Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

There is a small gramatical issue Thomas Jefferson42 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Religion

I am not sure the article discusses Jefferson's religion completely. He rejected Christ's divinity, miracles, and trinity. It's doubtful he was a Christian or viewed himself as a sinner. He recommended boldly questioning even the very existence of God. One could view Jefferson as anti-Christian. Jefferson I believe had a copy of the Koran. Not sure that is discussed either. No. Not saying Jefferson was a Muslim, but why would he want to read the Koran. Maybe his religion has been understudied by historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

When historians say Jefferson was anti-clerical, is that a polite way of saying Jefferson was anti Christian? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that his views did not fit well with many Christians at the time is pretty clear right now in the article. He certainly was not "anti-Christian." I mean, of course, if you can find a scholarly characterizing him that way, then it can be added, but I doubt such sources exist. Jefferson consistently praised Jesus's teachings as the highest and best moral principles, while largely rejecting the miraculous side of Christianity. He also was suspicious of church hierarchies, but those latter two things don't by themselves make him "anti-Christian."--MattMauler (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

All I am saying is that it is not clear what anti-clerical means in the article. The clerics support Jesus as divine, Jesus' miracles, and the trinity. Removing miracles from the Bible could be considered anti-Christian. Was Jefferson's Bible ever published or was it just a private work? The article could define what anti-clerical means. There is an article by Montichello.org on Jefferson's religious beliefs. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Jefferson Bible was a private work and never published during his lifetime. I added this for better clarification. Actually, that goes in Jefferson's favor. He was not trying to publically overturn Christianity. But what does it mean to be anti-clerical? Was Jefferson basically a pagan? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the Monticello.org site article Jefferson's Religious Beliefs Cmguy777 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Jefferson rejected the notion of the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity. He rejected Biblical miracles, the resurrection, the atonement, and original sin (believing that God could not fault or condemn all humanity for the sins of others, a gross injustice)." Monticello.org Cmguy777 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

One can conclude Jefferson fundamentally rejected Christianity. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"All I am saying is that it is not clear what anti-clerical means in the article." We already have an article on anti-clericalism. Including the widespread 18th-century European belief that the clergy was corrupt, and Freemasonry's traditional association with anti-clericalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there is enough and readers can follow the links if they want to know more. Anti-clericalism merely means he did not think that the Catholic church should not have government powers, such as having religious courts and taxing people. TFD (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is true Virginia has a history of being anti-Catholic. Catholics were not allowed to hold office in 1641 or be fined 1,000 pounds of tobacco. Virginia, however, was a Crown Colony where the King was head of the Anglican Church. This is what Jefferson objected to, Anglicanism, or the King having religious control over the colonists. However, it is clear Jefferson was against any form of fundamental Christianity. I think he goes beyond being anti-clerical, he is anti any religion. That is why he turned Jesus into a benign moral philosopher. Yes. Jefferson was anti-Catholic, or Pope rules, but he was also anti-Anglican, or King rules. That is where clarification is needed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Do any historians call Jefferson a pagan for rejecting Christianity? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That is original thought. What does anti-Christian sentiment have to do with paganism? And why would rejecting Christian superstition and mumbo-jumbo (miracles, resurrections, other bullcrap) make him a pagan? Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I simply asked a question. That is not original thought. Jefferson was interested in religion. But from what I understand about western culture is that anyone who rejects Christianity is considered pagan. The word pagan is not meant to be derogatory towards anyone. I used the Jefferson Foundation as a source provided in this talk page that Jefferson rejected fundamental Christianity. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do I ask the question? That is because Jefferson did not publish his Bible during his lifetime. Was Jefferson concerned about public reaction to his book? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson would be considered an unconverted Christian or "pagan". Jefferson may have agreed with Jesus's philosophy, but that does not make Jefferson a Christian. Jefferson's Bible leaves Jesus dead on the Cross. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The quoted words were Jefferson's words. Jefferson removed the miracles from the Bible because he thought they were a "dunghill". It is clear freedom of religion for Jefferson was to force all people to be atheists. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It is clear freedom of religion for Jefferson was to force all people to be atheists. That is not at all clear from his "dunghill" comments, nor would it be historically accurate to say so. Jefferson and other Enlightenment-influenced thinkers were vociferous advocates of religious tolerance. Even Voltaire, who voiced perhaps even harsher critiques of religion, believed that people should be free to believe what they wanted.
You're welcome to re-add the content I reverted if it's rephrased to make it clear that Jefferson was the one using the "diamond"/"dunghill" expression. As it was, it looked like it might have been Peterson describing or paraphrasing Jefferson's views.--MattMauler (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Any opinions I have are only meant for the talk page, not the article. The quote is Jefferson's. I admit I was a little shocked by the quote. Jefferson had no moral issue with taking out miracles, and in my opinion, his extraction of miracles was what he was referring to as a dunghill. Also, Jefferson went beyond Jesus's philosophy, he purposely left Jesus dead in the tomb. If the book was solely about philosophy, why even mention the tomb and extract the resurrection. What I meant by making people atheists is that Christianity to Jefferson was a weakened Christ who only was a philosopher. In other words, believing in the Bible, as written, was not considered a religion. Also, Jefferson advocated questioning the existence of God. Some people thought he was an atheist. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the article being neutral? Anyone who rejects Christianity, should not that person be considered anti-Christian. Does being a diest make one religious? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources do not call him "anti-Christian."--MattMauler (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources:

