Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Latest edits to DOI section

Cm' there are issues with your last edit in the DOI section:

Jefferson, however, having accepted common racial stereotypes of African Americans, did nothing
to advance citizenship to free blacks or relieve the plight of slaves.

In your typical two-dimensional style, you make it sound like 'race' was the reason Jefferson "did nothing" where in reality Jefferson at that time was only a delegate from Virginia, and because of the revolution he, as one man, was not in a position to spend time trying to advance legislation to make freed blacks citizens. Further, as was already pointed out to you on this discussion page, because of Revolutionary 'war' the priorities were focused on national security and survival. No one had time to devote energy towards advancing legislation for citizenry for freed blacks. This is a very pathetic and narrow minded edit! I added context to your statement, cited, but it still needs further clarification. Your statement should read:

Because Jefferson was just one delegate and faced with the revolution, he was unable
to advance citizenship to free blacks or relieve the plight of slaves at that time. (emphasis added)

I have not changed the words to your edit but have added others words along after it for context. As soon as I find the sources I will further clarify and add further context to your racially charged statement. Btw, Ferling is totally absorbed with opinions of race and is attempting to use this as a wet blanket to throw over the entire advent of American history. Another Finkelman. Highly opinionated sources like this need to be qualified with more objective sources along side of them. We have repeatedly discussed cherry picking singular sources and using them to make controversial statements. As usual, discussion with you is generally a waste of time, as you turn right around and do your one-trick pony act all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Ferling is an established source. I gave you the direct passage. I actually toned down Ferlings direct language. Your problem is with Ferling. What you really don't like about the edit is that Ferling exposed Jefferson's racism. Jefferson, Washington, and Madison did not want in any way desire blacks to be citizens of the United States. Jefferson had accepted the racial views of his times and even advanced them. You can't admit this. Jefferson did not want in anyway Indians to be citizens. America was for the superior lily white race. Jefferson did not want to exterminate blacks. Jefferson wanted to exterminate Indians with the hatchet. Jefferson was not a nice guy Gwillhickers. He double dealed his buddy Washington by secretly starting another party with Madison. Jefferson's VP Aaron Burr 86ed Washingtons former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a dual. I am not trying to be blunt or controversial. Jefferson needs to be judged by his own words "All men are created equal." We also have to look at his actions, inactions, and racial views. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now you're just ranting. It was understood Jefferson and people of his time had opinions of race, as did most of the world, and it already mentions this in the article. "Exposed racism"?? This is so incredibly small minded, and smacks of its own racism. Who are we kidding, Cm'? What you refuse to understand is that opinions of 'race' were not what made Jefferson "do nothing", as I explained above, he was one man, just a delegate during the DOI/Revolution era, and that the country was wholly absorbed with war with Britain. Regardless of his views and observations of race, he still provided for and treated slaves very well, and later on made numerous attempts at various legislation that addressed slavery and the trade. "The superior lily white race"?? You are so preoccupied with opinions of race that you have become the racist, as you seem to think all of history revolved around it. Please stop your childish horn blowing, and stop cherry picking singular sources to make controversial and out of context statements and lies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Ferling directly associated Jefferson not advancing citizenship on blacks because of race. Since the Puritans landed on Plymouth rock both blacks and Indians were enslaved. Jefferson could not tolerate a black man to be his equal in terms of citizenship. Ferling gave a list of racial issues Jefferson had with blacks. Everything Jefferson wrote on white people was formed with praise in terms of intelligence and beauty. Jefferson was repulsed by the black skin color. Jefferson did not want blacks in America, rather, they needed to be deported to a colony. Jefferson did not want Indians to be U.S. Citizens either, rather push them back across the Mississippi River or be exterminated. I admit that the Indians had a tribal warrior society and were hard to incorporate into a democracy. What is clear is that Jefferson and Americans wanted their land. Push them West or extermination was the answer, manifest destiny. I agree Jefferson was kind to his slaves at times, but he was capable of being physically and psychologically cruel to blacks. Can you find in any of Jefferson's writings where he supported black citizenship? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson did not ride a black horse, therefore Jefferson did not like black horses.
Jefferson did not eat lobster, therefore Jefferson thought lobster fisherman didn't deserve his business.
Jefferson did not grow Oranges, therefore Jefferson thought apples were superior.
Jefferson loved classical music, therefore Jefferson thought folk music was barbaric.
-- That has been and continues to be the extent of your 'analysis'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


Gwillhickers, you don't know me well enough to call me a racist. I have been employed in several multiracial employment settings, worked under black ownership, and have had a black man as a supervisor. I have had African American, Mexican, and Asian friends. Going to college I have had Asian and Mexican roomates. I support legal U.S. Citizenship of all races. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point I don't believe anything you say anymore. You say one thing and do another; aside from jumping to other topics and ignoring discussions, you talk about "the truth", and take one sliver of it, e.g."Jefferson thought white-red skin to be more beautiful", and then use that as your ticket to throw mud in the Jefferson biography at every opportunity. Many attempts and much time and effort have been given you to explain the many circumstances, looming threats and priorities of the day, i.e.War, slave power, French interests in the L.T., Missouri compromise geo' dividing line instigating civil war, all supported by numerous sources, past and present -- and all you do is come back and blow the same horn. Given your racist slur "the superior lily white race", indeed these are your words, I believe my observation was a fair one, as all you do is focus on race and ignore everything else involved. If you want to see systematic, fundamental and acute racism, look at the way many tribes lived. Completely xenophobic -- even towards other tribes. Various countries in Africa, are still practicing slavery today, in barbaric form, during 'modern times' -- those slaves are not living in 10 x 20 foot cabins with Sundays, Christmas and Easter off, growing their own gardens, etc, etc. Then take a good look at the color of their masters. Do you think any of them are discussing the evils of slavery in their Congress? Opps, they don't have a congress, they dictate policy and enforce it at the end of a gun. There is just so much you seem to be unaware of and unappreciative of. Let's get back to business: Please present any 'facts' in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert: The Lily-White Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th century. I used the term in the discussion to emphasize a view point. There was no African American in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate until the 1870's during Reconstruction under President Ulysses S. Grant. America during Jefferson's time was ruled by white males and any runaway blacks were subject to being captured simply because these persons wanted to live in freedom. I do not believe that Ferling was exaggerating or misrepresenting Jefferson's racial views. There was not one member of the Founding Generation who advocated black citizenship, unless one included a black man Benjamin Banneker, who advocated racial equality. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There was not one Indian tribe who advocated white Chiefdom. -- Did China ever have a white ruler? Lot's of whites in China. How come no white rulers? -- Did you know that 99% of crime in Japan is committed by the Japanese? Hmmm... I guess the Japanese have a tendency for crime, huh? -- Is the assassin who kills a black man for money any better than someone who kills because of racism? Racism is not the crime. Murder is the crime, whether committed out of racism or greed. There is nothing wrong with noting differences in race, or holding opinions about race. That is human nature, so all you are doing is attempting to indict all of humanity for having human tendencies. Unlike most countries, the Founding Fathers established a Constitution that eventually allowed all races to participate in government. Cultural change is a slow process. All you are doing is attempting to demonize the Founders and complaining that change didn't happen fast enough. Getting tired of your narrow minded attempts to turn 2+2 into 100. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, over 200,000 men died in action during the American Civil War over slavery. The Constitution failed. And even when slavery was abolished, blacks given citizenship, and the right to vote; conservative white Southerners formed the Solid South where blacks were lynched and treated as second class citizens. Prior to the American Civil War, the Constitution protected slavery. The American Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constitution allowed blacks to participate in government. Asians were excluded from citizenship until the 1940's and the 1950's. Indians were excluded from citizenship until the 1920's. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cite the part of the Constitution that protected slavery. No more of your conjecture. Just do it. Article and verse please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article 4; Section 2; Clause 3 was affected by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

"No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery and the "affected" (spelled as effect) were laws regarding vagrancy. The Founders drafted no laws that "protected slavery". The 13th Amendment was added during the Civil War, so let's not jump to that era to try and make a point you've yet to establish about Thomas Jefferson. -- In those days race is what defined citizenship for most countries throughout the world, esp among tribal nations. The United States was among the first to allow other races/culture to join in, if not 'the' first. As I said, cultural change is slow, and again you are only complaining that it didn't occur fast enough and are naive and unappreciative of the fact the U.S. was way ahead of it's time in terms of embracing other races and cultures. The Constitution and the mindset of Jefferson and others like him paved the way for that process. -- Now if you're done trying to slime the founders, the Constitution and the country, kindly not stick your out of context stub like statements anywhere you please. When you added your edit to the DOI section it was obvious you were not doing so to expand on and improve the content of that topic -- you just stuck it any ol' place to make your little statement. WP has enough bot's we don't need a POV bot. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The slaves could not vote since they counted 3/5 person in terms of apportioning representation. Jefferson's slaves got him elected since Southerners dominated the House. The Fugitive Slave clause allowed slave hunters to retrieve slaves. That is protection of slavery. The 13th Amendment was ratified after the Confederacy was defeated. Over 200,000 soldiers died in action during the American Civil War. The South never conceded slavery until after their defeat. Your personal attacks against me Gwillhickers are unwarranted and inappropriate. You monitor this article like a hawk hunts for mice. You rarely allow criticism concerning Jefferson and make editing on this article extremely difficult. I don't worship Thomas Jefferson or put him on a pedestal. My edits into the article are not POV as you contend. If you want to believe Jefferson is a nice guy go right ahead, but please don't force your opinion on other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit in DOI section

Cm', what is your last edit doing in the DOI section in the first place? That edit has nothing to do with the drafting of the DOI and ignores the fact that Jefferson included a clause blasting the British crown for initiating slavery in the colonies. "Jefferson did nothing"?? The DOI was a Declaration to Britain, it had nothing to do with advancing legislature of any sort, for the colonists or the slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ferling specifically mentions the DOI in his reference to Jefferson and African American citizenship. I do not object to moving the edit to the slavery section, as long as the edit is kept as is. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course that would include the qualifying and sourced context I added to it, or do you think it best that we hide that from the readers also? Ferling's statement is not true. He/you are trying to say that because Jefferson had opinions about race, he "did nothing", period, in spite of the fact that he made numerous efforts to help and emancipate slaves. Ferling's account neglects all of the considerations that Jefferson, one man, one delegate, was faced with, starting with 'war', opposing slave powers, the question of what to do with free slaves, etc, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I moved the compound sentence in the DOI section to the Slaves and slavery section with the "qualifying and sourced" context. I made a narration tweak to fit in with the Slaves and slavery section. I was going by the Ferling source. Jefferson did not relieve the plight of slaves. I believe Jefferson suggested his emancipation plan plus deportation with the sale of public lands. This plan never came into any fruition. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Other accounts

