Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

References

Currently there are some 24 tags (!!) in the TJ References section for items that need page numbers and other items. There is also a red 'cite error' (ref #165) that needs to be fixed. [fixed]
Also, there seems to be an unusually high number of external links used for references that have emerged recently. With all the publicized RS sources available for Jefferson it's sort of ironic to see so many external links used as sources on this page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

New lede/lead attempt

Trying to take everything discussed so far. I'm starting a new section. Suggested lead:

• After a 1998 DNA study, Thomas Jefferson may have fathered his slave Sally Hemings' six children. Historians are divided on the subject and it continues to be debated.

I'm not a prose expert (I stink at that) but maybe this or something similar gets the point across. Brad (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• A 1998 DNA study concluded that Thomas Jefferson might have fathered his slave Sally Hemings' six children but the subject continues to be debated. Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good and succinct. Add "among historians" as those debating. Parkwells (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede statement also needs to ID Hemings and acknowledge that topic is a controversy. Historians: As explained before the term 'many' can mean 'more than half, half or less than half' and serves as a neutral term that should satisfy anyone who has already made up their mind on the subject while also letting the other readers decide for themselves. The following statement also reflects the views of those who feel Jefferson may have fathered less than six children: Phrase in brackets is perhaps better off in the section as no other topic in the lede is qualified in such a manner.

• Sally Hemings was a slave who lived at Monticello who [after inconclusive DNA testing] is believed by many historians to have had up to six children by Thomas Jefferson which is still the subject of much controversy today. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I see some issues with the structure and sense of the above proposed lede:

Sally Hemings(subject) was a slave who lived at Monticello and [after inconclusive DNA testing] (she/Sally is the implied/understood subject here and this structure seems to imply that she had her DNA tested) is believed by many historians to have had up to six children by Thomas Jefferson which ("which"? The actual subject of that last phrase is unclear to me. Is it the "belief of the many historians"? is it the "inconclusive DNA testing"?) is still the subject of much controversy today.

Also, wanted to point out that this person did seem to be identified in my proposed version of this lede sentence as "his slave Sally Hemings". Readability/flow from the preceding sentence should be a consideration, I don't like my version in that sense. The first section of that paragraphs states:

After his wife of eleven years Martha Jefferson died following childbirth, he remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children.

So what is under consideration is that last section, replacing "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." To address your concern that Hemings needs to be introduced, how about:

• Sally Hemings was a slave of Jefferson's who lived at his home Monticello. Interpretations of a 1998 DNA study (the DNA in the various Hemings & Jefferson descendant/s is not alterable, what is under discussion, what is controversial, is the interpretation of that chemical evidence) concluded that Jefferson might (using the word "might" indicates the doubt about interpreting the statistics and that this conclusion is not ironclad) have fathered all or some of Hemings' children but these conclusions continues to be debated (or "to be the source of controversy") at the present time. In this version of the reworked section I also think that all the salient points are covered from within the rest of the article. Shearonink (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

'Controversy' in my statement is a general term that includes all aspects of the topic. Don't think the reader will assign the term to any one item. Also, no need to assign too many details to a lede statement (i.e.1998 DNA study). All we need to do is ID Hemings, that she was a slave who lived at Monticello and is believed by many to have had six children by TJ, the subject of much controversy. Plain, neutral, simple. Let's try to approach this more straight forwardly and directly so we can once and for all be done with this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem approaching this issue straightforwardly. My only issue at this time is how any proposed sentence will flow from the previous sentence and will read to the casual reader.

This is the preceding statement:

After his wife of eleven years Martha Jefferson died following childbirth, he remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children.

then the proposed change:

Sally Hemings, a slave of Jefferson's who lived at Monticello, also had six children. It was alleged, starting while Jefferson was alive, that Jefferson was the father of her children. Modern DNA testing on a Hemings descendant was performed but the results were not absolute as to who the father of Hemings' children might have been.

or this proposed change:

It was alleged, starting while Jefferson was alive, that Jefferson was the father of some or all of the children of Sally Hemings, a slave of Jefferson's who lived at Monticello. Modern DNA testing on a Hemings descendant was performed but the results were not absolute as to who the father of Hemings' children might have been. -- Shearonink (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right but needs a bit of condensing. I have just added '1782', the year Martha died, to the lede. With that in place I suggest this passage to follow:

• In the 1790's it was alleged that Jefferson fathered the children of Sally Hemings, a house slave who lived at Monticello. After modern DNA testing linking one child to several Jefferson related males there is still wide disagreement and controversy over the subject among historians today.
  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In your efforts to avoid the use of "consensus," for which I provided a cite: the PBS Frontline program on Jefferson's Blood in 2000 (see above), this is a tortured statement. How about:

"Since the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson was alleged to have fathered the children of his house slave Sally Hemings. Modern DNA testing showed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male line; some historians believe this affirms Jefferson's paternity while others disagree."

Otherwise it's so vague and backward that no one can tell what the point is. I think it's more important to say that in the Lede than referring to Hemings living at Monticello. Stick to the main points.Parkwells (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It also is plain wrong to put too much emphasis on the DNA evidence. The story resurfaced with Fawn Brodie's Intimate History, and opinion definitely had started swinging with Gordon-Reed's 1997 American Controversy. The 1998 DNA paper was an additional bit of widely published evidence, but only one extra point among experts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true; there was re-evaluation of historic evidence going on, for instance, the findings that Hemings' conceptions were based on Jefferson's residence at Monticello; naming patterns, freeing of her children when they came of age, etc. Parkwells (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

They weren't "based on" Jefferson's residence, it could be said they coincided with.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit break4

So in this last proposed version, the last paragraph in the lede would read:

After his wife of eleven years Martha Jefferson died in 1782 following childbirth, he remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children. Since the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson was alleged to have also (...sorry I added this and hit Save before I noticed it was not in Parkwells' last version) fathered the children of his house slave Sally Hemings. Modern DNA testing showed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male line; some historians believe this affirms Jefferson's paternity while others disagree.

On the whole, this last version seems good to me. I do think some of the verb-choices need to be tweaked, the statement needs to be present-perfect since the issue continues to be controversial today and I also think that he should should be referred to by his full name in the first sentence. How about:

After his wife of eleven years Martha Jefferson died in 1782 following childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children. Since the 1790s, it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. Modern DNA testing showed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male line; some historians believe this affirms Jefferson's paternity while others disagree. --Shearonink (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting better but WP:ALLEGED should be looked at. TJ isn't on trial. And I really think that there is too much said about Martha Jefferson. Stating her death in 1782 should be enough. Brad (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point about being careful with the word "alleged" but I do not know what else one could call what Callender did... "stated"? "affirmed"? "put about"? " "alleged" means that something is stated but nothing was proven and to quote from WP:ALLEGED

"Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."....

Callender asserted that something was "so", and to follow the WP:ALLEGED guideline, in the article the source of these statements is clear starting in the 1790s with Callender. The first Google result when asking for "alleged definition" was "Said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality." In the context of the day, what Callender was alleging, that Thomas Jefferson was the father of his slave's children, was undesirable and the fact that this alleged state of affairs is still at the very least controversial is proven right on this page and in its Archives.

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children. Since the 1790s, it has been alleged...stated...affirmed... that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. Modern DNA testing showed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male line; some historians believe this affirms Jefferson's paternity while others disagree. --Shearonink (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the term 'alleged' is appropriate, WP...Words to watch: : Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. -- While this issue doesn't involve a crime, it is still a contention of wrongdoing aimed at Jefferson, and is still undetermined or established in fact. As we all know, what few facts are available are sketchy, inconclusive and support other likely possibilities also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the proposed statement after this last edit is neutral as well as definitive and fits in with the paragraph to which it belongs. If there are those who are still not comfortable with the term 'alleged' then perhaps we can say 'it has been claimed'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine now with "alleged" after it was fleshed out a bit more above. "Modern" isn't very descriptive; can we say "DNA testing in 1998..."? Otherwise I've no heavy objection to the last proposed version and would like to put this issue to bed. (should last at least a month at this rate) Brad (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

1998 is fine. We also need to get the definitive term 'controversy' back into the fold.:

Since the 1790s it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and several others belonging to the Jefferson male line. Today the likelihood of Jefferson's paternity remains the subject of much controversy among historians.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I like this last version but would propose a few tweaks. *...strike the word "much" as an adjective for controversy. *...The last sentence seems like it's a little unclear. "Likelihood of Jefferson's paternity"...is missing who he was the father of so that section needs additional wording (maybe adding "of the Hemings children"). Also "revealed a match between her last child and several others belonging to the Jefferson male line") seems unclear as well, it seems to be saying that there was a match between her last child and several others (children) belonging to the "Jefferson male line", I am not sure this is the intention and would leave "several others" out and and add the word family to that phrase ("Jefferson male family line") to make it clear that it is genetically possible that other Jefferson males might be the father of these children) so my proposed version of Gwhilhickers' 22:56/8 March lede paragraph would be:

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children. Since the 1790s it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line. Today the likelihood of Jefferson's paternity of the Hemings children remains the subject of controversy among historians. -- Shearonink (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest at the end: "...the subject of controversy among some historians." For others, the controversy is finished, and I think we should indicate that. Parkwells (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone come up with a cite for this 1790's rumor origin?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is what I was able to find. The first published report from Callender appeared in the Richmond Recorder, date is September 1, 1802 and was reprinted (almost whole) in Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: history, memory, and civic culture by Lewis & Onuf [1], the whole column in question is reprinted starting on Page 325 of The Papers of Thomas Jefferson:1 July to November 1802 (edited by Oberg) [2]. The claims did not originate with Callender in 1802, they just became their most virulent and specific in the pages of the Richmond Recorder. According to Lewis & Onuf, the first printed allusions to the relationship appeared in William Rind's (Virginia) Federalist in June of 1800 [3]. On Page 94 of their book, the authors paraphrase what Rind printed as "he claimed that he had 'damning proofs' of Jefferson's 'depravity' and they also state that "the information had been bandied about by Virginians and others for a number of years before Callender published it". They also state on that page that the Gazette of the United States made an announcement in 1802 that it had "heard the same subject spoken freely of in Virginia and by Virginia Gentlemen".

So, reliable sources are saying that rumors existed before Callender's publication of them and that the Federalist referred to them in 1800. But rumors are ephemeral things and start out as spoken words, and the Federalist didn't state an outright claim of a relationship between Jefferson & Hemings in 1800 so, as far as I can tell, the statement should start out as "Since at least 1800" or "Since at least 1802" so this lede section would now be:

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children. Since at least 1802 (or "1800"), it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line. Today the likelihood of Jefferson's paternity of the Hemings children remains the subject of controversy among some historians. -- Shearonink (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That little Parkwells nugget about "some" needs to come out of there. We're not going back to debating the "most or some" in the lead; that's for the body. Remove "today", don't use vague time periods. Brad (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And forgot to add that "controversy" has made its way back into the proposals. "debate" is the more neutral term. Already discussed at least once. Brad (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the only reason Hemings is mentioned by name in the lede is because the topic is controversial -- and the term 'controversy' implies 'two' opposing schools of thought, so it seems neutral in of itself. In any event, if the statement looks ok -- let's get it into the lede AND LEAVE IT ALONE for at least a couple of days, aye? :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(Off-topic) Brad, for this particular discussion, which is about what the last paragraph in the lede should state, I have been dealing with each individual proposed change in real-time as it has been proposed, without looking back completely over the present page or into its Archives, where it seems to me this issue has been discussed many times before in innumerable variations.

