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to use sources by authors who can source (i.e.footnoots) their claims: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources :The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work. (emphasis mine) Also, as has been brought to your attention on numerous occasions, there are many prominent professors/historians who have not jumped to the same conclusions, i.e.(all?) six children, so we still need to keep the language neutral and be careful with claims (i.e.most historians) that no one has been able to substantiate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. TJF study was indeed an 'Isolated study', so much so they would not allow outside/differing opinion, and again, the TJF 'historical research committee' has already been exposed for their inherent bias. Need to find RS's written by individual and recognized authors -- not unknown writers who rely on highly visible orgs. Because a source happens to be well known doesn't mean it is 'automatically' reliable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)