I have Ellis' 'American Sphinx in hand (1996 printing, not 1998). On page 141-142 (167-168 in the 1998 printing) Ellis discusses life at the nailry in length and that special privileges were given to the boys who performed the best. Not once does Ellis mention whippings. I am sure they occurred once in a while, but if this was as significant an event as some would have us believe it seems Ellis, one of Jefferson's known critics, would have mentioned it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiencek's research was done in 2012. Ellis did not have this information since Betts purposely did not publish Randolph's letter that slave children were whipped at the nailery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It would be interesting to read Betts' actual letter so we can get a better idea as to how often and to what extent children were "whipped". Remember, we are talking about children 10 to 16 years old, and remember also it was not Jefferson's policy to whip anyone, let alone children for being late or slow on the job. There are other accounts to take into consideration. You would do well to read Rev. Hamilton W. Pierson's book, an author who made the aquaintance of Captain Edmund Bacon, Jefferson's chief overseer and business manager at Monticello for 20 years, obtaining from him "a large mass of letters and other documents" in Jefferson's own handwriting outlining instructions for his management of the various affairs at Monticello. Following is an excerpt from the book: Chap.VIII, 'Mr. Jefferson's servants', pp.103-105
"Mr. Jefferson was always very kind and indulgent to his servants. He would not allow them to be at all overworked, and he would hardly ever allow one of them to be whipped. His orders to me were constant, that if there was any servant that could not be got along with without the chastising that was customary, to dispose of him. He could not bear to have a servant whipped, no odds how much he deserved it."
"I remember one case in particular. Mr. Jefferson gave written instructions that I should always sell the nails that were made in his nailery. ... I went one day to supply an order, and the eight-penny nails were all gone, and there was a full supply of all the other sizes. Of course they had been stolen. I soon became satisfied that Jim Hubbard, one of the servants that worked in the nailery, had stolen them, and charged him with it. He denied it powerfully. I talked with Grady, the overseer of the nailery, about it, and finally I said, 'Let us drop it. He has hid them somewhere, and if we say no more about it, we shall find them." ...
(Details about the nails being found hidden in the woods, several hundred pounds of them. -- Gw')
"From circumstances, I knew that Jim had stolen them. Mr. Jefferson was at home at the time, and when I went up to Monticello I told him of it. He was very much surprised, and felt very badly about it. Jim had always been a favorite servant. He told me to be at my house next morning when he took his ride, and he would see Jim there. When he came, I sent for Jim, and I never saw any person, white or black, feel as badly as he did when he saw his master. He was mortified and distressed beyond measure. He had been brought up in the shop, and we all had confidence in him. Now his character was gone. The tears streamed down his face, and he begged pardon over and over again. I felt very badly myself. Mr. Jefferson turned to me, and said, 'Ah, sir, we can't punish him. He has suffered enough already.' He then talked to him, gave him a heap of good advice, and sent him to the shop. Grady had waited, expecting to be sent for to whip him, and he was astonished to see him come back and go to work after such a crime."
"When he came to dinner—he boarded with me then—he told me, that when Jim came back to the shop, he said, '"Well, I'se been a-seeking religion a long time, but I never heard any thing before that sounded so, or made me feel so, as I did when master said, " Go, and don't do so any more;" and now I'se determined to seek religion till I find it;' and sure enough, he afterwards came to me for a permit to go and be baptized. I gave him one, and never knew of his doing any thing of the sort again. He was always a good servant afterwards. ..."
Pierson's work goes on about Jim Hubbard being so relieved and thankful for Jefferson's kindness and forgiveness and being allowed to remain at the nailry, so much so that the boy was inspired to take to religion. We need to weigh this account against Betts' letter: Like the passage in the Farm book, it seems you haven't read that either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, if Jefferson was a nice guy he would have released his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Free to roam around with no shelter and means of support -- sure. Haven't we discussed that, about ten times? If Jefferson was the monster you've tried so desperately to portray him as he would have not found it in his heart to forgive Hubbard for stealing 100s of pounds of nails. I guess you think it's okay to 'bear false witness against your neighbors' if they're dead. See you in church. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson had a forgiving heart. I don't disagree with that. He did not start the slave system in Virginia, either. After 1782 he had the opportunity to set free all his slaves. He set two of his slaves free. He deserves credit for that, even if one was purchased and the other traded, Jefferson deserves credit for setting two Hemings slaves free. One of the slaves, possibly James Hemings, was beaten for being sick and could not make to the nailery on time. Maybe there were two Jeffersons, Gwillhickers, the forgiving father and the slave owner who desired profits. Having black boys whipped at the nailery to increase profits does not sound like a nice guy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson did not 'have boys whipped' (or "beaten") for profit and dismissed an overseer for using the whip, or switch, we are still not clear on that, or to what degree it was used either, as you have yet to cite the farm book passage or Betts' letter or any other source that gives us a clear account as to what occurred in reality. So all we have, still, is speculation, conjecture from a cherry picked source and your usual out of context stub-like claims, and we've all seen what that amounts along with the Callander-like mindset that tries to perpetuate this stuff. Sunday is day after tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, why do you mention Sunday like some judgement day? According to Wiencek, Jefferson put in a nicer task master, but the children were producing less, so Jefferson reinstalled the initial task master who was cruel and who beat up James Hemings. If this is true, then how can you continue to assert Jefferson was a nice guy? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned you were a born again Christian and preached to me that "the truth" would set you free. Now you seem to be upset that I'm holding your feet to the very same fire you started. Also, I never said that we should state that Jefferson was "a nice guy" -- this is your straw man. All I am asserting is that, once again Cm', we give the readers context. I believe it's commonly referred to as the whole truth. Giving the readers just one small sliver of a greater truth can be tantamount to a lie, and just in case you're wondering, it's obvious you been operating this way all along. Watching you carry on as if we can't see this is actually sort of funny. Anyway, after Jefferson removed the overseer in question he sent him back. Do you think in the process he told him to 'cool it', given his words that whipping slaves would degrade them in their own eyes, not to mention all the other things he said regarding the treatment of slaves? And if this overseer had "beaten" James Hemings to the extent you would have us believe, I hardly think someone like Jefferson would have sent him back. Again we need to see the actual passages from sources like the Farm book and Betts' letters and any other source that articulates this affair in no uncertain terms so we don't have to sort this stuff out by the sort of pov riddled conjecture you hand us all the time. Come Sunday you'll feel better about it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, now your making sense. I am not trying to assert that Jefferson was a bad person in the article. I believe that the Wikipedia article needs to give all Presidents a fair article. Wiencek only gives snippets of Randolph's letter. I have been trying to find the letter. Maybe Wiencek's book on Jefferson gives the source for Randolph's letter. That is the best suggestion for now. My goal is to present Jefferson as he was. I am not judgeing Jefferson for slavery or even for his policies at the nailery regarding slave children and profits. Jefferson's words and actions are not always in agreement. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Burr-Hamilton Duel

The Aaron Burr - Alexander Hamilton dual needs to be mentioned in the article since Jefferson and Hamilton were political rivals. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal:
  • "On July 11, 1804 Jefferson's Vice President, Aaron Burr mortally wounded Federalist Party leader Alexander Hamilton, George Washington's former Secretary of Treasury, in a dual at Weehawken, New Jersey.[1] Hamilton had been a key factor in Burr's defeat in running for the Governor of New York.[1] Hamilton had made callous remarks regarding Burr and under an ancient code, believing his honor had been offended, Burr had challenged Hamilton to a dual. Burr was indicted for Hamilton's murder in New York and New Jersey, however, he remained President of the Senate during Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase's impeachment trial. The two Burr indictments were "quietly allowed to die".[1] President Jefferson casually acknowledged Hamilton in a letter to his daughter three days after Hamilton's funeral.[2] Hamilton had been Jefferson's primary political rival for fourteen years.[2]" Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Banner (1972), p. 34
  2. ^ a b Chernow (2004), p. 714

Typo in Slaves and Slavery section

Since the article is semi-protected I cannot fix the error myself so instead I will just highlight it here

"In 1871, Jefferson's friend, General Tadeusz Kościuszko died and left a bequest of nearly $20,000 to free slaves, including Jefferson's slaves, and purchase land and farming equipment that would enable the freed slaves to start new lives."

This should read 1817, as the source attests. Thanks. :)

 Done Thank you for pointing out the error. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes. Yopienso (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary of American Biography source

I found a "new" source on Jefferson that I believe would be good for the article. The source comes from Dictionary of American Biography (1933) edited by Dumas Malone. Although slavery is rarely mentioned, the article gives an accurate assessement concerning Thomas Jefferson and may help give a better understanding of Thomas Jefferson. The article on Jefferson begins on page 17 and ends on page 35. One interesting assessment of Jefferson is that he viewed Hamiltion and an enemy, and his antagonism towards Hamilton was held with religious fevor. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2013

I find, in reference to election of 1800:

"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson and Burr received the most electoral votes, but since neither had a majority, the election was decided in the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."

Try this instead: "He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson, along with Burr, received a majority of electoral votes, but because they were tied (the electoral voting at the time did not disinguish between President and Vice President), the election was decided in the outgoing Congress, by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."

This assumes "rallying support for his party" refers to Jefferson. Also, I have corrected "neither had a majority"; each had 73 electoral votes, which was a majority but, under the laws of that time, left undecided who would be President and who would be Vice President. So, also under the laws of that time, the election went into the outgoing House of Representatives; the 22nd Amendment now has it that if Congress gets involved in something like this, it would be the new Congress, not the old one.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: If they both got the same amount of votes, then neither would have a majority. Mdann52 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand the Electoral College (and what I am saying in the paragraph you are reading)? Each elector votes for TWO candidates, and 73 votes was a majority of the electors at that time. If you look up the 1796 presidential election, you will see John Adams getting 71 electoral votes, and there were a total of 276 electoral votes cast (that would mean 138 electors). The Constitution does provide that the winning presidential candidate must have received votes from a majority of the electors; try reading that. Maybe you want to reconsider the change, which I am amending to what is in April 16 edit request.

Citations in the "Election of 1796 and Vice Presidency" Section

Net-buoy (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)I went to check citations for fn 77 and 78 and found that in my copy of Chernow (2004) Penguin Press the cited text is at 573-574. This is confirmed as well here: http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA573#v=onepage&q&f=false Can someone confirm whether the pages from the wrong edition were cited (as the course notes both the earlier and later edition.)

Edit request on 16 April 2013

As noted in the April 2 edit request, I am amending the request to the following:

"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson, along with Burr, received votes from a majority of the electors, but Jefferson and Burr were tied (the electoral voting at the time did not disinguish between President and Vice President). Therefore, the election was decided in the outgoing Congress, by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 April 2013‎ (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor change requested in the slavery section

A very minor issue is present in the 3rd and 4th-to last paragraphs of the Slaves and Slavery section, where the last sentences are nearly identical and have slightly different inline citations.

70.110.17.199 (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Political philosophy and views: Equality

In addition to the subsection on Democracy, there should be one on views on Equality (arguably no less important, and certainly a more broad and wide-ranging area than "Banks" about which a subsection aleady exists). Found these two just now, putting below in wikiquote format for others interested (or myself, when time permits to return ehre) to incorporate into paragraph form for subsection:

  • I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property..[a] means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
  • Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on.

Harel (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC) And

The Virgina Statute for Religious Freedom was considered by Jefferson to be one of his greatest achievments. It needs a more prominent place in this article.

I would recommend putting it in at the begining, and again under his Virginia legislature accomplishments.

You could also consider adding an entire section devoted to it.

This is onee of the three things on Jeffersons tombstone, and is a seminal event in the history of secularism.

Please fix this! Or at least allow others to do so. An important part of the Jefferson legacy has been truncated brutally here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.64.161 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

add'n for 'Elec. of 1800 and first term'

Proposed addition for the article under "Election of 1800 and first term". From Edward Coles, Jefferson's secretary and neighbor, From Ordinance of 1787 1856. Hist. Society of Pennsylvania, p.29. viewed July 5, 2013. paraphrased:

As president, Jefferson, the author of the Ordinance of 1787 in Congressional committee under the Articles of Confederation, used his influence to bring Ohio, the first state under the Ordinance prohibiting slavery into the Union on April 30, 1802. The Act of the 7th Congress provided that the state have a republican government, and conform to the Ordinance of 1787 prohibiting slavery. He had been instrumental in prohibiting slavery not only to new territories, but in the new states to come (p.29).

or words to that effect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

added to 'states admitted to the union': As president, Jefferson used his influence to bring Ohio into the Union on April 30, 1802, the first state under the Northwest Ordinance prohibiting slavery. In Congress, Jefferson had authored the Ordinance of 1787 in Congressional committee under the Articles of Confederation. He was therefore instrumental in prohibiting slavery not only to new territories, but in the new states to come. [note] Coles, Edward. Ordinance of 1787, 1856. Hist. Society of Pennsylvania, p.29. viewed July 5, 2013. end-note. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson the Architect

Keep the info box simple? It's rather long to begin with. In any case my Webster's dictionary offers several meanings for 'professional'. This one is listed first: -- of, engaged in, or worthy of the high standards of a profession. -- i.e. One doesn't have to do something for money to be considered a professional at it. Adding one or two more of his noted professions isn't going to 'complicate' the infobox. Remember, this is the Jefferson bio. We can't squeeze it into the same mold as most other bio's. As a compromise I can fore go adding 'Botanist' but we should mention he was an architect, something he was and is well noted for more so than 'Botanist'. Btw, Jefferson was Minister to France for only three years, yet 'diplomat' is listed. He spent much more time involved in Architecture and Botany, so we should remove that and replace it with Architect, at least -- esp since there is a type of architecture named after Jefferson. Btw, he designed more than a dozen homes for friends and political allies. I don't think he did all this work for nothing. Again, he is a well noted architect. -- Gwillhickers 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's something else that confirms Jefferson was a professional architect:
-- Gwillhickers 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article says he was an "amateur." The other sources suggest that too. He "oversaw" the federal capitol as Secretary of State -- in that capacity he was Latrobe's client, although a client with intense interest and ideas that shape the professional's work, but still an amateur. This client aspect is similar to his other public architecture, where he employed professionals. [1]. Since what has been brought forward so far does not show him as employing architecture as a trade but as a "delight" (the original meaning of amateur), then if we adhere to this sourcing, and to the infobox precedent, we would not say he was a professional per not verified (it is not enough to guess whether he was a paid architect). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not enough to guess that he was 'not paid' as your reason to exclude this profession and your one opinion re: Latrobe still leaves dozen's of other buildings unaddressed -- not to mention Jefferson's involvement in designing the layout of Washington itself. In light of all the buildings he designed, his posthumous awards and recognition by the American Institute of Architects are you really still trying to write Jefferson off as an "amateur"? An architectural design is even named after him. Hello? The WP article presently says 'amateur' but this is clearly wrong in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and btw, that statement is not sourced. This is getting really argumentative, typically. I am confident we can find sources that nails this down. Let's let the sources decide. So far we have TJF, the AIA, awards, and landmark buildings, among many others, that says Jefferson was a professional. What do you have that cancels all of this out and says Jefferson was some sort of amateur? Because he once referred to the craft as a 'delight'? Nonsense. Many people delight in their professions. -- Gwillhickers 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I did a search for 'Jefferson the architect'. There are scores of sources that recognize and refer to Jefferson as an Architect, which is a title, not a passing and loosely used reference. -- Gwillhickers 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello? That's not the issue. The issue is "professional architect." Per WP:Burden, give us a quotes from reliable sources that directly say "Jefferson was a professional architect" or "Jefferson practiced architecture as a profession" and explains that? That's all we need and are asking for. We don't just put that in an unexplained list because we feel like it based on our own OR of a bunch of indirect source information putting it together, see WP:V; WP:NPOV; WP:OR; and WP:List. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes Hello. It has been clearly pointed out that Jefferson was a professional Architect. And we don't necessarily have to find a statement that says "professional architect". Do you have any sources that says Jefferson was a "professional diplomat"? "Professional SOS"? "Professional President"? "Professional lawyer"? Like 'Architect' these are all titles and it's understood they are professionals. You don't refer to some one as an architect unless that person is a professional in the field. Are you also assuming that org's like the AIA gives out awards to amateurs? This is getting tacky. We have plenty of evidence and sources to say Jefferson was an architect in the info box. -- Gwillhickers 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Does not satisfy WP:Burden . As everyone here has already acknowledged that Jefferson was a gifted amateur architect, providing further evidence that he was a gifted architect does not cut it. For example, the AIA would be perfectly within its rights to give out an award in Jefferson's name, but the issue is whether they say he was a "professional" architect. Please provide cites and quotes that says that, from any reliable source. If you are disputing whether Minister to France makes him a professional diplomat we can discuss that elsewhere but as of now the consensus is to remove diplomat. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a consensus to remove diplomat? -- Gwillhickers 20:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't need a source that says Jefferson was a "professional" Architect any more than we need one for Diplomat or Lawyer, not when there is overwhelming evidence, and sources, that identifies him as an Architect with plenty of history and content to back it up. You're simply trying to impose personal opinion on others that is not used for the rest of this article, and 1000s of others. As with titles like 'lawyer' and 'doctor' the idea of 'professional' is understood. You've been asserting a POV not consistent with common conventions used for titles and with any of the sources. Btw, you're the only one pushing the idea of "professional". When Schulz chimed in he apparently was under the notion that Jefferson had not designed so many buildings for so many people, and for the city of Washington DC. Yopensio simply wants to include "main professions". Thus far he has not insisted for a source that spells out "professional" any more than he has for insisting for a source that says "professional" lawyer or diplomat. And if that's the standard we're going to use then we should remove any profession that's not backed up with a source that says "professional lawyer", etc. No double standards please. -- Gwillhickers 20:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd really prefer it if you did not speculate on my state of knowledge. As you might remember, I've read a Jefferson biography, or two. As Alan has convincingly pointed out above, Jefferson dabbled in architecture (and with some quite impressive results), but it was not his profession. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : My speculation was in response to your claim that you could not go to Jefferson and ask him for a quote on a plan for a barn. since this claim is completely inconsistent with all the designs he made for dozens of friends and political allies, the Virginia State Capitol, the layout of Washington, etc. Btw, "Dabbled in architecture" is a gross understatement -- almost a complete distortion. -- Gwillhickers 23:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Gwill: You are simply trying to impose your opinion that he was an architect by profession, but you have not convinced, because you have not produced sourced evidence that he did it for a living. Everyone above has recognized that "profession" means that we list the person's livlihood. Everyone agrees that he was a lawyer and a planter and a politician, so no one is challenging those. Architect has been challenged by multiple editors because of the lack of evidence presented that he practiced it as a trade -- a profession -- for a living -- rather then as the polymath he was. When any representation in the article is challenged, it is determined by WP:Burden (and then NPOV issues can be examined). So, either provide the specific evidence requested or not, but until you do, it does not appear you will get consensus for this manner of representation that you desire. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We can say that 'Architecture' was not his profession as much as "politician, diplomat, planter, lawyer", but that's it. No worries. You have consensus on your side so far, such that it is (i.e. 3-1) but you haven't carried the debate, at all. All you've done is ask for a source that says "professional" while ignoring this standard for other professions, ignored the many sources that refer to Jefferson as an architect, ignored the recognition and award the AIA gave him, ignored the dozens of buildings, some of them national landmarks, he designed, while ignoring that a complete style of architectural design is named after Jefferson. Fortunately for you consensus overrides rational thought, even when the sources back it up. Nice. Hopefully some one else will weigh in and be fair to the debate. -- Gwillhickers 23:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson the Architect2

