Talk:Thomas Jefferson

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 [1]. 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 [2] "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: [3]. 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 [4] --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)

Cmguy777, you said "Callender's disregared reputation needs to be addressed" - it perhaps could. But the idea that Callender began the accusations in 1802 is incorrect. Gordon-Reed says it began in the 1790's; Callender was "the first person to really put..the name Sally...in relationship with Jefferson". So, some people misrepresent the facts by focusing on Callender. This predates Callender by several years. See @15:30 [5]Ebanony (talk) 22:32, 6 March 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)

Thanks Parkwells. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The controversy section is looking good, fair, and balanced! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 4 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)
• I second Parkwells comment (Cmguy777's is a workable alternative); this involves Jefferson, should be covered, though I'd say (and have said several times) it should not be as long as it is. However, this is the major area of Jefferson study now, and it requires a larger section than parts some other topics the article covers - within reason.Ebanony (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Against - As an historian, I can tell you that there is already a consensus on this topic. We cannot sanitize history and have not been charged to do so. This was a controversy that he experienced in his own time and it is still relevant. The POV pushing occurring on this subject is extreme. Removing whole chapters of historical consensus is tantamount to idol worship. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 07:27, 5 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)

This is what the Sally Hemings controversy section in July'08 looked like. One page, about 3-5k worth of text and code, depending. As I have pointed out before, about one year ago the section looked like this with its four pages. it was scaled down to less than a page and moved and linked to the Sally Hemings page, but over the last year the same thing has occurred all over again, the section, little by little, has fattened to gross proportions, and in the midst of redundant and rehashed talk that has only proven to be disruptive, often discouraging other historians and writers. The page changes by the hour sometimes. It's been doing this for reasons apart from maintenance edits and such. The last time I looked the controversy section had more than four pages of text, still. After more than a year of talk history, here also, has repeated itself. It was and is time to tally up consensus so everyone can take constructive and definite steps about correcting this prolonged and continued violation of undue weight policy. I also suspect that some are merely content with keeping the controversy alive here at Wikipedia and care not about the biography overall. More than a year's worth of edit history and the repeated inclusion of gross amounts of additional information with its often selective and narrow wording is certainly consistent with that idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 3 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)

I had suggested a change that reflected the change in Jeffersonian scholarship that now recognizes he had a relationship with Sally Hemings (she should be referred to by name rather than as "a slave", both because she was a person and her name is highly identified with the controversy.) That was reverted altogether by an editor who told me we had not reached consensus here. We have not reached consensus on your suggestions either. Again, people are saying his reputation is damaged because of his stand on slavery. I have not seen much recent reflection on this saying his reputation was damaged because of his actions with Hemings (and it would still be because it took people so long to learn the truth about him, which was a truth typical for many planters of his time.)Parkwells (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

First, Gwillhickers and one other complained there were too many sources in the lede on Hemings & slavery. Well, that is what the manual of style of stipulates: "it should...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" and "must be carefully sourced as appropriate" WP:LEAD. So we shall disregard those objections (this comes from a person who adds things to articles with no sources at all).

Second, "a modern view which is largely toted for its sensationalism and the fact that it sells copy. Actually, it's not "modern"; it's a 200 + yr controversy - it's not new. Resolving it, now that is new. "Sensationalism"? No, you mean efforts by white writers to misrepresent African American slave women and to disregard their humanity; and it's disrespectful not to mention her name. Third, there is no consensus on removing Hemings from the lede, and it should be mentioned, at least in 1 sentence. THAT is the most important work scholars did on Jefferson in decades. Ebanony (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying it (relationship with Hemmings) now deserves a higher proportionate representation in the article, because it took people so long to learn the truth about him? Frankly I think historians always knew about this, but modern politics (which articles must be guarded against) has brought increased emphasis to this part of Jefferson history. At the start of this thread it appears that the chief complaint was an OVER-emphasis on Hemmings (especially in the lede), and some of this should be move elsewhere. BTW, I don't mean to imply that the politics is yours, just in society general. Maybe the conflict over liberty for all and slavery within Jefferson (and as a societal issue) deserves a focused article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the lead guidelines say some topics require a larger amount of space. That doesn't mean it should be too long, but Hemings is required in the lead: "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It's size: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." WP:LEAD) Hemings is very important to Jefferson & studies on him, and it's the major area of study for quite some time. The lead on Hemings should be at least 1 sentence, and could easily be 2-3 according to this. Most are happy with 1-2 good sentences on it. As to the main text, a section with 2 -3 paragraphs is perfectly reasonable, and that's actually about the same size as the section on slavery and Native American policy. So I'm saying it needs at least the same coverage as other topics. Some on here demand a reduction of this, and a removal from the lead. That is the problem: they ignore the guidelines.Ebanony (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this topic still raging? We have already been down this road and continue to be taken down this road by a few POV-pushing editors. The Hemings information listed on this page is appropriate. At some point, once a consensus has been reached, this topic should be permanently closed. The way some of these editors are conducting themselves, by continually bringing up the same topics over and over again, is nothing short of abuse. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 07:33, 5 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)

I agree that we should not be speculating about the nature of their relationship, neither in the lede nor elsewhere. We haven't as it stands and don't want to introduce such speculation now.Parkwells (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What Gwillhickers has done since early January is argue - over and over - to have a sanitised version of slavery & also to have Hemings removed from the lede. Hemings will be mentioned; the manual of style is a clear guideline, so enough of this rubbish about "undue weight". It's a notable controversy, and yes, her name should be written as well. We don't take orders from those who ignore policies. There is no consensus whatsoever to remove that.Ebanony (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I must challenege you to find and quote any such statement. -- Including this message, I now know of three current misrepresentations of my account edited by your hand. You need to end this sort of behavior immediately. If you are going to say anything on my behalf quote and link to it please. Please find a quote where I say, in no uncertain terms, that I wish to in effect 'sanitize' the issue. Meanwhile, I will look for examples where you make attempts to do just the opposite. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Challenge? Your rhetoric is catching up with you. This isn't about me, it's about your attempt to control the article by relying on WP:FRINGE theories & stuff you outright made up. I explained here [7]. Now you say you "will look for examples where you make attempts to do just the opposite." I already warned you about your numerous personal attacks against me here [8]. Best to read policy WP:PA. I'm pointing this out to you because your baseless claims you've used to dictate how the article should be - over and over. That's not improving the article.Ebanony (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As anyone who can remember past yesterday knows only great reductions in Hemings material, was ever referred to, both in the lede and body of text, esp material that goes on about various historians. Again, you can not even present one example of where I say anything should be sanitized. And you did make attempts to do the opposite by trying to keep the lede from reading 'common for his period' While you falsely accuse me of personal attacks you now have misrepresented me by name on at least five occasions. I am perfectly willing to spend time pointing out these items for you so long as we take care of the overload problem that still exists in the Controversy section. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation: you're willing to go about with your attacks & harassment until people conform to your fringe theories. No. That's not decent behaviour on here, and people will entertain your antics until the article is changed. Some of it will not be changed. And yes you do sanitise. Precisely by using & promoting the fringe ideas of 25 other possibilities (instead of Jefferson), saying Hemings herself possibly initiated the relationship etc. You're the only one here doing that.Ebanony (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was thoughtful of you to admit from the start that your response is a translation. Your belief that the editors who made the reductions did so for no other reason than to entertain my antics is to suggest that they had no reasons of their own or any real set of principles guiding their activity. As for the 'fringe theory' it will be interesting to see how you explain how acknowledging or asking about all possible aspects of this topic amount to that, esp since no one has asked to even mention this on the page. Much of the discussion involves possibilities, times of conception so forth. It is perfectly reasonable to inquire and acknowledge on the discussion page all possibilities involving the relationship. I have been told by two other editors that no one knows for sure the nature of the relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to mention in this context that love or other mutual feelings, could also have been a factor in the affair, if indeed there was one. To suggest that there was no love or mutual feelings involved is to undermine Hemings as a person as much as it does Jefferson. As per your "disgusting" and quite revealing estimation of this affair, it would appear that you posses little neutral POV capacity to be dealing with this issue in the first place. I think bringing attention to this behavior is at this point warranted and any edit you make should be considered in this light. Last, in edit history would you please leave a note and apology for the mis-truth you entered there accusing me of deleting Hemings' name from the lede, and also for accusing me of saying that Hemings "forced" herself on Jefferson. In the apology you should include links to where the reader can see my actual quotes. That would be a fair thing to do also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

already replied to [9]Ebanony (talk) 03:52, 7 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)

No, it shows that "he would eventually give many of them their freedom" is plain false, and hence should not be in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the lede needs to be an overall broad perspective of Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd says "needs to have an overall", but apart from that I agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is my proposed lede:

Jefferson's legacy as a champion of enlightenment values has been challenged by some historians who find his ownership of hundreds of slaves at Monticello to be in contradiction and problematic to his radical rhetoric on freedom and the equality of men. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Cmguy777's numbers are on the conservative side. Jefferson owned hundreds more over his lifetime, so it's not even 5%. It's like 1%, and it wasn't something he volunteered to do. And, no. He had no intention of ever freeing them (despite Gwillhickers comment saying otherwise); that is the sanitised version. Further, equality did not refer to blacks, especially not to slaves. The older comments on slavery & Hemings - with her name and fact there is a consensus - is well documented and appropriate. Gwillhickers just doesn't want it in - period. Let's restore most of it. It's not like these blokes asked to remove it, they demanded it, and so now we're supposed to accommodate them? That's not acting in good faith.Ebanony (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony misrepresents two items. From the beginning the consensus roundly acknowledged that there was far too much material in the body of text for this topic, and too much additional mention of topics in the lede. The issue has been undue weight. There were almost five pages and several sections committed to this topic. It has been scaled down nicely since consensus was finally outlined. Secondly, no idea of "sanitizing" the text was made by this editor. The issue that was always foremost asserted was undue weight and the volume of material committed to this one topic. Please make more of an effort to keep your line straight. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ebanony misrepresents" nothing. I myself in February said the sections on Hemings in the main text were too long. That has nothing to do with the lead, though. There is not now nor ever was a consensus to remove Hemings from the lead - you're confusing that with the comments on the text in the main article. The lead guidelines are clear WP:LEAD: lead should cover "any prominent controversies". Hemings is a notable controversy. And your claim of undue weight in the lead on Hemings is based on the the wrong part of the Manual of Style. You selected the part on living persons. Yes, you misquoted it.