• Heretic of the week: Thomas Jefferson Charles Coulombe (February 27, 2020) Catholic Herald Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• The Bible According to Thomas Jefferson Peter Carlson (9/27/2017) Historynet Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Jefferson the Skeptic Brooke Allen (Summer, 2006) The Hudson Review JSTOR Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think it would appropriate to mention that the method Jefferson made his Bible was controversial, such as mutilating the original Bible scripture, by slicing passages up with a knife. Something controversial by today's standards. Carlson (9/27/2017) would be the source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Information added. Please don't revert. There has been plenty of time to discuss this. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reverted due to weight, sourcing, and tone issues. Feel free to propose better phrasing and sourcing. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Tone issues? Jefferson mutilated 8 Bibles. For Christians: The Holy Scriptures and Word of God. There is no politically correct way to put it. Jefferson mutilated eight Bibles. The source I used is reliable. Wikipedia is not a Jefferson protection article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Historynet is not a fringe source. Carlson used the word "mutilated". The elephant in the room is that Jefferson hated Christianity. Mutilating a Bible to a Christian is like burning a flag to an American. These sources have been on the talk page for a significant time. No one questioned their reliability until the edit was made in the article. In retrospect, no historian has celebrated Jefferson cutting up to eight Bibles. It is not Jefferson's finest hour. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no elephant in the room. The matter is discussed in the article. That you want to make something more out of it with rather questionable sources, that's all you. The Brooke Allen article calls him a skeptic, but that's not what you are aiming for, and it doesn't call him an "anti-Christian" in a very indirect way. I'll add that the Hudson Review is a journal on literature and the arts, and that Brooke Allen, while a well-published writer on literature etc., is not a historian, and her Moral Minority, while praised by George Will and some others (non-historians), is not well reviewed by historians: see https://www.jstor.org/stable/27779046--"...As further that Allen has missed the last few decades of historical scholarship...", that sort of thing. So you are not going to get much scholarly consensus for "anti-Christian", and I think this is another stick that should be dropped. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson hating Christianity, refers to Jefferson mutilating 8 Bibles, combined with the fact Jefferson rejected Jesus's miracles, his Divinity, and Ressurection. The Catholic article specifically says Jefferson hated Catholics and labeled him a heretic of the week. It is the act of mutilating 8 Bibles that is questioned. Not Jefferson's religious views or lack thereof. No historians celebrate that. I have no stick to drop. The sources were provided. No criticism of them was made until after the edit. Editors failed to discuss the sources. There was plenty of time for editors to criticize the sources, but none was made. That is why I went ahead with the edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the mutilation of the Bibles an act of hatred? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic sentiment was extremely commonplace in GB as well as the colonies in the 18th century. No one said fringe; I said "weight issues". Can you provide a source that indicates that Jefferson's actions were an "act of hatred"? If you're asking for my personal assessment, pass. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked rhetorically because the Catholic source said Jefferson hated Catholics. Jefferson was capable of hatred. Jefferson also referred to parts of the Bible as a dunghill. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

