Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Rework of the Lead section

Previous first section FIVE PAGES FOR HEMINGS/CONTROVERSY?? has been relocated to lower portion of page.

NOTE* This is not concerning Hemings or slavery.

"The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs" - it's got 5. Some material has got to go.

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." WP:LEAD We need to know what those aspects are, and remove that which is outside of it. Some material that looks unnecessary in the lead:

1. 1 Jefferson envisioned America as the force behind a great "Empire of Liberty" that would promote republicanism and counter the imperialism of the British Empire. - Perhaps

1. 2 To date, Jefferson is the only president to serve two full terms in office without vetoing a single bill of Congress. Jefferson has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest of U.S. presidents. - interesting, but can be discussed elsewhere, and THESE topics in themselves do not get their own paragraphs elsewhere in the article; not significant in terms of the article

1. 3 As a political philosopher, Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment and knew many intellectual leaders in Britain and France. - Ok, a philosopher, but who he knew is not necessary in the lead; that goes elsewhere

1. 4 When President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962 he said, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - not opposed to this info, just that it's in the lead. JFK's opinion in itself doesn't get 2 or 3 paragraphs in the article - can't understand the logic for inclusion in the lead.

1. 5 Some want to reduce the size of Hemings - that's to be discussed over there.

A reduction in words since wikilinks allow the reader to go to the articles in question to read more: :Major accomplishments during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), which doubled the size of the United States, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806), which significantly advanced geographic and scientific knowledge of North America.

As the article is now, it's a mass of mixed up ideas, and is not well integrated. In order to get it back to good article status, it must adhere to the manual of style of guidelines.

Article reflects these changes, and now is 4 paragraphs: some of the material moved to "Reputation" needs sources or will be deleted. All current info in the lead must have sources added to it, and the section should not be enlarged. Ebanony (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The material in the lede is supposed to be a summary of properly sourced content in the article. It generally does not need cites in the lede, according to WIKI MOS. This got cluttered up with cites because of editors arguing that certain things didn't exist.Parkwells (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The President Kennedy quote, although good, seems to be irrelevant and opinion. Did Jefferson ever dine alone at the White House? That is historical speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it was already settled that this would come out.Parkwells (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the lede could say something that scholars today have been critical of Jefferson's inconsistencies with his "idealistic" statements and his views that blacks, American Indians, and women were not equal to white men. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an anachronistic view, or presentist, to try to force our own meaning back to another age; scholars mostly accept that Jefferson was of his time and place, in which he could work on the Declaration of Independence and believe that women and minorities were not equal to white men. That's a given for most of those men and I don't think lede space should be spent on it.Parkwells (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic and presentism are rationalistic views in order to keep historians from accessing Thomas Jefferson in any critical manner. Historians look for inconsistencies and Thomas Jefferson had many. Thomas Jefferson authored a law against miscegenation, and yet slept and had children by a slave woman. Thomas Jefferson said "All men are created equal", claimed to abhor slavery and yet owned hundreds of slaves on Monticello, having them whipped, and teen agers to work in a nailry. And then when historians claim that Jefferson was a racist who held views that women, American Indians, and African Americans are inferior, all of a sudden those protectionist words "Anachronistic" and "presentism" are thrown around to keep Jefferson safe from any substancial historical debate. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved sentence on Jeffersonian critics from lede to the "Reputation" subsegment. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's not really a necessary quote; Kennedy just gave an opinion, and this article is too long. But on the lede, I'd avoid that part. You might add something to a section dealing with those things (Declaration maybe?), but why not put a proposal here so it's clear what you want to add? At any rate, still too many redundancies, and the general size of the article needs to be reduced. Some sections need citations. Some stuff (like the JFK quote) is unnecessary. I think we can agree the old version was no good. Glad you're both here; you too Cmguy777. I think you mentioned his work on penalties for slaves (part of his reform); that might be good to put here. Had to remove some material in the beginning. Some was taken from Mullin's book, with little changed (no CopyViol, but it's clear where it came from). Ebanony (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't grasp how this article was ever allowed to get so large; there were sections on everything, much relying on primary source materials. The section "self-esteem" I can see no reason for. The Judiciary is covered elsewhere. The general wording of some parts was not within the reading level of many visitors. Bottom line: the article is so big that nearly impossible to make sense of it. I've reduced & removed some of the above; the Native Americans views have got their own section, and so do slaves. They were too many redundancies. Honestly, if every sentence in this section [1] were deleted, the article would improve (maybe some can stay though). Political and philosophical views is perhaps the only part worth keeping. It's not normal to have section on everything in a biography. Ebanony (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed sentence in lede: "Modern scholars have reevaluated Jefferson's legacy as a champion of liberty due to inconsistencies in his rhetoric and lifestyle." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative:"Thomas Jefferson's legacy as a champion for liberty has generated much interest and debate among modern historians; due to inconsistancies in his rhetoric and lifestyle." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's what the problem is: the lead as it is needs no real change in the Hemings wording. What does need work, Cmguy777, is the Hemings section, among other things. I like the new Hemings better, but it's just too long. Some info can be added to her article, and we should condense the most important aspects here to only what is needed. An article's recommended length is between 40-60KB WP:SIZERULE (this has many references etc which may inflate it, but it's currently at 109KB - and that's with all the edits I've just done to clean it up & reduce it. So we need to worry about the big problems, and get the content in order before worrying about a single sentence (though I'm not opposed to your idea, just that it's not priority, and it's likely to cause more fighting by some who wanted all mention of her gone.) Simply put, a good number of sentences/sections have too few or no sources for their claims (even though most look accurate). What good is having the best slave coverage, but an article that fails a 100-level requirement of having citations for most other sections? It's like a car with a good engine, but the trans & suspension are only half installed. No point worrying about wood trim until the rest is fixed. Ebanony (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good analogy Ebanony. One thing all editors can agree on is the Thomas Jefferson generates tremendous interest and controversy. I believe that is a good for a Wikipedia article to have editors who want a fair assessment of Thomas Jefferson as a person and President. I am not attempting to judge or compare Jefferson with the standards of our times as Parkwells suggested. My objection is this can be used as an excuse not to look critically into Jefferson's lifestyle as a slave owner, when in fact, Jefferson is historically known as a champion of liberty. The Sally Heming's section can be reduced in size and the sources should match the main Sally Heming's article. Their is opposition to Jefferson having children by Sally Hemings by David M. Mayer. His views in the article would add balance. I believe that Jefferson's inconsistancies as a slave owner and champion of liberty needs to be mentioned or discussed in the article and lede. Historians are very interested in Jefferson's opinion on separation of Church and State. This needs to be in the lede. I believe the lede needs to cover what historians are most intersted in Thomas Jefferson. Here is the link to the Mayer article: The Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings Myth and the Politicization of American History Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings

