Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

RS notice board.

I have just submitted a question about self published web page articles that use no expert/author for their summary claims on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Again with Parkwells and the Pulitzer routine. Brad (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Brad, May I suggest that this might benefit from focusing less on Parkwells. No one is perfect, here, not Parkwells, not you, not me. If you did, you might see why he refers to the award, as off wiki verifiable evidence that a source has done a good job. That's all. And raise the level of discussion? We should focus on policy, sources, and wording. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

After discussion I decided that I would submit a 'closing comments' sub section, to the RS noticeboard, being brief. It is asked that other closing comments be brief also so we can let the RS people make their evaluations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Alex Haley won a special Pulitzer as well as the Spingam Medal for his work on Roots but he was later found responsible for extensively plagiarizing a novel called The African. Modern genealogists have also debunked most of the claims he made about his African ancestry. How is that evidence that a source has done a good job? Brad (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For as long as it remains the accepted review by published RS, and until additional, substantial real world review, which can then also be reported here. (Haley did not win the prize for history, by the by.)Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the argument is complete bogus. Some authors who have won Pulizers have been in error. That does not imply that a Pulizer is worthless as evidence for the quality of a work, it only implies that the Pulizer committee is not perfect. But then, who is? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Evaluating a source by awards, or lack thereof, is lazy scholarship. A source should be evaluated by its 'content' and by the historian who authored the work in question, assuming there is one. A note on awards: They are highly visible, often given on the basis of peer pressure in various circles and sometimes are given to works that are bogus, as Brad mentions. They are no guarantee that the work is accurate. In some cases if a book gets such an award it could be argued that it was written to appease the writer's peers. That seems to be the case for Haley's work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have experience in formally evaluating scholarship (if in other fields), both as a scientific reviewer and as an editor. As a scientist, I do indeed base my evaluation on content. But as a Wikipedian, I have to rely on the evaluation of other experts and on the reputation of the source. The Smithsonian has an excellent reputation. The TJF has a good reputation, even if you refuse to accept this. The very fact that the Smithsonian has elected the TJF to help with their exhibit should tell you that the reputation of the TJF is indeed good. Notable and serious awards are further evidence about the quality of a source. Neither you nor I are qualified to evaluate a scholarly source on Jefferson to scholarly standards. And your speculation about the Pulizer committee and Halley both verge on WP:BLP violations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The TJF indeed has an established reputation in as much as what they are, an institution that houses a collection of historical archives, records, papers, artifacts, etc relating to Jefferson and Monticello with a staff that compiles this material and presents it to the public in one form or another. But as with awards, their general reputation is no guarantee they will always be reliable in all scholastic and research endeavors, and I believe it has been demonstrated that this was and is the case where the controversy is concerned. It doesn't take a scientist or someone with a Phd to determine this. Your analogy to scientific evaluation I'm sure deals with using a fixed set of facts as your guideline, and as a scientist you are qualified to make assessments in a given scientific area but the analogy doesn't completely translate over here. It doesn't take a Phd to see there was partisan influences behind the evaluation of evidence, and since this claim was outlined by one of their own committee members, it's not 'Wikipedians' alone who have made this evaluation, but rather someone who is quite qualified on the matter. Again, TJF is acceptable as a source for general citation of general history when a summary article will suffice. In matters of special interest, speculation and opinion, where facts are few and point in many directions, if we are going to use sources like this we must make an effort to report both views with clarity and give the readers the important facts so they can see current opinion for what it really is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dissenting views have consistently been reported in this article and in the main controversy article. If editors were to use your system of disqualifying RS based on one criticism and the personal opinions of editors, the strong criticism of the Scholars Commission Report by experts from the National Genealogical Society and individual historians would suggest that the SCR not be used as an RS. No editor here has suggested that. Perhaps it's time to stop the lectures and attempt to disqualify published, academic sources that meet WP:RS criteria. Just provide the cites and quotes from RS that support different points of view. Again, note that the conclusions of the TJF on Jefferson's paternity were reached independently and well before their 2000 report by such historians as Joseph Ellis, Philip D. Morgan, Annette Gordon-Reed, Peter S. Onuf, etc., so it is time to stop acting as if the TJF summary statement and report represent an outlying position. This is not a forum for your views on historians or the TJF.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the dissenting Scholar report has been put on as an external link. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What-Happened?

Whether this was a misguided burst of enthusiasm or just a common (and monumental) mistake, the last edit by Stephan Shultz has caused the page to almost entirely disappear. Am letting it ride for now, just for laughs if anything else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was wrapped up quickly. Thanks North Shoreman. Nice to know other editors are still looking out for the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A lesson to all -- even the most experienced editors need to use the "show preview" and/or "show changes" tabs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I did use preview about 28 times, but preview for section edit shows the current section only. Apparently the browser lost the context of the section edit somewhere. Thanks for fixing it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Changes to text

GW, your changes to the section won't work, as the cites and content by Boulton and Burstein relate to the SCR and its contention that RAndolph Jefferson is a more likely candidate. They have to follow the explanation of what the SCR says.Parkwells (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Randolph can be mentioned independent of what the SCR says. The 'two' notes you have attached to theses references, one of them a full paragraph long, are your own doing, and are redundant, repeating the same theme already covered twice in the section. The section has three paragraphs devoted to commentary. Dissenting commentary is still stuck in the middle of the other commentary. Also, we don't need a presentation piece from Frontline, as they only repeat what all the other commentary is saying, in the section and in the notes you still have mixed in with the references. All this stuff was piled on without discussion and reasonable objections were/are ignored. The proposal, while smaller in size text wise, still has too much commentary for a small summary and the language is still skewed. i.e.TJF assembled a study team of historians who concluded... -- while the TJHS only 'argues'. I've mentioned these items several times and you continue to ignore them. Not one concession has been made to remedy any of this in the proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what version you are complaining about. The version on this page was drafted by Brad and ASW, so stop criticizing me. I have not edited it. If Randolph is going to be discussed as a potential father, there has to be an RS cite for it, and previously SCR was the cited source. I added the notes in the previous version (in the TJ article now) as to what critics had to say about the SCR report and the Randolph theory because people kept complaining about content, so wanted to show the original quotes. That is standard practice in many articles. I have not edited the version on the Talk page, as noted before.Parkwells (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Insert : The text above is written in clear language. I plainly distinguish issues with both the section and the proposal. The commentary is redundant, both in the proposal and in the section. Please make an effort to make your point about 'most historians and all six children' with one comment and an extra source (without the paragraph of additional commentary). All of this was added with no discussion in the same manner you came in and did this to the section. You have a long history of doing what you want with the page with no discussion. This is provocative, arrogant and, in fact, disruptive, far more so than any debate about your redundant handling of the sources. By adding all of the commentary that all relates the same opinion, you are pushing one opinion/pov. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. Your continual attempts to side step the issue is only going to make clean up that much more difficult. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Parkwells may have noted this earlier, Heming's did not live in the slave quarters. She lived in Monticello. The statement that Randolph often visited the slave quarters misleads the reader to believe Heming's lived in the slave quarters rather then the Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of where Sally lived at all. That she lived inside Monticello is someones idea of fantasy that supports Oprah's claim that TJ raped and beat Sally. Come back when you get a clue. Brad (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes Brad, I forgot you know everything. Pardon me. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I know enough to know that you've swallowed every bit of tabloid trash and attempt to make claims with it. You have an agenda that you know very little about. That's obvious. Brad (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My own opinion on Jefferson is irrelevant to this article. The claim that I have an agenda is utterly false. Your defensiveness of Jefferson would warrant you have an agenda, but I do not want to accuse people of having an "agenda". Hemings was the head of household slaves. Her son Madison said his mom was Jefferson's concubine, not Randolphs. I have never claimed to be an expert on Sally Hemings or Jefferson and I believe the reader is capable of understanding that the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings is not fully known nor understood. I believe the only people who knew what was actually going on were Jefferson, Hemings, and Randolph. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See; here you go again. Sally's mother Betty was in charge of the household slaves; not Sally. I've done everything possible to bring resolution to this ongoing war but it's very apparent that there is an agenda here to dismiss any claims of previous or now "modern" scholars that go against the politically correct agenda that TJ had a 37 year affair with Hemings. Agenda wants to show the conclusion of that affair is a done deal when in reality it isn't. Except for me, no one else has brought forward anything but cherry picked quotes from websites that promoted the agenda from the beginning. It's always easy to accuse a dead man of things when he can't defend himself. Brad (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Betty died in 1807, so there were years when another slave had some role with domestic staff before TJ's death. Parkwells (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes and was Sally appointed in her place? No evidence suggests that. CMguy's comments are annoyingly ignorant of basic things about TJ, yet he continues to speak up on issues he knows little about. As for Betty, I think Oprah said TJ killed her with a hammer and then buried the body in his garden. Brad (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is evidence that Sally lived in the south dependencies of the Monticello mansion. Among other things, that's where Thomas Randolph said she lived. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is also evidence that she went to Randolph Jefferson's plantation to help out with the children after his wife died. Brad (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Brad, this article makes no conclusions as to who was the father of Sally Heming's children. The talk page is not the proper place to argue among editors if Jefferson was the father of Heming's children. Editing in reliable sourced material is not a "conspiracy", but rather the accepted policy of Wikipedia. The best place to discuss who fathered Heming's children is at the Reference desk. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We can debate where Sally may have lived, but that doesn't change the fact that Randolph was known to fratenize, dance and played the fiddle at night amongst some of the slaves, presumably house slaves. I am assuming that when he danced, he preferred to do so with the females and no doubt chose the most attractive, like Sally, however I'm sure he didn't kiss on the first date. The idea that someone like Thomas Jefferson, after being attacked/accused by Callender in the newspapers, went ahead, anyways, and fathered children with Sally, while he was president, is equally as laughable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cm' I have to disagree, the page indeed is trying to sell the idea of TJ's paternity with all the redundant commentary, asserting the same point, several times in the section and two other times in the notes that for some reason Parkwells still has not moved to the 'Notes' section, per presidential biographies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion as to what Jefferson did is not the point, and your continued iteration of your opinion against RS is disruptive. The text has to be represented by RS. Use the RS to present the current state of scholarship, for instance, the Smithsonian exhibit. Brad and ASW took responsibility for the text, as noted before.Parkwells (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is not for discussing who fathered Sally Heming's children. The article has referenced sources, not commentary. I keep repeating myself, the article does not state anywhere Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children. Gwillhickers, if you believe Jefferson did not have children by Hemings, that is fine. However, the article needs to have valid sourced material, not the opinion of Wikipedia editors in a talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, the section is not for repeating the same message over and over with different commentary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Text devoted to the same commentary