(On-topic) All I am trying to do here is to craft a workable last paragraph to the lede. All any of us should care about is what reliable sources have to say about this issue and then if the lede is a fair representation of what comes later in the article body itself. Parkwells has a point that this issue is not controversial to all historians, just some. Gwilhickers weighed in above and said that the word 'controversy' had been removed and that it is a more descriptive term of the ongoing discussions among interested observers about the Jefferson/Hemings relationship.

I think using the word "debate" here is a fair compromise, it implies that there is a difference of opinion about the issue of Jefferson/Hemings among historians (which I would say is a word-choice that implies informed opinion-holders) without stating that one or the other side is right or wrong and without describing the historians on either side as all/most/some. I also have no reasonable objection to removing the time-tenuous word-choice of "Today", it's actually redundant. If the issue "continues to be debated" then there is an implied 'present-tense'.

So that the lede and the article-text will agree, after we settle on this paragraph, I plan to add any of the sourced information about the timeline of the published rumors (Callender, William Rind et al) from my research above to the body as appropriate. Then the lede will be a fair representation of what is in the actual article.

So the most recent proposed version would either be ("debated" version"):

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children. Since at least 1802 it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line. The likelihood of Jefferson's paternity of the Hemings children continues to be debated among historians.

or ("controversy" version):

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life. Their marriage produced six children. Since at least 1802 it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line. The likelihood of Jefferson's paternity of the Hemings children remains the subject of controversy among historians. --Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Debate" is fine; it's shorter. The reason that Sally Hemings' name is there is because she was a person with a name. Parkwells (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No one has contested Hemings' 'personage' here, and it's inappropriate that you suggest anyone has. There were many people associated with Jefferson, many of them involved with things that impacted history greatly, but are still not mentioned in the lede. There was discussion some time back about what merited Hemings' name being mentioned in the lede. Perhaps it was even you who held up 'the controversy' as the definitive reason to have it there. Do we need to dig into archives at this point? The section name has 'controversy' in it and there is a dedicated page for this topic with 'controversy' in the page title(!) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)W

I'm not suggesting an archives search; thought that Brad's "debate" was fine. Do what you want on "controversy"; I don't think that word is significant. Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Final draft

Last version needs a bit of condensing. Hemings is mentioned twice. Suggest this:

Since 1802 it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line, while the likelihood of Jefferson's paternity here still remains the subject of controversy and debate among historians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Here Controversy? --> debate --> disagreement Brad (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about this as a compromise:

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life, with his marriage having produced six children. Since at least 1802 it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. Jefferson's paternity of these children remains controversial and continues to be debated among historians, with DNA tests performed in 1998 revealing a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line.

The reason I put the "at least" as a modifier of "1802" in that the earliest published clear/verifiable reports of this issue dates to Callender's column in the Richmond Recorder but there were published allusions to the situation dating to 1800. As a stylistic choice I am also attempting to keep the verb-tenses somewhat active. In an attempt to keep the Hemings name from being mentioned more than once (the only person other than Jefferson mentioned twice in the lede is Madison), I reversed the last two sentences. -- Shearonink (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I realized that the various pronouns didn't agree (these-her seemed odd), and that there could be some possible confusion between "Jefferson" (meaning Thomas Jefferson) and "Jefferson male family line" (meaning the genetic relatedness of various men with a common last name), this latest compromise-version would now read:

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life, with his marriage having produced six children. Since at least 1802 it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. Thomas Jefferson's (It seems to me that this possessive either has to be the full proper name or the simple possessive pronoun of "his" for the reason mentioned above) paternity of these children remains controversial and continues to be debated among historians, with DNA tests performed in 1998 revealing a match between the last child and the Jefferson male family line.

And yes, I am as weary of this ongoing discussion of the lede as anyone else is but it is important to me that the various viewpoints about the verified information found in reliable sources be included and treated with respect. --Shearonink (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion:

Jefferson did not remarry after his wife of eleven years, Martha Jefferson, died in 1782 soon after giving birth to their sixth child. Modern Jeffersonian historians believe he may have fathered some or all of the six children of his house slave, Sally Hemings. Circumstantial and limited DNA evidence from tests performed in 1998 reveal a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line. The paternity of these children remains controversial and continues to be debated among historians. Yopienso (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

After reading all the "stuff":

The descendants of Sally Hemmings, one of Jefferson's slaves, believed they were his descendants as well. DNA tests show a likelihood of descent from a male Jefferson, though whether Thomas Jefferson was the father of Hemming's children is debated among historians.

Does this pretty much conform to what is known? I find the 1802 date to be fairly useless, as either Jefferson is or is not shown to be the father, and the date of frst rumour is of no value. Collect (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestions, but rather than reading this "stuff", you would be better off reading the more detailed content at Jefferson-Hemings controversy, which has fuller content from a variety of sources on the issues. Shearonink's drafts better capture the state of current representation of historians about Jefferson and Hemings. Your suggestion is too far to the side that it's just some dream of Hemings' (her and her family's spelling) descendants that they are related to Jefferson. Current major biographers of Jefferson, including Joseph Ellis, Andrew Burstein, and R. B. Bernstein, and others writing about the period, including Edmund S. Morgan, Gordon S. Wood, the National Genealogical Society and Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello) believe that a variety of historical evidence and the DNA study together point to TJ as the most likely father among other candidates suggested, and the Carrs are disqualified for Eston Hemings. Other historians disagree and think other Jefferson males more likely, including several scholars associated with a commissioned report by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. You might also read the reviews in the NY Review of Books during the last decade about books dealing with Jefferson-Hemings, to see what is being written in the academic field and how it is being reviewed.Parkwells (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Um -- I have read a great deal about this. What belongs here is a short precis of the material, not anything more, and the debate about "most likely" is far more than is warranted in this particular article, which is precisely why there is so much on this talk page. Bringing it down to a reasonable precis is the best course as far as I can tell. Cheers - and try not to condescend so overtly in the future. Collect (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Any of the above recent versions work. If there are any 'questions' that may arise out of the lede they can be cleared up in the section. Lede should be a short simple summary without treating any one topic with much detail. Let's do this and move on to bettering the rest of the article which has been largely neglected because of this topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not writing any more summations of suggestions, Real Life is interfering for the next while. I am fine with the following version.

So, taking into account the most recent suggestions (I deleted "Since at least 1802"), how about:

After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life, with his marriage having produced six children. It has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. Thomas Jefferson's' paternity of these children remains controversial and continues to be debated among historians, with DNA tests performed in 1998 revealing a match between the last child and the Jefferson male family line. -- Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Shearonink for all of your help. Brad (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No need to mention TJ's full name twice in this statement. Suggest this:
After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth in 1782, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life, with his marriage having produced six children. Since 1802 it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line, while the likelihood of his paternity of these children still remains the subject of controversy and debate among many historians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It was my understanding Brad suggested "debate" as an alternative to "controversy" and its variations; surely, we don't need both. Let's leave it at ..."paternity of these children remains controversial among historians..." Thanks for all your work. Parkwells (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there can be different types of debate without controversy. Anyway, your phrase seems to work just as well so let's do this:
After Martha, his wife of eleven years, died in childbirth in 1782, Thomas Jefferson remained a widower for the rest of his life, with his marriage having produced six children. Since 1802 it has been alleged that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998 DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line, while the paternity of these children remains controversial among historians.
If you want to go ahead and put this last version in the lede there will be no further objections from me at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh........Martha didn't die "in childbirth". She died a few months after the last child was born. Controversy should be debate. ok? Try this:
After Martha Jefferson, his wife of eleven years died in 1782, Thomas remained a widower for the rest of his life; his marriage produced six children. In 1802 allegations surfaced that he was also the father of his house slave Sally Hemings' children. In 1998, DNA tests revealed a match between her last child and the Jefferson male family line. The paternity of these children remains a matter of debate among historians. Attempt #23405. Brad (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok,Ok, 'debate' it is. I'm going to include this last version in the lede, shortly. -- Btw, '...allegations surfaced...' reads much better. Will also mention Monticello, as it's not even mentioned once in the current lede. How did we miss that for so long also? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again.. Why did you add all girls, with only two surviving to adulthood ? That isn't a version I would have agreed to. While the info is true and uncontested it really has no purpose in a lead section. All of the details associated with TJ's marriage are in the article body. If we're going through all of this discussion about agreeing to a lead section then that lead should not be altered after the agreement. This is what started the last blowout here. Brad (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement over neutral language, clarity and a whole mess of reverts is what caused the last 'blowout'. I was just trying to add some context to other items. TJ paternity/Hemings remains the one topic with the most context and commentary in the lede while most of the other topics are almost in list form, one topic after another, with no context to speak of. However you have a point about what we agreed on. If you feel adding brief context about TJ's children is an issue of some sort then go ahead and remove it. I will not contest it. I also added mention of Monticello in the lede. Hope that's not going to be an issue also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok but the lengthy conversation going on over the past month was about the Hemings mention in the lead which seems to be solved now. Any further editing to that Hemings entry should be discussed prior to making changes. This would be the best way to ensure that agenda doesn't sneak back into the article. Besides, The sex of the children of Martha and Sally aren't relevant for the lead. Brad (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mention that all TJ's children were girls was with the idea that there were no sons to pass on DNA Y-chrom', but looking at the lede again it doesn't quite carry that way, so I will remove 'all girls'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

TJ's children were not "all girls" either. He had one son that died. Brad (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy section

As additional content has been added re: Callender, the 1805 letter, and details from the TJHS Scholars Commission report (giving numbers of Jefferson males and speculation about Randolph Jefferson), I have added some content to represent other scholars' findings: specifically, that Jefferson was at Monticello each time Hemings conceived; and two cites for a criticism of the TJHS conclusions: that Randolph Jefferson and other alternatives were not proposed until after the DNA match was made. It is all still quite short.Parkwells (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 'after' the DNA tests were in all the eligible candidates to paternity were naturally taken into consideration, including Randolph and his five sons. Are you trying to suggest some sort of wrong doing here? Why wouldn't they be introduced as candidates? They all lived near by and were mostly around when Jefferson was at home. 'Eston Hemings family oral tradition' has always claimed that TJ was not Eston’s father. Btw this is some of the "historical evidence" that AG' Reed chose to keep out of her book and the TJF committee ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm noting that people did not work very hard to come up with alternatives to Jefferson in earlier years, when there might have been more contemporary material - because they relied on family testimony about the Carrs (who were already conveniently dead by the time they were named). It is not necessarily common practice to search widely for alternatives, and ignore the body of evidence which the DNA affirmed. As noted earlier in this article and in the main controversy article, scholars of the National Genealogical Society strongly criticized the TJHS report for its failure to follow accepted historical practice. There was less historical evidence suggesting other Jeffersons than TJ.Parkwells (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, in regard to your assertion above, the TJHS is mistaken in its continuing contention that there was a longstanding oral tradition among Eston Hemings descendants about a Jefferson uncle. It was only one 20th-century generation of Jefferson brothers in one line who decided in the 1940s to tell their children the "uncle" story, as they were trying to protect them from racial discrimination of the time. This was documented in 1976 after the grown children read Fawn Brodie's biography and recognized the name of Eston Hemings Jefferson. They then discovered the change in family story, as Brodie wrote about in American Heritage in 1976, and one of that family, Julie Jefferson Westerinen, has recounted in recent years. The TJHS scholars were sloppy in their account of this issue. Julie Jefferson Westerinen's brother was the Eston Hemings Jefferson tested, as the NY Times article notes.Parkwells (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