The Sally Hemings and Thomas Jeffeson issues appears to be the most contentious in this article. This section needs to be balanced as possible. All editors help and input would be grateful. If there are two historical camps on this issue, I believe modification can be done on this segment. Callender's disregared reputation needs to be addressed. A counter arguement by David M. Mayer would be a good modern refutation that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children. The issue of Randolf Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's brother, needs to be addressed also. Was Randolf Jefferson there everytime Sally Hemings got pregnant? We know that Jeffeson was. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what we know is somewhat irrelevant. What reliable sources write. Likewise, while a note on Callender is appropriate, we must be careful to avoid ad-hominems and guilt-by-association. The modern consensus opinion is not to any significant part based on Callender's claims, but on several other lines of evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Balance is not achieved by giving credence to discredited views.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The above examples for the article were only a few pointed out concerns. I was trying to get a whole concensus on the Sally Heming's issue, as far as allowing alternative theories or critisism on the majority historian consensus. I am not trying to promote any viewpoint, rather balance in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a problem mentioning this bloke Mayer, whose work you included here [2]. However, his criticism is not a majority pov, nor is it correct to say there were 25 other possibilities. He accused Gordon-Reed of being racist against whites (according to your edit). Ok to insinuate Sally slept round with dozens of men regardless of how it affects her reputation or how it promotes stereotypes of black women.

As a minority POV, his reference should be a sentence under something like the few who disagree; the 25 possibilities claim is without merit - totally. The DNA people said the exact opposite, and that only Field Jefferson's male offspring were alternatives. And only those who happened to be with Sally at the time of conception. And they said there was no evidence for any other possibility. David Mayer has what evidence for those claims? Notice how the so-called "racist" Gordon-Reed won a Pulitzer & national book award & fellowship. Did Mayer? His objection could be noted, but not in a whole paragraph.Ebanony (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not agree with Mayer, even if his 25 possibilities claim is bogus. I believe Mayer made that statement to create doubt among other historians and demonstrates the politics of history. However, that is his opinion, not Wikipedias. I put the paragraph in for balance since Gordon-Reed has two paragraphs on her works and Gordon-Reed is mentioned in 3 paragraphs. In my opinion Mayers claim that Gordon-Reed is a quasi racist is another attempt to undermine her book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. I believe Mayer best expressed the conservative views on Jefferson and Sally Hemings. That is why I put him in the article segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

People are well aware of the politics of history - Mayer was one of the last-gasp efforts at refutation soon after the DNA studies. Repeating all his concerns is not necessary. The National Genealogical Society in 2001 went into detail about the bias and failings of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report, some of whose views he represents. The proper way to do historic research and present evidence is to show the weight of evidence, which he and other deniers continue to try to avoid. No, Randolph Jefferson was not there every time Hemings conceived and was not a frequent visitor.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Article:

"after reviewing the 1998 DNA test claimed that 25 male Jefferson relatives could have fathered Sally Heming's children, including Jefferson's younger brother Randolph."

"Mayer accused Gordon-Reed of being prejudiced against white historians such as Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson."

(This is an example of an ad hominem attack lacking the historical basis to challenge her work. She showed their research was flawed.)Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This "ad hominem" reveals the intense debate on the paternity of Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mayer claimed Gordon-Reed misquoted an 1858 letter by Ellen Randolph Coolidge that claimed no female slave could have entered Jefferson's bedroom without public notice."

We can mention the objections, but it should be brief like "so-and-so claims the following... citing... & this position is not widely held". In other words, a sentence, maybe 2 at best - on the objection itself. He can't more than that because, unlike Reed, he's fringe. Lots of fringe writers to and contradict scholars on every topic, but those we mention get a line or two in general Fringe stuff (the 25 is impossible) can't be used to balance the experts like that. He made claims. Anyone can do that. We note their objections (fairly), and move on.Ebanony (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Mayer and Wallenborn M.D. are in the same paragraph. I was just trying to add balance to the article. I would call Mayer the opposite of fringe, rather, conservative. I would call Mayer a protectionist and Jeffersonian defender, just like Malone or Peterson. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was well intentioned; just saying it was too long.Ebanony (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I took out two sentences and part of one sentence. I am not postive that Mayer's views are not widely held in general or even dismissed. I believe a poll would need to be taken among academics and find out if there is wide spread concensus. There is concensus among historians that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children; but how wide spread is this among historians is this consensus? As far as I know the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) has not allowed descendents of Sally Heming's children to be buried at Monticello. There was controversy over that. Has anything changed? My personal view is that there remains controversy over this issue and until the TJF allows Sally Heming's descendants to be buried at Monticello, this controversy will continue. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting note. If you check out the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society four of its links to the TJF currently go to "Page Not Found". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The TJF has made a conservative statement on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account "...the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known. The Foundation encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"decide for yourself"? Experts already decided in 1999: see the first article called Taking New Measurements for Jefferson's Pedestal [3] "Most people at the meeting agreed" TJ was the father. The 1998 DNA study shows clearly why this "25" others claims in nonsense: there's an "absence of historical evidence" for any other possibility (as in that 25 others nonsense); read it: [4]. They say consider the evidence but they don't want people to; hence the bloke you posted basically called Reed a racist against whites. Based on what evidence?