Gwill, look at it this way: My mom was a really good cook. She cooked at least two meals a day (and often four) for decades. She cooked magnificently for company and served on china. She cooked kindly for sick neighbors. She cooked spaghetti suppers to raise money for her church. Yet cooking was never her profession; teaching was. Yopienso (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, the point is simple enough but hasn't been substantiated, once again, as concerns Jefferson. There is a big difference between being a good cook and a chef. Jefferson was clearly a 'chef'. Did your Mom write cook books? Was she given awards by prestigious org's in the field? Was a style of cooking named after her? Is she famous for a number of recipes? This is the distinction that keeps getting ignored here. -- Gwillhickers 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed she did not. So look at it this way, then: Until, well I don't remember when--the 1980s?--all Olympic athletes were amateurs. They were among the very best athletes in the world, won prizes, got commercial endorsements, etc., but were not professionals. Yopienso (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Professional, in terms of sports, means belonging to a national team of some sort, so this analogy doesn't exactly nail the point, as Jefferson worked for many individuals and Washington DC. Still haven't found a source that says he "was paid" but then try finding one that says this verbatim -- for any of his professions. If there was an Other pursuits category in the info box I would be fine listing 'Architect' there, but there isn't, so because of the insistence, i.e.imposing a double standard, that we find such a verbatim sourcing I'm still looking. There's all kinds of sources that says Jefferson worked here and there -- none, so far, says he "was paid", yet none say he worked for free either. I think we are belaboring the term professional because of the heat of the argument, as (almost) anyone can deduct, Jefferson was no amateur at the trade. Monticello, the UVA and Virginia State capitol buildings are proof of that. All renown and acclaimed national landmarks, master pieces. In fact Virginia's capitol building is considered the best example of American architecture in the US by the AIA. Funny how some can call a master architect an "amateur" simply on the basis that a source hasn't been found that says he was paid. -- Gwillhickers 20:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


No, Gwill. By not putting it on the list in the infobox we are not saying anything. But before supporting listing architecture as his profession, I would want sources that directly say it was his trade, his livelihood, his profession (i.e., that he made money doing it.) Did he do it only for love (amateur in its original sense) and/or did he do it for pecuniary remuneration. The sources do not directly say the later, so like the profession of scientist, or the profession of philosopher, even though the sources discussed above call him scientist and philosopher, I am fine with not listing this as profession, also. Many people have an award named after them, it does not make them a professional anything. A few people have a style named after them, it does not make them a professional anything. Jefferson did many things for the love of it and as the detailed account I noted above at [2] he employed others as professionals to make it happen. I do not think my position is irrational (my decision has reason), nor do I think I will win anything, so no worries. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson at times worked with other professionals. Professionals often work with other professionals. It is rare that a professional will seek the consul or advice of an amateur for advice in architectural design. Oh, they might ask an amateur 'which is the best color', but that's about it. So here too, you've offered nothing that would cancel out the probability that Jefferson was professional. Jefferson indeed has an award named after him by the AIA, but he was also posthumously given an award by them. The award is only given to accomplished and notable architects. This escapes you? Again, is there a source that says Jefferson was paid to be a lawyer? No, but any fifth grader knows he was. Is there one that says he was a "professional" diplomat? No, but anyone with an IQ bigger than their belt size knows he was, otherwise he wouldn't have been sent to France. Numerous RSs refer to Jefferson as an Architect. I've addressed these things already ASW. All you have is the academic argument that a source that says he was a "professional" or he was paid a architect has yet to surface. In light of all this evidence and history that is a weak argument, but as I've said, you can get away with it because you have a couple people who happen to go along with you. -- Gwillhickers 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Re your source. It says -- the commonwealth's Directors of Public Buildings requested a design from Jefferson while he was serving as minister to France, and that Jefferson entrusted his designs to Clérisseau, an internationally celebrated draftsman. The commonwealth's Directors sought Jefferson, while he was in France no less, not Clérisseau. Then your source also says Clérisseau persuaded Jefferson to make a third design. Clérisseau was a draftsman, and himself asked Jefferson for yet another design. So what you've done is actually strengthen the idea that Jefferson was a professional Architect who was sought out by Directors of Public Buildings and other professionals. ASW, you need to go beyond the realm of 'academic' and start giving some thought to the actual history involved, rather than ignoring or spinning it. -- Gwillhickers 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. Clients often have a big say in architecture. And again, I am not looking for probabilities. I don't think probabilities are enough for this. As I have observed, Jefferson has been referred to in RS as many wonderful things (and some not so wonderful). I am the first in the discussion above -- after all -- to have referred to him as architect because I was aware of this, it does not come as a revelation. The issue has always been "profession" not architect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course clients have a say. I've already acknowledged a similar idea above. They can say what color, how many windows, doors, rooms, etc. And as professions go, if we can list 'Diplomat' and 'Lawyer', two pursuits that were short lived, then we certainly can say 'Architect', a practice he pursued almost his entire adult life. Don't understand how you differentiate between them. No sources so far specifically says he "was a professional" or that he "was paid", for any of his professions, yet you're insisting that we must have them here, even when everything has been pointed out to you. Jefferson had several professions and often practiced more than one at many different points in his life. Even while in France he was called upon as an Architect. Given his many clients we can easily assume he was paid at different times. This should all be easy math, but you're acting as if someone has handed you everything in hieroglyphics. Even so, I'll search for a source whose author happened to feel the need to mention Jefferson was paid for much of his work. -- Gwillhickers 19:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comic relief This is Sunday afternoon when maybe we're more relaxed and less professional about WP. Here's a very old column (hideous with typos, for some reason) from The New Yorker about somebody's various professions. Yopienso (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2013

Hello,

DNA evidence proved that the claim that Thomas Woodson (Sally Hemings first child) was fathered by Thomas Jefferson (and in fact any Jefferson at all) is untrue. Absolute negative paternity was established in the case of the first child. This should be altered accordingly and I suggest the following so that the historical context can remain intact. It's also very unlikely that they had a sexual relationship at that time since sally had no other children at all for five years after returning. I present the evidence after the suggested edit that follows.

From the Wiki Article - Jefferson Hemings Controversy

"The DNA study showed conclusively that there was no match between the Woodson descendants and the Jefferson male line. Four of the five Woodson descendants had a common haplogroup suggesting a common ancestor of Thomas Woodson; it is typical of European origin."

The Woodson line is that of Sally Hemings first child. This positively establishes negative paternity in the case of the first child.

According to Sally's son Madison Hemings, Sally and Jefferson began a sexual relationship in Paris and she became pregnant and agreed to return to the United States as his concubine after he promised to free her children when they came of age, [1] however other scholars note that, Madison made this claim many years later in 1873 at the age of sixty eight, during a politically motivated interview arranged by the Pike County Republican newspaper and that Sally herself produced no known historical documents or statements regarding this or any other issue. DNA evidence has since proved negative on any Jefferson paternity in the case of the first child and only possible paternity in the case of her sixth child Eston.[2][3]

Here is part of an article from the pbs website on the subject. This is to show that the Woodson line of the first child es excluded from paternity in the case of Thomas Jefferson and that there is only a suggestion of possible paternity in the case of Sally Hemings sixth child Eston.

"Misleading Headline - "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child." On 5 November 1998 the journal Nature placed an inaccurate and misleading headline based on this study which read, "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child". Most of the mass media and many others assumed the headline to be correct. At the time Daniel P. Jordan, Ph.D. and President of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) stated that "Dr. Foster's DNA evidence indicates a sexual relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings." Subsequently Mr. Jordan admitted that "after the initial rush to conclusions came another round of articles explaining that the study's results were less conclusive than had earlier been reported." Dr. Foster also later admitted that "it is true that men of Randolph Jefferson's family could have fathered Sally Hemings' later children. The title assigned to our study was misleading in that it represented only the simplest explanation of our molecular findings: namely, that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was likely to have been the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson. We know from the historical and the DNA data that Thomas Jefferson can neither be definitely excluded nor solely implicated in the paternity of illegitimate children with his slave Sally Hemings."

Eugene Foster, the scientist who led the DNA study in question said the following:

"

New Woodson DNA Tests. DNA tests performed on 1 Eston line came up positive, but tests performed originally on 5 Woodson lines in November 1998 came up negative, as did a recent DNA test on a 6th line performed in March 2000. These results should demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of Tom Woodson. The Woodson DNA tests are important because if Tom Woodson is Sally Heming's Paris-conceived son and could be shown to have Jefferson DNA, it would then be almost certain that Thomas Jefferson was his father, since Thomas was the only Jefferson in Paris at the time who could have impregnated Sally. Last week the Thomas C. Woodson Family Association declined to attend The Monticello Association's Annual Business Meeting to be held on Sunday, May 7. The Woodson Family Association's President, Robert Golden, stated that the care of the Jefferson family cemetery and possible burial there "is not of interest to the Woodson Family Association itself but might be of interest only to specific individuals within the Woodson family."

Here is part of an article at scienceclarified.com on the Woodson paternity.

Interpreting the DNA Testing Results

"The wide spectrum of reactions to the DNA evidence of Jefferson paternity can be seen as an important symbol of the tense history of racism in American society. Reports that the Y chromosome study proved that Thomas Jefferson definitely was the father of Eston Hemings failed to explain the limitations of the study. The study proved that someone with the rare and distinctive Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Sally Hemings' youngest child, and the data eliminated the "usual suspects," i.e., the Carrs. The tests found no match, however, between the Jefferson Y chromosome and that of Thomas Woodson's descendants, who continue to believe that they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Although no other Jeffersons had previously been implicated as the fathers of Sally's children, after the DNA tests were published, genealogists noted that at least 25 adult male Jeffersons, including eight who lived within 20 miles of Monticello, could have fathered Eston Hemings."

I personally would note that the Jefferson male chromosone could certainly have come from a black man who was fathered by some other Jefferson or Thomas Jefferson himself and I'm not sure why this hasn't been considered. Why is it only possible that Sally Hemings had children by a white man when she lived among black men? Is this a suggestion that Sally Hemings was racist as she refused to have children by a black man, instead preferring to wait around until the right white man showed up? Again note that there were five years between the time Jefferson and Sally returned from Paris and that she had her next child. Does this really reflect the red hot discretion painted by "many historians"?

I additionally find that even the monticello.org report loses footing as they failed to even CONSIDER the (very rare) minority report in their findings before publishing supporting final conclusions.

In any event, it has been proven conclusively that Thomas Jefferson, and indeed no Jefferson at all, was the father of Sally Hemings first child, thus disproving Madison Hemings claim that Sally became pregnant due to a sexual relationship with Thomas Jefferson that begin in Paris.

While the historical context of the claim should remain in place, the article should be appended to reflect the scientific evidence as well. If this is not reflected in an article that presents itself as fact then it becomes merely sprurious and cannot be regarded as informational or protected.

