Talk:Thomas Jefferson

This article shows the folly of wikipedia

In how they lock the article from editing and let heresay be pronounced as historic fact, ignoring the scholar's commission report, and numerous scholarly research that followed by Burton and Hyland that points out discrepancies in those that pronounce the relationship as a foregone conclusion. It's based on anecdotal evidence, and libelous slander by a political enemy. The DNA evidence was never definitive for Jefferson's parentage regardless of how the mass-media reported it, rather it pointed to a Y-marker carried from Field Jefferson, and descendants. That proves nothing, and leaves a dozen plus relatives as possible parents. It's a shame how exculpatory evidence is all but ignored, and things become fact because consensus untruth says so, and then wikipedia locks this article from revision settling on wild speculation as fact.

Historian views on Jefferson's paternity of Sally Heming's children

Just for clarification, what historians are for the Jefferson paternity of Sally Heming's children and what historians are against the Jefferon paternity of Sally Heming's children? Please feel free to add to or modify the list. The term "historian" is defined as any person or organization who has done extensive published research on the paternity of Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This should not be the definition, but rather all that is required are the recognized historians who are writing about Jefferson. Malone and Peterson didn't do "extensive research on the paternity of Hemings' children, but dealt with it in the course of writing about Jefferson. Contemporary historians are not required to do separate research on the paternity issue, as that has been established and generally accepted in academic consensus. This is not a voting contest; we established some time ago on this page that consensus exists in the academic community, whether or not there are editors who do not want to accept it. Also, do not put people in the Against column who changed their minds as a result of the DNA study and Annette Gordon-Reed's work. That is not the point any more; all it reflects is that the scholarship has changed. I'm beginning to think it is a mistake to have this article reflect the controversy that existed, as it has essentially been closed or finished for nearly a decade. Maybe we should simply discuss the consensus as given, with brief reasons for it, not with the tracing of different historians' earlier positions, which seems to lead some people into extended argument.Parkwells (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• For

Gordon-Reed *

Ellis **

Brodie

Halliday ***

Thomas Jefferson Foundation

Bernstein

Andrew Burstein

Hitchens ****

Andrew O. Boulton

Helen F. M. Leary, certified genealogist, National Genealogical Society

Philip D. Morgan

Gordon S. Wood

Jack Rakove

Thomas Jefferson Foundation, including numerous historians

Lucia C. Stanton, Monticello (TJF)

National Genealogical Society

Joshua D. Rothman

• Against

Malone, dead; his opinion was not based on current data. Parkwells (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Peterson, d. 2009; major books on Jefferson published in 1960 and 1970; did not have current data, and reflected his own time. Parkwells (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society

Notes:

Gordon-Reed is a Professor of Law and History. *

Ellis was against Jefferson paternity until the 198 DNA study was published; he changed his mind. **

Depends if Halliday is considered a reliable source. ***He uses Gordon-Reed's work; that's clear.