That said, the Hemings section is too long, and we must condense it (it's covered in other articles) so that the 3 parts on it do not take up so much space.Ebanony (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not siding with Mayer or any ad hominems. The racist allegation was taken from the article. I am concerned with the 2003 view TJF view that the evidence was not conclusive. The lede says there is consensus. I am not saying I agree with the TJF view, in my opinion, is contradictory. The evidence is given, yet TJF states this evidence in inconclusive. I have mentioned before that the TJF has not allowed descendents of Sally Hemings in their burial grounds. There is concensus outside the TJF but not inside the TJF. My opinion is that there is not overall consensus among historians on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. The TJF view needs to be in the article for balance. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns Monticello and runs it as a museum and educational facility, with the Monticello Association, a group of elitist Hamiltonian aristocrats who think they are better than anyone else because nobody has bothered to check their claim of linear descent from Jefferson. (Exceptions acknowledged [5] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)) The Monticello freaks run the graveside, presumably to extract energy from Jefferson spinning in his grave. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Cmguy, you keep citing objections made in 2001 - we've acknowledged those people in the text. But this is today, and the MacArthur Foundation award pretty well sums it up when it says that Gordon-Reed "dramatically changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship." That means most of the field accepts her work as a starting point. Consensus does not mean absolutely everyone agrees on every point, but the direction has changed. The 16 major awards made to Gordon-Reed's second book, which went into the Jefferson-Hemings relationship in depth and referenced the DNA studies, were a consensus recognition of the value and quality of her work and research. Editors can't make up their own standards "there isn't consensus until the TJF/Monticello Ass'n allows Hemings descendants to be buried there." That has nothing to do with the state of academic studies. As Stephan Schulz noted, those people do not speak for scholars but claim to be descendants. One way to shorten this section is to reduce the space given to presenting the historiography of the people who were wrong, but I will look at it again. I am not given more space/credence to opponents than they deserve today, not 10 or 12 years ago. Parkwells (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the Mayer and the Wallenborn M.D. quotes were 10 and 11 years ago respectively. Those are dated. If the reader reads there is concensus on Wikipedia and then goes to the TJF Monticello web page that says the evidence is not conclusive, that creates historical doubt. Not able to bury Sally Heming's descendants at Monticello is signifigant, especially to the actual descendants. My personal opinion is that TJ fathered SH's children and I concur with the "consensus". I am not attempting to rock the historical boat here, just wanted to make sure there is balance in the article. I believe the current TJF cite should be used as a descenting opinion. Mentioning Mayer, Wallenborn M.D., and the TJF disagree in one paragraph would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not siding with them. That's why I say your edit is well intentioned Cmguy777, but as Stephan Schulz points out, it is a bit confusing with so many groups. Today in 2011 the overwhelming majority say it happened, but a few voices say otherwise. They never agreed, and probably never will - no matter what. That is the point of Gordon-Reed's earlier work: some don't care about evidence. But since 1997, we've learnt a lot; so there is no reason to give "hold outs" more than a brief mention as a minority pov. To contrast everything Reed says against their claims is undue weight (we note an objection by a minority pov briefly). They claim things like black on white racism, but it's beyond absurd to think they gave a Pulitzer etc to promote hatred of white people (that's the implication). That's fringe stuff. Reed is a scholar. Can we say the same for all her critics? Consider the source. Ebanony (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The TJF is not fringe, in my opinion. Their current site has the 2003 posting that says the evidence is not conclusive. Sally Heming's children can't be buried at Monticello. Yes. Gordon-Reed is accepted in academic circles and has deserved the Pulitzer, I understand that. If Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson are accepted then why can't Sally Heming's descendants be buried at Monticello? A conservative group is keeping them from being buried. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say TJF is extreme or fringe; I said that those making those claims support a WP:fringe theory. That particular bloke you quoted is outside of the academic community's consensus, and his other claims have no support. Making accusations of racism - against Reed - need no coverage; his other claims have no foundation either, particularly with the stuff on other possibilities. There is no historical data for it, no matter what that guy says.Ebanony (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be an influence of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society over the TJF. I am not sure who, possibly Mayer, Wallenborn M.D., or some other person(s). I do believe not allowing Sally Heming's descendants to be buried at Monticello is signifigant and needs to be addressed in the article. I can give Mayer and Wallenborn M.D. one sentence each and mention the 2003 TJF position or view that the evidence is not conclusive. I do not have all the information on Sally Heming's descendants being denied burial at Monticello. Apparently there is some conservative group blocking their burial at Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sub-headers and placement on Hemings section

I added some sub-headers to try to define the controversy and changing scholarship. Put Mayer and Wallenborn in where they belonged chronologically in the history of the controversy. (Wallenborn's wife was in the TJHS, as I recall, whose findings were discredited on grounds of historical practice by the Natl Genealogical Society.)Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson retirement library

