Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Historian views on Jefferson's paternity of Sally Heming's children

Just for clarification, what historians are for the Jefferson paternity of Sally Heming's children and what historians are against the Jefferon paternity of Sally Heming's children? Please feel free to add to or modify the list. The term "historian" is defined as any person or organization who has done extensive published research on the paternity of Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This should not be the definition, but rather all that is required are the recognized historians who are writing about Jefferson. Malone and Peterson didn't do "extensive research on the paternity of Hemings' children, but dealt with it in the course of writing about Jefferson. Contemporary historians are not required to do separate research on the paternity issue, as that has been established and generally accepted in academic consensus. This is not a voting contest; we established some time ago on this page that consensus exists in the academic community, whether or not there are editors who do not want to accept it. Also, do not put people in the Against column who changed their minds as a result of the DNA study and Annette Gordon-Reed's work. That is not the point any more; all it reflects is that the scholarship has changed. I'm beginning to think it is a mistake to have this article reflect the controversy that existed, as it has essentially been closed or finished for nearly a decade. Maybe we should simply discuss the consensus as given, with brief reasons for it, not with the tracing of different historians' earlier positions, which seems to lead some people into extended argument.Parkwells (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• For

Gordon-Reed *

Ellis **

Brodie

Halliday ***

Thomas Jefferson Foundation

Bernstein

Andrew Burstein

Hitchens ****

Andrew O. Boulton

Helen F. M. Leary, certified genealogist, National Genealogical Society

Philip D. Morgan

Gordon S. Wood

Jack Rakove

Thomas Jefferson Foundation, including numerous historians

Lucia C. Stanton, Monticello (TJF)

National Genealogical Society

Joshua D. Rothman

• Against

Malone, dead; his opinion was not based on current data. Parkwells (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Peterson, d. 2009; major books on Jefferson published in 1960 and 1970; did not have current data, and reflected his own time. Parkwells (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society

Notes:

Gordon-Reed is a Professor of Law and History. *

Ellis was against Jefferson paternity until the 198 DNA study was published; he changed his mind. **

Depends if Halliday is considered a reliable source. ***He uses Gordon-Reed's work; that's clear.

Hitchens is a journalist. ****

I think this is somewhat simplified - it's not a vote, and careful historians will have a nuanced view (including e.g. Gordon-Reed). I've just finished Bernstein's "Thomas Jefferson", and he strongly supports paternity. So does another biographer, Christopher Hitchens, in Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. But Hitchens is more a journalist, and less a historian. Malone died before Gordon-Reeds reappraisal of the evidence and the DNA tests came to light. The Jefferson Heritage Society denies paternity (but then that's essentially it's raison d'etre). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My purpose is to clarify the consensus among historians. I defined historian. Does a historian with PH.D. in History have more weight then a journalist? How is this article making this distinction? Gordon-Reed is an attorney. If one defined historian strictly as a person with PH.D. in History, then how many historians support that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings? There is no way to conjecture if Malone would have changed his opinion. That is why I put Malone in the against category. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Foster DNA research - his assistant Herbert Barger has publicly expressed disgust with the way the research was conducted and presented. Barger calls the published report misleading. The DNA links only one Hemings child to the Jefferson line - and doesn't directly indicate TJ - and according to Barger there was information and dissenting views that Foster refused to make part of his reports. Something that Barger points out regarding the "Jefferson was always there when Sally got knocked up so there you have it" issue is that whenever Jefferson returned home, he was always greeted by relatives who traveled to see him. The more I find out about this the more I see that it's not as cut and dried as some would like everyone to believe.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you get Gordon-Reeds Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. You don't need to believe her conclusions, but the book makes some very astute observations not only about the evidence itself, but also about implicit (and generally unjustified) assumptions of later observers that I find very valuable. It's currently ~US$12 from Amazon (disclosure: I'm still stuck in the second chapter or so). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I will. Barger has some unflattering things to say about her work - biased, agenda-driven, overreaching in her conclusions, gives too much weight to a DNA study that has some issues. I find he's not alone in this viewpoint. From what I gather the meat of her position is - DNA match to male Jefferson line (of one and only one Hemings child), and TJ in physical proximity to SH at times she would have become pregnant. Neither of these eliminates others as the potential father. Jefferson made no public statement, made private denials. Possible explanations - he was covering for others, or he was lying to his friends and was the father of one or more of her children. No writing by Sally Hemings exists. All the conclusions about what she was like - not promiscuous etc. are utter speculation. No matter what AGR has to say, she can't create evidence that doesn't exist.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an example of why I suggest you read it for yourself and don't rely on second-hand accounts. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that the book was published before the DNA study was published (although later editions have a new preface mentioning it), and hence gives no weight to it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We're going with what's current. Later editions are more recent than previous editions. She does use it to bolster her position currently.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but claiming the book gives "too much weight to the DNA study" when the whole argument of the book is constructed without referencing the study once (no surprise, since it was not published when the book came out) is absurd. Sure, the DNA study supports her argument, but that is very much not the point of the book - nor is she using it to "bolster her argument". If someone claims that, he has either not read (or at least not understood) the book, or he is confused about which book we are talking about, or he is lying. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the topic. This discussion is not concerning the Dr. Foster DNA study. Dr. Foster never stated directly Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children. The topic is on historians who believe Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children versus those who do not favor or have not favored that Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Foster study is integral with the topic. Of course Foster didn't state this since the evidence is insufficient to do so. This doesn't prevent many from trying to make that leap anyway.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Annette Gordon-Reed is a Professor of Law and a Professor of History at Harvard, and holds a named chair at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. I seriously don't think describing her as "an attorney" is adequate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing that.Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Previously, she was a professor of History at Rutgers, and a Professor of Law at New York (holding simulteneous chairs), so describuing her as only a law professor is misleading.65.79.14.40 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, this discussion is pretty pointless. There is a cite in the article regarding "most historians;" No "count" by anonymous wikipedians is going to change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.14.40 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a pointless discussion in attempting to figure out who is (was) who with Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the point? Are you going to count every article and book published? The consensus has been established. People here are not going to influence that, whether they understand it or not.Parkwells (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion really needs to be finished; it is getting absurd. We've been through this before months ago on this Talk page; the consensus among reliable historians has been achieved, and it does not depend on whether the editors of this article agree. If our discussion here goes on much longer, Wikipedia will look ridiculous. We are supposed to follow the reliable sources,and they have accepted that Jefferson was the father. I provided plenty of evidence months ago on this page to show that there is a consensus, and it does not need a new list of every historian who has ever written about Jefferson, and their positions. The fact that Annette Gordon-Reed's book won the Pulitzer Prize and 15 other major awards made by committees of her peers, and that she won a MacArthur Prize for "changing Jeffersonian scholarship" shows that this position/conclusion is accepted. Barger's criticism in an Amazon review or other minor articles cannot be weighed equally against the recognition in the academic world for her accomplishments; he does not have equivalent standing. I also wrote previously on this Talk page that Monticello has been changing their exhibits, website and publications to account for the new scholarship. That also has more weight than Barger. They are an academic community. Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To continue, editors could look at the histories published in the last 10 years about Jefferson and/or interracial relations in the South, and you will see that they have nearly all (except those by people associated with the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society) accepted that he is the father of Hemings' children. This is not only about historians already cited in this article, as new books appear all the time, and editors should be reading new work to add here. Monticello has exhibits in the visitors center showing Jefferson as the father of all of Sally Hemings' children. History has moved on, and this article needs to reflect current thinking.

Just a few examples: Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Families Across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861 (2003), an academic book by Joshua D. Rothman (UNC Press) about interracial marriages and relationships in VA, reflects the new position on Jefferson. New books by leading historians such as Gordon S. Wood accept the conclusions. His latest book, The Empire of Liberty, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize last year; he writes: "Although the evidence is now overwhelming that Jefferson was sexually involved with Sally Hemings, that may be less important than the fact that miscegenation was part of his family and going on all around him at Monticello.", p. 514. Jack Rakove, another Pulitzer Prize-winner, accepts Jefferson's paternity, acknowledging it in Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America (2010); Philip D. Morgan, one of the leading writers on slavery who won a Bancroft Prize for his book Slave Counterpoint, addressed this, providing much information on the many interracial relationships and ties in Albemarle County, including that of Jefferson and Hemings, so that people understand the society, in his chapter in "Interracial Sex In the Chesapeake and the British Atlantic World c.1700-1820", in Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: history, memory, and civic culture, Edited by Jan Lewis, Peter S. Onuf, University of Virginia Press, 1999. In a Time article by Anita Hamilton, 5 July 2004, Morgan was more emphatic about accepting the consensus: "I feel a bit stupid that I felt otherwise," says Philip Morgan, a professor of early American history at Johns Hopkins University, who once doubted the relationship. "I should have picked up on it sooner." Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Included in the body of evidence considered by historians was an early 2000s statistical analysis of Hemings' conception dates and Jefferson's residencies at Monticello, during his years of extensive travel. She only conceived when he was there; there is a 99 percent chance that he is the father of all her children.

Assuming Gordon Wood is Gordon S. Wood, is there a source that he changed his mind? In 1997 he still claimed "We just don’t have the evidence for the existence of the long and passionate slave marriage" - of course that was before the DNA results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind - this review of Gordon-Reeds "Hemingses" is pretty unambiguous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wood concluded: "And with this book [The Hemingses of Monticello] Gordon-Reed explores Jefferson's relationship to Sally Hemings and the rest of his household slaves with a degree of detail and intimacy never before achieved. If anyone had any doubts about whether Sally Hemings was Jefferson's concubine, The Hemingses of Monticello should put them to rest." Parkwells (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, this discussion is pointless, it also abuses the proper use of the talk page, see instructions at the top of this page. We are not to take surveys of publications, on the talk page, it's a total waste of space. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, the article stated that a concensus of historians, without stating who these historians are. I could say a consensus of historians prefer strawberries over grapes. That is meaningless. Thomas Jefferson is not meaningless. The discussion has shown the historians who have concluded Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings children. These historians need to be put in the article. Wikipedia readers need not take Wikipedia articles at face value. There is nothing that prohibits a survey in the discussion page in order to improve the article. I reccommend putting in a note that states who these historians are that support Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not an abuse of the talk page. We are discussing historical consensus to improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Most historians" is referenced to a reliable source and is a direct quote of that source. This discussion cannot change that source, or what the source says. A head count of unknown accuracy by anonymous wikipedians cannot improve anything, and is an abuse of the talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the Monticello web source. The source made a claim that stated most historians believe Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings. I just wanted to know who were these historians. I am not for a head count of unknown accuracy. The source did not mention who these historian were. That is why I put this in the discussion page. If this issue belonged in the reference desk, I apoligize. I believe that it would improve this article if some of these persons who support that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings were used as sources in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I think the work of most or all these scholars is mentioned. Second, this particular aspect of their scholarship (if more detail is needed) would best belong in the Hemings Controversy article not the general biography (you may wish to copy and paste this discussion there). Finally, any reference to a head count of scholars, for it to go into any Wikipedia article, would have to come from a reliable source and not be the independent work (original research) of wikipedians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children

Editors please note that the historiography of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy has been moved to a new article by the above name, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as not being sufficiently different from the Jefferson DNA data article and not having Talk page history. Please visit the article page if you have comments on this. I've notified other editors who have worked on this issue over the last several months, in addition to posting here. Parkwells (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, thanks for pinging my page. I had thought you abandoned all faith regarding my opinion and such. I have just gone over edit history briefly and frankly am amazed to see that most of the material on Hemmings and all the historians that were outlined by name, in some cases repeatedly, have been more or less moved or eliminated. And I see there is yet another page that covers this material in the first place. As I have always maintained, this is a biography, but since it is a presidential biography it is allowed to overlap into history beyond that of an average biography, but to a point. In the past, coverage of the controversy and such far exceeded that point, and in my opinion, the slavery section is still a bit past that point. Seems to be the biggest on the page. The material up for speedy deletion I will let others hack out. If the same material goes at length in more than one article, one of them needs to be trimmed. Isn't this already mandated by policy in the first place? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was working on the "Controversy" article (for the historiography) and frankly, got tired of the topic and didn't finish summarizing it. A new editor has set up the new article (referenced above) with my previous material from here on that topic. Now we have to figure out how to get appropriate Talk page discussion attached to the new piece. Someone else will have to work on the Slavery section here; I believe that a couple of editors were working on issues at the larger article on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children has been deleted. Apparently the administrator was not moved by our comments. We probably need to set it up in special space until all sections are complete, then try again. I won't be working on this today, but maybe later this week.Parkwells (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The information has now been added to the Jefferson DNA Data article, which was therefore renamed to Jefferson-Hemings controversy to have a more accurate title. KarlFrei (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Lead