I've told you this about 8 times; it indicates you are not acting in good faith. Nor can you support the claim that Hemings is not a notable controversy, so instead you've made outrageous claims that fall into a) WP:FRINGE theories and b) WP:OR - namely "Hemings has had no impact on American history" (Jan 29th [10]); that "there is only a 1 out of 25 chance that it was TJ who was the father" (Jan 25th [11]); and that "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" (Mar 2nd [12]). You also said "Why is this not even reflected in the lede and elsewhere??" Because you're making things up, and do not have WP:RS. "Sanitising" is a nice way to describe the nonsense you're pushing. Ebanony (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, all I have and continue to 'demand' are great reductions of Hemings opinions. If this is your idea of "sanitizing" I can only say that this sounds sort of typical of the stretches that must be made for these sorts of accusations to sound believable. Last, your concern about speaking in 'good faith' comes off less than sincere when you refuse to acknowledge the absurd amounts of 'controversy' material that was piled up in the Jefferson biography and when you attempt to thwart and ridicule efforts to correct this obvious and ongoing problem. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 5 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)

"a mischaracterization of Cohen's work." Not true. Jefferson did own hundreds of slaves at that point, and it fluctuated over the years, but total aggregate exceeded 180. Solution: find a better source. Second, read the manual of style, the "lead should [have] reliable, published sources" WP:LEAD. But these sentences in question appear in the slavery section; all text needs sources WP:V.Ebanony (talk) 11:09, 3 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 nearly four decades-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 relationship with Hemings was nearly four decades long, with six children, four of whom survived to adulthood.Parkwells (talk) 04:01, 3 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)

Telling the reader that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves is accurate. There is no need to suggest in the lede that just because other contemporary persons participated in slavery (or viewed blacks as inferior), therefore, Jefferson owning hundreds of slaves and being a champion of liberty need not be questioned. The Wikipedia bio article does not judge slavery as evil or good, just that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and stated "All men are created equal". Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things are accurate. Including them in the lede in the previous proportions is another matter. If it is going to be stated that Jefferson had certain views towards Africans it should be done so in the context of his surroundings and time period. To mention his views singularly more than suggests he was usual in these views and assumes a negative conation in relation to the world around this individual. No matter. The lede has since been corrected on that item. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Jefferson is memorialized as the leading American exponent of liberty and democracy but he did not extend these rights to enslaved blacks, and depended on slaves to work his plantations. Since 1998, Jeffersonian scholarship has generally changed to acknowledge his relationship as a widower with his slave Sally Hemings and paternity of her children. Jefferson freed only two slaves in his lifetime, and five more in his will, all males of the larger Hemings family." I think talking in the lede about who he freed is getting into too much detail, but certainly he did not free "many". Parkwells (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "but he did not extend these rights to enslaved blacks" rings quite right. He did, in theory. He did not realise this theory for a number of reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz's proposal seems reasonable and balanced to me. It summarizes the issue fairly well without bringing too many details into the lede. The last sentence, perhaps, is a bit too negative ("nevertheless" implies that this is the opposite of the obvious conclusion). Maybe this would work: "Jefferson's views on slavery were complicated. He regarded slavery as a moral evil, but 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. --Coemgenus 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede is finally starting to look more adequate. Now it should mention other prominent topics greatly relating to Jefferson, starting with the American Revolution, an event officially initiated by the Declaration of Independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What source states that Jefferson believed slavery was a "national" or "moral evil"? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson himself was quite clear on this. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote ""In the very first session held under the republican government, the assembly passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this great political and moral evil, ...". And in a letter in 1814, referring to slavery, he wrote "On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." See e.g. [13] for a collection of quotes. His original draft of the Declaration of Independence also listed slavery as one of the evils of King George: "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither"[14]--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson's biography must consist of actions he did, not just words he said. Jefferson believed slavery was morally degrading to white people, not blacks. Jefferson states slavery is a "moral and political deprevaty" and yet actively participated in the institution. This contradiction needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson believed slavery degrading to both sides: A man's moral sense must be unusually strong, if slavery does not make him a thief. He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own, can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force. (Letter to Bancroft, 1786, quoted on the same site.) Without slavery, he believed whites and blacks have the same moral sense (and therefore could write and maintain that they were created equal). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has done this: "attempt to persecute Jefferson and did not promote only a negative estimation of the man.", as Gwillhickers falsely claimed; a total lack of good faith.

As to the proposal, there is nothing "complicated" about Jefferson's views; second, with respect to Stephan Schulz: "His original draft of the Declaration of Independence also listed slavery as one of the evils of King George". No. In reality, Jefferson condemned the King for the slave trade, not slavery. He then condemned the King for freeing slaves (you left out that part); he also in that 1814 letter told Coles not to free his own slaves, and said he wanted blacks deported (you left out those parts). Cmguy777 is correct to ask for a source. Stephan Schulz responded using only primary sources, which is WP:OR, and inapplicable. The secondary sources on the topic disagree, and rightly so. Some scholars in the past misrepresented Jefferson and created myths we'd best not repeat. The old lead was accurate & most should be restored. Now you see why.Ebanony (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You are applying today's standards to a man who has been dead for 8 generations. Jefferson was, by today's standards, a racist, but he also was aware of this bias and that it was based on shaky foundations. He opposed slavery in the abstract, and we have plenty of evidence that he worked to abolish it, especially in his younger years. However, he enjoyed its benefits in the concrete. He was a man of his time, constrained both by the legal and social framework he lived in. It would have been very likely impossible for him to free his slaves unilaterally, and it would certainly have ruined him if he had tried. Now, maybe he should have done this anyways. But then, maybe I should lay off chocolate, butter, and white bread - a much less existential change. You guess it, I'm not. We can criticize Jefferson for his hypocrisy, but that does not negate his other thoughts and actions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course his views were complicated. If they were simple and obvious, people wouldn't have been debating them for decades and this talk page would not be nearly so long. --Coemgenus 13:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, nothing I said has anything to do with "today's standards"; I didn't even use the word "racism" in my last comment. You changed the subject because you can't refute what I said: the quotes you cited from the D of I, the 1814 Coles letter, relied on WP:OR & older, discredited research to draw those conclusions. It is myth "that he worked to abolish" slavery. Believe whatever you want, but that's not stuff that can be in the article. Complicated? No. Jefferson didn't want free blacks in the US; either keep slaves, or deport all blacks to Africa ie a segregated all white society; his position it can't be any clearer. Those clear political agendas made that stuff up - including some overt racists, if you want to be serious about it. The old was fine; no need to argue this stuff again. Ebanony (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't myth. He didn't work very hard, and be accepted defeat after his colonization plan failed to pass, but it did exist. No, he didn't want free blacks in the US; he wanted free blacks elsewhere - he held that slavery had made blacks and white separate nations, just as George III had made the English and the Americans separate nations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's not personal, but I'd say it's that some of you haven't read other pertinent research. Septentrionalis does not understand his deportation plan - it never passed. When did he introdice it to the government? We must have missed that. As to your part on George III, it makes no sense. The Americans fought for their independence ie the American Revolution.Ebanony (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I said that his plan "failed to pass", I am puzzled where the misunderstanding lies. It was introduced as part of his general project of Revision, of the mid-1780s. As for independence: Jefferson would have said, and did after all write, that the Americans were independent of Britain as of 1776 (some of his writings claim that the Americans were independent from 1607); they were separate nations. From his point of view, the British insisted on war (for what was, after Howe's offer of 1778, a purely nominal dependence). It would be a curiously Conservative view that the Americans were not independent until the Peace of Paris. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The "misunderstanding" lies in misrepresentations of the facts,Septentrionalis. What "colonization plan failed to pass" in the mid-1780's? None. You could say it "failed to pass" because Jefferson never submitted it. You're relying on the same discredited scholars who misstated the facts (the same who denied the Hemings affair). Yes,your version is myth, and they've been debunked by serious scholars. You're over 20 years late. I call into question your removal of Hemings from the Lead today [15]. There is no "party view" as you claimed, and you removed sourced content without a valid reason. You should restore it. To assume good faith, I'd have to call you uninformed. Get your facts right before making such erroneous statements & edits. Ebanony (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, saying Jefferson "was a man of his times" is a circular argument. Why not say the earth is the earth, or a ball is a ball. There needs to be some explanation and research. Baptist and Methodist, during Jeffesron's time, taught black equality and abolition. Many of Jefferson's laws against blacks were conservative for his time. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Another specialized section for Hemings?

The section Academic consensus is not biographical to Jefferson. This is a biography and the existing section is specialized and additional information that should be treated with one or two sentences, and ones that do not try to push a POV in either direction. The editor who included this good faith contribution should remove the section, there are already three others, and should scale the text down to one or two sentences and link items as best seen fit. This would help balance undue weight and would help to shorten the article (currently at 115k) that is way beyond the size guidelines allows for. There are legitimate reasons for long artilces (i.e.many different topics). Hemings is one topic. Currently this issue takes up at least four pages, largely because of extra and specialized information that runs at length about this particular topic, as can be witnessed in the existing controversy section and is largely responsible for the page's over-sized proportions. There is still undue weight / NPOV considerations here also. One or two simple sentences with links is all that is necessary for inclusion in a summary biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it properly referenced? If it is, split it into its own article, such as Historiography of Thomas Jefferson. If not, toss it. Purplebackpack89 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The peer driven musings of contemporary 'Academia' are already discussed at considerable length on the Salley Hemings page. 'Academinc' considerations involves additional and specialized information and by itself can not make POV conclusions regarding "reputation" and such. No matter, there is way to much ado about this, and it most certainly should not have its own section -- one that is larger than sections for other topics. There is only call for brief mention about 'academic' assertions and controversies in a summary style presidential biography, or any biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

This was not some simple academic controversy. We are supposed to be following the scholarship here - published valid sources, preferably in peer-reviewed sources. It is not often that there is such a longstanding controversy over a major figure and a major change in the direction of scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The controversy now is largely one of repetition, with the same things being said over and again. Controversy still does not justify UNDUE weight with its large proportions of additional and often specialized material that has been unloaded into this biography, again, and esp since this matter is already well covered with dedicated pages on the topic. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As people have pointed out, Hemings is not notable for her own life, but because of her relationship to Jefferson. The controversy was about him, because of his status, not about her at all. I think there should be an article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, to which both their articles might be linked - that material should only be summarized in her article, as we are planning to do in this one. I'm working on drafting the separate article. Parkwells (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with his sentiment. There are already separate and dedicated articles for Hemings where these things are discussed in full. The controversy section here needs to be scaled down to the same proportions as the average section, and then link to the Sally Hemings page. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, please do not repeat already refuted red herrings. Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb talks about readable prose limits. The 115KB you cite is gross article length. "Readable prose" excludes lists, references and TOC. The readable prose of this article is 54 KB at the moment, less than half of what you claim, and well below the "Probably should be divided" limit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In case no one realised, Gwillhickers is now back at his tirades demanding almost everything on Hemings be removed. This nonsense is ruining the article, and the fact there are now what, 8 different sections on this alone in this 1 week (not counting his diatribes in January), is a testament to his determination to get rid of Hemings. She should stay, and his red herrings & straw man arguments show how much HE repeats himself (see the old talk page & this one). Over and over "remove Hemings". Uh...no. And he had the nerve to call me "obsessed"?Ebanony (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony once again misrepresents my account. As can easily be ascertained from edit history and from the existing section, recommendation was made to reducing the almost the 4-5 pages of text that ran at considerable length about Hemings and moreover about 'scholars' and 'legal historians' and '21st century historians' while it also mentioned others by name, like 'Peterson' and 'Adair'. Please be reminded also that MOS - lede section says in the lead of a biography "notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm". At one point this one topic had more coverage in the lede and also took up a grossly disproportionate amount of page text, almost five pages for the 'controversy' section. Aside from not relating directly to Jefferson, per his biography, more was being said about the 'controversy' than was about Hemings herself. (!) MOS also says always "pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. i.e.'with skepticism'. MOS here also says Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. The section obviously went far beyond just presenting the facts, it expounded on what other selected historians thought and was definitely POV pushing. Please be mindful of this in the future. This is a biography, not an outline of academic opinions about a controversy, and this is the second time this page has had to have a major clean up and reduction of material about this one topic. Also and once again, please keep your line straight when you refer to my account in the future. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've responded elsewhere. But before quoting the manual of style, try focusing on the correct part ie you went to the part on "living persons"; maybe you have trouble understanding the simple fact that Jefferson's bio doesn't fit into that category. Start with the first paragraph WP:LEAD "notable controversies". You're misstating the facts. It's ok, you usually do. I'd say you're confused and need to go back and read the manual till you understand it; if that's too difficult, then I don't know what to tell you. As to your fringe theories, well...believe what you want. But don't demand the article conform to your conspiracy theories. Wasn't it you who complained there were too many sources in the lead? "There are EIGHT references for the paragraph..." [16] Didn't you say just above always "pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources - how ironic. You're the same editor who adds WP:FRINGE theories to the main text of the article with no sources [17] & [18], which can correctly be called denying Jefferson's role. For a person who pushes WP:FRINGE theories, ignores WP:RS, perhaps it might strike you as odd that people are a bit bored with your groundless accusations, some of which you're guilty of yourself. No wonder the article isn't improving. Ebanony (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was I who quoted MOS for saying pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, which I also emphasized means with skepticism, let's not leave that little point out. If MOS for bio's of living people says you should be scrupulous with reliable sources, of which you seemed to agree, I can only ask why you disagree when that same source says let the facts speak for themselves. Also, there is nothing in 'controversy' policy that justifies gross undue weight. Controversy policy only says why and where the topic may be mentioned. This is another distinction you have always glossed over regarding this item. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Gwillhickers, there is no undue weight; 1-2 sentences on Hemings is perfectly appropriate in the lead - including mentioning her name. You just don't want Hemings in, and have recycled these excuses for months. As to the MOS, you're misquoting it to manufacture support for your extreme position. The biography rules on living persons differ, and that is why it is in a separate category. As to proper sourcing, that's for all material: "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." WP:V The information on Hemings in the lead was properly sourced, and you know it. In fact, you complained to had too many sources [19]!