One might rhetorically ask whether rhetorical questions are the best way to further a content discussion. "Jefferson was capable of hatred" is an remarkably useless sentence. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Mutilate" comes from that obviously opinionated piece on that HistoryNet page, and nothing there convinces me that the author is an authority whose words we should accept. You may agree with the writer saying that it's awful to cut up a bible, but that's you. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe editors don't like what History.net is saying because it is true. But these sources were in the talk page for a while, and could have been commented on saving a lot of time with a lot less vitriol. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No one has said they don't like what history.net is saying. There is zero vitriol from over here. This was a case where a draft or diff was needed in order to determine suitability, "I'm going to add something to this effect" isn't quite the same thing. Having the proposal up on the talk page for almost a week isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources were provided for commenting in the talk page for about two weeks. Since there was no discussion or objections to the sources I proceeded with the edit. The source above used the term "mutilated". There was an objection to this word. I was told to tone down the wording, even though the author used the word. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are at odds with Historynet on this tone issue--It's the same reason we don't call Jefferson a "heretic" in WP voice even though your Catholic Herald source uses it.--MattMauler (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The actual objection was the edit used "mutilated" more times than the source despite being a brief summary. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand religion can be a sensitive topic to talk about, particularly a sitting President cutting up a Bible and taking out the miracles or any reference to Christ's Divinity and Ressurection, and playing Scripture off as Platonic philosophy. That might offend some people. The Catholic Herald has a right to voice an opinion over the matter. All the sources provided have names attached to them. I suppose this can be "toned down" in the article. These articles add neutrality to the article. I will try and write a "toned down" version. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

In making his Bible, Jefferson used two printed Bibles, and "sliced out the parts of the Bible that he believed and pasted them onto a folio of blank pages." For the rest of the scripture. " he didn’t believe— he left behind in two maimed, mutilated Bibles." In 1820, by the same process, cutting and pasting, Jefferson, made a second edition Bible, this time using six Bibles. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