Hitchens is a journalist. ****

I think this is somewhat simplified - it's not a vote, and careful historians will have a nuanced view (including e.g. Gordon-Reed). I've just finished Bernstein's "Thomas Jefferson", and he strongly supports paternity. So does another biographer, Christopher Hitchens, in Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. But Hitchens is more a journalist, and less a historian. Malone died before Gordon-Reeds reappraisal of the evidence and the DNA tests came to light. The Jefferson Heritage Society denies paternity (but then that's essentially it's raison d'etre). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My purpose is to clarify the consensus among historians. I defined historian. Does a historian with PH.D. in History have more weight then a journalist? How is this article making this distinction? Gordon-Reed is an attorney. If one defined historian strictly as a person with PH.D. in History, then how many historians support that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings? There is no way to conjecture if Malone would have changed his opinion. That is why I put Malone in the against category. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Foster DNA research - his assistant Herbert Barger has publicly expressed disgust with the way the research was conducted and presented. Barger calls the published report misleading. The DNA links only one Hemings child to the Jefferson line - and doesn't directly indicate TJ - and according to Barger there was information and dissenting views that Foster refused to make part of his reports. Something that Barger points out regarding the "Jefferson was always there when Sally got knocked up so there you have it" issue is that whenever Jefferson returned home, he was always greeted by relatives who traveled to see him. The more I find out about this the more I see that it's not as cut and dried as some would like everyone to believe.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you get Gordon-Reeds Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. You don't need to believe her conclusions, but the book makes some very astute observations not only about the evidence itself, but also about implicit (and generally unjustified) assumptions of later observers that I find very valuable. It's currently ~US$12 from Amazon (disclosure: I'm still stuck in the second chapter or so). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I will. Barger has some unflattering things to say about her work - biased, agenda-driven, overreaching in her conclusions, gives too much weight to a DNA study that has some issues. I find he's not alone in this viewpoint. From what I gather the meat of her position is - DNA match to male Jefferson line (of one and only one Hemings child), and TJ in physical proximity to SH at times she would have become pregnant. Neither of these eliminates others as the potential father. Jefferson made no public statement, made private denials. Possible explanations - he was covering for others, or he was lying to his friends and was the father of one or more of her children. No writing by Sally Hemings exists. All the conclusions about what she was like - not promiscuous etc. are utter speculation. No matter what AGR has to say, she can't create evidence that doesn't exist.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an example of why I suggest you read it for yourself and don't rely on second-hand accounts. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that the book was published before the DNA study was published (although later editions have a new preface mentioning it), and hence gives no weight to it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We're going with what's current. Later editions are more recent than previous editions. She does use it to bolster her position currently.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but claiming the book gives "too much weight to the DNA study" when the whole argument of the book is constructed without referencing the study once (no surprise, since it was not published when the book came out) is absurd. Sure, the DNA study supports her argument, but that is very much not the point of the book - nor is she using it to "bolster her argument". If someone claims that, he has either not read (or at least not understood) the book, or he is confused about which book we are talking about, or he is lying. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the topic. This discussion is not concerning the Dr. Foster DNA study. Dr. Foster never stated directly Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children. The topic is on historians who believe Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children versus those who do not favor or have not favored that Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Foster study is integral with the topic. Of course Foster didn't state this since the evidence is insufficient to do so. This doesn't prevent many from trying to make that leap anyway.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Annette Gordon-Reed is a Professor of Law and a Professor of History at Harvard, and holds a named chair at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. I seriously don't think describing her as "an attorney" is adequate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing that.Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Previously, she was a professor of History at Rutgers, and a Professor of Law at New York (holding simulteneous chairs), so describuing her as only a law professor is misleading.65.79.14.40 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, this discussion is pretty pointless. There is a cite in the article regarding "most historians;" No "count" by anonymous wikipedians is going to change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.14.40 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a pointless discussion in attempting to figure out who is (was) who with Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the point? Are you going to count every article and book published? The consensus has been established. People here are not going to influence that, whether they understand it or not.Parkwells (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion really needs to be finished; it is getting absurd. We've been through this before months ago on this Talk page; the consensus among reliable historians has been achieved, and it does not depend on whether the editors of this article agree. If our discussion here goes on much longer, Wikipedia will look ridiculous. We are supposed to follow the reliable sources,and they have accepted that Jefferson was the father. I provided plenty of evidence months ago on this page to show that there is a consensus, and it does not need a new list of every historian who has ever written about Jefferson, and their positions. The fact that Annette Gordon-Reed's book won the Pulitzer Prize and 15 other major awards made by committees of her peers, and that she won a MacArthur Prize for "changing Jeffersonian scholarship" shows that this position/conclusion is accepted. Barger's criticism in an Amazon review or other minor articles cannot be weighed equally against the recognition in the academic world for her accomplishments; he does not have equivalent standing. I also wrote previously on this Talk page that Monticello has been changing their exhibits, website and publications to account for the new scholarship. That also has more weight than Barger. They are an academic community. Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To continue, editors could look at the histories published in the last 10 years about Jefferson and/or interracial relations in the South, and you will see that they have nearly all (except those by people associated with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society) accepted that he is the father of Hemings' children. This is not only about historians already cited in this article, as new books appear all the time, and editors should be reading new work to add here. Monticello has exhibits in the visitors center showing Jefferson as the father of all of Sally Hemings' children. History has moved on, and this article needs to reflect current thinking.

