Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Jefferson and Hemings

Editors are not here to justify their own ideas about the topics but to represent valid, reliable sources. The Monticello Foundation, National Genealogical Society and leading Jefferson specialists (including some who changed their minds after the DNA results), have concluded that the weight of historical evidence supports the conclusion that Jefferson and Hemings had a long-term relationship and he was the father of all her children. Trying to avoid that gives this article serious POV bias. Yes, there are still historians who disagree, and we can say that, but we can't deny what leading scholars do agree on.Parkwells (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Monticello Foundation has much material about Eugene Foster's DNA findings and take the same position as did Foster himself when he told the British science journal 'Nature' that the DNA evident hadn't proved Thomas Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings's children. It merely showed that he was one of twenty-five males in the Jefferson clan who might have been the father." -- So not only are we still dealing with theory, but there is only a 1 out of 25 chance that it was TJ who was the father. -- As for the foundation itself, it does not receive any state or fed tax support and relies on private donations entirely. If they were to insist on absolute proof about T.J. the controversy orchestrated against the foundation would likely result in the loss of much if not most of their funding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're choosing to disregard what they said, given the weight of all the historical evidence: "In January 2000, the committee reported its finding that the weight of all known evidence - from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data - indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children listed in Monticello records." Of course they can't say for sure, but it's wishful thinking to assume Jefferson was not the father - there were no contemporary rumors of different fathers. Also, the National Genealogical Society has stated their support for the conclusion that Jefferson is the father, given the weight of all the evidence. It should not be left as ambiguous as it is in the lede as it stands.Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The "1 in 25" chance is nonsense. That Jefferson was the father was considered more likely than not before any DNA evidence was known. Back then, none of the disbelievers found any of the other 24 Jeffersons likely enough to even consider. Only once "a Jefferson" was undeniable did they spin new yarns. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

New -- Wasn't the Monticello Foundation one of your cherished sources? Here is a quote from that source regarding the Dr. Eugene Foster DNA study: The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. Are you now saying that your pet sources are "nonsense"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Read but one sentence further: The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings. As with the Obama example, you cannot ignore the additional evidence. I've already pointed you to this discussion about the other potential fathers and their implausibility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote from your linked source regarding other male family members: "...had no documented presence at Monticello during the times when Sally Hemings conceived her children." -- No documented presence?? What is this supposed to amount to? We are discussing events that occurred some 200 years ago. Do you really think there was someone around all of the time logging the coming and going of all of these male family members, over all of the years involved here?? -- Again, nothing has chanced. Same speculations. Same rhetoric. Same huge gap in the evidence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've separated the Hemings controversy from slavery because of the edits Gwillhickers made (unconstructive at best). Now Stephan Schulz & Parkwells are correct, but Gwillhickers is not. Whilst Foster did not "prove" he was the father, he concluded: "the simplest and most probable explanations for our molecular findings are that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson." But "It does establish that he is linked to the Jefferson family". An indisputable DNA link to a Jefferson Gwillhickers doesn't address in his edits. "I predicted...when the Carr brothers story was effectively refuted, 'die-hard' defenders of Jefferson would offer up yet another 'undesignated Jefferson' relative to be the father." - Gordon-Reed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, pg vii, x.

The only way to prove with absolute certainty that Jefferson was the father is to dig him up. I don't think they're going to dig up old Tom. Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson are old news. The weight of the historical evidence, plus the DNA evidence, the extensive research on the topic, makes it more than likely that Jefferson was the father of some, if not all, of Hemmings children. The level of proof you're demanding for events that happened 200 years ago is impossible and I doubt that you would apply the same harsh standard elsewhere.

Gwillhickers is POV pushing in this topic and in the other topic. At first I thought he/she was trying to make a point in the discussion about the lead section, now I read this section and find out that Gwillhickers is a "denier" and blatantly POV pushing. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers comments with the "1 in 25" chance falls into that category. The Foster's study said the father might have been one Field Jefferson's sons but that there was no evidence for that possibility: the "absence of historical evidence" made this or other "possibilities...unlikely". See it here [[1]]. Gordon-Reed cites John E'ntremont: "the 'it-could-never-possible-be-Thomas-Jefferson' school is akin to a religion. As evidence is not required" pg x. Gwillhickers comments have no support.Ebanony (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you claimed on Feb 6 "In the final analysis, no one can say if it was Thomas Jefferson or one of more than 20 other male members of the family who was the father of Hemings' children" [2]. Then you added: "though for one reason or another they prefer to ignore the other possibilities for Hemings' children, prefering rather to believe it was Thomas Jefferson." [3]. A different editor removed your edits [4], and rightly so.

Gwillhickers, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation" WP:CHALLENGE. Also see "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." WP:OR Several editors above warned you about these things before you made those edits to the main space on Feb 6th [5], [6], [7], [8]. When you made other edits that directly contradicted the sources, I warned you in your talk page [9]. Policies on Consensus, V and WP:OR you'd do well to follow.Ebanony (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the DNA proves the father was linked to the Jefferson family, and this is all it does. Nothing more. As for "Die-hard defenders", this is nothing but your projection that you are little more than a die hard aggressor which seems to be consistent with the fact that your only interest in Jefferson is trying to associate him with Hemings. Thank for that insight at least. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It could also be said that your narrow preoccupation with Hemings is also akin to a religion. Also, "absence of historical evidence" doesn't prove anything, as to prove something you must have evidence. Is there anyone else you care to quote? Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead is no place to discuss theory, and again, please do not give more attention/weight to a theory that has little to no bearing on Jefferson's role as President and his effect on American history than you are giving to what is established fact -- facts that directly effect millions of Americans and others, unlike Hemings. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some people assumed, even before the DNA evidence, that it was Jefferson. So? Is this supposed to amount to anything? Also, you forgot to mention what "historical evidence" narrows this down to the proportions you are obviously hoping for -- that Jefferson was around the house alot? So where many of the others. Face it, you can hide behind rules, policy and selected sources all you like, but boiled down, you are still looking at a 1 out of 25 chance that it was Jefferson. And again, even if someone actually nailed this issue on the head (something no one has come close to doing, btw) and proved Jefferson was indeed the father, it still doesn't even begin to compare to historical landmarks events like the DOI, War of 1812, etc. As such, your theory should only get a fraction of the attention that is due the DOI, etc. etc. events that directly effect many millions of people, unlike your Hemings theory. Sorry guys. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