Thank you,

Steven Stout stevestout@gmail.com

Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Has-DNA-testing-proved-that-ThomasJefferson-fathered-at-least-one-child-with-one-of-his-slaves-Sally-Hemings.html#ixzz2d55ugtdc


71.219.149.65 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

  • See [3] about the lack of evidence that Thomas C. Woodson was Sally Hemings' son, or even connected with Monticello. Sally's documented children who reached adulthood were Eston, Harriet, Madison, and Beverly (all named "Hemings"). There is also reference to a child of hers named "Tom" (who may have died in infancy) but no contemporary evidence that Tom was Thomas C. Woodson. And Woodson's documented biography, would make it unlikely that Thomas C. Woodson was young enough to be that "Tom." There is also evidence of one other child born to Sally (but who did not live to adulthood.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Architect missing in infobox

It seems this is far from being resolved on an intellectual level. Since professions like diplomat were short lived, and since there's no source that says he "was paid" for that effort either, yet it's listed in the infobox, then we should also include Architect, because Jefferson spent most of his adult life at one point and another pursuing Architecture and is quite noted for it. It can even be argued that after he was President he devoted much more time to architecture than he did with politics. Jefferson was working for the government when he was a diplomat, and he was working for the government when he designed Washington and the capital house building in Virginia which is considered by the AIA to be the best example of early American architecture in the country. I think it's safe to say he was a master architect as this seems to be evident in the landmark masterpieces he designed and in his many drawings, and esp since he is recognized as an accomplished Architect by the AIA and is roundly referred to as such by historians. As consensus goes, we have three oppose and two support. We need to bring in other opinions. Maintaining that a source hasn't been found that says he "was paid" by itself is a poor argument, esp since they don't say this verbatim for the other listed professions. i.e. No double standard. Diplomat and Lawyer are there. So should Architect be. In fact, given Monticello, UVA, Capital bldg in Virginia, etc, etc, Jefferson is much more famous as an Architect than he is for being a diplomat. He devoted much more of his life to it than he did being a diplomat. -- Gwillhickers 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

All the reasons? -- Gwillhickers 19:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
He acted as an Architect on a public level when he designed Washington and the capitol building in Virginia. Planter is also listed in the info box, and that was not a public pursuit. Architecture was not just some 'subject' he was interested in. It was also one of his "private duties", as was planter. Again, he practiced it for years, more so than diplomat and lawyer, listed. -- Gwillhickers 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
"Planter" was his private vocation, i.e., his means of earning a living (or at least defraying his expenses) other than politics, and is therefore relevant. TFD (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect when you claim Jefferson never "hung up a shingle" it tells us you've overlooked much. As was pointed out above, he worked as an architect in many cases that took him far and above the idea that Architecture was one of his "hobbies". Once again, he designed Monticello, the UVA building, the Virginia State capitol, played a fundamental role in designing Washington's streets, parks, etc. We are trying to gather informed opinions here. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No. He was indeed a skilled architect, but the infobox should list his profession as planter, lawyer, politician.
Rationale:
Planter--he was born into the planter economy, inherited a plantation, and lived from its proceeds.
Lawyer--he was trained in law, was admitted to the Virginia bar, and practiced law.
Politician--he is most widely known as the third POTUS, besides having served in numerous lesser capacities, both elective and appointive.
His other many accomplishments were not his professions, per se. Yopienso (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again you're ignoring that Jefferson practiced architecture, extensively, more than he did two of his other professions and have not given us anything that confirms that architecture was not one of his professions. He is recognized as and is famous for being an architect and is roundly referred to as such by numerous reliable sources. Well, I asked for a vote and I got it, but if this was being decided on the weight and validity of ideas and what reliable sources say it would be a different matter entirely. Much has been ignored here. -- Gwillhickers 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll very much sign on to the very last sentence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Schulz, at least you acknowledged, by saying 'ok' to removing diplomat, that there are inconsistencies. I think however 'Diplomat' should be left in the infobox. It was one of Jefferson's professions. i.e. A short lived profession, but an important one. -- Gwillhickers 20:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus seems final for the idea that 'Architect was not TJ's profession', while all the weight of this argument has rested on the idea that Jefferson didn't cut a steady paycheck from the practice as he did when he was a diplomat and lawyer, that somehow being an Architect didn't contribute to his livelihood, ever. Given the many and diverse architectural involvements he was involved with I think most would assume that Jefferson had some sort of financial arrangement in place much of the time. IMO this would be likely, as Jefferson was money minded and was always finding ways to spend it. Yet we know we can't assume he made any money, or didn't make any, so we remain at an impasse on that note. But weight should still be given to the idea that at any given time, Jefferson was practicing more than just one profession. He was a planter, lawyer, diplomat, SOS, President and businessman. Yet among all these pursuits, architecture remains the one 'profession' he retained and practiced throughout his adult life, unlike any of the others. He even gave up planting to a great degree in later years to get into other pursuits, like the nailry and forge. It would be an uphill battle, but the argument could be made that architecture was his main profession when we look at the man's entire life, but again, some would measure and decide that in terms of how much money be made. And in that event we would have to consider how much money he made as an architect. If a source turns up that reveals Jefferson made notable amounts of money from time to time then we're all set to go ahead and list 'Architect' as one of his professions, because that has been the rational we've established here, and now it's anchored in consensus. -- Gwillhickers 01:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but repeating an argument ad nauseam does not give it more weight. Your interpretation of the discussion is plain wrong, and hence your conclusion is plain wrong. Let me try it this way. Jefferson bought and sold slaves most of his life. He even made some money from it. Shall we put "slave trader" up as his profession? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Aside from holding one's feet to their own fire I introduced several new perspectives here as well in terms of practicing more than one profession his entire life. And yes, Jefferson was a slave trader and made money through slaves as a planter, so we can list that too if you feel 'Planter' is not definitive enough. If it can be shown that Jefferson made money as an architect, per the 'ad nauseam' and narrow argument I was handed, while everything else was repeatedly ignored, then we get to list 'Architect' as a profession. I'm done here. Chances are I won't find a source that covers the financial involvements associated with Jefferson's architectural pursuits. If it turns out that a RS reveals that he never made money at the practice I'll be the first to admit it. I've never had any problem acknowledging failed arguments when they're proven to be wrong or without weight. -- Gwillhickers 13:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Gwillhickers, for your acquiescence. Please understand no one is disparaging TJ in any way, but looking to make the article with its infobox as professional as a crowd-sourced page can be.
My point of view is the same as this article's at the Miller Center, edited by Peter Onuf. Notice that in the "Facts at a Glance" section at the very top, it is even more sparing in summarizing TJ's professions: Career: Lawyer, Planter. The full article describes his interest in architecture along the same lines as the consensus here: "He also pursued his renaissance interests in architecture, astronomy, botany, animal husbandry, mechanical engineering, gardening, natural history, classical languages, and book collecting."
(The Miller Center is part of the University of Virginia, and Peter Onuf is a professor emeritus of UV. They would not belittle TJ.) Yopienso (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your considerations Yopienso. There were no issues with anyone trying to slight Jefferson here. My only issue is that Jefferson's role as an architect was grossly understated in this debate by most, given his long and established legacy with the practice. Far too much weight was put on one solitary argument used to keep this subject out of the infobox. i.e.'being paid'. 'Paid' or 'not paid' seems to pale in significance given his life long accomplishments and recognition. The source you linked to just mentions architecture, indeed, but it's starkly different from these accounts. 1, 2, 3. In particular, W. S. Randall's Thomas Jefferson: A Life, 1994, pp.428-429 gives us an excellent account of just how involved with architecture Jefferson was when it came to designing the capitol, et al. This account says Jefferson was commissioned by the capitol directors to find an assistant and take on the job. He worked with Clérisseau, an internationally celebrated draftsman to whom he gave his many drawings and designs. Btw, along with Monticello, the Virginia State Capitol and the UVA building, Jefferson also designed the capitol building for Washington, the president's house and the governor's residences at Williamsburg and Richmond.
If architecture is not considered one of Jefferson's professions, then what would you refer to it as? -- Gwillhickers 21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Like the sources you provided, I would call architecture one of TJ's hobbies and himself an amateur.
p. 10--"Monticello became one of the chief joys of his life, blending hobby and obsession."
p. 109--Rebuilding Monticello was "his chief hobby"
p. 109 of a book cited by Bernstein, Mr. Jefferson, Architect, by Guinness and Sadler--"The agent or overseer at Monticello, Captain Bacon, recalled that Jefferson, a professional lawyer if an amateur architect, wrote the deed for the purchase of the land himself and lost no time in laying out the ground."
"Although Jefferson must be regarded as an amateur, that is not to disparage him as a dabbler." The snippet view does not show the rest of the thought about the 18th-century definition of amateur.

Insert : Howard and Straus make reference to Kimball's book Thomas Jefferson, Architect, a book devoted to Jefferson's architectural pursuits. I saw a similar source that referred to Jefferson as an Amateur only in reference to the fact that he was self taught, not in reference to Jefferson's capability, so it would indeed be interesting to see what context these authors make the statement. -- Gwillhickers 04:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Randall, on p. 159, records that, trying to finish his house just before his marriage, TJ wrote "in a note of desperation, 'procure me an architect . . . as soon as you can.'" Even though he was a good architect, he needed a professional to help him, as you noted wrt the Virginia State Capitol. Yopienso (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Btw, I don't understand what you meant with this: "Jefferson also designed the capitol building for Washington, the president's house and the governor's residences at Williamsburg and Richmond." Yopienso (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This wording might be misleading. Jefferson studied Palladio and was influenced by him, but he did not study under Palladio (who died when Francis Drake completed his circumnavigation, in the time of Elizabeth I, about 160 years before Jefferson was born). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz. There is nothing misleading about my above statement. Jefferson studied Palladio. Therefore he was a student of Palladio, even though Palladio was no longer alive. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Profession or hobby?

Berstein, on page xiv, (among other pages i.e.51, 109, etc) refers to Jefferson as a "talented architect" and a "devoted amateur scientist". The term 'hobby' is only made in reference to Monticello, and given the complexity of the architecture involved the (isolated) phrase "chief hobby" is obviously a figure of speech, something he loved to do. It certainly doesn't describe Jefferson's overall efforts as an Architect, so let's not take this one comment and try to cover Jefferon's entire architectural career with it. The Bacon quote says "...if an amateur architect". As concerns the capitol in Washington, the president's and governor's houses, etc ... What's not to understand? He designed those national landmarks also. Let's not snipe at isolated phrases. Look at the bigger picture. On top of his landmark accomplishments Jefferson was widely recognized as an Architect. Let's not forget he is referred to as such by numerous RS's and the AIA, which gave him a posthumous award for his efforts. Only notable and outstanding architects get this award. His numerous professional drawings and written accounts fill volumes, housed by Massachusetts Historical Society. This is what you're referring to as a "hobby".
Jefferson loved everything he did, from planting to politics. Was his term in office a "hobby" too? We can refer to Jefferson's involvement as an Architect with whatever suits our fancy, but it doesn't change the fact that he practiced architecture on a professional level extensively and that it was a trade he was involved with throughout his adult life, unlike any of his other professions. You've offered nothing that says Jefferson's involvement with architecture was a "hobby" other than comments made in reference to his love for the trade, or to his wife. Otoh, I've offered, time and again, numerous accounts and examples that say he was indeed a professional, so much so, a style of architecture is named after him. Architect should be listed right along side Politician and Planter.-- Gwillhickers 04:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


Re: Randal, p.159: "procure me an architect". At this time, much earlier in his life when Martha was alive, Jefferson was fully involved with politics and wanted his house completed asap for her sake. As you know, he later went on to further design and finish the house by himself. -- Gwillhickers 04:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson was also a landscape architect. Here's yet another entire book devoted to Jefferson's architectural pursuits.
Thomas Jefferson, Landscape Architect -- Gwillhickers 05:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody says that Jefferson wasn't an architect. But it was not his profession. Jefferson also was a mammal, but that is not his species. As Yop (and his sources, and others previously, including me) has said: architecture was (one of) Jefferson's hobbies. That does not mean he was bad at it. Also note that we are talking 18th century America here. People and professions were less specialised. Every farmer would use his axe to cut down trees. That did not make them professional lumberjacks. Nearly every farmer (and planter) would go out hunting. That did not make them professional hunters. Very many women would bake their own bread, but they were not professional bakers. Most people outside the few cities would build their own homes and furniture (often even helping each other around the community), but they were not professional carpenters. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Schulz! These analogies are pitiful. Yes, a farmer isn't called a lumberjack because he cleared a few trees. But we can call Jefferson an architect because he studied the practice thoroughly, practiced it extensively, advanced it to the point where a type of architecture is named after him, and ONCE AGAIN, was recognized as and was given a prestigious award for BEING an architect, paid or not paid. You complain that I repeat myself. What do you expect when you continue to ignore all of these things, and now, with this analogy?? -- Gwillhickers 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Tudor architecture, Georgian architecture, Victorian architecture, Edwardian architecture. What I and others try to point out is that not matter how accomplished Jefferson was as an architect, it was not one of his professions. You keep not hearing it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that he practiced it extensively for so many years makes it his profession. Again, he devoted much more time to this than some of his other professions. You are belaboring the term on such shallow grounds. e.g. 'Not paid', which remains an assumption, btw. -- Gwillhickers 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I urge you to search for the word "amateur" in this book and read carefully every passage where it appears, also reading the surrounding text. Author Hugh Howard does a great job of describing the "gentlemen amateurs," a category which included TJ, and the development of the architectural profession in the U.S. Follow the career that grew out of Chas. Bulfinch's hobby, and the non-career of William Thornton, who designed the Capitol. Two short quotes:

p. 46: "Like Jefferson, Burlington was an amateur smitten with buildings. With his wealth and influence, he became both a a patron and a designer in his own right, just as Jefferson would do in the years after his French sojourn."
p. 86: "Jefferson and Carshore were the gentlemen amateurs; Diamond and Small were the builders." The author immediately contrasts the professional Hoban, who designed the White House.