One minute there's too many sources, now you go on about poor sourcing.

You've got the nerve to discuss "reliable sources" when you yourself posted this original research/fringe conspiracy theory with no sources in the main space on Hemings [20] & [21]. The verification policy is a pillar which you ignored in the 2 examples, among others. So before you tell others to be "scrupulous" with, you're not being truthful. We were scrupulous and you demanded it be removed. It's you who violate that policy. You have no credibility. You're not trying to improve the article; you're trying to dictate it according to your fringe theories. We told you no. Get off it.Ebanony (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Asserting the idea that no one can say for sure is not a theory, it's a fact. You said I was espousing theory. And your concerns about being "truthful" fly in the face of every editor who has witnessed you make one lie and distortion after another in this discussion page, and in edit history. I don't think the others who may share some of your views appreciate someone who makes habitual lies representing their views of the issue. At least do them the favor and make an attempt to clean up your act. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers that Jefferson had 6 kids with Hemings is not a "theory"; it is historical fact, and only a denier would say otherwise. The only one discussing "theory" is you with your "conspiracy theories". That is why there is a noticeboard for "fringe theories". This is what they said about your ideas: "I see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians" [22]. So, I also remind you that false accusation of "someone who makes habitual lies" can be understood as uncivil behaviour & a personal attack. Remove those comments.Ebanony (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting

This is a very long article that digresses into too many topics. Here are some sections that should be summarized here, but get their own articles:

• Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings relationship (from the five page section Willickers is urging to be truncated above)
• Historiography of Thomas Jefferson (regarding the changing consensus and academic debates in Jefferson scholarship)
• Thomas Jefferson bibliography (as with Abraham Lincoln bibliography)

Purplebackpack89 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Martha Radolph

Gordon-Reed source does not mention Martha Randolph. Removed:

Martha Randolph was mistaken about where Jefferson was at particular times, as shown by Dumas Malone's documented timeline of his life. Did Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson Love Each Other? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored Old lead

Gwillickers gave no valid reason for removing the entire lead section and replacing it with poorly sourced content. There is something called consensus, and he ignored it. He claimed it had "too many" sources! That's a new one. As opposed to none, or ones that misrepresent Jefferson's affair? The manual of style on the WP:LEAD requires sources (sometimes several), and so do policies like WP:RS. This bloke has been doing highly disruptive things to the article and the talk page since January, and several people have called into question his behaviour. No, the lead is well documented, and there is NO reason why gwillickers's should on his own decide the way it will be. This isn't just about Hemings. The whole thing is different, and he's behaving in the most uncivil manner by demanding everyone do what he says. Frankly, he has 0 credibility with me because he openly violates numerous policies.

Fact: The academic consensus is that there was a relationship, and that they were his children. Some people present a false & highly ideological version based in pseudo-history, and he is one of them, as is evidenced by this edit Parkwells had to correct [23]; he'll say anything to get rid of Hemings. Fact: this is the major Jefferson work in the past decade, and it has to be covered. No apologetics please. Ebanony (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This "academic consensus" does not include American National Biography, the standard work of general reference; their article was written by Merrill D. Peterson. Expressions of certainty are unwarranted; however, I certainly agree that we should cover the matter in full. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Above statement needs source, page and date of article. Is it online so other people can read it? Consensus does not mean everyone agrees - we have said "it is widely accepted", which is the formulation used in other articles on Wikipedia. Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, Sir? This is a talk page; and the assumption of good faith should preclude such demands. Yhe article on "Jefferson, Thomas" (American National Biography, Vol. XI, pp.909-17) should not be hard to find in a resource in alphabetical order; however, the on-line edition has been updated on this point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More work has been done since Peterson, and no one is saying it is a "certainty". Consensus doesn't mean every single one will agree. Some don't and never will . However, the majority do, and yes, we can say that he did those things and was the father.Ebanony (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If the source in question were his 1970 book, that would be a conclusive response; but it isn't. Majority, however, seems to me a reasonable claim; if the article said "majority", instead of "consensus", we might have a genuine consensus on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Septentrionalis the assumption of good faith does not include taking whatever other editors say as fact without supporting evidence. Even if some people rely on that book, we cannot go by Peterson's work on Hemings because it is flawed. Yes, flawed. And he's not the only author to ignore evidence on her or to outright misrepresent Jefferson's involvement in slavery to protect his image or support the antislavery myth. Neither Peterson nor his work is "conclusive", but is rather just his opinion as a scholar; nor is it the only one. There is a far better academic who revealed the facts about Hemings, and it's her work that is authoritative (until the person comes along). Amazing how a black woman wins every award out there (& exposed these scholars for what they were), and some on here still prefer the refuted fairy tales of the great white men. No way we're going by what Peterson claimed. He's also been dubunked by other scholars. As to the word "consensus" or "majority", I have to agree with Parkwells. His work on Hemings has been stellar, and I've seen no errors in his work on her. I can't say the same for your claims about his work being biased or a "party view" when you changed the Hemings in the lead [24]. Where do you get your info from?Ebanony (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

All the 'to do' about which historian has ignored 'this' and which academic has ignored 'that' is very interesting to some individuals I'm sure, and I don't doubt there are those who have concealed personal things to protect images. At the same time I don't doubt for a minute there are those who have taken a quite finite set of facts and have read into them for their own sordid purposes. It can work both ways for anyone who has a mind to do so. In the mean time, this sort of material about what some historians may or may not have said, not only ventures away from the topic of Hemings, it certainly goes far astray from Jefferson. Again, the Jefferson biography is not the place for an outline of academic review and much of the material presently in the Controversy section still needs to be scaled down in this regard. It does not belong in a biography. This coverage does not focus on Jefferson it's focus is about what others have and haven't said or acknowledged about him. Regarding controversies, MOS clearly says let the facts speak for themselves. Mention may be made of widely varied views, and even the prominent accepted view, and then it should link to the article where this topic is quite adequately covered. People like Foster are due mention by name as he revealed facts. Others do not merit mention by name in someone's presidential biography simply because they hold a popular opinion about the facts. Try to present more facts and less opinion of facts. There is still far too much material in the 'Controversy' section for inclusion in a biography. Also, the section still remains to be the largest section on the page by great proportions while all of the others remain unusually small for some reason. Gwillhickers (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Septentrionalis can speak for himself. But since your off on one again... Anyway, No, you're wrong: Hemings directly involves Jefferson. She was his mistress (putting it nicely), and those were his children. That is historical fact; it is not a conspiracy theory. That is what the majority of scholars say, and I don't care if you want to continue to deny the facts. No WP:FRINGE theories here.

The Controversy is appropriate because some people scholars intentionally misled the public. The material on her in general should be shortened, but that controversy section should remain. Mentioning scholars by name is important so readers know who said what. Jefferson is not anything close to a divinity, and he gets no special treatment. We follow wikipedia guidelines, not yours. Names appear in thousands of wikipedia articles. Deal with it.Ebanony (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep banging on the same tin pot. As I clearly indicated above, I am not asking for complete removal of the section. Please make more of an effort to get it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You've asked for Hemings out of the lead, and then a reduction in the material to the level you feel is appropriate, which is not in accord with the guidelines. Then you deliberately post conspiracy theories about her in the main space. Distancing yourself from those conspiracy theories now, eh? Denying that you added them? You love to change the subject. You're being unreasonable.Ebanony (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Concensus means that any minority opinions or disagreements have been arbitrated or resolved. Parkwells has mentioned there has been some break through with Sally Heming's descendants and the Monticello Association. If there is a "last holdout", the MA would be a good candidate. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, the other day you lied in edit history when you said I removed Hemings name in the lede, you lied again when you claimed I said Hemings forced herself on Jefferson, and at the top of this section you lie yet again when you say I removed the entire lede. Are you on medication, or do you lose the ability to remain congnent when you encouter difficultly on a discussion page? This is a fair question as you have been carrying on as if my account can't be checked on per the lies and accusations you have been making. Well I suppose if anything we are getting some coimic relief into the discussion. Thanks for that at least. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I already [25]. As to your "theory" that Hemings initiated a relationship with Jefferson ("forcing herself" is a paraphrase). End of story. Ebanony (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Shortened controversy section was shortened

Made a first cut. I kept all the former material and am working on a draft controversy article, with all the cites.Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to bring some sanity to the Jefferson page. The 'controversy' section has been reduced from more than four pages to about one +, thanks you, but there is still way to much redundant material that does not belong in any biography. Also, more work is still needed in the lede. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive topic