Why was the discovery of Jefferson's retirement library edited out? Wikipedia needs to keep up with new information on Jefferson. In my opinion, Jefferson's retirement library discovery is historically valid. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The section was edited out because it wasn't needed. He's got a section on personal interests; however, if you look at it, you'll see that I placed some of your work on that library there. So some is still there. I did the same with the other editor who added content after you; his edits repeat things over and over, and he's done that to this article many times. We've got limited space, and need to think of the importance of these topics. We can only add so much.Ebanony (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I appreciate your edit, Ebanony, however, the main focus on the NYT article was the retirement library discovery. I can add just a sentence to mention the discovery. I agree that saving space in the article is good. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against adding some things, but these don't need their own sections. The previous article was too crowded, and had too many topics. I'd suggest also combining Inventions and improvements with the preexisting parts. Yes, he did many things, but it's easier to mention the more important things briefly than to give each a section.Ebanony (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I combinded sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Inventions and improvements

There needs to be a brief section on Thomas Jefferson's inventions and improvements of other inventions. He invented a gravity powered Great Clock and improved the moldboard wood plow and the polygraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a section because there already is one. Better to add the info to Interests, inventions and improvements [6] This should also be brief, though.Ebanony (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Concensus Sally Hemings

What source says there is concensus with Thomas Jefferson being the father of Sally Heming's children? I read the paragraph and there was no source cited. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the lede is based on the content of the article, which discusses at length the changes in Jeffersonian scholarship. It does not usually require separate sourcing but I put it in as the issue is controversial. Consensus is indicated by the fact that her work has changed Jeffersonian scholarship - writers now start from the basis that he fathered Hemings' children. The major awards made to Gordon-Reed's work are the result of numerous juried processes among distinct scholarly bodies - those awarding the Pulitzer and various history prizes. Her book, The Hemingses of Monticello, is based on Jefferson's relationship with Heming and paternity of her children. I used the MacArthur Award paragraph as a way to sum up that sense - that's what they mean by saying that she has changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship. The recognition given to her work and its conclusions is discussed in the Hemings section.Parkwells (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

agreed, but this detail belongs in the article on Gordon-Reed, not Jefferson. All we need do is cite her as a RS. This is not a historiography of Jefferson --such an article is needed and will cover many influential scholars. Rjensen (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This has gotten into more historiography because of some editors who keep bringing up those who disagree with the changes in scholarship. I agree it would be better elesewhere, but it keeps getting brought it, as some editors earlier would not accept references.

The Pulitzer is in concensus with Gordon-Reed's book. That does not neccessarily mean all or a majority of historians concur with Gordon-Reed. I suppose the difficulty is defining what historical concensus is, then, applying this criteria to Jefferson and Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Her book is based on Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children. Those 16 awards represent separate group decisions by leading historical associations in the field that her work is worthy of award, including her conclusions on Jefferson-Hemings.

This defininition of concensus is taken from Wikipedia:"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first – general agreement and, second – group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together.It is used to describe both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, Sally Heming's descendants can't be buried at Monticello. That is an ongoing controversy. The TJF also stated that the evidence is not conclusive. Has there been resolution and/or mitigation with the burial controversy and TJF view point on Jefferson and Sally Hemings? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough already! We already have a consensus here that the position of the Monticello Association does not represent academic consensus nor professional historians; their position on not admitting Hemings' descendants also goes against the conclusions of the National Genealogical Society. The lineage society is taking a narrow line and not wanting to change their criteria for membership application.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a quote to the article by Stein, a curator at Monticello, who estimated in 2003 that "90 percent of professional historians agree" about Jefferson's relationship with Hemings. You're picking out only part of what the TJF posted - they repeated the 2000 statement by their committee, as well as numerous facts about Jefferson-Hemings. They say that the evidence as to the type of relationship is not conclusive - they invite visitors to make up their own minds about "the nature of the relationship". We are not going to continue to turn the article inside out because of your concern about a few outliers. You are giving them too much weight.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Stein source is valid. I am not sure how Stein arrived at 90%, however, the article needed some source that mentioned concensus. Thanks Parkwells. I do not call barring burial rights to almost 250 descendants of Sally Heming's insiginifigant from Thomas Jefferson's graveyard. Remember concensus requires resolution and/or mitigations to minority objections.Hemings' Descendants Meet That controversy remains. Even in the Stein article there was mention of Sally Heming's descendants barred from being members of the Monticello Association. I never mentioned turning the article inside out. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My point was that the Monticello Association issue does not represent an academic controversy, but the decision by a private lineage society not to alter their rules at all to accommodate different criteria for membership for the Hemings descendants. This is a private organization; they are choosing to follow people whom they commissioned, willfully misreading the DNA study, and denying the statements of the National Genealogical Society, among other major groups that agree with the consensus on Jefferson's paternity.Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The MA is in charge of Thomas Jefferson's graveyard. The MA does not endorse that Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Heming's children and bars them from membership into the organization. Even if the MA followed "people whom they commissioned, willfully misreading the DNA study, and denying the statements of the National Genealogical Society, among other major groups that agree with the consensus on Jefferson's paternity." concensus by definition requires "resolution or mitigation of minority objections". As of yet there has been no mitigation or resolution with Sally Heming's descendants with the MA. The MA wields power over whom is buried at Monticello and in essence has denied the opinion of 90% of academic historians. My suggestion is to change the section title from "Consensus" to "Academic consensus" or "Academic agreement". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I added material on differing opinions to the Monticello Association article, which is where it belongs. They are judging based on their own criteria for membership, which is different than what others are evaluating - although they have also ignored the statement of the National Genealogical Society. Too much space in this article is already given to those who cannot accept the body of evidence. Academic consensus sounds good, as generally the article has relied on the published works of historians.Parkwells (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Parkwells. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy Sally Hemings