People didn't "work very hard to come up with alternatives" for Hemings' children because there wasn't any basis to do so. i.e.no real evidence. Today the only "body of evidence" confirmed by DNA evidence is -- 'DNA evidence'. Other than pointing to numerous Jefferson relatives it did not establish ANYTHING else. Using hearsay "oral history" that is hundreds of years old in the first place is sloppy scholarship, just found it amusing that TJF is cherry picking that evidence also by trying to discredit anything that doesn't support the myopic view. i.e.six children. Also, how have they established that Eston's oral history was changed in 1940? Since it is "oral history", not written, how has anyone determined it didn't extend further back before 1940? Also, I'm not very impressed that 'scholars' at National Geographic 'criticized' the TJHS. What scholars? Are they prominent professors and/or historians, or are they simply a well selected young group of enthusiastic college grads with a new attitude, using the NG as a Trojan horse? For the controversy section we need to use publications by an established 'author', preferably a professor of history, as a RS. Don't see any of them making the 'most historians' claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read my cite above or look at the published article by Fawn Brodie in American Heritage? I explicitly wrote who and where. It is the current generation of Eston Hemings Jefferson descendants, born in the 1940s, who first heard the story about the Jefferson uncle (and one of them had his DNA tested). And if you want to disregard what a generation of white Jefferson descendants say about their fathers and uncles, go ahead. But then you cannot believe the oral history of family testimony by Martha Jefferson Randolph or the Randolph children, either, or anything anyone writes. I cited the article in which this issue was documented. Parkwells (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, you keep referring to unhappiness with National Geographic magazine. I don't know why you refer to that. The National Genealogical Society Quarterly had published articles in a special issue in 2001, which have been cited repeatedly here, criticizing the TJHS report. They are experienced historians and certified genealogists. Other critical reviews were made in the William and Mary Quarterly, a RS and respected journal of southern history.Parkwells (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings-Walker

I'm not purposely trying to make others tear their hair out but this may be too important to ignore. The Hemings scandal was very wrapped up with the accusations that Callender made about Mrs. Walker. The concentration put on the 1805 letter to Robert Smith these days is about Hemings of course. I don't think we can mention Hemings denial in 1805 without explaining the Walker accusations that TJ admitted to in the same letter. After all we're citing this letter about Hemings so it would be sensible to bring Walker into the picture. Walker needs to be brought up anyway as the situation was leading to a challenge to duel. It's important to bring up that a sitting president was about to be challenged. Brad (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as controversial to mention it. It's part of the story. And it gives context in that he could have denied a flirtation with Mrs. Walker but didn't.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Other lede issues

There is still quite a bit of 'coverage' for slavery in the lede: Here is the current passage in question:

Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime. Like many of his contemporaries, he viewed Africans as being racially inferior. His views on slavery were complex, and changed over the course of his life. He was a leading American opponent of the international slave trade, and presided over its abolition in 1807.

This is what I would suggest:

Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime. His views on slavery were complex, and changed over the course of his life. He was a leading American opponent of the international slave trade, and presided over its abolition in 1807.

No need to mention 'racially inferior' as cultural and racial differences were the predominating factors in those days. Also, did TJ ever actually refer to Africans as "inferior" or is this assumed because he noted that Africans were not advanced in architecture, science, math, etc.? In any case slavery has the most context in the lede so it seems details like this are better off covered in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Or further condensing to the gist (i.e. not stating the blatantly obvious)

While Jefferson was a substantial slaveholder, his views on the subject were complex, and changed during his lifetime. He opposed the international slave trade, and signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves on March 2, 1807.

OK? Collect (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine -- but we don't need to use the full date in the lede, 1807 by itself works fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson wrote at length about slavery and blacks, more than did other Founding Fathers, and yes, he was explicit in his views about them.Parkwells (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Was the reason he wrote about slavery and blacks more often because he was more conscientious about this advent -- or was it simply because he liked to carry on about the "inferiority" of blacks? Seems western society overall, along with some others, shared the view that most sub-Sahara Africans came from a culture that remained virtually unchanged for thousands of years with no advances in architecture, science and lifestyle changes to speak of. You seem to be suggesting that Jefferson was exceptional in these views. If Jefferson wrote about blacks more often it would seem he had many views and feelings about these people, even if he thought his race was more advanced, or 'superior' if you prefer. Could you please be a bit more careful with the language and perhaps add some more clarity that better describes Jefferson's views? We could start by saying he believed Africans to be human beings. Currently there is very little semblance of this perspective in any of the text in that section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section

This section is once again getting a little lengthy. What concerns me more at the moment is that while the section talks about DNA evidence that disproved the 'Carr' theory it doesn't mention that Foster's tests also disproved Callender's 1802 accusations that Jefferson was the father of Thomas Woodson, presumably fathered by TJ when he and Hemings, then 15(+ -) years old, were in France. The TJF covers this topic but doesn't get around to mentioning DNA tests disproving the Callender lie until near the end of their article. The topic of Woodson was brought up before here, once in 2006 and again in 2011 but for some reason has never been mentioned, in this capacity, or at all, in the section before. While some people have done political cartwheels over the idea that the Carr theory was disproved they don't seem to share the same sort of enthusiasm for the Woodson theory/allegations being so discredited. In the effort to connect Woodson to Monticello (there are no written records of him in the farm log, the list of slaves, etc) the TJF article refers to the Woodson 'oral history' as "The strongest evidence". Remember, these are the same folks who accused the TJHS for "poor scholarship". In any case, if mention is made that DNA evidence disproved the Carr theory then the section should mention that it disproved Callander's accusation as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, it seems you could have simply said the Callander/Woodson theory was also disproved by DNA tests without going into all the details about 'European ancestry', etc. Again, the section is now about a page and a half long. You could have mentioned Woodson by simply adding this phrase (in bold) to the existing sentence:

A new consensus began to emerge after the results of a Y-DNA study in 1998 of descendants of the Jefferson male line, Eston Hemings, and the Carr male line. It showed no match between the Carr male line and the Eston Hemings descendant tested, eliminating possible Carr paternity of Eston while at the same time it disproved Callender's 1802 allegations that Thomas Woodson was also Jefferson's son.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Callender simply said that Hemings had a son named Thomas. He did not identify him as Thomas Woodson, so the Callender reference is not useful for this section, and the Woodson claim had not been important to historians. I've made changes within the article trying to simplify the section on the DNA findings and identifying why the Woodson family was tested. No one was trying to connect him to Monticello but his own family. The TJF noted the historic evidence - age at census - did not place his birth at the right time to be one of Hemings' children, but addressed the claim as it was a persistent rumor. Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're awfully critical for one who is always telling others what to add or not. Don't complain about the section getting too long; you identified all sorts of issues associated with Woodson - how is anyone to guess what you really had in mind? You could have written it first and let other editors criticize you. The language you have proposed is cumbersome. If it really is to be shorter (and other editors may disagree, since Woodson European ancestry is significant to this discussion), I recommend the following:

"A new consensus began to emerge after the results of a Y-DNA study in 1998 of descendants of the Jefferson male line, Eston Hemings, and the Carr male line. It showed no match between the Carr male line and the Eston Hemings descendant tested, eliminating possible Carr paternity of Eston." Next should be the portion referring to the match between the Hemings descendant and Jefferson male line. Last, "The study showed no match between Thomas Woodson descendants and the Jefferson male line." The link to Callender should not be repeated here, as the Woodson family were the ones to keep the story alive. Parkwells (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In the same fashion the section starts off you make an overall and erroneous statement, accusation, about me. I do not tell editors what to do. I make suggestions and discuss topics -- and I have made numerous concessions on this page alone, thank you. Don't see how my suggestion is "cumbersome". It's simple and direct and follows with the related topic, i.e what DNA evidenced proved and disproved. We also need more clarity in the language, here and elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Have simplified it in the body: please look there. I think it is easier to follow by saying 1) the tests disproved the Jefferson family claim that the Carrs were the father(s) (which had been adopted by historians); and 2) the tests showed a match between the Jefferson male line and the Hemings descendant, as this has been the major area of interest to historians. 3) Last, the test disproved the Woodson family tradition of descent from Jefferson (which has not been supported by historians). Callender did not name Thomas Woodson but only a son named Thomas, and his account was generally not adopted by historians. I think it's reasonable to complete the results of Woodson descendants by saying they were shown to have European paternal ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. No. I am not a WP:DIVA. I find the lead section lacking integrity. The section is biased and really downplays Jefferson's association with Sally Hemings. The article reads like a neo Confederate conservate blog. Enough said. The article lead ignores current evaluation of Jefferson and Hemings and modern research. No one knows if Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings, however, I challenge the editors to use acedemic sourcing concerning Jefferson and Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

'Reads like'? Nonsense. Slavery and Hemings have more context and commentary than most, if not all, the other topics in the lede. I went along with mentioning DNA evidence in the lede but even details like that IMO do not belong there. Yet you still want more details and context?? You had a chance to leave input before the statement was added but chose to bow out because you couldn't stand a little heat. Now you're back with the same approach all over again. i.e.never satisfied. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Derogatory/misleading language

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Some of the language needs to be cleaned up. -- e.g. In the 'Slavery' section it starts off with this statement: Jefferson lived in a slave society;. Talk about a broad-brush. Many of Jefferson's contemporaries and most of society in general did not own slaves, and many (most?) disapproved of the institution, as did Jefferson, regardless of his "failure" to free his slaves before he died. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, it is not "broad brush," derogatory or misleading language, but the recognized historians' term (I think from major studies of slavery in the US, such as Peter Kolchin or Ira Berlin) to differentiate between "societies with slaves" (such as northern states with a smaller proportion of workers enslaved) and "slave societies", which had economies highly dependent on the institution and in which most African laborers were enslaved. It is a commonly used term by historians of the US South. It refers to how the society is structured, not whether slaveholding was widespread or whether people held slaves and still disapproved of it. Virginia's economy depended on slavery; that's why it was called a slave society. The term also marked the historical changes by which the southern colonies made slavery a racial caste and hardened the lines of bondage, including in 1662 determining that all children born to slave mothers were slaves, regardless of who their fathers were, in opposition to English common law. Parkwells (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