The proposal seems dead in the water. While Brad certainly doesn't agree with all of my points it seems ASW is acting like a spokesman for Parkwells and has yet to make one concession in the proposal. As for the section itself, it currently has four paragraphs of commentary text, two in the section and two mixed in with the refs, that only serve to repeat the same basic idea (in bold) that 'most historians believe TJ was the father of all six/Eston'. Parkwells, please comment on 'most historians believe' from one source and clean up the rest of the commentary. This is pushing the same opinion over and over. There is simply too much text devoted to opinion rather than historical fact. This much opinion commentary is unprecedented in any president's bio, if not all bio's.

Text devoted to commentary:

'The program Jefferson's Blood, (PBS Frontline, 2000), reviewed what was known as the Jefferson-Hemings controversy following the results of DNA testing in 1998. They reported that a consensus of historians and other experts had concluded that Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children, and quite probably all six. [194]

It was the combination of the scientific and historic evidence that led most historians to believe in Jefferson's paternity.

It is the first exhibit at a national museum on the Mall to address these topics. Created in collaboration with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, it notes that evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.[191] [Note 4]

Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, 27 January - 14 October 2012, Smithsonian/Monticello joint exhibit ... Quote: "While there were other adult males with the Jefferson Y chromosome living in Virginia at that time, most historians now believe that the documentary and genetic evidence, considered together, strongly support the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’s children."

Alexander Boulton, "The Monticello Mystery-Case Continued": reviews of The Jefferson-Hemings Myth: An American Travesty; A President in the Family: Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings and Thomas Woodson; and Free Some Day: African American Families at Monticello; in William & Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 58, No. 4, October 2001. Quote: "Past defenses of Jefferson having proven inadequate, the TJHS advocates have pieced together an alternative case that preserves the conclusions of earlier champions but introduces new "evidence" to support them. Randolph Jefferson, for example, had never seriously been considered as a possible partner of Sally Hemings until the late 20th century, when DNA evidence indicated that a Jefferson was unquestionably the father of Eston."

This needs to be cleaned up. We can comment on 'most historians and all six children' with an extra cite if anyone feels it is still needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, citing reliable sources in the Thomas Jefferson article is not commentary, but standard wikipedia practice. There needs to be alternative and majority view points concerning Jefferson and Hemings. Please let the readers decide if Jefferson had children by Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cm' this is not just simple citation, this is at length and redundant commentary, that all relates the same point over and over, as outlined in bold above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Do not comment on me again, unless you are willing to be truthful, and even then your personalized statements are most unwelcome and most incivil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"most incivil"?? Pew! Thanks for your opinion. Everyone comments on others when they want, including you: "You [Brad] don't appear to either understand that or it's you who wish to introduce unclear language about that." .

ASW, what are your plans for the proposal? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Most incivil, yes. I've stated my plans, and I don't plan to restate them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this your way of saying that your comments to Brad were incivil? Enough of this hypocritical nonsense. You have said and done 'zero' in terms of dealing with all of the redundant commentary. In fact you don't even acknowledge it, at least not on the current talk page. No comments from you about how much historical fact we should have in relation to opinion/commentary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Compounding error with continued incivility is not helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I stopped working on the proposal is that you've offered no suggestions since you wrote it and have been combative over sources and wording such as Hyland and clarifying how the male DNA line was established. Brad (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the record shows different. I made several changes to my draft but I don't know why anyone would think I should acccept them all, when my efforts have been to use as few words as possible and at the same time present the reader with all the major sources. I stated why those two minor things you bring up again were of such peripheral and misstated significance (for what we needed to get done), and I withdrew from drafting the proposal long ago. You said you were not even offering Hyland as a source, so why bring it up, except to have useless debate that has nothing to do with drafting the section? Then you go off on DNA minutia. And award irrelevancies, while continuing to go after Parkwells like that matters to the drafting. So, I don't see serious interest in the lean proposal I foresaw and was interested in, which is evident from the continuing blather. As I said then, the article will apparently continue in whatever state it's in with various edits continueing to be made to it for the foreseeable future. And the only way that I could see forward was mediation, if people were serious about ending it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As for Gwilhickers repeated statements about the same things over and over. There is nothing to be done about them, as no one beside himself has supported them and thus there is no consensus for them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposal looks a lot better than the section. ASW, the reason I kept pushing the point about all that commentary was mostly because you and Parkwells kept ignoring the appeal. No one can deny the redundancy and extreme bloat in the section, clearly outlined in bold above. If it is your intention to "...use as few words as possible and at the same time present the reader with all the major sources..." this can be done with out all the commentary text, using some of the 'major' sources as citations, not as commentary. As I pointed out, this is highly unusual, provocative, rendering the section (and the page) unstable and will only invite corrective edits in due course. We can still relate the idea of 'most historians...all six children' with a brief comment, sourced. A few more tweaks in clarity are needed but if there are no objections it's about time to replace the section with the proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

GW, you keep mixing up the content of the article with material properly cited in quotes in footnotes. Given the extreme contentiousness of the editors, this material was added in quotes so that the sources would be clear and readers could easily read it for themselves. Quotes in footnotes are not "bloat" in the article. You are the only editor complaining about that, but you refuse to recognize the consensus of other editors on this page on this and numerous other issues. Many articles quote all cited material. I have not been editing the proposal in order to reduce the number of participants. Brad and ASW are working according to their own viewpoints as to how it should be done, based on RS. Parkwells (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, as usual, your writing is less than clear. "Keep mixing up content"? I have not edited the page other than to relocate a piece of commentary, which you reverted days ago, and restore a deleted comment about 'argue'. Again, please make an effort to speak with clear language when dealing with other editors and the page itself, you have a serious problem in this area, as your edit history can clearly outline. The footnotes only repeat what is written in the section. This is redundant and bloat, regardless of whether it's in the section or the ref's. Brad, TDOL and others have expressed reservations about this and your attempts at pov/agenda pushing. If you would like a wider consensus, I suggest we notify dozens of history editors and have another vote. Again, you have a very long history of doing to this page pretty much as you please, your latest rendition notwithstanding. This disruptive editing and pov pushing needs to stop. We can make the comment about 'most' and source it. This is an encyclopedia. It should concentrate on the facts, but since presenting all the important facts brings considerable doubt to the idea of TJ paternity you have no choice but to attempt to sell the idea with redundant opinion, clearly outlined in bold above. As I said, the proposal looks better, but you have just made it clear that you are still intent on filling up the page with redundant commentary. More facts and less commentary please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Garbled text

Whoops! Somebody probably moved something by mistake, resulting in this:

In 2012, the Smithsonian Institution and the TJF examines, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty,[200] at the National Museum of American History and in an online exhibition; it notes that most historians view the DNA and historical evidence as supporting the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.[201]

I can't figure out what this means, or I'd fix it myself: In 2012, the Smithsonian Institution and the TJF examines, Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty,[200] at the National Museum of American History and in an online exhibition Yopienso (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As you can see in edit history, I moved this text to group commentary by view. I moved it the way I found it. I made no edits to this statement. Not sure what you see as 'garbled'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you moved it; it was already garbled. Maybe someone else can illuminate it. The Smithsonian the the TJF did what? Maybe it means In 2012, the Smithsonian Institution and the TJF mounted a joint exhibition, "Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty,"[200] at the National Museum of American History and online, that examines the view of most historians that DNA and historical evidence support the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children.[201] ???? I really don't know what it means. Yopienso (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text placed in section.