Editors here have not provided support/sources for presenting material on Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children that is more qualified than that of the leading public history institution on his life. Here is what the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello) currently says: "Ten years later [referring to its 2000 report], TJF and most historians now believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison and Eston Hemings."[1] That should be sufficient for Wikipedia, especially as it is bolstered by other professional organizations, such as the National Genealogical Society. So I'm changing the lead to say he was the father of her six children.Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, as long as it's presented for what it is - qualified opinion (qualified as in def. 2. from Webster's - "limited or modified in some way") which it appears to currently be.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead section is the best I have read so far. Jefferson is mentioned as a slave owner. There is mention that historians believe he fathered children by a female slave. His views on slavery are complex is a very good statement. To tone is fair rather then judgmental, even stating that Jefferson belonged to an elite planter society. That is accurate. Good job! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Qualified opinion is not the same as circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence. Either Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings or someone else fathered the children. Randolph Jefferson was not at Monticello each time Sally Hemings got pregnant. The DNA evidence links Thomas Jefferson line, rather then the Carr brothers. The only possible alternative is Thomas Jefferson. Here is another way to look at this issue. Jefferson promised his dying wife that he would not remarry. Sally Hemings, his wife's half sister slave, could offer Jefferson female sexuality, without having to be married. Thus fulfilling his pledge to his wife Martha. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point. The opinions are based on circumstantial evidence and inconclusive DNA evidence - ergo they're qualified, there's no other choice. It might be correct that Jefferson fathered one or all of Hemings' kids but we'll never know with certainty. A simple sentence or two from Jefferson admitting paternity would make the volumes written on the subject unnecessary, but no such public confession exists, apparently in private he made only denials. Re: The whereabouts of Randolph Jefferson or any of the other potential candidates for paternity, your assertion is rather far-reaching in an era where no documentation exists other than what was written down. Even in this day and age with all kinds of electronic media, various paper/computer trails, etc. it can be difficult to pin down someone's exact whereabouts. You claim you know with certainty where Jefferson's male relations were at all times a couple of centuries ago, particularly regarding something they were unlikely to document, might have even had a reason to outright lie.Henrydeutschendorf (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not about the assertions or opinions of editors in Wikipedia- follow the scholarship and reliable sources. The field has changed and most historians believe that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. They are interpreting available evidence, as historians have always done.Parkwells (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The DNA evidence is conclusive. The Carr Brothers are not the father of Sally Hemings children. There are only two alternatives, Thomas or Randolph. Jefferson according to the DNA evidence is that "probable" father of Eston Hemings. Thomas Jefferson was there at all the times when Sally Hemings got pregnant. Anyone can say anything to create reasonable doubt. Yes. Wikipedia needs to go by the scholarship and the current viewpoint. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"...The DNA evidence is conclusive..." Only to the extent that it shows that a Jefferson male fathered ONE of Hemings' children. That's all it shows, period. It doesn't conclusively show that Thomas was the father of that one Hemings child nor does it tell anything about her other children. "...There are only two alternatives, Thomas or Randolph..." - That's factually incorrect. I'll let you do some self-education to determine how so.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings lived inside the Monticello mansion. Jefferson lived inside the Monticello mansion. Jefferson was there every time Sally Hemings got pregnant. A Jefferson male fathered one of Heming's children according to the DNA evidence. If you add the circumstancial evidence and the DNA evidence, then one can conclude Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children. How does "self-education" have any connection with examining the evidence? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-education as to the fact of what other Jefferson males were within a plausible distance. I have to assume you have some notion as to the lengths a hormonal male can go to "get some action". Wouldn't seem at all out of the realm of possibility that someone might have made clandestine horseback rides to visit a willing girl. It's ridiculous to try to assume you know the whereabouts of all of them 200 years after the fact when there existed no documentation other than what someone happened to chronicle with a quill pen. I bet you couldn't definitively pinpoint your relative's whereabouts during a given several month period even 10 years ago. Virtually nothing is known about Sally Hemings herself. Not one syllable that she ever wrote, it's not even known if she was literate. She could have been a complete slut - it's all speculation. then one can conclude Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Heming's children - One can state that the available evidence makes this a distinct, even likely possibility but not a definitively proven fact. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us get what you are saying, we really do, we may even agree, yes, agree. All that is IRRELEVANT to our task, here. It is irrelevant what we think is likely or unlikely; it is irrelevant what we think is proven or unproven. Our job is simpler, we merely record what reliable sources have said, whatever their conclusions are. If they say, Thos. Jefferson spent three months on the moon and ate its green cheese, we record that. If they say he had children by Sally, we record that. If they say he didn't have children, we record that. Why? Because "truth" is explicitly not our job, as Wikipedians, rather providing information ("true" or "untrue" information) from verifiable sources is our job. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker that reliable sources are to be put in the Wikipedia article by Wikipedia editors. I disagree that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to "think for themselves" and just put in whatever the source stated, if flatly false. Reliable sources can disagree with each other, in addition, contain bias. I do not believe it is appropriate to use the words "slut" and "get some action" in a Wikipedia discussion. The way the article is written, I believe is neutral as possible. However, more information can be done on Jefferson's wife Martha. I have searched for a photo of her and found some on web. I just have to get the correct permission. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no known/proven images of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson. Most images available on the Internet that are supposedly of Mrs. Thomas Jefferson are actually of her daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolph. There is a silhouette labeled as "Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson" and available at FirstLadies.Org but there are a few problems with this identification: this is not proven to be of Mrs. Randolph, that particular website appears to be a for-profit organization and is not an official US museum and the silhouette's clothing and the silhouette's style appear to be all 'wrong' for the time-period of Mrs. Jefferson's life (1748-1782). The image is supposedly from the Library of Congress but when I enquired about this image their reference section said that

"The item in our holdings is not an original silhouette, but a reproduction print of a silhouette. On the front of the item, below the image and the script signature (printed on, not handwritten), there is a notice of copyright for 'Campbell Prints, Inc., N.Y.' as well as 'No. 6550'. "

Yes, yes, I know this wouldn't be verifiable since it isn't published but the Monticello Website also states that : "No portraits of Martha Jefferson survive" and here that "There are no known portraits of Martha Wayles Jefferson and descriptions of her appearance are scant." The Clinton-era White House official website states that "No known images of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson exist" and the book "Mr. Jefferson's Woman" by Jon Kukla states on 67 "no likeness of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson was ever put to canvas". There are various prints and an unattributed miniature that are purportedly of Mrs. Jefferson but the identifications are not accepted by modern scholarship. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Library of Congress states that they have no images of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson. Shearonink (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. That is to bad if there are no known images. The White House does give a description of her. Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson I can put that in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I added information on Martha Wayles Skelton. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No section for Sally Hemings

I have noticed the mention of Sally Hemings is neatly tucked away in the marriage and family section. In my opinion this is misleading to the reader. Marriage and family implies, in my opinion, that he had a relationship with only one person and had children by only one person. There needs to be a subsection on Hemings. I agree that the issue does not need to be expanded any more then is currently, however, there is no need to hide Hemings in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend putting the current information on Sally Hemings into the slavery section, since Hemings was a slave, although briefly free while living in Revolutionary France. I believe Sally Hemings deserves a section in the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that the politics in this article end. The only person neatly tucked away and hidden, is his real wife Martha Jefferson who gets less action than Sally Hemmings, not only in that section but in all of WP. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I made a recommendation for discussion. I agree more can be said on Martha Jefferson, even having her own section. However, I do not believe that Sally Hemings needs to be in the same section as Martha Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The fuss around here made over Sally Hemmings, in at least the last six months, could fill a novel. She was important to a tiny group of people. I find it astounding. It's like Sally Hemmings was the most important thing in Jefferson's life.....ridiculous. The article is fine, Sally Hemmings has her own article, what more is needed? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings and her children were moved into the "Marriage and family" section to show that Jefferson had another relationship, as suggested by another editor. Let's reach consensus on this page before moving again. That editor felt that because Jefferson had a monogamous four-decade relationship and four surviving children, Hemings deserved recognition in the "family" section. (Such families were called "shadow families" by Southerners.) She was not just any slave, but a 3/4 white slave who was half-sister to his wife. Martha Jefferson has her own article, so I don't think she needs more space in Jefferson's bio. Hemings became important because historians tried to deny the relationship for so long - rather than recognizing it as indicative of its time.Parkwells (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hemings became important because historians tried to deny the relationship for so long ....he said continuing the effort to treat the subject as definitively proven. It still isn't. Won't be within your lifetime.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sally Hemings while she remained at Monticello was a slave. There is no source that mentions Jefferson and Hemings were in any romantic relationship. Family implies marriage. The title does not state Marriage, family, and "shadow family", just Marriage and family. I believe Hemings belongs in the Slavery section. More could be mentioned, in my opinion, on Martha Jefferson, someone whom Jefferson truely loved. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And your source for the statement "Martha Jefferson, someone whom Jefferson truely loved" rather than the relationship he had with Hemmings is?... Talkpages are supposed to be a place where interested editors discuss improvements to the associated article. I cannot believe that someone would say, in essence, that having children does not somehow equal the concept of "family". If that is so, then all mention of the illegitimate descendants of English kings need to be scrubbed from their articles, including Henry FitzRoy, Catherine Carey and every single one of Charles II of England's children - all of whom happened to be illegitimate. Any possible issues regarding this section header and its present implications could be fixed by changing the header to something along the lines of "Family life". As to the asserted paucity of coverage within the article regarding Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, I am unaware why any interested editor would be unable to adjust the lacking information. I would also suggest that the Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson article could benefit from much of the energy being directed towards mentions of her in her husband's article. Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I put this in for discussion to improve the article. At least the heading needs to reflect that Thomas Jefferson had a "shadow family". Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, does get lost in the attention on Sally Hemings, both deserve attention. Thomas Jefferson promised to never marry again. I would say that demonstrates love, affection, and devotion. Had Mrs. Jefferson lived there may have been no Sally Hemings controversy. Hemings was a slave and although women at that time were virtually slaves to men, Martha was a free person under the protection of her husband. Jefferson was not married to Sally Hemings. In that respect his children with Hemings were illigitimate. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

reflect that Thomas Jefferson had a "shadow family" - He is *believed* to have had a family with Hemings. No evidence exists that rises to the level of definitive conclusiveness.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No evidence exists that rises to "definitive conclusiveness" that Jefferson had any biological children, or even that the sun will rise tomorrow. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson acknowledged his known children as did others. To date no evidence has been shown that he acknowledged a relationship with SH or claimed any Hemings child as his. We can see photographic evidence of the motion of the Earth and our sun. You can observe it with your own eyes. There doesn't even exist a contemporary portrait of SH or one word she ever wrote. There isn't even enough known about her to state whether she was literate. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson wouldn't know. About the only person in a position to be really sure would be Martha Jefferson, Sally's sister - and perhaps not even she. And even if Jefferson had known, his dislike for scandal would have made it unlikely to state so openly. As for the Earth and the sun: That's only true as long as the mice don't switch of the simulation. See cogito, ergo sum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet apparently there is sufficient information to cause editors to spend more time on the Sally Hemmings content of the TJ article, than all other content combined. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So, some of Jefferson's children were legitimate and some were illegitimate...they are all still his children. I do not pretend to know what this man's feelings were for either woman, I am only interested in verifiable information that can be used to improve the article associated with this talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I may have gotten side tracked on whether Jefferson loved his wife Martha, however, he was deeply upset after her death. Marriage and family implies legitimancy. I believe the section title needs to be changed or Sally Hemings needs to be moved to the slavery section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The title "Family" is good. I believe that is better then "Marriage and family". Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the defenders of Jefferson are digging a hole for themselves. They are spending a lot of time trying to prove Jeferson had no romantic relationship with Hemmings. Well if that is true, then that would make Thoams Jefferson a rapist. It seems to me his supporters would be better off changing their tactics 97.91.176.159 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This article shows the folly of wikipedia

In how they lock the article from editing and let heresay be pronounced as historic fact, ignoring the scholar's commission report, and numerous scholarly research that followed by Burton and Hyland that points out discrepancies in those that pronounce the relationship as a foregone conclusion. It's based on anecdotal evidence, and libelous slander by a political enemy. The DNA evidence was never definitive for Jefferson's parentage regardless of how the mass-media reported it, rather it pointed to a Y-marker carried from Field Jefferson, and descendants. That proves nothing, and leaves a dozen plus relatives as possible parents. It's a shame how exculpatory evidence is all but ignored, and things become fact because consensus untruth says so, and then wikipedia locks this article from revision settling on wild speculation as fact.

