Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Ordinary claims...

I'm quite confused by the resistance to the Hemings-relationship still being offered by some editors. I have only three books on Jefferson directly on my bookshelf - Hitchens' Thomas Jefferson: Author of America (2005), Bernstein's more scholarly Thomas Jefferson (2003), and Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (1997). Gordon-Reed is the most cautious of the three - Bernstein and Hitchens essentially take the relationship for granted. As we know, relationships between whites and blacks were officially frowned upon, but extremely common in Virginia at the time, and even in Jefferson's close family. Sally Hemings was the result of just such a relationship between Jefferson's own father in law and his slave Betty Hemings (John Wayles and Betty Hemings apparently lived together publicly for 12 years and had six children). Jefferson's views against miscegenation obviously did not stop some kind of interracial sex going on at Monticello, either, unless we assume several repetitions of events Jefferson struck from his version of the Bible. We also know that during his marriage, Jefferson was sexually active enough to keep his wife in near permanent pregnancy, despite the fact that this obviously contributed to her deteriorating health. I find it hard to assume that Jefferson's sex drive died with Martha, and that he had no more sex for the next 44 years. Assuming he did find an outlet, the options were limited. He could get unmarried white girls into trouble, find hookers, break into marriages, or do what apparently nearly every planter gentleman did at one time or another, and sleep with a slave. This would be in no way extraordinary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not extraordinary at all. While considering this issue I began thinking about George Washington and his slaves. Since Washington never had any biological children, if he had been visiting female slaves on the side there wouldn't have been any "living" evidence of such an affair. I think in the case of Jefferson/Hemings persons are using the issue to tarnish Jefferson's reputation; presenting it as something that discounts everything the man ever did or that Jefferson was an exception to the rule. Brad (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is unfair to make generalizations that some unnamed people are "using the issue to tarnish Jefferson's reputation", and to assume that people only think about Jefferson and this issue in one way. Others simply recognize him more for being human, complex, complicated and paradoxical; and are also glad that a widely occurring practice (interracial relationships) is being acknowledged and the descendants recognized as fully human, too. I saw an article from 1998 today from one of the Jefferson (Westerinen) (Eston Hemings, white descendants), who said they had always known who they were descended from and were glad a fuller story was public, as the US is a place where many peoples have come together.Parkwells (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, if this is the premise from which you write you are to be commended, however this page has had a history of statements that single out Jefferson as some lone racist hypocrite in a vacuum. The descendents of Hemings can obtain their 'recognition' as humans with or without Jefferson. Such aspirations doesn't give anyone a blank check to ignore evidence and slight Jefferson and other schools of thought in this issue. And yes, this issue has a long history of people who have used Hemings/slavery to attack Jefferson and American Democracy, and when I read comments like "nail in the coffin", again, I have to wonder from what camp they are hailing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This topic is really not related to the article so I shouldn't be adding to it further... but. Think about all of the president's and founding fathers who owned slaves. Out of all of them, nobody gets bashed for it as much as Jefferson. Even Ben Franklin owned slaves at one point but you hardly ever hear that brought up. There is even a quote in this article from an author who says: "No single issue has contributed as much to the decline of Jefferson's reputation since World War II as the slavery question."(Cogliano 2006, p. 202.) and Gordon Wood as well. Brad (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

From the reading I've done, this "decline" is less because of Jefferson having this relationship than because he did not do more to end slavery after 1789. David Brion Davis said something like, after that date, from Jefferson there was "an immense silence". He and other historians realized Jefferson did not use the power of his presidency to try to ameliorate or end slavery. Some of his contemporaries, like Washington, freed their slaves in their wills.Parkwells (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The quality of Jefferson's thinking and the truth of his writing do not depend on the flawlessness of his personal behaviour. If that were the case, the republic would be lost already. Jefferson was a slave holder, he bought and sold slaves, he had them tracked down and punished, he lived beyond his means and got congress to bail him out (by buying his library), he died deeply in debt, he ignored his own political principles (e.g. buying Louisiana without constitutional backing), he was the most astute behind-the-scenes dealer of his time, and so on. Note that e.g. his on, off, and on friend John Adams managed to live a life, at the same time, without these particular failings. Of course, Adams also was a puritanical sourpuss with writing that may have been deep, but was so convoluted that only his mother could like it. Jefferson was an outstanding enlightenment thinker, "remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression", who managed to capture deeper truths in his writing than probably even he himself recognized at the time. "...that all men are created equal..." would remain a breathtaking insight even if Jefferson's personal life would have been a cross between those of de Sade, Henry VIII, and Attila the Hun. But it wasn't. He was a man of his time, and he almost certainly shared nearly half of this life with a beautiful woman who also happend to be his slave. That does not mean that he had two eunuchs drag a helpless wench in a brass bikini and a silken veil "into my bedchamber" under the threat of torture, all the while laughing maniacally. Hemings could have remained in Paris as a free woman. The fact that she returned with Jefferson, and the fact that they apparently remained on at at least amicable terms until he was dead at 83 and she was over 50 both indicate that their relationship was neither completely one-sided nor based on sex alone. This does not make Jefferson a despicable rapist, it makes him human. If we require your heros to be flawless, they will all topple like bowing pins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson went ahead with the Louisiana Purchase because he had to strike while the iron was hot. It was an exceptional opportunity that had to be acted on immediately and one which he was always commended for. Principles are guidelines and are often temporarily put on hold if it will serve a greater good. Your "most astute behind-the-scenes dealer of his time" comment hardly characterizes this effort. Seems to be born of the same stuff "nail in his coffin" is made from. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The "astute behind-the-scenes dealer of his time" comment did not refer to the Louisiana transaction, but to the way Jefferson did a lot of politics - by inviting people to dinner parties, dropping hints to Madison, dropping money to Callender ("not to smear his opponents, just so that the poor man could live..." - right!), and so on. Jefferson was neither saint nor devil - he was a great mind with the usual amount of moral ambiguity we all share. Sorry that you completely seem to miss my point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"We all share". Please, Schurlz. I do not believe it is fair to say all the editors share in Jefferson's "moral ambiguity." I believe the readers can decide if Jefferson was morally abiguious. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You show me a person who us all good or all evil, and I'll show you a star nailed down to the roof of some hovel in the Near East. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No one said Jefferson was a saint, and I believe Cm' isn't trying to say that either. It's just your choice of words always seem to be an effort to take Jefferson down a notch, or ten. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean words like "Jefferson was an outstanding enlightenment thinker", "[he] managed to capture deeper truths in his writing", "he was a great mind"? In case you haven't noticed, I have a quite unreasonable level of admiration for Jefferson, and in particular to the way he managed to express Enlightenment ideas still extremely relevant today. But that does not mean that I want to white-wash history. That would be very much in contravention of every idea of the Enlightenment. "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it," as Jefferson said. In this case, it leads us to the conclusion that, no matter how much we admire Jefferson, he did not always live up to his own ideals. But that is a trait shared by essentially everybody, and much less a failing in Jefferson, whose ideals included "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all mankind, than in Joe Blog, whose aim in life is to recycle at least half of his beer cans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Page view stats

I just took a look at the page view stats for the Jefferson page. For some reason the number of views on Sunday spiked to 52,000+ !! Average views per day for this page is about 11,000. Wonder what caused the flood of viewers on that day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. My initial assumption was that it bled over from Christopher Hitchens, but while his traffic grew about 100 times to 600k/day, the peak there was on Friday. I have not found Jefferson mentioned on the main page, so I have no idea what caused this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There was an article on Salon.Com by Annette Gordon-Reed called "The Road to Monticello - How Christopher Hitchens came to love Thomas Jefferson". There was also a Letter to the Editor published December 18th in The Daily Progress (Charlottesville, VA) from Eugene Foster's widow Jane Foster, plus a Washington Post column published on the 14th about Jefferson's Bible called Jefferson’s Bible gets a second look. --Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding out those sources!Parkwells (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jane Foster says:

"Eugene Foster felt that it was more than 99 percent probable that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’ children, but that there was always a tiny possibility that all the historical evidence was mistaken, and that some other Jefferson might have crept into the story unbeknownst to everyone." She notes: "His daughter Martha and grandchildren always blamed the two sons of his sister Martha, the Carr nephews, for the slaves who so resembled Jefferson. Historians accepted their belief for more than 150 years until the DNA proved that the Carr brothers could not have been responsible for Sally’s children." She said she was writing her letter "because the headline [in an earlier edition of The Daily Progress], "Resolving the Sally Hemings Myth," and the sub-headline, "Scholars conclude the story is probably false," appear as though Robert Tucker’s book is an accepted authority on the subject. I was relieved to read that the author has been unable to persuade other Jefferson scholars to debate the subject of paternity with him." She was referring to the update to TJHS Scholars Commission Report, published in 2011, and an event which the TJHS was trying to create to publicize their press conference at the National Press Club.Parkwells (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

TJF damage control

"Tiny possibility"? -- "crept into the story"?? They certainly have a way with words. Randolph, who lived nearby and was often around when TJ was, presents us with more than a "tiny possibility". And again, there is no DNA evidence for the other five, so this "tiny possibility" is a gross understatement and an outright distortion. "Jane Foster sez"? I prefer what Eugene Foster himself said... "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." '...NOR SOLELY IMPLICATED...' Did Eugene Foster himself ever say "99 percent probable"?? The above claim "unable to persuade other Jefferson scholars" is yet another distortion, a lie even, as there are plenty of scholars who are in line with Tucker's position. This was nothing but a damage control media presentation which Jane seems to have been politically goaded into. Again, the TJF was exposed by one of its own committee members, who btw, is now a member of the TJHS, all of whom are in line with Tucker. Funny these newspapers articles failed to mention these items. Blinders: ON? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This was clearly labeled as a Letter to the Editor by Foster's widow. She was objecting to coverage by the Charlottesville paper of Tucker's book. You always exclude what Eugene Foster also said, as was quoted in the Nature article, "The simplest and most probable explanations for our molecular findings are that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson. . ." So you disagree with what his widow said, and think you know better from one article what he truly thought. She only lived with him. Tucker and the scholars you keep referencing all are associated with the TJHS; Tucker's book is an updating of their report. Rather than continuing to point to them and that report, why don't you share other sources with us of books by scholars not associated with the TJHS, who are writing about Jefferson and his time (not only about the controversy), but do not accept his paternity? Those would be useful to share with editors here. Parkwells (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Foster said that about Eston, not the other five. The simplest explanation indeed. Again, did Eugene Foster actually say 99%, or was that just another attempt to manipulate appearances, ala 'minority views'? As you now know the TJHS is made up of (many) independent history professors/scholars, from leading universities, and former TJF president/members, so I can well appreciate your desire for me to make references elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, independent scholars have published on this topic in the William and Mary Quarterly, the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, and other journals, and others have written books on Jefferson and his times that have added to the conversation. They are not associated with the TJF; they have reviewed the information and reached their decisions independently. Numerous scholars were cited in the PBS Frontline program, Jefferson's Blood. Many of these works have been cited here, so I won't do that again. My question to you was, what effect have the scholars associated with the TJHS had on the field of American history in the last 10 years? What books have they published on Jefferson and his era? How have these books been received in reviews by academic journals? And are there scholars, other than those associated with TJHS, who are writing works predicated on Jefferson not being the father of Hemings' children that are not just works devoted to re-arguing the controversy?Parkwells (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, historians are divided, and the evidence remains far from conclusive with too many gaps and variables and with DNA evidence that points to Eston only and many other Jefferson/related males, many of whom were around often. So while we are both trying to buttress our opinions by noting the various scholars and historians, lets not forget that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not my point. I'm asking you to contribute to the discussion of scholarship on Jefferson and his era since 2000, so that we might look at what people are writing now, rather than rehashing the arguments of 2000, and look at what is going on in the field about the Jeffersonian era. (Also, there is no documentation to assert that other Jefferson males were "often" around Monticello. I have cited a 2003 study that said Randolph Jefferson was seldom there. Here it is again: 2003 documented that Randolph Jefferson was seldom at Monticello. You have not provided a cite with pages for your assertion.) Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Here is a different statement, from Jefferson's Blood, NPR's Frontline program (May 2000) on the controversy, that suggests consensus on this issue:

"More than 20 years after CBS executives were pressured by Jefferson historians to drop plans for a mini-series on Jefferson and Hemings, the network airs Sally Hemings: An American Scandal. Though many quarreled with the portrayal of Hemings as unrealistically modern and heroic, no major historian challenged the series' premise that Hemings and Jefferson had a 38-year relationship that produced children."