I placed the proposed text above here into the Jefferson-Hemings section on the main page. This does not mean it's a done deal. I'm trying to move things forward but would again like to remind everyone that if me and Alan are supposed to be working on the section that we be allowed to do so without all of the hoopla. I only have so much time in a day that I can devote to WP so don't expect any lightning fast revisions from my side. If I'm not going fast enough for some people then replace me with another. Brad (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Better to be "not fast enough" than to be too fast, as we have just recently experienced. Have added a few points of clarity. Replaced 'argue' with 'maintain' and have grouped commentary by view. Will forego adding mention of Randolp fratenizing at night with slaves and will allow Parkwell's comments in the refs on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest removing the first unsupported sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Again if me and Alan are supposed to be working on the section that we be allowed to do so without all of the hoopla. I've already stated somewhere above here that citing material is taking a backseat to getting the text correct and acceptable. Then the correct cites will come. There is no sense in squawking about citations; I'm capable of seeing those that don't fit. Brad (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cm' the first sentence is the section is a general introductory sentence and is substantiated by the text that follows, starting with Callender up until present day controversy. Do we really need the 'no citation' tag for it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Over 8,000 people per day have viewed this site and I believe having a reference citation is important. No pressure. What source states that the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" is in fact a controversy? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I found the source that actually stated there is disagreement among historians: "The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, entered the public arena during Jefferson's first term as president, and it has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement for two centuries." Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

References don't support claim

Regarding this statement in the current section.

"Since the DNA tests were revealed, most biographers, historians, and organizations have concluded that the widower Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings.[198][199][200]"

Ref's 198 and 199 say nothing about 'most historians', nor do they even mention 'most organizations'. Also, ref 200 has no link, so there is no way for the reader to check for its accuracy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to a reasonable library. Ask a librarian to provide the paper. The librarian will know how to get it, either directly, or via inter-library loan. Alternatively, go to WP:REX and ask the crowd there to help you out with a copy. Read it and be happy. And while you are at it, also read Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Realizing many ref's pertain to publications not available on line I was only assuming ref 200 to National Geographic has a link. If it does, it should be added. That's all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But the reference in question is not to National Geographic, a reasonable popular-science magazine, but to National Genealogical Society Quarterly, a scholarly journal. Only a few such journals make their content available for free. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, National 'Genealogical'. In any case, this cite may support the claim in the section but ref's 198 and 199 do not. And as the term 'organizations' go, it would seem this term is not clear at all. 'Organizations' can refer to (very) many different things. Since Parkwells added and is apparently familiar with this cite (200) perhaps he can shed some light on the situation. Does this cite say 'most historians' and 'most organizations'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gw--On the second ref, currently note #199, Joseph Ellis says, "I think that we all have to try to assess this, the evidence, as best we can. And in this particular case, I think that this new evidence is clear and convincing. Prior to this time, I think it was really divided, and I think that honest people could honestly disagree." That means honest people cannot now disagree. This is Joseph Ellis, mind you. Somewhere in the WP rules it says it is not OR to make simple calculations, a point that applies here: we, your fellow editors, have a consensus that the best current scholarship suggests TJ had a sexual relationship with issue with SH. We can say "most" because most do, not because a RS says "most." The burden of proof lies on you to produce a longer list of respected modern historians who insist there was no relationship than the list of those who say there was. Until you can produce such a list (which you never can), please stop this arguing and let the verifiable fact (not the fact there was a relationship, because that is not established, but the fact most historians suggest there was) be included without further ado. Yopienso (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I just pointed out the that the refs neither said 'most historians' or 'most organizations'. This is not arguing, which btw, we all engage in. I once wanted to include the idea that historians were "widely divided" to qualify the claim 'most historians' but was told that I couldn't because I couldn't find a source that spelled this out in no uncertain terms. And even though I had indeed presented a sizable list of historians, prominent historians from major universities, along with others, that have dissenting opinions, this was still not good enough. Now here you are saying claims can be made without definitive wording to back them up. I am only expecting of these sources what is expected of others. I have seen the claim 'most historians' in several sources, so it shouldn't be much of an issue to cite 'these' sources. Also, the claim 'most organizations', aside from not being very clear, thus far is not substantiated by a RS so this phrase should be removed. I'll let that phrase stand for now and give others a chance to cite it with a RS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Gw--When you say, "I have seen the claim 'most historians' in several sources, so it shouldn't be much of an issue to cite 'these' sources," it sounds like you are not trying to help build a good article but are trying to obstruct progress. If you have seen the claim, why don't you just cite it yourself and stop demanding someone else cite it?

But enough of that. I'm sure you do, contrary to appearances, want to collaborate on making a good article better. I went to the list you linked to. The first item is the Library of Congress. Here's a huge list of items they have about TJ-SH. The second item on the list is the Miller Center of the UVA. The page you linked to doesn't mention the liaison, but the Miller Center has this to say: "Contemporary debates continue to rage—as they did during Jefferson's own lifetime—concerning his relationship with Sally Hemings, one of Jefferson's slaves, after Martha's death. Recent DNA evidence presents a convincing case that Jefferson was indeed the biological father of Heming's children, and most historians now believe that Jefferson and Hemings had a long-term sexual relationship." (My bolding.) Find it here. Again, none of this proves a thing; it only shows that most mainstream historians accept, support, or promote the possibility that there was a TJ-SH liaison. That's all WP is saying, and all we should say. But we should say it clearly. Yopienso (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't help what things look like. I could say it 'looks like' someone is pushing an agenda, but as you say, enough of that. The list I referred you to was used to point out, also, that these sources were not saying 'most historians'. And as lists go, no one has ever produced a 'list' of historians that have jumped on the TJ paternity bandwagon. All we have are some web page sites making a far reaching claim about 'most'. Here is an amended list of historians and org's who clearly do not go along with the TJ paternity opinion.
Herbert Barger, Jefferson Family Historian at Norwich University
Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
Dr. Harvey C. Mansfield, Harvard University
Dr. David N. Mayer Professor of Law and History, Capital University
Dr. Robert F. Turner (Chairman), Professor, University of Virginia
Dr. Paul Rahe, Professor of History, University of Tulsa
Dr. Forrest McDonald, Distinguished Research Professor of History, Emeritus, University of Alabama
Dr. Alf J. Mapp, Jr., Eminent Scholar, Emeritus, Professor of History, Old Dominion University
Dr. Robert H. Ferrell, Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus Indiana University
Dr. Lance Banning, Professor of History, University of Kentucky
Dr. Charles R. Kesler, Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College, author of American History
Eliot Marshall, author/historian
Dr. Walter E. Williams, George Mason University
Dr. Jean Yarbrough, Professor of Political Science, Bowdoin College
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS: Scholars Challenge Jefferson-Hemings Allegations
J. Patrick Mullins, Ph.D, University of Kerntucky
Dr. Thomas Traut, University of North Carolina
Dr. James Ceaser, University of Virginia
Monticello Association, Url2
additional :
William G. Hyland, author of 'In Defense of Thomas Jefferson:The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal' and 'A Civil Action: Sally Hemings v. Thomas Jefferson'
Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., author of The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, Section Head (Supervisor), DBPH, Library of Congress (1974-78)
Dr. James P. Lucier, historian, journalist, foreign policy specialist, appointed as 'Scholar' in the Congressional Reading Room, Library of Congress,
served on the U.S. Senate staff for 25 years.
Note: This is not a 'challenge' to remove the statement 'most historians'. I just wanted to point out, per your contention that there is no list, that all we have is largely partisan and media 'claims' about "most historians" and a lot of smoke and mirrors. What sort of list of 'believers' can you, or anyone, produce? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We're getting away from your original point, that the claim 'most historians' can be mentioned per you statement:

"The burden of proof lies on you to produce a longer list of respected modern historians who insist there was no relationship than the list of those who say there was."