Hopefully it more accurately reflects things now. Previously there were statements that simply asserted Jefferson was the father, period, with no further qualification. I've tried to make sure this and related articles reflect what the sources actually say. Granted, evidence indicates a plausibility that Jefferson may well have fathered one or more of SH's children, and maybe he did, but it isn't currently in the realm of the definite and the sources reflect a degree of uncertainty. This subject has to an extent unfortunately been muddied by journalistic gaffes in the original presentation of the Foster DNA study in "Nature" where elements of the article were presented in a misleading way. In another bit of journalistic oddness, the last time I looked at the Monticello site, the only Hemings child where TJ is listed as the father, period, not "most likely" the father as with the others is in a listing for Thomas Woodson, despite that it's known for an absolute fact he has no family connection to the Jeffersons and almost as certainly that he had no connection to Sally Hemings. This is even pointed out, yet they've retained the wording at the beginning with TJ as the father. The two parts of the reference don't logically match. They all but spell out that the basis of Woodson even being mentioned is pc capitulation to "family oral history". I.e. a baseless legend handed down within a family. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Alleged children...

The following link: Expressions of doubt, explains how "alleged" is not the best word choice. There needs to be some other word then alleged. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If we need the qualifier, which I doube, "putative" would probably be best, but it might be thought a bit obscure. Maybe "reputed". Paul B (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a qualifier is needed, but it's a type of Catch-22... Some observers have doubts about the identity of the father of Sally Hemings' children, a small portion of verifiable scholarship also has doubts, so what is verifiable from reliable sources has to be rendered in the article regardless of what the majority of editors think or what the majority of historians/scientists/researchers think. Agree though, that "alleged' is a charged word, "reputed" is less so, so "reputed" would be a better choice. Interested readers can read the section themselves and make up their own minds. Shearonink (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Some observers have doubts about the identity of the father of Sally Hemings' children - sure, those who believe in objectivity rather than pushing an agenda. From what I understand, those who fall on the side of "he was probably the father" all include some form of "probably" because they don't want to get embarrassed if the opposite is ever proven. They have doubts because the existing evidence doesn't eliminate doubt. The fact that Thomas Woodson is mentioned on the Monticello website clearly demonstrates the influence of social pressure. Someone who has no more genetic connection to Thomas Jefferson or Sally Hemings than you or I do is mentioned because of "family oral history". This translates to "we're capitulating in mentioning Woodson at all because we don't want to be accused of being a bunch of haters". The current section title "Children Of Sally Hemings" is good, that she had children isn't disputed. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

...what is verifiable from reliable sources has to be rendered in the article regardless of what the majority of editors think or what the majority of historians/scientists/researchers think. I believe that is the case in the article at present, I am not sure what the point of posting "those who believe in objectivity rather than pushing an agenda". Per WP:TPYES let's please stick to discussing how to improve this article and resist the urge to characterize other editors' contributions or thoughts. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the point of posting "those who believe in objectivity rather than pushing an agenda...stick to discussing how to improve this article" - Since you're not sure I'll be happy to clarify it for you. There have been those who clearly are motivated by a desire to insert statements in the article that overstep what the sources say. Insisting editors stick to what the sources actually say IS aimed at improving the article. Yes, as long as what's in the article reflects the qualified, non-definitive nature of what's said - "likely", "probably", "most believe" etc. - and further makes it clear that there are historians who don't agree with "the majority" then yes, it reflects that. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So fair as I can tell at this time, the article as written reflects that there are differences of opinion about Sally Hemings' family and who the father of her children was and, also as reported in reputable sources, that the majority of historians agree that Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings' children. I have no agenda in this matter and am merely following the Wikipedia practices of verifiability not truth and reputable sources and agree with Parkwells' post below (18:39/21 September 2011)

It reflects it now, I've changed the wording where previously many of the articles related to this topic had unqualified statements that Thomas Jefferson was the father of SH's chidren, period. Saying many historians believe this and the reasons they believe this is supported, saying "he was" period, isn't. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If other editors agree on "reputed" then that is fine. However, readers need to make their own minds up whether Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Readers always make up their own minds. Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on adding "alleged" or "reputed." We have gone over this issue numerous times, and there is still no basis for Wikipedia adding more qualifiers in this article, than have the reliable sources of the consensus of historians - look at the published works of the last 10 years. Some editors don't like the Thomas Jefferson Foundation; that's not enough reason to change this article, as it operates the premiere public history site for the interpretation of Thomas Jefferson and Monticello. The phrase "Most historians agree," which is both in the Lead and in the section on Hemings' children tells you that some do not agree. As long asked for by other editors, the Jefferson-Hemings controversy article provides more detail on the issues, the historiography, the DNA results, the case made by the minority who disagree, and critics of the minority. The consensus historians are the ones being published by academic and major presses. The minority who take issue with this consensus are generally not being published at the same level. Wikipedia is supposed to follow the reliable sources, not suggest a different position.Parkwells (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Acording to Jefferson's tombstone he was born on April 2nd, not the 13th. I believe the difference is from England and her colonies switching to the Gregorian calendar in 1752. I, however, am not a scholar and could be wrong. Someone who IS a scholar might be interested to investigate and correct this nuance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.21.17.149 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Article size

The current word count is just under 13,000 when the recommended top limit is 10,000 words. The layout of this article needs work. It needs at least a 3,000 word trim. Brad (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like these stringent rules. However, given the main article Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, we should be able to cut something from the corresponding section, e.g. moving to just one paragraph per sub-item (especially since many of those again have sub-articles). We could similarly try to cut something from the "Slavery" section, although that may be harder - it's contentious, and Jefferson's position is complex and not easily summarized. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

the limit of 10,000 words can be recommended for nearly everyone else. This is what an exception looks like. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Stephen: it's not a rule (or policy). It's a guideline, and near exclusively worded as a suggestion with such things as "may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles" and "> 100 KB - Almost certainly should be divided", etc. Anyway, I'd tend to agree with Rjensen on this. But, I will also admit this is a topic of high interest to me, thus the length may not be enough for me to lose attention, but may be too much for others (ie: my opinion, due to my interest carries a bias). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about the "Big Picture" if anyone has goals of one day returning this article to GA or FA. Some subjects have too much information compared to other subjects that have little. The article layout could also use a tune up as it's not quite (but almost) as chronological as it should be. I suggested here some months ago about using a similar layout of the Abraham Lincoln article. Brad (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work with you and others on attempting to bring this to GA/FA status. I'm sure we can manage to decrease the size a little without sacrificing content... or who knows? Maybe we'll actually come up with another sub-article? Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The trouble has been too much arguing over the Hemings debacle. The article seriously lacks information about TJ's post-presidency years which were quite productive but also contain happenings of his deepening debt. There is not enough mention of his correspondence with John Adams and how they both tried to analyze their actions during the ARW and how it actually turned out at the time of their writing. I could go on and on but this is the main reason why I mentioned word count because the article will grow larger as it expands. But the first step is figuring a good layout. Brad (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson

I started Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson since there are more books listed here than are cited in the article. There was no sense in throwing away the entire list. This article should only contain a bibliography of books that are actually cited plus any books that were consulted but not cited. Brad (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the article should use harv refs, as there are a lot of duplicates under "Notes". --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It needs something other than what is there now. Having just come from fixing the horror of the Abe Lincoln reference format I'm not sure what would be the best format for this article. Anyhow, it's not a priority at this point. Brad (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm working on G. Washington right now, those refs are also a mess. :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

These statements need sourcing

In the first paragraph of the "Children of Sally Hemings" section, the following statements now have tags:

"most historians" (WHO?) now believe that while he was in Paris as US minister

"fathered six children with her. "(CITATION NEEDED)

"Hemings had five more children born at Monticello, four of whom survived to adulthood. (CITATION NEEDED)

I have fixed one of the tagged issues (John Wayles' paternity of Sally Hemings & a "failed verification" URL), perhaps other interested editors can source or adjust the other tagged statements. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've simplified this to keep to the quote from Monticello, which includes "most historians" believing that Jefferson fathered Hemings' six children. (It appears below, as well.) The four named are the ones who survived, and they all appear in records - their existence is not controversial. They are covered in the Monticello article and elsewhere. Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the source you gave to back up: most historians now believe Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his young mixed-race slave Sally Hemings and fathered six children with her is not correct, misleading and full of purple prose. I've changed the entry to directly quote the source which says: most historians now believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records,.." Brad (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the desire of people to shorten the material related to Sally Hemings and TJ, but as it is, you have distorted the arguments related to Jefferson's paternity. It is not only the genetic evidence that relates to this issue. Most historians do agree that Jefferson is the father, because the family's identification of the Carrs was the chief argument against him for 180 years. There was other circumstantial evidence suggesting Jefferson was the father - not least, the fact that he had access, and that he was at Monticello every time Hemings conceived. She never conceived when he wasn't there. There are strong criticisms of the claims by the TJHS society - no one put forward Randolph Jefferson as a candidate until the DNA study showed that the Jefferson male line was a match to Hemings and the Carrs were conclusively disproved. (There were no suggestions in that period that she had multiple fathers for her children.) Saying "25 male Jeffersons were alive" does not really say much - they did not all have equal chances to have an affair with the master's slave. The paragraph as it stands does not represent the consensus of opinions among historians, but overemphasizes a weak minority view. Parkwells (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that the Thomas Jefferson family-line seemed so willing to (metaphorically-speaking) throw their male relatives, Peter and Samuel Carr, under the genetic bus. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, the main "j'accuse" in this case, was Thomas Jefferson's grandson and so, both the Carr's were his cousins (1st-cousins, once-removed by a generation). The Thomas Jefferson family-line didn't mind being related to the Hemings family... but not too close, mind you. So the relatedness is not an issue for any of the various parties...just the degree of relatedness. --Shearonink (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That was one of Annette Gordon-Reed's points. Randolph named Jefferson's nephew, a married white man, after Carr had died. She said, what would make Randolph violate the protocol to keep silent about interracial affairs, except the stronger desire to protect his grandfather? Otherwise he would never have offered up a white planter relative as the father. She believed he was trying to explain away the resemblance that everyone saw. And his sister's offering up of Samuel Carr at a later date (also married, and after his death), may simply have been her getting the family story wrong.Parkwells (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes the minority position is weak from what I've been reading but if you thought the minority position in the article was too strong you should have reduced it instead of adding more majority opinion. The object here is to reduce text, be direct and to the point and knock off as much detail of the controversy as possible. As it is now the Hemings paragraphs outsize TJ's "white" family. Brad (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Will work on it. It is not the Hemings' children, but the controversy that is larger than Jefferson's white family, reflecting the effort of 180 years of historians' denial. Parkwells (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One short paragraph on Hemings and children; one on current consensus and controversy. Another way to deal with it is to keep only the paragraph on consensus on Hemings and children - and send people to the larger article for the controversy. But, Annette Gordon-Reed's work is credited with changing the field of Jeffersonian scholarship, so I think there needs to be recognition of that. Acknowledging Jefferson's paternity has influenced most histories of him and the place/time since about 2000 - a major change, leading to other historic studies of interracial families of the time, etc. The historical controversy had been because of the efforts of late-nineteenth through mid-twentieth century historians to "protect" Jefferson by denying his and the many other interracial liaisons that produced so many mixed-race children, who were perfectly obvious to visitors in the South, and whose writings remarked on them. There was controversy over Jefferson because of what he symbolized, and what people read into his character. He was discreet and practiced a common kind of concubinage available to planters. Parkwells (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with the passage is that it comes in out of context and suddenly slaps the reader in the face with a conclusion before continuity has been established. I had thought the passage I placed in this version was better inline with continuity of the topic. I understand that my passage was not perfect and needs work but would you consider working with the layout of it? Brad (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Embargo section

Would someone take a look at the third sentence in the section. It starts out In the event he got both war and national humiliation; This is unnecessary and should begin with "He got both war and national humiliation;" Another possible wording is; "He not only got the two things he was trying to avoid;", then the rest. I personally don't like the use of the word "got" but that is just my opinion. Otr500 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is bullshit in terms of truth value

It is locked from editing and makes no mention of the Scholar's Commission Report exonerating Thomas Jefferson of the likelihood of the affair nor does it consider the amended TJMF report which cast doubt on its earlier conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.219.109 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect that the article is somehow locked from editing. The article is under semi-protection to protect it from ongoing vandalism. ANY registered editor can edit this article, the only editors who cannot edit it are unregistered IPs. From looking at your editing history, it appears you have an interest in articles about history and especially about the controversy over the identity of the father of Sally Hemings' children since you also posted in the folly of wikipedia thread back in October. Why not register for an account, give yourself a user name and also protect your privacy? I assume you know that when you edit from your IP address, that address is then revealed by default.

Now, as to the Scholars' Commission being ignored, that assumption is also incorrect. It has been discussed on this talk page starting back in 2006 here and here and several times in 2011: in October and in February.

The Commission so far as I know did not exonerate Thomas Jefferson (as if possibly being a father is a crime?) and they certainly could not state that it was an impossibility that Jefferson was the father of some or all of Sally Hemings' children. According to the Monticello website

Shortly after the DNA test results were released in November 1998, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation formed a research committee consisting of nine members of the foundation staff, including four with Ph.D.s. In January 2000, the committee reported 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 - Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808).

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

For additional viewpoints, PBS/Frontline did an in-depth report on the timeline of the DNA-opinions and there are quite a few links about these differing opinions from their website: Jefferson's Blood - Is It True?.

