Jump to content

Talk:Sally Hemings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.15.96.125 (talk) at 16:00, 28 May 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Omission of the findings of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission from this article

The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society in 2000 commissioned a group of 13 distinguished American scholars to study all of the evidence for and against the allegations that Thomas Jefferson had a sexual relationship and fathered one or more children by one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. After one year of study, the Commission, in April 2001, issued the most detailed report available on this issue. With the exception of one dissent, the views of the distinguished panel ranged from serious skepticism to a conviction that the allegation was almost certainly false. This volume, edited by Scholars Commission Chairman Robert F. Turner, includes the Final Report--essentially a summary of arguments and conclusions--as it was released to the press on April 12, 2001. Several of the statements of individual scholars--which collectively total several hundred carefully footnoted pages and constitute the bulk of the book--were later updated and expanded to reflect new insights or evidence since the report was initially released.

The report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission runs to 565 pages.

Here is their summary:

In the end, after roughly one year examining the issues, we find the question of whether Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemings to be one about which honorable people can and do disagree. However, it is our unanimous view that the allegation is by no means proven; and we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people into believing that the issue is closed. With the exception of one member, whose views are set forth both below and in the more detailed appended dissent, our individual conclusions range from serious skepticisms about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly untrue.

This scholarly report, despite being the definitive analysis of this issue, is mentioned only in passing in this article. It's findings are described as "some disagree" and are relegated to the footnotes. A false assertion has been made that this commission is a "minority view" or that it has been obviated by later scholarly work. There is no reliable source that supports these assertions. I fear that this matter has been so politicized that it will be extremely difficult to correct the errors in this page, yet those of us who are committed to an accurate wikipedia are obligated to try. I urge engaged editors to reconsider their stance on this matter. Sbelknap (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a relevant review of the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission.[1] Sbelknap (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Omission of the findings of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission from this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to include these findings in the article, other than the way that they are already mentioned. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Should the major findings of the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission be included in the Sally Hemings article? [2] Sbelknap (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close RfC. See preceding discussion, WP:1AM, and WP:TE. No attempt was made to present this query neutrally or briefly per WP:RFCBRIEF. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The query was presented neutrally and briefly, "Should the major findings of the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission be included in the Sally Hemings article?" I'm not sure why the query failed to propagate to the history RfC. Perhaps there is a formatting error? I have made very few edits to the article, instead participating in discussion with other engaged editors on this talk page. Sbelknap (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Background material for this RfC moved to separate section, just above RfC. Sbelknap (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't listed correctly because the statement was not brief. Legobot begins at the {{rfc}} tag and searches forward from that point until it finds a valid timestamp; if it cannot find one within a certain distance, it gives up. In this case the statement was 3,340 bytes, and Legobot gave up long before that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the info. I moved the background info to a separate section. I also added RfC:Biographies to the tag. Will these revisions propogate to the respective RfCs? Sbelknap (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFCBRIEF, last paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Look, I'm going to quote what I had to say yesterday: the Final Report of the commission that Turner chaired does not say anything about the consensus among historians. It expresses the consensus of thirteen scholars involved in the project without any reference to the views of the rest of the profession. The majority of historians were not convinced by the Final Report, hence why a scholarly book published a decade afterwards refers to Thomas Jefferson fathering Sally Hemings' children as the "new orthodoxy".
The article should note that a minority of scholars continue to reject the possibility, but we need to give due weight to the majority position. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Louisville Slugger is not *about* a baseball bat. A Louisville Slugger *is* a baseball bat. The Final Report of the Commission is not *about* a consensus of scholars. The Final Report of the Commision *is* a consensus of scholars. Sbelknap (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source supports the assertion that the Final Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission is a minority view. Sbelknap (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far Attic Salt has produced eight sources that say exactly that, while I have produced a ninth. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the RFC in this section. You are OT. Sbelknap (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A twenty-year old source that is contradicted by newer sources is safely disregarded. There is no evidence that the final report convinced anyone or that it had a significant impact on the field. Devoting additional space to it is not an improvement to the article. Dimadick (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This RFC asserts that there has been an "omission" of the findings of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission in this article on Sally Hemings, and it suggestes that these findings be "included" in the article. This is potentially confusing, unless one looks closely at the article. The major findings of the Scholars Commission, itself commisioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation, are already represented in the article: 1. briefly in the lede, with a link that provides an excerpt from the summary of the Scholars report, and 2. in more detail in the section on the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy [3]. Assuming that the scope of RFC is incorrect, intended, instead, to suggest that the findings of the Scholars Commission be more prominently represented, I think that the present representation of their findings is adequate. Attic Salt (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for cleaning this up; I struck my speedy close !vote above. As written now, the RfC query asks if the findings of the JHSC should be included. The answer is yes, but also that they already are included in the article, [4]. An expansion of the coverage from the minority viewpoint promoted by JHSC is not warranted, nor is a POV shift such as [5]. VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in the lead notes that "there are some that disagree." There is a brief mention of "TJHS Scholars" and that they disagree about the DNA evidence. There is the assertion that the Commission's report mentions a minority view. As mentioned above, there is a claim here on the talk page that there are nine sources that describe the findings of the commission are a minority view. I've gone through seven of those sources, and none of them make any such assertion. Sbelknap (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sbelknap, you are asking if there is, specifically, a source saying that the view of the Scholars Commission is a minority view. What you aren't acknowledging is that what is cited in the article is something more general -- sources saying that it is a minority view that Thomas Jefferson did not father Hemings's children. Of course, the Scholars Commission is just one group holding that minority view. Attic Salt (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. The point is that in each of the sources cited, there is a statement (phrased in various ways) that there is an opposing or minority view regarding TJ's paternity of SH's children *but* in none of the cited sources is any evidence provided supporting this assertion. A scholarly argument provides evidence, analysis, and a conclusion. That is absent from these cited sources. And in no case does any cited source describe the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission as representing a minority opinion. Sbelknap (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The most recent consensus among scholars is the one described in the report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission. Some later addenda were made to this report that provide additional information. Some books have been written since then about TJ and SH. None of them is anything like a consensus report. The implication that the report of the Scholars Commission has been deprecated somehow, perhaps by later primary evidence or research, or historical scholarship is simply false. The Report of the Commission is the best quality information available. It warrants inclusion, with a more accurate discussion of its findings, which contradict the findings in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least as framed. It's a fringe view motivated by a specific POV. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As with the cited sources, this is a bald assertion unsupported by evidence or analysis. The contributors to the Report of the Scholars Commision are eminent scholars who provide evidence, analysis, and a conclusion after a year or more of study. Several of the contributors are members of the National Association of Scholars. All are prominent intellectuals. Sbelknap (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to argue with everyone who !votes in this RfC? VQuakr (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is your understanding of the purpose of the wikipedia talk pages? Sbelknap (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPYES: Avoid repeating your posts: Your fellow editors can read your prior posts, so repeating them wastes time and space and may be considered WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question unclear, ask again They are already included ("However, there are some who disagre," in the lede references it, as does "All but one of 13 TJHS scholars expressed considerable skepticism about the conclusions," and "The TJHS report suggested that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph Jefferson could have been the father - the DNA test cannot distinguish between Jefferson males, such as Randolph Jefferson or Thomas Jefferson. They also speculate that Hemings might have had sexual relations with multiple men."). Could you provide some sample text that describes what you want to do with this source more specifically? Note also the sub-article Jefferson–Hemings_controversy which goes into this in much more depth, including an entire section, "Dissenting_views," that is basically this report. Hipocrite (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The query itself is required to be brief. Again, here is a hyperlink to the major findings of the report: [6] Sbelknap (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA criteria?

If the NPOV issues are resolved, tag should be removed. If not, this will need GA reassessment. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV objection never got significant traction, The NPOV tag should be removed. Attic Salt (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article misstates the consensus of historians. The consensus is that Thomas Jefferson did not father Sally Hemings children. What is needed is for engaged editors to defer to the consensus of historians. Sbelknap (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7/8 white

I have put in the lede the fact, to me important, that she was 7/8 white. This fact makes some uncomfortable, but I think it's fundamental. deisenbe (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her mother was half white, making her 3/4. Her children were 7/8ths though. And if you need a source, here's the monticello offical website. https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sally_Hemings&oldid=1025625099"