The most important thing I want to say is that I think the article does TJ justice wrt his architectural accomplishments. (And then there's a whole article on Jeffersonian architecture.) This is much ado over one word in the infobox. I'm satisfied with omitting architecture from the infobox and covering it appropriately in the article because the infobox gives highlights, not the whole story. Yopienso (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A few authors have referred to Jefferson as an "amateur" because he was self taught, so we must look at the man's accomplishments and the capacity and length of time at which he practiced. When all the (many) buildings he designed are also taken into consideration (national landmarks, complex masterpieces) and the fact he is recognized as a top notch architect by many, including the AIA, and when we consider (not ignore) the years of study and research he committed to this field along with the caliber of his drawings and notes and memoirs, this "amateur" turns out to be in a class almost by himself whose performance and accomplishments exceeded most of the 'professionals' in his day. As I said, you can call him an 'amateur' if you like, this doesn't change the fact that he practiced architecture for may years in a professional capacity.
Jefferson could have gone to a school, somewhere, and learned architecture in a couple of years or so and hence would 'officially' be considered a professional by some. Do you think a man of Jefferson's intelligence 'caught on' after five years of study? Ten? Twenty? You are belaboring the term professional, and again, on a very shallow basis considering the man's depth of knowledge, years of practice and his many landmark accomplishments. Jefferson put more time and research into architecture and accomplished much more in practice than many so called professionals of his day, and today. Did Jefferson go to school and get a degree in 'diplomacy' or 'political science'? Was he an 'amateur' diplomat while in France? To answer that question intelligently we must look at the entire picture. -- Gwillhickers 16:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As you note, there are scholars who call him "amateur," that is enough under NPOV to not put "Profession: Architect" without context in the infobox (because the infobox does not allow for context). (Also, FYI, the AIA has named an award after him, that does not even require its recipient to be a professional architect.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you name just one person that was not a professional architect that received an AIA award? Whatever the case, the fact that Jefferon did get such an award lends credence to the idea that he was a professional (much) more so than it doesn't. -- Gwillhickers 11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Ginnie Cooper, Robert Peck, are some people who not professional architects that have received the AIA Jefferson award. (Thomas Jefferson never received this award - it did not exist). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert : The AIA award is given out for three different categories. Cooper won the award in the third Category, because she furthered the public’s awareness. Category one is for the significant contribution to the quality of public architecture and who have established a portfolio of accomplishment to that end are eligible to be nominated. The AIA also posthumously granted him its Gold Medal for "a lifetime of distinguished achievement and significant contributions to architecture and the human environment." Again, the award lends itself to the idea of professional architecture, so let's not belabor this idea also. It is just among all the other evidence that shows Jefferson practiced architecture on a professional level. 'Practice' is the definitive idea here. -- Gwillhickers 19:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, Gwillhickers, your understanding of "amateur" is anachronistic in this discussion. The term does not necessarily carry the connotation of self-taught, or, despite the same root, "amateurish" (as in "bad", "incompetent"). Especially in Jefferson's time, it described someone who did a thing "for the love of it" (as opposed to make a living from it - "professionally"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert : (edit conflict) Your understanding seems a bit narrow. Jefferson loved virtually everything he did. Having a love for a particular practice, by itself, doesn't make one an "amateur". There are other considerations that for some reason you have yet to articulate. All the evidence, which is sort of overwhelming, more than confirms he practiced architecture in a professional capacity. -- Gwillhickers 11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The notion that a "profession": is a paid occupation is a late 19th century innovation and does not fit men like Jefferson or Franklin. (there were only a handful of paid full-time professions in their day, such as lawyer or doctor or minister) They "professed" a very high level of advanced skill. Rjensen (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting then that the term professional has been belabored here and that we should list Architect in the infobox? -- Gwillhickers 11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
yes I think the discussion above is locked into 21st century terms--back in TJ's day the professions were law, divinity & medicine (and sometimes military)-- being a "planter" or merchant or banker would not be called a "profession" in 1800. I recommend using "profession" in the sense of "widely acknowledged as an expert" and skip the $$ nexus. Rjensen (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That argument that would limit "Profession: X" to those three or four professions, and that is it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
See OED's definitions of "profession." Entry II7a describes profession in the sense to which Rjensen refers; but II7b better fits with how "profession" is usually meant in Wikipedia infoboxes, and OED documents that use of the term back to well before the 19th century. Dezastru (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Even in Jefferson's day, one might have asked, "Have you met Mr. Hoban, the architect?" "Have you met Mr. Robert Adam, the architect?" Would anyone have said, "Have you met Mr. Jefferson, the architect?" Very unlikely.
Also, we write Wikipedia for 21st-century readers, not for 18th-century readers. The terms we use in the infobox are defined in the way that 21st-century readers will readily understand them. Dezastru (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
We would not address Jefferson as an Architect only because he was a US President. Had he not been a politician he would have been roundly referred to as an architect, easily, given all his landmark accomplishments and many years committed to the study and practice of this profession. -- Gwillhickers 19:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Had he not been a politician? But that's just the point. He was a politician. And a planter. He was mainly known as and earned a living as a planter and politician. Not as an architect. Dezastru (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
He was mainly known as a politician i.e.The President. Very true. This doesn't cancel out the fact that he was an accomplished architect who practiced this profession more than any other, save politician, maybe. He is more known as an architect than he is a lawyer and diplomat, both of which are listed in the info box. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers 04:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quotes, etc

There are and have been a number of quotes, and other statements taken from primary sources, often found in secondary sources, that exist on the page. Please do not remove them. They are allowed if there's no OR or new position being advanced. If you feel there are issues, please discuss. -- Gwillhickers 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Where a secondary source has established the context and significance of a quote it is often helpful to include it. Direct quotes are often the best way to report what someone meant and they make the article more interesting. But picking unexplained quotes and inserting them is clearly wrong. TFD (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The edit in question is not a quote (which doesn't matter -- there are several in the article already), is a simple statement of fact, doesn't involve OR, advances no new position or "novel interpretations" and ties in with the paragraph. This is really simple stuff and has been explained to you several times now so I'm beginning to think your involvement here is getting a little personal. -- Gwillhickers 18:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I asked for more input at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Info box

(edit conflict) Yopienso, I have no problem with your latest edit, removing Diplomat from the info box, because it was a short lived practice and is covered by politician, imo. But let me just say that when an issue is still being disputed it isn't the best time to "be bold", because someone can always come along and 'be bold' and revert it. Frankly, I don't think that's one of Wikipedia's wisest ideas. It can be used to cancel itself out by someone else and sort of goes against the idea of 'talk page'. Having said that, your edit was not reckless, as two other editors including myself expressed a willingness to remove it.

I appreciate your opinion. Mine is that the talk page was hopelessly bogged down and action was necessary. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not hopeless when you consider everything in the balance. Hopeless implies we're all rigid and irrational and never reevaluate matters. -- Gwillhickers 18:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In any case, consensus is now pretty split over including Architect with a small lead wanting to keep it out of the info box, so it seems we should decide the matter on the strength and validity of ideas and the amount of evidence there is to consider, which is considerable. If we were to ask people what are the two professions Jefferson is most famous for, Architect would be among them. Are there any books entitled 'Jefferson the Planter' in so many words? I don't think so. There are several for Architect, and understandably so. After all he studied and practiced architecture extensively much longer than he did law. Below is a list of items that support and don't support. Feel free to add others items, keeping it brief, with explanations, comments below. -- Gwillhickers 17:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideas that support Architect:

  • Studied it extensively
  • Practiced it extensively i.e. Designed several national landmarks, etc, etc
  • Widely recognized as an accomplished architect by RS's, awarded AIA's gold medal
  • Books devoted to this practice
  • Type of Architecture name after him
  • Practiced it more than any other profession, save maybe politician
  • Commissioned by Washington to design streets and landscape

Ideas that don't support:

  • Assumption he wasn't paid.


Comments to above bulleted items

This is not about one item in the info box. Reexamining this will determine how much we should devote to Architect in the article. All things considered, we should have a subsection for architect, (following Lawyer and House of Burgesses) whether we call it a "profession" or not. -- Gwillhickers 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest changing the section "Monticello" to "Monticello and architecture". Since there is already a link to a separate article on Jeffersonian architecture, it would seem best to be very concise in that section of this article. I suggest adding some brief details from the Monticello.org page and including the AIA Jefferson award and the gold medal they posthumously awarded him. You may wish to add to the separate article. Yopienso (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, Monticello should have its own section because it was more than just a building. There is a lifetime of Jefferson history associated with it, so I would keep the sections separate. Btw, even thought Monticello has its own page, imo it is still not covered adequately on the Jefferson page. -- Gwillhickers 19:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Note, I have invited Cmguy777, The VirginiaHistorian and Brad101 to the discussion as they have a history of involvement with the page and are familiar with Jefferson history. This is not to say others can't weigh in, but it seems the more informed opinion, the better. Any others? -- Gwillhickers 19:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
We have been around this over and over again. I disagree with your several of your bullets and I strongly object to your characterisation that payment is the lynchpin. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
None of the bulleted ideas have been refuted. And if 'payment' is not the main thrust, what is? This has never been articulated. All that we have is opposing conjecture about "profession". Award means nothing, etc. -- Gwillhickers 19:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain." Jefferson never considered architecture a business. What architectural work he did (and it's less than you seem to assume), he did do it without thought of direct compensation - he did it for his own gratification, and as a service to the community. Those are not bad motivations, but they are not professional. Also, there was no significant period in his life in which architecture was his main occupation. It was always something he did beside his main professions - as a hobby, or a distraction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert : I disagree with WP's definition, and btw that article should be edited accordingly. There are many 'professions' that don't necessarily involve "specialized educational training", like carpenter, writer, etc. But since you brought this up Jefferson taught himself, and did so in a manner that he exceeded many others in the field. Again, all you are doing is belaboring the word and are ignoring everything else. Also: When you try to write off Jefferson's architectural pursuits as a "hobby or a distraction" it tells us you're ignorant of Jefferson's life, and we know that is not the case, so it would seem you need to put personal issues out of your mind and address the issue objectively. -- Gwillhickers 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You keep suggesting that not being a professional is somehow "less" than being a professional. This is not a value or skill ranking, these are simply different things. And of course carpenters have specialised educational training. What do you think apprenticeship and journeyman years are for? And courses in creative writing or journalism? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Many professional carpenters are self taught. Ditto with writers, artists, musicians, etc. Aside from extensive practice, there is no singular rigid and narrow definition for 'profession'. Btw, under apprenticeship it says is a system of training. I think Jefferson had a system, but here also we're beginning to belabor a term and lose sight of the big picture. i.e. Extensive Knowledge, Practice and Accomplishments. -- Gwillhickers 21:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Please check WP:CANVASS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It's allowed if handled correctly. I even invited Cm' who disagrees with me about most things and with whom I have directed less than friednly remarks towards in the past. It would help more if you would put your steam behind ideas. Architecture is under represented on the page entirely. -- Gwillhickers 19:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It is allowed within very narrow limits, of which you are not the arbiter, and of which you seem to have an opinion that is at odds with the general interpretation of the Wikipedia community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Editors were selected on the basis of their knowledge and involvement with the page. Two of them I have had strong disagreements with in the past. See the table for appropriate and inappropriate canvassing. I have satisfied all items under appropriate. If these editors opt to not include architect, will you still be opposed to their participation? Disappointed. -- Gwillhickers 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Stephan, I generally see eye to eye with you, but in this case I think Gwillhickers made a good faith effort to generate more comment, not to drum up support for a personal agenda.
Gwillhickers, since there is so much info on Monticello and on Jeffersonian architecture, those topics appropriately have their own articles. Some expansion may be OK here, but only as brief summaries, not as piles of details, which should be left to the respective articles. I think "Monticello and architecture" is proper just like "Lawyer and House of Burgesses" is--combining related activities. Yopienso (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep things in summary form and not pile up a lot of details, but we should still have separate sub sections. This way Monticello daily life, planting, slaves, etc, is not mixed up with architecture. There are also other architectural items that are not inline with the topic of Monticello. Ya' think? -- Gwillhickers 19:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I am for the inclusion of Architect in the Infobox. Jefferson studied Andrea Palladio. Monticello is all Jefferson and he designed the University of Virginia. More information I believe on Jefferson and architecture in the article would be appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. The bulleted points show that Jefferson was indeed an architect (and accomplished at that), in the sense that he designed buildings. No one disputes that he was an architect. You have not shown that he engaged in architecture as a profession, which is what the infobox listing requires. Dezastru (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dezastru. Although Jefferson was never paid for designing the University of Virginia he founded, he was the architect who designed the University. The building Jefferson designed was used by the public or students and faculty who attended the University. In my opinion, Jefferson was an architect by the standards of his times. Being a professional does not always require payment. For example Benjamin Franklin designed the lightning rod, but he never patented the invention nor made any profits from the invention. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Dezastru., as I've said repeatedly, all the weight for keeping Architect out of the info box rests on the assumption he was never paid while everything else is largely ignored. i.e.Numerous landmark accomplishments, recognition, extensive knowledge, RS's, award for being an accomplished architect, et al. The fact that Jefferson practiced architecture to the extent he did, more than almost all other pursuits, says it was one of his professions all by itself. For Pete's sake, how many buildings must one design before it's considered a profession? 1000? -- Gwillhickers 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments continued

I've said nothing about the money part, and largely agree with Dr. Jensen on that. My reason for keeping it out of the infobox is because although he was an accomplished architect, it wasn't his profession by definition in his own time or ours. (Granted that the word "profession" is exceedingly difficult to define.) Even if it were one of TJ's professions, an infobox is for highlights, not details. We aren't putting botanist, musician, or inventor in the infobox, either, though he was all of that and more.
Not sure I follow you here. You're saying you agree with Rjensen who said when asked that 'architect' belongs in the info box and who also said I recommend using "profession" in the sense of widely acknowledged as an expert and skip the $$ nexus. IOW, we're placing too much weight on the idea of being paid, something that is still largely unresolved, given TJ's many involvements. However, we still have a source (W. S. Randall's Thomas Jefferson: A Life, 1994, pp.428-429) that says Jefferson was commissioned by Washington to help in the design of its streets, parks, etc. He retained Clérisseau, a famous draftsman, gave him his designs and acted as his supervisor and his consultant. It's safe to assume that if he was commissioned by Washington he was paid, but again, paid or not, this isn't the deciding factor. Knowledge, Practice and Accomplishment carry the most weight in terms of defining any profession. Especially Practice, which he did, extensively. -- Gwillhickers 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
INSERT (This is poor practice, but my response belongs here, not below.)
I largely agree with Dr. Jensen ON THE MONEY PART, not on putting "architect" in the infobox. That said, Dumas Malone makes quite a bit about the money part in Jefferson, the Virginian. Search inside it for "profession," pp. 67, 131, 155.
As a freebie, here's Thomas Jefferson, Lawyer.
EVERY full biography tells about TJ the planter. That is a total no-brainer. Yopienso (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If you really want to expend the effort necessary to create separate sub-topics for Monticello and for architecture, as long as they are kept brief and concise, I see no reason why anyone would object. But first review this assertion of yours, because any new info must be accurate and properly sourced: As concerns the capitol in Washington, the president's and governor's houses, etc ... What's not to understand? He designed those national landmarks also. Yopienso (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, brief, inasmuch as the other sections are. I've gathered some useful info and sources over the past several days. There are a number of books devoted to Jefferson and his architectural pursuits. None, so far that I've seen, are devoted to Lawyer or Planter. One of the nice things about debate as that it uncovers a lot of otherwise unnoticed information. In any case, first things first. We can't say architecture was his profession in the section if we can't even say this in the info box. IOW, the section should say, along with being a President Jefferson is famous for being an architect, but damn if we can't put this in the info box. -- Gwillhickers 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Profession:Architect" has no consensus

Repeatedly discussing the same thing over again is not helping. Per the multiple points above made by multiple editors, and even the !vote asked for, there is no consensus for architect as Profession in the infobox.