Since you do not provide any links about this "amended TJMF report" and you make no clear request about the text you would like to see removed and its subsequent replacement text (as is usually the case with a Edit Semi-protected Request, which is rendered in code as {{Edit semi-protected}}, the readable template can be seen at Template:Edit semi-protected, I think the claim that the article somehow equals "bullshit in terms of truth value" is simply an unverifiable assertion that seems to have little to do with possibly improving the article. Shearonink (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This article only covers the controversy briefly, as was requested by numerous editors. The Scholars Commission, which issued what has become a minority view in terms of scholarly consensus, is mentioned here as being commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS) in the article. You may want to look at the Jefferson-Hemings controversy for a fuller discussion. In addition, critics of the Scholars Commission conclusions are briefly addressed, specifically, that Randolph Jefferson had not been a candidate for paternity for 180 years, and was named only after the Carr nephews were disproved by the DNA study. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), which runs Monticello, has updated its website to show more conclusively (as quoted in the article and on the page above) that it and most scholars believe that Jefferson was the father of the six Sally Hemings' children named in his Farm Records. This is the consensus of current Jeffersonian scholarship; the field has definitely changed and the conclusions are reflected in most current scholarship.Parkwells (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have always maintained, this issue is politically/socially motivated with a lot of POV pushing. Here are some links to anyone interested in the Commission's findings.
The Scholars Commission on Jefferson-Hemings Issue
The Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings Myth and the Politicization of American History
It would also be interesting to know how anyone has established this as a "minority view". So far all I have ever seen around here is the claim that it is along with a few select authors (e.g.Finkelman) being mentioned by name, repeatedly, and even given lip service, as is still the case here in this article; Reed published a book, got an award and a lot of media attention, thus giving the impression that hers was the majority view however nothing has ever been presented here that nails this claim down. The article should present a balanced view, summarize and then finalized so at long last the TJ article can retain its long lost GA status, at least. With all the 'research' and sources available this article should be 'Featured'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DNA evidence a coatrack for all six children

If six different DNA tests conclude that only Eston can be tied by DNA evidence, how is it that this article can make statements like this? : Thomas Jefferson was also the father of the six children by his slave Sally Hemings "including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston." This is based on a range of historic and DNA evidence. Further, Eston's oral history was that his father was not Thomas Jefferson but rather Jefferson's brother Randolph, someone who was known to have fathered children by his slaves. When Randolph married a second time to Mitchie B. Pryor, Sally stopped having children. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are so many wrong assumptions in this paragraph that its hard to figure out what you ask. Can you provide any sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have only presented facts already established by Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, the Scholars Commission on Jefferson-Hemings Issue, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and others and have simply asked how the TJ article here can make the claim it is making. The statement in the article as it reads leads the reader into believing that there is a DNA tie between T.Jefferson and all six of Hemings' children. Btw when Easton was born in 1808, T.Jefferson was 65. At that age do you think Jefferson was 'still at it'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to familiarize yourself with an account by Herbert Barger of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. (TJHS) He was the one who worked in conjunction with Dr. Eugene Foster and Mrs. Winifred Bennett who originally came up with the idea for the DNA study that Foster conducted. Again, there is only a Jefferson Y-chromosome DNA tie to Easton, and again, it points to a number of other Jefferson males. T.Jefferson was 65 when Eston was born. This issue is hardly nailed down, historians and others are split on their 'conclusions' and this article should make that clear in no uncertain terms, unlike the statement in the present TJ article, delineated above. If there is no Jefferson DNA link to the other five children, how can anyone even suggest that T.Jefferson was the father of them also?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You claimed that "six different DNA tests conclude that only Eston can be tied by DNA evidence", which seems to be partly irrelevant, and partly wrong. I don't know which 6 tests you are referring to - we probably have millions of DNA tests, in total, but there have been no DNA tests, to my knowledge, that tried to tie any other of Hemmings known children to Jefferson. So the score is 1/1, and there has been no DNA evidence presented that is in conflict with Jefferson paternity of the Hemmings children, nor has any evidence been presented that "only Eston" can be tied by DNA evidence. Only Eston has been tied by the evidence available so far, which is a very different statement. You have not given any source for the claim that "Eston's oral history was that his father was not Thomas Jefferson but rather Jefferson's brother Randolph" - all sources I have claim otherwise, including the TJF (which is conveniently online). Becoming a father at 65 is in no way unusual (not to mention that Jefferson was 64 when the child was conceived). TJ was reasonably healthy and active into his 80s. The oldest documented father apparently sired a son at age 94, and a daughter at age 96. The vast majority of historians agree that Jefferson was the father, a few hold more cautious positions, and only a small fringe maintains that he was not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First, Barger is one of the founders of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS), determined to save TJ's reputation, not part of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) at Monticello. He and some others of the minority TJHS continue to misinterpret and exaggerate the fact that brothers in one generation of the Eston Jefferson descendants, in the Chicago area in the mid-20th century, told their children they were descended from an uncle of Jefferson's, as they feared racial discrimination (generations had identified and were accepted as white by then). When Fawn Brodie's biography on Jefferson came out, some of the young adults in the family read it and recognized Eston Jefferson's name, talked about it in the family and learned the truth. They also discussed what was known with Fawn Brodie at the time. She did an article for American Heritage magazine on Jefferson's grandchildren and later descendants from the Hemings side. (Available online). One of those grown children is Julie Jefferson Westerinen, who had told this account (and is part of the new Monticello Community), and another is her brother, who is the Eston descendant tested and matched by DNA to the Jefferson male line. So there was only one generation who told a story for a while that deflected attention to "an uncle". They knew and know who they were descended from: Thomas Jefferson. As Stephan Schulz stated, the majority of historians hold that TJ was the father of all six of Hemings' children, based on the DNA and weight of historical evidence. 64-65 was not too young to sire a child.Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No one said that Barger was part of the TJF, but rather was the one who worked in conjunction with Foster and is part of the TJHS. Your attempt to dismiss him because of the opinion that he is trying to save Jefferson's reputation does not impeach his credibility. -- DNA: Foster's DNA evidence, which is what is touted by Reed and others, only ties Eston to the Jefferson Y-chromosome DNA. Yet in the WP article it, again, claims, Thomas Jefferson was also the father of the six children by his slave Sally Hemings "including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston." This is based on a range of historic and DNA evidence.. There is no such DNA evidence for anyone but Eston's descendents. As for the other evidence, (i.e.resemblance, times of conception, etc), this is entirely sketchy with (very) many gaps and variables and without solid DNA evidence remains as such. Any source that tries to establish and claim facts on such flimsy evidence is not reliable. That's the way it works in the real world and WP should not be subjected to any less of a standard. A reliable source can back up its claims with solid facts. -- The TJ article needs to clarify that there is absolutely no DNA evidence linking Jefferson to five of the Hemings children, and that Eston could have been fathered by any one of eight other Jefferson males. As for what is "majority" and what is "fringe" opinion, this is another canard. 'Fringe' means there are only one or two in a group of many dozens. There are plenty of reputable historians, scientists, etc on both sides of the fence and the TJ article needs to give equal credence to each school of thought. The TJ article as it reads now does not. The article needs to clearly point out on which DNA test(s) Reed, TJF, etc, base their opinion and it needs to differentiate which children can be tied to Jefferson DNA, and to make clear that their 'conclusions' regarding T.Jefferson's paternity is only an opinion with nothing solid to support it. Last, there is far too much ado about Hemings in the 'Family and marriage' section. Jefferson's marriage, wife, etc should be the predominating theme there -- not Hemings. This needs to be tended to also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" not reliable

Back in August, the 12th, Parkwells maintains ..We are supposed to follow the reliable sources, and they have accepted that Jefferson was the father. If DNA tests prove that T.Jefferson was not the father of five of Hemings' children and that Eston could have been fathered by any one of eight Jefferson males, and if the reliable sources still, in spite of scientific evidence, maintain that Jefferson was 'father of them all', then clearly these sources are not reliable. Yes, we must follow the reliable sources. Isn't it about time we started doing so? How can anyone pass off as fact what has been proven to be folly?? Shame on anyone who attempts to do so. The "reliable sources" in this case are frauds. They must have political and social agendas. Why else would they ignore the facts? WHY?? A reliable source is one who is in line with the facts. Please do not justify the present state of this WP article by citing these so called 'reliable sources' any longer. They have been proven to be not reliable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are the one that refuses to accept balance - just because you disagree with what Reliable Sources have concluded, you decide they are not reliable. It doesn't matter what you personally believe. You really have to give it up. We've been through this for several rounds this year alone. The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society has a minority view. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which operates Monticello as the premier public history site on TJ, is the one that has been quoted as saying, "Most historians believe TJ fathered all six of the Hemings' children". The National Genealogical Society, representing a whole association of certified geneaologists, has concluded that Jefferson is the father of all the Hemings children. I have personally added the quotes and cites that apply to these in the article and on this Talk page, repeatedly, as have others. Most academic studies published since 2000 related to TJ and racial relations of his time reflect these conclusions. Only a handful, most published by or associated with the TJHS, do not. That is the evidence for consensus, as are the major awards given to Annette Gordon-Reed for her work on this issue, which was described as "changing Jeffersonian scholarship". We really can't keep wasting our time and space going around on this issue. You do not have consensus.Parkwells (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"If DNA tests prove that T.Jefferson was not the father of five of Hemings' children..." - well, they don't. "...and that Eston could have been fathered by any one of eight Jefferson male..." - well, they don't either. The current test alone does not rule these alternatives out. However, taken together with the historical evidence, they very strongly point to TJ, and don't point to anyone else in particular. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Schulz, you are merely making blank statements with not even an explanation behind them. If Jefferson was related to the other five, they would share the same Y-chromosome markers. They don't, so therefore it is impossible for Jefferson to have fathered them. Eston could have been fathered by any one of eight Jefferson males because their descendants indeed all shared the same Y-chromosome DNA markers. No tests anywhere has narrowed it down to TJ alone. No "historical evidence", such that it is, can ever change that. What part of Foster's findings are you not understanding? Again, the historical evidence is sketchy, at best, and anyone who attempts to forge facts out of this stuff in the face DNA tests is surely not reliable. If this were a case in a court of law it wouldn't even make it to trial. All we really have here is eight possibilities for Eston's father and sketchy "historical evidence" along with this notion that the sources are reliable and constitute this "majority" opinion which is something else that has never been nailed down, and needs citation, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any source for the claim that the other Hemings children don't have a Jefferson Y-chromosome? As far as I know, and as far as described in "Jefferson fathered slave's last child" (Nature 396, 27-28 (5 November 1998)), Foster only tested descendants of Eston Hemings and Thomas Woodson. The claim that Woodson is a son of Jefferson (or Hemings) has always been highly dubious - if your read e.g. Gordon-Reeds pre-DNA "TJ and SH", you will find that she comes to the very conclusion supported by the DNA tests (Woodson most likely is not related to Jefferson, the Hemings children are). To repeat: There has been no DNA test so far trying to link other Hemings children but Eston to Jefferson, and there is no DNA data that is incompatible with that possibility. If you know of any new work, please provide a source. And while I'm fine with Stephan, if you go by last name, courtesy would suggest you use a proper form of address. I'm not a Nazi Sergant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting "Nazi Sergant" from?? In any case, usage of your name was incidental with nothing else attached to it other than what you seem to have managed for yourself. Okay, -- DNA: My sources are from any number of ones that come up in a standard google search. The only one they can link was Eston. From this some have made the grand leap that it was TJ who was father to all six, in spite of other viable possibilities, like Randolph. As for similar appearances, since Randolph was TJ's brother, this would explain any likeness that may have occurred among any of the children, and Randolph lived close by and is believed to have been around only when TJ was around, which was often, thus offering an alternative explanation for times of conception. And just how accurate are Malone's records? Again, there are too may gaps and variables for anyone to make 'conclusions', yet the wording in the article more than suggests that TJ's DNA matches that of all six children. Readers not familiar with the controversy, with DNA evidence, etc are very likely to leave the page thinking that TJ's DNA matches that of all six children. This needs to be clearly distinguished.
Also, there is still the issue of undue weight here. Since there are several dedicated pages for Hemings, slavery, etc, the material here, much of which is not even biographical, needs to be scaled down considerably. A clear consensus was established last March to do this yet this has not happened. Some info was initially removed, but little by little it appears again with the same POV conjecture and lip service given only to those authors (i.e.Finkelman, etc) who support your view along with POV language ('minority, fringe theory', etc) and with the same one sided view of what little facts are known. This 'process' has gone around in a circle several times now. No one says you can't present your side of the story, all that is asked is that both sides be given equal credence, coverage, and the material scaled down. This is a biography. Is it your intention to ever fix these issues? Parkwells? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying to "bully" editors into a particular action isn't the way to article improvement. The talk page is for article improvement; not debate over the issue. Come up with your own sourced version and post it here for discussion. That would be moving forward. Brad (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, "bully" would suggest that I have some sort of advantage and am using it unfairly against others and that is hardly the case. I am trying to appeal, perhaps in a firm tone given past appeals, to get some improved balance into the issue without going in and imposing edits only to have them reverted -- as happened with you. Trying to avoid an edit war Brad. I could come up with my own "sourced version" and we would have two opposing versions if there was not mutual consensus. Would rather discuss a version that gives equal credence to all the possibilities regarding the Hemings children. This is my approach and I truly believe it to be the correct approach. Obviously Parkwells, and perhaps Stephan, are most knowledgeable in the Hemings, slavery area, now if they only would be a bit more balanced with their presentation and again, summarize the content that would be an improvement to the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Both "sides" will not and should not be given equal space because reliable sources do not give them equal credence. It would be totally inappropriate to suggest that there is a major question about this issue. The consensus of academic sources - the reliable sources - is that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' 6 children, whether or not you agree with that consensus. I'm not going to argue the particulars, as they have been discussed and cited numerous times. I summarized the content; other people added to it. You cannot change the consensus that has been in place for about a decade, until historians find new information. Since you are so unhappy with the reliable sources on this issue, you should probably work on other articles. Parkwells (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Major issue in Jeffersonian scholarship