On the "relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings" the TJF says that "the evidence is not definitive". The site also says, the "paternity of one or more of Sally Hemings' children cannot be established with absolute certainty". This needs to be in the article for balance. Why was this information edited out from the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why they put in all those qualifiers - most historical evidence cannot support "absolute certainty". I think if you use only those qualifiers, it does not indicate the sense of that web page, which has the committee's saying Jefferson's paternity was probable. You'll note the page ends with saying the nature of the relationship may never be known - but not that there is a question as to whether there was a relationship.Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy, I think you're misreading the TJF page. Even an early Monticello Association opponent of admitting the Hemings descendants, David Works, said this about the TJF position: "I agreed pretty much with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation conclusion that the simplest and most reasonable explanation was that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings."Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is how the NY Times interprets their position: "For several years now, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns Monticello, has held the position that the third president of the United States probably had one if not several children with Hemings, based on DNA analysis and persuasive circumstantial evidence; namely, that Jefferson seems to have been at Monticello whenever Hemings conceived."/"As a result, the tour-guide talking point for the centuries-old gossip about Jefferson and Hemings has changed from the “possible but not likely” of a decade ago to the “highly likely” of today."Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for vote

These are explanations for how I voted in the "FIVE PAGES FOR HEMINGS/CONTROVERSY??" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"For reducing the "Controversy" section as long as content is kept."

Reasons: The first five paragraphs can be summarized into one paragraph. Dr. Foster information can be summarized into one paragraph. The conclusions and critisism can be reduced to one paragraph. That would leave three paragraphs for the "Controversy" section. Since the information is good, any paragraphs taken out of the Thomas Jefferson article could be used in the Sally Hemings article, if needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Against reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections."

Reasons: There may be undo weight with Gordon-Reed in the "Academic concensus" section. To be honest, that section reads as if Wikipedia is attempting to convince or prove a point, rather then state there is academic consensus. As Rjensen suggested the information would be good in the Gordon-Reed article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of this material got added because you kept raising objections, saying there wasn't evidence, and, given the outcome, you have given too much space to critics and opposing historiography. It can be condensed.Parkwells (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My objections were on concensus, not Gordon-Reed. I am for keeping the "Academic consensus" section. I would just rephrase the Gordon-Reed section in terms of directly related to consensus. Does winning a Pulitzer award automatically imply concensus? The part about the Monticello Association should be kept in the article, although reduced to one sentence. The content in the current article should not be lost with the reduction of paragraphs. My primary concern is that content be kept in the article that discusses any objections or conclusions of any research groups, foundations, or associations in regards to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

FIVE PAGES FOR HEMINGS/CONTROVERSY??

What in the world is going on with this page?? There is currently FIVE PAGES of material on Hemings/controversy. This is a clear undue weight issue. The section needs to be reduced immediately and material removed/moved to the Hemings (and other) page(s) where this material is already covered. Enough talk/speculation/theory/conjecture. Weigh in please: (Please don't use this section for discussion. Vote/explanation only. Start new section if necessary.)
For or against reduction/removal with brief explanation for vote. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, Willickers, WP talk discussions shouldn't be used as a vote Purplebackpack89 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• For. Clear undue wight as issue has little to no impact on American history/fate of the nation. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For the obvious solution is a separate article, with a few sentences summary in this article. This is the recommended Wikipedia policy when articles get too long, and in this case the controversy can be easily packaged. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For. This section is getting to be the tail that wags the dog. --Coemgenus 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For reducing to a section with one or two paragraphs and a hatnote to a main article. Currently off-focus because of undue weight.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For The reduction of the "Controversies" section, against removing all references to Hemmings. The Hemmings relationship is settled history. --Jojhutton (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For reducing the "Controversy" section as long as content is kept. Against reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections. Reasons for vote Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For. Adequately and appropriately covered elsewhere. Nothing short of vandalism to have ANY subject run that long in this venue. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Voting is evil, especially voting that is based on canvassing and explicitly discourages discussion. How to properly and adequately represent Jefferson's relationship to Sally Hemings cannot be settled by a poll. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For. Thomas Jefferson's story is much more than Sally Hemmings. The amount of content should be proportional and balanced. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• For separate page of Historiography controversy, linked to Jefferson and summarized in his article, as the issue is about race and power in American life, not just that he had a 38-year-relationship with an enslaved woman. Against putting it all in the Sally Hemings article; it was his controversy, not hers, because of followers who wanted to deny the reality of 18th and 19th c. VA. She and her family deserve their own article, just as they have been represented in recent award-winning scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• This shouldn't be a vote, but I agree with Jensen and others that the Jefferson-Hemings "thing" should get its own article in addition to the articles on Jefferson and Hemings. Here, there should be a hatnote and maybe 1/2 a page about the controversy. For a reduction. Purplebackpack89 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede

How is it that Hemings is referred to, by name, in the lede when there is no mention of even people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin or even his wife, Martha Jefferson? 'Does anyone remember her?' These are all people who had had a direct bearing on Jefferson's revolutionary and political involvements and are -completely- pivotal to Jefferson. -- In the second paragraph the topics of.. wartime Governor and 1st US Secretary of State, the 2nd VP, the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark ..are all crammed into one sentence! In this sentence mention is made that Jefferson was 1st Secretary of State, but did not mention under Washington. Meanwhile mention is made of slavery and not only is Hemings mentioned by name, there is additional info' present 'in the lede' for it. There is even mention of DNA analysis and historical studies and leading scholars. There are EIGHT references for the paragraph that has been given this topic -- while the the other THREE paragraphs in the lede have only 'four' ref's. The first sentence in the slavery/Hemings paragraph has FOUR references. Has the writer(s) here lost all sense of proportionality and UNDUE weight? Jefferson's slaves by all means warrant mention in the latter part of the lede with one sentence and a link to the section on slavery, where this topic should get no more than one page of coverage, if that, and in summary form only. There it can link to where this information is expounded on to the editors in question heart's delight. -- Again, the Hemings sections, (yes, more than one) has 4 to 5 pages. What's next? DNA charts? This topic has gotten the most coverage in the lede and in the body of text -- BY FAR. This flagrant violation of undue weight needs to be stopped immediately. The talk has gone on long enough and the page just worsens. It is no wonder to me why this page has lost its GA status. I am going to bring this problem to the attention of someone, I am not sure who, someone who is best suited to be presented with a problem of this proportion and duration. This is not the first time the Jefferson page has had this much Hemings material crammed into its pages. If any of the other seasoned editors know of other administrators or others who can effectively deal with this situation, please direct them to this talk page. Btw, we need more than a 'Request for Comment'. A clear line should be laid down. One sentence in the lede; No more than one page for the slavery/Hemings topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite a normal process for anything that is controversial. It gets mentioned, then someone starts adding qualifiers and claiming undue weight, then others add more qualifiers and sources to show the weight, and so on ad absurdum. IS this WRITING style the NEW cool THING? AM i doing IT right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I only came in recently, but believe it lost the GA status before that. Agree the larger section has undue weight, but findings that change the course of Jeffersonian scholarship about an issue at the heart of American history are not trivial; they are important because they point to more than Jefferson and Hemings.Parkwells (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix the lede to emphasize his achievements rather than the list of offices, and to put the slavery issue in context and explain what it did to TJ's reputation, with a cite to Appleby. Rjensen (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is an improvement, really. It takes out Hemings name (which provided a natural link to find more info), it implicitly but unconditionally describes Hemings as "black", which is only correct for the one-drop rule or similar definitions of "black", and it trivializes the affair by omitting the long-term aspect and the children. I also think that the sources used so far are very useful (although they may not all need to go into the lede). And finally, I don't think Jefferson's reputation among scholars has been "severely damaged". Scholars are used to complex, differentiated persons and situations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

the reason scholars debate the Hemings issue is primarily one of Jefferson's reputation, and as Appleby and many others say, it has taken quite a hit. If his reputation had NOT been damaged then Hemings gets one line in the text and none in the lede. The lede should summarize the main text rather than attempt to prove points independently of the main text. For example in Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: history, memory, and civic culture (1999) by Jan Lewis et al, we read " Jefferson's reputation depends on how we think he handled himself in this relationship." p 251. His reputation is greatly affected by the slavery issue, as pointed out in The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Jefferson (2009) by Frank Shuffelton p 2Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that "has significantly changed the public and scholarly perception of Jefferson" is a more neutral formulation. The slavery issue in general and Hemings in particular are, as far as I can tell, somewhat independent issues. The hypocrisy of a slaveholder declaring that "all humans" are endowed with the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a different hypocrisy from the one of a white supremacist having sex (and children) with a mixed-blood person. The first affected Jefferson's reputation long before Hemings became a major topic. Of course, as Lewis et al point out, there are potentially more serious accusations depending on how one views the Jefferson-Hemings-relationship. But I don't see a perception, scholarly or public, of a Legrand-like Jefferson forcing himself onto an innocent little girl. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what some people were saying in 1999 about Jefferson re: Hemings is different than current opinion; how much they had been holding him up as an icon and denying interracial relations in VA probably relates to how much they thought his reputation was "damaged". Many African Americans and people who studied Southern history objectively were not surprised at all by the "news", especially his descendants by Hemings. His reputation re: his general stand on slavery is a different issue. There is some separation between public and private life. The reason for addressing Jefferson-Hemings in the lede and article (I agree, not to the extent here), is because the later controversy, coverups and denials are so symbolic of the issues of race at the heart of Southern and American history - that's where the controversy was, with historians deciding they had to "protect" him from his own actions, life and truth. What he did was ordinary among planters and white men with power. The work by Gordon-Reed is too important to be glossed over, as the direction of Jeffersonian scholarship has changed.Parkwells (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Within this article, it should have a brief mention in a section which leads the reader into a sub-article where all of this can be fleshed out. We shouldn't let modern sensationalism pervade and throw historical context out of whack. This article isn't about "later controversy, coverups and denials are so symbolic of the issues of race at the heart of Southern and American history...". The undue weight issue is clouding over the more significant aspects of the article subject. It isn't glossing over but rather it is putting it into perspective. Hemmings shouldn't be mentioned in the lede...she wasn't really significant herself and the modern issues, although interesting, should not be an overriding theme.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The MacArthur Foundation is hardly a sensationalizing organization, but it awarded a fellowship to Annette Gordon-Reed for her work in "changing the course of Jeffersonian scholarship, and disentangling interracial relations of colonial and early federal Virginia", re: Jefferson and the Hemingses. I think Hemings should be mentioned in the lede as she is the way his relationship was known, and she deserves her own name, not just to be called "a slave". We need to follow the scholarship here.Parkwells (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. History is about more than dead white males. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While the fuller discussion belongs in the "Historiography of the Controversy", this is not just a case of "modern issues", as Berean Hunter said above. The fact that male historians worked so hard to deny the reality for 200 years is why it is important beyond the present.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The entire subject of Hemmings is a modern view which is largely toted for its sensationalism and the fact that it sells copy. Hemmings herself wasn't notable and if it weren't for the modern controversy, none of her descendants were/are notable either (do any of them have articles?). The controversy is article-worthy but should not trump this article. The objections stated in the !vote consensus amounts to giving correct compartmentalization of subjects to disallow a skewed POV. Personally, I don't believe any modern historian needs to be mentioned in the lede section of any article...the article isn't about them, they should be mentioned appropriately and within context. And this article is about a dead white male and his impact on history, law and other significant matters. Hemmings is nothing more than a footnote in historical scale. No great significance. Just a modern issue that sells copy. It should not be taken out of perspective...a perspective that may be seen when searching through sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