edit break

I'm sorry, but that is historical, mathematical, and logical nonsense. It's like claiming that the chance that Obama is president is 1 in 26 - after all, there were 26 candidates, and we can ignore all the other evidence. You might want to read Annette Gordon-Reed's "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy", published before the DNA tests came in, if you think the only evidence is that "Jefferson was around the house alot". Indeed, Dumas Malone tried to exonerate Jefferson by showing that he was not around at the times of conception, and gave up on it. There is excellent evidence that Jefferson was at Monticello exactly at the right times, and there is no narrative that puts any other Jefferson there in time for all the children - in fact, most are excluded for most of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy to Obama, amazingly, overlooks two glaring little items; that it can be proven that Obama is President and that he is alive today, unlike Jefferson and Hemings who lived more than 185 years ago. -- Also, I never said that there was no other 'evidence', such that it is, so this is yet another misrepresentation of my account that has been shoveled in my direction in place of any viable support for this theory that Jefferson is, in fact, the father of any one of Hemings' children. -- Also, regarding the 'evidence' that Thomas Jefferson was around at the right times for the conception of any one of Hemings' children doesn't add up to much if you stop and actually think about it. i.e.Unless Jefferson was the only male family member around the house at these times, there is a gaping hole in this 'evidence' also, simply because the period for gestation can vary considerably, weeks, depending on the mother, child and other factors, so again, saying that Jefferson was around "exactly at the right times" is misleading, also, as you have no 'evidence' that T'Jefferson was the only male family member around the house. If there are any other items I can clear up for you, please present them. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is another consideration that has been glossed over. It has been claimed that Jefferson was around "exactly at the right times" to conceive 'all'(?) of Hemings' children, however, unless there is evidence for the exact dates of birth for each of Hemings' children the idea that Jefferson was around "exactly at the right times" is meaningless and deceitful. If there is conclusive evidence for the 'exact' times of birth, please present it now, otherwise, please put this theory on the shelf with all the other unproven and ill inspired theories. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The birthdays of Heming's confirmed children are known to the day, from Jefferson's own farm book. You might want to check this appendix and indeed the whole report from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation - hardly a source unfriendly to Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Even with birth dates the period of gestation can vary, and again, is there evidence that TJ was the only male member around during these periods? Also, did Hemings herself ever claim that TJ was the father of some/all of her children? Haven't seen anything written about that possibility, either way, at all. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, step back from that goalpost and please read at least the sources that are easily available. In particular, this chapter from the Jefferson foundation discusses other possible fathers. And Gordon-Reed discusses the oral traditions concerning paternity in detail. But we don't need to rediscuss this here over and over again. We have reliable sources summarising the state of the debate. See e.g. Bernstein's Thomas Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just checked the links you have offered and did not see any mention of birth dates. Perhaps I have overlooked them somehow, but if you were/are aware of them/any, why did you not mention one, two or all of them, to help this discussion move along? Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the link I provided. It takes you to Appendix H of the TJS report on the issue, titled Sally Hemings and Her Children. If you click in the links in the section titled "Children (known from Jefferson's records)" or just scroll down to their own sections, you find a short sketch on each of the children of Hemings, with full dates and sources (where available):

• HARRIET HEMINGS I- Born: 5 Oct. 1795 (FB.31)
• BEVERLY HEMINGS - Born: 1 Apr. 1798 (FB.57)

...

• ESTON HEMINGS - Birth: 21 May 1808 (FB.128)

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your original links made no such reference and required hunting around. If you make a claim, you should not expect others to hunt around for the source material, you should have at least cited one birth date. Still, even with birth-dates you or any of these sources have fallen way short of that 'goalpost' in the attempt to pin this on Jefferson, esp since many of the other male family members were around often. Let me just also say that even if could be proven that T'Jefferson was the father, it only proves that he had his weakness also. Nothing more. For all we know, maybe it was Hemings who made the advances towards Jefferson to win favor. i.e.That door can swing both ways, and often does in real life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The very first link I posted in reply to your request was the one to Appendix H of the TJS report, the very page that contains the data. I don't think it's reasonable to ask for line numbers, especially since they depend on your web browser size. Yes, as far as I can tell, the most likely case is that Jefferson and Hemings had a mutually agreeable relationship, at least as far as circumstances allowed. After all, they shared part of their lives from 1787, when Sally came to Paris, to 1826, when she sat on his death bed - i.e. for 39 years. You seem to mistake this debate for something it is not. I have no interest in discrediting Jefferson somehow, but in representing our best understanding of history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading this section, there is some serious POV pushing going on by Gwillhickers. It's dead Jim. We should move along. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is protecting TJ's legacy concerning Hemings. For some reason historians refuse to believe Jefferson was human. Are there any sources that say Jefferson is god? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong guess. 'Gwillhickers' is simply asking for proof of some of the claims made. POV pushing? Have I ever said TJ 'did not' have an affair, or that he was 'above it all'? No, again, I am asking for VERIFICATION OF CLAIMS MADE. -- Schultz claims Jefferson wrote down birth dates of Hemings' children. I asked for at least one example with the source, and what do I get?: A few links with no such birth dates mentioned anywhere. i.e.Zero. I have asked another user, Ebanony, who has claimed that "torture" was used and that this was "undisputed". I have asked, several times now, for a reference and also asked why isn't this in the TJ article if it is so sourced. What did I get in response there? -- Another zero. -- Some of these editors have made a mockery of the TJ article and this discussion. At one time the TJ article had several pages devoted to Hemings. Just recently nearly a whole paragraph was crammed into the lede section about Hemings. Also, while a controversy may justify making mention of the topic, it does not justify UNDUE WEIGHT, esp since this material is already covered on the Hemings page. Are you gentlemen finally clear on that? You can wave sources around all you like, but unless you can use them to back up these claims you are no different than a jackass with a load of books on its back. Now it's time to end this scholarly charade. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that some of Gwillhickers statements are extreme and are in violation of POV pushing. Gwillhickers is attempting to rewrite history, not interpret it. This article needs to be based on a consensus of factual evidence, circumstantial evidence, and good old-fashioned common sense.

Jefferson was human. If any of our lives were printed here in black and white print on a wikipedia page, I'd have a few controversies of my own. That's what makes us human. We cannot remove things from history just because they're distateful to modern standards. Gwillhickers is clearly POV pushing.

Also, I did not see Ebanony say anything about torture. The amount of evidence Gwillhickers is demanding is ludicrous and would not be possible after 200 years of history. As I said, the only way to prove with absolute certainty is to dig up Thomas Jefferson and that's not going to happen.

Lastly, it should be said, that most other cases of paternity are NOT held up to this standard or level of scrutiny. Someone stick a fork in this; it's done. Please refer to Cmguy777 post below, which goes into great detail. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, there is circumstancial evidence in combination with DNA evidence that makes the strong historical claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings.

Circumstancial evidence:

• Jefferson was there at Monticello each time Sally Hemings got pregnant.
• Three of Heming' children bore a remarkable physical appearance as Thomas Jefferson.
• All of Sally Heming's children were set free. This is backed up by Madison Heming's claim that when Jefferson got Sally Heming's pregnant in France that he promised to set her children free.
• The explanation that Sally Heming's was Peter Carr's mistress is unreliable. This explanation was taken by Jefferson's biographer, James Parton, in 1868, who retrieved this information from Henry S. Randall, who retrieved this information from Thomas Jefferson Randolph.