Just a few examples: Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Families Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861 (2003), an academic book by Joshua D. Rothman (UNC Press) about interracial marriages and relationships in VA, reflects the new position on Jefferson. New books by leading historians such as Gordon S. Wood accept the conclusions. His latest book, The Empire of Liberty, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize last year; he writes: "Although the evidence is now overwhelming that Jefferson was sexually involved with Sally Hemings, that may be less important than the fact that miscegenation was part of his family and going on all around him at Monticello.", p. 514. Jack Rakove, another Pulitzer Prize-winner, accepts Jefferson's paternity, acknowledging it in Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America (2010); Philip D. Morgan, one of the leading writers on slavery who won a Bancroft Prize for his book Slave Counterpoint, addressed this, providing much information on the many interracial relationships and ties in Albemarle County, including that of Jefferson and Hemings, so that people understand the society, in his chapter in "Interracial Sex In the Chesapeake and the British Atlantic World c.1700-1820", in Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: history, memory, and civic culture, Edited by Jan Lewis, Peter S. Onuf, University of Virginia Press, 1999. In a Time article by Anita Hamilton, 5 July 2004, Morgan was more emphatic about accepting the consensus: "I feel a bit stupid that I felt otherwise," says Philip Morgan, a professor of early American history at Johns Hopkins University, who once doubted the relationship. "I should have picked up on it sooner." Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Included in the body of evidence considered by historians was an early 2000s statistical analysis of Hemings' conception dates and Jefferson's residencies at Monticello, during his years of extensive travel. She only conceived when he was there; there is a 99 percent chance that he is the father of all her children.

Assuming Gordon Wood is Gordon S. Wood, is there a source that he changed his mind? In 1997 he still claimed "We just don’t have the evidence for the existence of the long and passionate slave marriage" - of course that was before the DNA results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind - this review of Gordon-Reeds "Hemingses" is pretty unambiguous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wood concluded: "And with this book [The Hemingses of Monticello] Gordon-Reed explores Jefferson's relationship to Sally Hemings and the rest of his household slaves with a degree of detail and intimacy never before achieved. If anyone had any doubts about whether Sally Hemings was Jefferson's concubine, The Hemingses of Monticello should put them to rest." Parkwells (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, this discussion is pointless, it also abuses the proper use of the talk page, see instructions at the top of this page. We are not to take surveys of publications, on the talk page, it's a total waste of space. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, the article stated that a concensus of historians, without stating who these historians are. I could say a consensus of historians prefer strawberries over grapes. That is meaningless. Thomas Jefferson is not meaningless. The discussion has shown the historians who have concluded Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings children. These historians need to be put in the article. Wikipedia readers need not take Wikipedia articles at face value. There is nothing that prohibits a survey in the discussion page in order to improve the article. I reccommend putting in a note that states who these historians are that support Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not an abuse of the talk page. We are discussing historical consensus to improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Most historians" is referenced to a reliable source and is a direct quote of that source. This discussion cannot change that source, or what the source says. A head count of unknown accuracy by anonymous wikipedians cannot improve anything, and is an abuse of the talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the Monticello web source. The source made a claim that stated most historians believe Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings. I just wanted to know who were these historians. I am not for a head count of unknown accuracy. The source did not mention who these historian were. That is why I put this in the discussion page. If this issue belonged in the reference desk, I apoligize. I believe that it would improve this article if some of these persons who support that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings were used as sources in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I think the work of most or all these scholars is mentioned. Second, this particular aspect of their scholarship (if more detail is needed) would best belong in the Hemings Controversy article not the general biography (you may wish to copy and paste this discussion there). Finally, any reference to a head count of scholars, for it to go into any Wikipedia article, would have to come from a reliable source and not be the independent work (original research) of wikipedians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children