Since no less than the MacArthur Foundation has called the conclusions about Jefferson's being the father of Hemings' children a dramatic change in Jeffersonian scholarship, it is appropriate that this material be treated in his biography article. The material has been much reduced from what it was before; clearly it is a few paragraphs; and some content was added to try to respond again to Gwillhicker's continuing comments. The historical controversy of 180 years was about "whether Jefferson was the father", therefore it is appropriate that material about his children by Hemings be in the "Marriage and family" section. Other editors are welcome to add more about his children by Martha.Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation itself fully acknowledges that:
While Thomas Jefferson's paternity of one or more of Sally Hemings' children cannot be established with absolute certainty, and there are noticeable gaps in the historical record, many elements are widely accepted. Among these are: Sally Hemings (1773-1835) was a slave at Monticello ... etc.

None of the "widely accepted" items listed say anything that changes this. Jefferson's paternity remains not established in fact and remains in the realm of opinion. The claim "most historians believe" is a claim that TJF, a privately run org, makes and is not made by many other reliable historians, foundations professors of history and orgs, including the US Gov site on Jefferson along with many others:

Library of Congress
University of Virginia, Miller Institute
Thomas Jefferson/ushistory.org
David N. Mayer Professor of Law and History, Capital University, Columbus, Ohio
Herbert Barger, Jefferson Family Historian at Norwich University
Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, whose members include:
Dr. Harvey C. Mansfield, Harvard University
Dr. David N. Mayer Professor of Law and History, Capital University
Dr. Robert F. Turner (Chairman), Professor, University of Virginia
Dr. Paul Rahe, Professor of History, University of Tulsa
Dr. Forrest McDonald, Distinguished Research Professor of History, Emeritus, University of Alabama
Dr. Alf J. Mapp, Jr., Eminent Scholar, Emeritus, Professor of History, Old Dominion University
Dr. Robert H. Ferrell, Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus Indiana University
Dr. Lance Banning, Professor of History, University of Kentucky
Dr. Charles R. Kesler, Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College, author of American History
Other historians / authors include:
Eliot Marshall, author/historian
Jefferson at Monticello, by James Adam Bear, University of Virginia Press

Also, Foster himself clearly stated: "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," Foster wrote in 1999 in Nature.

Since your selected group of "reliable sources" hold Foster up as an icon of proof, this item alone would seem to knock the bottom out of your entire platform of "reliable sources" all of whom use Foster's findings as the basis of their opinions. Jefferson's paternity remains unestablished in fact and again, there are simply too many other reliable sources who do not leap to the conclusions your select group of authors has. Hemings material needs to be taken out of 'Marriage and family' section and much of the POV language used in the TJ article needs to be cleaned up. Also, I don't appreciate your suggestion that I go work on an other article. This is antagonistic and does not belong here in the Thomas Jefferson discussion page. I am here, on the talk page, in a discussion capacity. I have not gone in and corrected your edits knowing an edit tug of war would ensue, and out of courtesy for the page and WP. Last, you still need to cite "most historians" better. The TJF alone does not establish this, AG'Reed is a lawyer-activist, not a historian or professor of history, regardless of awards. There are clearly very many other reliable sources who are not in line with the opinion you have subscribed to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Marriage and family

There are three full paragraphs about Hemings, etc in the Marriage and family section with not much written about Jefferson's factual wife Martha and family. Hemings was not married to TJ and it's still a matter of speculation that her children were fathered by him. Even if, having an illegitimate child somewhere doesn't make the child a 'family member'. This material needs to be, not only summarized, but moved somewhere else. 'Marriage and family' should be the central and predominating theme. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I keep telling myself that I'm not going to get involved in any further discussion about Hemings. But once again I need to point out that I had edited the article to this version which admittedly wasn't perfect but had the continuity and introduction that the Hemings issue needs. That version only lasted a few hours when Parkwells returned to edit the passage closely back to what it was. I mentioned this issue in a thread above here but had no further answer. The constant bitching and fighting over this makes me want to puke. In the meantime I carried out a lot of cleanup and resectioning to the article and intend to work on other areas that don't involve Hemings. Brad (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells and Shultz have hovered over this page and have made slavery and Hemings the predominate theme of the entire article for quite some time. I backed off some time ago and got involved in other things but alas, if the page is not tempered with a balance of opinion it becomes bloated with POV'ish conjecture about what a select group of contemporary authors, and others, think. Even the 'Marriage and family' section is bloated with this stuff. Trying to appeal to them without being 'disruptive' almost seems an impossibility, but if something is not done very soon then we should call another meeting of minds. Or we could just give up and let them do what they want with the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the text about Hemings has been reduced by 20K in August. The slavery section is currently 9K, out of 150K for the whole article. This does not seem excessive, although it is also true that the entire article is certainly very long, and there is already a separate article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. We can of course split the Marriage and Family section into two parts, with a new part called Relationship with Sally Hemings. KarlFrei (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please let us all not fight about these things. I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation for the edits people here have made. I recently made some adjustments to the art on Hemings, things were changed arbitrarily and without discussion. To Mr (or Ms) Gwillhickers, I must disagree with your claim, "Hemings was not married to TJ and it's still a matter of speculation that her children were fathered by him. Even if, having an illegitimate child somewhere doesn't make the child a 'family member.'" We're not talking about speculation, but rather well researched and documented work by excellent scholars. Illegitimate children most definitely are relatives, and no family court would accept that line of reasoning. The refusal of a father to give legal status to child because of his/her race does not 1) change biology or 2) change his legal responsibility. With respect, it seems your reasoning is incorrect, and the change unjustified.Studyhard12 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No one is really fighting here. Yes it is a somewhat heated debate, given this page's history and ongoing issues. These discussions only turn into a rancorous dialog when personal attacks are levied or lies are made about someone. That hasn't happened.
Yes, there was reduction in material, but some sections/topics are still over represented, esp since there are several dedicated pages for Hemings and slavery. The 'Marriage and family' section needs to be cleaned up, as again Wife and factual family should be the main themes, regardless of any paternal biology that has yet to be proven regarding the Hemings children. There are some POV issues (i.e."most historians believe" -- "minority" or "fringe" views, etc) as there are just too many historians, professors, etc on both sides of the fence for one party to be calling the other a "minority". Also, the wording regarding Jefferson and DNA needs attention. As I've already outlined/linked, the present statement leads the reader into thinking that inconclusive DNA evidence proves T.J. fathered all six children, and that as I suspect you might know is not the case. Only Eston has been connected to the Jefferson line, and there are at least 8 possibilities there. There are also other viable explanations regarding Hemings' times of conception that are being ignored. We need more coverage of these things and less todo about what a few select authors think. This is an unsolved controversy and it's not fair to represent one opinion more than another. Last time I checked the author 'Finkelman' is referred to by name and given lip service at least four times. There are others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert on Hemings. I've read some of Reed's work, the 1998 study and a few other materials on the case. I am open to discussing changes to any section if a reasonable case can be made - as I'm sure all members here are. You were saying there are pov problems and that you dislike the ambiguous wording "most historians believe". What alternatives would you propose in its place? Also, is there something wrong with Finkelman (did he get bad reviews for his work or something? - just asking). Studyhard12 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Studyhard, as I've pointed out 'most historians believe' is entirely debatable. I am sure both of us could come up with a list and unless one list was giant-sized compared to the other it is not fair to be asserting such opinions in the article. I am perfectly content with statements like e.g."Among the many historians opinion is divided because of inconclusive evidence". To assert only "serious historians" adhere to the one school of thought is not fair and in my opinion is a POV claim. It is not unfair to ask for citation when someone says "most historians". I would like to replace the 'citation needed' tag you removed, but I am not going into this debate in an editing capacity any further as there are many issues unsettled. This page was blocked from editing before (not by my asking) because of such edits. I am asking that you replace it, or at least render the wording a bit more fairly. Finkelman? My opinion of him is not the issue, he is mentioned by name four times at least, as if his opinion trumps others. That is also not fair. This is a biography and shouldn't be a forum for a select group of historians on one side of the fence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The tags that were removed have nothing to do with supplying sources or references. The tags represented WP:WEASEL which is part of words to watch. If a source is saying such "most historians" then it is best to always quote the source directly. That was another item that got removed from the version I had gathered. I had it directly quoted as the TJF says it. Brad (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. Asking for citation is asking for references/sources. Yes, the page you link to says claims like these are 'Weasel': ... 'some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proved .... Therefore the claim "most historians" would seem to be as such, esp since it was made with no citation that nails this claim down. Am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. In any event the claim needs citation or the wording fixed. Mentioning a couple of select sources somewhere in the text doesn't do this. I believe the request is fair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just read Gwillhickers and Brad wrote concerning the tags I removed. I don't mean any disrespect with saying "serious scholars", just that it is my understanding serious scholars have taken the position on the side of Gordon-Reed. If someone shows me otherwise, I shall gladly concede the point. I'm not against putting the citation needed tags back up or asking for clarification; I understood that they were removed without an appropriate discussion and it might be tedious work to put a list of professors for each tag. If most here feel they should go up, then ok fine. I agree a long list of names would be a bit odd; a reference to someone who says "most historians" would suffice for me, and all else here too? What's the opinion on that? Lastly, Brad, to make sure I understand: are you saying "most historians" is weasel words? Oh, the point on Finkelman is well noted, so I'm sure there are plenty of other scholars who say exactly what he does if anyone wants to swap his with a different one.Studyhard12 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If any article on WP says something like "most historians agree that....", there should be a citation immediately following of a reliable source that specifically says "most historians agree that....". This has nothing to do with truth, but is all about verifiability. This is especially important when some editors question the statement in good faith, regardless whether they are right or wrong. If another reliable source says "historians are divided on...." that can be cited as well. If we just count historians, it's original research and doesn't belong in the article. Station1 (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that some don't want the words "most historians" and there are others who say that, if it's used, it must have a citation. My point is that adding a citation to it will likely not end the disagreement. If the wording is bad, then let's discuss changing the words "most historians" to something all can agree on. Any suggestions? Studyhard12 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Most historians agree..." is NOT weasel words by me or other editors. It is a direct quote, and has been fully cited. It is part of a direct quote from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs Monticello as the major public history site for interpretation of Jefferson and his life. So, editors cannot argue about that quote. They can come up with other quotes from other sources, but that is a quote from a reliable source. It is tiresome that people keep acting as if someone made it up. It reflects the state of the field. I've added other material that shows that, but editors just don't agree with those awards (the Pulitzer Prize and major historical awards!), or don't like the books that scholars have published on this topic. Wikipedia policy requires us to follow reliable sources.Parkwells (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How about...

...wording text about the DNA tests, the corroborative evidence and who the father of Sally Hemings children something like this...

DNA evidence proves that Thomas Jefferson is the probable father of Eston Hemings.(ref/s) There is corroborative supporting evidence(ref/s) that Sally Hemings' other children were fathered by a male Jefferson.(ref/s) A majority of historians assert that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children(ref/s) while others assert that the father was either Thomas Jefferson's brother Randolph or another male Jefferson.(ref/s)

• For a more-detailed treatment of these issues see Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Insert : This is perhaps more accurate..
'Out of six children DNA evidence has only linked Eston Hemings to the Jefferson family line and points at least eight other Jefferson/related males. There is no DNA evidence linking Jefferson to the other five children. As such historians are divided about any conclusions regarding Jefferson's paternity. For a more-detailed treatment of these issues see Jefferson-Hemings controversy ' Preceding comment added by Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2011‎ (UTC)

OK, then how about this...