On February 27, 2020, the Catholic Herald said Jefferson was a heretic of the week. The Catholic Herald said Jefferson believed much of Christianity was "a sort of Platonism grafted on to what he considered the “primitive religion of Jesus” – primarily to benefit the priesthood". The Catholic Herald said, Jefferson " conceived a particular hatred of Catholicism and a suspicion of most clerics of any kind." Jefferson said he was a Unitarian, but he never joined a Unitarian Church. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Are these last two comments proposed wording for the article?--MattMauler (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Attributing quotations is a step in the right direction, but The Catholic Herald's take on Jefferson has no place in the article, IMO. We should rely on scholarly sources, and it is a tertiary source from an explicitly religious perspective. Regarding HistoryNet, using words like "maimed" and "mutilated" is very unusual when discussing an inanimate object, even scriptures. It adds a needlessly inflammatory tone, not something a scholarly source would include, I think.--MattMauler (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Catholic Herald (CH) has a right to their historical opinion of Jefferson and is pertinent in this manner. The CH said Jefferson hated Catholics. It somewhat counters that Jefferson was actually for freedom of Religion. How many Catholic historians are there? How many atheist historians are out there? How many Protestant historians are out there? To a Christian, to cut up and mutilate a Bible is heresy and sacrilege. Also, this goes against Jefferson's being for freedom of Religion as popularly espoused by historians. Jefferson never cut up the Koran he had obtained to understand his Muslim slave(s). He cut up 8 Bibles. That would show a direct hostility toward Christians. Jefferson's focus on attacking Jesus is particularly troubling. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course CH has a right to their historical opinion. That doesn't mean we use them as a source though. You are intermingling your own personal synthesis in this by assuming it was a hostile act. Most Christians don't worship Bibles. VQuakr (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The History.net source used the word "mutilated". That would imply a hostile act. The civil rights act of 1968 said it was a crime to defame a religious artifact. That would include a Bible. But I am not proposing anything should be said Jefferson's actions were in anyway hostile in the article. No synthesis on my part. You have given no valid reason for Christan Herald source not to be included in the article. Is there any objection in using the History.net information? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't addressing me, but I have stated objections to both sources right above.--MattMauler (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I was asked to give two toned down edits, now the perfectly good sources are in question because they tell the truth about Jefferson mutilating Bibles and hating Catholics. My perfectly good edit was removed without discussion. No one objected to the sources before for two weeks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Second try

I have made another edit. Submitted for approval. This one is much more concise and nice.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"The way Jefferson made his Bible was both controversial and revolutionary. Although Jefferson sincerely believed he was making the Bible better, he used a penknife to cut out the scriptures he did not approve. Jefferson did this privately, to prevent a public outcry, only telling John Adams of the book.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• We can tear down false idols of history. Thomas Jefferson did it to Jesus Christ. Peter Manseau (August 13, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Why Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible Peter Manseau (September 8, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Thomas Jefferson Tried to ‘Fix’ the Bible. He Only Succeeded in Making It Sad. Daniel Silliman (December 4, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Why Thomas Jefferson Rewrote the Bible Without Jesus' Miracles and Resurrection Erin Blakemore (August 1, 2019) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• How Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible Owen Edwards (January 2012) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

My take: the only source above that I would say should be used is Smithsonian Magazine. The others are general knowledge tertiary sources. When it comes to issues of weight and tone, we need to go with better scholarly ones, and there are many, many of these available for Jefferson. I would be OK with inclusion of info that comes from these two Smithsonian articles (we can discuss and consider due weight still, I suppose). Generally, some of the Smithsonian ones are journalist-written, but their editorial board is such that I think they would be solid sources. Notably, only one of these two articles uses the term "controversial," and it says it has been so since 1904, so I would not advocate using "controversial" and "revolutionary" in the article, unless the timeline is somehow made clear.--MattMauler (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I believe we have to use internet sources sometime or other. One article says Jefferson's action could affect millions of people who hold to the Christian faith. I think it is agreed Jefferson took a blade to the Bible. It is not the book necessarily. It is the way he made the book that is controversial. I am all for using the Smithsonian articles. If the paragraph needs more "toning" that is fine by me. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources on blading bibles? I think the scholars shy away from this part of Jefferson's life. This article is supposed to be neutral. We can't sweep ugly events such as slavery and blading bibles under the rug. Scholars are human too. Two so-called "Jefferson Establishment" scholars Merrill Peterson and Dumas Malone attacked a woman historian Fawn McKay Brodie, because she brought up time line evidence Jefferson fathered slaves by Sally Hemmings. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We are obviously not going to make judgement calls like "controversial" in Wiki-voice. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The source said it has been controversial since 1904. I am willing to work with other editors. I can leave out controversy. But if it was not controversial, why did Jefferson not publish his Bible during his lifetime? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Toned version 2: [Influenced by deism, Jefferson used a razor to cut out the scriptures he did not approve of from New Testament Bibles.] Jefferson did this privately, to prevent a public outcry, only telling John Adams of the book. [Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University said Jefferson's Bible was “scripture by subtraction". The first version was produced in 1804 (now lost), and the second version was produced in 1820.]