Editors please note that the historiography of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy has been moved to a new article by the above name, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as not being sufficiently different from the Jefferson DNA data article and not having Talk page history. Please visit the article page if you have comments on this. I've notified other editors who have worked on this issue over the last several months, in addition to posting here. Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, thanks for pinging my page. I had thought you abandoned all faith regarding my opinion and such. I have just gone over edit history briefly and frankly am amazed to see that most of the material on Hemmings and all the historians that were outlined by name, in some cases repeatedly, have been more or less moved or eliminated. And I see there is yet another page that covers this material in the first place. As I have always maintained, this is a biography, but since it is a presidential biography it is allowed to overlap into history beyond that of an average biography, but to a point. In the past, coverage of the controversy and such far exceeded that point, and in my opinion, the slavery section is still a bit past that point. Seems to be the biggest on the page. The material up for speedy deletion I will let others hack out. If the same material goes at length in more than one article, one of them needs to be trimmed. Isn't this already mandated by policy in the first place? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was working on the "Controversy" article (for the historiography) and frankly, got tired of the topic and didn't finish summarizing it. A new editor has set up the new article (referenced above) with my previous material from here on that topic. Now we have to figure out how to get appropriate Talk page discussion attached to the new piece. Someone else will have to work on the Slavery section here; I believe that a couple of editors were working on issues at the larger article on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children has been deleted. Apparently the administrator was not moved by our comments. We probably need to set it up in special space until all sections are complete, then try again. I won't be working on this today, but maybe later this week.Parkwells (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The information has now been added to the Jefferson DNA Data article, which was therefore renamed to Jefferson-Hemings controversy to have a more accurate title. KarlFrei (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Lead

Editors here have not provided support/sources for presenting material on Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children that is more qualified than that of the leading public history institution on his life. Here is what the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello) currently says: "Ten years later [referring to its 2000 report], TJF and most historians now believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison and Eston Hemings."[1] That should be sufficient for Wikipedia, especially as it is bolstered by other professional organizations, such as the National Genealogical Society. So I'm changing the lead to say he was the father of her six children.Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, as long as it's presented for what it is - qualified opinion (qualified as in def. 2. from Webster's - "limited or modified in some way") which it appears to currently be.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead section is the best I have read so far. Jefferson is mentioned as a slave owner. There is mention that historians believe he fathered children by a female slave. His views on slavery are complex is a very good statement. To tone is fair rather then judgmental, even stating that Jefferson belonged to an elite planter society. That is accurate. Good job! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Qualified opinion is not the same as circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence. Either Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings or someone else fathered the children. Randolph Jefferson was not at Monticello each time Sally Hemings got pregnant. The DNA evidence links Thomas Jefferson line, rather then the Carr brothers. The only possible alternative is Thomas Jefferson. Here is another way to look at this issue. Jefferson promised his dying wife that he would not remarry. Sally Hemings, his wife's half sister slave, could offer Jefferson female sexuality, without having to be married. Thus fulfilling his pledge to his wife Martha. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point. The opinions are based on circumstantial evidence and inconclusive DNA evidence - ergo they're qualified, there's no other choice. It might be correct that Jefferson fathered one or all of Hemings' kids but we'll never know with certainty. A simple sentence or two from Jefferson admitting paternity would make the volumes written on the subject unnecessary, but no such public confession exists, apparently in private he made only denials. Re: The whereabouts of Randolph Jefferson or any of the other potential candidates for paternity, your assertion is rather far-reaching in an era where no documentation exists other than what was written down. Even in this day and age with all kinds of electronic media, various paper/computer trails, etc. it can be difficult to pin down someone's exact whereabouts. You claim you know with certainty where Jefferson's male relations were at all times a couple of centuries ago, particularly regarding something they were unlikely to document, might have even had a reason to outright lie.