The mini-series was aired in February 2000. Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To try to achieve compromise, I have deleted material in the controversy section about criticism of the TJHS report. It already says that the TJHS argued against the conclusions of the TJF. It is in the main article. I have added back in the summary that the Carr male line did not match the DNA of the Hemings descendant, as that was significant to changing the consensus. (and yes, it's clear that it applies to the one descendant tested.) Parkwells (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The current text is short, to the point and avoids some of the language Mr. Gwhillickers objected to, so I see it as a compromise that does not attempt to alter the accepted opinions of the majority of academics. I wounder if mention of Reed's 2009 work should be made, it is, after all, one of the most important pieces published on the subject with a Pulitzer in history (or do you feel it is better left in the main article?). One other thing, this quote: "demonstrating how historians since the nineteenth century had accepted early assumptions and failed to note all the facts." The passage is correct in saying there was poor scholarship, but it doesn't directly address the deliberate manipulation of the facts to protect Jefferson's legacy, a prominent thread that continues in everything regarding Jefferson and slavery. I'm seeking input before I touch the text so as to avoid arguments. Your thoughts please. Studyhard12 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think attempting to address more issues of the historiography would open up too many issues here; such an approach is better left to the longer discussion and citations in the main article on the controversy. I had also thought about adding a section on scholarship since 2000, but think it also belongs in the main controversy article. In terms of that article, I'm proposing that it be split: that the DNA study and its technical content be a separate article (as it was earlier), referenced in the "Jefferson-Hemings Controversy" in a 3-paragraph summary. Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The other main article should be the best place to discuss the other material if adding even small info will lead to a large increase in material. I'm ok with the Hemings section as it is.Studyhard12 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I said 2 or 3 days ago. Put away the argument for now. Brad (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, thank you for making some concessions. I still feel it was sort of, shall we say, clever, to delete all criticism from the controversy section so as to avoid criticism being posted about TJF, but I suppose we can live with no criticism at all there. And while the Controversy section doesn't say 'historians are divided', it doesn't say 'most historians', either. Good enough. Brad is right, best to let things cool down. Let's see where the page takes us for awhile. If I decide to edit the page it will be in the other sections, as I've done before. Still work to be done there. Getting too close to Christmas to be grinding axes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Position of TJF

It does not appear to me that the TJF is among those trying to say Jefferson was bad; they continue to uphold all his good work and ideals. "Through his celebrity as the eloquent spokesman for liberty and equality as well as the ancestor of people living on both sides of the color line, Jefferson has left a unique legacy for descendants of Monticello's enslaved people as well as for all Americans."Parkwells (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my comments above brought this on. When I said that Jefferson's reputation is being "tarnished" by the Hemings controversy I was referring to offhanded remarks in sensational media and the average everyday Joe Smith. It's the way that persons other than scholars have interpreted the controversy that annoys me. All groups have agendas whereas the scholar agenda is mostly aimed toward finding truth whether that truth is agreeable or not. My personal thoughts on the matter are of course not eligible for inclusion in this article nor am I claiming they should be. Brad (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just thought it was interesting in the overall context. Parkwells (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the exception to scholars finding the truth would be the TJF, if indeed it is made up of scholars, who were exposed by one of their own committee members, Dr. Wallenborn, for having an opinion about Jefferson before they even begun evaluating DNA and other evidence, for excluding any outside independent opinion and for ignoring much of the evidence that exonerated Jefferson. Dr. Wallenborn is now the President of the TJHS. There is a book 'In Defense of Thomas Jefferson' (2009) written by William G. Hyland. It is endorsed by former TJF president John Works and former TJF committee member Dr. Wallenborn. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion about the TJF, and your language about it is very charged. You keep writing about old news. When Wallenborn complained that his dissent was not featured in the TJF report, the TJF acknowledged his dissent at the time; they also include it as a fundamental part of the material featured on the report on their own website. That is making it very obvious and transparent. So if he's now happier at the TJHS, good for him. The TJF has also updated their website repeatedly during the last 10 years; they have sponsored research resulting in new publications on the families of slaves at Monticello, on interracial families in Charlottesville, and the status of local society, as a way of carrying out their commitment to better portray the full history of that time. John Works, a Jefferson-Wayles descendant, was also president of the Monticello Association, the lineage society that excluded the Hemings descendants in 2002. He is not a scholar.Parkwells (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So what does Hyland say in his new book, and why should people read it? He was a national security adviser to President Ford and a former editor of Foreign Affairs magazine; foreign affairs has been his specialty. What is he defending Jefferson against? Annette Gordon-Reed has been accepted as an historian due to the quality of her analysis of historiography and historical sources in her works published since 1997. She is now a professor of history and law at Harvard; she was previously a professor of American History and American Studies at Rutgers, as well as teaching law at NYU. Her work in 2008 on the Hemingses won the Pulitzer Prize for History, as well as 15 other awards by such groups as the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, the Southern Historical Association, as well as the George Washington Book Prize for the best book of the year on the founding era. In 2010 she was named a MacArthur Fellow for her work on Jefferson and his times. This demonstrates that more than one or two people think her work qualifies as good history. Parkwells (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the TJF did damage control after they were exposed. They didn't reevaluate or acknowledge the evidence they were accused of ignoring and their conclusions remain just as myopic as they were originally. The fact remains, the TJHS is comprised of former TJF presidsent/members. A fact, not opinion. That by itself speaks volumes. You can characterize it as "charged" but that's merely another digressive claim as is "minority" and seems to only placate those who have already made up their minds regardless of the evidence, as was and is the case with the TJF. Yes, Reed has done good work with Hemings history, but the conclusions she attempts to establish regarding Jefferson's paternity remain opinionated, racially charged and unsubstantiated still. No rewards can change that.
Hyland's book contests the 'evidence' against Jefferson and again is endorsed by former TJF president/members and other prominent scholars from leading universities. Why shouldn't anyone read it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither the Scholars Commission nor the TJHS responded to Paul Rahe, the historian of their Scholars Commission who disagreed with their conclusion. You have not provided RS for your opinions about Gordon-Reed's work; so it should not influence this article. Your language about the disagreement among scholars is what is charged: "exonerated", "exposed", "myopic", "speaks volumes." The "fact" is that TJHS has two people formerly associated with TJF, as well as others who have different views of Jeffersonian scholarship. You may interpret it as you wish. What I asked about Hyland was whether his book had anything more to offer than repeat the controversy. What I asked was whether people associated with the Scholars Commission were writing about more than the controversy, 10 years later. Scholars associated with the TJHS may have a narrow focus if they do not contribute work to the field of early American history other than their conclusions about the Jefferson-Hemings controversy.Parkwells (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, everybody is invited to read any book they want to. That said, Hyland's book is not particularly good book. Note the "quality" of the endorsements you link to. An M.D.? A think tanker? McDonald, at least, is a name of some weight, but he is retired, 80something, and a self-described paleoconservative. Two spelling mistakes in one attribution also do not increase my trust in the reliability of the book. The book has effectively been ignored by other scholars. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The book was not mentioned in the Washington Post's two-page obituary on Hyland, although three other books which he wrote in retirement were.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs)

Joint errors

Parkwells, yes, I went to the source you referred/linked to regarding other visitors to Monticello and they had this to say: These family members are not mentioned in Thomas Jefferson’s Farm Book(7) as being visitors to Monticello (The Farm Book does not appear to be a log of visitors, but lists an accounting of his plantations, e.g. livestock, land, crops, costs, and slaves.) 'Not a logbook of visitors.' Hardly compelling.
Schulz, your notion that Hyland's book has 'been ignored by scholars' simply because it is not mentioned at the cite you linked to is ridiculous, esp since it has indeed been endorsed by many scholars, including former members of the TJF. Hyland is Adjunct Professor at Stetson University, College of Law, at Tampa Bay, Florida. If you think that Hyland is dead, why don't you send him an email / WHYLAND@travelers.com and see how he feels about that. You have the wrong Hyland. Hyland's book came out in 2009, the Hyland you're referring to died in 2008. Please do you homework. And if you are ready to dismiss a source because of two spelling errors it is clear that your mind is quite closed and simply can't come to terms with the idea that there is a whole body of historians, professors, who exist outside of the box you seem to have enclosed yourself in. Even Albert Einstein was a poor speller. Btw, in the same paragraph you make issue with spelling errors you make a grammatical error, leaving a word out of your sentence: "That said, Hyland's book is not (a) particularly good book". Is this your way of saying you're not reliable? Unbelievable. Both of you are clutching at straws and are not being fair to other points of view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, it would be good to practice the principle of assuming good faith, rather than berating and denigrating other editors with your comments. Schulz's source is an academic overview that looks at articles/reviews that have been published about books; it does not pick up blurbs or endorsements solicited by publishers for "Advance Praise". In relation to the cite about Randolph Jefferson, you did not read far enough in the article. The team examined Randolph's letters to TJ, in which he frequently lamented not seeing his brother more often. Parkwells (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, not to give in to bickering, but I did not claim Hyland was dead (check the link to see who did). Talk about "doing your homework". The fact that Hyland's book is is cited only three times (on Google Scholar, which is very generous about what it includes) is indeed a sign that it is largely ignored by scholars. Thanks for pointing out my language errors. I'll try to be more careful when I write a promotional site for my upcoming bestseller. Especially if I write it in my native language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's ok, I made the mistake on Hyland, by following Gwillhickers' wikilink to the wrong Hyland, who happened to have the same name and middle initial. He was William G. Hyland, Jr's father, and apparently after the senior Hyland's death, the younger one no longer uses Jr. Perhaps you can forgive the error. Gwillhickers has also been too hasty in checking or referencing his sources: John Works, Jr. was a former president of the Monticello Association, the lineage society devoted to descendants of Jefferson-Wayles, which owns and operates only the Jefferson family cemetery at Monticello. Here's some interesting correspondence from 2003 between him and his cousin, Lucian Truscott IV, who had differing views on admission of the Hemings descendants. I have not been able to find any reference on Google that says Works was ever part of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which runs the Monticello estate, the public history site for Thomas Jefferson, nor does he make that claim in his essay of dissent published on the Frontline website in relation to the Jefferson's Blood program. Works is now also a member of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. David Works, another member of the Works family and member of the Monticello Association, has helped found the new Monticello Community, devoted to celebrating the lives of all those who lived and worked at Monticello. But the views of members of a lineage society are not of as much interest for the purposes of Wikipedia as what is being published by reliable sources.Parkwells (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem - it's an understandable mistake (so is Gwillhickers'). But this demonstrates why we don't consider Wikipedia in general to be a reliable source (although in practice it often is very good). But such errors are exactly what a good publisher should weed out, not add. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree! Have you noticed the many more typos and spelling errors in books these days? They are becoming much more frequent.Parkwells (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to maintain faith when one editor is ready to dismiss a book because of spelling while another's first reaction is 'why should anyone read it' not to mention some of the language and decideingly derogatory tone in some of the text. That said, ok, let's back up. Good faith. All of us need to at least acknowledge that both schools of thought present great weight to their views. The game of appearances (i.e.minority view, spelling, claims of being ignored, etc) doesn't belong here in the theater of reason. Ideas should be weighed on their own. Attacking 'spellink', or claiming a book has been ignored is beneath the practice that we should be employing here.
Parkwells, the historical evidence doesn't have one solid item that narrows Jefferson to any of the Hemings children. Monticello was TJ's home, so claiming he was around a lot really doesn't cut it. Jefferson lived there. Being there at the times of conception says nothing. It was his home, an estate where many people came and went. He was there much more often than not. If it was another location and TJ was there as often this would be far more compelling as 'evidence' goes. Out of the 25 or so Jefferson/related males 8 of them lived near by (+ -). The idea that there is little to no 'historical record' for their visits doesn't present us with anything that can exclude them and it certainly doesn't indict Jefferson. The farm/log book you referred to offers us nothing, either way. One of the pieces of 'historical evidence' that is roundly ignored by the Reed school of thought is Jefferson's character. Taken together, the evidence is still very sketchy, and anyone who can jump to the conclusion that it was Jefferson who fathered all six children over this great period of time, in my opinion, is pushing a POV for their own personal/political/social/(nail in the coffin) reasons. I have not concluded anything and still wonder who the father(s) is/are. How about you? Are you 100% sold on Jefferson's paternity? Does this man get any benefit of the doubt from you, at all? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers,