'Slave society' is indeed broad-brushed as it refers to all of society. The term is a gross distortion and suggests that 'society' revolved around slavery. Again, most people, north and south, did not own slaves and to define millions of people in such a manner is misleading to the readers, to say the least. The statement should read (+ -) : Jefferson lived during a time when slavery was used on plantations and in other areas of labor. It seems this statement can be sourced just as well as the existing statement can, if not easier. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Slave society" or "society with slaves"... Please see Online course/Columbia, Summary of Berlin's "Many Thousands Gone", a column from "The Atlantic" and a full summary and consideration of Berlin's book (written by a lawyer). If Virginia was not a 'slave society', then what was it? And since slavery was legal in much of the colonies and the resulting United States, then I am not sure what one would call a country where slavery was legal at the beginning almost everywhere in that country and where after nationhood the flow of commerce between regions relied on uncompensated labor in a large part of that country. Besides, what matters is what reliable sources state that the United States was and what Virginia was... a "slave society" or a "society with slaves"...for almost the entire time that Jefferson lived in the United States (either pre-war or post-war), he lived in Virginia or in the District of Columbia, areas where slavery was legal, areas where there were large numbers of people being held as slaves, and areas where the economy was dependent on the uncompensated labor that slaves provided. It seems to me that reliable sources should be consulted for this word-choice.Shearonink (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is understood that slavery was legal, this legality by itself doesn't define a society. Declaring war is also legal i.e.Constitutional. Does this mean we can refer to society as a "warlike society"? Both terms are entirely misrepresentative and almost read like statements of hostility. It would seem there are other ways to introduce the topic without trying to slur a nation that was largely against slavery and ultimately brought an end to it. I've seen write ups like this before. The writer tries to anger the reader from the start, making it easier to continue with the same sort of thing throughout the script. IMO this is what has occurred here. Seems we're going to need more than one RS to float this one if we're going to allow this sort of view. The sources you offered outline the stages of slavery but still fail to associate the idea in terms of defining the greater population who did not own slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point is...how can the institution of slavery be separated from the country that legally allows it, how can one separate Jefferson from his legal status as a slave owner? But it doesn't matter what any of our personal thoughts might be on this subject, Wikipedia is only able to rely on what is published in reliable sources, so what do they have to say about it? Shearonink (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Most people morally opposed slavery and "allowed it" only because they were in no position to abolish it until later on in history. Referring to them as a "slave society" is no different than referring to France as a "war monger society" because of people like Napoleon. Same fantastic stretch that ignores many other considerations. If anything is going to be used to describe American 'society' during this period it would be things like ranching, farming, commerce, free enterprise, Independence/Democracy and religion. A way of life and belief structures are what defines any society. In fact the section should start off by saying -- Jefferson lived in a democratic society that was largely opposed to slavery. -- as almost all Christians and others then indeed were. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(Add Indent) What period are you talking about? "Almost all Christians," certainly those in the South, were not opposed to slavery. Christianity was bent to slaveholders purposes, so that the Methodists and Baptists, who in the eighteenth century proposed abolition and manumission, by the nineteenth century were using Christianity to support slavery.Parkwells (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that state that this is so... But how about just deleting the "Jefferson lived in a slave society"(or whatever) and go to the next phrase/sentence, changing "he" to Thomas Jefferson")... Thomas Jefferson owned plantations totaling thousands of acres and hundreds of slaves during his lifetime. Works for me...sourced and verifiable. --Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll just use a cite from Ira Berlin for it, as he developed the idea, based on studies of ancient slave societies. He traced the changes in slavery in America over two centuries. This term has been used commonly by historians to describe Virginia and other southern colonies/states that depended on slavery. That is what it means; it is not about editors' opinions of the societies, or what other characteristics they might have had. Parkwells (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic is TJ and slavery, because it was such a big part of his life, and of the southern planter elite, all of whom depended on slavery. That's what this is about - not the rest of the US or what their ideals were. It's about the reality of the society and its economics.Parkwells (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago I chose to leave this constant bickering; this may be my second brief return. Of course Jefferson lived in a slave society! It should not be necessary to even cite that in the article, but if contention on this page so decrees, cite it and move on. Yopienso (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Why are we not referring to them as a 'Christian society'? There must be dozens of sources that refer to society then in similar terms. Again, 'Slave society' is a gross distortion, regardless of what few RS's chose to use this obtuse phrase. I'm confident we can find other references to American society in this time period. Defining the overall population with such terminology is very misleading, as most of the people in Virginia, and elsewhere, had nothing to do with slavery. They had lives and livelihoods of their own. Is there a source that explicitly uses this term? Do we have to go through other RS's to see how they refer to colonial and early American society? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Cites have been added; let's move on. The topic is TJ and slavery in Virginia and the South, not general US society. The source is a leading US historian on slavery. Jefferson was one of the largest slaveholders and landowners in Virginia, where 1) slaveholders held political control, and 2) labor production and the economy were dependent on slavery. These are characteristics of a "slave society" as described by Berlin. This portion of the article is not about Christianity, although by the early nineteenth century, its ideals also got subverted to the purposes of upholding slavery. The phrase is not "obtuse"; it is fundamental to major histories of the South and slavery of the last 14 years or more. The sources were noted above and are cited in the article. If you read the sources, you will understand what the discussion is about. This is not a forum for arguing with Ira Berlin's work.Parkwells (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, more accurately Jefferson's society in terms of faith was a combination of Protestant and Deist beliefs who accepted Old Testament standards concerning slavery. The Masonic movement had infiltrated the Churches in both Europe and America during Jefferson's times. Jefferson took out the miracles of Christ in his Bible and in that sense, Jefferson was actually outside the mainstream during his time in terms of accepted faith. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the number of slaves out numbered whites. There were millions of slaves during Jefferson's times. That is a slave society. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, here is the Southern pecking order: Great Planters; Small Farmers; Landless Whites, and Black Slaves. True most white males were small farmers who owned one or two slaves. Yet the society completely accepted slavery and was extremely hostile to any slave owner who freed their slaves. Jefferson belonged to the Great Planters group. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone further interested in the numbers of the slave/white/free non-white populations of the United States refer to this link at the Economic History Association's website or to published statistics about the US Census during the timeframe under consideration.

But I'm with Parkwells on this...cites from reliable sources have been added, let's all move on please. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This source states slaves outnubmered whites 2 to 1 in South Carolina and Georgia low coutries. American Colonies] Taylor (2001) p. 335. In certain areas of the South slaves out numbered whites. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I apoligize if there were any misunderstandings for the "millions of slaves" statement. More accurately, there were over a million slaves in the U.S. during Jefferson's times. That was my whole point. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Cm' the source you referred to says that On the sugar islands, slaves outnumbered whites by more than three to one. In Jefferson's time there were between 3 and 5 million people settled in the colonies -- and most whites did not own slaves. Where are you getting these notions? Slaves were expensive in terms of an average farmer's budget, or in any terms. What's more you had to provide shelter, food, clothing, etc. Many farmers had all they could do to cloth and feed their own families and try to get ahead. Most farmers/ranchers/shop keepers didn't have enough land or business to warrant getting a slave(s) in the first place. -- In any event we are talking about a 'society' and referring to the whole ball of wax as a "slave society" is a gross misrepresentation. This is how Webster's New World Dictionary (1992) defines 'Society': 1. A group of persons regarded as forming a single community, esp. as forming a distinct social or economic class; 2. The system or condition of living together as a community in such a group an agrarian society. (emphasis mine) There were several 'economic classes' and as such there was no 'single community'. Also, by 1850 the US population was 23 million. -- Parkwells, Ira Berlin makes clear distinctions 1 about slave societies and where they were located. He does not refer to all of America as a "slave society". Ira Berlin : The stench from slavery's moral rot cannot mask the design of American captivity:the extraction of labor that allowed a small group of men to dominate all. The present wording in the section is not at all clear and anyone with half a brain is going to wonder what exactly is being said. Would you please add clarity and see what you can do to make your point without inferring that the entire population was involved with slavery? You can say Jefferson was part of a 'slave society' but kindly differentiate from the 'general population'. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Gw', if you look two paragraphs down on that page Cm' links to (which is on my screen without scrolling), you'll find the statement, "the low-country slaves outnumbered whites by more than two to one," which is what Cm' was saying.

You are correct the Cm' overstated the slave population and the portion of the white population that owned slaves. Still, the "whole ball of wax" was distinctly a "slave society" in that slavery was socially accepted by most whites regardless of whether or not they owned slaves, and necessary to the economy.

Did you read the links above that demonstrate Jefferson lived in a slave society? I would like to see this discussion terminated. The article as it stands on this point is fine. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit break5

It's understood that various locations at one period of time had larger numbers of slaves, and I have no problem with making such distinctions, as does Ira Berlin. In fact Berlin makes several distinctions in his TOC and even refers to the institution of slavery as a a small group of men. Again, a society is a class of people. The term "slave society" used in its present context doesn't acknowledge the millions of people who were adamantly opposed to slavery on religious and social grounds, so many of them that by the time the 1850's rolled around sentiments of civil war were already being cultivated largely over this issue. By and large slavery was an institution of a separate class, the rich or very well to do, along with being a financial enterprise that largely involved various entities that existed in Europe and Africa. i.e.Bankers, slave-traders and the tribal chiefs who hunted down and captured other Africans and sold them to these people. That is your slave society. Many crimes are also tolerated in America. That doesn't make it a 'criminal society'. IMO the current phrase in its present context is just as erroneous and needs the same clarity and context Berlin uses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the links above that demonstrate Jefferson lived in a slave society? Yopienso (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already cited the term and will add that Virginia (and other southern states) were a "slave society" and add the definition in a note: 1) slaveholders held political control, and 2) labor production and the economy were dependent on slavery. These are characteristics of a "slave society" as described by Berlin, and they persisted through the Civil War. The discussion is about TJ and slavery of his time, not every other characteristic of America.Parkwells (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are still making reference to a greater society, not the small group of men Berlin qualifies his term with. The term 'slave society' can lead the reader into thinking that the entire south sat around and had slaves do all of their work, and this was (very) far from the case. We still need to distinguish 'society' from the few men Berlin refers to. For now we can say that their economy 'depended' on slavery but as I remember this is disputed as the common workers saw little benefit, and the institution only deprived them of work, farming, they could be doing if slaves were not being used, and because great quantities of the goods produced from slavery, cotton, tobacco, sugar, were shipped out of the country, and to the same investors who largely financed the slave trade to begin with. IMO the current wording is still highly objective and will only leave any inquisitive reader wondering. These are the lede sentences to the section so it's best to consult several sources when broad claims like this are asserted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, please answer the question I put in large print for you. Please read the note I left at your talk page. Please consult the sources I linked to there. Please stop this argument. Yopienso (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, let's assume there were no slaves in the United States, briefly for arguement sake, even though there were a million slaves by 1810. Let's just take slavery from Thomas Jefferson's point of view. His father owned slaves. His wife's father owned slaves. Jefferson himself owned hundreds of slaves. Approximately 135 slaves of Jefferson's were sold at Monticello a few years after Jefferson died. Jefferson used slave children to make nails. Jefferson divided his slaves into those who would work in the field, and those who would go onto skilled labor. Jefferson was a meticulous slave owner. Jefferson brought slaves to the White House. His family relied on slavery for survival. Monticello was a slave plantation and Jefferson was a slave master. Jefferson's own micro world was full of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The orginal U.S. Constitution is testament that the U.S. was a slave society. In the orginal Constitution slaves were counted as 3/4ths of people. This meant that Southerners had a signifigant advantage over the North in gaining votes in the House of Representatives. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

3/5ths. Yopienso (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the '3/5's language was finally removed from the Constitution runs contrary to that notion. Before ratification Delegates from the north opposed its inclusion originally. I can't argue that some of the sources use the term 'slave society' and as such we can also. But as I said the term is objective and not at all accurate IMO. Seems 'slave economy' is the better term as the greater population didn't own slaves. They were a different class of people, not the 'small group of men' Berlin qualifies his account with. Cm' the issue was 'society'. Thanks for the TJ summary anyway. Yopienso, thanks for at least changing the lede sentence to distinguish the south from the rest of the country. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed it. Again, "slave society" was descriptive of the South at the time, which is what I was writing about. That's what we are talking about. The fact that later the country adopted an amendment to change the 3/5 compromise is not the point, when the topic is TJ and slavery - meaning, his times, his actions, and his thoughts.Parkwells (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Parkwells. It would be nice if we can get something brief in the language that makes clear to the reader that the general population didn't own slaves and were largely opposed to the idea. Presently the lede sentences to the section can easily lead the reader into thinking that everyone own them. While sticking to policy we still want to give the readers a clear picture. Don't want to use policy to defend an incomplete and misleading picture. This is what I would suggest.

While the general population did not own slaves Virginia and the South constituted a "slave society" as slavery was at "the center of economic production" and slaveholders were among the ruling class. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves to work plantations totaling more than ten thousand acres and relied on slavery to support his family's way of life.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop, Gwillhickers. Why have you refused to answer whether you have read the links we have supplied for you? This is not true: and were largely opposed to the idea.