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not about the assertions or opinions of editors in Wikipedia- follow the scholarship and reliable sources. The field has changed and most historians believe that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. They are interpreting available evidence, as historians have always done.Parkwells (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The DNA evidence is conclusive. The Carr Brothers are not the father of Sally Hemings children. There are only two alternatives, Thomas or Randolph. Jefferson according to the DNA evidence is that "probable" father of Eston Hemings. Thomas Jefferson was there at all the times when Sally Hemings got pregnant. Anyone can say anything to create reasonable doubt. Yes. Wikipedia needs to go by the scholarship and the current viewpoint. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"...The DNA evidence is conclusive..." Only to the extent that it shows that a Jefferson male fathered ONE of Hemings' children. That's all it shows, period. It doesn't conclusively show that Thomas was the father of that one Hemings child nor does it tell anything about her other children. "...There are only two alternatives, Thomas or Randolph..." - That's factually incorrect. I'll let you do some self-education to determine how so.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings lived inside the Monticello mansion. Jefferson lived inside the Monticello mansion. Jefferson was there every time Sally Hemings got pregnant. A Jefferson male fathered one of Heming's children according to the DNA evidence. If you add the circumstancial evidence and the DNA evidence, then one can conclude Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children. How does "self-education" have any connection with examining the evidence? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-education as to the fact of what other Jefferson males were within a plausible distance. I have to assume you have some notion as to the lengths a hormonal male can go to "get some action". Wouldn't seem at all out of the realm of possibility that someone might have made clandestine horseback rides to visit a willing girl. It's ridiculous to try to assume you know the whereabouts of all of them 200 years after the fact when there existed no documentation other than what someone happened to chronicle with a quill pen. I bet you couldn't definitively pinpoint your relative's whereabouts during a given several month period even 10 years ago. Virtually nothing is known about Sally Hemings herself. Not one syllable that she ever wrote, it's not even known if she was literate. She could have been a complete slut - it's all speculation. then one can conclude Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children - One can state that the available evidence makes this a distinct, even likely possibility but not a definitively proven fact. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us get what you are saying, we really do, we may even agree, yes, agree. All that is IRRELEVANT to our task, here. It is irrelevant what we think is likely or unlikely; it is irrelevant what we think is proven or unproven. Our job is simpler, we merely record what reliable sources have said, whatever their conclusions are. If they say, Thos. Jefferson spent three months on the moon and ate its green cheese, we record that. If they say he had children by Sally, we record that. If they say he didn't have children, we record that. Why? Because "truth" is explicitly not our job, as Wikipedians, rather providing information ("true" or "untrue" information) from verifiable sources is our job. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker that reliable sources are to be put in the Wikipedia article by Wikipedia editors. I disagree that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to "think for themselves" and just put in whatever the source stated, if flatly false. Reliable sources can disagree with each other, in addition, contain bias. I do not believe it is appropriate to use the words "slut" and "get some action" in a Wikipedia discussion. The way the article is written, I believe is neutral as possible. However, more information can be done on Jefferson's wife Martha. I have searched for a photo of her and found some on web. I just have to get the correct permission. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no known/proven images of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson. Most images available on the Internet that are supposedly of Mrs. Thomas Jefferson are actually of her daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolph. There is a silhouette labeled as "Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson" and available at FirstLadies.Org but there are a few problems with this identification: this is not proven to be of Mrs. Randolph, that particular website appears to be a for-profit organization and is not an official US museum and the silhouette's clothing and the silhouette's style appear to be all 'wrong' for the time-period of Mrs. Jefferson's life (1748-1782). The image is supposedly from the Library of Congress but when I enquired about this image their reference section said that