• first, I'm disappointed that you did not acknowledge that I said I made a mistake about Hyland and why. In addition, you did not acknowledge your own error about John Works, Jr., who was not affiliated with TJF but with the Monticello Association.
• Second, this section about "Joint Errors" is not the place to push your views again about the controversy: editors have compromised and agreed to stay with the summary that is in the article. More content, cites, new books and their analysis with sources should be added at what we have agreed is the main Jefferson-Hemings controversy, and editors should argue the issues there. If any major changes result, they can be included in the summary here.
• Third, despite my already explaining to you what I meant by asking about the Hyland book - what did it add to the discussion, how does it promote other thinking about the issues? - you persist in promoting here your own negative POV about what I meant. Again, I was trying to move the discussion to the present about what is being written about the Jeffersonian era, and what the TJHS-associated scholars are writing about other than the controversy, if anything.
• Fourth, you are certainly welcome to your opinion about the value of any sources, but if you want other ideas added to the main article on the controversy, it would be useful for you to add RS and specific cites, so that others can read the materials for themselves. The article already has considerable detail about the issues, and differing assessments of what they mean, much of which you have repeatedly brought up on this Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

First item, okay TJF or Monticello-Association, John Works has left that org and is one of the individuals who endorse's Hyland's book, so I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss this book out of hand.
Second item, the section 'Joint errors' was given this title after much of the text in it was written.
Third, much of Hyland's book can be viewed. I have read the reviews and some of the text and can at least present it as yet another example of where a prominent professor from a leading university has not gone along with Reed and company.
Fourth item.I intend to buy the E-book version and offer any information it may offer, whether it be new info, or that which corroborates other info.
-- And for a fifth item, you yourself might want to address the various items I have submitted to you, starting with that so called log book and the apparent propensity (for some editors) assigning significance to superficial appearances. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

John Works is no longer pres of the Monticello Ass'n, but he is still a member, as it is a lineage society. This is quite different than TJF. He is also a member of the TJHS. He did not "leave the Monticello Ass'n" to go to the TJHS.

An adjunct professor is part-time, seldom considered "prominent". What RS includes Stetson University among "leading" ones and who has defined leading

That's helpful to let people know they can read Hyland's book online. As noted above, I'm not continuing any discussion of the controversy details here. The sources I have provided can speak (or not) for themselves. The "so called log book" is Jefferson's Farm Book, rediscovered and published in 1953 and considered a valuable resource by researchers looking at the business of Monticello and its slaves.Parkwells (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

First let me apologize for first linking to the wrong Hyland. Should have done that directly above. Be it as it may, J.Works has endorsed Hyland's book, along with other scholars. And you can argue about what constitutes a leading university, but the fact remains, there exist many history professors/historians from across the country who are not at all in line with TJF and Reed. I believe that is the issue you wish to dodge with some of these side issues you try to wrap us up in. -- The farm book says nothing regarding Jefferson's alleged paternity. Anything in it that is used to lend itself in support of that notion has to be construed and assumed, as is the case with most of the "historical evidence". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit break4

Let me try to keep the separate points separate.

• As far as I can make out, Hyland (jr.) is a lawyer, not a historian, and not a professor of anything. He got his degree from Cumberland, not a diploma mill, but certainly not a leading university. If you are not referring to Hyland, but to one of the endorsers of the book, note that such blurbs are usually not reliable sources. Publishers shop around to get these quotes, picking only the most favorable parts of the most favorable comments, typically without any context. I acknowledged Forrester above - but note the caveats.
• Secondly, while you may not like it, academic citations very much are the currency we use to measure the impact of a contribution to scholarly opinion. The fact that Hyland's book received essentially none does indeed tell us that it is not taken serious by scholars. By comparison, Fawn Brodie's Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History has 229 references in Google Scholar, Gordon-Reeds "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy" has 130+, and her "Hemingses", published slightly before Hyland's book, already has 39.
• John Works was a member of the Monticello Association, which has no scholarly mandate or experience. It's a family club, and Works has always opposed membership for the Hemings descendants.
• "the Reed school of thought [roundly ignored] Jefferson's character" - sorry, but that is very wrong. Fawn Brodie's An Intimate History, which first brought the Jeffersons-Hemings relationship back into focus, was essentially all about his character. And Gordon-Reed spends a 50-page chapter mostly on Jefferson's character. They may come to different results than you, but they hardly ignored it. You are aware of the fact that Jefferson admitted trying to seduce a married women as a young man once, right? And that, in Paris, he had a very close relationship with (also married) Maria Cosway that quite a few people assume was consummated? And, BTW, that this relationship apparently cooled shortly after Sally Hemings arrived...? As for the morality of the relationship with a "young girl", Jefferson and Hemings met in France - guess at what age Marie Antoinette had married the Dauphin? She was 14, and the fact that the prince was unable to perform in the wedding night was unexpected and caused a lot of consternation. Hemings probably was 15 or 16 by the time she conceived her first child - definitely not too young by the standards of the time. Even today, England, Canada, and many US states have a general age of consent of 16, in France, Sweden and Iceland it's 15, in Hungary and Italy it's 14, and in Spain it's 13.
• Next, Jefferson was indeed very often absent from Monticello during the years of Hemings pregnancies. He was, after all, secretary of state, vice president, and president for 16 years during that time, and spend large parts of his time in the different capitals of the US (New York, Philadelphia, and finally Washington). Indeed, while holding public office, he usually was away from Monticello for several months at a time, and only returned there for short visits. Washington-Monticello is 120 miles on modern roads - i.e. a 3-day ride (one way) (if you have a horse to spare). In Jefferson's time, there was no direct road. Instead, you went by ship down the Chesapeake, and up via Richmond, a much longer trip. And whenever Jefferson was away, Hemings did not conceive. Whenever he returned, she was pregnant within a month. Dumas Malone tried to use the pattern of Jefferson's absences to prove that he could not have been the father. Instead, he found the opposite - the pattern is compatible with and indeed suggestive of that possibility.
• Does this man get any benefit of the doubt - sure. But this is not a criminal case, and he is not accused of a crime. This is a historical question. That said, I'm sure a modern court would indeed force Jefferson to pay alimony for the children on the evidence at hand. The preponderance of evidence clearly points to him as the father. Does Hemings get any benefit of the doubt? As far as we can tell from Jefferson's careful diaries, slave families on Monticello were very stable. Yet once the Carrs were out of the picture for Eston, Hemings was suddenly portraid as a slut who had children from several different fathers - based on no evidence at all.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Schulz, you spelled 'portrayed' wrong. It's not spelled 'portraid'. How 'unreliable' of you! :-) Anyway, above you claim Jefferson was absent during Hemings' pregnancies. Wonder how he managed that. Didn't you mean to say he was 'around' during pregnancies? Seems you're all over the map here. Hyland's book. Since you are not a professor of history should I 'ignore' the ideas you have presented here -- or should I weigh them and let them stand or fall on their own merit or lack thereof? Your notion that Hyland's book has no scholarly worth based on the sort of things you cite here are superficial and only serve to dodge the issues the book brings to the table. Was there any particular item put forth in the book that you can challenge? Again, you try to manage your debate with appearances and assumptions. And while Reed and some others may have 'discussed' Jefferson's character, they seem to dismiss it entirely by citing things that make Jefferson less than a saint as you have done above. This practice has occurred before when the TJF committee members were evaluating DNA and other evidence, even coming in with an opinion before evaluation had even begun. And no, if this was a paternity lawsuit it would be thrown out. Don't know what country you hail from, but in the USA guilt has to be proven, not assumed based on sketchy evidence, much of which points to other people. While D.Malone can only account for Jefferson (?), he can not account for 25 other Jefferson/related males. If it could be established that none of these many other persons were around during times of conceptions, then Malone's record would have much more weight. Since it doesn't it leaves too big a gap for anyone to be drawing conclusions, and anyone who attempts to do so is obviously pushing a POV for their own reasons. This has always been obvious also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. It is not under dispute that Jefferson was always in Monticello when Hemings conceived, and that he was absent for very long stretches of time during the years Hemings had children. Above, you wrote that "Jefferson lived there [at Monticello]", which is simply incorrect. It was his home, but as President, e.g., he lived in the newly built White House (v1) in Washington, and only visited Monticello occasionally (in fact, he complained a lot about these long absences). And when he visited Monticello, and at no other time, did Hemings become pregnant again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and Slavery

A reminder: People wanting to work on this topic (as well as the related "Views on slaves and blacks") are asked first to work on the main article for it, and hash out your differences or updates there. Then use the summary guidelines as Sunray did so well, and update the summary in this article. Perhaps you should ask Sunray to write the summary; people doing heavy editing get very involved with each quote, etc.Parkwells (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed how developed that article is until now. Just need summary for this article then. Brad (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of summary in other articles

By the way, to try to build in some consistency, I'm using the summary we've agreed to here for the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" in other articles for that issue. So far I've added it to Sally Hemings, Harriet Hemings, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings. That should send readers to the main article on the controversy to read all the details about the issues, and make it easier to keep the other articles consistent with this one. I'm hopeful that in the New Year we (or another editor like Sunray) can come up with an equally concise summary on Jefferson and Slavery to be used in this TJ article. Again, editors interested in that topic should go to the main article first to reach consensus.Parkwells (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays, everyone!

• Support ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Noel, noel. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead and placement of Jefferson-Hemings controversy

It is not appropriate in the Lead to list historians who disagree with the consensus on Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children. An editor added Who? after the statement: Some historians disagree. This is covered in the summary and main article on the controversy.

Secondly, there is no editorial consensus for moving the Jefferson-Hemings controversy to the Slavery section, and there was a much discussed editorial history in the last year or more for its placement earlier in the article: first, in the "Marriage and family" section, and secondly, following it. This is the problem with addressing the people involved as only actors in the historical controversy. It was a recent compromise to take the material out of the "Marriage and family" section, and rename it again. Most editors working on the article had believed that Hemings and her children should be listed/addressed in the "Marriage and family" section, as is appropriate from the academic consensus about her place in Jefferson's life and his paternity of her children. They were a "shadow family", in the terms of the time. Jefferson had more children who survived with her, and a longer relationship with her (however it was characterized) than with his wife. They were real people. The academic consensus of numerous books published in the last decade, the exhibits at Monticello, and the Monticello website, for instance, accept and identify Jefferson as the father of Hemings' children. Also, the material in this section deals with Jefferson's behavior as a widower, following his promise to his wife not to remarry. It deals with his private life, not his actions as president on slavery. I have gone to great lengths to accommodate the one editor on this page who persists in arguing about the academic consensus and how to discuss dissenters. I have agreed to the summary of the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy", which succinctly covers the main points. I am not going to agree to again burying Hemings and her children in the section on slavery, in the way historians tried to deny her existence for more than 150 years. She and her family were not "just slaves" at Monticello.Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells - I added refs for the rankings statement within the article per MoS guidelines for lede statements, adjusted the lede's text so the meaning is preserved that some observers/historians/commentators think Thomas Jefferson is not the father but that the (somewhat jarring?) words 'some historians' are not quite a prominent. It is clear from the article that this is so, that agreement is not unanimous, so the actual statement does not need to be cited within the lede.