  • Sources say he was "amateur"
  • No Source presented says architecture was Jefferson's "profession"
  • No source says it was his trade
  • No source says it was his living
  • Definition of profession from Oxford English Dictionary does not support it, as it was not one of the learned professions of his day, nor something he did for a living
  • Definition of Profession does not support it.
  • Similar Summary style to the infobox as used in [4] does not list architect, and does not support it
  • Does not accord with almost all presidential infoboxes on wiki.
  • Consensus does not support it, in the least.
  • Goes against WP:Source list

Etc, etc, again. I'm sure I missed a few given the large number of editors who have said they do not support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

These sources might determine if Jefferson was a professional architect, especially the Nichols (1961) source. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sources:
As has been repeatedly said the issue is not "Architect" - the issue is listing it baldly as "Profession" in the infobox. As historians have discussed him as "amateur," we can't do it in the infobox without violating Neutral Point of View, because the infobox allows no context. Moreover, listing books is not a textual cite for 'Architect was his profession or his trade or his livlihood.' No original research and verifiability mean wikipedia does not make such a claim that is not directly said by the sources. (see WP:Burden and WP:Source list ) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus divided, evaluate the FACTS

ASW, re: your claim, "large number of editors who have said they do not support it." "Large numbers"?? The consensus is relatively evenly divided now, so as I said, we must evaluate the issue on the evidence and RS's. Why are you not addressing the particular items any more? We need more than rah, rah, rah to resolve this. What have you brought to the table that says Knowledge, Practice and Accomplishments don't matter? -- Gwillhickers 02:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes the large numbers that were against it in the vote you called on this just a few days ago, and prior to the canvassing. Moreover, evenly divided would make for no consensus. No consensus means it stays out, per WP:Burden. You have been asked to produce the cite that any source directly says it was his profession, you have not. Sources that call him amateur have been produced, making its introduction in the list contrary to NPOV, even were you to ever directly verify the statement that his profession was architect per WP:Source list. As for knowledge, practice and accomplishment, amateurs also have knowledge, practice and accomplishment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"large numbers"? There were a few, and there are a few who say otherwise. Prior to the canvasing? i.e.Cm' what you say doesn't matter, all of the sudden. Never mind your knowledge and involvement with this page. Burden of proof? Plenty of sources point to Knowledge, Practice and Accomplishments. The overwhelming evidence says Jefferson practiced architecture much more than he did law, listed in the info box. Also, amateurs don't have knowledge, practice and accomplishment near to the same extent that Jefferson had, that's why they remain amateurs. -- Gwillhickers 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Others can look above. Sources refer to Jefferson as amateur. Where is the source that directly says it was his profession? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I count 5 against and 3 for: Stephan, Alan, TFD, Desaztru, Yopienso; Gwillhickers, Rjensen, Cmguy777. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert : You forgot The VirginaHistorian, one of the editors whose knowledge of Jefferson and Virgina history exceeds most of us here, including myself. Even without, 3 to 5 is not much of a consensus. If it were just a vote, then why do we even bother with discussion? There must be a basis to consensus. Five editors to three can't insist that we use a picture of Bart Simpson on the Napoleon page. Again, there must be a solid basis to consensus. -- Gwillhickers 05:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker what sources state Jefferson was an amateur architect? Here is a source to his architectural drawings: Thomas Jefferson Architectural Drawings Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Just do a page search for "amateur." Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
As Y says, above on this talk page, as for the WP:Primary source of his drawings, it does not say he was a professional architect. We would need WP:Secondary sources or even tertiary to say that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, what are the sources that state Jefferson was an amateur architect? We have established that he was an architect. What reliable sources specifically state Jefferson was an amateur architect? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Above on this page.Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (And even more below, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Here is a source that supports Jefferson equal to any professional architect: The Architectural Ideology of Thomas Jefferson Ralph G. Giordano (2012) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with the question, which isn't whether TJ was a good architect, but a professional one.
This is what the blurb to the book you found says:
"Among architectural professionals, however, Jefferson is immediately recognized as one of the most influential architects of all time. Although he was considered a 'gentleman architect,' Jefferson honed his skills as well as any professional."
Notice that "among architectural professionals" doesn't mean TJ is among them, but that, in the view of architectural professionals, etc. The blurb specifically points out TJ was an amateur (gentleman architect) and not a professional, though he was as skilled as one. As I remarked a few days ago, it's like when Olympics athletes had to be amateurs--they were some of the best in the world, but weren't pros. Yopienso (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Yopienso, yes, Jefferson "...was as skilled as one" (professional). 'Knowledge, Practice, Accomplishments. Nothing has changed here. -- Gwillhickers 05:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Re:Amateur. Anyone touting this idea should present the source AND the context in which it is used. i.e.self taught. Does it negate Knowledge, Practice and Accomplishments? Does it negate the fact that Jefferson pursued Architecture most of his adult life, much more so than he pursued law, listed in the info box? And as long as we are demanding verbatim clauses, is there a source that says Archietcture was not one of Jefferson's professions? Two can play the academic game. -- Gwillhickers 05:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not a game. It's asking for a source that directly says Jefferson's "profession" was architect, since thats what you want the infobox to say. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert : It's really simple. The fact that Jefferson practiced architecture for years in the capacity he did makes it his profession very easily. Find a source that says being a lawyer was his profession, or we'll have to remove that if you are going to insist on this standard. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"[Jefferson] kept a complete memorandum of all the cases in which he appeared before the courts of Virginia and opposite each case the fee he received for his professional services . . . its no exaggeration to say that no day passed during the 12 years he remained engaged in the law without his giving considerable time to his profession." Thomas Jefferson: The Apostle of Americanism, Gilbert Chinard (2011) p. 51 (emphasis added). No source says he was an amateur lawyer, unlike amateur architect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yopensio, you are misreprenting the source that states Jefferson was known as a "gentleman architect" not that he was one. Also, the source in no way states Jefferson was an amateur architect. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. Even though it says "gentleman architect", it still says architect and offers nothing in the way that says Jefferson didn't practice (i.e.profession) and accomplish much as an Architect. -- Gwillhickers 05:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No, as Yopinso said, that source blurb directly says "gentleman architect." Note the qualifier. It does not directly say "architect was his profession", which is what your proposal wants Wikipedia to say. It says he honed skills as good as a professional, not that his profession was that. The other sources above on this page support "amateur." (See WP:Burden and WP:Source list NPOV and OR). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert: Alanscottwalker the source states he was "condidered a "gentleman architect". That is not the same as saying Jefferson was a "gentleman architect". There is no mention that he was an "amateur" architect. Yes. Jefferson's skills were as good as any professional architect, according to the source. Monticello was sold by his grandchildren to pay of Jefferson's debts. Isn't that earning money for his family? He did design public buildings that people used. As far as I know all his buildings remain standing and are used by the public to this day. Is being paid a qualifier to being a professional? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Selling property of an estate does not give someone a profession. The mention of amature is in the other sources, so to comply with NPOV, we can't baldly say that was his profession. For being paid, see Profession or the definition in the OED, already provided. Your source does not say "he was considered a professional architect". See also Gentleman. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Fact is that we have several sources (already on this very page) that call Jefferson an amateur architect. What we do not have is a single source that calls him an professional. What we also don't have is any source that states that "Knowledge, Practice, Accomplishments" are sufficient (or even necessary) for the definition of "professional". On the other hand, our own (sourced) definition of profession clearly excludes him. When you have to start needing to reject ever wider sources and invent your own definitions, it's time to step back an re-evaluate whether your commitment to a given position is clearly justified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Back up guys. The info box says Profession. It doesn't say "professional". Profession is interchangeable with 'practice'. e.g. He practiced law. He practiced botany. In practice he was a diplomat, carpenter, mechanic, etc. Sorry, all you're doing is rehashing the same failed academic argument here while you continue to ignore the man's entire legacy in architecture. We have Jefferson's knowledge of architecture, which equals or exceeds most so called "professionals". We have years of practice and years of accomplishments that far surpasses most architects, even of today. These realities put any use of 'amateur' that you may have dredged up well into context. There is no source that says Jefferson was a professional politician, planter or lawyer. Why? because this is easily assumed by any reader with average intelligence. And "gentleman architect" could mean he was a gentleman professional as well. Since when does prefixing a title with 'gentleman' automatically make it an amateur practice? Whose invention is this? This belaboring of the word flies in the face of Jefferson's knowledge and accomplishments, not to mention the truth. Jefferson was an Architect in the same capacity as any so called "professional". We have years of landmark accomplishments that takes this idea far beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even if you insist he was an amateur, architecture was still his profession. We have dozens of magnificent buildings he designed as proof, and again he was commissioned by Washington to design streets and parks. Please stop with this academic nonsense and quote each use of amateur you find with its context, not that it matters anymore, but it still would be an interesting exercise. -- Gwillhickers 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I just supplied a source, above, that says lawyer was "his profession." But, as the sources say amateur for architect, per NPOV, we cannot present it baldly as his profession. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This amateur = not-profession cavil has been replied to time and time again. And yet you just repeat it incessantly. This has nothing to do with "NPOV". I see that Binkersnet has again deleted architect with a misleasing edit summary ('delete unimportant paragraphs of slavery section. These belong at the article Thomas Jefferson and slavery'). Paul B (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Amateur architect

While it's bad practice to just search for confirmation, here are some sources for Jefferson as an amateur architect (the original ones seem to have been archived already):

  • Gardner's Art Through the Ages: The Western Perspective (Cenage, 2010): "Gifted amateur architect"
  • The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Jefferson (Cambridge University Press, 2009): "As a self-trained architect, and because he never received reimbursement for his designs, Jefferson falls into the 'gentleman', or 'amateur,' architect category"
  • And now for something completely different ;-): AIA Guide to the Architecture of Washington, (JHU Press, 2012): "A diligent amateur architect, Jefferson designed..."
  • Historic Homes of the American Presidents (Courier Dover Publications, 1991): "To obtain what he wanted, lawyer Jefferson trained himself to be a part-time amateur architect of the highest proficiency."
  • The Library of Congress writes: "An amateur architect, Jefferson prepared his own sketch for a circular Capitol, which was submitted anonymously and rejected by President Washington and the commissioners."
  • The director of the University of Virginia Art Museum, writing very much in praise of Jefferson: "An amateur architect, Jefferson never visited Rome or saw the majority of classical buildings that he esteemed;..."
  • Jefferson himself wrote "Architecture is my delight, and putting up and pulling down, one of my favorite amusements..." (emphasis mine).