One again an attempt was made to corrupt the lede section. This article needs to follow the same guidelines as any other. There is way too much Heming's coverage in lede and in the sections. This is the Jefferson page, not a forum for orchestrated controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only thing disruptive here are your permanent absolute demands. The rest seems to have a spirited but overall constructive debate. Why don't you lay off for a week and see if you like the result? Or at least can live with it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is correct (and we don't always agree). But Gwillhickers goes round removing any mention of Hemings, and declared he would do it regardless of what others said (in January). He ignores consensus. Gwillickers is what is disruptive. It DOES follow the WP:LEAD guidelines, which you blatantly ignore & misrepresent. It's not "corrupt". There is no "orchestrated controversy" - ie a conspiracy theory. Your objections are ridiculous and without foundation. Find the part in the manual of style that agrees with you. Rather it says "notable controversies" should be in the lead. Gwillhickersobjections are nothing more than a WP:FRINGE theory based on WP:OR and discredited research. "orchestrated controversy"? LOL. Now we know why there's 10 sections dedicated to arguing with this bloke. He's off on one. Ebanony (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate your desire for me to stop making demands and to just go away. Otoh, you two could disappear into the Hemings page itself and hang Jefferson dart-boards all over the sections until your heart's content. Talk has been tried for more than a year. It has gone around in a convoluted circle and has kept other editors scattered while the 'sections' for Hemings continued to grow to absurd proportions. The time for friendly chit chat with some individuals is obviously over, and not by my choice. Schulz has made some definite strides with correcting matters while Ebanony instead has devoted much of his time complaining about me and making repeated misrepresentations of my account on this subject, and in full view of my existing edits to this page. Amazing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was she fourteen every time she conceived? Discussing possibilities in relation to sketchy theory I would think you would welcome. Yes, the more attention brought to this discussion the better. This way the various parties in question can see the sort of petty nonsense you resort to and your habitual tendency to make false accusations about editors, in full view of what they have actually written. Lots of luck with your effort. Btw, if you want to put a fire out, why are you throwing petrol' on it? Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said you should go away or stay. "Misrepresentations"? No, that is nonsense. But it's what we expect from you. Your tirade does nothing to improve the article, and instead is just more attacks on me. Stop accusing us of bias: "dart-boards"; false statements: "misrepresentations"; and a tonne of other stuff. But, since you brought it up, if you can't contribute to improving the article, or following the talk page guidelines, then you really should stop making posts.Ebanony (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You complain about items like 'dart-boards' yet you use terms like "tirade" in the same breath. Again, you need to pay more attention with what is going on around you, as you also accused me of removing Hemings' name from the lede when I did not. And I have helped greatly in the effort to improve the article by pointing out the absurd amounts of material that was twice dumped into the biography over the last year. As for misrepresentations, you continue to make these, first when you claim I want to "sanitize" and outright remove almost everything on Hemings, in full view of the section where I clearly indicate what should be done, and now this. Currently there is at least five counts of misrepresentation of my account made by yourself, all the while you attempt to dodge the obvious problems of undue weight and continue to not even acknowledge that the controversy section was inflated to absurd proportions. Fortunately this problem is being corrected but with very little help from you, as your preoccupation since this new development has been with me, which I must admit I can well appreciate also. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, nothing will prevent the Jefferson article from changing, no matter what we agree to this month or year. Just as in the Lynching in the United States article, major figures and issues attract attention. As new editors learn about various issues, they get interested and want their opinions heard. That's the nature of Wikipedia, so if it bothers you, it would be better to work on more stable projects. Stephan Schultz and others also noted that what has happened here is the nature of Wikipedia (and history); that's how new information is applied and revisions are made.Parkwells (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles change from time to time, surely, but you can't say what is occurring with this article is anything beneficial to the readers who turn to these pages for information. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells & Schulz edits on Hemings & the article in general have been extremely beneficial to the reader. Unlike you, Gwillhickers, they're not promoting WP:FRINGE theories or making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself on Jefferson & take advantage of him. Yes, you're inventing history! Your work is an outrage. I daresay the only reason why article is in trouble is because of you. We've all responded to your objections; then, when we've answered them, you raised excuse after excuse, and then attacked everyone calling them biased etc. These blokes did excellent work on Hemings, and by constantly complaining about it, you're actually complaining about them. You're not acting in good faith, and need to stop these incessant demands that we follow your orders. Until you learn to work with other people, compromise & offer reasonable alternative based on consensus historical data, the article cannot improve.Ebanony (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells & Schulz's edits? Does it matter whose? The issue, please, was whether or not such volumes of material on this but one topic of Jefferson's life merits inclusion in a biography. That is all. Also, your above accusation, claiming I said Hemings "force herself". Here is exactly what I said: -- 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. A little different than the "disgusting" account you handed us. Please watch it. This was a comment, in discussion, about the many things that are still not known about the Hemings affair. Again, you take 2 + 2 and try to pass it off as 100, one again you refuse to get it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Please watch it."? Making threats now on top of the fringe theories? You don't even seem to understand how extreme your position is. She was about 14! Yes, your comment is a insult to her and African American slave women. You've got no evidence for such a fringe theory. I've warned you many times; I must now refer you to the noticeboard.Ebanony (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You have yet to point out any threats, and you have yet to point out any theory I have promoted. Would you kindly do this now so at least the other editors can see, exactly, how valid you concerns are here? Btw, please watch what you are writing when referring to the accounts of others. You have outright lied in edit history claiming I removed Hemings' name from the lede and have repeatedly made "disgusting" overtures about my account. Please watch it. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"you have outright lied in edit history" - What I actually said was "Gwillhickers Stop making unilateral edits to remove Hemings from the Lead - you have no concensus & this is well sourced; it's a notable controversy WP:LEAD guidelines" [26]. I didn't say you removed her name per se, but that you removed the full sentences on Hemings. I assumed you made the edit to the lead last week since you were going on and on about it, and made plenty of edits to the article. If it wasn't you who made the edit, then you have my apology. I'm not, however, apologising for restoring the information by making the edit itself. That's a far cry from a "lie"; it's an honest error in naming the person responsible. Do be reasonable man.Ebanony (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(note: Ebanony took it upon himself to remove this section to my talk page.)

Disruptive lying

The following thread was/is on my talk page and has been moved here as it concerns activity and other editors on this talk page.

I've been more than patient with you, but no, I did not "lie" at any point, and I am not "on mediation" [27]. You should immediately remove the aforementioned claims from the talk page.Ebanony (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You said I removed Hemings name from the lede, I did not. Then you said I removed the entire lede section, I did not, you said I claimed Hemings forced herself on Jefferson which I did not. There are other examples. Now you stand there and say you didn't lie at any point. When you correct all the lies in discussion and leave a note in edit history about the lie you left there, then we'll talk about any requests you have for me. Not until. Suggest you leave someone another notice. The Jefferson and discussion pages needs more attention anyway. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no lying, but perhaps you have trouble reading. If you bothered to read the talk page, I already answered this twice [28] & [29]. You're making something very small into something big. Now, regarding the Hemings fringe theory you spoke of, you speculated she initiated a relationship with him ie seduction of a grieving man. "Forced herself" (again I already this elsewhere [30]), is a paraphrase of the baloney conspiracy theory you invented or took form the fringest of places. I have no need to retract; I'm not the one inventing history or promoting racist ideas. You have no qualms about degrading black women & inventing stories, but have the nerve to discuss honesty??? What should we call your invented history, honest? Please. Ebanony (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I read and write quite well thank you, i.e. this is your quote from edit history (14:30, 3 March 2011):
Gwillhickers Stop making unilateral edits to remove Hemings from the Lead -
you have no concensus...
-- Please quote at least two "unilateral edits" (you did refer to more than one) where I do ANYTHING that even approaches removing the name from the lede. As for your other linked references of ( 20:44, 5 March 2011), this is just damage control made shortly after the fact in an obvious attempt to gloss over this lie of (00:53, 5 March 2011):
'You didn't have the audacity to claim a child forced herself on him?
Your comments are insulting..
and also (01:07, 5 March 2011):
.. making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself
on Jefferson & take advantage of him..
In yet another example you say in no uncertain terms (12:12, 3 March 2011) ..
Gwillickers gave no valid reason for removing the entire lead section and
replacing it with poorly sourced content..
As anyone can see from edit history I have at no time, ever, made any such removal of the entire lede.
-- As for your straw man accusation of "fringe theory", you are again, merely trying to take something said on a discussion page and pass it off as something I want to include in print on the main page. Again, mention was made by at least two editors I know of who said in so many words that no one knows the nature of the relationship. All I did at this point was to say this.. 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..
to which you replied (01:07, 5 March 2011) ..
..making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself on
Jefferson & take advantage of him. Yes, you're inventing history!
And of course to finish it off you now close with another lie claiming I am trying to "invent history" when all I did was mention one of any other likely possibilities. Again, your tendency to even control what is mentioned on a discussion page only demonstrates that it is you who has abandoned all POV. Your pattern of behavior and repeated outright lying is now a matter of record. If you would like to make additions to this record, please feel free. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You said: "As for your straw man accusation of "fringe theory", you are again, merely trying to take something said on a discussion page and pass it off as something I want to include in print on the main page" & you said "another lie claiming I am trying to "invent history" when all I did was mention one of any other likely possibilities."

I am lying or misrepresenting the facts? Then why does the Fringe theory noticeboard say?: "see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians. You and other editors have correctly insisted on keeping to sourcing policy and should continue to do so." [31]

They were talking about the stories you cooked up/copied from fringe sources ie Hemings taking advantage of Jefferson by trying to seduce him (force herself or however else I refer to it) & there being 20-25 other possibilities, "likely possibilities" etc. You're engaging in denial of history by claiming the Hemings/Jefferson affair is just a theory; it is not a theory; it's historical fact, and that's why you went to the noticeboard. If you go to the Holocaust pages and claim "it's just a theory" & "there are other possibilities" you'll get the same treatment. Holocaust denial/Jefferson/Hemings denial is the same thing, different subject matter. And your claims have racial undertones, and degrade back women for the sake of protecting Jefferson - which you accuse us of trying to defame (without reason). You shouldn't insist. I will not apologise/retract what I said concerning that. Or are you going to accuse the administrator of lying next too? Do go to the noticeboard and read it because I can assure you, there is a very different version of the facts, and you should be careful not to misrepresent that because it concerns admin. Again, there is no other"possibility" or "likely possibilities" as far as the academic community are concerned. Yes, you are inventing history & misrepresenting the facts with the utter nonsense you write. That is not allowed on wikipedia.

As to the "lying" you mention in concern with the lead, you're writing this in 5 places, even though I clearly say above in 3 places that I had made an error in naming you as the editor who removed the information from the lead. However, you did say, as far as I recall, that you wanted Hemings out of the lead (then changed in January/February), and have demanded reductions in Hemings content. Therefore, my comment of March 6 (which you removed from your talk page & posted above) is your answer.

Look, I'm wiling to let these insults/attacks go, but I insist you at once stop going about with these accusations of "lying" all over the talk pages. This is clearly a personal attack. WP:PA Al new members made errors, and you should learn from your experience not to insist on fringe theories. You can't promote them here or on the main page. Ebanony (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point it's become obvious that you are now back tracking and have made efforts at damage control, trying to arrange 'explanations', after the fact, as to what others can readily see and determine for themselves. If you want to compound your present foray I will be more than happy to chronicle this activity also and we can continue this chat indefinitely. Otoh, if you would simply like to come to terms with a few realities regarding the 'Controversy' section that would be nice. Fringe theories? I recognize this concern, but please try to remember it was a passing mention in discussion about the unknown nature of the relationship. However, now that you've attempted to turn 'that' into a racial issue, it seems that you are only interested in 'torpedoing' the entire discussion with yet another issue that tends to scatter the editing efforts here, which is why the other sections look stunted, neglected, as focus is forcebly been kept on this one topic with the huge amounts of material and with your type of antics, all over the map. It is my suspicion that you don't care much about the biography overall and are only interested with this one topic, and the more controversy you can bring to the topic the better, even if it means resorting to the sort of behavior we have all just witnessed. I certainly hope I'm wrong in this estimation but given your recent long string of misguided 'accounts' I don't think I am. Now you're off to the noticeboard with issues of fringe theories and racism. I don't know what you expect from them. A mandate that certain subjects never come up in a discussion?
In any event my focus will remain on undue weight and biographical policies. There is still far too much mention, by name even, of a whole string of historians, etc. in the Controversy section. This is all reference material; simply refer to it with the cites and then summarize their consensus. i.e.Leading scholars agree ... etc, links.'. Again, this is the Thomas Jefferson biography. it is not a forum for an outline of academic opinions about controversy theory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In the latest development you have conducted other manipulations with

discussion text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

These edits you made to the main page [32] [33], and you made similar claims numerous times in the talk page (not "in passing). Case closed. Move on. Responded to [34].