No one has produced a list of believers, just unsubstantiated claims made mostly by ghost writers of web-site summary articles that we are supposed to accept at face value. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Ellis is a highly reliable source. He, Gordon-Reed, Brodie, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Bernstein, and Lucia Stanton all make the claim. Stanton is one of the 9 scholars (some may count only the 4 Ph.D.s and 1 M.D.) from the TJF plus its president, with a Ph.D. in history, Daniel P. Jordan. Two paragraphs from the TJF bear inserting here:

Shortly after the DNA test results were released in November 1998, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation formed a research committee consisting of nine members of the foundation staff, including four with Ph.D.s. In January 2000, the committee reported that the weight of all known evidence--from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data--indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was likely the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children listed in Monticello records--Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808).

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.

I think that kind of matter-of-fact reporting is what we need here: Group A says thus; Group B says thus.

Note that same TJF page, right at the top, is a source for the cite someone requested for "two centuries" of debate. (I don't think that citation is needed, since the paragraph goes on to follow the debate.)

I am changing my earlier opinion that TJHS be disallowed as a RS at least so far as to admit the 2011 scholars' report. This report has drawn wide attention in the media and received ample serious commentary, not debunking. (Monticello.org, CS Monitor, Washington Times, UVA Magazine)

Indeed. The TJHS, all by itself, puts more dissenting historians on record, by name, than we have seen anywhere else, and in spite of partisan/media claims about 'most historians'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

edit break2

The TJ-SH controversy section of the article is looking pretty good, except for that garbled sentence. Brodie needs to be inserted into the first paragraph. The first sentence needs the citation added or, better, I think I'll just delete the "citation needed." It's not needed, but someone could put in one to monticello.org as mentioned above. Yopienso (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso. I will remove the CN tag from the first sentence. General statements in the lede section and intro' statements in a given section often need not be cited if the following text supports the statement. Will also add some clarity (in bold) to first sentence:
The Jefferson-Hemings controversy revolves around the idea that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Hemings' children and has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement among historians for two centuries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on section

As this is a summary of a main article, it was always supposed to be an overview, which means the historiography. Given your work, I added more facts in between, as historians did not simply adopt the Callender report, and go straight to the 1998 study. More significantly, from the mid-1850s, historians adopted Thomas Jefferson Randolph's naming of Peter Carr as the father; this view was published by historians from 1874 well into the 20th century, from James Parton to Dumas Malone. It needs to be included, as Carr paternity was disproved for Eston Hemings by the DNA study; thus contributing to the changed consensus, as noted in the Nature article, and the Joseph Ellis cite. Corrected some cites - the one from Helen Leary (2001) of National Genealogical Society belongs with others' conclusions of Jefferson's paternity of the children. The PBS Frontline program, Jefferson's Blood (2000) reported on the emerging consensus; it is the RS for the quote "most historians" re: consensus. (It was also the RS for "most historians" re: the 1805 letter taken as a denial.) Corrected and altered the content about the Smithsonian-Monticello exhibit, so that it dealt with more than the consensus (as the exhibit does). Of course this can all be shortened, but the history needs to be understood.Parkwells (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note Yopienso's comment re: Brodie - in terms of contributing to changed consensus on Jefferson, both Brodie and Gordon-Reed should be mentioned, as their studies in 1974 and 1997 respectively evaluated the historiography and identified overlooked evidence that suggested Jefferson's paternity.Parkwells (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What was the point of having Brad and ASW reduce the text and summarize when you turn right around and return the section to the bloated condition it was orignially??" If the reduntant text is replaced I will begin adding commentary from the list of dissenting historians, along with content about partisan history of Controversy, Randolph, his five sons, fratenizing, Nature's skewed presentation of the DNA evidence, etc, etc. Again, you are trying to sell the theory of TJ paternity with opinion. For balance, I will discredit the opinion with as many historical facts as I can and clarify many items with added notes. Again, all this added WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Please stop this game of musical chairs. I am reverting. Please discuss major changes FIRST. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why were you working directly on the page rather than letting Brad and ASW finish their work? I started with corrections to the cites and content as noted of concern by you and Yopienso on this Talk page above. They related to different content, which I added. Since you had already added material directly to the article, it seemed appropriate to add the corrections there. I was trying to clarify the history there and above. Also added cites and content reflecting your discussion above, i.e., Joseph Ellis' position, to show that he and other historians published views on Jefferson's paternity preceding the TJF report, which you seemed to have taken as a singular expression.Parkwells (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I let Brad and ASW finish their work, ultimately said it looks better and suggested to replace the section with the proposal. We need to go slow Parkwells. Have you not learned anything from the last blocked page??-- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, editors can edit the Thomas Jefferson page at any time. No editor can hold the Jefferson article hostage. That is ownership of the article and is against Wikipedia policy. Editors need to discuss the article and any edits made. The first sentence I believe needs to have a source. I believe the article was shut down the last time because TDOL continued to make edits that were overturned. That created the automatic shut down of the Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors can edit any time, and they can delete anytime, but must follow consensus. What was the point of having Brad and ASW, at 'Parkwell's' suggestion, summarize when 'Parkwells' turns around and pulls this stunt? The TJ page is not a forum to discuss historians. We can comment about 'most' but this at length discussion about cherry picked sources is out of place. This is the Jefferson BIOGRAPHY. It is Parkwells who edits as if he owns the page, still(!!), and in complete disregard to the discussions we just had. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the TJF is not a "cherry picked" source. The TJF report stated Jefferson was most like the father of all six of Sally Hemings children, not just one, as the article currently states. Two editors can work on editing as Parkwells suggested. Wikipedia editors can't follow any time constraints by any other editors. There needs to be a reasonable amount of time to work on a passage, such as a few days. With that stated, editors can edit at any time editors want to. There is no ownership of articles. I believe that edits on controversial subject matter needs to be discussed and the Jefferson Hemings controversy has been signifigantly if not Ad infinitum on the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is singling out TJF here, and please stop with this 'ownership' nonsense. I am not the one who makes repeated radical changes at whim without discussion or consensus. His last episode increased the section from two paragraphs to a full page. He has repeatedly done this and recently. He was once the central player behind increasing the section to five pages long. There is no reason why he, or anyone else, can't simply comment on 'most' and source it. Apparently he is hell bent on parading as many sources, in commentary form, to the point where this text overwhelms the history in an obvious attempt to overshadow the facts and sell the TJ paternity issue by one-sided opinion. In the spirit of compromise and with the intention of stabilizing the page I backed off from adding mention of Randolph fraternizing, from deleting any more of the redundant commentary, also in the references, and from adding history involving partisan motivations which obviously have played a central role in inflating the controversy over the years, esp recently -- but evidently this is still not good enough for him, and apparently you. Again, the 'historgraphy' for Jefferson has a dedicated page. Please take the commentary parade there. This is a biography, not an expose' for (more than) a few select sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, this is a biography article on Thomas Jefferson. That is correct. The main article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy is the place for more sources. The section in the TJ article is only a summary of the controversy and does not need to go into depth coverage with an unending supply of sources. My concern is accurately referencing the sources, and not putting a spin to the research. I corrected one sentence concerning "high" probablility and "majority" report. I actually approve of the summary for the most part, so far. The strongest arguement I believe from the "minority" is that only Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings actually know what went on between the two. In terms of accuracy, the TJF flatly states that they hold the position that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children. They dropped the words "high probablility" and "most likely". Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Foundation quotes:

• 2010:"...TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings.
• 2000:"The DNA study, combined with multiple strands of currently available documentary and statistical evidence, indicates a high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings, and that he most likely was the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children appearing in Jefferson's records."