DNA tests prove that Eston Hemings, one of Sally Hemings' six children, is a direct descendant of a male Jefferson.(ref/s) There is corroborative supporting evidence(ref/s) that Sally Hemings' other children were also fathered by a male Jefferson.(ref/s) A majority of historians(ref/s) assert that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children(ref/s) while others assert that the father was either Thomas Jefferson's brother Randolph or another male Jefferson.(ref/s) (For a more-detailed treatment of these issues see Jefferson-Hemings controversy).

or

DNA evidence has linked Eston Hemings to the Jefferson family line with paternity being possible from multiple Jefferson named males.(ref/s) DNA tests were not performed on the other Hemings family-lines.(ref/s) Historians are divided about conclusions regarding Jefferson's paternity.(ref/s) (For a more-detailed treatment of these issues see Jefferson-Hemings controversy).

Either of the latest "How about's" that I just posted above are verifiable and can be sourced. --Shearonink (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not sure that my next comment has that much to do with improving the article other than remarking on how long all this discussion has gone. I find it interesting that it has never been a problem historically for the father of Sally Hemings' children to be a Jefferson but that for the father to be the Jefferson is an entirely different consideration. Thomas Jefferson's own acknowledged descendants had no problem freely asserting that their Carr cousins were the father/s of Hemings' children and others seem to have no issues asserting that Jefferson's brother Randolph (or any of the other possible Jeffersons) was the father. --Shearonink (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the rule has always been to keep the fatherhood as far from Jefferson as possible. The Carrs were sacrificial victims until they were ruled out by the DNA tests. Then and only then was Randolph brought in as an excuse. Indeed, the fact that it had been necessary to point to someone concrete as opposed to simply ignore Hemings children has always been to "protect" Jefferson (apparently from being seen as human). The evidence both in Jefferson's treatment of the Hemings family and the similarity of at least some of the children to Jefferson has always indicated Jefferson. The DNA data is not the one piece of conclusive evidence, it's the final nail in the coffin. Scholarly opinion had essentially come around before the Foster study, it only sped the change along. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the rule has been to use the Hemings controversy as a way to attack Jefferson and American Democracy. The first attempt was made in 1802 by a political journalist James T. Callender who was angry at Jefferson for being passed over for postmaster and who spread the rumor in a newspaper, with no proof whatsoever. Callender had a history of libeling several other founding fathers. Facts did not matter to him. The rumor was again perpetuated by enemies of Jefferson/America by Britain who was behind several propaganda efforts during the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. There also without any evidence they asserted the rumor as fact. Today the rumor is perpetuated as fact with DNA evidence that only connects one of the Hemings children with at least eight other possibilities, while much of the other 'historical evidence' can also be used to support other possibilities, esp Jefferson's younger brother Randolph who lived nearby and was usually around when T.Jefferson was, which was often. And when I see language like "final nail in the coffin" along with POV weasel wording in the article I have to wonder if this idea is being promoted here for the same reasons today. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

edit break

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, for one, has used the conclusions about Jefferson to broaden and deepen its coverage of African-American families at and around Monticello, both in colonial and federal times, as well as to openly address the reality of the many interracial families that arose in Virginia and the South. This is to strengthen the idea of who belongs in and contributes to America, not to attack it. Similarly, Annette Gordon-Reed's study of the Hemingses won a Pulitzer Prize and 15 other awards because it was seen as an important contribution about the lives of a major part of the population of the South.Parkwells (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting, but this doesn't belong in someone else's biography in there length and POV capacity that it presently exists in the TJ article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, I would suggest that it would be better for this article if all of us who are interested in editing it would, 1st: Assume good faith about each other before posting here. I regret my posting above about how long "all this" has gone on. I should not have posted it, it was not about improving the article. I will try to refrain from posting any further 'musings' on this page. --Shearonink (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Insert : Well, that was a legitimate criticism, and editors in general are not above criticism so long as it doesn't employ personal insults, lying or antagonistic remarks *(e.g. 'go home', 'you do not belong here', etc). Appreciate your reservations however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My observation is that Shearonink is making an attempt to discuss the wording of text regarding the paternity problems. I combined elements from both in an attempt to cover the relevant points:

DNA tests prove that Eston Hemings, one of Sally Hemings' six children, is a direct descendant of a male Jefferson,(ref/s) and there is corroborative supporting evidence to indicate a strong link to Thomas Jefferson (ref/s). In addition, there is supporting evidence(ref/s) that Sally Hemings' other children were also fathered by a male Jefferson, with evidence linking Thomas Jefferson to the conception times of each Hemings child; (ref/s) however, DNA tests have not yet been performed on the other Hemings family-lines.(ref/s) A majority of historians(ref/s) assert that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children(ref/s) while others (more recently) assert that the father was either Thomas Jefferson's brother Randolph or another male Jefferson.(ref/s) (For a more-detailed treatment of these issues see Jefferson-Hemings controversy). Studyhard12 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This might be a direction, with a couple of notes. The DNA study provided the last piece of evidence, as noted above. It conclusively demonstrated that the family's claim that one of the Carr nephews was the father was false for the Eston descendant. Since the Carr theses had been the basis for 180 years for historians' denying that TJ was the father, most historians decided that other evidence related to TJ was more important and he was the father. As Shearonink asked, why would the Jefferson grandchildren be willing to name one of their relatives? Gordon-Reed suggested that they overcame that taboo in the effort to try to "protect" their grandfather. At the time, people just did not talk about what was obvious. Discretion was expected of the planter elite, at least as far as talk. Since the DNA study was concluded, the TJHS and its Scholars Commission have suggested that Randolph Jefferson or other Jefferson males must be the father; they were never suggested as serious candidates by historians in the previous 180 years. The TJHS efforts are not more recent than the other reports referenced around 2000-2001, but they recently published an updated book about their conclusions. On the other hand, as I noted above, most academic scholarship of the last decade has accepted the TJ paternity conclusion, and reflects that in its publishing about Jefferson, as well as about the general society of Virginia in those years and later. As an example, Monticello has created new exhibits that show these relationships, supported new training for its guides, as well as supported new books about the interracial community at Monticello and in Charlottesville. It is not appropriate for the Wikipedia article to suggest the case "against" TJ as father is stronger than the scholars conclude, just because Gwhillhickers does not like this conclusion. The exhibits at Monticello about TJ and the Hemings do not attack American Democracy; they say, here is the full story; we all made this place.Parkwells (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is not much different than that which is being contested. I have posted many reliable sources that have a different opinion of TJ's paternity. The "most historians" claim is a POV claim than can not be substantiated when there are so many reliable sources who are not goose-stepping along with Reed and company. Only the TJF has used the words "most historians" while other foundations, government orgs, do not -- and these are numerous sources from professors of history from major and leading universities who flat out disagree with the TJ paternity claim. -- while Foster himself claims nothing has been proven with his DNA findings. All we need to see is both sides represented equally, and in summary form as this is a biography. Jefferson's involvement with US history and the fate of the nation should be the central and predominating theme. This is fair and is long overdue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GWillhickers keeps arguing about the wording of "most historians believe...": that is a quote directly from the Monticello website, as I've provided numerous times on this page and in the article. Editors can't take apart a quote from a reliable source. You can provide other sources that give a different point of view, which we included in this article. The MacArthur Foundation gave Gordon-Reed an award for "dramatically changing the field of Jeffersonian scholarship". That's why this article has to reflect that the field has changed. Those awards mean the work is recognized as fulfilling academic standards and being valuable to history.Parkwells (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

TJF is no better than many other sources who say otherwise. You keep holding this private org up as some final authority. Again, there are numerous reliable sources, professors of history from many leading universities, who say otherwise. Other foundations, government orgs, etc, do not make this claim. At this point we need more than the repetitious claim that 'TJF sez'.. This also is fair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources are what they are, and our opinions of that scholarship are irrelevant. Studyhard12's proposed language is good with me, but I would change "a majority of historians" to "most historians", to conform to the precise language in the source, as Parkwells points out. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That is one source, but there are many other reliable sources, as I pointed out above that do not go along with this idea. The statement should read 'historians are divided'. Again, this is a fair compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not a "fair compromise" on this page. The issue is reflecting the Reliable Sources. The disagreement with the conclusions about Jefferson's paternity are included in the article.Parkwells (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the phrase "most historians" and it is cited and directly from a reliable source, then its removal should be predicated upon the violation of wikipedia standards, and the onus wold be on him/her to demonstrate the point. In the discussion above [1], some claimed that it is a phrase similar to the banned words listed in WP:WEASEL, but that in itself seems insufficient to convince me. Quite simply: is it a violation or not? Studyhard12 (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not when a claim made by one source can be refuted by (in this case many) other reliable sources as I've pointed out above. If enough reliable sources say otherwise these sources should also be taken into account. We need a fair compromise here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Gwillhickers, first you said [2] "the page you link to says claims like these are 'Weasel'" and you added later you said, START QUOTE: "most historians" would seem to be as such, esp since it was made with no citation that nails this claim down." END QUOTE. Just a few minutes ago you said "if enough reliable sources say otherwise these sources should also be taken into account." With respect, I'm confused. Is the phrase, "most historians" a violation of WP:WEASEL policy or not? We cannot begin to discuss what sources say until we know if it's acceptable to use this phrase in the article.Studyhard12 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the phrase itself is not a violation. Editors are discouraged from using it, but it is a direct quote by a source that is giving an overview of the field at the time. To try to get off this, I have changed the Lead and separated the section: Hemings Controversy, in which I tried to use Brad's material, make it shorter, note the drawbacks of the DNA study (one line tested), point to other RS to show academic consensus (which awards for work in the field do represent), and make a subheader for Opposing Views to give them more weight.Parkwells (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to spend much time on this phrase myself, but am asking other editors if they agree it can be used. If so, then let us return to the discussion of the text Sharonink posted.Studyhard12 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Progress