James Callender in September, 1802 broke open the contoversy. That is why historians over the centuries have determined to destroy Callander's reputation. Also, Methodist and Baptist churches and ministers during Jefferson's time supported black equality and freedom from slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The above "!vote" has been heavily canvassed and up less then a day. Claiming "consensus" based on it is, at best, premature. See Eston Hemings for your question. Yes, this article is about Jefferson. That includes the major factors is his life - like the woman he almost certainly took to bed over 38 years and had several children with. Nice tool!. Of course, we must avoid recentism, but we must avoid systemic bias just as much. The fact that Hemings only came to prominence recently has as more to do with the civil rights movement and improved scholarship than with a desire to "sell copy". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My point was that Hemings deserves to be named, as a reflection of current scholarship, rather than referred to as "a slave" in the lede. Jefferson made her important, yes, or his followers did. What is important to the controversy is how it affected scholarship for so long. By the way, both Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings Jefferson have articles, as do other of their descendants, including John Wayles Jefferson, a Union colonel in the Civil War, and Frederick Madison Roberts, a California congressman. I do not think historians need to be named in the lede. This is not just a modern issue that sells copy. The book on The Hemingses of Monticello (2007) won the Pulitzer Prize for history and 15 other major historic awards. We have an obligation to reflect that the scholarship has changed to acknowledge the fuller history.Parkwells (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

edit-break1

You know the old adage, "If you do some something right, they never remember; if you do something wrong, they never forget." Here is a prime example of a man's writings now holding less truth, because he had sex with a slave. Obviously men are not created equal, because Jefferson was a slave owner. Therefore, since he wasn't perfect, he lacks credibility. So we shouldn't tell our children to not smoke pot, because maybe we did. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Nobody (*) is perfect. That does not mean that we should cast all ideas and ideals aside. But it's very much counterproductive to put Jefferson or anybody onto a false pedestal. His ideas are worthy not because of what he was, but for their intrinsic value. Prop up the idea, not the man. (*)Possibly your (generic you) religion describes a small integer number of perfect humans. They are irrelevant for this discussion. And I disagree ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Founders Intent comments are off the topic of improving the lede. I think it's likely that most historians don't care that Jefferson had the relationship. The lede as it stands overlinks the "reputation" issues of his policy and expressed thoughts on slavery, for which historians' comments were sourced, ,and his relationship with Heming for which no reputation issue is sourced. Stephan Schulz and I both suggested changes to this paragraph to represent scholarship changes and the widely accepted facts. My changes were reverted. What is there is not consistent with current scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Gwillickers...in general, there aren't many references in leads. I agree with you that a paragraph in the lead and many paragraphs in the body are too much for this particular article. I disagree with doing anything more than reducing the content in this article, and I believe that if the content is reliably sourced, it belongs someplace. I also think you perhaps need to tone it down a notch Purplebackpack89 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC

Hello Purplebackpack89, What I am advocating is reduction and removal of redundant and excess specialized information. As for my tone, I believe at this point it is called for. This controversy has kept the Jefferson page in disarray for more than a year and has occurred before in the same gross and inconsiderate proportions. 'Talk' has been going on for some time and the page was getting worse. In practice the issue of undue wight continued to be ignored. Consensus needed to be clear and established. The 'vote' is nothing more than what occurs when editors try to sum up consensus. Now that consensus is quite defined, it's time to take positive action and to see to it that policy is observed and that the topic in question gets no more summary treatment than the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence has gotten. No other biography, anywhere, has gone so far afield on such a small topic. Much of the controversy is orchestrated with the typical in you face tactics, with the ignoring of basic WP policy, and with the sort of tone we have witnessed in the lede and elsewhere. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As we have not come to consensus on the last paragraph, I have removed most of it for discussion here:

Rjensen has suggested: Historians Jan Lewis and Peter Onuf distinguish between Jefferson's beliefs and his public legacy, contending:

"Jefferson's articulation of the fundamental principles of modern democracy -- government only by the consent of the governed, freedom of conscience, the right to privacy, the independence of religion from the state -- have outlived not only him but also his limited capacity to find in them a way to terminate slavery."

I don't think it is right to omit the change in scholarship re: Jefferson and Hemings.Parkwells (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not omit anything from the last version but added a point made by leading scholars: Their point (Lewis and Onuf and Jack Rakove too) is that people are talking on the one hand about Jefferson-the-person (his reputation is seriously damaged) and on the other Jefferson-the-thinker....the latter influence is stronger than ever -- look at Tunisia Egypt and Libya these days for example regarding consent of the governed. (Jefferson, by the way, sent the Navy to Tripoli, an issue under debate this week). Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some progress