Thanks, that is better integrated wording.Parkwells (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think that the Jefferson-Hemings controversy section does not stylistically belong within the Slavery section. Shearonink (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the 'Jefferson-Hemings controversy' draws most of its notoriety from individuals who have exploited the issue and since it has no bearing on Jeffesron's role in Ameircan history and the fate of the nation, it should be placed near the end of the article. As it is, it is placed above topics like the Declaration of Independence, Louisiana Purchase, First Barbary War, etc. -- The view states for this page average more than eleven thousand views a day. Now take a look at the view stat's for Jefferson-Hemings_controversy, 70 to 80 views a day on average, and no doubt it gets that many only because it's linked to Jefferson's page and because it's edited frequently. The fact is, almost all the readers who come to this page are interested in Jefferson's role in American history, not Sally Hemings. Seems the Thomas Jefferson page has served as a coat-rack for this issue too long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anything that you say not apply equally to Jeffersons white family? They also had no major direct influence on American history...and Sally Hemings has around 750 page views, as opposed to about 100 for Martha_Jefferson, and still more than Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea! - as Jefferson was such a private man, we should move both "Marriage and family", and "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to the very end of the article, after all his public life and actions. I like that solution; it fits his discretion during his life.Parkwells (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Few if any of the president's wives were the center of a controversy and don't have the legions of special interest groups exploiting the issue in print, media and in academia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Those statements about why the controversy has notoriety, why people come to the TJ article, etc. are your personal opinion, Gwillhickers. Historians believe the issue is significant in terms of RS because major historians held one opinion for more than 150 years, and now many have changed; this is a fact. The scholarship about Jefferson's biography - his personal life - is changing in many venues, as noted before on this page. Readers can easily skip right over the few paragraphs on the controversy if they're not interested.Parkwells (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If the issue was interesting to people the controversy page would be read more often and this can be verified. This is not an opinion. It is also not an opinion that the Hemings issue has virtually no impact on Jefferson's involvement with US history. This has been your pet issue and it is obviously far more important to you than the rest of Jefferson's history/biography as your edit history on this page over the last couple of years will attest. Ditto for Schulz. If it were left up to you two the topic would still be many pages in length as it once was before a consensus to bring sanity to the page was finally called. Topic doesn't belong near the top of the page before topics like the Declaration of Independence, etc. Needs to be moved to a more appropriate location. Shultz, please take the race baiting somewhere else. You might be able to intimidate students into an opinion with this stuff but around here it doesn't wash. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

First, GWillhickers, please try to avoid personal attacks on this page. Nothing in what Schulz wrote can be described as "race baiting." Secondly, no doubt many people come to this page who do not know that a separate "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" article exists until after they check here, so it is POV to try to guess who is coming to read what. Third, the controversy is notable not because of Jefferson's public life, but because of Jefferson as the subject/figure of historical studies - and how historians have treated the controversy and tried to deny his involvement, and what that has to say about Americans and their history making. The making of memory and the writing of history have been very big topics in historical studies for more than the last decade. Parkwells (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: you're doing it again. I'd hoped we'd all gotten past this sort of thing. The consensus on this page seems firmly against you, so your response is to accuse other editors of bad faith. Why not just call it a day?

More to the point, I like Parkwells's suggestion that we "we should move both 'Marriage and family' and 'Jefferson-Hemings controversy' to the very end of the article". That seems like a fair compromise and in keeping with other presidents' biographies. I don't mean to propose anything so vulgar as a vote on the subject, but I'd like to hear whether other editors agree. What say ye? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

'Firmily'? Before you came in, there were only a couple of editors wanting to do this, the same ones who have been behind the Hemings issue all along. And 'Ye' was asked if I would have suggested the same thing if Hemings was White -- this was a direct implication that my decision was racist. So the bad faith was not initiated by me, now or before, btw. As I said below, I'll go along, but again, this biography needs to be dealt with as a whole. As it is some editors have had this page covering Hemings in monstrous proportions before and have kept the discussion and coverage of Hemings foremost, more so than all the other topics in Jefferson's life and US history. Again, this is the only presidential page where this has occurred for so very long. I believe that needs to be addressed also. And please don't forget you voted in that 'vulgar vote' to fix the undue weight problem. There's nothing vulgar about appropriate polling to gather a wide range of consensus so the fate of the page is not determined by a few editors. I'm not suggesting we do that, at this point, but it was a fair process, and at that time, long overdue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read again what I wrote. I did not write what you claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the quote. "Does anything that you say not apply equally to Jeffersons white family?", so you're right, it wasn't exactly that, it was worse, you were referring to 'anything' I said, not just Hemings. Again, this is vulgar race baiting and a personal attack. It was uncalled for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's neither. I'm sorry if you feel attacked - it was intended as a simple question. "Anything" in that context was referring to the different points of your directly preceding argument - I think this reference is clear. You were arguing that the Hemings material should be moved down because a) one of the pages covering her has few views and b) she did not have a major influence on US history. I pointed out, using a rhetorical question, that, to my reckoning, the same applies to Martha Jefferson and her children - only more so. I fail to see race baiting or an attack, let alone a personal one. I would ask exactly the same question if Martha had been black, or Hemings even more white than she was. Let me be quite clear: I do attack many of your statements. I do that because many of them are wrong, in the sense that they don't agree with generally accepted historical facts. This is not personal in any kind - if Parkwells or Jimbo made them, I would react in the same way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, again, please avoid personal attacks. You label Schulz as "racebaiting"; you say he and I are "divisive," you describe the discussion as of "monstrous proportions," when we are trying to have RS and academic consensus represented. This is inaccurate as well as unfair. You are the one who keeps the discussion open because you are alone in being unhappy with the current scholarship. The summary of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy is quite short. You have a view of the Thomas Jefferson article that does not seem to be shared by other editors, but people are working with you to try to reach compromise. Please stop attacking everyone with whom you disagree. Parkwells (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall comments about controversy AND about separate section, "TJ and slavery"

Yes, the controversy is important, both sides of it. Still, it should not be treated any differently than the (confirmed) mistresses of other presidents on those pages and should not get special considerations because the issue has been exploited and politicized. This seems to be the only topic on the entire page where we hear from historians who are repeatedly mentioned by name. No other topic has received this treatment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the controversy exists...that is verifiable from multiple reliable sources, I think whether or not aspects of the situation have been somehow exploited and/or politicized in other venues or by other commentators is irrelevant. If published accounts from reliable/verifiable sources regarding Sally Hemings relationship with Thomas Jefferson and its ramifications differ, if multiple published/verifiable interpretations of the available evidence differs, then both sides have to be included, after all, Wikipedia is a composite of reliable published sources. If editors think the content of the section as it stands now is in error, it seems the Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy articles have similar treatment of their (confirmed) mistresses/liaisons. Frankly, I am not sure how the stated objections to the specific sentences above could be satisfied. Delete any mention of Gordon-Reed's book? Remove many/most/all mentions of the DNA studies? Not mention either the TJHS or the TJF? --Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are sources and should all be used as sources. Since this is a controversy with many gaps and variables involved if one reliable source is mentioned by name and his/her view is articulated, then another reliable source with a different view should also be mentioned by name in similar fashion, in order to be fair to the readers. Challenging views have not been refuted but are simply labeled "minority views", as if this claim by itself argues any points raised. Most come from leading and major universities and there are simply too many of them for anyone to be hanging 'minority' labels on them. As it is Finkelman is mentioned by name four times in the text, Reed twice and raises POV issues. The TJHS was finally mentioned after much debate, but that was about it. No one contests the controversy exists, just some disagreements as to how important it is in terms of American history as relates to Jefferson and his biography. Currently the issue is listed before coverage of the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence, etc, as if the issue mattered more than those things. In any event, the issue certainly doesn't belong in 'Early life'. A e.g. 'Life at Monticello' section could summarize the issue along with all the things that went on there. Seems the article is lacking in that area anyway. Oh well. I think I hear someone coming down the chimney -- see you in a couple of days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The TJHS and Scholars Commission are not now labeled as "minority views" in the summary. Gordon-Reed is mentioned (once) because her scholarship is considered critical to the change in Jeffersonian biography, as repeatedly cited here. The Scholars Commission is named as arguing with the conclusions of the TJF and National Genealogical Society. If you want to argue further about the main article on the controversy, please do it there.

Please read Wikipedia policy: it encourages identifying sources by name in the text, a practice that is being increasingly emphasized. Rather than taking out names of scholars from the TJ article, perhaps other sections of the TJ article need to have sources better identified in the text. You are welcome to add them. Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are mixing apples and oranges on issues related to TJ. Let's stick to one topic at a time, as it is extremely confusing to try to respond to your complaints about so many issues at once.

• Finkelman is not mentioned in connection with the J-H controversy, but with Jefferson's views and actions related to Slavery. Please argue your views about that subject in its main article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. StudyHard is also working on that main article. If there are scholars whom you think should be included by name, please identify them by the appropriate cite, or add them. When that article is completed, a summary will be done to be used in the TJ article; the summary will be shorter and more clear than what is there now. Let's not discuss the summary until the main article on that topic has been worked on and gets consensus.

• Some editors (Brad and Coemgenus) have made suggestions and stated opinions about the placement of the Jefferson-Hemings section. I outlined several types of approaches, but the discussion seemed to become very wide again. Let's try to find a solution, and not keep discussing it. The main issues have been covered. Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and slavery

Editors interested in shortening the summary of this topic are welcome to submit a draft on this page rather than complaining about the length of the summary section in this article. As noted earlier on the Talk page, StudyHard and other editors are working on that main article. They intended to finish that before trying to prepare a new summary section to be used in this article. Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy

I believe the Jefferson-Hemings controversy needs to have its own segment, rather then be under his political carreer. Hemings was not directly involved with Jefferson's political carreer. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree but feel this title is better suited as a subsection to 'Monticello' as the TJ biography is lacking this context anyway. Given the length of the Thomas Jefferson page this is the format I would recommend:

Monticello______________________________________________________________

Monticello was TJ's home, designed by Jefferson, with X number of rooms, etc, located on 5,000 acres
of land near ... He grew this, that and the other thing ...
(One good paragraph summary and link to Monticello main page)

Slave and worker life

So many numbers of slaves and other workers lived and worked here,
each with their own assigned jobs and functions, etc, etc.
(Mention of Jefferson's views about Africans incorporated into text -- no need for lengthy section on
this topic on the TJ biography page, as there is no lengthy section on his views of religion, philosophy,
political science or other beliefs. -- One good paragraph summary and link to TJ slavery page.)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Sally Hemings was a mixed race slave who lived most of her life at Monticello.
While working as a slave for the Jefferson estate she conceived six children ...
(One good paragraph summary and link to one or more Hemings pages.)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you two would add your comments on the section asking for opinions on placement of J-H controversy summary. I have moved it below so we don't lose it.Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Cmguy777, you appear to support Jefferson-Hemings controversy to be included in a section not as part of his political life. I agree - other editors suggested a section to be called "Personal life" or "Private life", as noted below to include the sections: Marriage and family, and J-H controversy summaries. Brad noted that editors may want to add references to Maria Cosway here, as Jefferson had a long correspondence with her and his biographers have paid her attention.

