Talk:Thomas Jefferson

(Discussion page is now Waaaay too long: much of the redundant or dated has been archived) Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery mentioned in lede

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

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

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

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

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

Segment break 1 proposed changes

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

Jefferson with requested on slavery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section break

... (archived)

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

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

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

Gwillhickers What evidence do you have that banning the slave trade was opposition to slavery? None. What evidence do you have that my sources are faulty? None. I've reminded you ad nauseum that personal opinions do not meet WP:RS policy, and we cannot use them for edits. You violated that policy here by directly contradicting the sources cited [10]. Regarding the alternative sentence, you've either 1) not read the sources or 2) have ignored the sources. They specifically say Jefferson said things that looked like he opposed slavery, but in context the opposite was true. I'm happy to discuss those "statements" Jefferson made in detail in the slavery section, but we cannot do it in the Lead WP:LEAD. Your evidence that (other than your opinion or interpretation of primary sources) this is faulty? Your proposal for an alternative sentence?

Now this "ambiguous" or "vague" argument doesn't hold water. Read the policy on it: [11] "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." The following sentence is crystal clear & accurate & as concise as it should be for the Lead ("The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" WP:LEAD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, Gwillhickers you adjusted my comment by placing your text inside of it [[12]]. “Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.”WP:TPO I strongly object to this practice, and am asking you not to do it again. There is plenty of space below to write what you please. I moved your edit below to reflect the edits as per the time log.

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

Slavery in the lede

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

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

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

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

Excuse me, but I never even hinted that his slaves loved him, etc, so you are again carrying on about yet another one of your straw men. You make the claim that scholarly accounts support torture, rape, etc. I ask you for clarification and we get more of your digressive nonsense that attempts to avoid that issue. This is your quote: We're discussing a man who owned hundreds of slaves; he tortured his own slaves, hunted down runaways, asked for slaves to be killed for trying to get free. That is undisputed as well.. -- Again, why isn't torture mentioned in the article if this is "undisputed"?? Can you also tell us specifically which historian uses terms like rape and torture in no uncertain terms, and then explain why you haven't mentioned and referred to that in the article name space? Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims about rape? That's not in my quote. You doubt the rest? Then go research it. Start with Sandy, a runaway slave Jefferson hunted down [[13]]. The talk page is not a forum for discussion of the subject matter WP:TPG, though I can't stop you from denying the facts.Ebanony (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who has claimed to have done all this research, yet you fail to cite what I have asked. Again, why isn't torture mentioned in the article if this is "undisputed"?? Please answer the question. Can you also tell us specifically which historian uses terms like rape or torture in no uncertain terms, and then explain why you haven't mentioned and referred to that in the article? Who are we kidding? If the sources you wear on your sleeve referred to torture I am sure you would have been the first to plaster this news all over this discussion page. You have not, still. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I told you clearly, "rape" is not the quote of mine you cited. Perhaps you're confused. I remind you, the talk page "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." WP:TPG No one proposed any such changes to the main space; therefore there is no discussion on it. End of story. I did not claim Jefferson "raped" anybody. So stop the charade, and follow talk page guidelines. Ebanony (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

section break2

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

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

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

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

In an effort to keep this proposed text accurate and not have this article missing important text in the lead, I have asked for comment at the noticeboard. I do not feel any reasonable compromise is attainable when editors seem to ignore policy, make edits that contradict sources & apparently claim they don't need to read the text they've called into question. Perhaps a neutral party can help find a reasonable solution. [[14]]Ebanony (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

What are the facts relevant to TJ and slavery?

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

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

1. In 1820, commenting on the Missouri Compromise, he repeated his desire that slavery could be ended, but fearing what would happen if the slaves were actually freed, he repeated his support for colonization. He opposed the 36 30 line, saying slaves would be happier if they were not concentrated by being restricted in territory, and predicted the line would become a border splitting the country apart. JimWae (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JimWae, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." And "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source" WP:PRIMARY. Your interpretation of it is not backed up: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" WP:OR. So yes, he railed against the slave trade & the British for freeing slaves, something you distort. On the next topic, David Brion Davis discussed Jefferson's "soul"? Try reading the work. And though you want to exclude his writing, (for something he didn't do), he is "he Sterling Professor of History Emeritus at Yale university" & "Davis is considered the most pre-eminent historian of slavery as Ira Berlin claimed 'no scholar has played a larger role in expanding contemporary understanding of how slavery shaped the history of the United States, the Americas, and the world than David Brion Davis.'” [15] Your objections are groundless, and based on your opinion, which you've used to prevent me from making edits well supported by main stream academics, and that is not acting in good faith or according to policy. You don't want to discuss improving the text, and I offered you many opportunities. I'm asking for comment.Ebanony (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}}02:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Response to third opinion request:

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

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

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

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

Native American policy perspective

This might give perspective on Native American policy. President Ulysses S. Grant, who had experience with Native American's first hand stated in his 1869 State of the Union Address:

"From the foundation of the Government to the present the management of the original inhabitants of this continent--the Indians--has been a subject of embarrassment and expense, and has been attended with continuous robberies, murders, and wars."

Here is Grant's 1873 Inaugural Address:

"Wars of extermination, engaged in by people pursuing commerce and all industrial pursuits, are expensive even against the weakest people, and are demoralizing and wicked. Our superiority of strength and advantages of civilization should make us lenient toward the Indian. The wrong inflicted upon him should be taken into account and the balance placed to his credit."

Here is an excellent source on the harsh treatment of Native Americans in California during the Gold Rush: Native Americans in the Gold Rush

What does this have to do with Thomas Jefferson? Nothing. However, just to demonstrate, that President Grant testified to Indian injustice from "the foundation of the Government". The Indians in California were being exterminated. It was not until 1924 the American Indians were given United States citizenship under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge. President Grant desired that Native Americans be given citizenship as early as 1869. However, even Grant was not perfect, having allowed millions of buffalo, American Indian natural food supply, to be slaughtered by the millions. The buffalo, slaughtered by white hunters, paid a heavy price for Native American citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"What does this have to do with Thomas Jefferson? Nothing" Then do us all the favour of following the talk page guidelines and delete this: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. WP:TPNOEbanony (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV dispute – Native American policy

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

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

Tobby72 in your first edit [17], on the Lewis & Clark Expedition wrote: "There were very few hostile encounters, and relations with most tribes were as friendly as Jefferson had hoped they would be" & cited [18] Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition p.174.