Regarding reducing the "controversy" section on Hemings, you've provided no evidence of any WP:UNDUE weight; you generally say some "academics" & phrases should go. That is vague. No reduction is warranted. Ebanony (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

I believe the sentence "Many people disliked his tenure, and he not win office again in Virginia." in the introductory section should be "Many people disliked his tenure, and he did not win office again in Virginia." Stevemuckle (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done- thanks for catching that.--JayJasper (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Madison Hemings

Removed from Article. Gordon-Reed was talking about Douglas Adair's "The Jefferson Scandals". Gordon-Reed is summarizing Adair's work. Misleading.

In 1873 Madison Hemings claimed his descent from Jefferson in an Ohio newspaper interview. His memoir was rediscovered and publicized in 1951, but at both times, historians generally discounted his testimony. They thought the publication was politically motivated, and favored accounts by Jefferson-Wayles descendants. Historians after them did not re-examine the evidence.

This entry is confusing for other editors to follow - why are those four references listed? - what was removed? Correct it if you know so much. I was trying to summarize the issues of what historians ignored without going into endless detail in this section. Historians did overlook important data and did not sufficiently re-examine the evidence, as they had non-evidentiary reasons why Jefferson couldn't have had the relationship: his "character" (Malone), his lack of sexual desire (Ellis), etc. Parkwells (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gordon-Reed's entire book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy is the published synthesis of analyzing what other historians overlooked, discounted or dismissed in Madison Hemings' and Isaac Jefferson's testimony, as well as the evidence they overlooked in historical records and in weighing testimony from the Jefferson-Wayles family as opposed to other sources. Don't say this was an unpublished synthesis; read the book.Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I did read the passage indicated by the source. There was no mention of Peterson or Adair's point of view in the removed paragraph. In fact, according to Gordon-Reed, Adair stated that Sally Heming's "lied" to Madison Hemings. I have no issue with the source Gordon-Reed, however, her style of summarizing other historians point of views, can confuse the reader whether those are in fact Gordon-Reed's point of views, summarizations, or restatements. I do not have an issue with the paragraph on Madison Hemings being in the Thomas Jefferson article, as long as it is rewritten to acknowledge both Peterson and Adair's point of views. The reference in the article went to another article by Gordon-Reed, that was not linked to the actual book reference. I put the reference cite here so persons could actually go to page 3 to examine and compare the removed paragraph with the book. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I put unpublished synthesis because Peterson and Adair were not acknowledged in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of choice - since there will be another article on the historiography of the controversy, I was trying to limit having so many individual historians' names and positions in this article, especially as they have been proven wrong. Trying to keep the focus on where we are today. Parkwells (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Civility Wikipedia has guidelines on civility. I have noticed that this article has generated much negative feedback, particularly on Sally Hemings and Slavery. Wikipedia is open source and people need to find a way to come to agreement rather then battle each other in the talk pages. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is general common consensus to reduce the volume of text and make brief mention in the lede, which I believe there is, lets do so. Do we need another call for consensus? We've been through this. Do not be pulled back into endless bickering about details when there is a major problem still at hand. This topic is not more important than the Jefferson biography as a whole. And no one is trying to "remove" or "sanitized" the topic. This has been made clear. Reduction of material and undue weight are the issues. Let's keep our focus.Gwillhickers (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy can add weight to any article. No one disputes Thomas Jefferson loved books. That is why his love for books gets one paragraph. To state that Thomas Jefferson had children by a slave woman Sally Hemings, that generates controversy that has spanned over two centuries. The controversy section needed to be trimmed, no debate there. There is allot, historically, to cover on the Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Topics involving Jefferson must not be controversial to merit more than a paragraph of coverage I believe, especially when these topics are connected with so many other aspects of American and World history, as would be the case for topics like the War of 1812, the Louisiana Purchase, his role as S.O.S., etc. As I have always said, slavery deserves mention in the lede, and summary coverage with highlights/links about Hemings in the text. As you know, just recently the 'Controversy' section was quite laarge. It tended to overshadow not only the topic of Jefferson but also the topic and issue of slavery itself. Indeed so. Up until a few days ago there was less than a page about slavery, and many pages for 'controversy' where it went on in particular about various academic opinions, some even being mentioned by name simply for having an opinion. There was much of this sort of thing, and the last time I checked there still was. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, Gwillhickers. But you also say there were 25 other possibilities besides Jefferson who were the father & that Hemings (a new one) tried to force herself on a grieving Jefferson. Well, you're just making stuff up now! You are in no position to go on about what should be done with absurd conspiracy theories like those. We shall follow wikipedia guidelines, not yours.

"To state that Thomas Jefferson had children by a slave woman Sally Hemings, that generates controversy that has spanned over two centuries." If you claim that he did not have those children, then you have a problem. That is fact, and it's the consensus/majority historical opinion. Do you deny the majority of scholars say they had a relationship? That was as of 1998! That is what we are required to go by WP:RS, and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, not your WP:FRINGE theories. We cannot remove the names of all the academics because this is a complicated history with a variety of actors. There is no guideline saying we should not mention them in the article. Jefferson is not a god; his article gets the same treatment as the thousands of other articles that discuss academics by name. We are not removing Hemings name either (you demanded that); we are not removing Gordon-Reed's name or the others who did pertinent work. That is unreasonable. I believe Parkwells said on March 3rd that it's wrong to just call Hemings a "slave". That is also Gordon-Reed's position. It's no coincidence, Gwillhickers, that you're dehumanising Hemings & denigrating her by making up false accusations, referring to her as a morally loose woman (in veiled language), and now even demand her name be removed. That is exactly what the religious adherents of the 'it wasn't Jefferson' school do, and Reed said it in her book. No wonder you want her name & others removed. Ebanony (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am putting both Jefferson and Hemings in a more human setting and have only asserted that we don't know if love may have been involved in their affair. Again, you keep twisting things in your "disgusting" manner. Again, you try to skirt the greater issue at my expense with the repeated false accusations, even in edit history comments. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When I stated that "To state that Thomas Jefferson had children by a slave woman Sally Hemings, that generates controversy that has spanned over two centuries.", I was concerned only with the weight of the controversy. I was not denying Jefferson had children with Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of the circumstances, most historians, as noted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, do not try to speculate as to the nature of their relationship, nor should we here. It is impossible to know their feelings, and the editors here did not introduce that topic; it has not been part of the article. People can go to other sources than Wikipedia for more information and speculation.Parkwells (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson was not directly involved in the War of 1812. The Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson was. The controversial aspect of the Louisiana Purchase was that the land deal allowed slavery to spread though the South in contact with the Spanish Empire. Since this is a biography on Thomas Jefferson, I believe his private life, i.e. Sally Hemings, does have weight enough for more then just one paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, yes, more than one paragraph. Finally. Also, no where did I claim "he did not have those children", you keep making these stretches basing them only on your own notions. I have several times acknowledged other 'likely' possibilities, so once again I ask that you use caution before making digressions in this fashion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you're playing word games. You don't have to say the exact words "he did not have those children". You directly contradict majority historical opinion by inventing other possibilities that do not exist; these false claims & speculation that Hemings - a 14 yr old!- initiated a relationship is an outrage, and a clear example of WP:FRINGE theory. That nonsense on 25 other possibilities you posted to the main space was either likewise made up or taken from the most fringe of sources. Either way, you're engaging in clear fringe theories, a prohibited practice.Ebanony (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't "invent possibilities". Also, you should learn when people discuss theories based on events that occurred more than 200 years ago, where information is sketchy and far from complete, the existing possibilities are often weighed. Your desire to see that not even mention of this is made on a discussion page only reveals that it is you who seeks to control every aspect of this issue. Sorry, this is not happening. Meanwhile the page has gone through a wonderful transformation, and the tonnes of excessive, inappropriate and redundant material has been omitted by other editors. Don't forget to thank them. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant noticeboard conversation [35] Ebanony (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede, related to controversy

Ebanony made a good point (made before on this page) that controversies do need to be included in the lede, certainly a controversy that involves a major change in scholarship on a major figure such as Jefferson. I have changed the lede slightly to indicate the controversy, and added more current sources to indicate the range of agreement on the topic.
I also think we might add a sourced statement here and in the controversy section as to why the change is so important - as the MacArthur Foundation said, it is bringing to light the complex history of colonial and 19th c. interracial relations. That Jefferson was such a major political figure highlights the issues. The effects and results of slavery, and the complexity of relationships arising from it, is at the heart of the history of this country - that's why there was so much controversy about this aspect of Jefferson - he's a symbol of all that, both of efforts to repress knowledge and of more current efforts to look at our full history. The controversy about him is symbolic of whether the US looks at the reality of our history.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, thank you Parkwells, and just to add, this is the current lead:

While historians long discounted accounts that Jefferson had a long relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, it is now widely held that he did and had six children by her.[9][10][11]

The MoS says "It should...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" WP:LEAD.

This edit conforms to all relevant policies, and names Hemings by name (as it should), and is no longer than 1 sentence (which is a compromise). In fact, whoever wrote it did a good job, and I thank him/her. There is no way anyone can truthfully claim the above sentence it is "undue weight", too long or that it is not a "prominent controversy". As Joe bob attacks states, the constant objection to Hemings "needs to stop". A select number of editors have made unreasonable demands, and they're wasting all of our times. Let's end this nonsense:

• For keeping the current sentence above in the lead without further changes unless there is consensus & WP:RS or a policy violation.Ebanony (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• For keeping that sentence and the last paragraph of the lede as it reads currently, based on the above conditions.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• For the last sentence. It's a reasonable summary of scholarly consensus. --Coemgenus 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• For keeping the controversy in the lede as Parkwells has written it. There is an historical consensus on this topic and it is properly cited. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• For Keeping the existing lede version of March 5 (disagree with name mention but lede is now tolerable.) Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point the lede discussion, in relation to Hemings, should be closed. Certain editors should not be allowed to whittle away at any further. Can this specific discussion be permanently closed? --Joe bob attacks (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still too soon. Other editors need a chance to respond above, and then we can close it.Ebanony (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about how the discussion can be permanently closed... Joe bob, are you perhaps referring to setting up some sort of FAQ on this talk page, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx ? Shearonink (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

End to the Hemings discussion

I can certainly appreciate the enthusiasm of these editors with regard to this topic, but the continual discussion of this is abusive. We have already been down this road and continue to be taken down this road due to POV-pushing. The editors who continually bring up this matter do not speak for the historical community, nor do they know of what they speak. I am stunned at how a few POV-pushers have directed the "history" of this page and forced other editors to respond to their intrigues without proper citation. After a while most editors will walk away from this page, whilst the bullying editors will continue to relentlessly revise history. I have no doubt that in the end their persistence will pay off. I can only participate in this article for so long. I am not a frequent editor and do not plan to return to debate this matter over and over again. Inevitably the Hemings information will be whittled down to a nub, as this does not jive with their version of history, despite the historical consensus.