It took about 10 times longer to copy them here than to find them - and there is a nearly unlimited supply of more right at Google. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you had this packaged and already to go, posted only a minute or so after my above post (last edit, not reflected by the original time stamp). Nice work actually. In any case, we have sources that refer to him as an accomplished architect as well as an 'amateur' only because he was self taught. However, architecture was still his profession, because again, he practiced it extensively and he was more advanced at the practice than most so called professionals. Again, the info box says profession. No one can deny Jefferson practiced architecture extensively, more so than he did law. -- Gwillhickers 16:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we were editing different sections at the same time - I had not seen your comment before I posted mine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Some of the references to 'amateur' are made to when he was very young, like when he submitted his design to president Washington, and before he had gone to Europe. In any case, Jefferson studied and practiced architecture well enough for it to be called one of his professions. In the final analysis he is recognized as someone who excelled in the practice, and indeed practiced it extensively. When we look at the man's entire adult life, no one can deny that this was one of his main professions, more so than law. -- Gwillhickers 17:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
All that I can say now is "bring a source". I understand your opinion, but personal opinions are not good on Wikipedia (I have plenty of my own ;-). I've listed several high-quality sources that describe Jefferson as an amateur architect (one of which talks about UVa, the last thing he did in his life). Any good dictionary will tell you that amateur is the antonym of professional. Now you claim that an amateur can have the subject of his amateurism as a profession. I find that surprising enough to require very good sourcing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Schulz, you're still belaboring terms at this point in the debate. In literary usage 'Amateur' can also mean Autodidact, self taught, and does not negate the possibility that such a person can perform in a professional capacity and practice a given trade, as did Jefferson, Leonardo da Vinci and others way ahead of their time. The sources you list that refer to Jefferson as an Amateur often go on to qualify the referral. i.e.Moeller's AIA guide cover's Jefferson's competing with other professionals, submitting designs for building the White House, while numerous sources point to his many accomplishments, many of which make no reference to amateur. Amateur or not, Jefferson practiced architecture. Many sources cover such involvements well. Randall, 1994 says Jefferson was commissioned by Washington to design street and Parks. If we can say Jefferson practiced architecture we can say it was his profession regardless if we can't find a verbatim claim that uses the word "profession". This is not OR as we are not advancing any new position. e.g. 'Because Jefferson designed the UVA building he is the greatest architect of all time'. -- Gwillhickers 01:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have the feeling you make things up. No, "amateur" does not describe "autodidacts". Amateurs can have a professional education (although that's not universal), and likewise, autodidacts can work in a professional capacity (baring some professions which have licensing or education requirements - either today (physicians, lawyers, ...) or historically (craftsmen, ...)). And again, amateur and professional are not two different ranks on a scale of accomplishments. They are two different and mutually exclusive categories. They can both do exactly the same thing and still be differently classified, because the one does it "for the love of it", the other "for a direct and definite compensation". Jefferson did his architectural work not to support himself, or to make a living, or to earn money. He did it because he enjoyed it, and because he wanted others to enjoy the results. In other words, "for the love of it". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Schulz, you're still belaboring the same stuff, 'amateur' can mean several things, esp when you consider the time period in question as has been well explained by several editors now -- so I'm really no long interested in opinions about which word means what any longer. Jefferson practiced architecture. Whether he "loved it" or 'was paid' all of the time is besides the point and doesn't negate the fact that he practiced and accomplished much with architecture. Btw, Jefferson worked on his own home as an architect, so we can easily say he did it for a living if you want to remain rigid with your word usage. He was also commissioned by the city of Washington in this capacity. The idea of 'not being paid' remains an assumption. -- Gwillhickers 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to this page for a while, but I think this debate is rather unproductive. Firstly, it's somewhat ahistorical. A simple distinction between "amateur" and "professional" is inappropriate to the period, when it was very common for "gentlemen" with independent means to engage in creative or scholarly activity. For example William Jones was, nominally at least, a judge by profession, but he is known as a linguist and scholar. Much the same could be said for many other scholarly figures of the era. Was William Payne Knight a historian by "profession" or not? This was certainly also true of architects. John Vanbrugh and Christopher Wren were both "amateurs". As far as I know, neither of them had any professional training. I don't think it's appropriate to just list Jefferson's architecture as an "interest", which just could mean he liked looking at buildings, or collected a lot of books about architecture. I fact he "professed" in the sense that he practiced, architecture, which is a valid meaning of the term in the historical context. We should not be fixated on terminology here. It just so happens that this infobox has a section called "profession" (which as I have suggested, is really rather a clumsy fit for the period). Christopher Wren's infobox happens to be "infobox scientist". It has no section for "profession" but does have a section entitled "field" (clearly intended to mean 'area of scientific specialism'). Architecture is listed there. It's not a "field" of science, strictly speaking, but it's the best place to fit something that really has to be included, within the particular format of that infobox. Jefferson actually designed and had built a number of important buildings. In that sense he "professed" architecture and was not just "interested" in it. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean listing architect as an interest? No one is proposing that. Moreover, as above the AIA, Library of Congress, Cambridge University Press, University of Virginia, et al, decribe him as amatuer -- it's not anachronistic for them, why would it be for us? Your proposal for changing the field in the infobox from Profession to something else is interesting but a different thing altogether. Also, how do you address the issue that Jefferson was a professional is not in the sources? Unlike, say Lawyer, that describe it as his profession. And why would you say architect is needed as his profession over say, Philosopher, discussed above, or Scientist discussed above, why would he or we need any of them as a profession? (See this similar University of Virginia presentation [5] where architect is not needed or used)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It used to be listed under "interests" years ago, if memory serves. I assumed it still was. That must have been a different infobox pattern. The fact that sources refer to him as an an amateur architect is beside the point. "Amateur" and "profession" are not mutually exclusive categories, as in the old days of cricket (indeed think of all those "amateur" Olympic athletes whose whole lives were devoted almost exclusively to their "amateur" activity). He doesn't have to be described as "professional" in the sense of "not amateur" because these are not mutually exclusive, for reasons I've already given in considerable detail. Would I say it is needed? Personally, yes. It depends on ones own interests, I guess, but if you think the history of architecture in America is important, he's an important and influential practitioner. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No he does not have to be described as professional, which is a good thing since the sources do not do so, but they also don't directly say it's his Profession -- which is what you want us to do? If its important to scholarship to tell us that Architect is his Profession, it should be easy to produce quotes that directly say that. On the other hand, they readily tell us he was an amateur -- they do not use profession, why should we? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
As for your personal interest, I readily empathize. If I recall correctly (it was a long time ago) I edited the current use of "architecture" into the lead of this article when it was not there, and also the current information about Jefferson and architecture into the Monticello article. But we should still do as the sources do. Wikipedia should not be the only place where the world reads: "Profession: Architect" especially since everywhere else says amateur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that recent scholarship that states Jefferson was an amatuer architect? My book source was (2012) and had a greater appreciation of Jefferson's architecture. We need to judge Jeffesron by the standards of his time. Remember when the White House or President's House was being designed Jefferson drew up plans. However, another architect's plans were chosen. Was Jefferson by profession an architect by the standards of his times. Have historians used modern standards of architecture and applied them to Jefferson? By modern standards, yes, Jefferson was an amateur. His buildings are still in use today and I would believe that would make him an architect by profession. Cmguy777 (talk)

  • Yes they are modern reliable sources -- and there are alot of them. (American Institute of Architects and the University of Virginia art museum from 2012; the Library of Congress is a current online exhibit)
  • We are not writing for an 18th century audience.
  • We don't tell the sources they are not doing their job right (ie. they should call it his profession because we know better) and we don't predict or anticipate future scholarship. (see WP:Source list)
  • Everyone praises Jefferson, but the sources don't say it was his Profession in his day or ours; they, however, do directly and repeatedly qualify it as amateur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Paul Barlow, re: your comment: Amateur" and "profession" are not mutually exclusive categories.You have articulated well similar ideas that Rjensen, Cmguy777 and myself have maintained. Indeed too much emphasis was placed on a term, or being paid, not whether architecture was something Jefferson did in practice, and in a professional capacity with numerous landmark accomplishments to show for. Jefferson practiced architecture. More so than law, which is listed under Profession in the info box. All the ta'do about being paid and being an amateur (only because he was self taught) is academic which has been used to ignore his practice and accomplishments. By today's standards being self taught will of course earn you the title of amateur, but only in an academic or official sense. In Jefferson's time, given his accomplished capacity, he was roundly noted to be among the best of architects in his day. I doubt anyone even attempted to deride this capacity with amateur or any other diminishing reference. Jefferson practiced architecture extensively, designing numerous national landmarks. As an accomplished architect he was also commissioned by the city of Washington to design streets and infrastructure. Ergo, it was one of his professions. -- Gwillhickers 01:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me the infobox is not only a place to note renumerated job descriptions -- Barak Obama is noted as a 'community organizer'--, but also notable fields of recognized contribution. At Theodore Roosevelt's presidential infobox, we see 'explorer' and 'conservationist'. For Jefferson, 'Architect' conveys in a substantial yet shorthand way that Jefferson was a polymath, and he was then and is now notable as -- an architect. Yes, an expanded section in the article should be devoted to Jefferson and his architecture, perhaps on the strength of Gwillhickers' references. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree that the infobox is not a place to write descriptions, as the infobox does not allow for context. Barack Obama was of course a Community Organizer, and his former job became notable during his election. The one exception provided of Theodore Roosevelt's infobox, just shows the exceptions don't make good rules or models. The claim that "Profession" is anachronistic, may have some force, but the logic of it would be to get rid of "Profession" in the infobox, altogether. (The articles mentioned by PaulB have no infobox or don't use Profession.) So, the divided editorial opinion remains, in part because no one has come forward with a source that directly concludes that Architect was Jefferson's Profession, in his time or ours. As the sources don't, we shouldn't. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
He did not say it was is "not a place to write descriptions". He said it was "not only a place to note renumerated job descriptions", a totally different statement. You keep repeating the mantra that some sources refer to him as "amateur". As I have said, that's largely irrelevant because, a) we have to work within a pregiven infobox format which happens to use the word "profession" for simplicity. (by this argument Wren should not have architecture in his infobox because it is not a "field" of science). b) you assume that "amateur" is necessarily the opposite of professional and therefore somehow excludes it. That's only true in specific limited contexts. Paul B (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm? The comment you responded to did not say anything about amateur, let alone a mantra. If your view of "amateur", is its irrelevant to "profession", then I am certain you understand why others would disagree - as they are in the common language antonyms. As for whether the common language can support 'in the field of architecture' that seems like common usage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
As I say, you keep repeating this mantra. And have done so again. I see no point in replying by again repeating points made amply. Your first sentence indicates a failure to understand plain English as obvious as your response to TheVirginiaHistorian. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What? If you have no reply, make no reply; there is no call for casting aspersions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Could there be a compromise? I believe one can be an amateur professional such as Jefferson was as an Architect. This is only a suggestion, but why not put under profession, "Amateur architect". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason why "architect" should not be sufficient, just as it is in Christopher Wren's infobox. Wren was just as much of an "amateur" as Jefferson. The only difference is that his architecture has somewhat eclipsed his other achievements, while in Jefferson's case it's the other way round. Paul B (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Wren designed many more major buildings that were actually constructed than did Jefferson. Wren was known even in his own time (in his latter years) primarily as an architect (read his epitaph). The first sentence of nearly any biographical work on Wren describes him as an architect. And Wren was paid for his services as an architect. Wren's case is nothing like Jefferson's.
Remember that Jefferson was also a US President, so the reference to what his profession had been prior to his becoming president has a different significance than with the other bits of background information (such as under "known for" or "fields") that are included in many infoboxes for individuals who were not president. If Jefferson's infobox had a "known for" field, I would not object to listing architecture there. But as president, he has a "profession" field instead; architecture was never his profession so it should not be listed in his "profession" infobox field.
If there is a consensus to add a "known for" field to Jefferson's infobox, alongside the "profession" field, I can get behind listing architecture in the "known for" field and leaving the other info in the "profession" field. Dezastru (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No one doubts that Wren is best known today as an architect, but Jefferson is not. That's the whole point of my last sentence: "The only difference is that his architecture has somewhat eclipsed his other achievements, while in Jefferson's case it's the other way round." I gave Wren as an example precisely because he epitomises the pointlessness of the amateur = non-professional = not-a-profession argument. Your argument about what counts as Jefferson's profession in the context of the fact that he was a President should surely have no bearing on what else he did. Again, though, we should be thinking about what content should be in the infobox, not quibbling over petty definitions. If this can be resolved by adding another category without destroying the infobox format, it should be. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
For the record, at the time he became famous for it during his life, Wren was a paid architect, among the most powerful architects in his country as the head of the King's architectural office. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul Barlow. Thanks for your input. I agree. I am for "architect" alone in the infobox, but I thought that adding "amateur" would achieve a compromise. I believe Jefferson's architecture is taking on more appreciation in the scholarly community and I believe that he needs to be known by profession as an architect. This was a compromise solution in terms of getting the word "architect" into the infobox even if there is the condition word "amateur" added. Another compromise would be adding "gentleman" to the word "architect". Possible Alan Scott Walker and/or Gwillhickers would agree to this compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your worthy effort. Your second proposal is not without virtues, as a compromise - to grit our teeth with. (I would note for anyone who does not look that Christopher Wren's infobox says one of his "fields" was "architecture", which seems quite understandable.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Architect