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

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

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

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

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

Tobby72. You added only a select POV which presents Jefferson in a positive light. 3 editors (myself, Stephan Schulz & Jrtayloriv) have questioned your recent edits here. #1 You falsely claimed WP:RS on a credible source [19]. #2 You used a clear euphemism [20] WP:EUPHEMISM in place of "extermination". #3 You ask if people have a problem with your edit, then ignore them & accuse them of "censorship" when they disagree with your edits, saying it's "sourced content". The text you cited above was 1st undone by Jrtayloriv "Natives moved west to "improve their lot"?!?!)" [21]. Correctly so. I removed it when you restored it. You clearly do not have WP:CONS; your edits lack neutrality by giving undue weigh to that argument (they were helping the Native Americans?) WP:UNDUE. What about other POV's? You have the obligation fairly represent them, not make this changes & demand others do it. Stop demanding we all go by your edits, & stop reverting consensus decisions. Just because it's in a book, that doesn't mean it has to be added here. You downplay the "extermination" & ethnic cleansing. No good. Ebanony (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And Tobby72, how can you criticise anybody for "removal of sourced content" when you yourself deleted this source? [22] in this edit: [23] You made all kinds of false assertions on the Lewis and Clark main article [24], demanding others use that very same source you used here (Woodger & Toropov) [25]. But even on this article I asked you about the Lewis and Clark Expedition edit you made on Jan 16th; you refuse to reply [26]. The source is the same encyclopedia by Woodger & Toropov, not written by Lewis and Clark scholars like Robert Miller or James Ronda. Friendly, huh? Lewis stabbed a man in the heart; another soldier shot a man. White traders later recorded the Expedition had "murdered" the Blackfeet men. Lewis directly threatened to destroy Black Buffalo's nation in a separate incident. He possibly held his son hostage 2 years before. Years later, Clark directly took part in Jackson's "Indian removal", and ordered Native Americans to be killed. You found a source that called it friendly. You obviously selected the nice version.

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

"Jefferson's writings on Indians are filled with the straightforward assertion that the natives are to be given a simple choice -- to be "extirpate[d] from the earth" or to remove themselves out of the Americans' way." Finkelstein cited the very same letter to Dearborn in the section Forced removal and extermination "if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe...we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi". Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine University of Minnesota Press, 1996, pg 104-121 as well as James Ronda (Lewis & Clark expert), Thomas Jefferson and the changing West 1997 pg 10 mention this, among many others. It was not a question of if the "Indians attacked whites"; the opposite was true, and you know it. It's obvious why you chose an "encyclopedia" or that other book and not someone like Drinnon, Ronda or other academics; perhaps this is the reason you used a WP:EUPHEMISM[27] to change the name of the section. It's not a "minor addition". Try that on the Holocaust pages. I've seen your lack of neutrality on several pages, all on the same topics.Ebanony (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony & Jrtayloriv. You have added only a select POV which presents Jefferson in a negative light. Also, you are pushing your POV by deleting the sourced text which is against your point of view. I've added NPOV dispute tag.[28]

Ebanony, your assertion: The text you cited above was 1st undone by Jrtayloriv "Natives moved west to "improve their lot"?!?!)" [29] and Now, as to saying Jefferson believed forceful removal would "improve their lot" - that is outrageous.

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

And Tobby72, how can you criticise anybody for "removal of sourced content" when you yourself deleted this source? [30] in this edit: [31].

I just imitated your comrade-in-arms Jrtayloriv: "use of non-RS (e.g. class notes from an English course)." [32] Tobby72 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Jrtayloriv, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.[33] Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

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

Removal occurred because of an incessant demand for Indian lands.[34] Demands for Indian land resulted from rapid American population growth [35] (see Thomas Malthus). You judge Jefferson by today's standards and depict him as a cruel heartless monster, taking statements and events out of context, but Jefferson's tough views should be seen in a broader context of his time per WP:NPOV. Tobby72 (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72, 1st you make changes without consensus here, and you tell Jrtayloriv he can't remove your NPOV. There was no reason to add it. When we said your edits were poor academics, you claimed NPOV & "sourced text". Not all text is equal, see WP:UNDUE weight. You do this a lot. The Lewis and Clark Expedition article, as well American Indian Wars. You claimed "science" & "exploration" were the main goals - that is myth; you questioned Native American sources (The 1st time you singled out Thornton for being Cherokee & used weasel words [[36]] & the 2nd time you claimed another source was not verified [[37]]; you gave no evidence they had problems). Then you presented a fringe pov & earlier discredited scholar (Kroeber) who gave low numbers on the population numbers of North America - a classic example of early scholars minimising Genocide.

You then added NPOV when people disagreed in the LC article & in this very article [[38]] But it gets better. You ignored the talk page & removed your own NPOV sticker once you made the edits you wanted - despite not having consensus or even caring it was a violation of undue weight to minor writers [[39]]'". That's at least 2 highly questionable NPOV claims, and the talk page is a testament to it. [[40]] You lecture Jrtayloriv on removing NPOV. Looks like you will say anything to get your edits in.

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

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

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

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

Clearly you have a problem with the estimates given by respected scholars like Kroeber (whose study specifically focusing on population is well regarded). - Ebanony, 00:28, 27 October 2010[41].

Then you presented a fringe pov & earlier discredited racist scholar (Kroeber) who gave low numbers on the population numbers of North America to deny there was any Genocide. - Ebanony, 15:52, 17 January 2011[42]

You seem to promote "EuroAmerican historians" - Ebanony, 06:31, 30 October 2010[43]. you questioned Native American sources. - Ebanony, 15:52, 17 January 2011[44].

Your arguments on US population growth prove nothing. - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources [45], [46], making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Tobby72 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tobby72 you claimed "The Indian removal was suggested by Thomas Jefferson as the only way to ensure the survival of Native American cultures." [47] (ur edit, no?). This is false. On Jefferson's removal of "Indians", scholars say "He tried to justify his policy by claiming it was in the best interest of Indian nations to put some space between them and the land-hungry Americans." [48] Robert Miller, Native America: Discovered and Conquered, pg 90. Jefferson claimed it; so did Jackson. Your source is "digital history", some website & "online textbook" without so much as an author's name. Read policy ". Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." WP:RS No way that's better than Miller.

So yes Tobby72, the population did increase as the census you cited indicates; however, there is no mention of anything related to this topic here No Jefferson, Native Americans or removal. See: [49]. Looks like WP:OR. Policy says "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." (my emphasis) Your edit has that problem: [50].