". . .most [slaveholders] accepted the racial assumptions upon which slavery rested. Whether slaveholders or nonslaveholders, white southerners dreaded the likelihood that emancipation might encourage 'impudent' blacks to entertain ideas of social equality with whites." From a college textbook.

Parkwells, thank you for your participation. I wonder if "Jefferson lived in the South's slave society" might be better, since the whole point is to place Jefferson in context, without which he would seem to be an ogre and a hypocrite. Monticello.org has a series of pages that put his values into historical perspective. I posted this one on Gwhillicker's talk page. He must have ignored it or disbelieved it. Yopienso (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, I have read the links, including the TJF piece, whose blunt non-contextual language is almost echoed in the section, Both read like an indictment. Both continue to not qualify the statement 'slave society' as Berlin does. That's something you seem to be ignoring entirely. If Berlin can qualify the term so can we. And why shouldn't we? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am again repeating the point I made earlier in this discussion... How about if this section simply starts with something like "Thomas Jefferson owned plantations totaling thousands of acres and hundreds of slaves during his lifetime." Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Gw'. I can't quite follow your thoughts here; it sounds like you disbelieved the sources.

The purpose, Shearonink, is to contextualize TJ. What Gw' found to read "like an indictment," I, and I believe most readers, find to read as an exculpating contextualization. Seeing him in his time and place explains his apparent hypocrisy. Yopienso (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement has cites; it is not an indictment but an accurate description of the VA society in which TJ grew and lived. Let's move on. I have added a main page link to the History of Virginia. I am unwilling to remove a cited statement that describes the facts of TJ's society, as defined by one of the major US authorities on slavery of the last 15 years. This statement was in the paragraph for months before Gw decided to take exception to it. The TJ article is not the place to describe all of VA or US slavery. Parkwells (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Virginia was an agriculture society who enslaved Africans to work manual labor. Most whites had small farms owning possibly 1 to 2 black slaves. As far as I know there were no white slaves. Slavery was imbedded in Virginia laws before and after the Revolution. Virginia and the South were a slave society. The only law that changed was that slave owners were allowed to free their slaves by will or testament. Your welcome Gwillhickers on the Jefferson slave bio. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think most small farmers had 1-10 slaves. There was a definite break between them and those who had 20 or more, who in the Upper South were described as planters by historians.Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Add Indent: Studies give considerable data about slavery during various periods in the South. Per Kolchin's American Slavery, 1611-1877, in the early eighteenth century, more than half of Chesapeake slaveholders owned fewer than five slaves, but most slaves lived on farms with more than 10 slaves.(Kolchin, p. 32)Parkwells (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No doubt there were small farmers who owned one, two slaves. 'Most' farmers? Another topic. Parkwells, Thanks for adding some clarity to the section, again. Yopienso, this discussion, though contested, was productive and added some needed clarity to the section. It doesn't help matters when you act like some one has started a brush fire here. There have been worse debates on this page that still culminated into a positive result. Please don't manipulate the discussion in the future by sticking it under a 'hat' at your own single discretion. If there is a consensus to put the discussion under a hat, then fine, I'll go along. At any rate, I believe I am done wit this topic for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you're done with this topic for now, Parkwells said to move on, and I said to move on, please rehat the section with whatever title you prefer. We're done with this, the text is virtually the same as it was to begin with, and you still think we are misrepresenting Jefferson's society. What was produced? Yopienso (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, this is the way the lede to the section read before the edits and then after the last edit :

Before : Jefferson lived in a slave society; he owned plantations totaling thousands of acres and hundreds of slaves during his lifetime.

After : Jefferson lived in the "slave society" of Virginia and the South, where slavery was at "the center of economic production" and slaveholders comprised the ruling class.

The latter version is qualified with the phrase 'economic production', and the south, and at least hints at the fact that slaveholders were an elite upper/"ruling class" of people also. IMO it still could use a bit more clarity per the general population as I've read nothing that confirms that slavery was commonly practiced amongst these people. Somewhere in passing I once read that various church groups, North and South, were always he loudest voices against slavery. Where are all these common people in your estimation of the south? I will see what other info is out there and will present it if there are RS's that cover this aspect of the topic, clearly. If there is clear information on this from RS's it should factor into the statement. If this is something you don't want to discuss then please don't. And would you kindly leave the discussion text alone? No one is forcing you to read it or participate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're pleased with the expansion of text. Imo, that extra info should be in a footnote if included at all, because it all springs to mind with the words "Jefferson" and "slave society."

As time allows, I would enjoy discussing history with you on my talk page. Article talk pages are for specific improvements to the article, so I try, not always successfully, to be brief and on-track. If you'll go to the college textbook I linked to at 23:32, 19 March 2012, you will find an informative graph on p. 343. P. 366 has a fine summary, and pp. 340-50 (with a few gaps) deal with slavery in America. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Sounds fine Yopienso. Sorry if I sounded a little heavy handed there but the issues on this page just continue to emerge i.e.as soon as one resolution is resolved others take their place. Yes, I initiated the last thread, but there was definitely clarity lacking in that section previously, IMO anyway. At least now it acknowledges a small group of elite who were the slave owners overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

GWillhickers, you persist in misreading this statement and the intent of the section on TJ and slavery. First, it is about "TJ and slavery" - not a general article about slavery in the South or the US. Secondly, it notes that "slave society" is defined by major characteristics of labor and the ruling class, for which it has two cites by Berlin and Kolchin, major historians of slavery. Historians of the South have noted the change from the colonies being "societies with slaves" to becoming "slave societies" in the 18th century - the latter based on slave labor production as fundamental to the economy and the rise of the slaveholder ruling class. This is what is pertinent to TJ as he is an epitome of the slaveholder class. This is not a general article about Slavery in the United States. Go to that article for that. It is not about what various church groups had to say, and you are incorrect about the early nineteenth century as, in fact, the churches in the South quoted Scripture for a biblical basis for slavery, and told the slaves to be glad to stay in their places. They did not oppose slavery generally after the turn of the nineteenth century. This section is not about how the common people lived - except that, as Berlin notes, slavery underlay the entire social structure.Parkwells (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Insert : My comments were always directed at the lede statement in the section inasmuch as it didn't define 'slave society', so your recital that this is not the slavery page is uncalled for. Yes, the Bible mentions slavery, it also mentions punishment by stoning etc, etc, but now it seems you want to give the impression that the general population went to church while all the different priests and ministers across the country didn't oppose but rather preached slavery to the masses. Hogwash. There was much anti-slavery sentiment already in place, even before Jefferson attempted to include such sentiment in the DOI. Just be careful you don't try to paint the general population with the same sort broad-brush you wanted to use regarding "most historians". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The current lede does not use the term "slave society" in the South. Where were the 1,000,000 slaves located? Why is there such opposition to associate Jefferson and slave society in the South? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The "slave society" reference is in the section on "TJ and slavery", not the Lede.Parkwells (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede and Due

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I edited the lead here. diff This was reverted for unclear reasons. The current lede does not reflect the body of the article nor give due weight to what it says. See, WP:Lead and WP:Due. So, what is wrong with my edit? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is made against the consensus which was reached just days ago. Please read the discussion above and work to reach a new consensus before changing the lead. Celestra (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not explained how my two proposals now, second diff go against consensus. In fact, they don't as far as I can tell. The consensus was to avoid weasel words but my proposals don't contain weasel words.Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was around the wording to use for that portion of the lead. Celestra (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is that? I can't find a discussion of mos:lead and due weight, with respect to the current wording? I see a consensus for the matter being in the lede and the using the word "debate" and both my proposals retain that word in the lede. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a lengthy, contentious discussion to arrive at this specific, vanilla wording. Absurd, yes. Others may be willing to engage with you on the Lede to consider additions and changes, but editors may also be really tired of the subject. Parkwells (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if they are tired, but this being a wiki, things change. And I think the ususal approach is to accept the change as an improvement or discuss specific objection to the propsed wording (but you cannot revert and not discuss). My change being in line with what I can see in the prior discusion and better complying with mos:lead and due weight is an improvement, is it not?Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is full of undue weight on the subject of slavery and Hemings although things have improved. The debates on this article have been going on for over a year. I know you just walked in the door but you're going to have to take the context of conversation on this matter into consideration. If I and a couple of others don't keep an eye on the article it gets filled with statements like "Hemings led her children out of Egypt" and other such nonsense. Brad (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Add indent :::::::::A cited statement, by the way. And if you thought that was emotional, so was the section about Jefferson's wife. Parkwells (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Brad is correct. Like before if left unguarded the topics of Hemings and slavery will grow again to absurd proportions (as it's slowly starting to do all over again, btw.) Also, the page was blocked not to long ago because of this topic, just as it was once blocked before that, and over the same topic. We then tried to avoid this via discussion, and amazingly we got a more neutral statement in place for the lede. Changes involving new/same ol' ideas need to be discussed, first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read, as asked. MOS:Lead requires the lead to summarize the body of the article. The body of the article discusses conclusions, as well as debate based on the weight of scholarly opinion. The lead would therefore need conclusions too based on the weight of scholarly opinion. It currently does not have that. A lead to be "neutral" must actually reflect what the article says. The argument that this will lead to people making extraordinary claims about SH is (for lack of a better description) weak. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As you note, as it is Wikipedia, it will change - my hope is toward more of the current accepted scholarship. The article may have included "too much" on Hemings and slavery at one time, but that was after it included too little, including no acknowledgement in the Lede of what has been the major change in decades in Jeffersonian scholarship, namely, a wider acceptance by historians that TJ was the father (as represented in the current Smithsonian exhibit at the NMAH, as you noted.) In addition, scholars of the last 30 years have been interested in his views and actions on slavery, which is why that is an important topic in his life. So, welcome to WP and enjoy! Parkwells (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of those scholars disagree with Reed, TJF and company. Kindly make sure whatever ideas you have for the lede text are discussed first, and while you're at it, you might want to check archives to see if any particular issue hasn't already been addressed with a consensus following. To your concern about the article having "too little" on Hemings, when was that -- two, three years ago? What occurred during this time? 'Wikipedia changes' when it's for the better. Seems a reminder is in order not to push a pov by carefully selecting the sources, esp ones that exhibit blatant and open bias, and by not using broad brushed unclear terminology with the usual sweeping accolades to "the scholarship", which in reality is a wide and varied group of individuals. Terminology used for controversial issues should remain neutral. Since there are 100's of RS's for Jefferson, we must be careful not to use the same 'tag-team' set of sources by gaming policy into supporting any particular pov. Once again there are many topics in Jefferson's life, so we must be careful not to give any one topic additional commentary and details over the others, per lede and undue weight considerations. Thanks once again for your cooperation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not POV to attribute what is attributable to reliable sources, that's also the way Wikipedia usually deals with matters of "controversy." (eg. "The National Museum of American history suggests . . ."). There is no wide ranging RfC on the the issue in the history and no one can "lock down" an article (except Arbcom). But as a dispute continues, there is always, dispute resolution. But actually addressing the wording of my two proposals (and modifying them as warranted) would be helpful in moving forward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "attribute what is attributable to reliable sources". This has been addressed, repeatedly. Again, we must be careful not to continually cherry pick info from the same few sources, and if 'commentary' in the lede is called for it should reflect the widest possible view and not create undue weight issues. Keeping the language neutral helps greatly, esp where objective and controversial issues are concerned. Again, this has been addressed and covered numerous times. This topic/page has a long history of undue weight, lack of clarity and highly opinionated and unsubstantiated claims. Edit warring over the topic is what has twice caused the "lockdown", nothing else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's odd that you would call, the "National Museum of American History says ..." cherry picking, it's not, that just happens to be what they say, which we detail in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that this web-page article is sponsored by 'African American History and Culture Museum' (NMAAHC) in conjunction with (who else?) the TJF. While I have nothing against getting the important story of slavery into the picture I still have reservations about the social and political motivations, using figures like Jefferson to give weight to their stories, 'oral history', etc, and the inherent bias some of these sources have revealed, not to mention any racist motivations. I also see the reference is used to slip the idea of "most historians" back into the picture, without qualifying it -- all the while the source referred to doesn't mention anything about historians. The article also has no writer/historian signature and provides no foot notes. Therefore this web-page article can be challenged as a reliable source. A better source is needed. The TJF and the NMAAHC are directly connected (i.e."presented in partnership") and are a tag-team source and using them both to source one idea or theory is redundant. Meanwhile providing no additional/alternative view and source amounts to cherry picking. As usual. Meanwhile, this source mentions nothing about Hemings or "most historians". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What? A better source than the Smithsonian? And no, neither of my proposals use "most historians." Are you sure you don't have an POV pushing agenda? Because that's what it sounds like. When you mis-state the proposal and say on your own authority that the Smithsonian is not good enough for you. Should we go to the RS and NPOV notice boards about this?Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(3 edit conflicts later)Some of my thoughts about statements from the TJF were discussed in a thread above here. I really wish you would familiarize yourself with previous conversation on this topic. The TJF was the source of that "Hemings led her children out of Egypt" quote which is completely biased and unsubstantiated. I'm concerned about the integrity of the persons who are writing these web pages which so many are quick to jump on as sources to support agenda. I prefer to see material cited by established independent historians. Brad (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the TJF quote about Hemings leading her children out of Egypt; it was the way in which former slave families discussed gaining freedom, which was documented in the article, which was cited. In addition, trying to disqualify the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution's webpages is probably a good reason to go to the RS notice board. We should have done it before, and saved a lot of time on this Talk page by individual editors trying to disqualify sources "they just don't like." That is not sufficient reason under WP policy to discount them. The way you treat controversy is to add your own cited sources on the issue. Historians working for the TJF have been cited in this article, and they have published works separately, which have also been cited. GW tried to disqualify Peter S. Onuf, a UVA professor, because he didn't like something he had heard or read about the man, but did not take the issue to the RS noticeboard.Parkwells (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