DNA evidence:

• No DNA correlation exists between descendants of Peter Carr and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Halliday (2001), pp. 164-165

Thanks, we have seen this material before and it's always easy to put it in its proper perspective simply by asking how many of the others were around also, and how many of them also looked like TJ. Some important evidence is still lacking apparently, and this should be acknowledged/reflected in any text that is allowed to cover it on this particular page. And what about the possibility that Jefferson freed the slaves mentioned because they were his brother's or other family member's children? What some editors have done, apparently, is assumed based on circumstantial evidence, 200 year old(+ -) evidence that it could only be TJ. Even with Peter Carr out of the equation there are simply too many variables being ignored by some of these scholarly publishers. In all fairness, I would not be surprised if it was TJ. -- In 'any' case, my issue here is with UNDUE weight and the fact that this affair is getting waaaay more attention/space on the page than other important items that have, again, effected the lives of millions of people, for better or worse. Presently coverage on the page is clearly in breach of undue weight policy and I think it's about time we called various administrators to the page and once and for all put the Hemings issue in its proper place. Once again, there are several other pages that are dedicated to this topic so, again, this whole issue should get a short summary/paragraph and link up to these other dedicated pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You demand "answers" about some irrelevant conversation from last year on "rape", and I responded [10] 5 times! No one here is saying Jefferson was guilty or innocent; we merely wrote in the main space what reliable sources say. You keep dragging this up to deflect from your original research, lack of NPOV and stuff you added to the main article [11] & [12]. No source. Now you're just attacking everyone. Why don't you bother reading what Stephan Schulz wrote? He's been patient enough to respond to your concerns, and he knows what he's saying.

Below you said you're going to remove "most of" the Hemings material. [13] Based on what consensus, documentary evidence or policies? I'm warning you: doing so without proper justification is violation of policy. Do not do it.

1st there is no "oversight". Wikipedia has at least 5 articles on Hemings; 8 of 32 articles on the Jefferson bio page (NY Times) are on Hemings & slavery - like the very 1st which says, "Most people at the meeting agreed that DNA data reported last November, along with the available historical evidence, now makes it between probable and almost certain that Jefferson had a hidden family with Sally Hemings, one of his slaves." [14]; Gordon-Reed's 2nd book on this topic, The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family is "winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in History" [15] (an international award). How can it get more "notable"? 200 years later & they're doing DNA tests on it! You freak for over a month demanding it be removed.

All of which bears out what I've been saying: this is a "notable controversy", and meets criterion (only one) for inclusion in the WP:LEAD; it helps to READ the policy, not invent "undue weight", but that is not on the page requirements. Even with your faulty logic, there's more wikipedia articles on Hemings than 1812 war, which is WHY 1 sentence in the lede could not be "undue weight". As to the Hemings SECTION, due/undue weight is a policy which matters, but you've demonstrated no violation of said policy. Again: do not remove that material. You're free to violate policy, but you can be referred for it. You assume we're out to label Jefferson a "bad man". Why can't you assume WP:AGF? After your insults, demands & unreasonable behaviour, I can still say I admire your determination because you probably believe what you say. But give us a break, mate.Ebanony (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it assumed that everyone believes what they say, including yourself? Nothing amazing. The issue now is undue weight, and I am still waiting for a response to your quote about "torture", that it is "undisputed", and that it is not mentioned in this article. When you said it was "undisputed" I assumed you had the material somewhat at hand. Thus far we have not even gotten an author name, let alone anything else on this important challenge to your sources. Your repeated retreats from these fair questions only casts doubt on your representations of the sources you claim are inline with your opinions. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Torture" is NOT "mentioned in this article" & no one proposed adding it- which is precisely why we will NOT discuss it. "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I'm tired of your games. We're not here to argue about history. There is no question about "undue weight" in the lede because what is not the criterion used: it's "notable controversy", though you outright ignore the manual of style: WP:lede.Ebanony (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

UnDue Weight to Hemings

Who put an entire paragraph for Sally Hemmings in the lead?? Hemmings, regardless of any relationship with Jefferson, had no effect on Jefferson's role as President or in American history overall. If you were to write a biography about Bill Clinton, would you include an entire paragraph about Monica Lewinsky (A factual affair even) in the lead section? Enough with this stealth vandalism. If the parties in question are so interested in Jefferson, why don't they give equal time to Jefferson's entire life and many many accomplishments?
The undue weight given to Hemmings by certain individuals only reduces their credibility and NPOV standing here. The paragraph in question has been moved to the slavery section and has no business in the lead. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Ebanony. Why is this 200 year old topic still controversial? There have been books written on this subject, DNA tests taken, research done, etc. It's old news. That said, as much as some individuals hate to acknowledge this, Thomas Jefferson's "relationship" with Sally Hemmings is historically significant. It should not be lumped in with a sex scandal such as Monica Lewinsky. Some of this stuff I'm reading is blatant POV pushing. As I said, this is old news. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The allegations of TJ's paternity of the Hemmings children, while not central to his presidency, have dominated the media landscape for the past several years. Thus, they need to be addressed briefly in the lede, and some of what you removed should be restored. So I don't agree with the 'stealth vandalism' charges, but I do agree that the issue of TJ's paternity shouldn't come to dominate this entry. That, indeed, would give short shrift to his many contributions. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "undue weight" to the Hemings controversy. Your edit [16] ignores the guidelines for writing a lede, the lead "should...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". The Hemings controversy is without question a major controversy (there's like 5 wikipedia articles on this!). I reverted it [17]. This is either a serious lack of NPOV or possibly vandalism WP:VAN. You've made arguments against including text/writers (including removing them) who discussed Jefferson's role in slavery, claiming bias (unfounded).Ebanony (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony -- To have an entire paragraph talking about Sally Hemmings, in the lead of an encyclopedia article on Thomas Jefferson's entire life, is absurd. The lead should maybe have 3 to 5 sentences about Jefferson and slavery in general -- with a heavy focus on the broad/general. And in five sentences, there are many more important things that we should be talking about besides Hemmings -- things that are of much greater historical relevance. Hemmings should be reserved for the section on Jefferson and slavery. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There should not even be a single sentence in the lead about Sally Hemmings. For there to be an entire paragraph is absurd. We should, of course, cover it briefly in this article (summarizing content from Sally Hemmings). But not in the lead. The lead should have a brief discussion on Jefferson and slavery in general. But if we've only got 3 or 4 sentences to summarize the entire historical debate about Jefferson and slavery, Hemmings is not anywhere close to significant enough of a topic to warrant inclusion in those 3 or 4 sentences. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree Ebanony is clearly obsessed with this issue, has exposed himself to be completely without NPOV and in my opinion acts out of malice given this grossly disproportionate inclusion of Hemmings material. If the lead says anything about Hemmings it should be the last sentence.

I disagree. Why should only slavery in general be discussed in the lead? --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony, First Prominent controversies is an ambiguous term. Prominent to whom? To me, the prominent things Jefferson did FOR millions of people is far more important than some theory various friends of America have been (obviously) preoccupied with. Hemmings has zero effect on ie.The US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark Expedition, War of 1812. 'All' of these items are mentioned with a couple of sentences in the lead -- while we have a whole paragraph about Sally Hemmings! (??) This is absurd, out of place and again gives undue weight to a THEORY, no matter how many people want to believe it, or hype it out of proportion for their own sordid reasons, it is still just that, a theory with a lot of other variables to consider, or sweep under the rug, as your case may be. Consensus does not support your hyper-representation of Hemmings in the lead. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To all: I will again remove this grossly disproportionate amount of Hemming's material from the lead and will give it no more mention than what the Declaration of Independence has received there.
Is there consensus? Gwillhickers (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already in one of the last paragraphs. It's fine and not a "grossly disproportionate." Trying to remove it in it's entiretly is clear POV pushing.