Rjensen removed Miller's work claiming "rephrase without heavy-handed POV". [51] He cited Jennifer McClinton-Temple, Alan R. Velie (2007). "Encyclopedia of American Indian literature" p.295. Sorry but Robert Miller is an expert in the field. That's WP:UNDUE weight to an encyclopedia & a website (who?). Further, that edit Rjensen made does not quite reflect the source, which also says: "pro-removal advocates...argued that the Native Americans were being destroyed by contact with Euro-American civilization". Yes, and it lists Jefferson as someone who "argued" that "removal was the only 'solution' to the Indian problem". Compare it with the edit: "The Indian removal was suggested by Thomas Jefferson as the only way to ensure the survival of Native American cultures". [52] Putting aside the obvious reference to the "Indian problem", "removal" & the clear 20th century images scholars link it to, it is clear from both Miller & that Encyclopedia that was nothing more than an expedient political argument, arguments we need not take at face value, particularly by the "architects" of "Indian removal". These edits have no business in the article.Ebanony (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

section break 1 Extermination

I would like to propose the following changes: [53]. Any objections to adding it in? Tobby72 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I've moved your comment "extermination" here, since it's the same material we've already covered above. Second Tobby72, you made this same edit and had it reverted by consensus several times. You say "rmv exaggerated title, he never fulfilled his threats, plus add entire quote". That is just plain nonsense, and you know it. Miller did not "exaggerate" Jefferson's role. Nor did Finkelstein or the other scholars. Jefferson's plans were put into effect; they did go after the people mentioned in that letter; they did remove those tribes; they did kill a whole lot of them. Do you deny that, or that Indian Removal (Jefferson's policy) occurred under Jackson? We don't need superfluous sentences that obscure the point: Jefferson said to remove or kill those who resisted his policy. So yes, extermination in the title is appropriate. We told you about that sort of editing when you did it before [[54]], and how it's a violation of policy by using a WP:EUPHEMISM. Extermination is just that; it's not helping Indians, like you were saying earlier. There are direct links between US policy and the Holocaust, and though you denied that too, you couldn't offer any evidence for your fringe ideas.Ebanony (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes to this section from Jan 15th did not improve the article, and added irrelevant primary source materials (with no secondary sources) from Notes on Virginia, as well as long quotes and info on population etc. I've restored it to the version before that date since it's clear some edits lacked NPOV.Ebanony (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, your edits lack NPOV and did not improve any article [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. The U.S. population growth led to an increased demand for Native American land. This is a mainstream view. Although the policy of Indian Removal would be rightly denounced as ethnic cleansing in today's human rights terminology, I don't see any direct links between Nazi extermination camps and the Indian reservations or Indian Territory. Once again, Hitler's mindless thoughts (your "source") are completely irrelevant. Hitler wasn't a respected scholar of American history. I've restored sourced content, removed Jackson's Indian policy (this article is about Jefferson) & added Expert needed tag. Tobby72 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72, you added Notes on Virginia with no secondary source, so its use isyour interpretation WP:OR. Lewis and Clark - no room for that stuff. 2nd the article paraphrases secondary sources, and uses their select quotes of Jefferson ie “exterminate” and “we shall destroy all of them”. You claim bias. Miller uses those words on pgs 92, 93 [60]. SO that is nonsense. You added other parts from that 1807 letter that make Jefferson look nice, but without a secondary source so it's WP:OR. Miller says Jefferson had “genocidal views” (pg 93) because he said to remove or exterminate any tribe that resisted Americans illegally taking their lands. You claimed on Jan 30th "extermination" was "rmv exaggerated title, he never fulfilled his threats" [61]. However, in 1779 Jefferson "ordered the Virginia troops to exterminate the Shawnee Nation or drive it from its lands". Miller pg 93. Your claim is wrong, and you violated WP:Euphemism policy by removing “extermination” and by changing “forced removal” to “removal west”.

Hitler is not in the main space - more straw man argument. But you deny the Jackson link that you removed from the main space: "removed Jackson's Indian policy (this article is about Jefferson)". Miller says: "Jackson carried out most of the forced physical removals thereafter. But it was Jefferson who first devised this relocation program." (pg 90) [62].

We discussed this above in January, but you continued editing it [63] - reverted for policy violations [64]; Again, [65] - reverted for policy violations [66]; someone else joined you, repeating the same it didn't happen nonsense (Jefferson DID order extermination of the Shawnee, Miller pg 93) [67] - I demonstrated its folly in a several day discussion [68], and then reverted to an earlier version before these disruptive edits Jan 15th, (he offered no evidence for his edits) and offered to work to make changes [69]; you changed it again [70]; I reverted your edit for policy violations [71]; Yet you changed it again [72], and Jrtayloriv, reverted your edit again [73]. Ebanony (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've partially restored sourced text i.e. U.S. population growth (once again, it is a mainstream view that U.S. population growth led to an increased demand for Indian land), added Jefferson’s opinions (relevant, notable, cited) & changed POV title "Forced removal and extermination" to slightly more neutral "Forced removal and threats of extermination" (it seems Ebanony gives undue weight to the views of Robert J. Miller [74]) & kept Jackson's Indian policy. Tobby72 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Section Break 2 Request for comment

It seems that Jrtayloriv eventually revealed his true intentions here: Removal of accurate, sourced info, and large-scale insertion of SYNTH-y text, citing sources cherry-picked to give false impression about Indian policy. -- Jrtayloriv 18:01, 5 February 2011, and here I'm just going to keep reverting him until he stops adding POV and out-of-context, cherry-picked material. -- Jrtayloriv 18:15, 5 February 2011. Interestingly, Jrtayloriv wrote recently: ...Now, regarding your arguments related to population growth, I don't think they say nothing, as Ebanony suggested. I agree with you that it is a mainstream view that population growth led to an increased demand for Indian land, which led to the ethnic cleansing of the Eastern tribes... -- Jrtayloriv 19:34, 17 January 2011 [75].

I also noticed that the main contributor to the Native American policy section was Jrtayloriv.[76]

Once again, I've partially restored repeatedly deleted material i.e. U.S. population growth per earlier consensus with Jrtayloriv, added Jefferson’s opinions (relevant, notable, cited per WP:NPOV and WP:RS) & added references per WP:RS. Jrtayloriv & Ebanony, why did you add to the article his "extermination" remarks, cherry-picked and out-of-context, while all the time deleting his other comments regarding assimilation etc.? Please explain to me. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, all significant views should be included.