Cm' thanks for your willingness to compromise. I too was giving that some thought, that we could say 'Amateur architect' but that would easily throw the reader off and give them the impression that Jefferson was not of professional and accomplished capacity. On the Benjamin Franklin page 'Scientist' is in the info box. He too was self taught and practiced it and is famous for it. In his day he was recognized as an accomplished man of science by his contemporaries and others, and no one called him an "amateur". By 'modern' standards he was an "amateur" but we are not talking about a modern day person. Jefferson was an accomplished architect, he practiced architecture extensively, so much so he is famous for it. 'Amateur' is a modern day connotation mostly. When we get around to writing the section for Architecture we of course mention he was self taught, and we can also mention that he is referred to by some modern historians as an "amateur" if enough people happen to think this is important to the biography. -- Gwillhickers 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I believe we could put in "Gentleman Architect" as a compromise. That could be the best alternative. One source says "citizen architect" Thomas Jefferson, Gentleman Architect Jackie Craven (2013). There was no such thing as a liscenced architect during Jefferson's times so all architects were amateurs. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I am open to compromise. I think 'amateur architect' would be better, though it will probably be misleading, but "gentleman architect" imo will confuse most readers even more. Let's see what the others think. If there is a willingness to compromise 'amateur architect' is the way to go, but we must be clear in the section and explain things. -- Gwillhickers 19:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
There was no such thing as a liscenced architect during Jefferson's times so all architects were amateurs. That's just plain wrong. There were people in Jefferson's day whose trade was architecture. I've mentioned two prominent examples above: James Hoban and Robert Adam. Dezastru (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert: Dezastru, I was going by the Jackie Craven (2013) source. Yes. There were people whose trade was architecture during Jefferson's day. No one is stating that Jefferson's trade was architecture or he had to rely on architecture to make a living. Jefferson relied on slavery for his income. But that is not any issue I want to discuss for now. Did James Hoban and Robert Adam have documented architecture liscences? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: Architecture: Celebrating the Past, Designing the Future Richard Guy Wilson (2008), Hon. AIA. This article I believe is a great source on Jefferson and Architecture. He was the only architect to serve as President of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can live with "amateur architect" - for people who share my interpretation of "profession", it makes it clear that it wasn't one, and for people with a broader definition that does not conflict with "amateur", there is no problem. I think "gentleman architect" is less clear - the dichotomy between "gentleman" and "professional" never was absolute, and is very anachronistic today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's entirely debatable if Jefferson 'made a living' as an Architect, since he spent years designing and building several of his own homes, i.e. livelihood, (which otherwise would have cost him much money) and because he was commissioned by the city of Washington to design streets, etc. Commissioned to do a job usually means paid to do a job. Having said that, I too can live with 'amateur architect' so long as we are clear as to his accomplishments and professional capacity in the section. -- Gwillhickers 20:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Monticello and Poplar Forest (the buildings, not the plantations) did not make nor save Jefferson any money. They contributed significantly to him being broke by the end of his life (and once in between, when only the sale of his library to congress saved him). We have a reliable source, cited under the "Amateur architect" heading above, saying that "he never received reimbursement for his designs". And, as far as I know, Jefferson was never commissioned by the "City of Washington" to design streets. He provided L'Enfant (who was commissioned by Washington the President) with plans of European cities to serve as examples, but he did not lay out the city himself. Anyways, if we both can live with "amateur architect", we have come as close to consensus as we ever have ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. "Amateur architect" is the best alternative, since Jefferson was an architect having designed homes for several friends and designed several court houses. Jefferson was an influencial architect. Prior to Jefferson, architecture had been domintated by Europeans. Jefferson apparently was in a transitional period when architecture had yet to be liscenced as a profession. In my opinion, Jefferson's architecture became a reality, and that is what would make him a professional, even though technically an amateur. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No objection to that proposal (the rationale is not what I would subscribe to). But thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just added 'Amateur Architect' to the info box. Also, I have restored 'Diplomat', as this was an important role, even if short lived. Yopienso, I appreciate the removal of diplomat as I took exception to its inclusion, but only because the same standards were not being used. Hope there are no issues now. Yes, we have five items in the info box, but the Jefferson page is unlike that of most other Presidents. A polymath who lived in colonial times, through the Revolution, War of 1812 and everything in between it's a wonder this page doesn't explode. -- Gwillhickers 04:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, here we go, only minutes after the change was made to the info box one of our good friends reverted it, claiming "Not significant pursuits" in the edit summary. Did significant pursuits ever come up in discussion? I restored it, but I fear this is leading to trouble. -- Gwillhickers 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was skilled and learned in many things, but it makes no sense to list them all in the infobox. Philosopher, revolutionary, biblical scholar, writer, orator, agriculturalist, slave-owner, etc., etc., etc. There is no justification to add anything other than his primary private and public pursuits - planter, lawyer, politician. TFD (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Good points. The infobox should not be an exhaustive list; it should give the main themes, what TJ is famous for. He is not famous as an architect. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I believe you are going have gone against editor concensus on this issue. We are not advocating Editors have not advocated every profession be listed. "Amateur architect" had been agreed to be used in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, my silence is not agreement, but refusal to engage further in such nonsense. This is not a request to change or revert. I'm embarrassed for all of you and myself. Yopienso (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Amateur architect is a profession? One can just hope that the people writing the infobox are not also contributing to the actual article. Dezastru (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson embarked on many practices, but no one wants to "list them all in the info box", just the ones that are most important in terms of his fame. He is most famous as a politician, lawyer, architect, diplomat and planter. Yopienso, we arrived at this juncture with much help from you. Don't know why you're sulking. Most of us are not 100% happy but we can't go on forever debating, so we compromised at a reasonable juncture. I for one am proud that most of us were able to do that considering all of the disagreement and debate. -- Gwillhickers 07:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dezastru, with all due respect, there was no liscensing practice during Jefferson's times for an architect. Jefferson's architecture became a reality and is even recognized in by an Architecture magazine. Jefferson was an architect. We added "amateur" because that indirectly implies that Jefferson was not a liscensed architect, there were none, and that he relied on slavery and his Monticello plantation for his income. As Gwillhickers mentioned, we don't know if Jefferson was ever compensated for his architecture. I would state there was a strong possibility he was paid by his friends whom he designed homes for. We have reached a compromise. This compromise may not be a perfect one, but then again, compromises are never perfect. Thanks for your input. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

First, as pointed out before, we do have at least one excellent source (cited above) that states that Jefferson "never received reimbursement for his designs". Secondly, licensing is somewhat of a red herring. Even a licensed architect can work as an amateur and earn his money as a street juggler (although that's somewhat rare). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yopensio. You are a highly valued Wikipedia editor and much needed for the Thomas Jefferson article. This is a talk page and believe each editor has equal rights to defend any statements, references, or sources that each editor makes. I respect every editor's opinion including your own on the "architect" debate. In an effort of good will to smooth things over I apologize. The compromise I believe was the best alternative since I felt arguements for and against the addition of "architect" in the infobox were getting no where. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Cmguy; no need to apologize. Perhaps I was too frank and not tactful enough. But that's my honest opinion, whether I should have stated it or not. I do appreciate that the conversation has been much more civil than at times in the past. Yopienso (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz. Please put in time context perspective into the Jefferson "amateur architect" debate. There was no liscencing practice for street jugglers nor architects during Jefferson's lifetime. Anyone could be an architect or a street juggler. Secondly Jefferson was a good architect and he even competed to make the President's House. Jefferson popularized American architecture. Also, Jefferson owned slaves and made money on his plantation. He did not need to be compensated for his architecture and seemed to do architecture out of love of architecture. Jefferson did design homes for his friends. As stated before, if there was a good chance for compensation, that would most likely come from his friends. Jefferson designed both public and private buildings. Last I checked that is what professional liscened architects do today. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson's architecture had a distinct style and many attractive features. He had an eye for spaces, proportions, and layout. However, his professional colleagues at the time were not very impressed with other aspects of his skill - he relied very much on book learning, and he was not very concerned, nor, apparently, good with all the practicalities of building. He could e.g. never get the skylight in Poplar Forest to stop from leaking. Also, architecture never was his main occupation - it always was something he did as a repose from other work. In my view, that makes him an amateur. A talented and accomplished amateur, but still an amateur. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, that is part of the compromise. Putting amaeteur in the infobox. Clearly though, Jefferson designed homes for his friends, state courthouses, and Monticello. Not every architectural structure is full proof even by modern standards. The Hyatt Regency walkway collapse is a prime example. A leaky roof does not make Jefferson any less professional then any other professional. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Should the slavery section be scaled down?

Our new friend seems to think the slavery section is far too large, claiming info is covered on other pages and took it upon himself to delete nine entire paragraphs, not specific topics, so his aim seems sort of obtuse and generic. He's claiming "twelve paragraphs" are covered elsewhere and evidently feels they should be deleted. -- Gwillhickers 17:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought his deletion improved the section. I was never in agreement with adding all that stuff, which was intended to portray TJ as a kind slaveowner. (Which he was, in relative terms.) Would like to see what he or others think a good summary would be. Yopienso (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This debate has occurred time and again. Some items were added to give balance and a broader perspective, and these things alone, i.e.treatment of slaves, etc, are not what is responsible for the size of the section. In any case, I have no problem with discussing major changes. Don't appreciate any one editor coming in and doing so alone with little more than a generic claim about the coverage of an entire and complex subject. -- Gwillhickers 17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not claiming that twelve paragraphs are covered elsewhere. Rather, I am pointing out that twelve paragraphs are too many for a summary style section in this biography. The "broader perspective" concerns should be dealt with at the sub-article. This article should only have a brief summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Anything that is not covered elsewhere belongs in this article on that note, also. You would do well to review the archives of this talk page to see what other editors feel about your ideas regarding 'summary'. One to two pages is easily considered a summary, unlike books which are devoted to the subject. Please factor this idea into your thoughts as to what a "summary" may entail. i.e.A "summary" isn't always just two or three paragraphs, esp when the topic is varied, complex and controversial. Many items must be satisfied to retain balance and a broader perspective. i.e. A clear picture. Summary is only one consideration, so let's not turn this idea into some sort of mantra as justification to slash and burn your way through the section. -- Gwillhickers 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The notion that "anything that is not covered elsewhere belongs in this article" is ridiculous on its face. I have no need to look through talk page archives to see bloat right in front of me on the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Blinkerset, possibly you could give editors an outline of your planned delete intentions for the Slaves and slavery section. What do you want to delete? Please be specific. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I'm going to assume you were talking to me, even though you butchered my user name. If you want to know what I would delete, look at what I deleted. Another relevant diff is my deletion plus the reasonable return by Rjensen of one paragraph here. I think the Rjensen version is good. Ignore the changes you see in the infobox parameter "profession"—that stuff is not under discussion in this thread. (In the future call me Bink, which is easier to spell.) Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet or Bink. Thanks for the correction. I looked at your deletion and there seemed to be neither rhymne nor reason for your editing. The more you delete, the less people will understand about Jefferson and slavery. Jefferson was complicated. There are no simple answers as to whether Jefferson was for or against slavery. Your deletions dilute the slavery issue of Thomas Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves and controlled their individual destinies. I believe your deletions have POV in that you are side stepping the slavery issue, whether you are doing this on purpose or not, I don't know. To delete only to delete is not a valid wikipedia reason for deletion. To delete without a formal discussion is also not standard Wikipedia policy, especially in such a popular article as Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I do not agree with your premise that "the more you delete, the less people will understand". My position with regard to encyclopedia writing is that greater reading comprehension is gained by brevity. The typical encyclopedia reader cannot or will not take in all the details. You will surely hurt reading comprehension by adding too much text. The more interested reader who has the capacity and wants the details will go to the main article on the sub-topic, which is the whole point of WP:SUMMARY style writing. That's where the complexity of the issue can be given deeper coverage—not here in the main biography. The rare reader who wishes for much, much deeper coverage will obtain and read one or more of the sources listed in the reference section. In this scenario, nobody loses, everybody gets what they were looking for.
Your wish for text deletions to require previous discussion and consensus is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:BRD.
I have repeatedly stated my goal here: brevity. There is no unspoken POV component of that. Don't try to throw dirt on my motives. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Your take on the "typical encyclopedia reader" is a sweeping assumption, perhaps modeled after your own capacity, while your notion that "greater reading comprehension is gained by brevity" is exactly that, a notion. Your whole take here is base on notions, from the idea that you will "hurt reading comprehension by adding too much text" (this is not WP for dummies) all the way to your narrow take on WP policy, which over looks so much, half the text in this message would be blue if I were to link to it all. Start with the consensus process and work your way backwards. I am not dead set against consolidating some of the text, but For the kind of major changes you want you need to come up with a draft and discuss it by offering us something that goes beyond assumption and cherry picked allusions to WP policy. That's the only way it's going to fly around here. Thanks Bink'. -- Gwillhickers 05:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NPA, I ask you to strike the comment about my capacity. There is no call for that here. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

With tempers flaring and absolute statements being made about "the only way it's going to fly", I would like to point out that Cmguy777 and Gwhillhickers have indicated they approve of the current 12-paragraph slavery section, while Binksternet, Stephan Shulz and Yopienso have voiced a preference for a trimmed slavery section. That's 2 vs 3. With even this slight majority we can move forward with judicious trimming, with determining what are the core themes and what are details best taken to the sub-article Thomas Jefferson and slavery. To all editors: if you want to be part of the solution, please start thinking about what the summary version of the slavery section must include.
Just so you know, I'm not going to appear at the sub-article to gauge the progress; my only interest is to get this prominent biography article to hew to summary style, which is a necessary step in the direction of returning this article to GA status and perhaps FA. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I said perhaps in reference to capacity. Given your considerations for other editors and your opinion about the average reader you've been extended more considerations than most would give you in real life. Secondly tempers are not "flaring". This is yet another one of your assumptions. Third don't think you can hop in a bulldozer and plough through the article and ignore all the discussions and consensus that has brought the article to where it is now just because a couple of others at the moment agree with you in the general sense. As I said, I am not dead set against trimming the section, but it's not going to happen with your reckless, arrogant and hurried approach with no input or consensus from the many editors who have contributed to this page, as well as consensus from other drive by editors. There are many topics and perspectives in the section. They need to be sorted out in terms of retaining balance and coverage, something you didn't seem to be all that concerned about above, and when you took it upon yourself to gut the section in such an obtuse manner. -- Gwillhickers 06:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I freed the section of its bloat, something that Brad101 identified as a problem last year when the section was less than half its present size. After I deleted most of the section, Rjensen responded to what you call my "hurried approach" by crafting a new paragraph to fill a gap he recognized. I think Rjensen's response was quick and appropriate; it shows he is able to flex with the new consensus. I will look to Rjensen (and any others who step up) for creative input on what material should be in the section. Binksternet (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The section was, at the least, repetitious, now made less so, and I too support editing down. But it is an exceedingly editing dispute prone section, which leads to the bloat, and current editors have not found a way to constructively deal with that. Perhaps there is a way to get peer review and copy editing review of it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet. To delete a paragraph that you view as "unimportant" without discussion or editor concensus is against standard Wikipedia policy. Let other editors decide was is unimportant. You can't own the article and decide only what needs to be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Cmguy777, you have been an ardent editor of this article for years. You are enthusiastic, which is to be commended. However, in September 2009 the article lost its GA status even while you were actively working on it. In August 2012 you advocated an expansion of an already terribly bloated slavery section. These two cases do not reflect well on your sense of direction for this article. I will consider others' opinions regarding what they think is important for the slavery section, but such opinions should be backed by reasoned arguments. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Memoirs of Madison Hemings". Frontline. Public Broadcasting Service – WGBH Boston. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
  2. ^ Hyland, 2009 pp.88-89
  3. ^ Peterson, 1960 pp.185-186, 482
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/Archive_29&oldid=967844108"