Any objections? Should all the sources be from the Smithsonian? Smithsonian sources in []. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There is No Scientific Evidence That Jefferson Fathered Sally Hemings' Children

The article makes serious false claims and needs to be rewritten. Oral tradition is not evidence. In Jefferson's case, the claim that he fathered Hemings' children was started by a political rival. There has never been DNA evidence to prove it. Sally Hemings had several children. Only descendants of the youngest, Eston, had DNA from somebody in the Jefferson line. When Eston was conceived, Thomas was 65 years old. At least eight other male Jeffersons visited or stayed at Monticello at that time, most of them younger than Thomas. His younger brother Randolph seems a more likely candidate, or one of Randolph's five sons, who were in their teens and twenties.

It's worth mentioning that descendants of Eston's brother Madison withdrew, decades ago, from the claim that Thomas Jefferson was their ancestor. They believed Madison's father had been a different Jefferson.

Hopefully in the future, with advances in DNA analysis, the "Thomas" claim can be definitely proven to be false or true. 2600:1702:E30:D970:4DB0:F905:69E6:9CEA (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC) 2600:1702:E30:D970:4DB0:F905:69E6:9CEA (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Pontificating on could bes also isn't encyclopedic, but in this case we have numerous historians with credentials over several decades (even centuries at this point) supporting this statement, so it's not going to change any time soon. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is also adequately covered here. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not "pontificating" to mention the plain fact that the writer of the article presented claims, as facts, which have never been proven. There isn't DNA evidence that specifically targets Thomas. Wishful thinking and ancient gossip are not evidence. And it's not "encyclopedic" to pretend that they are. Two decades ago, a Scholars' Commission of Jefferson experts and historians went through every available historical document, Monticello logbook of visitors, Thomas's travels, DNA evidence, dates of conception, Jefferson visitors, diary entries of guests, gossip, political claims,and so forth to reach the most likely conclusion. With one very mild dissent, they believed Thomas was almost the least likely Jefferson to have fathered any of Hemings' children. His hard-drinking, hard-living younger brother Randolph, who seems to have been around at the dates of conception, was much more likely. These findings were published in a book, The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, edited by Robert F. Turner. It is essential reading. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Younggoldchip (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So what do we care what a crackpot wrote to support a fringe view? That ship sailed long ago, and Thomas is considered the father. Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Younggoldchip It would behoove you to read WP:NOR. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll read WP:NOR if you'll read The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, edited by Robert F. Turner. Deal? Deal. By the way, scholars aren't crackpots. And the ship has never sailed.

Younggoldchip (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not bound to do what a random editor wants me to do in my free time, you and I are however bound by Wikipedia policies which doesn't allow for original research. You can choose not to read it and continue on your talk page diatribes but it's unlikely to end well for you. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