I think that the best way forward would be to raise request for comment. Tobby72 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72, the whole Native American policy section is extremely POV and does require a fundamental rewrite, if you choose to try to do so, you have my full support. One example that I could cite in its inaccurate portrayal is here:

Andrew Jackson is often erroneously credited with initiating Indian Removal, because Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830,[114] during his presidency, and also because of his personal involvement in the forceful removal of many Eastern tribes.[112] But Jackson was merely legalizing and implementing a plan laid out by Jefferson in a series of private letters that began in 1803 (for example, see letter to William Henry Harrison below).[112]

Jefferson's first promotions of Indian Removal were between 1776 and 1779, when he recommended forcing the Cherokee and Shawnee tribes to be driven out of their ancestral homelands to lands west of the Mississippi River.[112] Indian removal, said Jefferson, was the only way to ensure the survival of Indians.[115] Also, as the U.S. population grew from 3.9 million in 1790 to 7.2 million in 1810,[116] more arable land had to be acquired.[117][116]

How is Jackson initiating Indian Removal erroneous? Jefferson did propose it, he might have recommended it, but he didn't initiate it. Jackson was the one that initiated it as government policy, whether or not the idea came from Jefferson, this is clearly written with an anti-Jefferson pov. I hope the whole section gets a makeover. _WikiMan^One 16:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jrtayloriv & Ebanony started reversing all my edits. I think I have no chance to improve the section. Best, Tobby72 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't give up, instead suggest changes on this page and if they are more npov than that one, I will certainly support them. They can't undo your edits if they are the result of consensus on this page. _WikiMan^One 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not suggesting that population growth, and other drivers of settlement, should not be mentioned. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be portrayed in a euphemistic and partial manner." 17 January Jrtayloriv. This was in response to statements like this by Tobby72 #1 "Removal occurred because of an incessant demand for Indian lands." and cited [77]. But that is Not what the book says.

What Prince actually says after discussing the population (pg 102), is "Many young men and women were ready to seek their fortunes in the bluegrass country beyond the Appalachians" -ie they went there for financial gain, NOT a lack of space. Prince says Natives were removed because: "Native Americans who had professed support for Britain were presumed by white Americans to have forfeited their lands and were expected to be removed" (pg 103) - nothing about space.

Jefferson agreed: "As early as 1776 Jefferson called for the extermination of the Cherokee Nation and its removal west of the Mississippi because the Cherokee people fought for the British in the Revolution." Miller 93 [78] - nothing there about space.

Prince likewise says "On the frontier, native Americans were enemies to be killed or driven away." (pg 103) Again, Jefferson agreed: Also, during the Revolution, when he was governor of Virginia, Jefferson ordered Virginia troops to exterminate the Shawnee Nation or to drive it from its lands" Miller pg 93. So removal did not occur just because of "incessant demand for land" - there was more to it, and it included orders of extermination by Jefferson, not just "threats".

2nd "Indian removal, said Jefferson, was the only way to ensure the survival of Indians." Jefferson did say that. But Miller says "He tried to justify his policy by claiming it was in the best interest of Indian nations to put some space between them and the land-hungry Americans." - ie he made an argument for it.

Tobby72's own source, Temple, agrees with Miller & says it was just a political argument by "pro-removal advocates": "pro-removal advocates...argued that the Native Americans were being destroyed by contact with Euro-American civilization". It lists Jefferson as someone who "argued" that "removal was the only 'solution' to the Indian problem" [79]. Tobby72 obscures that is was a political justification.

3rd "Also, as the U.S. population grew from 3.9 million in 1790 to 7.2 million in 1810, more arable land had to be acquired." Yes the population grew, and they wanted land. But the clear implication that the Natives were in the way, and their land "had" to be taken (& they removed or killed) is NOT what the source says. Your sources cited: Wolferman [80] & Prince [81]

Wolferman pg 48 lists population, the Louisiana Purchase and then says "People took advantage of the vast expanse of American land and moved from eastern states." Nothing about they "had" to do it for land. They chose to do it. "What about the Native Americans who already occupied the land between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi River? Jefferson assumed that they would continue to move west of the Mississippi to keep from being engulfed by white settlers." No support in Wolferman's book.

Prince pg 105 "The Louisiana Purchase...was perceived by Jefferson as a means of both satisfying American land hunger and providing adequate reserves for the Native Americans". White Americans "had" to move there? No. He says it was to "satisfy...land hunger", not a necessity. He does not even hint that it was inevitable (ie the manifest destiny argument) or had to happen - no support for this.

The WP:EUPHEMISM word games of removing "extermination" and adding "threats of extermination" have no justification; these words have support in Miller, Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine 1996, pg 104-121; James Ronda, Thomas Jefferson and the changing West 1997 pg 10; Richard Drinnon, Facing west pg 96 [82] and more.

Now if Tobby72 is serious about improving the article, he can start discussing changes before he makes them, and can then go by what the books say, and actually show some respect instead of ignoring all the editors' concerns. 13 pov pushing edits & not one source to back these claims (yeah, population grew. We know, but it changes nothing). As to "How is Jackson initiating Indian Removal erroneous?" Man I didn't write the text, and also disagree with "initiating", and have always been willing to compromise to fix the article. Your proposal?Ebanony (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a bigger issue than I thought, let me rephrase that, I will support the addition of sourced material and the reworking of the section to a more npov. This includes not taking it to the other extreme in pov, I don't have a dog in this fight. _WikiMan^One 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Man, there's much more, as in the edit Tobby72 made which he claimed was to improve the article saying "Once again, I've partially restored repeatedly deleted material" on Feb 6th just above. [83]. Tobby72's edit was a violation of copyright policy, and is on the noticeboard [84]. Also,it's one of the most blatant lack of NPOV edits he's done yet:

Tobby's text: This would finally consolidate our whole country to one nation only,

Jefferson suggested in 1803. He regretted in 1813 that white-Indian war had prevented this: They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time.

It's true the source Michael Lind says that, but one has to ask WHY Lind ignores the clear threats of extermination Jefferson made in that very same letter, which other academics point out ie Drinnon, cited in the text Tobby wanted removed:

The British, Jefferson claimed, "seduced...the tribes...to take to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach."