questionable sources

"RS and NPOV notice boards"? Not a bad idea. First (ASW) you might want to review what a RS is: 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) RS's are published works by identifiable writers who can 'source' their own information. The only 'sources' I see mentioned in the reference is "oral history" and "artifacts" both of which do nothing of providing reliable evidence for the theory of Jefferson's paternity -- all the while the article's writer(s) remains unknown. Also, you seem to have skipped right over the idea that the source in question here says nothing about Hemings or "most historians". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Indent::: Here is the page from the exhibit:[4]:

"The test results show a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants: A man with the Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808). While there were other adult males with the Jefferson Y chromosome living in Virginia at that time, most historians now believe that the documentary and genetic evidence, considered together, strongly support the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children."

Parkwells (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(more edit conflicts) OMG! From the SI webpage you link to: Ceramic tableware and wine bottles from Shadwell, the tobacco plantation of Jefferson’s parents, later named Monticello by Jefferson This passage cannot be more WRONG!! Shadwell and Monticello were two completely different plantations Please burn that page as a source and flush the remains. Yeah, the SI is reliable!! Totally disgusting. Brad (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Institutions such as the Smithsonian, PBS and TJF publish some material without bylines. This is not a reason to disqualify their material. The following material was accepted by Brad, Dark One Lives, and Gwillhickers when cited to a portion of the PBS website on Jefferson's Blood that did not have a byline: "Jefferson made no public comment at the time but, according to the PBS Frontline program, Jefferson's Blood, most historians interpret his 1805 cover letter to Robert Smith (Secretary of the Navy) as a denial alluding to a more full reply, which has been lost." But, you try to argue that an overview statement on the same PBS site about the historic "consensus" and "dissenting opinions" was not valid.Parkwells (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And no one named Brad or Gwillikers or Parkwells or Alanscottwalker get to burn reliable sources. We don't burn books. No matter what they think. Brad, what makes you think I didn't read that, your analysis is just not generally credible. Just because a Wikipedia editor does not like the conclusion doesn't mean you get to make up your own. And Gwilikers, I say nothing about "most historians" either, so what are you talking about? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is simple and easy. The TJF and the Smithsonian are both highly RS. That does not mean they are infallible. Somewhere in the policies is outlined the obvious fact that a RS can make a mistake. We throw out (or burn or flush) the mistake and keep the source. I've sent a note to the Smithsonian about the Shadwell/Monticello mistake. We should continue to use anything else from them except other mistakes we may find.

Earlier, we ruled out the TJ Heritage Society as a RS because it is avowedly biased.

There's no reason for anyone to get excited about any of this. It doesn't help. Yopienso (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the TJHS is cited in the J-H controversy section, in the main article on the J-H controversy, and in other related articles on this topic. It is a major voice of the opposition to conclusions on TJ's paternity and was never ruled out. Its work has been criticized by other scholars, just as there have been critics of the TJF report, or other supporters of those conclusions, but that does not mean it was disqualified as a RS.Parkwells (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not the TJHS per se (it is an advocacy group), but their "Scholars Commission Report," would be arguable RS (of lesser value), because of its claimed independence from the TJHS (although TJHS is the funder/publisher). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the Scholars Commission Report, which is what has always been cited as a source.Parkwells (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just what RS conclude, so that's what we report. Nothing to get excited about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Insert : If we can "rule out" the TJHS for bias then we certainly can do so for the TJS. I'm fine with eliminating either and that we stick with the best RS's available for Jefferson. There are many and there's no need to resort to these web page articles written by some unknown writer who is using the TJS or the Smithsonian as their sock puppet. Again WP:Reliable sources clearly defines what is a RS. We need a writer with a name please. When it comes to POV claims, theory, etc we still need to have more than some one from a museum or private org's 'say so'. Parkwells we allowed these sources for some comments, but again, when it comes to pov issues, theory, general/sweeping claims, etc they are less than adequate for reasons we are discussing all over again. Again, we need writers with names who measure up to the recognized sources with names. And I disagree that these institutions are "recognized academic sources". Seems to me the serious scholar would used recognized historians, with names, not some private org that uses e.g."oral history" as 'historical evidence'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You disagree with the RS? We have the sources, we know they are RS because we know these institutions are accepted RS. Wikipedia, however, does not report editor's conclusions because your critique is not found in RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

According to WP the article in question doesn't amount to a RS because it lacks a writer's name, one who can measure up to Ellis, Malone, Reed, Crawford and others. WP:Reliable sources says nothing about an 'Institution' being a RS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells I've no idea what that PBS source has to do with this conversation. All I remember is that it was called "fringe" by Cmguy when the "denial letter" needed citations, but you consider it reliable to cite "most historians". That is agenda hypocrisy at its best. As for the SI page I saw, there is no excuse in the world for something like that to appear on a website of a renowned institution like the Smithsonian. Likely their webpages are being written by assistants or interns and nobody is fact checking them before publication. Considering how long that page has been there, are we to assume that no one else has noticed the mistake and reported it? Even a second grader would see that error. Brad (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Brad, cool it. I was pointing out that Dark One Lives wanted the PBS cite used for "most historians" on the denial letter, not about the consensus. It was cited with Gwillhickers and your approval for the denial letter. I had no part of Cmguy calling it fringe and agreed that the Frontline program was RS. You two and Dark One Lives approved that use of that source for "most historians" on that issue, so it can be also used as a source reporting on the consensus and dissenting opinions among historians re: the controversy.Parkwells (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No ones used or proposed using it for anything about Shadwell, so that also has "nothing to do with this." As for the rest of the critique of the methods of the Smithsonian, that analysis is also not based on RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This, from Archive 16, is what I was referring to as "ruling out". I see I overstated my case. In my mind, the TJHS is not a RS.

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)

RS noticeboard

Let's take the Smithsonian exhibit and TJF websites to the RS noticeboard instead of continuing this discussion. This is non-productive.Parkwells (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you are expecting them to re-write RS policy because of this one section. Whatever they decide the section still needs to be summarized, as we once agreed, and the lengthy non-biographical commentary removed as there is a consensus, new and old, to do just that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and slavery articles

Here are some academic articles concerning Thomas Jefferon and slavery:

• How could Jefferson live with himself? Ron Givens (February 2012), American History, p. 6, Volume 46, Issue 6. Viewed 03-22-2012.
• Jefferson's "cannibals" revisited: a closer look at his notorious phrase Arthur Scherr (May 2011), p. 251, Journal of Southern History, Volume 77, Issue 2. Viewed 03-22-2012.
• Regulating the African slave trade Paul Finkleman (December 2008), Civil War History. p. 379, Volume 53, Issue 4. Viewed 03-22-2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 March 2012‎

Redundant statements

The last paragraph in the 'controversy section is redundant and merely echos what is said in a paragraph above it. Both paragraphs use the TJF as a reference, and again, these claims remain without a writer and specific references. The last paragraph in this section needs to be removed. We need to be careful using these 'highly visible' sources as they can give the reader the impression that their opinions are embraced by everyone, which as we all know, is far from the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the last paragraph is an example of current scholarship, not the argument from a decade ago. It clearly states the quote is from the cited source, meaning that is their opinion. You may appeal the webpages for this exhibit and Smithsonian Institution and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation's webpages to the Noticeboard for Reliable Sources on Wikipedia; these are recognized academic sources. You are also free to add a contemporary quote and cited source from current scholarship by dissenting scholars. That's how a controversial issue is handled, not by trying to act as if this work is not being published. Rather than arguing here, you should be looking for a journal article to cite on the exhibit that disagrees with its conclusions. Parkwells (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Parkwell's is correct. It is their RS opinion, so that's what we report. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP require RS's to be historians, journalists and to have names. And we should expect from these web-page sources what has been expected of others. In fact Parwkells once made issue with an older source because it didn't have foot notes, yet for some reason he doesn't expect this from some of these other sources. Not very sincere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Institutions are also RS, they often write as institutions, in their own voice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Identifying Reliable sources says nothing about an 'Institution' being a RS. Simply because some unknown writer preaches from an ivy tower doesn't automatically make that source reliable. Again, we should expect from these sources what has always been expected of the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. An institution may choose to write and an institution may choose to author. If the institution is reputable about American History, it is an RS for American History. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The names of the historians/co-curators for the Smithsonian/TJF exhibit, who are each curators at their respective museums (which means they have PhD's), is provided by a cite in that section of this article. There is also a cite from a byline article by an NPR journalist about the exhibit, in which she also refers to to the consensus of historians on TJ's paternity of at least one Hemings child and a vocal dissenting minority (her words), especially the TJHS. This has been a public issue for a long time. This is an independent source from the TJF and Smithsonian; the issue has been public for a decade. Parkwells (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So between two PhD's neither one of them know that Shadwell and Monticello are two different plantations? The site of Shadwell still exists and is named such. According to them it was renamed Monticello. For the mentally challenged among us, this means the webpages could have faults elsewhere in content. It doesn't make it ok to use just because we're not citing Shadwell and Monticello with it. Brad (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the incivility, as Yopienso explained above RS are RS for the things they are cited for, whether they are RS for other things, they are not cited for, is not the question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Any web page article used as a source needs a writer's name, per WP policy. It seems you are once again selecting 'sources'(?) to say the same thing. i.e.'Most historians', an objective and quite ambiguous claim that no one can substantiate. We have been through this during the lede debate just recently. Again, WP:Identifying Reliable sources says nothing about an 'Institution' being a RS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And again you are wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's really so then why haven't you linked to the policy that supports your opinion? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Because we don't need to link the same policy more than once. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is dissappointing ASW. There is nothing there that supports your opinion and I suppose I must now challenge you to quote/link to the specific policy. While you're at it, you might want to give this a read. It covers 'Self-published and questionable sources'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that the TJF and the Smithsonian are comparable to self-published sources like the IMDB and someone's pet website? Be serious. They have professional staff members who have published in other venues, and they are both professional museums with publishing arms, hardly within the category of IMDB. Parkwells (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, they are self published. The writers, still unknown, are using these orgs and as such are self-published. Until any writer can ID him/herself as an independent historian and who continues to speaks anonymously, using TJF, etc, as a facade for their opinion, they remain a self published and a tertiary source, at best. Self publised articles don't cut it and secondary sources take priority over tertiary sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