"The item in our holdings is not an original silhouette, but a reproduction print of a silhouette. On the front of the item, below the image and the script signature (printed on, not handwritten), there is a notice of copyright for 'Campbell Prints, Inc., N.Y.' as well as 'No. 6550'. "

Yes, yes, I know this wouldn't be verifiable since it isn't published but the Monticello Website also states that : "No portraits of Martha Jefferson survive" and here that "There are no known portraits of Martha Wayles Jefferson and descriptions of her appearance are scant." The Clinton-era White House official website states that "No known images of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson exist" and the book "Mr. Jefferson's Woman" by Jon Kukla states on 67 "no likeness of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson was ever put to canvas". There are various prints and an unattributed miniature that are purportedly of Mrs. Jefferson but the identifications are not accepted by modern scholarship. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Library of Congress states that they have no images of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson. Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That is to bad if there are no known images. The White House does give a description of her. Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson I can put that in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I added information on Martha Wayles Skelton. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No section for Sally Hemings

I have noticed the mention of Sally Hemings is neatly tucked away in the marriage and family section. In my opinion this is misleading to the reader. Marriage and family implies, in my opinion, that he had a relationship with only one person and had children by only one person. There needs to be a subsection on Hemings. I agree that the issue does not need to be expanded any more then is currently, however, there is no need to hide Hemings in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend putting the current information on Sally Hemings into the slavery section, since Hemings was a slave, although briefly free while living in Revolutionary France. I believe Sally Hemings deserves a section in the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that the politics in this article end. The only person neatly tucked away and hidden, is his real wife Martha Jefferson who gets less action than Sally Hemmings, not only in that section but in all of WP. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I made a recommendation for discussion. I agree more can be said on Martha Jefferson, even having her own section. However, I do not believe that Sally Hemings needs to be in the same section as Martha Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The fuss around here made over Sally Hemmings, in at least the last six months, could fill a novel. She was important to a tiny group of people. I find it astounding. It's like Sally Hemmings was the most important thing in Jefferson's life.....ridiculous. The article is fine, Sally Hemmings has her own article, what more is needed? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings and her children were moved into the "Marriage and family" section to show that Jefferson had another relationship, as suggested by another editor. Let's reach consensus on this page before moving again. That editor felt that because Jefferson had a monogamous four-decade relationship and four surviving children, Hemings deserved recognition in the "family" section. (Such families were called "shadow families" by Southerners.) She was not just any slave, but a 3/4 white slave who was half-sister to his wife. Martha Jefferson has her own article, so I don't think she needs more space in Jefferson's bio. Hemings became important because historians tried to deny the relationship for so long - rather than recognizing it as indicative of its time.Parkwells (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hemings became important because historians tried to deny the relationship for so long ....he said continuing the effort to treat the subject as definitively proven. It still isn't. Won't be within your lifetime.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings while she remained at Monticello was a slave. There is no source that mentions Jefferson and Hemings were in any romantic relationship. Family implies marriage. The title does not state Marriage, family, and "shadow family", just Marriage and family. I believe Hemings belongs in the Slavery section. More could be mentioned, in my opinion, on Martha Jefferson, someone whom Jefferson truely loved. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And your source for the statement "Martha Jefferson, someone whom Jefferson truely loved" rather than the relationship he had with Hemmings is?... Talkpages are supposed to be a place where interested editors discuss improvements to the associated article. I cannot believe that someone would say, in essence, that having children does not somehow equal the concept of "family". If that is so, then all mention of the illegitimate descendants of English kings need to be scrubbed from their articles, including Henry FitzRoy, Catherine Carey and every single one of Charles II of England's children - all of whom happened to be illegitimate. Any possible issues regarding this section header and its present implications could be fixed by changing the header to something along the lines of "Family life". As to the asserted paucity of coverage within the article regarding Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, I am unaware why any interested editor would be unable to adjust the lacking information. I would also suggest that the Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson article could benefit from much of the energy being directed towards mentions of her in her husband's article. Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I put this in for discussion to improve the article. At least the heading needs to reflect that Thomas Jefferson had a "shadow family". Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, does get lost in the attention on Sally Hemings, both deserve attention. Thomas Jefferson promised to never marry again. I would say that demonstrates love, affection, and devotion. Had Mrs. Jefferson lived there may have been no Sally Hemings controversy. Hemings was a slave and although women at that time were virtually slaves to men, Martha was a free person under the protection of her husband. Jefferson was not married to Sally Hemings. In that respect his children with Hemings were illigitimate. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

reflect that Thomas Jefferson had a "shadow family" - He is *believed* to have had a family with Hemings. No evidence exists that rises to the level of definitive conclusiveness.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No evidence exists that rises to "definitive conclusiveness" that Jefferson had any biological children, or even that the sun will rise tomorrow. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson acknowledged his known children as did others. To date no evidence has been shown that he acknowledged a relationship with SH or claimed any Hemings child as his. We can see photographic evidence of the motion of the Earth and our sun. You can observe it with your own eyes. There doesn't even exist a contemporary portrait of SH or one word she ever wrote. There isn't even enough known about her to state whether she was literate. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson wouldn't know. About the only person in a position to be really sure would be Martha Jefferson, Sally's sister - and perhaps not even she. And even if Jefferson had known, his dislike for scandal would have made it unlikely to state so openly. As for the Earth and the sun: That's only true as long as the mice don't switch of the simulation. See cogito, ergo sum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet apparently there is sufficient information to cause editors to spend more time on the Sally Hemmings content of the TJ article, than all other content combined. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So, some of Jefferson's children were legitimate and some were illegitimate...they are all still his children. I do not pretend to know what this man's feelings were for either woman, I am only interested in verifiable information that can be used to improve the article associated with this talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I may have gotten side tracked on whether Jefferson loved his wife Martha, however, he was deeply upset after her death. Marriage and family implies legitimancy. I believe the section title needs to be changed or Sally Hemings needs to be moved to the slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The title "Family" is good. I believe that is better then "Marriage and family". Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the defenders of Jefferson are digging a hole for themselves. They are spending a lot of time trying to prove Jeferson had no romantic relationship with Hemmings. Well if that is true, then that would make Thoams Jefferson a rapist. It seems to me his supporters would be better off changing their tactics 97.91.176.159 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Alleged children...