Drinnon also says "Jefferson, believing the long-awaited day of extermination or pursuit over the horizon had finally arrived, made 'necessary the secure ourselves against the future effects of their savage and ruthless warfare.' Free from the weight of their benevolence, he and his compatriots might shatter cultures, kill people, destroy homes and crops, and still be in no wise responsible for the genocidal process of which they were instruments. The useful English were guilty of it all, of 'the confirmed brutalization, if not the extermination of this race in our America..." Facing west: the metaphysics of Indian-hating and empire-building, Richard Drinnon pg 98 [85] Compare the letter as reported in these two books [86].

What a contrast. Drinnon discusses the entire letter, and refers to it "genocidal" (Miller likewise the term for Jefferson's other letter). Lind & Tobby72? Tobby didn't like that book, or Miller's because they say similar things. But many writers say this. Like on Jefferson wanting to assimilate with the natives, Miller: "Jefferson's real hypocrisy is evident, Onuf says, because Jefferson never expected the Indians to assimilate or survive and he even suggested that their true native was to resist and perish before the advance of white civilization. Yet, he wrote and spoke and pretended to work for tribal assimilation and citizenship. As Onuf concludes, Jefferson's role in 'the protracted and destructive assault on Indian people...raises acutely discomforting questions about 'progress' and 'civilization'. Add in Onuf (there's more), who is no fringe writer, [87], and is a professor at the very university Jefferson founded [88], with many well reviewed books/articles.

"extermination" is no exaggeration: "In his next letter to Dearborn, he instructed him to 'prepare for war in that quarter' and...if we are ever constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated or driven beyond the Mississippi'. They should be told plainly: 'In war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". Nestled under Jefferson's philanthropy was an ominous will to exterminate. (Drinnon 96). Miller says of this same letter, "In 1807 President Jefferson continued to hold these genocidal views", and then he cites Onuf & Merrill Peterson. "Many historians have noted this aspect of Jefferson's Indian strategies. Professor Merrill Peterson, for example, stated that Jefferson's Indian policy was: "[d]ivide and rule, aid the friendly in peace, exterminate the incorrigibles." [89] Peterson is who? 37 books, numerous awards etc etc [90]. "Historian Julius Pratt stated that Jefferson even welcomed Indian armed resistance because 'such actions lay the foundations of their own destruction'". Every scholar can't be biased. Just the ones that use the word "extermination"? The section doesn't have a lack of NPOV, it has a problem in redundancy, lack of logical order & too many primary source texts; it's also got a few errors. But Tobby's edits are in the realm　of "fringe theories" or apologetics. Utter hypocrisy. No wonder he hates the woed "extermination". Man, sure you want to support those edits? By the way, I offered to make changes, but these guys (the other who felt no evidence was needed) just refused my offers [91]. I have tried. All I got were policy violations & edit warring. I didn't write this section, so I have "no horse" either. Let's improve it. Ebanony (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson and Hemings

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

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

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

The "1 in 25" chance is nonsense. That Jefferson was the father was considered more likely than not before any DNA evidence was known. Back then, none of the disbelievers found any of the other 24 Jeffersons likely enough to even consider. Only once "a Jefferson" was undeniable did they spin new yarns. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

New -- Wasn't the Monticello Foundation one of your cherished sources? Here is a quote from that source regarding the Dr. Eugene Foster DNA study: The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. Are you now saying that your pet sources are "nonsense"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Read but one sentence further: The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings. As with the Obama example, you cannot ignore the additional evidence. I've already pointed you to this discussion about the other potential fathers and their implausibility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote from your linked source regarding other male family members: "...had no documented presence at Monticello during the times when Sally Hemings conceived her children." -- No documented presence?? What is this supposed to amount to? We are discussing events that occurred some 200 years ago. Do you really think there was someone around all of the time logging the coming and going of all of these male family members, over all of the years involved here?? -- Again, nothing has chanced. Same speculations. Same rhetoric. Same huge gap in the evidence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've separated the Hemings controversy from slavery because of the edits Gwillhickers made (unconstructive at best). Now Stephan Schulz & Parkwells are correct, but Gwillhickers is not. Whilst Foster did not "prove" he was the father, he concluded: "the simplest and most probable explanations for our molecular findings are that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson." But "It does establish that he is linked to the Jefferson family". An indisputable DNA link to a Jefferson Gwillhickers doesn't address in his edits. "I predicted...when the Carr brothers story was effectively refuted, 'die-hard' defenders of Jefferson would offer up yet another 'undesignated Jefferson' relative to be the father." - Gordon-Reed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, pg vii, x.

The only way to prove with absolute certainty that Jefferson was the father is to dig him up. I don't think they're going to dig up old Tom. Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson are old news. The weight of the historical evidence, plus the DNA evidence, the extensive research on the topic, makes it more than likely that Jefferson was the father of some, if not all, of Hemmings children. The level of proof you're demanding for events that happened 200 years ago is impossible and I doubt that you would apply the same harsh standard elsewhere.

Gwillhickers is POV pushing in this topic and in the other topic. At first I thought he/she was trying to make a point in the discussion about the lead section, now I read this section and find out that Gwillhickers is a "denier" and blatantly POV pushing. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers comments with the "1 in 25" chance falls into that category. The Foster's study said the father might have been one Field Jefferson's sons but that there was no evidence for that possibility: the "absence of historical evidence" made this or other "possibilities...unlikely". See it here [[92]]. Gordon-Reed cites John E'ntremont: "the 'it-could-never-possible-be-Thomas-Jefferson' school is akin to a religion. As evidence is not required" pg x. Gwillhickers comments have no support.Ebanony (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you claimed on Feb 6 "In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children" [93]. Then you added: "though for one reason or another they prefer to ignore the other possibilities for Hemings' children, prefering rather to believe it was Thomas Jefferson." [94]. A different editor removed your edits [95], and rightly so.