Gwillhickers has suggested a section on Monticello - as the place for business, Hemings family and others, discussion of slavery and his views on black. There do not appear to be supporters for this suggestion. The main article on TJ and slavery, as well as the summary here, are mostly about Jefferson and what he did on slavery as a political and national issue, not in terms of his private life.Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with placement of TJ's views on slavery as a sub-section on life at Monticello; biographers have drawn from his writings to make the point that his views on slavery and blacks influenced his public policies, for instance, his ideas about supporting resettlement of free blacks in Africa. This goes far beyond his private life at Monticello.Parkwells (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Influence between Hemings and public actions

Closed and moved

Gwillhickers has repeatedly said (without cites) that Jefferson's relationship with Hemings had no influence on his public life or actions. In fact, historians such as David Brion Davis and Andrew Burstein have suggested that his relationship was the very reason for his "immense silence" after his return from France, when he stopped working publicly to bring an end to slavery, as he did not want any attention called to the institution. That's a rather large influence, where he was trying to protect his private life by retreating on a public position. A more developed discussion of this probably belongs in the main article, Thomas Jefferson and slavery, for those who are interested.Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Per suggestions, this paragraph and the resulting discussion was moved to the Talk page of the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. Parkwells (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Misc

Much of the article is about Jefferson's political life. Neither his wife and legitimate children, nor his affair with Hemings were officially part of that, although both are acknowledged by academic consensus. It's reasonable to divide the article between his public life and private life, especially as he had surviving children and generations of descendants from both relationships, according to many historians. Brad noted his long relationship with Maria Cosway, documented from letters, as another part of his private life reflective of his relationships with women.Parkwells (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have put this paragraph and moved paragraph above to (this) separate section. Call for opinion should not have a discussion mixed in with it. ONE short prgh per caller. It doesn't look like there is much enthusiasm for any approach, so we need to come up with another game plan -- and then get the word out in a neutral fashion. Perhaps a notice at the presidents project talk page. Any ideas along that line, anyone? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Call for opinions on content of summary of Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Proposal: Use the summary for the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" as it currently appears in this article. Readers can go to the main J-H controversy article for further details about the controversy. Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I've moved this to the end of the TAlk page to keep it current over the holidays. Parkwells (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support.Parkwells (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. This is enough for now and debate on the matter needs to stop. It's becoming disruptive and counter-productive. Brad (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• We can either go with a strict chronological order, or by topic. Chronological is rather messy with his presidency (8 years) and Hemings (30+years), so by topic probably makes more sense. In that case, I support a section "personal life" that covers his marriage, and later relationships like Cosway and Hemings. I'm not sure if we need Betsy Walker in there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Shearonink (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. The summary is good. My concern is the placement of the segment under Jefferson's political carreer. How is Jefferson's political carreer associated with the Jefferson-Heming's controversy? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Summary okay, but agree with Cm' and Sunray (who attempted to move section to more appropriate location when Parkwells reverted the edit.) Placement still needs to be dealt with. Appreciate length of debate, but several improvements have occurred in last couple of weeks because of debate. 'Political career' totally misrepresents the section. These are major events, established facts, in US history. Hemings has nothing to do with Jefferson's political career. We should not stick it in such a section for the sake of expediency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we close this discussion, as the content of summary of "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" has consensus.Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion 2

At the beginning of this Call for opinion' section Parkwells offers the idea of 'Summary' with a link to main article but is not clear about where he would like placement. Brad agrees and is in a hurry to end discussion but is not clear about placement only summary and section name. i.e.'Persoanl life'. Schulz is clear, wants all matters with women under 'Personal life' and is not concerned much with chronological placement. Shearonink says 'yes', but is not clear as to what: Summary and/or placement? Cmguy is fine with summary but has issue with placement, as am I. Sunray will go along with 'Personal life' but still feels 'Controversy is better placed in 'Monticello', a topic which is only mentioned in reference to other issues from time to time. That's where we stand now. Here is another suggestion: Leave Marriage and family where it has been for years, it was a major event in Jefferson's life, and put all other matters involving women and controversy in 'Personal life' per other's request. Lumping Jefferson's marriage and wife in with the controversy and these other women (one alleged) and moving that section from its established location doesn't seem to be the right way to go for a presidential biography. Any other ideas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Since there seems to be some possible confusion about what I said Yes to here it is:

Yes, I think that the content of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy section summary should stand as it now is.

Yes, I think there should be a Personal life section with sub-sections to include at least Marriage and family and Jefferson-Hemings controversy.

I also do not think that 'Marriage and family' should be left where it was/as it was. --Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, this is confusing. We need to deal with one proposal at a time. There was a clearly labeled "Call for opinion" on the Placement of sub-sections dealing with Jefferson's private life, but you are adding more suggestions here. I have moved that Call below, as several people already responded there. Please don't add another until we resolve it. Parkwells (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Because people complained about the placement of the "J-H controversy" in the chronology, although it was noted as a temporary placeholder, I set up a "Personal life" section before "Later life" and "Death" and put it there, pending consensus on placement.Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Callender issue is more complicated.

James Callender who first brought out the Hemings accusation. It's important first to know that Jefferson had paid Callender to write a critical article on the Federalists prior to his election as President. After he was elected Callender wanted a Minister to xxx appointment which Jefferson did not grant because he did not think him capable. Callender came out with the Hemings accusation but also at the same time came out with an accusation that Jefferson had been involved in "improper behavior" with a Mary Walker. Her husband had appointed Jefferson as executor of his estate. In a letter to a friend Jefferson admitted to his behavior with Walker but denied the Hemings accusation.

Continuing to point out the vacant holes.... When Jefferson was in Williamsburg under Wythe (studying Edward Coke) he was wooing a woman in which he stopped contacting after while. While in Paris during the 1780s he was flirting around with Maria Cosway, a married woman. Cosway gets a mention here by being shoved down in the see also section. It really is interesting what you find by reading serious historians like Malone. Most of the above is in the first few chapters of Vol 1 and some in Vol 6. Brad (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Small correction: Callender wanted an appointment as Postmaster General in Richmond (IIRC), at a time when private mail was nearly routinely opened and copied by political appointees. It would be a dream job for a dirt-racker like Callender, of course. Jefferson did not fall for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One person's "dirt-racker" is another person's reformer. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that Callender prompted a different admission from Jefferson. Are you suggesting that more about Callender should be added to the main Jefferson-Hemings controversy article, and/or that more about Jefferson's behavior in private life should be added to the TJ biography article?Parkwells (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Insert : Is there citation for Callender directly effecting Jefferson's decisions for administration choices? While we're on the subject of Callender's impact on Jefferson's decision making, it would seem after the allegations he made in 1802 that the last thing Jefferson would do is father more children by Hemings several of whom were born after 1802. Callender actually gives more weight to the idea that TJ stayed clear of Hemings altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a suggestion above that Callender influenced Jefferson's decisionmaking.Parkwells (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Brad's reminder of incidents from Jefferson's behavior in private life (as documented by Malone and other biographers) provide another reason to have a section of his biography be "Private life." (See below for "Call for opinions.") The relationships with Mary Walker and Maria Cosway would fit there.Parkwells (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Picky corrections are needed. I should know better than to write from memory. The woman is only mentioned as "Mrs. Walker"; her first name is not used in Malone. Malone is a bit vague on the timeline... from what I can determine the Walker subject was brought up in 1802 with Hemings but in 1805 a further more complete "scandal" on Walker was supported by Mr. Walker when he wrote up a very long explanation of Jefferson's behavior. It alleged that Jefferson continued the behavior even after he was married but Malone says that it was unlikely Jefferson did so after marriage. From what I can determine it was only then that Jefferson denied Hemings and admitted Walker. Jefferson's letter of admission was addressed to Robert Smith then Secretary of the Navy.

I'm not sure why I'm going on about this except to point out that while Hemings has become the focus of Jefferson scholarship, there are several other issues now being ignored. If Jefferson was the first President to participate in "improper behavior" with the ladies, he certainly wasn't the last. I do believe that an issue isn't fairly presented unless all of the factors are brought into the equation so to answer your question, the main article on Jefferson-Hemings should include the material; there is not room for it here. Brad (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the main article sounds like the right place for anything related to Hemings. For Walker and Cosway, editors have to decide whether to mention it here as part of his private life or not, as it is beyond the scope of the main controversy article, I think. No one suggests he was the first or last to engage in such behavior. It would be interesting to check with more current historians as to how they treat the two issues. Editors are certainly welcome to pursue all other aspects of Jefferson's life. Parkwells (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My main focus will remain with this article. As I get further into the world of Jefferson I'm realizing that the topic all told is gigantically huge; surprisingly, even more so than Abe Lincoln. I predict more spin-off articles because this article is already 3000 words over the recommended limit. Brad (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Callender is a topic that belongs with the Hemings topic and perhaps is due mention somewhere in the text of Jefferson's Presidency as he was another scandal monger who exploited Hemings for political/personal reasons. So while we're trying to keep the article from getting too long, we might want to keep this in mind before we start devoting more text and adding other sections -- and while some sections are still misplaced and others quite long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be interesting to compare more recent biographers' accounts, such as those of Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein, with Malone's re: Maria Cosway.Parkwells (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Education Plan

Some weeks ago I found (can't remember how) User:TrustTruth/Thomas Jefferson Education Plan and was impressed. The article touches on greater detail of Jefferson's time at William and Mary even more detailed than Malone did which is unusual for him. Also Jefferson's philosophy on education and detailed write up on founding UVA. The article is lacking in certain areas and seems to be an unfinished work by the author but it's developed enough that I would like to see it moved to mainspace. TrustTruth appears retired from editing so I wouldn't expect any further work from him. Before the article moves to mainspace I think a better title is warranted besides "Thomas Jefferson Education Plan." Any ideas? Brad (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is quite something. Maybe we could move it to Thomas Jefferson and education? We could link it from the University of Virginia section. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this draft is quite intriguing but am thinking that perhaps a more-apt title could be "Thomas Jefferson's views on education"? Also, User TrustTruth does not appear to be completely retired from editing Wikipedia as they had edits in 2010 and an edit in September 2011. Before we start working on this with the idea of moving it to Main (which in my opinion is altogether a great idea), I think it would be polite to post the idea on their talk page and contact them through their email about working on the draft and then moving it to mainspace. It's not as if the original writer can deny permission exactly, but nevertheless, I think it is the polite/civil thing to do. Shearonink (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm having thoughts that breaking up the article might work better. One section is on the education that TJ received and another on his educational philosophy and lastly his founding of a college. These are really three different areas of TJ although closely related. All three of those are also in some way already touched on in the article. "Political philosophy and views" could just as well contain his educational philosophy and there is already a UofV section. Brad (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think his founding of UVa/educational philosophy could be in one article since they are so closely related. In my opinion his own education should be in a stand-alone article with all three subject-areas being linked to from the main Jefferson article.