Parwells is right. No violation, and I must admit, my referral to it makes it seem as if it is a vio, however I still feel the term is not accurate and ignores too many other reliable sources. Also (Parkwells), appreciate you making some concessions. Hope I am not being too argumentative, but these issues need to be sorted out. Again, I feel the issue can get adequate coverage, as it deserves, but the article still needs to let readers know there are many historians who have differing opinions and that it is not so one sided after all. Yes, this truly is the mother-load of all controversies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make changes in the Lead and a new Controversy section to address Gwillhicker's objections. Perhaps you can all look at that and see if it meets any goals. It seemed to me we had to get off this quote, although it is perfectly legitimate. Also, it is inappropriate to base all the text on the DNA test; there are other reasons most historians have concluded TJ is the father, too lengthy to go into in this article. Parkwells (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Some have taken Foster's findings and have assumed all roads lead to Rome. There is much more to consider. i.e.The roads lead everywhere, and at this late date we only have remnants of the map. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it appears we agree the phrase "most historians" is acceptable in an article as long as it is properly cited; however, it now appears that there is a new problem: Mr. Gwillhickers' contention that the phrase - and by definition the citation - is inaccurate & that it "ignores too many other reliable sources." So shall we look at the validity of this claim? This would require Mr. Gwillhickers to demonstrate a) its inaccuracy and b) how it ignores "too many other sources" to the extent that it could not be counted as a WP:RS. I'm not saying it is or isn't a reliable source, but would like to settle this so we can fix the text in question, which is much longer than 2 words.Studyhard12 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine an edge on it, but if '50' historians say one thing and '53' say another, it still would be misleading to claim one is in the majority. I believe I have listed enough reliable sources, professors of history from leading universities, etc, to demonstrate there are many on both side of this issue. It very well could be that they are the majority, technically, but again, there are too may on both sides of the fence to be making such divisive claims either way. The text should read 'Historians are divided', as indeed they are. This can be said without detracting from available facts, historic evidence, etc, thus allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. We should not be attempting to do that for them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Mr. Gwillhickers, I'm not familiar with the sources you listed that specifically show how the source Mr. Parkwells used to qualify the phrase "most historians" is flawed. It would need to be pretty specific, as in historian X in his book xyz says that this particular source is biased/inaccurate or otherwise flawed for us to consider your claim. Please cut and paste the quoted source (and link to it) which directly states this. To be clear on a different point, you mentioned Parkwells' source wasn't "accurate", and used a warrant the 50 v 53 writers who disagree Jefferson is the father, saying they are basically divided over the paternity question (as in equally divided). They very well may be, but Wiki says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, it also adds "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Saying that Mr. Parkwells' citation is inaccurate does not meet - even if correct - Wiki standards for exclusion for it first Wiki's definition of WP:RS and WP:V, until someone shows otherwise.Studyhard12 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are asking for a source that says 'No, we are the majority' and I don't know of anyone who has made such a divisive claim other than TJF. By showing that there are many professors of history from leading Universities who don't subscribe to that opinion this should be adequate and representative enough to substantiate the 'Historians are divided' statement. The article could say 'Historians are divided' and could cite both the TJF and the TJHS. I don't think it's fair to use the TJF source by itself to substantiate this one sided and rather ambiguous claim, not when there are many reliable sources who say otherwise. And as editors, may I point out that we are not copy-rewrite-and-paste-bots. As editors we are allowed to write articles and show sources. We should not be held to just one source which has made such a claim. If an editor has discovered conflicting evidence then a statement like 'divided' should be asserted and reference made to the opposing points of view. The TJHF has shown by example, by actually listing, citing, its prominent members, that there are many who disagree. The TJF has only made the claim, it has not demonstrated this claim. And even if they listed members, such a claim would still be unsubstantiated. The 'divided statement is substantiated when the two sources are cited together. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the claim "most historians" has been removed from the body of the text, I am assuming Parkwells has done this. I have to admit, I thought he'd be the last person to ever do this and that at any time I was going to be up against some of my old friends all over again. That was an unsettling thought. Now that much of the undue weight and POV issues have been graciously dealt we can now work to get this article to FA status.. This article is viewed an average of 11,000 times a day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Gwillhickers, I'm asking you to qualify the statement that there is something wrong with the phrase "most historians" and the citation from which Mr. Parkwells quoted it. Instead of providing it, you said "I don't know of anyone who has made such a divisive claim other than TJF." It appears, prima facie, that the use of such phrase by Mr. Parkwells meets Wiki guidelines in WP:RS and WP:V, and that there is no basis on which to challenge his usage of such. Now, to your hitherto unsubstantiated claim that "Historians are divided", the onus is on you to demonstrate this to be the case. Enumerating websites and/or professors at such and such university would constitute an "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." As editors, we cannot deduce a position, much less contradict a published one in a reliable source, as per WP:OR; our duty is to reflect that which "directly supports the material" (see WP:V p. 1), something Mr. Parkwells' phrase does and yours two claims do not. With respect, Studyhard12 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say his usage failed WP standards, I asserted that when an editor discovers conflicting evidence he/she is allowed to make the deduction and cite both sources. We don't have to find another sources that says "we're the majority", or whatever. If the sources can demonstrate the idea of 'divided historians' this is fine and this has been done. The "most historians" idea has been challenged by example. Don't need to find another source that spells out, "we're the majority". Also, if the source making the "most historians" claim can not substantiate their claim, then their claim along with their 'reliability' can be challenged also. Sources are often removed form WP articles for this very reason. It is not my intention to do that, only to demonstrate from a range of sources that there is divided opinion. Again, this has been done and saying so does not fail WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Gwillhicker, since the matter of Parkwells phrase and source for "most historians" does not violate Wiki standards for inclusion - which yourself have acknowledged as much on more than once occasion - then it now falls to you to find some other reason why the phrase "most historians" should not be used in the article. That is what I asked you to do in my last two comments. Please provide documentary evidence Mr. Parkwells phrase/source a) it is flawed or b) your own counterclaim that "historians are divided". Relying only on "deduction" is by definition WP:OR and cannot be used, nor can we reasonably be expected to take your word for it. If you cannot substantiate your claims, then please stop making them and objecting to Mr. Parkewlls' phrase. As of now, the only that has been demonstrated is that a majority of experts in academia agree Mr. Jefferson was the father, and the article must reflect this, not the opposite, as you desire. Studyhard12 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

At this late date I can not believe this has not been done yet. A consensus was established back in March, 2011 through discussion and appropriate polling to reduce and summarize the Hemings/slavery topics and to add material to the other sections. I added a bit of context to some of the other sections back then hoping someone more familiar with TJ's finer history would follow suit. Yet here were are, falling all over Hemings and slavery, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the above topics could be expanded a bit, but not at the expense of the work on slavery. There are no relevant discussions on this in recent days, so I could not agree there is any consensus based on things from early 2011. I am open to discussing any new info for those interested in adding content.Studyhard12 (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it wasn't my intention to have all the info on Hemings moved from the page. I mean, go ahead and say something, will ya? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As there is an article on Jefferson-Hemings controversy, it makes sense to use summary style for this. I've condensed the summary in accordance with WP:SS. Sunray (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As of this moment the current version of this debacle is the best I've seen so far. I'd recommend letting things mellow for a time and see how it works out. Brad (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree - thanks, Sunray.Parkwells (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well things have been sort of mellow to begin with, in light of past debates, but I tend to agree, the article has markedly improved over the last week. It would be interesting to know how anyone can assert that "most historians" feel TJ is father to all six when there are so many prominent historians, professors of history from leading universities, who do not go along with such conclusions. Unless the sources who make the claim about "most historians" can substantiate their claim, the article should read e.g.The TJF has claimed 'most historians' feel TJ is the father to all six Hemings children but fail to substantiate this claim. An editor would not be wrong to say so and the very sources used here would at the same time demonstrate this lack of substantiation by their failure to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got a point about that wording. Many historians now accept the evidence, but it is not up to us to say "most." I will adjust that. Sunray (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, thank you for your contributions and for having the capacity to recognize that all reliable sources should be considered and that no one source should be held up as the final authority -- not when there are so very many notable historians and professors who have differing opinions.

Regarding the controversy section, mention was made that the TJHF was criticized for "poor scholarship", but it should also be noted in the article that the Monticello Committee who was in charge of evaluating DNA and historical evidence has been criticized for including only those who were members of the foundation and that one of its own members, Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, dissented from the opinion reached by the few other members and criticized them for having "already reached their conclusions at the start of their deliberations" and for ignoring "most of the evidence that would exonerate Mr. Jefferson." It seems they are hardly in a position to accuse leading, independent, professors of history for "poor scholarship" when their whole approach was partisan in nature and ignored much of the evidence. Since the article mentions criticism for TJHF it should also note the legitimate criticisms from scholars and one of its own members that the TJF has drawn to itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, you have done great work here, but there is an issue which I want to clarify, and which I and other editors have made before on this page. "We" are not saying "most"; I have directly quoted a reliable source, which represents a major public history site on Jefferson, as saying most - it is from their viewpoint as an authority on Jefferson and having a range of scholars in the field. Gwillhickers wants to argue with the source and suggest that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs the Monticello site, has no authority to make that statement. He wants to take apart its quote, but that is not the way Wikipedia works. He wants to argue that none of the awards mean anything that have been given to academic works built on the conclusion of Jefferson's paternity), ranging from the Pulitzer Prize to the MacArthur Award, but that is obviously absurd. He disagrees with people recognized (and cited) as major biographers of Jefferson who have now accepted this conclusion. He has said previously on this page that all those groups and people (whom I have gone to the considerable work to cite) are simply reacting to political expediency, that academia is too politically correct. In short, he disagrees with the basis of Wikipedia, which is to follow Reliable Sources, because he disagrees with what they conclude.Parkwells (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To continue, editors have tried to acknowledge Gwillhickers' viewpoint, and included language that other historians continue to disagree with the consensus. A review of the literature shows that his sources do not represent the academic consensus of the last decade, nor are they the currently recognized major biographers who address Jefferson's personal life, such as Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein, who have won awards for their more recent work. (I'm not going to do the work again to cite this, as Gwillhickers just ignores my cites.) That's ok, they can disagree, but we should not be misrepresenting the state of the field on Wikipedia. GWillhickers does not accept my previously cited evidence and cited sources that demonstrate that an academic consensus has been reached on this issue. The fact that the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society and its scholars disagree with the consensus does not mean that a consensus has not been reached. Other editors on this page, who are equally knowledgeable about the issues, the sources, and the meaning of academic awards, have agreed that there is an academic consensus on this issue and that some scholars disagree. Other WP articles deal with similar issues by having passages such as, "there is widespread agreement on.., but some scholars think (otherwise)" or "scholars generally agree, but some do not..." That is the customary way to deal with a situation like this, as we can see on other history and archeological WP articles, for instance. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate Gwillhickers' viewpoint, but it is not appropriate to turn wikipedia policy inside out and try to take apart quotes from reliable sources. You simply add other sources to show a different viewpoint, which has already been done here. Gwillhickers can continue to disagree here, but the rest of us should not be disregarding what is meant when the MacArthur Foundation credits Gordon-Reed with "changing the field of Jeffersonian scholarship." As noted, this is a major change in Jeffersonian biography of the last 180 years. And yes, Gwillhickers and some scholars continue to disagree. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation acknowledges that the TJHS disagrees with its conclusions. It still concludes that over the last decade, "most historians agree" about Jefferson's paternity. The TJHS held a press conference at the National Press Club to announce their updated book on the controversy, but it got little attention from the mainstream press. Parkwells (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

edit break2

Parkewells, your long winded opinion that focuses on me rather than the issue doesn't belong on this page. Please make more of an effort to contain yourself. Do not appreciate being accused of "ignoring your cites" and for "turn(ing) wikipedia policy inside out". I have always maintained that ALL reliable sources should be considered and taken into account. Since you are so very unhappy about the article giving equal coverage to reliable sources it can only be assumed now that you have been pushing a POV for more than a year, as your activity on this page has only dealt with Hemings/slavery and your opinion of "the scholarship" which amazingly ignores a whole range of prominent scholars in the process. You started to show progress, but unfortunately you have digressed right back to the place you have always been. Up until now the dialog has been civil and mellow overall. Please let's try to keep it that way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to take sides in this debate, but I have asked Mr. Gwillhickers to substantiate his claims that academia are either "divided" or disagree that Jefferson was the father. The relevant discussion began here [3], continued here [4] and is ongoing here [5]. As I said to him - and this applies to all - clear evidence is needed to advance a position; I find the claim, based on the evidence Mr. Gwillhickers has hitherto given above, to be inadequate to substantiate either the former or latter claim (the academia are "divided" or Jefferson was not the father claim). If he can show otherwise, then I will weigh the evidence. Furthermore, whilst the prose of the recently edited section on Hemings sounds nice, I find it disturbing that such a disputed section was so abruptly changed by Mr. Parkewells, I believe. Did I miss the discussion? Lastly, Mr. Gwhillickers' says that "The TJF alone does not establish this, AG'Reed is a lawyer-activist, not a historian or professor of history, regardless of awards. There are clearly very many other reliable sources". There is merit to this claim. However, we must recall that TJF did not on its own decide the majority opinion. Number 2, Gordon-Reed is indeed a lawyer, but a well respected one whose Pulitzer Prize in 2009 was given in "history" (not law) [6], so she has the respect of the entire profession, and by default Wiki. Be she an activist or not is irrelevant (free speech or politics is not a crime). She is either a reliable source or she isn't. And unless Mr. Gwhillickers has any evidence to the contrary, her work and conclusions cannot reasonably be excluded - particularly on the point that Jefferson was the father. Mr. Gwhillickers, do you have any evidence to show that her work should not be used ie. that is is biased? I am patiently waiting several days for you to give evidence for your claims. Now, I say this not to fight but to have all reach some sort of agreement on the "most historians" question, so that we can move on. And move on we must, for if the sources say the majority believe him to be the father, the article must say so; to claim they are "divided" without evidence is WP:OR or worse.Studyhard12 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already substantiated that notable historians are divided by listing a whole range from leading universities, and I never said that Reed's work should not be used but only noted that she is a lawyer-activist, not a historian or a professor of history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have seen no evidence indicating historians are "divided", and have been asking for it for days. The statements (your own) and the methodology used to arrive at such conclusion is, from what I saw, WP:OR. Studyhard12 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean a select few disagree that Jefferson is the father, I would agree. But neither they as sources nor their position could be correctly termed as "divided", for it would incorrectly present the matter as evenly divided, when it is more like 90% v 10%, as many sources say, including others Mr. Parkwells did not post. My point is, Mr. Gwhillickers, that unless you can prove what you are saying, we must consider this matter closed. Lastly, you raised this in your last comment. We cannot give all sources equal weight, as it would violate policy. Minority positions do not count the same as majority, though they should not be ignored. (WP:UNDUE)Studyhard12 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have listed a whole range of professors of history from leading Universities, and others -- and where are you getting your 90% v 10%? Again, the statement 'historians are divided' is true and I have not seen anyone try to come up with actual percentages other than yourself. The cliam "most historians" is a blank statement made by TJF who were criticized by one of its own committee members for asserting an opinion before evaluations of the evidence had begun and for ignoring evidence -- and their claim remains unsubstantiated. If it could be found that only one or two scholars had a different opinion then the term "most historians" would be warranted. This is far from the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Gwhillickers, your list of professors add up in sum to the minority position that Jefferson was not the father. That, in no way, gets or should get equal coverage with the established fact that the majority of academia consider Jefferson to be the father. Further, since you can provide no evidence whatsoever that Gordon-Reed's work should not be used or that the phrase "most historians" is flawed, we will use and continue to use their work as representative of the majority, for it clearly is. Your objection has been noted, Mr. Parkwells' edits acknowledged the minority position. Asking us to label the minority as equivalent to the majority violates every Wiki pillar there is - based on the evidence you provided.Studyhard12 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't even have a list, only a unsubstantiated claim made by a committee that was found to have had an opinion before evaluation of evidence had begun and for ignoring much of the evidence overall. This criticism was made by one of their own committee members, Dr. W. M. Wallenborn. Again, it is not fair to hold up the blank claim made by this one biased source when there are so very many historians from leading Universities who do not leap to the same conclusion. Nothing has been established as fact. Even Foster admits this. Also I have not in any way "violate(d) every Wiki pillar there is", so please don't try to muscle an opinion into the text with such accusations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not go by "lists" on Wiki to determine majority opinion; we go by, and only by, WP:RS, and they say the majority agree Jefferson was father. Even if every person on that list you yourself made up agrees with you, it would still not change the fact it is a minority position. The minority point that Jefferson was not the father is included, but it cannot be called equal to the majority with the word "divided". That committee Mr. Parkwells cited is not the only important source that make up the majority, nor is it relevant there was dissent within it. Do you understand what majority means? Greater than half. That is enough. Also, Gordon-Reed is just one of the more important scholars in this field of Hemings and Jefferson, and the majority of other academics agree her conclusions are correct. That is precisely what the published sources say. Can you show otherwise? So far you cannot since you have posted nothing to the contrary. You are free to disagree, but understand why the "historians are divided" phrase cannot be used, and why minority positions cannot receive equal weight with those of the majority. You will find WP:UNDUE explains it better than I.Studyhard12 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we go by reliable sources and you have not explained why the list of history professors from leading universities noted above are not reliable sources. And I didn't make up anything, thank you. All you are doing is rehashing an opinion and have yet to substantiate your notion that one source is more reliable than the other, nor have you given any explanation for your 90% v 10% notion. Again, the source you hold up for "most historians" has been shown to be biased and for ignoring much of the evidence -- and it has not substantiated their blanket and obviously partisan claim. No 'majority' has ever been established, much less identified. It flies in the face of a whole range of history professors from leading universities and others. Please add something that substantiates your position. If you can not carry the ball any further than this I can only regard such continuations as merely argumentative.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You, Mr. Gwhillickers, are the one making the claims Parkwells' source is flawed and that historians are divided. Neither is true, and you have done nothing more than make up some list and deduce a conclusion based on it, which is original research. When I asked you for direct quotes or evidence to support our claims, you are unable to provide them. So instead you flip the argument and ask me for citations, and say I am argumentative? Mr. Parkwells citation, for instance, is sufficient citation to show "most historians" sa Jefferson was the father, so no need to ask me to provide it again. I also referenced the Pulitzer Prize. I'm sorry you do not like the fact the majority of historians (they are NOT divided, which you have 0 citations to even refer to on this point), but I did not write it. What you are asking us to do is ignore the facts to advance a minority position. No.Studyhard12 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Equal criticism