Gwillhickers, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation" WP:CHALLENGE. Also see "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." WP:OR Several editors above warned you about these things before you made those edits to the main space on Feb 6th [96], [97], [98], [99]. When you made other edits that directly contradicted the sources, I warned you in your talk page [100]. Policies on Consensus, V and WP:OR you'd do well to follow.Ebanony (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the DNA proves the father was linked to the Jefferson family, and this is all it does. Nothing more. As for "Die-hard defenders", this is nothing but your projection that you are little more than a die hard aggressor which seems to be consistent with the fact that your only interest in Jefferson is trying to associate him with Hemings. Thank for that insight at least. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It could also be said that your narrow preoccupation with Hemings is also akin to a religion. Also, "absence of historical evidence" doesn't prove anything, as to prove something you must have evidence. Is there anyone else you care to quote? Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead is no place to discuss theory, and again, please do not give more attention/weight to a theory that has little to no bearing on Jefferson's role as President and his effect on American history than you are giving to what is established fact -- facts that directly effect millions of Americans and others, unlike Hemings. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some people assumed, even before the DNA evidence, that it was Jefferson. So? Is this supposed to amount to anything? Also, you forgot to mention what "historical evidence" narrows this down to the proportions you are obviously hoping for -- that Jefferson was around the house alot? So where many of the others. Face it, you can hide behind rules, policy and selected sources all you like, but boiled down, you are still looking at a 1 out of 25 chance that it was Jefferson. And again, even if someone actually nailed this issue on the head (something no one has come close to doing, btw) and proved Jefferson was indeed the father, it still doesn't even begin to compare to historical landmarks events like the DOI, War of 1812, etc. As such, your theory should only get a fraction of the attention that is due the DOI, etc. etc. events that directly effect many millions of people, unlike your Hemings theory. Sorry guys. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is historical, mathematical, and logical nonsense. It's like claiming that the chance that Obama is president is 1 in 26 - after all, there were 26 candidates, and we can ignore all the other evidence. You might want to read Annette Gordon-Reed's "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy", published before the DNA tests came in, if you think the only evidence is that "Jefferson was around the house alot". Indeed, Dumas Malone tried to exonerate Jefferson by showing that he was not around at the times of conception, and gave up on it. There is excellent evidence that Jefferson was at Monticello exactly at the right times, and there is no narrative that puts any other Jefferson there in time for all the children - in fact, most are excluded for most of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy to Obama, amazingly, overlooks two glaring little items; that it can be proven that Obama is President and that he is alive today, unlike Jefferson and Hemings who lived more than 185 years ago. -- Also, I never said that there was no other 'evidence', such that it is, so this is yet another misrepresentation of my account that has been shoveled in my direction in place of any viable support for this theory that Jefferson is, in fact, the father of any one of Hemings' children. -- Also, regarding the 'evidence' that Thomas Jefferson was around at the right times for the conception of any one of Hemings' children doesn't add up to much if you stop and actually think about it. i.e.Unless Jefferson was the only male family member around the house at these times, there is a gaping hole in this 'evidence' also, simply because the period for gestation can vary considerably, weeks, depending on the mother, child and other factors, so again, saying that Jefferson was around "exactly at the right times" is misleading, also, as you have no 'evidence' that T'Jefferson was the only male family member around the house. If there are any other items I can clear up for you, please present them. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is another consideration that has been glossed over. It has been claimed that Jefferson was around "exactly at the right times" to conceive 'all'(?) of Hemings' children, however, unless there is evidence for the exact dates of birth for each of Hemings' children the idea that Jefferson was around "exactly at the right times" is meaningless and deceitful. If there is conclusive evidence for the 'exact' times of birth, please present it now, otherwise, please put this theory on the shelf with all the other unproven and ill inspired theories. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The birthdays of Heming's confirmed children are known to the day, from Jefferson's own farm book. You might want to check this appendix and indeed the whole report from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation - hardly a source unfriendly to Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Even with birth dates the period of gestation can vary, and again, is there evidence that TJ was the only male member around during these periods? Also, did Hemings herself ever claim that TJ was the father of some/all of her children? Haven't seen anything written about that possibility, either way, at all. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, step back from that goalpost and please read at least the sources that are easily available. In particular, this chapter from the Jefferson foundation discusses other possible fathers. And Gordon-Reed discusses the oral traditions concerning paternity in detail. But we don't need to rediscuss this here over and over again. We have reliable sources summarising the state of the debate. See e.g. Bernstein's Thomas Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just checked the links you have offered and did not see any mention of birth dates. Perhaps I have overlooked them somehow, but if you were/are aware of them/any, why did you not mention one, two or all of them, to help this discussion move along? Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the link I provided. It takes you to Appendix H of the TJS report on the issue, titled Sally Hemings and Her Children. If you click in the links in the section titled "Children (known from Jefferson's records)" or just scroll down to their own sections, you find a short sketch on each of the children of Hemings, with full dates and sources (where available):

• HARRIET HEMINGS I- Born: 5 Oct. 1795 (FB.31)
• BEVERLY HEMINGS - Born: 1 Apr. 1798 (FB.57)

...

• ESTON HEMINGS - Birth: 21 May 1808 (FB.128)

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your original links made no such reference and required hunting around. If you make a claim, you should not expect others to hunt around for the source material, you should have at least cited one birth date. Still, even with birth-dates you or any of these sources have fallen way short of that 'goalpost' in the attempt to pin this on Jefferson, esp since many of the other male family members were around often. Let me just also say that even if could be proven that T'Jefferson was the father, it only proves that he had his weakness also. Nothing more. For all we know, maybe it was Hemings who made the advances towards Jefferson to win favor. i.e.That door can swing both ways, and often does in real life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The very first link I posted in reply to your request was the one to Appendix H of the TJS report, the very page that contains the data. I don't think it's reasonable to ask for line numbers, especially since they depend on your web browser size. Yes, as far as I can tell, the most likely case is that Jefferson and Hemings had a mutually agreeable relationship, at least as far as circumstances allowed. After all, they shared part of their lives from 1787, when Sally came to Paris, to 1826, when she sat on his death bed - i.e. for 39 years. You seem to mistake this debate for something it is not. I have no interest in discrediting Jefferson somehow, but in representing our best understanding of history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading this section, there is some serious POV pushing going on by Gwillhickers. It's dead Jim. We should move along. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is protecting TJ's legacy concerning Hemings. For some reason historians refuse to believe Jefferson was human. Are there any sources that say Jefferson is god? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong guess. 'Gwillhickers' is simply asking for proof of some of the claims made. POV pushing? Have I ever said TJ 'did not' have an affair, or that he was 'above it all'? No, again, I am asking for VERIFICATION OF CLAIMS MADE. -- Schultz claims Jefferson wrote down birth dates of Hemings' children. I asked for at least one example with the source, and what do I get?: A few links with no such birth dates mentioned anywhere. i.e.Zero. I have asked another user, Ebanony, who has claimed that "torture" was used and that this was "undisputed". I have asked, several times now, for a reference and also asked why isn't this in the TJ article if it is so sourced. What did I get in response there? -- Another zero. -- Some of these editors have made a mockery of the TJ article and this discussion. At one time the TJ article had several pages devoted to Hemings. Just recently nearly a whole paragraph was crammed into the lede section about Hemings. Also, while a controversy may justify making mention of the topic, it does not justify UNDUE WEIGHT, esp since this material is already covered on the Hemings page. Are you gentlemen finally clear on that? You can wave sources around all you like, but unless you can use them to back up these claims you are no different than a jackass with a load of books on its back. Now it's time to end this scholarly charade. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You demand "answers" about some irrelevant conversation from last year on "rape", and I responded [101] 5 times! No one here is saying Jefferson was guilty or innocent; we merely wrote in the main space what reliable sources say. You keep dragging this up to deflect from your original research, lack of NPOV and stuff you added to the main article [102] & [103]. No source. Now you're just attacking everyone. Why don't you bother reading what Stephan Schulz wrote? He's been patient enough to respond to your concerns, and he knows what he's saying.