Perhaps we should remove Hemings from the article entirely? Perhaps we should remove the fact that Jefferson was a slave owner as well. We should only put in information that shows him in the best possible light, as he was a demi-god. Whilst we are at it, perhaps we should petition the Vatican to sign Jefferson up for sainthood. Then we can have an idol cast of him and bow down to it accordingly. The point of this is, when will this cease? When will reasonable people here say enough is enough? There has already been an historical consensus on the matter and "encyclopedias" report the historical consensus. I apologize for the frustrated tone of this section, but the repetitive nature of these discussions has been exhausting. So once we reach a consensus, can this topic be closed for discussion?

I am not attempting to over-assert myself when I say that I am a part of the historical community. I know Jefferson scholars and I can tell you that this article should be not be tampered with in this manner. In my opinion, the Hemings information listed on this page was appropriate. However, once a consensus is reached, there is no need to discuss this topic over and over again. To do so would only serve those who wish to sanitize and revise history to their own desires. This needs to stop. Once consensus is reached this topic should be permanently closed.

If wikipedia continues to allow a few POV-pushing editors to whittle away at the Hemings information (then who knows what information will be next). If some of these POV-pushers continue down this slippery slope with history, then I will have no choice but to direct my students away from wikipedia when researching Thomas Jefferson. -- Joe bob attacks (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but aren't the POV pushers the ones who have no problem with keeping five pages of material on one topic? This has been corrected by a number of editors, including the ones who authored much of this material. For someone who wants this conversation to go away you are not helping matters by making erroneous and one-sided accusations about 'some editors' on the discussion page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is simple. Once consensus is reached this topic should be closed. You should not be able to continually debate this topic with a new batch of editors every week in order to give you a preferable outcome. This is about consensus. Each time consensus is reached your bring up the topic again. Clearly you define consensus as your way or no way. This is blatant POV-pushing. I understand that you are passionate about this issue, but once consensus is reached (which is hopefully based on the historical consensus) the topic should be closed. My students rely on wikipedia for accurate information, as this generation of kids is always online. Thus, I am on the side of history, nothing more. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how long you've been around, but this debate has gone around pretty much in the same circles for some time. As you know last week a consensus was called for and an overall desire was revealed to see a reduction in the volumes of material, almost five pages, in the 'Controversy' section and to deal with the lede which also gave this topic more scope than any other topic in that lede. The outcome I am hoping for is pretty much the same as almost everyones I believe, a reduction of material, esp non biographical material, and a lede that (presently) has one or two sentences for the slavery/hemings topic. Also I voted in a consensus call to keep the lede, with mention of Hemings, at the present version (Mar.5th at the time) in an effort to stablize the article, so the "your way or now way" sentiment is unwarranted. However, the 'controversy' section still needs dealing with. My focus has and remains on undue weight and biographical policy. LIke anyone else, I am firm on some points and flexible on others. Great volumes of material for one topic, I am not that flexible on, esp when the topic already has a dedicated page for it. This topic should obey the same guidelines as any other topic in a biography. 'Controversy' warrants mention in the lede and summary coverage in the text. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe bob attacks, I don't think that any topic on Wikipedia can ever be considered as "closed" and certainly not "permanently closed"'. Doesn't that go against the very grain of an encyclopedia being open to editing by all? Are you proposing that once this particular group of interested editors craft and edit the subject material to their own personal satisfaction that the article should then somehow be put into an editorial deep-freeze?

And regarding Wikipedia itself...I know people do use it as their source but they do that at their own peril. It never has been and never should be regarded as an ultimate source or even a reliable source...that's why using one Wikipedia article as the source for another Wikipedia article is not allowed by Wikipedia guidelines. If students are relying on an encyclopedia that is open to editing by everyone and therefore is not a stable source of information, then they need to re-think their methods of research, otherwise they will end up taking the word of a passing Internet vandal that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson was a ...(fill in the blank/expletive-deleted) who did ...(something stupid) to ...(another Founding Father) or ...(the vandal's best friend). Shearonink (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so I've seen other pages in which a particular topic had been discussed to death and there was information in the header that the topic was closed. I'm not sure if it was permanently closed. The example I can think of off the top of my head is Michael Jackson's page. I was there, probably the year that he died, when I saw that they had closed discussions on certain things once consensus had been reached b/c a topic had been discussed, discussed and over discussed. I don't know if that's a great example, but how is it logical to have the same debates over and over again with the same people? These people do not know the meaning of compromise and will no doubt get their way in the end, accuracy be darned.

With regard to students using wikipedia, I am not asserting that this is their main source material, however, wikipedia is a great starting point for them, especially for the young one not well-versed in research. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

'Sanitizing' and other Straw-man accusations

Joe', thank you for leaving your consensus in the 'vote' section. In your attempt to end this discussion you have actually brought up some valid points:
We cannot sanitize history and have not been charged to do so. This was a controversy that he experienced in his own time and it is still relevant. The POV pushing occurring on this subject is extreme. Removing whole chapters of historical consensus is tantamount to idol worship.

No one can change history this is for sure, but I have seen those who try to present it in fashion where the account they offer is indeed 'changed'. This can be done by singling out points and presenting them with different context, or no context, often bettering or worsening the account of what really had occurred in History. There have been historians who have attempted to do this before, and they (both sides) continue to do so today. -- Regarding the concern for "sanitizing" the article: From the beginning attention was brought to the great volumes of text committed to this one topic. There was no call for "sanitizing" made by myself and as far as I know, by any other editor. Most if not all of the omissions made were done so by the editors who authored this section and who were gracious enough and had the emotional capacity to square off with the issue and correct it. If you still have any concerns about "sanitizing" the article you might want to check with the editors who made the reduction to the nearly five pages of material that was committed to this one topic, one that is already covered at great length on the Sally Hemings page, btw. About a year ago the same situation existed with many pages committed to the one topic, much of it filled with opinions, little of it bothered to let the facts speak for themselves. The great volumes of (non biographical) material was reduced, but over the last year it continued to grow little by little while the discussion page was in the midst of often heated debates, to the previous proportions of a few days ago (linked to above). 'Controversy' warrants mention in the lede and is entitled to adequate summary coverage in a separate section. Controversy policy doesn't exempt it from the guidelines that all other lesser topics of a subject must follow, and this includes UNDUE weight and biographical guidelines. Again, the reduction was made by contributing editors to the section and there was nothing that came close to "Removing whole chapters". This was occurring days before you weighed in with your apparent attempt to end the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers I understand that you are passionate about this subject, but as a person who has studied history for decades and teaches history, I can tell you that the evidence on the Sally Hemings matter is there. You may not see yourself as sanitizing history, but you are very protective of Jefferson's legacy with regard to Hemings. I can respect that and I applaud your enthusiasm. I would be so lucky if my students were this enthusiastic about history, however, there has to be a stopping point. You continue to say there is "undue weight" placed on this controversy. Undue weight to who? Certainly not the historical community.

You are not the only editor who is doing this. I have no idea what your motivation for this would be, as most modern people do not sit in judgment of Jefferson for this. He was a man of his time. That said, we have come to a more recent consensus on the lede. Therefore, I consider this matter closed. Consensus is also about compromise and you have to compromise, as we all do.--Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe' thanks for your input here.. -- As I think you realize, I am not the one making repeated lies (or inaccurate statements, if you prefer) about the edits of other editors and I am not the one who is trying to turn this into a race issue. If there are those who are upset because mention of the possibility of love and/or other mutual feelings between the two -- simply because Hemings is part African -- I can only say that perhaps they are the racists if this is the nature of and their only concern. I agree that this topic is uncalled for but so long as it is persued I am not going to idly stand by and let the other side go unrepresented.Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Who was discussing the lede here?? As usual, you jump topic and try to sidewind into other topics. Again your underhanded attempts to turn this into a racial issue have been noted. If the notice-board decides to take your wild stretches seriously they will at once see not only your long sordid trail of attacks and lies they will also see the sort of thing you are trying to turn into a racial issue. I look forward to their inquiries. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not I who made repeated untruths about a number of edits, which have been clearly outlined and leave no room for 'interpretation', and I have not made the attempt to turn the issue into a racial one. From the beginning I have made calls for reduction in the absurd amounts of material devoted to the one topic of 'controversy'. Again, 'controversy' warrants mention in lede and summary coverage in the text (like any other notable topic). 'Controversy' does not entitle the topic to be presented with no regard for undue weight and biographical policies. And why do not all the other sections have lengthy outlines about historians, etc?? Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony and Gwillhickers, I hope that the personal attacks between you two stop. There's no need to question each others motives so viciously. Clearly you both sincerely care about history, albeit from different perspectives.

Gwillhickers, with regard to the Sally Hemings, I have read many of your previous comments and much of what you have theorized (with regard to Hemings) has already been dismissed by the historical community. The reason I am concerned about sanitizing history is because there is a fringe group of deniers. These are people who continue to deny or explain away (in various fashions) the enormous amount of evidence, leading to the simplest conclusion. Unlike detached historians, these people tend to have personal stakes in the "purity" of Jefferson's legacy. No doubt some of these conclusions may also be based on some form of personal prejudice. This is unfortunate but true, as everyone, including myself is susceptible to prejudice.

Now, momentarily placing aside the deplorable nature of dealing in human flesh, if one looks at this from the perspective of a land-owning white man of this era, mulatto and quadroon concubinage was quite commonplace. It was particularly common in the southern U.S. and the Caribbean. Historical records indicate that there these women were highly sought after and considered very beautiful (according to European standards of beauty). They were called "fancy girls" and fetched high prices. They were also subject to various treatments based upon whom they were bound to. Some were brutally treated, raped, beaten, and some were treated well (and even loved), as perhaps Hemings was.

Now place the historical evidence aside and look at the situation through a human lens, as historical figures were human beings first, icons second. Some of these women, including Hemings herself (who was 3/4th white) may have been imperceptibly "African" and appeared "white." I say this, not because I think mixed race women are more attractive than women of pure African heritage, but perhaps mixed race women were more acceptable in concubinage (to certain men) due to the pervasive racist standards of the era. Therefore, it is not surprising that Jefferson could/would have a mistress such as this. It is important to look at the human factors as well as the historical evidence.