Well, I was beginning to lose what little faith I had left in you Cm'. Yes, this is a bio'. Excessive commentary should be elsewhere, and btw, more balanced. The TJHS was mentioned, barely, but the language was skewed (i.e.they only 'argue'), and it was stuck in the middle of all the other commentary. I also share your concern about "accurately referencing the sources, and not putting a spin to the research". I don't think anyone can deny that this has occurred, starting with Nature's presentation of the DNA evidence, which has been echoed in kind on many occasions. We still have some sources in the section that need fixing. Ref's 198 and 199. And for whatever it's worth, I don't think you're the one with the agenda. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your statement that you don't think I have an agenda. I am not sure that best interest for this article is to go around and agenda bash persons, rather, let's have two points of view in the main article, those for and against Jefferson's paternity of Sally Heming's children. The majority has been stated, now the opposed groups in the second paragraph needs to be bolstered. I would use these sources The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy Report of the Scholars Commission (2011) and the minority TJF report Minority Report of the Monticello Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (2000). Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow what a circus! I think Gwill and Parkwells should write the section. It's good free entertainment. Brad (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the section/summary is pretty much complete. We need a simple summary that states the controversy, presents a few of the important facts, comments on 'most', notes the dissenting opinion and that's that. I don't know how we can bolster the dissenting opinion without getting into all the academic objections. i.e.Even though there are many scholars who don't 'conclude' TJ paternity we apparently can't qualify the idea of 'most' with 'widely divided' because I've been told this needs to be spelled out in a RS. Meanwhile we now have an unclear and unqualified statement that says "...biographers, historians, and organizations have concluded..." that reads as if they all go along, all the while the term 'organizations' is nowhere to be mentioned. Since ASW for some reason has removed 'most' from this phrase it now reads as if all historians and org's go along with the TJ paternity theory. Even though the sentence that follows says 'other scholars ... maintain' it still gives the impression that dissenting opinion is rare, and as I've outlined above, this is far from the case, so again, we are dealing with a double standard that skirts the truth. We can say 'organizations', but we can't say 'widely divided', even though we have a long list of prominent historians and org's who don't go along with the 'conclusion'. How's that for entertainment? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"..dissenting opinion is rare...", Yes. That would mean adding a few more sentences with the against opinions main objections. If one reads the scholarly report the main objection is that the DNA evidence was misrepresented and there is almost no factual information on Sally Hemings. Dr. Wallenborn's main objection was that of the persons who knew of any relationship, Thomas Jefferson, was the only one who de facto denied the relationship. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A few more sentences of dissenting content? I have some gasoline we could through on the fire too. At this point my only issues are the claim about 'organizations' and ref's 198 and 199. The claim about 'organizations' is very unclear and unsourced. There are many thousands, perhaps millions of political, journalistic, academic, religious, ideological and other established organizations around the world. This grand claim, unsourced, should be removed. Ref's 198 and 199 need to be brought up to speed also. Neither cut the mustard, neither say anything about 'most/all historians' or 'organizations'. Ref 200 for some reason lacks a link. We should just remove 'organizations' and use the Smithsonain to source 'most'. Don't know why this wasn't done form the start. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Refs still need work

Ref 197 says nothing about ...DNA and historical evidence....
Ref 198 says nothing about ...biographers and historians have concluded..'
Ref 199. Is this a RS for this topic? The 'National Genealogical Society' is qualified to comment on DNA evidence, that it only connects Eston, and that's it. Using this org to comment on TJ paternity conclusions is like using an article in Popular Mechanics that happens to have an article about this subject. Since when did the NGS take on a Jefferson biographer/historian, or any historian, as part of their team? Do they make historical commentary on a regular basis, or were they simply approached and goaded into support as so often happens with students and the uninformed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers the TJF combines circumstancial evidence and the DNA evidence to make the majority conclusions. The Scholar Report mentions that the strongest evidence for Jefferson's paternity of Heming's children is that he was there almost, if not all times, Heming's got pregnant. The NGS, as far as I know, is a reliable non-fringe source. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about the TJF here? Be it as it may, the ref's still need some work. They're not supporting the claims. NGS? Again, what makes them a RS on Jefferson history? In any case we can use the Smithsonian, TJF and I'm sure other sources to cite these things. Seems the NGS was dragged in for show, a way of suggesting that DNA evidence proves TJ maternity for all six children. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the Scholars Report is completely separate from TJF. The TJF minority report was written by Dr. Wallenborn. TJF is a valid source and I believe mentioning their minority report adds historical integrity to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Am quite familiar with Wallenborn ... What did you have in mind? Remember we want to keep the summary -- a summary. [move]

Ref's need fixing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

TJF Report

What I have in mind is a balance of opinion in the article. Wallenborn contended that Jefferson, one of few who knew what the relationship was, made a de facto denial. The Scholar Report mentioned that the DNA study was misunderstood and there were others who potentially could have fathered Heming's children. Another issue is to find out all persons who were on the TJF commission, including Wallenborn. This would possibly entail a 1-3 sentences. I do not believe the against Jefferson paternity opinion is represented completely in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a potential edit:

"Dr. Wallenborn, who wrote the minority opinion of the TJF report, claimed Jefferson and Hemings presence at Monticello correlating with Hemings conception dates may be statistically unfounded. The Scholars Commission report stated there is little historical information on Sally Hemings and the public was misled concerning the 1998 DNA study." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the current commentary in the section about the TJF.

In 2000, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) assembled a study team of historians whose report concluded that, together with the DNA and historic evidence, there was high probability Jefferson was the father of Easton and likely all of Hemings' children.

To incorporate the minority report perspective we could do this.

In 2000, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) assembled a study team of historians whose report concluded that, together with the DNA and historic evidence, there was high probability Jefferson was the father of Easton and likely all of Hemings' children -- however their minority report claims the DNA study was misrepresented and that evidence pointing to other possible fathers was routinely dismissed.

No names were/are mentioned and only one sentence has been appended to existing text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC

Gwillhickers, the Scholar Commission stated the DNA was misrepresented, Dr. Wallenborn stated that the statistical analysis that Jefferson and Hemings were at Monticello at the same time of Hemings conceptions was unfounded. How about this:

"The TJF study minority report in 2000, however, stated that Jefferson and Hemings presence at Monticello correlating with Hemings conception dates was statistically unfounded, alluding that others may have fathered Hemings children. The Scholar Commission report in 2011 stated historical information on Sally Hemings is remarkably absent and that the 1998 DNA study's findings were misrepresented to the public." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As much as I agree with this we're getting into a lot of detail here. The existing text about TJF doesn't get into details like this, so we should keep claims general and brief with a not so long sentence.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe adding more detail to the opposition would be fair. If most historians believe Jefferson fathered children by Hemings, that is a powerful statement to the reader. The opposition deserves expansion. I would at least add the Scholar Commission report sentence. The reader needs some reason why other historians are in opposition to Jefferson paternity of Sally Hemings children. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The summary section is supposed to be an overview, not get into the details of differing views, and you do not have to present the minority view as if it were equivalent to the majority. The TJF is not the only RS that supports Jefferson's paternity, so don't pile on too much detail from there or the "minority report" of one person. Wallenborn suggested that Hemings may have had multiple partners, in which case the statistical study would not be useful, but other historians have pointed out that she was not alleged before to have had multiple partners. And then you would really need to note that, given TJ's residencies during the conception periods, according to the original analysis, the TJF PhD concluded there was a 99% chance that TJ was the father. So be careful with what you add. If you present Wallenborn's minority opinion, you should also present Paul Rahe's minority report disagreeing with the SCR (which he participated in). You may also want to add the strong criticism of their work by other historians and experts, to show why more do not agree with them. So where do you end in presenting analysis? Won't fit in the summary section. Parkwells (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, think about it. Do you really know what the SCR was complaining about? The headline of the Nature article, added by an editor? The article itself presented the data carefully. For the SCR to complain that the headline misrepresented the DNA data is kind of beside the point. Parkwells (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells, I am not taking sides and your arguments in the talk page are valid. The reader is suppose to decide all these things. I am not saying I agree with Dr. Wallenborn or the SCR, even if their arguments are considered "bogus", these are not fringe arguments. I believe editors have been attempting to prove or disprove Jefferson paternity of Sally Hemings children in the talk page. This is not the place. We need to put in for and against arguments in the article. Let the reader decide through the malarkey. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate getting the TJF minority view into the language, I still remain largely opposed to commentary and this sort of authorship. This will only serve to add more text to the commentary, inviting further commentary. I'm not against mentioning the minority report if it's only used to mention dissent among the TJF historical staff without getting into details. I would suggest appending one brief comment to this effect to the existing TJF comment. Half of the text in the section is already committed to commentary. While we're on the topic of sources, ref's 198 and 199 still need to be corrected, replaced or removed. They've been like this for about a week now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical reputation

Evidently, this section has received the same sort of 'attention' as once did the controversy section. If Jefferson remains to be rated among the top ten presidents why isn't this reflected in the last two paragraphs in that section? All we have is the usual parade of one sided, cherry picked claims. This section, also, is way over done. Not only does it need to be cleaned up it needs to be summarized. If Jefferson remains to be rated among the top ten presidents, a champion of the under-represented working class, his political ideals echoed around the world, this should be the underlying theme to the section and represented as such with due mention of any criticism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Jefferson is a complicated man in his political, religious, and scientific world views. At one moment Jeffesron says all men are created equal and then rationalizes blacks are inferior by nature and that they need whites to take care of them through slavery. There needs to be fair balance in Jefferson's reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't quite recall the "need whites to take care of them through slavery" part, but I generally agree. Currently the section is anything but a fair balance. If Jefferson remains rated among the top ten presidents this needs not only to be stated but the reasons why need to be highlighted. Again, his views about Africans were common place for his day because by western and other standards, they lived primitive life styles with no advances in architecture agriculture, science, literature, etc and because American Indians could not be enslaved but Africans could. Remember, he also thought slavery was against the laws of nature and made many efforts to end it. Jefferson was way ahead of his time in many respects. Any 'historian' who can't understand this needs to be writing comic books instead. Unfortunately much of the 'modern scholarship' obviously can't think outside of their academic boxes and lack the capacity to understand this advent. The section needs a major rewriting and a clean up and should reflect the fact that Jefferson remains in the top ten, for reasons I state above. Once again we have major pov and undue weight issues to deal with here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ref 199 and 200