Below you said you're going to remove "most of" the Hemings material. [104] Based on what consensus, documentary evidence or policies? I'm warning you: doing so without proper justification is violation of policy. Do not do it.

1st there is no "oversight". Wikipedia has at least 5 articles on Hemings; 8 of 32 articles on the Jefferson bio page (NY Times) are on Hemings & slavery - like the very 1st which says, "Most people at the meeting agreed that DNA data reported last November, along with the available historical evidence, now makes it between probable and almost certain that Jefferson had a hidden family with Sally Hemings, one of his slaves." [105]; Gordon-Reed's 2nd book on this topic, The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family is "winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in History" [106] (an international award). How can it get more "notable"? 200 years later & they're doing DNA tests on it! You freak for over a month demanding it be removed.

All of which bears out what I've been saying: this is a "notable controversy", and meets criterion (only one) for inclusion in the WP:LEAD; it helps to READ the policy, not invent "undue weight", but that is not on the page requirements. Even with your faulty logic, there's more wikipedia articles on Hemings than 1812 war, which is WHY 1 sentence in the lede could not be "undue weight". As to the Hemings SECTION, due/undue weight is a policy which matters, but you've demonstrated no violation of said policy. Again: do not remove that material. You're free to violate policy, but you can be referred for it. You assume we're out to label Jefferson a "bad man". Why can't you assume WP:AGF? After your insults, demands & unreasonable behaviour, I can still say I admire your determination because you probably believe what you say. But give us a break, mate.Ebanony (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

UnDue Weight to Hemings

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

I have to say that I agree with Ebanony. Why is this 200 year old topic still controversial? There have been books written on this subject, DNA tests taken, research done, etc. It's old news. That said, as much as some individuals hate to acknowledge this, Thomas Jefferson's "relationship" with Sally Hemmings is historically significant. It should not be lumped in with a sex scandal such as Monica Lewinsky. Some of this stuff I'm reading is blatant POV pushing. As I said, this is old news. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

There is no "undue weight" to the Hemings controversy. Your edit [107] ignores the guidelines for writing a lede, the lead "should...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". The Hemings controversy is without question a major controversy (there's like 5 wikipedia articles on this!). I reverted it [108]. This is either a serious lack of NPOV or possibly vandalism WP:VAN. You've made arguments against including text/writers (including removing them) who discussed Jefferson's role in slavery, claiming bias (unfounded).Ebanony (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I disagree. Why should only slavery in general be discussed in the lead? --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

It's already in one of the last paragraphs. It's fine and not a "grossly disproportionate." Trying to remove it in it's entiretly is clear POV pushing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NYTimes said "The enduring rumor that Thomas Jefferson conducted a 38-year liaison with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, is a story that won't be put to rest." [109]. That was before the DNA test, and 38 years is a about half Jefferson's life. This was his wife's half sister (his in law). The Times page on Jefferson [110] has at least 8 out of 32 articles on slavery/Hemings (including the ones at the top). Reed's is "winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in History for her book The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. That's pretty notable. Her 1st book on him THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS: An American Controversy - look at the title. That's just one writer. Since I have been accused of bias, I will not vote on this; I have said my point, and leave it to the consensus to decide if Hemings should be in the lede. Does it meet requirements for inclusion as per the Manual? Ebanony (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

1st Gwillhickers another editor added that information. I reduced it. Now does or doesn't the inclusion of Hemings meet requirements? You seem to agree it does, but want to limit both it and slavery to 1 sentence. They each need 1 sentence to be covered correctly. Slavery is not the same as an alleged relationship, and the syntax would be impossible. A lede gets 4 paragraphs, but Hemings it's not a question of undue weight: it's about "notable controversy". So the war of 1812 is not a controversy & doesn't have to be discussed; "notable controversies", on the other hand, do. There is no other controversy mentioned. Some info needs to be excised, and I've made proposals.Ebanony (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your notion that a topic is more important simply because it is controversial is also ridiculous. Again, Hemmings is no where near as important as all the landmark events Jefferson was involved with. The only reason it is a controversy is because people like yourself take the issue and cram it into a lead section, or employ other in your face tactics, or resort to other forms of noise. Easy to see, Ebanony. Hemings has had no impact on American history, please stop treating the topic as if it has. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree with this one. If there was no impact on history then why are people still discussing it hundreds of years later? It's obvious that it's significant. It happened, it's significant, it's over, end of story. I'm indifferent myself, but it's clear to me from the research that I've done, that this topic is still significant. You're correct in your assertion that Hemmings has significance because of her tie to Jefferson. However, your assertion that she was insignificant or that her "relationship" was insignificant comes across as POV pushing. If Hemmings was not a slave, but a wife or a non-slave mistress then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You say: "Hemings has had no impact on American history" - that's not the criterion used to include it; it's about "notable controversy" not "more important" than a war WP:LEAD. Also, it's incorrect. She and other slaves had a major impact; they were essential to the "slave-based economy", without which the US would never have been founded. No impact? So black slaves don't count? Just the "great white men" who enslaved them? Your version of history is what Gordon-Reed describes as a lack of "proper regard for the humanity and integrity of blacks who were enslaved at Monticello." Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings pg vii. It's clear why you seek to exclude slavery & Hemings. Ebanony (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is another one of your distortions. Slavery may have been important to Jefferson's wealth, not Hemings -- and this one individual certainly has no bearing on Jefferson's presidency or the fate of the American nation. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

UnDue weight to Hemings, still

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

3RR violation reported

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

Seperation of Church and State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).