1) I agree Hemings should not be a paragraph (2-3 sentences is plenty), and it should be together with the part on slavery in a few sentences. But it was not a whole paragraph on Hemings alone. Someone added to it, then it was deleted outright - without any discussion. The Manual of Style says the lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." WP:LEAD This is definitely a prominent controversy, going back 200 years with numerous studies, like Jefferson DNA data in Nature magazine url=http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Jeffersons.pdf, the Monticello Foundation, the National Genealogical Society. There are at least 4 articles on wikipedia dealing with this (Jefferson DNA data; Sally Hemings; Eston Hemings; Thomas Jefferson and slavery), and quite a number of books, newspapers articles etc. First people objected to even mentioning slavery in the lede (it had been absent for a long time), and now it's Hemings. We can't pretend Jefferson wasn't a slave owner who was not involved in controversy. I'm content with 1 sentence on Hemings. Let's agree on the content & size, but to excise it all?Ebanony (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the lead should not mention the Hemmings business. Jefferson was famous for scores of reasons - the Declaration of Independence, his political offices, his writings, etc. If no one had heard of whatever happened between him and Hemmings, he would still be extremely notable. Including info about her in the lead is both undue weight and a disproportionate focus on present-day concerns. Hemmings's lead paragraph should mention Jefferson (he's the only reason she's notable), but his should not mention her. --Coemgenus 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the amount of attention paid to the subject in recent years, I think it's appropriate to mention it briefly in the lede. The current (11:30, 24 January 2011) edit by Ebanony looks about right to me. WCCasey (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the controversy has been overstated, as was evidenced here, and orchestrated by agenda driven interests. That is the only viable explanation for the preoccupation over something that has had zero effect on Jefferson's role in history. There are 25 different Jefferson males who could have also been the father. Why do some individuals hope/insist it was TJ? -- In any event mention of Hemings in the lead has been reduced from near paragraph size to a sentence that is worded acceptably, however, it still can be argued if it belongs in the lead at all, given the gigantic events it is mentioned along side of, giving it undue weight. In all fairness, mention to slavery should be made in the lead and Hemings should be briefly mentioned in that section where it can be linked to the Sally Hemings page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for including an item in the lede is defined in the Manual of style:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.WP:LEAD

Hemings is controversial. The question is if it is a "notable controversy". Beliefs/thoughts; questions over guilt/innocence; fair/unfair treatment by the media; the impact Hemings had on history; helping/hurting Jefferson's reputation - none of these things can serve as reasons to make a decision. It's either a notable controversy or it isn't. Other leaders have things like this in the lede: Clinton with Lewinski; Dominique de Villepin with his court problems; Bush with Katrina etc. Those were notable controversies, regardless if they were innocent/treated fairly by the media etc. Maybe each of those persons would/wouldn't like those things discussed. But editors don't write history.

The NYTimes said "The enduring rumor that Thomas Jefferson conducted a 38-year liaison with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, is a story that won't be put to rest." [18]. That was before the DNA test, and 38 years is a about half Jefferson's life. This was his wife's half sister (his in law). The Times page on Jefferson [19] has at least 8 out of 32 articles on slavery/Hemings (including the ones at the top). Reed's is "winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in History for her book The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. That's pretty notable. Her 1st book on him THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS: An American Controversy - look at the title. That's just one writer. Since I have been accused of bias, I will not vote on this; I have said my point, and leave it to the consensus to decide if Hemings should be in the lede. Does it meet requirements for inclusion as per the Manual? Ebanony (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

edit break2

For someone who stuffed a whole paragraph into the lead section about Hemings, your reference to rules and policy at this point in time comes off a little less than sincere. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

1st Gwillhickers another editor added that information. I reduced it. Now does or doesn't the inclusion of Hemings meet requirements? You seem to agree it does, but want to limit both it and slavery to 1 sentence. They each need 1 sentence to be covered correctly. Slavery is not the same as an alleged relationship, and the syntax would be impossible. A lede gets 4 paragraphs, but Hemings it's not a question of undue weight: it's about "notable controversy". So the war of 1812 is not a controversy & doesn't have to be discussed; "notable controversies", on the other hand, do. There is no other controversy mentioned. Some info needs to be excised, and I've made proposals.Ebanony (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your notion that a topic is more important simply because it is controversial is also ridiculous. Again, Hemmings is no where near as important as all the landmark events Jefferson was involved with. The only reason it is a controversy is because people like yourself take the issue and cram it into a lead section, or employ other in your face tactics, or resort to other forms of noise. Easy to see, Ebanony. Hemings has had no impact on American history, please stop treating the topic as if it has. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree with this one. If there was no impact on history then why are people still discussing it hundreds of years later? It's obvious that it's significant. It happened, it's significant, it's over, end of story. I'm indifferent myself, but it's clear to me from the research that I've done, that this topic is still significant. You're correct in your assertion that Hemmings has significance because of her tie to Jefferson. However, your assertion that she was insignificant or that her "relationship" was insignificant comes across as POV pushing. If Hemmings was not a slave, but a wife or a non-slave mistress then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You say: "Hemings has had no impact on American history" - that's not the criterion used to include it; it's about "notable controversy" not "more important" than a war WP:LEAD. Also, it's incorrect. She and other slaves had a major impact; they were essential to the "slave-based economy", without which the US would never have been founded. No impact? So black slaves don't count? Just the "great white men" who enslaved them? Your version of history is what Gordon-Reed describes as a lack of "proper regard for the humanity and integrity of blacks who were enslaved at Monticello." Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings pg vii. It's clear why you seek to exclude slavery & Hemings. Ebanony (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is another one of your distortions. Slavery may have been important to Jefferson's wealth, not Hemings -- and this one individual certainly has no bearing on Jefferson's presidency or the fate of the American nation. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Not Hemings? Now you say slavery not important to her wealth? SHE was Jefferson's wealth, and produced children who became more wealth he profited from. His slaves were property that made him rich. You do understand the concept of chattel slavery? She did forced labour for many years so he could make a profit off of her - like millions of other slaves did for their owners. There's no "distortion", just some confusion on your part.Ebanony (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please make more of an effort to respond to what I have written. Above I say "Slavery may have been important to Jefferson's wealth, not Hemings." , here you are claiming I simply said that slavery did not make him rich. Careful. I point out also that while slavery made him rich, Hemings by herself did not. She was one person. This is what you have glossed over with another misrepresentation of what I have clearly written above. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a distortion; your writing is not the easiest to follow, but ok fine. She was one of the many slave who make him wealthy. What does that change or prove? Nothing. Hemings is important, or they'd not be awarding Pulitzer prizes fro work directly on her, Jefferson & very likely their children. That's the historical consensus, and few scholars disagree with it. We don't want to give undue weight to minority pov's, though they should get a mention.Ebanony (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