My sharing sorely needed facts with a mythomaniac may be a waste of time, but it's not a diatribe. "The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings" is exactly the type of source you should have read, and cited in your article, but you did not. Why write a Wikipedia article if you include only the bits and pieces of reality, dream or delusion that you prefer? Facts are terrifying only to a true believer. You threaten that my continuing to report facts is "unlikely to end well" for me. But an encyclopedia is the place for facts. THE JEFFERSON-HEMINGS CONTROVERSY, edited by Robert F. Turner, was published September 1, 2011, by Carolina Academic Press. "The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings," written by Robert F. Turner, is an article published in the WSJ of July 11, 2012. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed very often on this talkpage. Please refer to the archives.
It is already noted in the article that there are a few scholars who are exceptions to the near consensus among historians (William Hyland and the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society are two examples). At most (if there is consensus), Turner could be a added to the footnote at the end of that short paragraph: "Still, a minority of scholars maintain ..." Additionally, when considering Turner's view, it is worth noting that his field is law, not history (he teaches law; he has a research doctorate in law, etc.).--MattMauler (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cite Turner in this article. His viewpoint is covered at Jefferson–Hemings controversy. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that we kind of do cite him already. He was the editor of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report, The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission that is now in the footnote. I did not notice at first because he is not currently listed as editor in the citation.--MattMauler (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is certainly no need to add his WSJ article.--MattMauler (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert F. Turner's is a minority viewpoint. We're not going to report his opinion as fact just because it fits your viewpoint. The clear consensus amongst historians is that TJ was the father. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson is not on trial. The readers can take away what they want from Jefferson. Whether Jefferson had children by Hemings does not really matter. It did not matter in 1800. He was elected twice as President. Wikipedia states a scientific DNA study on Jefferson and Hemings. That's all. There are no guilty or innocent verdicts. No custody battles or child support issues. Wikipedia does not have to prove or disprove Jefferson had children by Hemings. Assuming Jefferson had children by Hemings, it has not historically hurt his reputation. Historians are more concerned about Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the article could make this statement for clarification: Neither Jefferson's DNA, Hemings' DNA, nor Heming's children's DNA were tested. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We already say that, just not so pointedly. The proposed add wouldn't be an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the whole point. It should be said directly because making DNA tests on those persons would be direct evidence of Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children. The DNA test in the article leaves some doubt since there was no direct DNA testing on those individuals. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically, had there been a Jefferson paternity case trial, the 1999 DNA test would not be strong enough evidence to prove Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children. The case would be thrown out. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a trial; that's irrelevant. No, we don't need to report on whatever goalposts you personally deem important. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I knew this sounded familiar... you were asking about this in 2020 here. At the time you said, "Stick is dropped." Maybe it's time to drop the stick, again. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Per policy, if there is academic consensus for a fact, it should be reported as fact and fringe theories should receive little if any attention, except in articles about them. If the article about the moon landing for example devoted space to the debate about whether it was faked, it would give the impression that it was a valid theory or that it had serious support. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors find the evidence persuasive, but whether experts who have submitted their findings do. Also, articles should be concise, summarizing the facts and major opinions, without meandering into all the bizarre interpretations that some people have of his life.

Incidentally, there is sufficient evidence to prove the case in court. The only way Jefferson could win would be if he could prove he was not the father.

No, there is not sufficient evidence to prove Jefferson's paternity in court. The arguments which attempt to "prove" it fall one by one when scrutinized. Of Hemings' several children, only one had descendants with DNA from somebody in the Jefferson line. Why only one? And there were at least eight presumably virile male Jeffersons in and around Monticello when he was conceived. Much was made of the dates of her children's conceptions, which lined up with Thomas's presence at Monticello. But obviously those are exactly the times when his Jefferson kinsmen would be visiting him and frequently staying at Monticello. The evidence of Thomas Jefferson's fathering any of Hemings' children was and is so weak that the descendants of Madison Hemings even withdrew from the claim in embarrassment decades ago. There is frequent mention here of a proliferation of "scholars" who believe in Thomas's paternity. (I posted information here about actual scholars who believe the opposite.) But what could their convictions be based on? Oral tradition is a nonstarter. It's an oral tradition, in some cultures, that the world exists on the back of a big turtle. The "scholars" can't call on science in this case since there is no DNA-based evidence, and nothing else would be valid proof. As Gertrude Stein put it, There is no THERE there. And that is a fact. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not start this talk. Just giving my opinion on the matter. I am not disputing the 1999 study. I believe I was just stating the obvious. I think the section could written better. I have no need to continue the conversation. Dropping the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Randolph cousin pic

I am moving this pic, to reduce crowding, and for pertinence, as he is only very briefly mentioned in the text. File:WILLIAM RANDOLPH (D. 1745).jpg|thumb|William Randolph III, cousin of Jefferson's mother, and close friend of Peter Jefferson|left. Hoppyh (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)