They are not self-published, Parkwells is correct. What secondary source are you referring to in your comment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Orgs like TJF publish their own material. If not, then who does? You forgot to say. You also forgot to link to the policy that supports your claim about 'institutions' being a RS while also forgetting to mention 'what' makes these institutions a RS. Their writers? Nope, we have no idea who they are. And my reference to secondary sources is obviously used in a general sense as is my reference to tertiary and self published sources. It would help the discussion if you responded to fair questions and other points. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have answered questions. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Basically, your guidleline analyses are untenable in the extreme and would be seen as ludicruos by most Wikipedia editors because they violate the rule of reason. Sorry, about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please link to where it says 'institutions' are RS's as you claimed. And again, if TJS doesn't publish their own material, who does? You speak of the 'rule of reason' but continue to avoid fair questions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See previous responses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are legitimate web sites concerning Jefferson, however, leading academic journal articles are the best sources, in my opinion. The Smithsonian was mentioned. The current Smithsonian exhibit article is not kind to Jefferson concerning slavery. My view is that current concensus is that Jefferson was a great man, but his failing was not speaking out against slavery, or taking advantage of his position as President to solve the slavery issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy commentary

Parkwells, aside from the section growing in size all over again, after we agreed it should be a "short summary", it is filled with non-biographical commentary, much of it redundant, making the same claim about the 'evidence' and in the usual unclear terms. Would you please remove the excess commentary and summarize the opposing views? You refer to the TJS two different times to say the same thing and you've piled on a bunch of other commentary that gets far afield of Jefferson's biography. Would you please clean up the section and get it back to the summary form you agreed on and which you were once helpful in so making? This merry-go-round routine needs to stop. The section says more about what a few historians say, such that we have here, than it does about Jefferson, Hemings and Monticello! This is ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dark One Lives added most of the first paragraph about Callender and his qualifications, and extra details about the limitations of the DNA study; you asked for the addition of material on Thomas Woodson descendants; and you and he insisted on most of the paragraph with the details about the TJHS Scholars' Commission specific complaints about the DNA study and the TJF report. My recommendation for a summary would reduce these sections, too. Current scholarship on Jefferson is part of his biography; sources and content are always being added to articles that are being updated. The fact that this exhibit is the first presentation at a national museum on the Mall of the story of slavery at Monticello and of Jefferson as slaveholder make it worthy to note in his biography, and the issues pertain both to the Slavery section and the J-H Controversy section. Parkwells (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TDOL added historical context. You are adding redundant commentary about historians, museums, etc. You mentioned TJHS but it is surrounded with accounts of various individuals, TJF twice mentioned, etc. And you also didn't include any names of historians that have a different view, while you seem to have no qualms about loading up the section with historical commentary, names of individuals who have published no books about Jefferson, (Rex Ellis, Elizabeth Chew), who supports your view. Isn't any given section supposed to maintain balance as we go along? No doubt if you searched some more you could find other similar 'sources', but this doesn't mean you can fill up the section with them so as to offer the reader a one sided account of the topic. Again, we report what the sources say, but this doesn't mean you can cheery pick only ones supporting your view. Once again, the section has more to say about certain individduals and museums than it does about Jefferson and Hemings, much of the commentary is non-biographical while the section overall remains an expose' about a select group of individuals. Would you please return the section to summary form and give more attention to the 'subject'? You've made your points about 'the scholarship'. There is no need to load up the section with so many off topic details and so much one sided commentary, most of which should be on the dedicated page for the 'Controversy. I have lost count of the number of times this sort of thing has been brought to your attention. Let's try to bring the section back to a summary about the subject. i.e. Jefferson and Hemings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is that at this point, for this article, the exhibit at the Smithsonian is more important than adding material about Callender in 1802, or Woodson. This is current scholarship and I added it as notable because it is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall on this topic; it was called groundbreaking by the NY Times or WA Post. Scholarship did not end in 2001 with the Scholars Commission Report, as I have noted before. I am updating the article, as is appropriate 11 years after that report, as new scholarship continues to be published. You complained that the exhibit website did not have bylines, so I found the names of the co-curators. Now you don't want them mentioned. They have been footnoted, and I have made other reductions in the section, using the NPR cite rather than having narrative. The new scholarship is building on these issues. You may add other sources as you see fit. I looked at what was written about the exhibit from major RS and found these reviews, not any offering an alternate view. You are welcome to contribute by finding other sources instead of complaining. Parkwells (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My 'complaint' is legitimate and called for. The section is loaded up with more historical commentary from questionable sources than it is with content about Jefferson and Hemings. Regardless of how ArbCom rules on these sources, this still needs to be fixed. Yes, scholarship did not end in 2001. That is why we are seeing many historians and others who have reevaluated the issue and are not following along with the Reed trend and the biased view of the TJF.
The modern day exhibit is not more important than the Jefferson biography. Remember this is a biography. All the to-do about the museum, etc is non-biographical. It is just general commentary, opinion, about "the scholarship". Jefferson/Hemings content is the most important part of the section and should constitute the bulk of the text, which should be a summary, btw. Once again, there is a dedicated page for this topic. We all worked to get the section in summary, there were disagreements, but we did it. Then you turn right around and inflate it all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the Smithsonian exhibit is current research on Jefferson and worthy to be in this article. The Smithsonian is the United States national museum and deserves respect. The exhibit may be critical of Jefferson and slavery, but that does not mean keep the information from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

RS noticeboard draft

Parkwells, aside from being very lengthy your draft is filled with one sided accusations about other editors and less than accurate statements. If anything has 'disrupted' this page it is the topic of Hemings, a topic that you are preoccupied with, so much so that the section was once five pages long. Now it's growing again, and after a lengthy discussion to keep the section in on topic, summary form, and when objections are raised you accuse others of disruptive behavior?? Is this the approach you are going to use? Fine. You seem to forget that WP has these transparent entities commonly referred to as edit history and archives where it can easily be ascertained who indeed has been disruptive to the Jefferson biography. I have posted this here to alert others. We can continue any discussion on your talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one filing, so I state the problem as I see it. Yes, it probably is too lengthy, which is why it is a draft. The edit history of this article shows which editors refuse to accept WP:RS on the Jefferson-Hemings issue and consistently attack recognized national scholars and institutions, which has contributed to the disruption; as well as who resorts to insults of other editors and their efforts; and who accuse others of malicious intent, as well as other disruptive behavior in order to avoid covering the scholarship of the last 15-20 years about Jefferson, Hemings and slavery. I'm sure you will have a chance to add your point of view.Parkwells (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept plenty of RS's on Jefferson. Most in fact. Editors have every right to scrutinize sources to see if they are actually reliable. If we are to abide by policy and established guidelines then various types of sources come into question. And if I am not mistaken, I am not the one who has accused you of "malicious intent", an agenda, or any other such thing -- and I do not insult other editors, thank you. You speak of "malicious intent" and in the same breath have just spewed out three patently false accusations here. If you want to load your ArbCom complaint up with this stuff be my guest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you seem to always "scrutinize" sources that are critical of Thomas Jefferson. Rather then pick on other editors, please go after the sources, or at least give reasons that any sources are invalid. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career.

If an article like Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson were to be created, exactly where should the definition of "early life" end? Up to the time he was called and wrote the DoI? TJ was about 33 years old when called on to write it. At this point I believe that a break off article is going to be required in order to keep the word count of this article acceptable. Brad (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Early Life of Abraham Lincoln" goes to about 40, so 33 seems reasonable especially since it's when TJ got a national stage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Another way might be to take it up to his appointment as minister to France, or 1785 to round it off. This would include the time through and immediately after the Revolution, which would seem to be the major series of events of his early life: his time as VA rep and governor, work in the VA legislature prohibiting the international slave trade, and effort to get a NW Ordinance prohibiting slavery while in Congress. A number of historians have noted the shift in his actions/speeches following 1785 regarding slavery, so it might be a natural breaking point, as he was out of the US for several years. Going to 1785 would also incorporate his writing of Notes on the State of Virginia, considered very significant, especially of works published before 1800. Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Gee.. who would of thought about drawing a line based on slavery? Brad (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be three general periods in a lifetime: Early life, mid life and later life. IMO, Early life should cover childhood and school years, including college and a few years after maybe. Mid life should be 30-60 and Later life after 60, or retirement. Of course if someone only lives to be e.g.35, 40, etc, then we qualify any term used above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want a straight chronological break, then you look at how historians treat his life. If you don't want editors to use published historians, then don't ask. His experience in France led to more national roles, which is another way of marking changes in his life reflected in his actions on a variety of issues.Parkwells (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say the DOI is a good time period for Jefferson's early life article to end. The DOI is symbolic and practically speaking put Jefferson on the historical map. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Woodson

Once again Parkwells is agenda-pushing. In the context of the question of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, Thomas Woodson is a non-entity. He's the genealogical equivalent of Bigfoot or little green men from Mars. His only claim to fame is a baseless legend the Woodson family has perpetuated that's been definitively debunked. He has no more connection to the Jefferson/Hemings issue than Parkwells does. The ONLY context in which he belongs in the article is to document the dismissal of the claim of his descendants and not a syllable more. Was not Parkwells complaining about bloat in the article? Then what's the justification to include any info about Woodson beyond documenting his non-issue status as briefly as possible? Mentioning his "European paternity" is simply there to assert that well, if Jefferson wasn't his father, SOME white male oppressor was - *indignant humph*. Put it in an article on Thomas Woodson if you can even find consensus that he rates enough notoriety to have one. It doesn't belong in this article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You should be more careful about your accusations of "agendas," and it would be useful to limit your discussion to the article rather than the far-ranging assumptions about my or other editors' intentions. By the way, it was Gwillhickers, not me, who insisted at length that Woodson be covered in the article. I am not just a scribe for what you all want but was trying to accommodate him. Once Woodson was to be discussed, yes, I used my own opinion to indicate his paternity, as it answers the obvious question hanging out there for the reader. I would be glad to exclude him altogether from this article, and that is what I have done. It's enough that he is covered in the main article on Jefferson-Hemings controversy.Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your history is readily visible in the talk page history as well as in other related articles. Not buying for a second this notion that you're just passively doing the bidding of Gwhillickers - yes we know how like-minded you are - lol. It's you, not Gwillhickers who's been reverting the edit. If you felt no particular investment in the phrase related to Thomas Woodson's "European paternity" you wouldn't stubbornly keep re-inserting it. You've now removed it in a snit only because you've been called on it. Who cares what his paternity is? Or even his maternity? He has nothing to do with Jefferson OR Hemings. Even the language on the Monticello site clearly indicates he's only on there because of acquiescence to PC pressure. Some black family has been making this baseless claim forever so they give him an oddly contradictory mention to not be seen as exclusionary bigots even though there's no actual familial connection.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I added the piece on Woodson at Gwillhickers' request, whether you think that likely or not. You will find on the TALk page his writing about why Woodson should be included in the controversy section. But that does not mean I don't have an opinion - I do think if he is to be noted, his ancestry should be included. I don't think Woodson is needed in that section at all; you and I agree that he is not central to the controversy. Let's just delete him and let people read about him in the main article.Parkwells (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, it doesn't alter your history on here.