The lede has recently been changed by another editor since many have offered their consensus, but little has changed. Hemings is still mentioned by name. Mention of DNA was omitted but now we have other info' in the lede about her, that she was part of his life for nearly 40 years. -- Currently there is also some nine pages that run at length about slavery, and especially Hemings. The last time I checked there were some five pages for her specifically. Gwillhickers (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, she was part of his life for nearly 40 years, which people tried to cover up, and she had twice as many surviving children as his wife did. Allow some time for this to be worked.Parkwells (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a man like Jefferson with his position, fame and fortune could have had almost any woman he wanted, and with his resources could easily have arranged other relationships about the countryside. What seems to be glossed over by various scholars is the possibility that if Jefferson's relationship lasted for so long, that it likely may have been a mutual and meaningful involvement. Is this not just as likely as any other possibility? Why is this not even reflected in the lede and elsewhere?? And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love, and who sought out real companionship where ever he could find it. Any scholar who can't acknowledge this quite common human occurrence in the human drama I would think has little capacity for NPOV to begin with and are motivated by other factors. This has all been discussed before, to little avail.
The larger issue still remains:. -- There is still flagrant undue weight in the lede, which seems to be saying the same thing, only differently, every hour or so. Again, Washington, others are not named and they are far more prominent and connected with Jefferson before during and after the American Revolution, which by the way is not mentioned in the lede also. Controversy may justify coverage of an issue, it does not justify undue weight throughout the article, esp in the gross proportions that we are witnessing here. This is the Jefferson biography. His alleged postmarital involvements are but a small chapter and again, certainly do not compare to the American Revolution, George Washington, the Declaration of Independence, the break from British rule, etc. All of these things are treated in summary form as should the topic of Jefferson's later alleged personal involvements. And let's not gloss that point over entirely either. They are indeed alleged and require speculation to assume otherwise. THIS also should be reflected in the lede and elsewhere. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You speculate about Jefferson's and Hemings' relationship. We know very little about it. What we believe (according to the historical consensus) is that it lasted nearly 40 years, that she had several children by him, and that they were in a legal master/slave situation. That's what we can state. We cannot, unless we find new sources I'm not aware of, suggest that their relationship was voluntary and mutual, or that it was violent and forced. We do not know who initiated it, and why. So we remain silent about it.

You seem to waver between "but it wasn't bad" and "but it wasn't important, so should not be mentioned (or not much)". Can you settle on one? Otherwise you give the impression that your aim is merely to white-wash Jefferson (whom nobody else claims is dirty...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

This is a general proposal for the lede, which still mentions Hemings. As the lede is just short of undergoing an edit war, and because it continues to change several times inside hours I am posting the paragraph the way it reads at the time of this posting. Previous versions still attempt to single out Jefferson as some sort of cruel entity with unusual views towards Africans in his day.

Jefferson continues to be hailed and memorialized as the leading American exponent of liberty and democracy and though he depended upon his tobacco plantations worked by hundreds of his own slaves, and struggled with the idea of an institution he was born into, he would eventually give many of them their freedom. He held the same views towards Africans common for that period and his likely paternity of several children with his slave Sally Hemings have complicated his legacy since the middle of the 20th century.

This is the tone the lede should have. No POV pushing about "reputation" in lede. Please speak of Jefferson with neutral tone that does not single him out or that casts solely negative aspersions. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson only freed two slaves while he was alive. He freed 5 slaves in his will after his death. That makes 7 out of 130. Let's see. Jefferson freed a little over 5 percent of his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Which translates into what, that he didn't struggle with the idea, or that he had no feelings towards the Hemingses and others? Are you saying the lede should cast only the negative conotations while reflecting nothing else in this matter? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Some text issues (yes, one of them is with the lede)

I was reading the lede today and there is an issue with the following text: "However he owed his fortune to tobacco plantations worked by hundreds of slaves."

• Technically, nowhere in this article is his ownership of any plantations sourced. As a matter of fact, the only place the word 'plantation' is used is within the lede.
• Nowhere in the article are the crops of any plantations mentioned. Monticello is mentioned within the article but not what was grown on its land or on any of Jefferson's landholdings. The crops of his landholdings in the Virginia counties of Bedford and Goochland are not mentioned.

Also, this sentence is in the Slavery section: "'Jefferson inherited slaves as a child, and owned hundreds of black men, women and children all his life."

• The above appears to be a mischaracterization of Cohen's work. From the online copy I was able to find here, the only time Cohen mentions the number of people Jefferson held as slaves is in the first sentence of: "It seems paradoxical that Thomas Jefferson, one of the enduring heroes of American democracy, should have been the owner of more than 180 slaves at the very time..."
  

So I have attempted to verify how many human being Jefferson held as slaves. This source states that Jefferson had 110 dower slaves when he married Martha Wayles, that in 1798 he held 141 people, two years later he held 93 and after his death, 130 people were sold to pay his estate's debts. The Monticello website states that Jefferson did hold a total of 600 individuals as slaves during his lifetime, most of the number coming from the women having children born into slavery. The website states: "He acquired approximately 175 slaves through inheritance: about 40 from the estate of his father, Peter Jefferson, in 1764, and 135 from his father-in-law, John Wayles, in 1774. Jefferson purchased fewer than twenty slaves in his lifetime,..." According to my understanding, ledes don't have to necessarily have inline citations but sourced material in them is supposed to be contained within the following article so it appears to me that these issues should be addressed.
Also, the last paragraph ends with: "His views on the inferiority of blacks, and his likely sexual relations with one of them, have severely damaged his reputation among scholars in the 21st century." The only other person mentioned in the lede is mentioned by name. That's all. -- Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson's slave population at Monticello fluctuated. Owning hundreds of slaves is historically accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanitizing to pointlessness...

"He held the same views towards blacks common for that period, for which he has been criticized by historians." - which views are those? That they have two arms? That they are dark-skinned? And what does "same" refer to here? Also, Sally went away. Not an improvement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Counterproposal: "Jefferson regarded slavery as a national moral evil. However, he was a slaveholder and shared his societies views on the inferiority of blacks. Jefferson most likely had a decade-long relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, which resulted in several children. Nevertheless, he is memorialized as a leading American exponent of liberty and democracy." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson did not see slavery as a national anything; he saw it as an danger and a scandal for Virginia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sidepoint. Madison used the phrase a lot. Substituted "moral evil", a phrase Jefferson used. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The current lede is protectionist and in essense tells the ready not to dare question Thomas Jefferson and slavery. The previous lede was accurate and to the point. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede at that point did not attempt to persecute Jefferson and did not promote only a negative estimation of the man. The lede did not suggest to the reader "not to dare", nor did it suggest the topic be ignored. After all, Hemings is still mentioned by name, and linked, while Washington and the American Revolution are not even mentioned. The issue is UNDUE weight. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)