Gwillhickers again, I applaud your enthusiasm. As I said, I wish my students were as energetic as you are. You have great passion for this matter and I can only respect it. However, I feel your passion has been misplaced in defending some of your theories. I respectfully think that this subject matter be closed. The continued debate will not change the outcome of history and even if you could erase Hemings from every history book, it would not diminish the discussion of this controversy. In fact controversies kept in the dark only increase. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe' if this topic involved someone else besides Jefferson the issue wouldn't be looked at twice. What I am 'passionate' about is the attempts to have the topic dominate the page in a disruptive fashion as we experienced here of the last year. No one is trying to erase history. The page should certainly cover this advent, as a controversy, outlay what deciding facts are known, and then summarize the opinions and link to where they can be covered in greater detail. As I also pointed out, many of the other sections have shrunken or disappeared. More work needs to be done in many of the (missing since Feb., now crammed into the 'Political philosophy and views' section) sections while the 'Controversy' section still runs at length about historians, establishments etc and needs to be summarized in that area. Jefferson's involvements with topics like 'Separation of Church and State', 'Carrying of Arms', 'States Rights', his opposition to 'Banks and the Federalists' etc need better coverage. Jefferson was a prolific letter writer who often wrote extensively on some of these ideas. A reliable historical account on some of the defining letters would be interesting. Also, for some reason, the 'Political philosophy and views' section is near the bottom of the page. The topics in this section define Jefferson as a politician and political philosopher and should be among the first sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe bob attacks, I didn't addressGwillhickers motives; I said his comments "intentionally or unintentionally" gave voice to racial views inappropriate for this setting; as to his historical views outside of the historical community, I can't why he does that either, nor does it matter. The fact is he does those things & won't stop. But it was Admin that said of his comments/edits, "editors have correctly insisted on keeping to sourcing policy and should continue to do so." [36] He's done this for months, now saying, "I am not going to idly stand by and let the other side go unrepresented." There is no other "side", save the deniers. And he said right there he will continue to give voice to fringe theories. That is why we all have this problem.

Now, the best historians say there is no reasonable doubt or evidence for any other possibility, just unfounded speculation with a political purpose. Gwillhickers claims there are other possibilities; that the relationship in itself is just a "theory" (that's a direct contradiction of historians who say it is fact, not a "theory"); he's on some 25 other possibilities as the real father; and the latest of Hemings possibly seducing a grieving Jefferson. Based on what??? He's been warned too many times, and whilst you might admire his enthusiasm or passion (as you call it), he is directly contradicting the best historians. That's going to improve the encyclopedia? This is why it doesn't stop; he refuses to stop. Ebanony (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Boy and I thought the problems I am having over on the Weston Price article were aggravating. I have to agree that as it currently stands the Sally Hemings material looks reasonable if a little long but then again the entire Thomas Jefferson article is a little long thought it looks about as tight as it is ever going to get.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is indeed long, too much material on academic and established opinion, very little about the actual controversy itself in terms of facts. Gwillhickers (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize

Both Annette Gordon-Reed (2009) and Dumas Malone (1975) won the Pulitzer prize. Is the mention of the Pulitzer necessary for the article on Thomas Jefferson? In my opinion, mentioning the Pulitzer sounds argumentative, only in the sense that since Gordon-Reed won the Pulitzer, therefore, her books on Thomas Jefferson are "proof" that her research is correct. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that Annette is well respected in this field. Annette's research is impeccable and she is highly sought after the historical community. I think Dumas's pulitzer should be mentioned as well. I'm not sure why removing the pulitzer prize information is necessary? --Joe bob attacks (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fawn M. Brodie's work that gave substantial evidence Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children was severely critized by Pulitzer winner Malone. Brodie's work on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was acknowledged by Pulitzer winner Gordon-Reed. Brodie never won a Pulitzer. I believe there is a danger in giving any Pulitzer prize winning historians weighted authority over other non Pulitzer prize winning historians. Mentioning Malone won a Pulitzer may be the best alternative. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A valid point Cmguy777, but do recall we do not use only what Gordon-Reed says, or rely on it because of her Pulitzer. We rely on the majority of academic work - Pulitzer or not - and have no problem including Brodie or Malone insofar as their work is within mainstream opinion. One does well to exercise caution with Malone's work because he purposefully misrepresented the facts of Jefferson's involvement in slavery, perpetuating the anti-slavery myth (see Finkelman); as to his work on Hemings, his was pre-Gordon-Reed, and he didn't have a chance to revise his ideas on Hemings after her 1997 work, so his older work (including any criticism of Hemings could no longer be considered as majority opinion).If we said "Oh, he won a Pulitzer, therefore we must go by his work", then we'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight, but we're not.Ebanony (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we doing that with Gordon-Reed since she won the Pulitzer, therefore, "we must go by [her] work"? I agree, Ebanony, what you mentioned on Malone, yet, he won the Pulitzer. Maybe this is a reflection on the Pulitzer, rather then the recepients. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I referred to Gordon-Reed's winning the Pulitzer AND 15 other major historical awards as a way of representing to you, Cmguy, that her work on the Hemings and interracial relationships has been widely honored today by numerous professional associations in the discipline, showing there is a consensus that it is valuable. This article is not the place to note all the historians who won awards for their work on Jefferson in earlier times, a quarter of a century ago. Of course that meant that they were honored at earlier times, as their work was then considered to represent the best thinking on the subject. (At one point Ellis was also noted as an award winner - he got the National Book award for his Jefferson bio; I used that as a shorthand to show that historians considered to be prominent had changed their minds. We can add mention of Malone's awards to the article on historiography, but I think it is out of place here.) I really think we have enough here to give a sense of changing ideas in the field, which was the point.Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly mentioning Gordon-Reed is the most recent Jefferson biographer to win the Pulitzer could work. That would acknowledged other Jefferson biographers have won the Pulitzer in the past without mentioning the others, Malone and Ellis. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777, as far as I know, Reed has not published any Jefferson biography - per se. Her work focuses less on him, and more on the treatment "award winning" scholars & other writers gave to the Hemings/Jefferson scandal (1997); her second book focuses on the "Hemingses" in the 19th century (08/09), and her yet unpublished text is to deal with them in the 20th century (unsure of date of release). She has indicated a desire for writing a Jefferson bio & covering his politics (I believe in her speech at Monticello), but she is in a totally different league from the biographers, scholarly or popular. Reed won the Pulitzer for "history", which is one of the different categories they've got, and a very difficult one to win.

However, it's not about awards; it's about academic acceptance; despite earlier awards, their work on Hemings does not represent majority opinion anymore. Try to see the reasons behind awarding Reed those new prizes: she helped overturn generations of scholars who weren't interested in the facts. She also ended - and I repeat ended - a 200-yr controversy. Focusing on those older awards could give voice to discredited ideas by making earlier work seem like it's still good (the ideas that "award=current historical consensus" is faulty, as you pointed out), instead of ensuring that readers know that those ideas are totally without merit, regardless of what awards they won. I understand what you're saying, but Parkwells' logic is correct. What you're asking for requires a lot of work, and some editors are calling for a reduction of this topic. Ebanony (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Topics have shrunken or disappeared!

Many sections and much material was omitted by one editor over a several hour period on Feb.12-13 with no discussion that I have found. This was a major transformation involving much of the page, that included many sections and many prominent topics, and there was no discussion. Before the editing began the Jefferson page was at 132k -- after more than a dozen edits later the page looked like this, at 106k with all the previous material crammed into one section or missing. While page weight/material was being removed, the Slavery/Hemings topics at this time occupied about six pages. By the time a consensus was called on March 2nd the Slavery and Hemmings topics occupied some eight pages and was a glaring undue weight issue. The deleted sections should be restored, but of course a consensus is needed, and a consensus should have been widely assessed before the editing of Feb.12-13 had transpired.

These are the sections and topics involved that used to cover some five pages, now crammed into one page or missing:

10 Political philosophy and views

• 10.1 Francophilia
  
• 10.2 Banks and bankers
  
• 10.3 Individual rights
  
• 10.4 States' rights
  
• 10.5 Carrying of arms
  
• 10.6 Judiciary
  
• 10.7 Rebellion to restrain government and retain individual rights
  
• 10.8 Women in politics
  

Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the charge: "much material was omitted" - actually, much of the material was combined with existing sections (not just 1) and was kept. On the other hand, yes, some material was deleted, and with good reason. Some of the deleted material was redundant; some was irrelevant, not needed or unrelated to Jefferson (some were a real problem [37]) WP:UNDUE weight; some material was without proper sources WP:RS & WP:V; some material was WP:OR ie "carrying of arms"; then there was copyright infringement & plagiarism. Gwillhickers, you say: "The deleted sections should be restored". I'd strongly advise against restoring any material that violates basic wikipedia policies (such as a good portion of what was removed), and you should understand that restoring those violations means the editor in question would be violating those policies & would assume responsibility for said violations - specifically after having been duly warned, which you can consider yourself on reading this.

Now, you claimed "there was no discussion". Actually, these things were indeed discussed: [38] [39] [40] [41] And as to some of the recent reworking of material (Hemings & otherwise), they've also been discussed, and that includes their increase as well as changes to the entire lead section: [42] [43] [44].

Gwillhickers, you should inform yourself of the relevant facts before making such statements like you did above. Now if you have a specific proposal for inclusion of new material, you can make your suggestions here, and editors will be happy to consider them. 12:58, 7 March 2011 Ebanony (talk)

You've come up with something buried in archives that was indeed discussed but no mention of the removal of entire ranges of sections and complete removal of some topics. In particular, Schulz, Parkwells and yourself discuss page length and splitting the page up even. Parkwells, one of the main contributors to the 'Controversy' section, suggests even that the Hemings controversy get its own page. Here is the defining passage.

We might want to consider a separate article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, from the point of view of the scholarship and historiography, since it went on for so long, and reflects so much of American attitudes, society and assumptions as it continued, including changing ideas about presidents' private lives (or lack thereof). Not to take all references out of this article, but to give it its due and not overburden this article with it. ... Parkwells (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2011

If you were interested in shortening the page, why didn't you instead, as Parkwell suggested, consider the separate article proposal and move the volumes of material to the Sally Hemings page (if it wasn't there already)? In any event, a wider consensus is needed for a change like that. After a short discussion, with little consensual basis, and after ignoring Parkwells' reservations about section size and overburdening the article, you took it upon yourself to instead remove many sections and topics while the Slavery/Hemings sections continued to grow to drastic undue weight proportions during this same time period. Again the 'Controversy' section doesn't discuss the actual controversy much, it's still a referendum of historical opinion. There was an overall consensus to reduce the 'Controversy' section and not only do we need a review of that consensus now, we need to weigh in about how to restore the sections and/or topics you chose to shrink or eliminate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you claimed we didn't discuss the changes/adds/removals of entire sections. Reread the archive. Not everyone does endless bickering & polls (Admin have already warned you about). Now I did remove material, and as I explained, material that violates WP:OR plagiarism or WP:RS or wikipedia pillars, gets removed etc. Totally unrelated to Hemings.

Since you bring it up, on March 3rd you said the Hemings controversy section "should scale the text down to one or two sentences and link items as best seen fit. This would help balance undue weight and would help to shorten the article (currently at 115k) that is way beyond the size guidelines allows for."[45] Parkwells shortened it a bit [46], and then Schulz corrected your error: "The readable prose of this article is 54 KB at the moment, less than half of what you claim" (you said 115k) [47]. So you were saying the article was too large for that material on Hemings.