And before we do anything, the original writer should be contacted through his talkpage & the email option, if only to at least notify him that some Wikipedia editors think his draft is pretty intriguing and they're going to work it up to being some articles.--Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Coemgenus' and Brad's' suggestions seem appropriate, as there is much info related to the topic that seems to venture away from Jefferson's biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User TrustTruth has been contacted via mail and talk page. Brad (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No response from TrustTruth so I've moved the page to Thomas Jefferson and education. Moving the page retains all of the edit history which is important. Brad (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Insert Edit Break

Jefferson's views of Africans should simply be incorporated into text on slavery, regardless of where this section is placed -- and they should be presented in the context that racial and cultural differences were (and still are) the normal state of affairs throughout most of the world and throughout most of history. We don't want to single out Jefferson as some strange anomaly in this advent, do we Parkwells? Again, no need for lengthy dissertation on these views since there is no similar devoted section/text for his views on religion, philosophy, political science, etc. No need for devoted section on this and much of that text needs to be summarized along with the wording checked for the usual POV language associated with this topic.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read this article again; there are indeed sections with considerable detail devoted to his views on Politics, Religion and other topics. The section on Slavery is not unusual in this context. All of this was written mostly be editors who worked earlier on this article.Parkwells (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have erroneously lumped in religion with philosophy, political science, etc. Jefferson's views of Africans runs consistent with slavery and should be incorporated into slavery text, which also needs to be better summarized. Again, there are 3½ pages for these topics. Religion takes up less than a page and could be better summarized as it has a dedicated page covering this topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, there are no other editors asking for these sections to be shortened except for you. I'm tired of editors telling others what to do on this very difficult article. Anyone who wants shorter summaries, do the hard work of writing them, and wait to hear what other editors have to say. I have other work to do.Parkwells (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, there was overwhelming consensus to shorten these topics. Getting tired of you ignoring consensus, undue weight policy and using TJ page for coat-rack. 3½ pages for these topics is too long (and we're not even including the Jefferson-Hemings controversy you want to stick in 'Political career'). There are dedicated pages for these things. If you don't want to do this work, we can always find someone who will. Hemings/slavery has the most text devoted to it than any other topic in Jefferson's biography -- by far. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough ok? Parkwells is correct; if you dislike the sections that have too much weight then by all means propose an alternative. Otherwise you're trying to snap your fingers to get others to correct something you don't like. You're being disruptive again and I'm asking you to cease and desist. Brad (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed an alternative, all along: Summarize the sections and put the Hemings controversy under a section that befits it. I thought the best approach was to discuss, not edit, revert, edit, revert, only to have the page blocked from editing as happened before here -- and because of these very topics. You even expressed a concern for page length, had your edits reverted, but for some reason did not zero in on the main offender(s). Wasn't me, was it? Are you seriously going to approve putting the controversy section under 'Political career'? You have no qualms about 3½ + pages for slavery/views?? Okay, I'll back off, for now, just to let things cool down and with the hopes that a little more reason will prevail here. If this continues without a wide range of approval/consensus then we'll have to deal with it again -- and don't think I'm going to back off because a couple of editors are getting their feathers ruffled. Legitimate issues have been raised here. Consensus was once called before about undue weight and has been ignored by the same couple of editors who are using the page as a coat-rack today. Yes, Hemings controversy has been summarized, but now some want to stick it in 'Political career' along side the Declaration', etc...all the while slavery/views still has the most text devoted to it than any of the other topics in Jefferson's biography. Let's see what happens this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop mis-stating my opinion. Putting the Hemings controversy in chronological order was just one option considered, and I placed it there temporarily to show what it would be like, pending the results of the Call for Opinion (as I've already stated here at least twice). As clearly shown below, in fact I support its being placed under "Personal life", near the end of the article. Your "overwhelming consensus" of March 2011 was among editors who were mostly not then working on the article, nor have they contributed to it at all in the many months since. We are now working to call for opinions among editors working on this article. As noted at least twice by me on this page recently, editors are working on the main article for Thomas Jefferson and slavery before tackling the summary to appear in this article. If you are so anxious to have a shorter summary before that, write it yourself.Parkwells (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, I have tried backing off twice now -- once before Christmas, once now at Brad's request but you certainly are not making it easy. That consensus was gathered for an undue weight issue on the TJ page, for the Hemings controversy and slavery. Now it's 'Slavery and views' that has in turn grown to exceptional lengths. Also, I am glad to hear you're not set on putting the 'Controversy under 'Political career'. My issue with 'that' section is now confined to 'placement'. How are you supposed to call for a consensus when hardly anyone has settled on a place for it? Brad, can we discuss this please? This is not "disruptive" and still needs to be sorted out. Asking me to stop discussion at this point is not fair, esp when many, sometimes personal, remarks have not been initiated by me. There has been several improvements because of the debate, in spite of the sometimes bumpy road. We need more opinions, and not just from a small handful of the current editors. Parkwells' call for an opinion is a good idea, but it seems that call needs to reach more neutral ears. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful if editors would pay closer attention to this article before writing comments about it. My proposal for the placement of "Marriage" and "Controversy" has not changed since I first posted it. "Slavery and views" has not "grown to exceptional lengths". In fact, there has been little editing on it for some time. Other editors do not agree with Gwillhickers' assessment that it is "3'1/2 pages long" and clearly are not interested in making it shorter. As I have stated on this page 3 or 4 times recently: Editors are working on the main article of Thomas Jefferson and slavery before writing a summary to be placed in this article. Please stop bringing up this topic. If you want a shorter summary now, write it yourself instead of telling other people to do it. Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

discussion

Of the four people who responded to this call, who have all worked on this article, three supported having a section called "Private/Personal life", or something similar, to include "Marriage and family", "Jefferson-Hemings controversy", and "Maria Cosway and other relationships" (or something similar.) Given the holidays, you can decide if you want to leave this open for longer, but this looks like consensus on this issue among the working editors.Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're still in the midst of the holiday, and there are several current editors who have not weighed in, along with the other recent/not so recent editors. Again, there was no call to be moving 'Marriage and family' until it was suggested that Hemings be dealt with. Marriage and family should be left where it has always been with no issues from anyone. Established facts/major events first, all lesser items thereafter. And putting Hemings under 'personal life' suggests that this affair is established fact. Should have its own section. 'Jefferson-Hemings Controversy'. We still need an appropriate game plan, and then we need a wide range of consensus on this major change in the article. Please do not try to rush it so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I summarized what editors had said, and you have continued to put forward your own views. The other editors supported putting both Marriage and family and J-H controversy under "Personal life." Marriage and family has not been moved, but several editors have expressed opinions that it belongs under a section on Personal life. I am not trying to rush it, but to keep clear what is being decided, and what has been expressed.Parkwells (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Those opinions were submitted before an alternative proposal was offered -- and I believe I have not forwarded my views anymore than you have after you posted the call for opinion on your one proposal. Again, this needs some time. Meanwhile you might want to start cleaning up the views on blacks section. Very long, and again, there is no other sections devoted to Jefferson's views on philosophy, political science, etc. (insert: religion takes up less than a page.) Stand alone section for this topic is very POV'ish. Slavery/views sections take up more than 3½ pages and presents us with yet another unde-weight issue for this article, still. There was over whelming consensus to fix/summarize Hemings/slavery topics. Don't quite understand why this has not been fixed yet at this late date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You and others are welcome to work on these topics. There are stand-alone sections on Religion and Politics, with several sub-sections included in the latter section. I did not originate the Slavery section, nor did I do most of the work on it, so don't keep asking me to fix it or Jefferson's views on blacks. Why don't you work on it since you have such strong feelings about it, instead of telling other editors what to do? Read the main article and do the hard work of writing a balanced summary. If you won't do the work and try to collaborate with others, stop complaining about what others have done.Parkwells (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I addressed you as your editing on this page has almost always been involved with the Hemings and slavery topics. Thought it would be appropriate to remind you (not tell you) that these items should be dealt with, as you seem to be the most knowledgeable in these areas. Again, I prefer to participate in a discussion capacity in this area. If I make edits in the slavery/Hemings areas I am almost certain you are not going to like them and revert them. Best I just discuss these topics for now. Page already has enough battle scares on it as it is. Ya' think? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors have no requirement to listen to those who only want to "discuss". Please don't tell other people what "should be dealt with". Parkwells (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Never said anything about 'requirement', thank you. The only editor who has told someone what to do here is you, directly above. Talk page is meant for what should be dealt with to improve article. This is occurring thanks to all involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling for more opinions

In the interest of resolving placement issues I have left a notice to several recent past editors on this page.

This is the notice:

we are presently trying to decide where to place various sections on the Thomas Jefferson page.
If interested please join us on the talk page to help resolve the issue.

These are the editors I have notified:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coemgenus
Quarkgluonsoup
NuclearWarfare
William Avery
TheDarkOneLives
Rjensen

If anyone feels more neutral editors are needed please notify them also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that there are 794 editors who have this article on their watchlist. This article also is #545 in terms of traffic on WIkipedia and seems to perk along with usually at least 5000 hits per day with 10,000+ hit days being quite common. I would suggest that if editors have not weighed in with their opinions on this matter by the end of next week that they are not going to weigh in and that whatever the consensus is at that point is the direction we should go. --Shearonink (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points, but remember, most of the views are by readers, not registered users, and of that group, hardly any have edited this page. Watch list? From what I have gathered from other editors, watch lists are often very long, and when most of the items on the list are 'pinged' at the same time the likelyhood for any one particular article to get attention is diminished. Yes, waiting about a week seems reasonable. Am willing to go along with summary, just have issues with treatment of Jefferson's marriage/wife and placement of controversy but will go along with consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I notified Cmguy777 because he has worked extensively on this article, and there was confusion above.Parkwells (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Parkwells. My main focus has been on the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. I believe that it is important to get the Thomas Jefferson article and the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article in agreement. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Cm' was at the talk page only a couple of days ago and left comment I figured he would have been around again in due course. Wasn't my intention to overlook him. Also, I didn't want to be the only one putting out notices to other neutral editors. Looks like we we're going to go the 'Personal life' route, but we should call in a few more editors just to give it a fair chance. (I am done putting out notices.) Bear in mind that we can keep the articles in agreement regardless of placement and names for sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to use 'Personal life', don't forget to put in 'Early life' . Also where will 'Education' be placed? Does this qualify as 'Personal life', or should we place this after 'Personal life' as a stand alone section? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems likely that "Early life" will stay where it is, to include his "Education". The larger issues about "TJ's Education Plan," or whatever that is you were all discussing above, can be decided later. Editors might want to consider how much space to give to Jefferson's writings about education - what he did, or achieved, was UVA, which is already covered.Parkwells (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkwells, thanks for doing the work of reconfiguring the page. I noticed that you left 'Marriage and family' where it was. I thought this was going to be lumped in with the other items and moved to a lower position in the text. In any case, thanks for leaving it where it was because after all, it covers Jefferson's marriage and can be considered part of his early life. Thanks also for summarizing Hemings and the other things you have did. I am pleased with the progress. Even though we had a few heated moments it seems we pulled through this okay. Slavery and Views' needs to be a little more brief and some of the language given a second look, but for now we can let it ride and I will be happy if someone tends to it at their own discretion. HNY! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently I may be jumping the gun with my thanks here. After looking at all your latest edits I assumed you were more or less done with the revisions. Oh well.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

First you ask people to edit; then you appear to criticize them for editing. What is the problem? If you read my edits in the "Slavery" section, it was mainly to clarify issues for readers who might not be familiar with some of the dates, places, etc. For instance, I added Jefferson's position in 1784 was as the Virginia delegate to the Second Continental Congress when he proposed legislation related to slavery - hardly a provocative addition.Parkwells (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Slavery section

I deleted Greg Warnusz as a source. His article was published by him online, not in any peer-reviewed journal. He does not appear in Google as a historian with a recognized academic institution.Parkwells (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sort of "references" that need to be eliminated. When I was cleaning up some weeks ago I got rid of several silly websites with little credibility. Brad (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal on other TJ articles

Since this talk page has high participation I want to point out that I've proposed to merge First inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, and Second inauguration of Thomas Jefferson into Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Please comment at Talk:Presidency of Thomas Jefferson and not here. Brad (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I commented at the main Presidency article.Parkwells (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Call for opinion on placement of "Marriage and family," and "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" sub-sections

Briefly, editors who have been working on this article for some time reached a consensus months ago to have Sally Hemings and her children named, to have her role in Jefferson's life shown in the article in relation to his private life (and not just in the Slavery section). Recently several people have suggested a different placement of these sub-sections.