"...I do think if he is to be noted, his ancestry should be included..." It's clear you think this but why? What's the rationale? Why not his shoe size and what his favorite food was? Woodson's ONLY significance is as an example of a falsehood that some have tried to attach to Jefferson. He had European ancestry, so what? So did any number of random people who also had no connection to Jefferson or Sally Hemings. Woodson is just some random black man whose family has made unsubstantiated claims about. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you." DOL, Parkwells does not have an agenda for this article. Please behave. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure he doesn't. And sure you don't. I'll let you know when I need your "behavior" input.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I deleted the reference here to Thomas Woodson altogether; agree with TDOL that it is not needed. It is covered in the main article. Parkwells (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to Lede 2

Alanscottwalker has suggested changes to the Lede to reflect the balance of scholarship and current information, e.g. the Smithsonian exhibit, which editors have not addressed. There are three RS that deal with the consensus that has emerged: One refers to a consensus and dissenting opinions (1- PBS Frontline: Jefferson's Blood, 2000); one refers to "most historians" concluding that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children (2 -Thomas Jefferson Foundation, 2010); and one refers to a consensus and "vocal dissenting minority" (3- Karen Grigsby Bates, NPR, in her 2012 article/review of the 2012 Smithsonian Institution exhibit.) They have all been documented in the article and at least two on this Talk page. That is more than we need to say with cites that a consensus on this topic has emerged, and there are dissenting opinions. This is the typical way on Wikipedia to deal with such a controversy, and it is time we followed it in this article.Parkwells (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Frontline is a good 3rd party source. TJF is a first party or primary source. Unless Bates is an historian, NPR is doing nothing but reporting on what information they've been given; likely from a press release of some sort. None of these sources would survive the scrutiny of Featured Article requirements. Brad (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC also needs to be kept in mind. Brad (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, the TJF is not a primary source on Jefferson and Hemings by any means. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what would you consider it to be? It's certainly not a third party source because it's coming directly from the TJF which makes the claim. Frontline isn't. Brad (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a museum and academic center, so it is either a secondary or tertiary source, depending on which publication, we are discussing. It's report is secondary; its online exhibit is tertiary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Their claim about "most historians" comes from -- where? If this is their own claim, not taken from a reliable third party source, then it is primary information, such that it is. i.e.skewed, biased, etc. Schulz, do you happen to know how they arrived at this claim? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTRELIABLE Also should be reviewed. There is POLICY about Self-published and self serving sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(Re Brad, but some applies to GW, too) I'm confused, what? Nearly any source is "making a claim". That does not make it "primary". Of course the TJF is a secondary source (for statements on the Jefferson - it is a primary source for claims about the Foundation). Do you think the undead body of Jefferson is hidden in Monticello and controlling the Foundation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

TJF makes asessments from their professional expertise as the primary, professional public history site on Jefferson, with a staff of professional historians. Parkwells (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's forget TJF. We don't need them. Editors earlier accepted PBS saying "most historians" interpret the 1805 cover letter by Jefferson as a denial letter re: Hemings. Well, PBS also says (as I have previously cited on this page) that a "consensus" of historians have concluded that Jefferson was likely the father of Hemings' children, and there are "dissenting opinions." So we can use their quote on this issue. It is good to know that Brad, Gwillhickers and TDOL agree that PBS is an RS.Parkwells (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has been involved with or witnesses an event and who then reports on that event is considered a primary source. If TJS, PBS, a museum or anyone, has studied, evaluated and then reported on "modern scholarship", "most historians", etc, they are considered a primary source in that instance. Or did they arrive at the claim by citing someone else's published work? Apparently not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're really over-analyzing the situation here. This is all about reliable third-party sources. Frontline fits that description. Of course I said that weeks ago. The Frontline presentation of the issue was balanced nicely between the warring parties and explains the entire controversy year by year and draws no conclusions of its own. Brad (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

RS have drawn conclusions, so that's what we report per NPOV. The Frontline program is from 12 years ago is it not? So it's RS up to that time. Now we have Smithsonian, NPR, and TJF, etc., etc. Both PBS and NPR are RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There are RS sources claiming that Abe Lincoln was a homosexual but I don't see any campaign for that inclusion over there. In fact it isn't covered at all. Why such agenda here to show there's a conclusion (based on no evidence) that TJ fathered all of Sally's children? They're different subjects of course but no one seems in a hurry to make Lincoln politically correct; probably since he's the great emancipator and TJ is the evil slave master impregnating people he owned. Brad (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think RS report there is a large body of RS for that Lincoln issue. You don't seem to have read the large body of analysis and evidence on this topic, which the Smithsonian has, which are reported in RS. As for the motives of RS, I don't think there is RS for those. Is there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) IOW, using the least contentious generally accepted position seems logical (and yes there were POV-pushers adding homosexuality to the Lincoln pages!). Collect (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the Smithsonian. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pwll', ASW, you haven't explained how any of these 'articles' constitute secondary sources. Secondary source Policy : Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. ... Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
The sources in question are summary and tertiary and take on primary dimensions when they attempt to make claims about 'most'. And there is still the WP Policy issue of self published sources. There are multiple policy issues with some of these sources. We need to look to secondary sources, written by recognized author/historians, writers with actual names. Using summary articles vaguely attributed to a curator as sources goes against WP RS Policy : Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Objective commentary should be 'reported', be brief and not overshadow the subject and historical content, and simply be representative of opposing views.
Parkwells once maintained, Jan.15 : More recent sources generally provide better footnoting, for one thing, which show where the content comes from, and for that reason are considered more reliable. (emphasis added) Before we get too far afield with these sources we also shouldn't forget the summary form the entire section should maintain, regardless of sources, per the discussion Parkwells once initiated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To repeat myself again about this issue: I would not be surprised if TJ was the father of Sally's children only because it was a common happening of the era. We should not be pushing a conclusion for this article since it's a hotly contested one. The TJF has political reasons for doing what they did. They rely on foundation donations as well as visitors to keep Monticello operating. I haven't seen any "Lincoln is gay" pushers at that article and it's been on my watchlist for over a year. This article however, has several slavery and Hemings pushers who are never satisfied. Each time we've reached some agreement on content, it soon after gets added to when no one is looking. This includes cherry picking quotes like "out of Egypt" and adding long off topic notes within citations, mostly on slavery or Hemings. These editors are grasping for any source possible to push POV. Why would the National Park Service be a reliable source? Because they parrot the TJF? If I wanted to add that TJ held satanic rituals in a secret tunnel underneath Mulberry row and Hemings was the priestess, I could find sources for that too. Coming to a conclusion first and finding evidence to support it is exactly what's going on here. The Hemings thing started in 1802 with Callender but another accusation about a Mrs. Walker was completely wrapped up in the same package as Hemings. Of course Mrs. Walker isn't even mentioned here apparently because she wasn't a slave. Brad (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, That's not what is going on here. NPOV requires we state the majority and minority position as found in RS, when RS state it. Thus we have the multiple historians, biographers, published reports, national genealogical society, museums, news reports, etc. (I'm not sure what NPS has to do with this now, since NPS is not used. But if the NPS is a lesser source (even though they have independent editorial control and their own staff of experts), the Wikipedia process is find a better source). If the TJF was as political as you say, than why would they be saying anything at all about this, if it was so utterly controversial (and again that view of their politics and scholarship is unsourced). Wikipedia can't not report what high quality RS say, just because individual editors don't like what or how they say it (or how widely they have said it) or disagree with their methods. So, yes edit out the unneeded, as long as the heart of what it says stays. (As, for Mrs. Walker, have you constructed a well sourced entry on that, and put it in the article? Until that's done there is no point complaining about that (other stuff exists). It is perhaps true, as you say, that the Hemings/Jefferson conclusion has occams razor in it's favor but that's hardly a reason to exclude it, rather the opposite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors did not go looking for sources to support their viewpoints. The scholarship has changed and they noticed. Here is the WP policy on Academic consensus:

Ah, the scholarship borg has once again risen.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Academic consensus

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

Editors, as noted above on the Talk page, agreed that the PBS Frontline program, Jefferson's Blood, was an RS for academic consensus on interpretation of Jefferson's denial letter. It is also an RS for a statement on the academic consensus about Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children, while noting there are dissenting opinions. It is time to move on past this topic, even if some editors "just don't like" those conclusions. Parkwells (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall having anything to say about PBS being a RS, and unless it measures up to the same standards as established RS's, i.e. names of writers/experts, etc, then we should look to better sources to source these objective and disputed claims. Also, there is still the issue of self-published works. A self published work can not make a claim and use itself as a source. And 'quoting' these claims (i.e.'most') is nothing but an 'end-run' to avoid policy that says we must use reliable secondary sources for these claims. Again, these sources are summary and tertiary and as such are not secondary sources. Again, we need to reduce/summarize the over-shadowing commentary and get more historical content into the section as this is also a clear undue weight issue. The section is about Jefferson and Hemings, not about 'scholarly opinion'. Brief commentary reflecting the various scholarly views is in order. It doesn't belong mixed in with the text as if this was the central theme of the entire section, as is currently the case! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Tertiary sources are RS mandated by policy for tertiary information (overview of scholarship). (It also has the felicity of shortening the article section). Museum exhibits do not fall within the definition of self-published used by Wikipedia, and when it is the Smithsonian, for example, it is "high quality" RS. News organizations do not fall within the definition, either. NPOV requires that Wikipedia identify majority/minority, when RS have done so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, this has been discussed. TDOL added an edit some time ago from that PBS website for "most historians" interpreting Jefferson's 1805 letter related mostly to Mrs. Walker as a denial of the story about Sally Hemings. You did not object to use of this quote relating to a consensus. As I noted above, if the consensus of "most historians" is acceptable for that topic (on a page without a byline or footnote), the quote of a "consensus among historians and experts" related to an overview of the main topic of Jefferson's paternity is also acceptable, and yes, PBS acknowledges there are dissenting opinions and gives space to them on the website. Brad agrees that PBS is an RS for that program; the website contains extensive documentation about the issues.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Insert: It was not my intention to disqualify the Smithsonian as a reliable source over all. There are many topics in dispute and so often I say nothing pro or con for these things, as I did for Jefferson's letter to Walker, so try not to read too much into that, either way. Perhaps we can resolve the dispute, once again, by eliminating the objective claim 'most historians' for both topics, i.e.letter to Walker and Paternity. I thought there was a consensus for using neutral language for widely disputed or controversial topics. There is conflicting RS out there, as has been demonstrated here several times. Let me also say you have been trying to give weight to your view by parading high visibility sources, web page articles written by who knows who, who have taken the liberty to speak on behalf of "the scholarship" over all, using Smithsonian, N.G.S., etc.
Gwillhickers (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Due to the continued attempt to disqualify valid RS and argue about content that reflects current scholarship, I'm not willing to accept artificial language that does not represent the consensus and dissenting opinions. That's not the way to deal with it, as I showed by the WP policy on academic consensus included on this Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)