Yet suddenly on March 7th, there's plenty of room for "deleted sections" you say "should be restored". You know the February article was far larger than the "115k" number you used on March 3rd to justify reducing the Hemings material. You wrote: the "Jefferson page was at 132k" & was reduced to "106k". Right after you said you wanted those things restored, which would bring the article's size far in excess of 115k. Hence you said 115k is no problem ie size doesn't matter. [48]

So is the article is too large or small? According to your own edits there's no room for Hemings, but there's plenty of room for other things & the overall size of the article & undue weight to those topics are the least of your concerns. This isn't about size, is it? Why is it you're so determined to remove the one section that discusses the attempt by scholars to misrepresent the facts? At any rate, you can make your proposal for new material below. The old cannot be considered due to its policy violations.Ebanony (talk)

This is a presidential biography, which of course intersects with a great deal of history, so by nature of its subject and scope it tends to be (usually much) larger than the average biography, but that was not the issue here, it was your professed concern for page size, and again, after Parkwells' concern about section size and overburdening the article you went ahead anyway and made some pretty drastic deletions none of which touched the Hemings section which was in great need of reduction. I'm sure there were items that needed attention or even removal in the sections in question, but you still haven't explained why you removed none of the material in the Hemings section, already covered in great detail on the Sally Hemings page and instead elected to do a major reduction of so many different and notable topics directly related to Jefferson's activities. You took approximately five pages of material and chopped it down to one page, and with not many people weighing in on the matter. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you've gone on about Hemings for months! You cannot bully us removing it. This is harassment & a personal attack. Stop trying to interrogate me. Your proposals for improvement (on topics OTHER than Hemings)? Ebanony (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia could have a brief section. This works expresses Thomas Jefferson's philosophy and physical observations. Many of Jefferson's beliefs are summed up in this book and give an insight into Thomas Jefferson's rationalist world view. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It had better use sources that cite scholars' opinions of what Jefferson is saying, rather than some editor taking selected first person quotes as OR>Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The purpose is to have an overall view and to somehow get glimpses into Jefferson's Enlightenment opinions and observations. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not responding to legitimate concerns and discussion and instead are retreating again with the usual digressive accusations of my account. 'Bullying' implies force or taking advantage of someone who is weaker or is diminished in some other capacity. If you are experiencing something that prevents you from functioning the same as the rest of us you should bring it to our attention so we know what we are dealing with on your end. As anyone can see I have not forced anyone to do anything. All I have insisted on is that undue weight and biographical considerations be dealt with further, and again, the contributing editors in question have reduced the section significantly while you instead went on your little attacks in your attempts to divert attention from the larger issue. Didn't work. We are now discussing various ways to summarize and/or split various topics off in an effort to bring stability and sanity back to this page. Thanks for all your help. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, we asked you to make new proposals for improvement several times. This is not a page for your complaints/speeches on perceived bias or otherwise. WP:TPG aren't optional; see WP:TPNO under "Behavior that is unacceptable". One should limit oneself to the behaviour listed under "How to use article talk pages" & avoid needless disruptions to make a WP:POINT, lack of good faith accusations WP:AGF (such as lying or otherwise), and personal attacks WP:NPA ie "if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there — or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia." WP:APR

Concerning deleted content, it's not enough to claim they should be included; it's up to you to demonstrate that said topics a) are worthy of inclusion and b) deserve a prominence higher than that of other topics (Hemings or otherwise). You've presented no evidence for either claim, and they cannot be considered without it. Your claim of WP:UNDUE weight cannot be taken seriously, and complaints themselves can hardly be considered new proposals. Ebanony (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning deleted content, these sections covered notable events and topics and again after a brief discussion with a couple of editors and no mention of multiple section removal you took it upon yourself to make sweeping deletions. You never outlined 'why' so asking me for reasons for their inclusion is hypocritical. As for your repeated false accounts, the discussion page is not a place to be making these but since you have made them they need and will continue to be addressed on the same page that you have posted them. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I clearly explained the changes, and provided links to archive discussions, so you're mistaken: [49]. Your comment here reveals you read those links, and my warning not to restore it for its violations: [50]. So, your proposals for new content? Ebanony (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Separate article in development on controversy

Just to bring you up to date, I am working on an article on the controversy, using much previous info from here. Not sure how to describe it except by differing opinions of the evidence, including how to use DNA. Can't make much of a case for opponents who want to believe anything other than that Jefferson was the father. Even the First Ladies Library of Canton, Ohio calmly has incorporated the Hemings saga/info into its website. I'm also revising the Sally Hemings, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings' articles to focus on them and their families, rather than rehashing the arguments of the controversy.Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is a good idea Parkwells to have a separate article. The controversy is over 200 years old and there is allot to go over. I do not believe the controversy is over, at all, until the MA allows Heming's descendants full membership. There needs to be expansion on Peterson, Malone, Brodie, and the fight over the CBS broadcast. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there is the possibility of brief mention of the fringe theory ideas in the main space that might help. For instance, WP:FRINGE theory under WP:ONEWAY allows discussion of the fact that it is non-mainstream & unscientific and not taken seriously by the academic community. A sentence or two with WP:RS might be a solution.Ebanony (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the reference to the CBS broadcast is about. I am not going to rehash every critic's argument even in the main controversy article, but only the main points. Cmguy, you may have your opinion about the controversy, but the MA is not the determining factor in terms of talking about the field of Jeffersonian scholarship. No reliable sources discuss the MA as significant for their decision to exclude the Hemings descendants, but only as outliers. They are making their decision on different grounds than those of most historians. What is being covered by news organizations are the efforts by both Martha Wayles Jefferson and Hemings descendants, black and white, to reach across within the families and heal the legacy of slavery, as in the Monticello Community, a new organization. We have to stick to the sources. Parkwells (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, going through each critic's claims (unfounded criticism) is unnecessary. Any critic can say anything, and some do. What matters　is the mainstream academic community say (which is why they hate the academics). Some of those associations/critics do not fit the description of "academic" or "mainstream". Their "possibilities" or "evidence" are so thoroughly refuted no one takes them seriously; hence, there's no need to discuss their objections anymore than we would the bigfoot or UFO theorists and their so-called evidence. Yes, I'd say it's on that level. Let's see Parkwells work, and then work with him to use it in the best way. Ebanony (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, just wanted to say, let me know how I can help with the new content. I want to be more constructive.Ebanony (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I hope to have it up soon for help/comments. Am getting tired of this topic, quite frankly. Can't find my copy of Gordon-Reed's book on the controversy, which has such a good overview of the historiography, so will see what's online.Parkwells (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Parkwells, it's good to see efforts are being made to reduce much of the non-biographical material in the Controversy section, as there are several separate paragraphs that still give lip service to individual historians and their opinions. The Slavery/Hemmings topic still takes up several pages, with the subject of Jefferson's factual wife stuck in the middle of it all. Marriage and family needs its own section, and better coverage, and listed before any mention of controversy theory and opinion. Hemings had nothing to do with Jefferson's marriage. Also, the Reputation section is redundant as this section also goes on at length about historical opinion, is very one-sided and opinionated about Jefferson's overall reputation. And there are items that simply do not belong, such as this one Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend in Hamilton's favor:. Including this section, there is presently some seven pages that are devoted to Slavery/Hemings, most of it about Hemings. Do you have any ideas about how to deal with this section also? Again, there should be no more than a page (+ -) devoted to Hemings. Also, why doesn't the Controversy section outline the actual controversy? It's virtually all opinion. It needs to outline what facts have been established so readers can look at the issue more objectively. Readers need to see more facts and less opinion about reputation which varies greatly, something that is also not mentioned in this section. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Except the Hemings info doesn't discuss opinion or theory. Those are well established facts.Ebanony (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As anyone can read Ebanony the section indeed discusses opinion, most of which is referenced by name. This has been brought to your attention on numerous occasions and was in full view of your response, btw. Also, no one disputes the facts, what little we know of them. What is dismissed by many is the interpretation of the facts, so your cursory remark, here also, doesn't seem to have any real substance to it. We keep seeing the term Historical evidence used in the typical broad-brushed fashion, yet the present Controversy section makes very little mention of the facts, historical or otherwise. We know Jefferson was around during times of conception and we have DNA results that can only narrow the possibilities down to a couple of dozen other male members of the Jefferson family, to which you have replied to with the idea that there is no 'historical evidence' for the others, and so you readily dismiss them, all of them, out of hand. What other notable and deciding historical facts do we have that 'confirms' that Jefferson was 'father of them all'? What other historical evidence is there that excludes all of the others?? 'Lack of historical evidence' of more than 200 years ago doesn't exclude other possibilities. The present 'Controversy' section only makes cursory mention of the idea of 'conception times' and summary mention of DNA, facts that if taken alone do not amount to anything conclusive. The section instead outlines the opinion of a whole range of historians and establishments. If there is other historical evidence, facts, this needs to be included in the controversy section. Again, we need to see more of the facts, and less opinion of the facts. The section can summarize consensus by saying 'most historians' have concluded that Jefferson was the father but should not be written as to assume that all historians agree and that there is no room for 'controversy' which ironically is the name of the section.

Also, the the present version of the Reputation section is quite different than the version Rjensen authored] on 02:13, 13 November 2010. Notice his account is more broad minded and begins with -- Jefferson's reputation has many levels.. , -- while the present version is narrowly worded and has a condescending tone that attempts to train focus only on Indian treatment and slavery and speaks of historians as if they are one collective mass with the same brain. Attention needs to be brought to this section also. Gwillhickers (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes on the State of Virginia

I added a section on Notes on the State of Virgina. Does this section belong in his political career section or another area of the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect, that Jefferson wrote a book in itself merits no inclusion; insofar as it relates to its contemporary issues, there is value, which is why it's already covered in "Attitude towards slaves and black". This briefly discusses it & his racial views; there's also a link to the main article on said topic. That section is only missing when & why he wrote (a sentence or 2). Parkwells removed the word "racist" because it lacked a source. Cmguy777, Magnis [51] would be the proper source for that sort of claim, but since the book itself & his racial views are already covered (ie he "believed they were inferior to whites"), why add a new section or say the obvious? Ebanony (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the work represents Thomas Jefferson as a person and represents the contemporary thoughts of his time, views that Jefferson shared himself. Just refering to the work on his racist statements in Notes on the State of Virginia, could mislead the reader to believe that the entire work was Jefferson rationalizing his view that blacks were inferior. He took 5 years to make the book that covered other topics, not just race and slavery. Whatever emotions Jefferson had he put them into the making of this book. Jefferson, the "Child of Enlightenment", was for lack of a better phrase, "showing off" his scientific knowledge and intuition in the monumental book. Others contributed to the book as well. I just put in a brief paragraph on the book. No need to expand. The book also reveals an "apparent contradiction" with Jefferson's view on slavery and his racist view that blacks were inferior. The source I gave (Shuffleton) did in fact call Jefferson's views racist. Ferling also calls Jefferson's views on blacks racist. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No quotes from the book are put in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the material, though not in-depth; seems fair enough. Ebanony (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ebanony. Jefferson wrote the book during the Revolutionary War, while he was Virginia's governor. Also he briefly stopped writing on the book after his wife died. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand that; my concern is avoiding sections where an additional sentence or two to an existing paragraph will do. I'm sure that could be done here, but ok fine. As to the racism, there is no question Jefferson used racism in his book or that he was a racist, but that is hardly news; it is just so obvious from all the other parts that I don't see the need to repeat it. And that's how it gets redundant: discussing the same thing in 2 places, especially his racist views. Aside from that, you might want to add a couple of other sources to it, this way it covers relevant research by other writers who focused on his book. Also, there's an online version of the original manuscript of his book - that is worth putting up. Ebanony (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777, here is the link to the online manuscript of Notes. I think this would be a valuable addition to those who want a more in-depth study of his work [52]. I haven't had to the chance to add it to the main article, though it should be.Ebanony (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)