UnDue weight to Hemings, still

Hemings is not more important than the Declaration of Independence, War of 1812, etc. and should get no more mention than these LANDMARK events in the introduction. Controversy no excuse for UnDue weight. Once sentence for slavery and Hemings please. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One sentence on Sally Hemings needs to be in the lead; however, the sentence needs to be changed to the following: "Although there is conclusive circumstancial and genetic evidence Jefferson fathered children with his female slave Sally Hemings, the historical relationship between Jefferson and Hemings remains controversial." Yeh or Neh? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this subject is still discussed after 200 years, gives it weight. It should not be limited to one sentence to satisy Gwillhickers, who is clearly POV pushing. The level of proof this person and other people of this ilk are demanding is ridiculous. This level of scrutiny would not be applied to anyone else, other than Thomas Jefferson. The only sure way of knowing with absolute certainty is to dig Thomas Jefferson up. There should be no change on the Hemmings subject. This subject was put to bed years ago. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The weight of an issue can not be measured simply by how many people happen to be talking about it, esp since the only reason the issue comes up so often is because of an orchestrated effort to keep the issue in your face, and I believe that has happened here. There is much talk here because, for example, there was once more than three entire pages dumped onto the TJ page about Hemings. Recently someone put almost an entire paragraph in the lede about Hemings. 'That' is how the issue usually comes up. In of itself, the Hemings affair is not a pressing issue, and effects virtually no one other than the people who chose to do cart-wheels over the issue. -- To measure the weight of an historical issue it must be looked at from the perspective of how this issue impacted the fate of millions of people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

People come to this page for information. This page needs to reflect that. It shouldn't be stripped or sanitized. As I said earlier and will say again, this level of scrutiny is what is "undue," not the Hemmings information itself. Nibble away at the article long enough, then we'll be removing entire sections from articles in order to protect an historical figure's image. At some point I think this topic should be archived. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is another: "Although there is conclusive circumstancial and genetic evidence Jefferson fathered children with his female slave Sally Hemings, historians continue to debate this controversial issue." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The condition of conclusive is highly debatable and shouldn't be in the lede. Trying to place the exact whereabouts of all male family members by means of documents and such simply leaves too many stones unturned; Too many variables unaccounted for. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I can delete "conclusive" and put in the rest of the compound sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me understand what is happening: we've already got 1 sentence on Hemings in the lede. I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with it, and the rationale for a change. Is there some error with it now?Ebanony (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The lede is wrong to use the conditional term of "conclusive" because this idea is still reasonably debated. Only that which is absolute fact merits any mention in the lede. Jefferson owned slaves, an undeniable fact; Hemings issues? Different ball park entirely. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think my problem with giving this prominent mention in the lede is that I expect the intro to be an overview of the figure's historical impact. This is a personal life occurrence, one that while having enjoyed a great deal of study and lively controversy, is based on speculation. It's interesting because it suggests all manner of complexity, if not hypocrisy, when weighed against public life, and raises the possibility of unrecognized heirs. But we don't have mention of JFK's mistresses in the lede to that biography, where the distinction between the historical and personal is implicit. Did the possible relationship with Hemings have a significant social impact that would justify mention in an encyclopedic intro? JNW (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the JFK point is a fair point, however, from an historical perspective, I don't think that Marilyn Monroe was intrinsically linked to JFK as Hemings was to Jefferson. It was also used as a political weapon against Jefferson, whereas I don't believe it was with JFK. Additionally, the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings highlights another historical situation, that of master and slave relations. But overall I do think that this is a good point. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone engaged in this discussion a historian by profession? Because I'd be fascinated to have input from a presidential biographer as to whether this is intro-worthy. JNW (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I usually am not comfortable in using my position as a teacher of United States History as leverage in any talk page discussion, and am even now reluctantly giving my opinion on this particular topic. But as an appeal for the opinion of a historian has been requested (and I do consider myself an historian), I will only give my educated opinion on the matter.

I would say that just about every Jefferson biographer, that I have read, has at least some mention of the Sally Hemmings affair, even if they do not believe it. Its best to have a brief mention in the lead, as well as brief mentions of other key events in his life. The question here though, is if it is a bit weighty for the lead. I would say that it may be able to be trimmed a small bit, keeping in mind that the lead section is only an overview of the entire article.

Again, thse are only my opinions and it would be up to the consensus of everyone involved to decide.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also an historian and I agree with the poster above. The overall consensus in the historical community is already reflected in the article. The factual and circumstantial evidence of this relationship is well-documented. As I've said before, this level of scrutiny, with regard to paternity, is somewhat unusual. It's old hat and I'm amazed that it still triggers this level of debate. The only way to be absolutely certain is to dig him up and collect a direct DNA sample, which will never happen, nor should it. At some point I think this topic should be archived. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Jojhutton; your position and related knowledge are relevant. I'm certain that Jefferson's biographers mention this aspect. My interest, such as it is, is not in discussing the likelihood of an intimate relationship, nor whether to include it in the article. Just whether it merits mention in the intro, and if so, how extensively. JNW (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One sentence in the lead only. Its too drawn out now with irrelevant POV from both sides. One sentence is all it needs.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First, even back in 1999, they said "Most people at the meeting agreed that DNA data reported last November, along with the available historical evidence, now makes it between probable and almost certain that Jefferson had a hidden family with Sally Hemings, one of his slaves." [20] (The TImes biograohy page has THIS as it's 1st article, & 8 0f 32 on these topics). That's not just that meeting or those scholars, but many others. 10 yrs later, Gordon-Reeds Pulitzer Prize-winning history The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family for her new work, among many other things, makes those who "disagree" to be in the minority. The scholars who disagree are few (some aren't "scholars" but political ideologues), and this "controversy" is not disputed the way it once was except by a select few. This is not "speculation" like JNW suggested (with all due respect). [21] The DNA study concluded there was no evidence for any other possibility [22] We don't need "historians" or "presidential biographers" to weigh in (we've got their writings).

Second this is not a question of due/undue weight; this link is not a guideline for the lead weighty; the lead's guidelines are here WP:lede, and inclusion of material like this is based on "notable controversy". It should be a brief mention because it's an overview, but the idea of "historical impact" is not one that has support in the manual of style - as far as I know. BTW JFK's mistresses don't get discussed: they probably should (especially after Hersh & others wrote on it). Clinton has it on Lewinski etc. Those were "notable controversies"; the impact they had is not the question. Gwillhickers went off on that idea earlier, and several corrected it: [23]. I didn't realise the lead was just lengthened. See this thread below [24]. So, you'd like 1 sentence, 2 sentence? Of the current lead, what is too much?