Ref 199 now consists of two cites/addresses. The first one, an interview with Burnstein, says nothing about what most historians believe. The second cite, a PBS article involving an interview with a couple of selected historians, Reed and Ellis, with no dissenting historian included in the discussion, also says nothing about 'most historians'. Neither Reed or Ellis have ever claimed 'most' in any of their publications. Ref 200 links to a self-published article from a scientific org. As RS's go the NGS is only qualified (i.e.expert on DNA only) to assert the fact that DNA points to many Jefferson related males and nothing more. I am going to remove these ref's shortly but will wait for comment. The Smithsonian, ref 198, is source enough for the statements involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, as been mentioned before, the Smithsonian (2012) represents "current" thought on Jefferson and Slavery and Sally Hemings and is the best source for the Jefferson bio article. I would not drop the science reference. Readers need to understand views on Jefferson and Hemings are associated with DNA and circumstancial evidence. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Current 'thought'? There's a lot of thinkers out there. This is -highly- debatable, given the entities that want to put "another nail in the coffin of Jefferson" (not your quote, btw) for political and ideological reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the summary of ASW and Brad. The statement does not say "most historians". That is already established with the agreed upon RS of the Smithsonian/Monticello exhibit. It is simply "historians and biographers," of which Burstein, Ellis and Gordon-Reed are examples who believe Jefferson had a long relationship because he fathered several children over a period of many years. The other cite also relates to this, as it is by Helen M. Leary, a certified genealogist with the National Genealogical Society, a professional, expert organization that publishes a peer-reviewed, recognized RS, the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, as discussed long ago in these pages. In 2001, the NGS published a special issue assessing the paternity question and concluded that the weight of evidence "firmly attached Jefferson to his children." And they are very well qualified to assess historic documents; that's what they do; that's why they have a certification program for their experts.Parkwells (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When you say e.g. 'historians and biographers have concluded', you are referring to them all. This is basic grammar and having to walk you through this elementary nonsense every time one of these quasi sources is used in place of a noted Jefferson historian is getting stale. I have very little faith in anything you have to say at this point, given your lengthy history. You should use one or two sources and make your parroting brief. Please make sure the sources back up the claim -- don't expert the reader to comb through pages and links. As there are more reliable sources than NGS you should use the Smithsonian and TJF if not something better. NGS are established experts on the topic of DNA related matters only, not on Jefferson/American history as is the Smithsonian, Malone, Reed, and other established experts. Btw, if you're going to use that dated Life mag as a source, (in the other section) please cite the page number. Also, any more than two sources for one claim involving a controversial or disputed issue is parading a pov. I believe you know this. Getting tired of the pov-bot routine and the skewed language altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. The statements weren't mine. I was explaining what organization the National Genealogical Society was, since you persisted in misreading it. NGS is a reliable source for the cite that was used, which simply said that, based on all the evidence, they supported Jefferson's paternity for all his children. How it was used by other editors is not my responsibility. I was not responsible for the Life magazine article or probably any of the cites in the Reputation section. So go attack other editors for a change. Your routine is your own parroting. Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, have you read the Smithsonian (2012) exhibition on Jefferson? That website gives Jefferson a "light touch" and is in my opinion is conservative concerning slavery and Hemings controversy. Fair would be an appropriate description of the Smithsonian, a thoroughly researched exhibition. Jefferson is treated extremely respectfully at the Smithsonian online exhibition. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As I suggested, the Smithsonian should be used to cite the repeated claims in question. Parkwells, though I actually didn't say you added the Life mag as a ref I did indeed infer that you had given your recent handling of sources. Apologies on that note. My only routine is keeping this page from being inflated like a blimp so it can be used to fly around and advertise a pov.
Re: NGS. Since there are a number of established experts for RS's we should use them. NGS isn't saying anything that the Smithsonian, Ellis and others haven't said already and is just being dragged in to be part of the parade. They are not established experts on Jefferson's life. i.e.If I have to have an operation, I don't want it performed by a pharmacist who happens to study surgery on the side. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, NGS is a reliable source on Jefferson DNA and needs to be put as a reference. I have question with Ellis's reliability as a source, since he flip flopped on the Jefferson issue and joined the band wagon after the 1998 DNA study. Ellis's previous "impotency" theory of Jefferson was far-fetched and I do not even think the anti Jefferson paternity historians use that theory. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Six sources for one opinion?

Ellis was used as an example, and I tend to agree with your opinion of him, but good luck trying to disqualify him as a RS. NGS are not established experts on Jefferson's history as is the Smithsonian, Malone, Reed, Ferling, etc, etc, etc ...(!). This is WP Policy. As there are other established experts and RS's for 'most' or 'concluded' we should use those first. Again, NGS hasn't said anything that the Smithsonian, TJF or others hasn't said already and was just dragged in to be part of the pov parade. We need to pick one or two sources for this claim and be done with it. Currently the section uses six sources to assert this pov: (the TJF, Smithsonian, National Museum of American History, the NGS, the Burnstein-Shenkman interview and Online Newshour-PBS.) SIX! If you insist on using NGS, then we should eliminate something else. This parade of sources/commentary just to assert this quite unsubstantiated opinion is getting a little ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

When?

In the Historical reputation section a statement has just received a 'when' tag:

In past scholarly surveys he has often been rated among the top ten presidents,
though historians have become increasingly critical of him in recent decades.[when?].. (bold added)

Aside from the typical unclear language, this statement is false. C-span supports the claim that Jefferson remains to be rated among the top ten (i.e.7th), however it says nothing about historians have become increasingly critical The statement reads In past scholarly surveys . This is false. They continue to rate Jefferson among the top ten and the C-Span source supports this! Also, the link to a Nov. 1948 Life magazine, is odd. How is this dated publication supposed to support a claim made about 'Increasingly critical' among historians today? Aside from all it's pictures and advertising and photo-image text that is very difficult to read, the ref does not include a page number. 'Increasingly critical' or not, Jefferson remains to be rated among the top ten, per the C-span source, so this is what the statement there should say. Who ever is responsible for this particular edit, please make an effort to use clear and truthful language in the future. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, scholars have been critical of Jefferson's presidency, his silence on slavery, his Trade Embargo; promoting unqualified general staff in the U.S. Army for political expediency, and supporting Napoleon's attempt to re enslave Haiti. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not addressing any of the issues raised here i.e.false statements about surveys, sources that don't support claims, etc., and have only commented on Jefferson's critics, in apparent disregard that historians continue to rate Jefferson among the top ten presidents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So do some work; take out the Life reference and find some cites beyond the C-Span survey that tell why RS historians still rate him highly.Parkwells (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fluff