Since the controversy section mentions criticism made towards TJHS it should also mention criticism towards TJF made by scholars and one of their own members, Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, who while serving on the committee to evaluate DNA and other evidence noted that the committee members already came in with an opinion before the evaluation had begun and that they ignored much evidence which exonerated Jefferson. TJF did not seek outside independent opinion but included only members of their own private organization. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a minority report in both TJF and TJHS reports. Covering these seems beyond the scope of a summary. I do think that finding the appropriate weight for the various views is important. What changes would you suggest to maintain the appropriate weight without expanding the section unduly? Sunray (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Only that brief mention be made of such criticism. The refs can point to the actual sources/links. As it is, mention is only made about criticism towards TJHS. There is due criticism towards TJF, esp since one of its own members took exception to their whole approach and exclusion of evidence. That would bring balance to the section, and would still keep it in summary proportions. Again, the readers should get both sides of the issue, per controversies, and be allowed to draw their own conclusions. This attempt (not by you) to pass off one source as better than the other and to give it more coverage/credence, and the claim that i.e.'we're the majority, you're not', with nothing to substantiate it, smacks of partisan politics long associated with this issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The academic consensus is not only dependent on the TJF or on criticism by the TJHS. These are not the only sources or people who have examined this issue. The reports are in the past - by saying that some historians disagree with the conclusions, the differences have been acknowledged. So take out the criticism of the TJHS here, I don't care. Send all readers to the longer article, but don't start all over adding to this article again. Gwillhickers, I am tired of your continually saying there is "nothing to substantiate it" (the consensus), as you have ignored or disregarded everything I have offered, since you didn't agree and just "didn't like it". As other editors and Wikipedia policy have pointed out, "I don't like it" is not sufficient reason to ignore RS. Other editors and I have offered substantive cites about how this issue has been treated.Parkwells (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If you finally have something that nails down the "most historians" claim, then you should present it. All you have done thus far is wave Reed and the TJF around like a flag and have assumed/claimed that they have the majority behind them. I want to make a neutral claim ... 'historians are divided'. You want to make a 'we v they' claim with this "most historians" claim in an attempt to sway the opinion of the reader sitting on the fence of this issue. No, I have not ignored TJF, but it seems you want to sweep TJHS and a whole range of prominent historians under the rug as if they were some fly-by-night writers from some quasi-website. Both schools of thought should get equal coverage, as this is a controversy, and the readers need to draw their own conclusions. We need to keep partisan claims out of the fray and be fair to the discussion. As for the criticisms, if one can be made toward the TJHS then one should also be submitted towards the TJF. This is fair also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with this false claim above. Mr. Parkwells has already provided sufficient evidence that the majority of historians - ie "most historians" - accept Jefferson as the father of the Hemings children. You allege this website is flawed, but can site only your opinion to support your claim. That is not evidence, it is just arguing. I don't care if you, Mr. Gwhillickers, accept/believe he was the father or not, but the idea that "historians are divided" has not even one citation to back it up, and is your opinion based on your own original research, and is therefore inadmissible. Further, it is false. Looking at the archive, editors have provided you with hundreds of citations, but you refuse to accept them. What you are doing is harassing people, and that is wrong. I've never seen a more obsessed person on one point. It appears you've been doing thins almost a year. That is ridiculous. And your tirades against A Gordon-Reed, the website Parkwells cited, and now people who hate American democracy reveals your own prejudices, not Mr. Parkwells or mine. What I see is that EVEN WHEN people give you citation, all you do is find some excuse why they can't be used ie the website Mr. Parkwells found that says "most historians". Studyhard12 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Insert : Studyhard, you are obsessed with an editor and obviously frustrated that your repetitious blanks claims have fallen flat on their face and now you are merely trying to 'kill the messenger' thinking the message will disappear. Please stick to the discussion. Attacking me solves nothing and WP has policy against such excursions. Please stop your direct and personal accusations. I am not any more obsessed than Parkwells and others who have also been here far more frequently than me arguing these points for more than a year -- and my involvement here has not been in an editing capacity, so kindly collect yourself and try to lighten up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the TJF says "most historians" does not mean that we can draw that conclusion. We could quote TJF in the body of the article (they are already quoted in the footnote), but their conclusion may be arguable since we don't know how they have arrived at it. IMO it would be better to have an independent source (e.g., American Historical Association) make that determination. I haven't been able to find such a source. Has anyone else come across one? Sunray (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells and some others have held up TJF as representative of the "most historians" claim, a blank claim that they (and a couple of editors here) still fail to substantiate. It is a blank claim with not even an explanation behind it, still. How was it arrived at? A poll? We are expected to accept it at face value. I do not. (100's of citations?? Did I miss something?) In turn I have pointed to a range of prominent historians from leading universities who do not go along with TJF and company and likewise present them as representative of this opposing school of thought. These are not nobody's, again, they are professors of history from leading universities across the country. I have demonstrated from these reliable sources, and by sheer example, that historians are indeed greatly divided on this issue. We do not have to find print that actually spells out "historians are divided" when it is demonstrated for us by actual example, and frankly, in the face of overwhelming evidence, such a demand is a sophomoric cop out. -- Meanwhile, since the section offers a criticisms toward the TJHS, it should likewise present a quite legitimate criticism towards TJF, that the TJF committee already had an opinion before evaluation of evidence began, that they did not seek outside independent opinion, ignored evidence and that this criticism came from their own committee member, Dr. W.M. Wallenborn, as well as from other scholars. In the face of this revelation it could very well be argued fairly that this source is partisan, flawed by its own methods and is therefore not reliable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you yourself admit that you do not have any evidence "historians are divided" as you say here, We do not have to find print that actually spells out "historians are divided" then it is incumbent on you to stop using claiming it is fact. No attempt to add up some historians in a list you made will work, it is WP:OR. Next, without specific written evidence/quotes from reliable sources on why the TJF Committee is flawed, we cannot accept your claim either. You ALLEGE "it could very well be argued fairly that this source is partisan, flawed by its own methods and is therefore not reliable." Unfortunately, allegations are not evidence, and your speculation/beliefs do not matter anymore than mine. STOP harassing people with these ridiculous claims. The fact is you admit you have 0 evidence that "historians are divided" or that the majority of historians agree with your position that Jefferson was not the father. Let it go.Studyhard12 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I admit no such thing, only that the evidence did not take the verbatim form that you, for some reason, expect it to. Permit me to walk you through this. If one source says "apple trees grow on Smith hill" and another sources says "pine trees are abundant on Smith hill" an editor is allowed to say there are 'different types' of trees on Smith hill. Neither source actually said there are "different types" but as editors, we are allowed to deduce from the sources that this is the case. I have presented a whole range of reliable sources, professors of history from leading universities, who are on record for not subscribing to the TJS school of thought. I have presented enough of these prominent historians/professors that it can be deduced that 'historians are divided' without finding print that spells this out verbatim. Clear now? As for reliable sources, if the source has among it a member who has come forward and revealed inherent flaws and partisan activity, then that source can be regarded as unreliable. I noticed that Parkwells removed the criticisms towards TJHS, no doubt as a way to keep all criticism, including that regarding the TJF committee, off the page. If Sunray wishes to restore his edit, and also include the very damaging revelation regarding the TJF committee, he has my support.
Parkwells, don't appreciate such manipulations. You had no mind to remove the criticism toward TJHS until I pointed out the (very) legitimate criticisms that hang over the TJF committee. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

edit break3

First, don't try to project what my intentions are on any decision. Secondly, please stop imputing the worst motives to every editor but yourself. Third, the article clearly states in the summary that the TJHS argued with the TJF conclusions. You are the one who said they had "very damaging revelations" - you have provided no source for that outside the TJHS. I have worked way too much on this article already trying to accommodate what is your minority view among the editors on this page, no matter what you think your view represents in the larger world. And now you criticize me for trying to compromise. That is priceless. Let's all take a long holiday break. This is wasting my time. Parkwells (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Every editor? Hardly. And the TJHS is made up of former TJF committee member Dr. Wallenborn and former TJF President John Works Jr, not to mention a whole array of independent history professors from leading universities. They are hardly an isolated and exceptional group of scholars. Priceless indeed. Also, anytime you want to see who is in the minority we can always conduct a poll and call for another consensus. You seem to think that attaching the label "minority", as is also done on the other Hemings pages, that you can pass off these views off as inconsequential, rather than actually having to prove them as such. That's intellectually lazy and it's not working. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Studyhard, I have conceded to Parkwells' latest edits, for now anyway. Let's see where the page goes from here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Gwhillickers, the case you give on the apple and pine trees differs, for no one would dispute the presence of such being there are clear texts used to support the claim. However, in this case of "divided historians" we are discussing adding up the sum of an enumerated list of academics put together by a Wiki editor and then drawing a conclusion on that. I too can make a list of people who believe in something, but I couldn't use it on Wiki. Why? Wiki says this is WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." We must provide specific sources to back or claims, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." These aren't my rules, but that is what we must do, particularly since we have a reliable source saying "most historians", which indicates scholars are not "divided" in a 50 v 50 way. Of course minority positions should be mentioned without bias, and it seems to me they are, since the text clearly says there are academics who disagree Jefferson was the father. My only objection would be to say/imply they are evenly divided. Nonetheless, Mr. Parkwells removed the phrase "most historians", so it seems to me he is really trying hard to avoid arguments and compromise with you. I'm content with the current Hemings text. Are you?Studyhard12 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And there is clear text to support my claim, as the list of independent scholars/professors were members of a commission that made clear their position, even though the statement 'historians are divided' isn't spelled out. Again the 'historians are divided' idea is easily deduced when the sources are taken together and as editors we are allowed to say so. We are not cut-and-paste-bots, we are writers. I am content with the text, sort of. There are still other areas where the text is still quite derogatory in its presentation, like in the 1st paragraph in the 'Views of slaves and blacks' section. Whose writing this stuff? The various items may be sourced, but sewn together as such read derogatory. Not clever. Will make issue with that another time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay to use "historians are divided" although it isn't spelled out, but it's not okay to use a reliable source that says "most historians agree". That is paradoxical, at best.Parkwells (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you Parkwells, but I'm not sure I follow your other statement. I thought you were of the opinion that "most historians agree". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)