Allegations that Jefferson fathered several children with his slave Sally Hemings were made since Jefferson's time, provoking controversy.[8] Based on late 20th century historical studies and 1998 DNA analysis[9], the course of Jeffersonian scholarship has dramatically changed as a consensus has emerged among leading scholars that Jefferson did have a long-term relationship with Hemings and fathered her children.[10][11] Not all scholars yet agree.Ebanony (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Backing slowly off page) Out of my historical depth on this....but I did not intend the word 'speculative' pejoratively; rather, using it to refer to any theory which can not be proven with absolute conclusiveness. If Jefferson's paternity is accepted as a fact, it's no longer a matter for speculation; if there are reasonable doubts, it remains speculation. Nor did I mean to imply that the good contributors of Wikipedia were not up to the challenge of interpreting the writing of others--I attempt it all the time. However, it's a discussion that could only be enriched by the contributions of presidential historians. In like fashion, though we have an abundance of scholarship on Thomas Eakins, raul654 was good enough to correspond with Eakins scholar William Innes Homer, whose further insights have proved valuable. (Now running) Okay, I'm gone. JNW (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

don't want you to "back off" the page, and I'm not criticising your comment, just pointing out that this is not now speculation; there is no absolute certainty, but there is not reasonable doubt left either - as far as I know. We've got some of the best academics reversing their earlier statements & positions - 12 years ago. It's old news, & Wikipedia is behind. Also, historians can always add their 2 pence, but we're referring to their writings right here, and this is a community for all. You needn't be an "expert", and you're more than welcome to take part. You have my apology if my comment made you feel uncomfortable: it was 95% not directed at you, just clearing up come old ideas promoted round here by other writers. I actually liked reading your input since it raised the level of conversation here.Ebanony (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would note that there is still disagreement regarding how old the earth is, as there are people who believe (some of whom are accredited) that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. However, in that respect we clearly go with the consensus, as the earth is listed as 4.5 billion years old. The point being, there's always going to be someone who disagrees. Some disagree louder than the others, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a consensus on the topic. This topic should be closed and the Hemings info should remain as is. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Change in scholarship must be reflected in this article

As the MacArthur Foundation said in its 2010 announcement of a fellowship to Annette Gordon-Reed, who wrote Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, her "persistent investigation into the life of an iconic American president has dramatically changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship." Her Pulitzer Prize-winning history The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family provided more information on Jefferson and Hemings, and reflected early American society. That's why we have to reflect that change in scholarship in this article, including in the lede.Parkwells (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon-Reed "is best known for 1997's groundbreaking "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy," which examined historians' treatment of the Jefferson-Hemings liaison, and made a strong case that Jefferson fathered seven children with Hemings. DNA testing a year after the book came out vindicated Gordon-Reed's assertion, and made her book a cause célèbre among Jefferson scholars. Joseph Ellis, whose National Book Award-winning biography of Jefferson, "American Sphinx," claimed Jefferson never slept with Hemings, later conceded the point, writing that it was difficult not to conclude Jefferson had been "living a lie."(Newsweek, "A New Jefferson Memorial", 4 Oct 2008).Parkwells (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say mention is due, particularly of the Pulitzer. Can you clarify the following: "vindicated Gordon-Reed's assertion". Which one? That of paternity or unfair scholarship by scholars? Not exactly sure which assertion you're referring. Also, I'll see if I can access it, but have you got a link? Otherwise looks good to me. Ebanony (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That was the Newsweek quote - judging from context, I think they were referring to Gordon-Reed's having made a case for Jefferson's fathering children with Hemings, because of the reference to the DNA analysis.Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fawn M. Brodie released Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History in February, 1974. Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson unfairly and harshly critized her work. The book puts strong circumstancial evidence that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children. Brodie used Dumas Malone's timeline when Jefferson was at Monticello. Her book predates Annette Gordon-Reed's 1997 book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings An American Controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon-Reed in her analysis of the historiography on the controversy gives Brodie credit for her contributions and notes they were not fully considered at the time because of the psychological analysis portion. I didn't have time to go through all the history. Gordon-Reed added other analysis that made her work more strongly considered - that, and time, and the advantage of having the DNA results the following year. She followed it up with the lengthy award-winning book on the Hemingses and Jefferson.Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dumas Malone, etc. - section break

Dumas Malone, Joseph J. Ellis, Gary Wills, and Merrill Peterson essentially believe that Sally Heming's having children by Jefferson is myth. These are biographers of Jefferson. Do their views need to be expressed in the article on Sally Hemings and Jefferson? As of yet I have not heard if any of these scholars or persons have or had changed their opinions on Jefferson and Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See the section above for Ellis' changed opinions. WCCasey (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Those were opinions nearly two decades ago, as well. Malone preceded Ellis as a biographer, and Gordon-Reed used some of his material to show he had unearthed relevant details. Don't know about Peterson.Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ellis has changed his mind and admitted he was wrong concerning Sally Hemings and Jefferson. Defenders of Jefferson Renew Attack on DNA Data Linking Him to Slave Child

Let's be clear. The article you linked to says Ellis changed his earlier conclusion that Jefferson was not the father of Sally Hemings' children. WCCasey (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Had to take a break, but the "Mixed-race children" section has a quote from Ellis in a Newshour interview in November 1998 in which he said that due to the DNA results, he realized he was wrong and now believes Jefferson and Hemings had a long-term relationship. Parkwells (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Parkwells (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Are Malone and Peterson holdouts? If so their views on Jefferson and Hemings need to be mentioned in the article for balance. Halliday's criticism of both Malone and Peterson need to be mentioned also. My whole point is that not all historians have changed their views on Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They're not exactly "hold-outs". Take a look at their wiki pages, and I think you'll know why they haven't adjusted their opinions here Merrill Peterson and Dumas Malone. Theirs is the old research; new research has happened since their time, and even if they disagreed, they'd have to offer substantial evidence for their old positions. Ebanony (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to show that the scholarly consensus has changed, and I think the awards given to Gordon-Reed's Hemingses of Monticello as well as the MacArthur certainly show that. We don't have to justify the holdouts and don't need to give them an undue amount of space. By the way, Malone died in 1986 and Peterson in 2009. He published his books on Jefferson in 1960 and 1970, so was far before the later studies and DNA results. No need to answer their objections. The report of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society in 2001, which was critical of the Monticello Foundation report in 2000, was criticized at length in the National Genealogical Society's article in their fall 2001 issue, so that would be a source for dealing with those scholars. But since then, anyway, Gordon-Reed developed more information in her research for The Hemingses. I'm really not sure that the issue is open any more.Parkwells (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying "justify the holdouts", just briefly mention them by name and their objections. The time of their deaths does not directly pertain to their opinions held on Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It pertains in the sense that they did not have access to new information. Gordon-Reed probably discusses them both in her review of the historiography in her book.Parkwells (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dumas Malone died in 1986. His views on Sally Hemings are not to be excluded because he did not have reference to DNA testing. When Malone was presented with strong circumstancial evidence on Jefferson and Sally Hemings he referred that Jefferson having children with Hemings was a "legend". Malone bitterly opposed any reference to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings having children or any sexual encounters. Peterson does not apply to your theory that the date on someone's death exludes their views on a Wikipedia article. There is no Wikipedia rule that states because a person died in 1986, their views on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings must be excluded from an article on Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I added to the article that Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson opposed Fawn M. Brodie's book Thomas Jeffeson: An Intimate History. I believe their opinions matter because they were prominant Jefferson biographers. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Need cites for what they objected to.Parkwells (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well they already get too much mention as it is despite the fact they've gone out of their way to present Jefferson in an unrealistic manner in these areas. These blokes are not the same as those today who ignore the historical consensus. The people who should be mentioned in the Hemings section are those who persist in their views - these are not so much the scholarly types, but the political writers. By the way, since the consensus has changed among scholars, "alleged" in the title should change; it's not an allegation, and these words give too much to the "hold-outs"who demand in these pages change after change.Ebanony (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please sign statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dumas Malone wrote extensively on Thomas Jefferson. His works are not to be ignored. I am not endorsing his views on Sally Hemings and Jefferson. I mentioned that his views were severely critical of Brodie's work. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Peterson died in 2009, he must have known the Jefferson DNA test? What were his opinions? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't found anything on how Peterson reacted to the DNA test. You should read Annette Gordon-Reed to see how she judges what Malone and Peterson did in evaluating some of the historical information - they tended to discount Madison Hemings' memoir for various reasons, while putting faith in unexamined testimony by Jefferson family members, which have been proven incorrect by data which Malone actually developed, but did not check against their testimony . Her book assesses the historiography of the controversy and points to failings of fact which Malone and Peterson ignored, plus ways in which they seemed biased by their opinions. Will get back to it. Malone largely discounted the controversy because of his sense of Jefferson's "character". Parkwells (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to put too much emphasis on Malone or Peterson, however, their views are important in terms of Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Peterson seems to have not said anything on the DNA evidence. I have looked for articles, but can't find anything. Gordon-Reed and Halliday are good sources that challenges Jefferson-Hemings theories by Peterson and Malone. Is it possible Peterson accepted the DNA evidence, however, did not openly acknowledge Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You've all made good points. Certain scholars showed contempt for enslaved Africans, and women. When whites told their version, it was history; when the black Jeffersons said it, it was "oral history". That's not neutral. His work was eyewitness testimony to what happened in his own life (Hemings memoir). If you really think those academics are worthy of so much respect, then you've missed the point of Reed's work. Watch her lecture [25] & here [26]. I don't care if they get a brief mention, but it should be with a clear reason (& not oh, it's because they were some famous writers). When it came to slavery, they were involved in mythology, and that's what serious academics said 15 yrs ago. Anyway, Reed is the expert; she proved herself; they do not validate her work.