For those of you who are concerned with 'fluff' in the article, it is still filled with it -- and I'm not just referring to usage of one word. e.g. Currently the 'Historical reputation' section refers to slaves or slavery nine times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this "fluff"? Slavery was a major concern for Jefferson and is at the heart of the conflict between the great exponent of human liberty and the slave-owning plantation farmer --- between the man who on the one hand said "all humans are created equal" and "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just", but on the other hand bought and sold humans, had them beaten to ensure compliance, and had them tracked down and returned when they tried to partake in the liberty he proclaimed. This is, to a large part, what makes Jefferson more than a cooky cutter "good guy", but a real, interesting historical figure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's involvement with his slaves has been quite qualified and as you admit he was concerned about this advent. However Jefferon's greatest concerns were the Revolution, the DOI, Republicanism, etc, and there is just too much evidence that reveals Jefferson was very conscientious about slavery. You're forgetting that Jefferson opposed slavery his entire life. He referred to his slaves as servants and treated them quite well. He made notable attempts to end slavery but was surrounded by nay-sayers. There may have been isolated incidents where a slave was whipped or "beaten" for running away, but then, we don't have no one has presented a RS that can confirm this occurred at Monticello, much less by Jefferson himself. Sorry for the disappointment. There were harsh laws and rules for everyone in those days, including slaves. Regardless, slavery is mentioned nine times, and items like the DOI are only mentioned once. Again, historians continue to rate Jefferson's in the top ten, and the reasons why need to take a front seat in the section and not be overshadowed by the redundant sour grapes that attempts to paint Jefferson with the usual broad-brush. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Parkwells, do not tamper with my talk page edits. If I want to strike something and add something in its place I can do so, as others have in the past. Please do not try to escalate matters with this sort of behavior. If I am mistaken on the text in question kindly do the adult thing and say so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to practice "good faith" and stop making such accusations. There was an edit conflict at the time; I have better things to do than edit your Talk page comments. Please do the adult thing and stop attacking me.Parkwells (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The issues of slavery are not fluff. Historians concerns, as clearly noted and cited, are not that Jefferson owned slaves but that, despite his early opinions, after 1789 and as president and noted political leader, he took few actions to end domestic slavery, and stopped speaking out against it, when he might have been more influential in dealing with this major institutional and social problem. He did not free his slaves, in a period when many slaveholders did in VA. The content is in that section and supported by cites. Since the mid-20th century, historians have measured him against his own stated principles, the idealistic icon other historians held him as, and what his contemporaries did: i.e,. George Washington freed his slaves; Robert Carter freed slaves, Henry Laurens freed his slaves, and none had spoken of human rights as much as Jefferson. Kosciusko left him his estate in order to free his slaves, but he did not use the money. His actions have been compared to the people of his own time and his stated ideology. Don't get sidetracked. Editors can certainly add why RS historians rate him highly - with cites, and preferably works published in the same time period as the critics. A 21st-century article on Jefferson has to reflect the scholarship of the last 40 years, and be clear about what people have been assessing.Parkwells (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson's words (if not his deeds) also greatly inspired a later generation to abolish slavery, including Abraham Lincoln, so there is a lot to discuss. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, slavery was not fluff for the million of blacks enslaved in the North and South in the United States, as Parkwells has mentioned. This issue is addressed by historians and valid sources. The article acknowledges Jefferson stopped the slave trade. Jefferson's silence on slavery is perplexing from a historical point of view and worthy of examination. We can see that Jefferson becomes more conservative in his views on slavery, especially after 1820. Since Jefferson was a founding father, I believe, his legacy on slavery needs to be discussed in the article, since his views on state rights influenced Southern rebellion in 1860. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The other issue, Gwillhickers, is that American slavery was exclusively for black people, except for the Puritans in the 1600's having enslaved both blacks and Indians. As far as I know, there were no white slaves in America, only endentured servants. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't mix words. I didn't say the issue of slavery was fluff, just the way it's handled at length in the section. You have just carried on with your own assumptions and prejudices with the usual broad-brush referral to historians (who continue to rate Jefferson in the top 10, btw) and have not even addressed why Jefferson remains in that top ten. By your estimation he belongs at the bottom of the ratings list. We need to break away from what appears to be the usual conditioned replies. Every time someone mentions bringing balance to the slavery/Hemings topics certain editors seem to jump through the same hoops. Slavery by all means is due mention, but with the historical context of the day, and with proper weight. Meanwhile no one can deny the 'reputation' section is a pov and undue weight problem piled high. We need to come up with a summary draft that covers why Jefferson has always been rated among the top ten presidents with ample and clear mention of slavery. What are your suggestions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose when you, Gwillhickers, states "historical context" you mean "moral relativism". Slave owners, although a minority, were freeing their slaves during Jeffersons times in addition to Baptists and Methodists preaching against slavery in Virginia. The issue with Jefferson is that he stated "All men are created equal" and then owned hundreds of slaves. That puts Jefferson in different historical perspective to other slave owners. His white supremacy view was also questioned directly by Abbé Grégoire over the inferiority of blacks; Jefferson was forced to respond. In terms of historical context discussing Jefferson and slavery is appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why Jefferson is rated as a top ten President requires examination. Has Jefferson recently been rated? There were scandals during his Administration. He protected Wilkerson who was involved with the Spanish plot, keeping him in the military. There was the $2,000,000 ACT passed by Jefferson in order to influence Spain to annex the Floridas to the U.S. There was corruption charge in the Postal Department concerning distributing patronage. There was the Miranda Expedition, in addition to Josiah Quincy's charge that Jefferson be impeached for his appointment of Dearborn to the Port of Boston. There was also Jefferson's forced eviction of Edward Livingston near New Orleans. None of these reduce Jefferson status as President, however, this gives the reader a broader analysis of Jefferson's Presidency. Jefferson I believe is rated high as President by historians because he was a Founding Father who started the nation, he was from Virginia, and the Lousiana Purchase. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Cm' with all due respect, when you ask if Jefferson has been recently rated, it tells us you're not remembering (very) recent discussions on the talk page here -- and you continue to carry on as if I am trying to assert the idea that the topic of slavery is fluff, shouldn't be mentioned, etc, ad nauseum. You need to respond to what I have written, not to what you wish I had written. Come up to speed and we'll talk again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the CSPAN rating was 3 years ago in 2009. I would not call that recent since this is 2012. We need to be able to discuss without comments like "come up to speed". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Jefferson consistently rated among top ten

C-Span breaks down into categories why e.g.Jefferson has been rated. Notice his 'moral authority' rating is high. 'How could that ever be??' He didn't free all of his slaves. Perhaps they are looking at a bigger picture that qualifies this man far beyond that which is encompassed here on this talk page. Ya' think? Notice one of the categories is: Performance Within Context of Times Notice here also, Jefferson is rated in the top ten for this category. i.e.6th. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Arthur M. Schlesinger, New York Times Magazine Dec. 15, 1996.: Jefferson rated 4th from top

• MS NBC: Presidential rankings according to 65 historians and professional observers

• The 238 participating presidential scholars round out the top five, in order, with Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

• CBS NEWS: President Franklin D. Roosevelt was ranked the best president ever, followed by Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

• ABOUT.COM : Top 10 Most Influential Presidents

• BBC: The top US presidents: First poll of UK experts

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, we do not know if slavery was considered when Jefferson was ranked high on "moral authority". CSPAN does not define what moral authority is or any of the categories that are in that poll by historians. Moral authority could mean anything without definition. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Although this is not recent, 2000, a survey of black historians in the book by Walton and Smith, American Politics and the Quest for African American Freedom, pp. 200-201 listed Jefferson as a racist white supremacist. Many of the Presidents that have been ranked high were considered white supremacist and racists. Lincoln and Truman are considered anti-racist. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interesting opinion commentary on Presidential Rankings What's wrong with presidential rankings by Julian E. Zelizer (February 21, 2011}. The rankings, according to Zelizer, are "weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House." Zelizers states there are many flaws with the system of ranking Presidents, including, that ratings change over time. Here is another statement, "Presidential rankings also change depending on the context in which presidents are being evaluated." Zelizer stated that there is no definition of the term "greatness" in terms of ranking a President. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Julian E. Zelizer is a Professor of History at Princeton University. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Cm', you're really clutching at straws with this stuff. Good luck tying to disqualify or discredit BBC, CBS, MS-NBC, New York Times, C-Span, etc. And I have to really laugh here. Hundreds of historians were consulted and you try to brush them all off with an opinion from what's his name, but when a couple of sources say 'most historians believe TJ paternity' you jump through hoops without question. Ask Mr. Zelizer that if "ratings change over time" how is it that Jefferson has always been rated near the top of the list? (Boink!) We're expected to ignore the view of 100's of historians because 'Mr. Zelizer sez' -- but at the same time we're supposed to embrace the view of this one man about what 100's of historians have consistently determined. So much for Mr. Zelizer's opinion. -- Meanwhile, the section needs to reflect the fact that Jefferson continues to remain in the top ten, and the bulk of the text needs to be devoted to the reasons why. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit that was Zelizer's opinion concerning the Presidential Rankings, but coming from a Princeton University professor adds historical weight to his comments. As far as Jefferson-Hemings controversy, I categorize historians as for and against Jefferson paternity, not majority and minority. The polls are political and are we to actually believe that all historians are completely objective and unbiased in their evaluations. I am not even sure that all the people in the polls are University Professors. A journalist does not pull the same historical weight as a University professor. There needs to be a source that states historians have ranked Jefferson high in the polls, before putting into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You're missing something that should be quite glaring. Zelizer, a professor of history, is expecting us to dismiss the professional evaluations of 100's of historians and at the same time, expects us to take the word of just one historian. -- Him. And does Mr.Z' offer an alternative for evaluating presidents? Probably not. He just has a sweeping opinion, dismissal, of people in his own profession. Another academic snob who sees himself better than his peers. Mr. Z' seems to have impeached his own credibility here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, these are all reliable sources for reporting presidential polls and there is no policy that says we can't use them as such. Currently the page has several journalistic sources being used, including PBS, Frontline, New York Times and ABOUT.COM. However, it shouldn't be difficult to find Jefferson historians who mentions that Jefferson has always been rated high. Here's a start. It took me a couple minutes just to find three on the side while writing this.