Then read WP:Primary.

After you've done that, then maybe you will see that 95% of YOUR problem is understanding the Wikipedia process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So 5 primary sources that are held by the secondary source of the Library of Congress who make analytic or evaluative claims about them.

From the link you posted “Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.”

And yet this is MY problem?

Also from your post “and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.”

Already covered that!

Have any other red herrings for me to chase down? -Markglad

• Do us all a favor Markglad? Your comments are near impossible to read, try using paragraphs without large spaces, please? I'm not even going to try to read the above comments because it hurts my eyes. Suffice it to say, your eight reverts did nothing to improve the article imo.

Why am I not surprised of another unsubstantial post trying to get off topic? Do you want to bring something to the table or just banter? If your already biased I guess it would sound good to you. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Unproven"

In a strict sense, nothing is ever proven in science or history - proofs are the realm of pure maths. We make no claim that the allegations about Hemings are proven, and we don't need to make any that they are unproven. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pillars

Your recent edits of Feb 6 were removed for several violations of policy that you were specifically warned about several times before by a variety of editors. [111]. Please see the note there, and discuss any changes you want to make, and use WP:RS before changing the main space.Ebanony (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the "variety of editors" that said you should not devote a whole paragraph in the lede for a topic that has far less weight than other historical landmark events that effect millions of people. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is talking about the lede paragraph; your edits here [112] and here [113] were in the Hemings section. Your claims were Original research without any source, and that is not allowed WP:OR WP:V WP:NPOV. 4 editors told you that information was incorrect, lacked proper sources, and was fringe with a lack of neutrality. They did it on Jan 22 [114], Jan 28 [115]; Jan 29 [116] and Jan 30 [117].You ignored them, presented no new evidence and added it to the main space in Feb 6. Yes, a completely different editor removed them here [118]. Please follow policy.Ebanony (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The passage: "In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children" ..is not original research, it is a fact. No one can say for sure. The next quote in question: "..though for one reason or another they prefer to ignore the other possibilities for Hemings' children, preferring rather to believe it was Thomas Jefferson." ..is also not "original research", it has been demonstrated by yourself and other like minded individuals repeatedly. Please make more of an attempt to be truthful with your claims. I am sure there is a policy for it. Speaking of policy, please observe undue weight for topics that do not compare to other historic landmark events, like the DOI, War of 1812, etc. This also has been pointed out to you by a variety of editors on several occasions, yet you continue to ignore this policy also, treating the Hemings issue as if it had any effect on American history and on millions of Americans and others. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers this information was for your talk page; it was already addressed above here [119]. Since you remove my edits from there, I must inform you here that your edits have been referred to the OR noticeboard WP:NORN Ebanony (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More of your inappropriate, evasive and robotic reference to policy? Again, no one can say for sure if Jefferson was the father. This is not the product of "original research". Lot's of luck trying to convince anyone that it is, esp since you can not prove otherwise. Your appeal to WP:NORN is so convoluted and evasive I seriously doubt you will get any help. Also, since you have done the research as you claim, please cite the source that uses terms like "torture" and show us that this is "undisputed" as you have claimed. Then kindly explain why you have not used this "undisputed" material in the article with the appropriate citation. Your appeal to WP:NORN only waves a flag signaling to everyone that there is no such referral, as I am sure you would have presented it on this discussion page by now. Again, you have failed to do this.

Also, please observe undue weight for topics that do not compare to other historic landmark events, like the DOI, War of 1812, etc. This also has been pointed out to you on several occasions, yet you continue to ignore this policy also, treating the Hemings issue as if it had any effect on American history and on millions of Americans and others. Good luck with WP:NORN. Gwillhickers (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is not History of the United States, this is a biography of Jefferson. Whom he did or did not take to bed and had children with is important to the man Jefferson. Take a look at another historical figure with a similar controversy. Nelson's article mentions Emma Hamilton in the lede. As I pointed out above, "in the final analysis", nobody can say anything beyond Descartes. But we don't do "the truth" anyways. We record what reliable sources say. And reliable scholarship overwhelmingly considers Jefferson the father of Heming's children - not with absolute certainty (which does not exist in science or history), but with enough conviction that e.g. today he would have to pay child support. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hemings' reflection on "the man", Jefferson, might amount to something if it could be proven that Jefferson, "the man", was indeed the father. Landmark events like the DOI, Louisiana Purchase, which are established facts, also reflect on "the man" Jefferson, much more than any 'roll in the hay' with Hemings ever will. And I seriously doubt any court would make someone pay for child support if there was more than 20 other distinct possibilities. Sorry guys, try another approach. Gwillhickers (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it: There is no "20 other distinct possibilities" (the other day you claimed "25"). You need to use WP:RS for claims that go in the main space. You've provided none, and my comments in no way (despite your earlier claim) provide any support for these fringe theories. The question is not if Jefferson did it; our job is to accurately report what experts have written, and none I'm aware of supports your claims of "20" or "25" other possibilities. Field Jefferson had how many sons? Stick to the facts & report what they say.Ebanony (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And I told you about 5 times, STOP with this charade of "rape". I do not claim Jefferson "raped" anybody, and you keep trying to change the subject. I will not discuss in the talk page anything unrelated to proposed edits in the main space; this is policy, though you continue to ignore it WP:TPG. As for your sources on the "25" (now you changed it to "20") other possibilities, you added it to the main space, and that is why you must demonstrate where the info comes from WP:OR. Doesn't come from any source I posted. I didn't remove your edits; several other editors did because they saw the problems too. Ebanony (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, would you kindly stop barking orders please? This discussion involves more than what you have asserted. Rape was mentioned before, per Hemings' situation, that she was not in a position to object to sexual advances. And you have indeed said that "torture" is "undisputed". I have asked you several times why you have not used this term in the article and have also asked what source you have based this opinion on. Thus far all you have done is what you have done all along -- evade the issue in your usual 2-dimensional, myopic fashion. Also, there is far too much undue weight given to Hemings in this article; it has gotten more attention that the other landmark events. Heming's has her own page and the section on Hemings on the TJ page is much larger than sections about Drafting a declaration, Governor of Virginia, Member of Congress...and very little coverage of the War of 1812. Please correct this glaring oversight and remove most of the material that is already covered on the Hemings page , or I will do so. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment replied to above here [120]. Please go there and say your piece.Ebanony (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)