So should we change the title from "alleged mixed race" to an accurate one? These word games don't belong. Am I correct in saying there is no longer an allegation? If so, we should adjust it.Ebanony (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of slavery and Hemings

I've moved up the Hemings section to be closer to the slavery sections; even as it is, they're both treated an "uninvited guests", and should both be featured with more prominence. Also, I've added Isaac Jefferson, one of the blacksmith's who was enslaved. This article must also discuss the people whom Jefferson forced to labour for him; we can't continue to dehumanise them. That picture was long overdue, and more along those lines needs to be done.

Hence I've changed the position of slavery & Hemings to reflect the coverage it receives everywhere else. It's been treated as a mere footnote, and that is not right. Ebanony (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd object somewhat to "the people whom Jefferson forced to labour for him" - Jefferson was a person of his time, and thus had few options. It's a bit like me "forcing people to build iPods in sweat shops". Personal responsibility is limited by the structure of society (Jefferson, being in debt all of his life, could neither free his slaves nor avoid having them work - the first was impossible because much of the time they were mortgaged (now that's an indictment of a society - allowing a lien on humans...), the second because he would go bankrupt and his creditors would take the slaves away, quite possibly to a worse fate. We should not gloss over the hypocrisy of a slave-holder declaring the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but we also cannot judge Jefferson according to modern standards adapted to modern society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Slavery was forced labor and was not equivalent to making ipods. I agree that this sentence is awkward and it should be worded differently but not for the same reasons. I also agree that Jefferson should not be judged by the standards of modern society, as he was most definitely a man of his time, however, we should not attempt to sanitize his motives. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also, the last paragraph in Attitudes to Slavery is all about Jefferson's actions in freeing or letting go slaves- I think this belongs with the Hemings section, as most were members of Elizabeth and Sally's families: siblings, children, etc.Parkwells (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the article, and I don't have any problem if you adjust that part. I was going to do it, but it's not in the main space (I may have already deleted it). Ebanony (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was a meticulous task master and did indeed run a nailry "sweat shop", if you can excuse the term, tearing the slave children from their slave parents to work from sunrise to sunset with Thomas Jefferson observing their exact nail production to determine whether they would be used for skilled labor. Remember, Jefferson's views and actions on slavery were contradictive. He said "All men are created equal", but then enslaved teenagers and forced them to work in the nailry; concerned with profit and production. Wikipedia does not give judgement on Thomas Jefferson nor excuses. Slavery is involuntary servitude. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson should be mentioned in the article as not embracing the new findings. I have been looking for any interviews for any statements from Malone or Peterson on the DNA evidence. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, Malone died in 1986, so did not address the new findings, and Peterson in 2009. Have not found anything on his reaction. Peterson published his books on Jefferson in 1960 and 1970, long before the Brodie and Gordon-Reed studies and DNA results. In his first book he said that Madison Heming's account was "vivid and accurate in many respects." The Jefferson Image in the American Mind, New York: Oxford University Press, 1962, p. 186.Parkwells (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson was a slave owner along with other Virginia slave owners owning "human property". The U.S. Constitution calls slavery involuntary servitude. According to the Wikipedia article involuntary servitude involves coercion or forced labor through ".....threats,or rewards intimidation or some other form of pressure....." Jefferson used both rewards and the whip. Also a slave during Jefferson's time was not free when escaped. Slaves could be captured by force anywhere in the United States and returned to their owners. In Virginia, only the slave master could set a slave free by will or deed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is true, but every aspect of slavery does not need to be repeated in this article. Jefferson sent no one after the two slaves (his children) who escaped. They apparently assimilated easily into white society.Parkwells (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines slavery as a system were people are "forced to work". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Slaves did not have any rights or protection under the law. There were no laws that said a slave owner could not rape or kill a slave. Slaves could not go to court because they were whipped and press charges against the owner. Slaves did not have any parental rights over their children. Even the Church was not permitted to give slaves any sanctuary or freedom. There were no laws that said slaves must be kept in a good shelter or be fed properly. A slave could not sue an owner in court over mistreatment. These were the realities of Jefferson's time. The article on Jefferson does mention that Jefferson allowed slaves to leave Monticello. The slaves you mentioned, Beverly and Harriet Hemings, assimilated because they were 1/8 black and they married white people. Their identity had to be kept hidden or they were subject to being arrested. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? The article notes the Hemings children were 7/8 white, and they were obviously polished enough to marry into white society. Madison and Eston Hemings were well accepted. An article on Slavery discusses the US conditions in detail.Parkwells (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Assimilated implies consent. Their identities were secret. The racism of the time only allowed whites to be citizens. Any trace of black would mean that Beverly and Harriet could be enslaved. Jefferson never gave them their formal freedom in writing. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do some more reading - Ariela Gross has work related to challenges of people's identities in court, and showed that people of mixed-race background could be accepted as white. The Hemings were somewhat protected because Jefferson was not hunting for them, did not advertise, let them go. It was not their racial ancestry that endangered them, but having been born into slavery, but since he didn't send anyone after them, they had a better chance of being accepted. The two issues were not exactly the same.Parkwells (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A slave law claimed that if a child was born by an African American slave mother; the child was a slave. If Beverly and Harriet claimed that a slave woman Sally Heming's [1/4 black] was their mother, they could be considered slaves by white society. Jefferson set them free from Monticello without any written document claiming their freedom. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be shortened