In summary, compromise appears possible around a suggestion to have a new section, labeled "Private life", for instance, or "Life at Monticello", to follow the sections on Jefferson's public life and appear before his death. At this point, sub-sections to be included would be:

• Marriage and family
• Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Call for opinion:

• Support new section to include those sub-sections. (I know it's unusual to have two calls for opinion, but we seem to be losing track of what we are trying to decide. Hope this will help.) Parkwells (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Change "later years" to "personal life". Keep in mind that I'm still trying to grasp the whole world of Jefferson and renaming or moving sections is a good possibility in the future. Don't consider this the final word on where Hemings belongs but for now "personal life" is the best way to go. Brad (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• We can either go with a strict chronological order, or by topic. Chronological is rather messy with his presidency (8 years) and Hemings (30+years), so by topic probably makes more sense. In that case, I support a section "personal life" that covers his marriage, and later relationships like Cosway and Hemings. I'm not sure if we need Betsy Walker in there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Chronological listing should be used for the major events/established facts in Jefferson's life. i.e.Marriage, Declaration, Sec'State, Presidency, etc. All other items should come after. 'Personal life' seems ok but isn't the entire biography about Jefferson's personal life and involvements? I think 'Life at Monticello' would be more encompassing and could also include Hemings, slavery, Jefferson the planter, the estate itself, etc. And while some are expressing concerns for page length we might want to remember that the slavery/views topics takes up about four pages and is covered more than any other topic. There are dedicated pages for this material. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree to "Personal life" section with sub-sections to at least include "Marriage and family" and "Jefferson-Hemings controversy". Shearonink (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with "Personal life" section, though think that "Life at Montecello" might be better in the long run. Sunray (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2011
• Agree. I believe a "Personal life" section would be appropriate for the article since this would cover his marriage, family, Sally Hemings and children, and any other "affairs" Jefferson may have had. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• I agree, this sounds like the best way to organize things. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with "Personal life." Many of our bios have such a section; it distinguishes between the public and private lives. Yopienso (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Personal life" seems rather trivial for a statesman of world stature; he's not a pop star. I prefer "Life at Monticello". Varlaam (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 3

I believe "Personal life" is better since this incorporates all of Jefferson's alleged activities no matter where the location, Monticello, France, Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Having a WP section "Personal life" would put him in the august company of George Washington. Note that the secretive LBJ and Nixon each have a section called "Personality and public image." Yopienso (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We now have three editors who feel 'Life at Monticello' would be better for some items, and Brad and Sunray expressed the idea of renaming 'Personal life' in the future. Seems we need more of a consensus before we go ahead and start renaming/moving things around any further. Since the 'Controversy is not at all an established fact, putting it under 'Personal life' seems a bit inappropriate. Still think 'Marriage and family' and 'Controversy are better left as stand alone sections. I already put out several notices. Anyone else interested in getting a broader and more defined consensus? Consensus is still split with only a small lede for 'Personal life' with some expressing other thoughts about names for sections. 'If' no one else wants to notify other neutral editors I will be happy to resume the effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, you have only Varlaam agreeing with you. 8 of us--Parkwell, Brad, Stephan, Shearonink, Sunray, Cmguy777, Coemgenus, and myself--opt for "Personal life" (Sunray with a caveat). Please reread Brad's comment. Yopienso (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep clear about this. The proposal is clearly stated above: to have a section called "Personal life" or "Private Life", or "Life at Monticello." The sections to be included are "Marriage and family," "J-H controversy," and possibly Jefferson's long-documented correspondence with his married friend Maria Cosway, with whom he had started some sort of relationship while in Paris, as Brad noted was treated in Dumas Malone's award-winning biography. The proposal was to settle the issue of placement for both "Marriage and family" and "J-H controversy" included here, as they dealt with Jefferson's private life. The section can be set up under "Personal life," and the name can be changed later to "Life at Monticello" if editors decide to do this. (The academic consensus on Hemings has been established, and some historians disagree. This topic has been discussed ad infinitum for the summary in the Lede, in the main article, in the Jefferson-Hemings controversy article, and on this Talk Page. It is not the subject of the proposal under discussion here.) Parkwells (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to go hunting up other editors. Several have been notified, and perhaps they are not interested enough in this topic to respond.Parkwells (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, I believe "Personal life" is appropriate and is exclusive of location. Jefferson was not at Monticello 24/7 since he traveled. He was in Paris for an extensive period of his life. Maria Cosway was in France. Heming's relationship supposedly began in France. He brought his slaves to Washington D.C. to work at the White House. I am for editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. "Personal life" covers it best. Sunray (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good point, Cmguy777.Parkwells (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The historical sweep of his life was interrupted by the "Personal life" section, so I moved the latter to after "later years". It could also go after "Death" IMO. Sunray (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I really hope we put "Personal life" before his death. It was certainly important to Jefferson; his biographers note he was a private man and loved that part of his life, despite his public accomplishments.Parkwells (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Jefferson-Hemings controversy involves the controversy in its entirety. Scholars, debate, historians, historical evidence, DNA evidence, etc, most of which can hardly be placed under Jefferson's 'personal life', and esp because much of the controversy rose to a new level with DNA evidence -- in the late 20th century. In fact, the 'Controversy' is now mostly a 20-21th century advent. The scandal monger Callender shot his mouth off in various newspapers when Jefferson was alive in 1802, but this was a political phenomena, not 'personal'. If the subject was only about Hemings and her involvement with Jefferson, and it was an established fact, then it would be better suited under 'Personal life'. That is why this unique topic should get a stand alone section. We can still have a 'personal life' section and include what we may, but the 'Controversy' such that it is, is not very well placed under 'Personal LIFE'. Is it your intention to discuss DNA evidence, mention scholars like Reed, mull over historical evidence, etc in the 'Personal life' section?? Will go along with consensus of course, but you may want to rethink what it is you're actually doing here, aye guys? The 'Controversy' is hardly about Jefferson's personal life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you have put your finger on something here. The Jefferson-Hemmings controversy does involve recent historiography and science (DNA evidence). I also agree with Parkwells that "Personal life" does not sit well after "Death." My proposal is then to re-title the section "Relationships" and place it with the other general sections following the account of his life and death (say, just before "Religion). IMO this discussion (though long) has been productive. I also think that we should get closure. I therefore propose to do this now. We may want to consider calling the section "Intimate relationships." If there are major concerns, we can have one more round of discussion. Sunray (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Excuse me, but let's slow down here. First of all, the J-H controversy is not recent nor is it a 20th-21st century event; it has a long public history stemming from Callender's reporting in the early 1800s, and it cropped up in friend's diaries, Madison Hemings and Isaac Jefferson's memoirs in 1873, the family's documented success in suppressing mention of it in Parton's biography of 1874, and subsequent historians' reliance of family accounts and their own efforts to "protect" Jefferson. In fact, historians relied on the family's account of Carr paternity, disproved at least for Eston Hemings, for nearly 180 years. It absolutely does belong in Jefferson's Personal/private life, which is where historians generally treat it, regardless of whether there has been new evidence due to the DNA study of 1998. Secondly, we have gone overboard to accommodate Gwillhicker's concerns, but let's not get carried away. There is academic consensus among RS that Jefferson is the father of all of Hemings' children, including in the Jefferson bio by the National Park Service online (I added the cite in the article), and most books being published about him reflect that. Some historians disagree, which we have acknowledged. The summary about the controversy which we have agreed on is short, and readers can go to the main article for more discussion.

• Thirdly, I am fine with putting "Marriage and family", "J-H controversy", and "Maria Cosway" as sub-sections under a section titled "Relationships".

Sunray, it might have been nice to get some consensus from other editors before the actual edit, but anyway... The JH-controversy does involve recent evidence and scholarly study and it has its genesis from when TJ was alive, but for the record I am fine with 'Relationships', other editors might object to characterizing these relationships as 'Personal'. Shearonink (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, this is all I am asking. Regardless of placement the 'Controversy section will not change in its overall content. It just needs to be treated like any other section and put under a proper heading. As a stand alone section its present title, 'Jefferson-Hemings controversy', is already more than adequate. Also, consensus is clearly behind Parkwells and others so there is no actual reason to rush it at this point. If the section discussed Jefferson and Hemings as a couple, with info on their actual relationship in terms about what they did together that would be another matter. There is zero evidence in that area. There is not even evidence for them holding hands, much less anything else. Seems the matter still needs to be discussed as to some of these issues in my opinion. The Controversy is about the Controversy, the bulk of which is a 20th and 21st century affair, none of which involves Jefferson's personal or intimate life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep track of the various proposals/options being put forth since I first mentioned having the proposals be open for a week (back on December 30th) and was going to propose a 'close' of sorts by Friday but at this point what is now in the article is fine with me. Shearonink (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Jefferson does not need to dictate to the reader what the reader is suppose to believe or not believe concerning Jefferson and Hemings. Callender, in my opinion, was not a "scandal monger" who "shot his mouth off". He was angry for not getting a job from Jefferson and wrote what he believed to be the truth concerning Jefferson. His article publication did not work and there was no public outcry against Jefferson concerning Jefferson and Hemings. The term controversy adequately describes historians who differ in opinions concerning Jefferson and Hemings. Is there editor concensus to drop the word "controversy" from the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" section? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Callender had a history of libeling various Founding Fathers in the newspaper. Not something I made up. In fact one of the editors in this forum used a quite similar term to describe this individual before I, and Callender's penchant for the truth can hardly be argued as the man had no real evidence to be making outlandish remarks about anyone, much less a standing president. His remarks were personally and politically motivated. -- The 'Controversy'. You wish to drop this word from the title?? Does this mean the section will not touch on any of the controversial aspects? What's left? There's not much else to talk about except that Hemings had six children. As soon as you start to speculate as to 'how' and 'why' we're right back on controversy row again. IMO there is no rational reason to be putting a 20th century controversy under Jefferson's personal life and I suspect that if this article is ever nominated for FA, someday, that will be one of the first things they will make issue about, given the glaring misplacement of the topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I am for using the term controversy since the Jefferson-Hemings issue has created controversy among historians. Dumus Malone was protecting Jefferson's reputation as a founding father. Callender was used by Jefferson in his attack on Federalists. If Jefferson used Callender, then there must have been something good concerning Callender. Putting down Callender is indirectly putting down Jefferson. Do people personally find Jefferson having slept with Sally Hemings, a concubine, and had children, controversial? That is up to the individual persons. Wikipedia covers History and there is controversial or debatable subjects discussed among historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

edit break2

Was there editor consensus for the term "Relationships"? I am not sure relationships is the best word to describe Jefferson and Hemings. While at Monticello, Hemings was a slave. There was nothing voluntary when Sally Hemings was brought as a slave to Monticello. Relationships, in my opinion, comes off as if Jefferson was a swinging bachelor from the 1960's. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And 'Personal life' comes off no different. If, as you seem to be suggesting, Hemings was forced or raped by Jefferson, then 'Personal life' would be equally inappropriate. No one can establish as fact that Jefferson was the father, so it's sort of foolish to pile on yet another speculation on top of the first. In any event, none of this stuff fits in under 'Relationships' or 'Personal life'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What would be a better heading? Thinking about Cmguy777's point, I would say that "relationships" has a variety of meanings. There is the meaning Cmguy777 suggests (i.e., and emotional or sexual unions); it can also mean "ways in which people are connected." In this sense, it is fairly neutral. How about we consider it a provisional term until someone comes up with a better heading? Sunray (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems if we just use the title 'Jefferson-Hemings controversy' and make it a stand alone section we don't have to bother with any of these issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "Personal life" is fine, and better than "Relationships", which has to many moder connotations. Hemings was part of Jeffersons personal life, wether voluntarily or not (although even that is a simplification - she might have been a slave involuntarily, but a lover voluntarily. Technically, she was free in Paris). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all Gwillwickers, I am in agreement that the Jefferson Heming's controversy can stand alone in the article or something better is needed then "Relationships". Secondly, Gwillwickers, I do not believe there is evidence that Jefferson actually "raped" Hemings, however, that area is controversial. I suggest to put the Ferling source in that states Jefferson most likely did not rape Hemings, rather offered her security. That would be conservative. I believe there is one movie that depicts Jefferson (Nick Nolte) apparently forcing himself on Hemings. There is no evidence Jefferson did this or anything from Hemings or her children she was raped. Aside from this, the term "Relationships" is not appropriate for the Thomas Jefferson article, in my opinion, and needs to be changed until a better phrase or word can be used as Sunray suggested. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please let's keep this discussion focused, Gwillhickers and Cmguy. Eight editors on the page are in consensus to have a section that deals with Jefferson's "Personal Life" (under title TBD), to include both "Marriage" and "J-H controversy," for which summary content we already have a consensus. (Lengthier discussions of the nature of the J-H relationship belong in the main article on the J-H controversy, so please add cites there, as we have agreed before.) In addition, we have added "Maria Cosway" to the "Personal life" section, as Brad noted that the notable biographer Malone had devoted some attention to Jefferson's relationship with the married artist. This is covered in every biography, as they carried on a lifelong correspondence and saved each other's letters, which are held by major institutions - certainly worthy of note in a biography. I have added some material and cites on this. Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to "Personal life" until a solution can be reached. I added the Ferling reference that the "relationship" between Jefferson and Hemings was most likely consensual. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