The following link: Expressions of doubt, explains how "alleged" is not the best word choice. There needs to be some other word then alleged. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If we need the qualifier, which I doube, "putative" would probably be best, but it might be thought a bit obscure. Maybe "reputed". Paul B (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a qualifier is needed, but it's a type of Catch-22... Some observers have doubts about the identity of the father of Sally Hemings' children, a small portion of verifiable scholarship also has doubts, so what is verifiable from reliable sources has to be rendered in the article regardless of what the majority of editors think or what the majority of historians/scientists/researchers think. Agree though, that "alleged' is a charged word, "reputed" is less so, so "reputed" would be a better choice. Interested readers can read the section themselves and make up their own minds. Shearonink (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some observers have doubts about the identity of the father of Sally Hemings' children - sure, those who believe in objectivity rather than pushing an agenda. From what I understand, those who fall on the side of "he was probably the father" all include some form of "probably" because they don't want to get embarrassed if the opposite is ever proven. They have doubts because the existing evidence doesn't eliminate doubt. The fact that Thomas Woodson is mentioned on the Monticello website clearly demonstrates the influence of social pressure. Someone who has no more genetic connection to Thomas Jefferson or Sally Hemings than you or I do is mentioned because of "family oral history". This translates to "we're capitulating in mentioning Woodson at all because we don't want to be accused of being a bunch of haters". The current section title "Children Of Sally Hemings" is good, that she had children isn't disputed. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

...what is verifiable from reliable sources has to be rendered in the article regardless of what the majority of editors think or what the majority of historians/scientists/researchers think. I believe that is the case in the article at present, I am not sure what the point of posting "those who believe in objectivity rather than pushing an agenda". Per TPYES let's please stick to discussing how to improve this article and resist the urge to characterize other editors' contributions or thoughts. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the point of posting "those who believe in objectivity rather than pushing an agenda...stick to discussing how to improve this article" - Since you're not sure I'll be happy to clarify it for you. There have been those who clearly are motivated by a desire to insert statements in the article that overstep what the sources say. Insisting editors stick to what the sources actually say IS aimed at improving the article. Yes, as long as what's in the article reflects the qualified, non-definitive nature of what's said - "likely", "probably", "most believe" etc. - and further makes it clear that there are historians who don't agree with "the majority" then yes, it reflects that. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So fair as I can tell at this time, the article as written reflects that there are differences of opinion about Sally Hemings' family and who the father of her children was and, also as reported in reputable sources, that the majority of historians agree that Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings' children. I have no agenda in this matter and am merely following the Wikipedia practices of verifiability not truth and reputable sources and agree with Parkwells' post below (18:39/21 September 2011)

It reflects it now, I've changed the wording where previously many of the articles related to this topic had unqualified statements that Thomas Jefferson was the father of SH's chidren, period. Saying many historians believe this and the reasons they believe this is supported, saying "he was" period, isn't. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If other editors agree on "reputed" then that is fine. However, readers need to make their own minds up whether Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Readers always make up their own minds. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on adding "alleged" or "reputed." We have gone over this issue numerous times, and there is still no basis for Wikipedia adding more qualifiers in this article, than have the reliable sources of the consensus of historians - look at the published works of the last 10 years. Some editors don't like the Thomas Jefferson Foundation; that's not enough reason to change this article, as it operates the premiere public history site for the interpretation of Thomas Jefferson and Monticello. The phrase "Most historians agree," which is both in the Lead and in the section on Hemings' children tells you that some do not agree. As long asked for by other editors, the Jefferson-Hemings controversy article provides more detail on the issues, the historiography, the DNA results, the case made by the minority who disagree, and critics of the minority. The consensus historians are the ones being published by academic and major presses. The minority who take issue with this consensus are generally not being published at the same level. Wikipedia is supposed to follow the reliable sources, not suggest a different position.Parkwells (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)