When editing, the article says "This page is 146 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." - Hence we must reduce the size of the text by deleting unnecessary information, and by sending other information existing articles or by creating new ones.Ebanony (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's about 12000 words of readable prose. That's a bit on the long side, but no reason for urgent action. One thing that could probably be split off productively is the "Political philosophy and views" section. Personally, I don't see much value in the sections on stamps and currency, but I can imagine others would differ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to delete it; we could make it into a separate article so that those who've got an interest can still access it. A simple link from the main page would still make it visible. As to the part on the university, it's far too long. It's already got it's own article.Ebanony (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just reduced the size of the university section; not only was it way above the reading level of many wikipedia users (say that 4th grader or secondary school student), it was the most detailed section in the article. Most of that info, whist interesting to an architect, is just inappropriate & unnecessary. The lack of sources is inexcusable. I'm posting a sign for sources needed.Ebanony (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We might want to consider a separate article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, from the point of view of the scholarship and historiography, since it went on for so long, and reflects so much of American attitudes, society and assumptions as it continued, including changing ideas about presidents' private lives (or lack thereof). Not to take all references out of this article, but to give it its due and not overburden this article with it. I don't think the Sally Hemings article should be the place for that in detail - the Hemings family had their own lives, as shown in the book about them, and deserve dignity, too, with an article about them as their own people. Their article should be the place to ensure there is overview of her children and grandchildren (who included a white officer in the Union Army and another in the USCT).Parkwells (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a dna article, one on her, and this one here. I'm not against it, but of the several already there, do you think one might be useful for that? This article needn't be so detailed, as long as it covers the most important aspects.Ebanony (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're right, enough is enough.Parkwells (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"article is not readable for many school aged children"

Sorry, but I really don't agree with the sentiment. First, it's not aimed at (all) school-aged children - we don't censor for their benefit, so we don't need to write down to their level, either. Secondly, the prose is really not beyond most teenagers ability to parse, and offering them a reasonable challenge is not negative. There always is simple:Thomas Jefferson on the Simple English Wikipedia (which, admittedly, could use a lot of work). Here we should aim for a tone appropriate for a general reference work, not for a 6th grade text book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with your sentiments, Stephan Schulz. Editing in this fashion on wikipedia is a misguided idea. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the simplified version also had a number of grammatical problems (e.g. "In 1768 building Monticello, a neoclassical mansion, something he had always to do." - no verb, "The committee selected Jefferson to write the first draft probably because of his reputation as a writer, but was a routine assignment." - no subject in the relative phrase), I've reverted the last two edits for now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify:

I didn't make arbitrary edits to "dumb it down". Much of what was there was completely unnecessary. A case in point: the undue weight given to University of Va, and the level of English employed here (this is an old version): [27]. If you contrast it to my edit, it's clear that my edits corresponds to WP:undue weight policy, WP:V policy, and common sense.

I didn't delete all the info:

Stamp & coin sections, for example I merged what I could to the memorial section, and deleted the things not directly related to him, or that lacked sources. There was an enormous amount of repetition, and it's clear some editors were showing off with fancy language just to do it when there were simpler, more common ways to speak. That makes it less accessible.

Articles should be 40-60KB.

This one was 109KB as of my last edit WP:SIZERULE. Do we really need an article on coins/stamps dedicated to him? Not even George Washington gets that. Not even the articles on Jesus, Mohamed or God or get as much detail as Jefferson. If God doesn't get, why should Jefferson? (disclaimer* I never worked on those articles) Now I made an error in my edit, and Stephan Schulz fixed it, so I thank him for it, but that's the point: we do what can to improve the article. Please understand, my edits were not about just simplifying; I wrote that because I was upset that this article still wouldn't be good enough for a 100-level class. So I actually agree with the above comments, but perhaps we didn't understand each ether's goals. Ebanony (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is designed for adults; however, specifically obscene material needs to be watched for and deleted. There is no obscene material, as far as I can tell, in the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• The "40-60KB" is a rough guideline and refers to "readable prose", excluding things like the footnotes, image captions, table of contents, and so on. The readable prose is, unless I miscounted, around 48 KB at the moment, comfortably within the limit. The fact that other articles are shorter is completely irrelevant - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a volunteer effect, and alway will reflect the interests of the volunteer editors, not some absolute measure of importance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Ebanony's merge, reduction, and grammar edits to the Thomas Jefferson article. To edit "fancy language" is subjective. What "fancy language" was edited specifically? Were these English words or alternative language root words that have been incorporated into the English language. I understand making the narration flow better, that is always good, however, an explanation would be appropriate for editing out words that younger readers may not understand. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, I agree with you on some of those things. Yes, readers have different interests, which is why I kept the most relevant info on coins/stamps/Univ of Virginia - without giving them too much space. Think about it: some editors went on and on about Hemings & how it was not good to discuss her in the lead (some wanted her out almost entirely). Those same editors had nothing to say about giving "undue weight" to stamps, and a university though. Or how about some JFK quote in the lead? They didn't complain about this even though it took up more space & was not at all important. See the old version: [28]. However, since the University is more important, I kept it but condensed it. But now, a section for stamps? A section on "corporations" & "self esteem"? [29] Contrast it to the section now: [30] There were 9 areas! Absurd. I kept what was good from different paragraphs so people can enjoy their interests, but also so that the article is encyclopedic. I merged it with Philosophy or memorials, but deleted the constant redundancies (that lowered the level of the article, not I).

We need to use the same standards, and not let people go off on tangents, particularly when their edits said nothing at all: self-esteem & corporations, a case in point. What did that add? Nothing but wasted space. It's mostly original research of some quote they found. That's just one example, and there's plagiarism in some of the text I removed - like from Mullin's book in Jefferson's early life. That's why I reduced it, not language (that was only in a few sections, and when I did that, I paraphrased the text or removed it because it lacked sources). As to Cmguy777's question, the section that had fancy language was this: [31]. The current version is simple, to the point, and doesn't go on and on about every detail on the location of a garden & its symbolism. I'm not against the interests, just saying those things prevented the article from being decent. I'd say let's go through the current article, condense Hemings, improve the Native American section (too many direct quotes, and they say very little); the other sections currently need sources, some additional info added (relevant stuff), and a reworking of the pics (some were just thrown in there). If we want "good article" or GA, then it's not going to happen with "self-esteem" and out-of-place quotes and the most detailed section of the university of Va anyone ever saw.Ebanony (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rework of the Lead section

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

NOTE* This is not concerning Hemings or slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't grasp how this article was ever allowed to get so large; there were sections on everything, much relying on primary source materials. The section "self-esteem" I can see no reason for. The Judiciary is covered elsewhere. The general wording of some parts was not within the reading level of many visitors. Bottom line: the article is so big that nearly impossible to make sense of it. I've reduced & removed some of the above; the Native Americans views have got their own section, and so do slaves. They were too many redundancies. Honestly, if every sentence in this section [32] were deleted, the article would improve (maybe some can stay though). Political and philosophical views is perhaps the only part worth keeping. It's not normal to have section on everything in a biography. Ebanony (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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