• Greatness In The White House: Rating The Presidents, R.Murry, T.Blessing, 1994, Pennsylvania State University Press, p.7

• Encyclopedia of the American Presidency, Michael A. Genovese, 2010, Infobase Publishing, p.417

(Genovese received a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California. He is Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Institute for Leadership Studies at Loyola Marymount University)

• Separation of church and state: the myth revisited, Jack R. Van Der Slik, 1985, p.147

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, may I suggest that you read articles you comment on? Zelizer is in no way "expecting us to dismiss the professional evaluations". He is talking about public opinion polls, and his criticism is is both that public opinion is dominated by short-term perceptions, and that "greatness" is a one-dimensional metric that is inherently unsuitable to evaluate performance in a complex job (or life). And Cmguy777, most academics will cringe at being classified "as for and against Jefferson paternity", because this is not an opinion poll, but an evaluation of historical evidence (in which most historians have come to the conclusion that Jefferson was most likely the father). And very many historians who think Jefferson was the father of Hemings children still rank him highly despite his personal flaws (if we consider having a 38 year relationship with one woman a personal flaw...) and his hypocritical position on slavery. He was weak on slavery for a thinker of his caliber, but he was better than one could expect for a man with his background. I wonder what future generations will say about us, burning fossil carbohydrates like there is no tomorrow while denouncing climate change and political instability in the Near East in theory. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I read quite will thanks, and after all of that, historians have always rated Jefferson in the top ten, contrary to what 'Zelizer sez', that "ratings change over time". Mr. Z' Doesn't exactly do much for my faith in historical analysis. For that matter, why do we even bother with experts and reliable sources? 'What do they know?' Let's ask Zilzer. No more fuzzy arguments. No more pov piled high. We have more than enough sources to write the section truthfully i.e. clearly and accurately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but neither your original comment nor this one shows that you actually have read the source provided - or if you have, that you have digested its content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Insert : This is the second time you've had a chance to enlighten me to what integral point Zelizer made that I am not addressing or 'have not read'. Mr.Z' has only asserted opinion and himself notes that Jefferson has been rated among the top. And while Z' notes that certain polls vary in their subject approach, 'target group', etc, Jefferson remains to be rated at the top by 100's of 'historians' as he always has. In any case Mr.Zilizer's opinion of polls isn't anything that amounts to something that says we can't refer to them. And as Parkwells once said when defending the biased opinion of TJF, we have to report what the sources say, even if it's their opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also wonder what future generations will say about us "burning fossil carbohydrates like there is no tomorrow". Hopefully they will be wise enough to know that people by and large are the subjects of their time period. I'd love to ride around on horse back, well, sort of, but how is that possible with the transportation infrastructure the way it is? Btw, I forget where, but I read some time ago that one volcano eruption can spew out more CO2, etc, etc in one hour than can all the traffic in Los Angeles could over a ten year period. One volcano. One hour. Lot's of volcanoes on this orb. Good thing the ocean and the deserts scrub most of the CO2 and other things out of the air for us or we would have been dead long ago -- actually never born. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should sidetrack that into a climate change debate. See Talk:Global warming/FAQ for your "volcano" comment. But I think there is one good observation in your comment: "People by and large are the subjects of their time period". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the Murray-Blessing book is appropriate as a source to state Jefferson ranks in the top ten Presidents. Stephen Shultz, for and against means that there are historians who favor paternity and those who disfavor paternity. favor<----Jefferson Paternity---->disfavor Either Jefferson had children by Hemings or he did not. There is no middle ground. The paternity of children is not determined by a majority or minority count. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is middle ground. No claim in real life ever reached the status of "absolutely certainly true". The middle ground includes "possible", "likely", "almost certainly", and so on. I think it much more likely than not that Jefferson is the father, and I think most opposing views are severely misguided and not usually resulting from a dispassionate view at the evidence, but rather from extreme (if unrecognized) prejudice. But it would not shatter my word view if we eventually found out something else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. There is no halfway point in being the father of a child during Jefferson's times. I would then state, SS Stephan Schulz, that you favor or are for Jefferson paternity rather then oppose Jefferson paternity of Heming's children. Sally Hemings had children. Every historian concludes that fact. Who was their father? Does one favor Jefferson paternity or not favor Jefferson paternity? Maybe I was mistaken. The middle ground then is, "I don't know". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, there is already several journalistic cites that are used in the Jefferson article, and if they are established and recognized (i.e.New York Times, C-Span, CBS, etc) they can be referred to. If you're going to oppose journalistic sources then we need to see some policy and hear your explanation for the existing journalistic sources that are currently being used on the page. Also, what is wrong with the Van Der Slik and the Michael A. Genovese publications? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Presidential ratings sources

Here are links on Scholarship and News Organizations. Scholars are pier reviewed while journalists are not. In my opinon pier review gives more weight and since Zelizer has a PhD in History, I would say that makes him a stronger authority concerning Presidential Rankings, if compared to a journalist with BA at a State College. By the way I have BA in History at a State College. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Insert : News sources often contain both factual (reporting) content and analytical (editorial) content. "News reporting" from well established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is more on Zelizer. The man's credentials are impressive. In Star Wars terminoligy he would be a Jedi Knight. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Before you start trying to build this man into some sort of an academic idol, remember he is just one person. Hundreds of historians were consulted in Jefferson's presidential evaluations and numerous established journalistic org's and other historians have reported on this fact. There is your peer review. Zilizer is not the only one with a PhD and a web site article -- and his treatment of history is summary, not specific (i.e.Jefferson) and relates to "political leaders, policies, and institutions" that came along after FDR, just as it says on his web page.
We need to start discussing how we are going to write the reputation section so it reflects the fact that Jefferson has been consistently rated in the top ten by 100's of historians, repeatedly. Seems like you have other things in mind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

More sources :

• Skidmore, Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review, 2004 , p.31
  "Among American Presidents, only Theodiore Roosevelt can Rival Jefferson ..." Url2
  Max J. Skidmore is University of Missouri Curators’ Professor of Political Science and Thomas Jefferson Fellow. ...

Skidmore is a good source. However, his book does not invalidate Zelizer's comments on Presidential rating polls. I do not idolize Zelizer nor have I intended to push Zelizer as an idol. My view is that Zelizer's opinions on Presidential ranking polls have historical weight and his credentials are impressive. My comment on the "Jedi Knight" was an attempt at humor. My concern with the rating polls is that they tend to castigate certain Presidents and to exonerate certain Southern Presidents from Virginia. I admit Jefferson deserves honor as a Founding Father President, however, the polls tend to build up certain Presidents at the expense of other Presidents using generalized terms such as "vision" and "morality" without discussing any details of their actual Presidency. The Polls create historical stereotypes and have a tendancy to overlook what took place during each Presidents terms in office. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Article size report

• File size: 522 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 125 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 20 kB
• Wiki text: 176 kB
• Prose size (text only): 85 kB (13818 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1248 kB

13,818 word count as of this notice. Almost 4000 words over the recommended limit. Brad (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out here and here, there is much fluff, commentary and redundant sourcing that still remains in the article. There are still six sources for one claim in the 'Controversy section (w/ its related ref's) and the 'Historical reputation' section in the last two paragraphs almost looks like another political opinion piece. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I post the status as a general report without finger pointing. If we have a 14,000 word count now and the article is still missing vital information then something has to go. This is for general overall planning. I know that the Vice prez section is filled with analysis cited by one author; which should probably be reduced. Brad (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Gotta love that analysis. Though it has its place, it seems there is often too much of it and not enough historical facts. Don't like it when opinion overshadows the (often few) facts. Thanks for the word/byte count. Very useful overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"History is a myth that men agree to believe". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet Napoleon came up with that one on his way back from Russia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the importance of keeping articles at a respectful size and tight narration, however, Jefferson lived a very active and abundant life, and I am not sure the article can be written under the recommended size without subtracting context. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked the Abe Lincoln article was about 12,000 words and I'm fairly confident that in Lincoln's case it can't be reduced any further without leaving important gaps. This article however, is already at 14,000 and is still missing key information. If it was expanded to be complete I estimate the word count could climb to 16,000+. That is way over the mark. Something has to give which is why I'm trying to plan a good set of spin-off articles. If we can keep TJ to 12,000 words we'll be lucky. Brad (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}