...while I was writing the following; we had an E/c:

This may exceed the scope of the question, but in looking at the article as a whole, it seems to me some of the sections should be rearranged. I'm all about chronology; here's a suggestion:

1. Early life and career

2. Political career from 1775 to 1800

3. Presidency

4. Political philosophy and views

5. Slavery

6. Religion

7. Interests, activities, inventions, and improvements

8. Relationships Personal life

9. Later years

10. Death

11. Legacy

12. Writings

13. Bibliography

14. Notes

15. See also

16. External links

"Relationships" is a good term because headings I've numbered as 5 and 6 (and arguably others) are part of his personal life; his personal life consisted of far more than his relationships with two women. Were the "Writings" section not a bluelinked list, I would position it between "Later years" and "Death." Another possible end sequence would be 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 13, 14. Food for thought. Yopienso (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's always difficult to separate personal and public life, but his #5-"Political philosophy and views" were expressed chiefly in his public life, as were his views on #7-Slavery. There seems to be some agreement among editors to include private relationships in "Personal Life," a common enough classification, especially for the time. Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; we call that man a hypocrite whose public positions do not reflect his private convictions. "Personal life" is fine with me, even if I see it as less precise. What do you think of my rearrangement of the sections? Yopienso (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Would "Private life" work better then "Personal life"? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The arrangement of sections looks appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would drop the "Legacy" section title. The segment titles "Memorials and honors" is good. I would change "Reputation" to "Historical reputation". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree; "legacy," imho, has more to do with the Declaration of Independence and the University of Virginia. "Private life" is great with me if others agree. (So is "Relationships." :-)) Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to place the 'Controversy section under 'Personal life', does this mean we will not be including all the controversial aspects; Coverage of historians, coverage of DNA evidence, coverage of historical evidence, etc -- all items that have nothing to do with Jefferson's personal life? Since the issue is far from established, isn't putting the topic under 'Personal life' telling the readers that Jefferson's paternity is an established fact? The "scholarship" (not a body of individuals who are in total agreement, by any means) may believe what they want, but that doesn't establish the idea as fact, esp when there is no evidence to establish it as such. ALL the evidence either supports different views or is just too sketchy to support any view. Putting the topic under 'Personal life' more than suggests to the readers, who should be allowed to decide for themselves, that this topic is an established fact, which is a POV violation on several counts: (1: Avoid stating opinions as facts, 2: Article structure, 3: Naming). Presenting the Controversy as a stand alone section avoids issues previously discussed above and doesn't bring WP POV violations into question. This is something that should be given one last evaluation before we all jump on a quick fix(?) solution just for the sake of expediency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on this planet is "established fact" if you are sufficiently pedantic. Maybe Adams wrote the Declaration of Independence and slipped it under Jefferson's pillow. Maybe small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri beamed Jefferson's DNA from his body and into Hemings. Maybe we are all objects in a giant world simulator that started running 5 minutes ago, and all previous time is just a hard-coded illusion. That does not mean that we cannot or should not organize our provisional knowledge of the world according to generally recognised rational principles. At least in my view "everything they told me in primary school founding father appreciation class" vs. "everything I'd rather not know about a complex individual with many talents and flaws" is not such a principle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in this article states that the Jefferson-Hemings "relationship" is fact. The ultimate question is whether to put the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" as a seperate segment or relabeling the "Personal life" to "Private life" or "Private controversies" or just simply "Controversies". There is historcal controversy concerning Jefferson's private life with Sally Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Cm', you're correct -- nothing in the article says the Hemings issue is an established fact, which is exactly why we shouldn't place it under "personal life", next to items we know are established facts, like his marriage and family, for example. Putting the section there tells the readers that Hemings & children were part of Jefferson's personal life -- hardly a neutral position for the Controversy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

May I remind you that, quite regardless of how Sally and Tom spend their nights, Hemings and her children unquestionably lived as personal servants at Monticello, and were related by blood to Jefferson's children on at least one and in Eston's case on both sides of the family? That they are part of his personal life is not remotely controversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No one disputes a biological connection with Eston, or that he lived at Monticello. These things by themselves do not establish matters as part of Jefferson's 'personal' life. Are we going to put a Servants at Monticello subsection under 'Personal life' now? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the Hemingses at Monticello (except for Betty) share a familiar bond with Jefferson's children via John Wayles, Martha Jefferson's father, who also fathered Sally and James Hemings (with Betty). However, what establishes the Hemings as part of Jefferson's private life is the fact that, well, they shared his private life, at Monticello (and, for Sally and James, in France). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

edit break3

Gwillhickers, personal life or private life refers to his lifestyle at home, or more honestly, the bedroom. The Jefferson-Hemings controversy has to do with Jefferson's personal affairs as Stephan Shulz mentioned. Controversy means the debate concerning Jefferson and Hemings is not over. Nothing is settled or set in stone. Private life does not in itself automatically mean that Jefferson and Hemings had a "relationship", rather that the controversy refers to Jefferson's private life. I stated before, I do not have an issue with the J-H controversy section on its own, but that would require editor concensus. The editors were in agreement that a "Private life" section was best for the J-H controversy section. Another vote would have to be taken to get this changed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal life can refer to affairs or financial misconduct. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it can -- and so long as that conduct is an established fact it could conceivably be placed under 'Personal life'. The name of the section we are about to put under 'Personal' or 'Private life' is ' Controversy ' -- something that is not at all an established fact. Aside from Callender's musings it's a modern day phenomena involving DNA evidence, historians, etc -- nothing personal or private about it. Putting it under 'Personal life' along side marriage and family more than suggests the matter is an established fact, and again, if the 'Controversy subsection doesn't say it's an established fact it shouldn't be under a section where such facts as marriage are listed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and rearranged all but the tail end of the article per my suggestion since no one said not to and Cmguy777 agreed to it. I didn't like having his death before his ideas. And then I have my own mental categorizer that puts political views immediately after presidency, etc. Yopienso (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, clearly other editors do not agree with you re: consensus on the controversy, and you are making up "rules" about what should go where to suit yourself, all trying to make the point that you do not agree about the conclusions on the controversy over the last decade: "it's a modern day phenomena", "if it doesn't say it's established fact"..... Reliable sources, including that hotbed of radical thinking, the National Park Service, which depends upon consensus of professional historians, have widely agreed that Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings and likely all of Sally Hemings children. Some historians disagree. Please take your comments about the controversy to that article. We are not going to re-argue it here.Parkwells (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made up any rules and have only maintained that if you're going to name a section as personal life that only things that were personal to Jefferson be included. I have indeed cited POV issues, which are quite appropriate and warranted given the history of this page where the Hemings topic used to take up several pages of the Jefferson biography, largely edited by you, all the while other sections were being gutted. The controversy, indeed a 20th century phenomena, with DNA evidence, historians, etc, is/are not a personal affair, and putting the controversy under a so named section is therefore inappropriate, and smacks of pushing a POV, as has occurred on this page too often in the past. Simple math, Parkwells. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing call for opinion on placement

No new editors have weighed in on this. The consensus of editors is for a section to be called "Personal life" or "Relationships", to include sub-sections (summaries): Marriage and family (main articles on Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson and some of her descendants); "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" (main article by same name) and "Maria Cosway" (main article by same name). I moved the Marriage sub-section to this section in keeping with the consensus.

• There are more votes for "Personal life" than for "Relationships" as a title for the section, so I have retained this. If editors want a vote, it would be useful for someone to arrange it. Thanks for all your good thoughts. You are welcome to work on other parts of the article, or on other main articles related to Jefferson. Parkwells (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No new editors have weighed in because no one else has called them. I called a few, even called a couple I was almost certain that would not vote as I do. How about you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not obligated to seek outside opinion, and there are many voices already involved in this section and article.Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Controversy: A review for us

• In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

• Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.

• The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible. People with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than people who are less than civil to others.

Gwillhickers, the Jefferson-Hemings controversy is in fact label "Jefferson-Hemings controvesy". I understand your reasoning for having this a separate issue from personal life, yet the consensus if for personal life. My suggestion is to look at other presidential articles such as Chester A. Arthur and Rutherford B. Hayes. These articles I believe have achieve Featured Article status. The Warren G. Harding article is labeled "Personal controversies". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure on this issue?

It appears that there is consensus for the proposal as stated above. The title can be settled later. Other issues related to structure should be treated separately. Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Callender

Closed. not a forum. Brad (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't any one find it (very) odd that after the journalist Collender went public with his accusations of Jefferson's paternity in 1802, while Jefferson was president, that the last thing a man of Jefferson's intelligence and stature would do is turn around and father several more children -- while he was president no less? Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in the remotest. First, as far as we know, he only fathered two children after 1802, not "several". "In for a penny, in for a pound", he might have thought. With two of his children by Sally living at Monticello, what difference would another make? Also, of course, up until the invention of the pill and reliable condoms in the 20th century, sex and babies went hand in hand. Jefferson did not think much about the august appearance of the presidency anyways, often greeting visitors in the White House dressed in a sleeping gown and slippers, and generally eschewing formal etiquette. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. You now have the man, a standing president, painted as a reckless idiot who could care less about his family, friends and political image -- and a slob who answers the door in a night robe. And since there were no condoms in those days, hey, 'why not'. Come on Schulz, is this really your best shot? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson cared about his political image very much. He just didn't agree with you what that image should be. And there are, of course, plenty of other people in high office who risked their reputation and/or careers for sex - including e.g. Clinton, Kennedy, Schwartzenegger, heck even Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Pope Alexander VI. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how odd or not any of us might or might not find the state of Jefferson's affairs to be, what matters is what is verifiable from reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As editors of WP we are not merely copy-reword-paste-bots, and as editors are allowed to make deductions from the reliable sources, some of whom have asserted similar thoughts about how Callender effected Jefferson's decisions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does this thread have to do with article improvement? I think it's time that general conversation should be closed and archived in the spirit of {{Not a forum}}. Brad (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Brad, it's something that adds perspective to the Controversy, something that is still unsettled, and something that we as editors should consider before we put e-pen to e-paper. Since there have been editors in the past who are perfectly willing to write the controversy as a one side established fact I think such questions are pertinent to a well rounded account. This in turn makes for a better article. If facts are established leaving no room for doubt, that is one thing, matters like this are quite another. Perhaps WP should just ban theoretical controversies altogether and ban any discussion about what editors may or may not write about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Brad that this discussion does not help this article. Jefferson appeared to have dealt with the issue by ignoring Callender. (Records show that people did not have much control over pregnancies and children resulting from relationships.) It appears that Jefferson was not worried about what Callender said - but all that belongs in the Jefferson-Hemings controversy main article, not here. Whether Jefferson would alter his behavior does not appear to be an issue that historians spent much time on; rather, they noted that he ignored Callender and went about his life as he chose. If you have discussion and cites to add regarding it, please add them there.Parkwells (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For a discussion that you claim doesn't help the article you certainly have a lot to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you didn't produce a source that may back up your claim of "Isn't it odd...etc" Neither did you introduce any suggestion for a change. Besides that Parkwells is right, any discussion on Jefferson Hemings should take place at that article. All you're doing here is beating the same dead horse. Brad (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And to be fair about it, Stephan Schulz needs to knock off as well. Brad (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Gwillhickers comment belongs in the reference desk for discussion. I am not sure why Callander is getting "beat up" so much. Callander's press statements did not damage Jefferson's reputation at the time. Possibly people then just accepted that Jefferson was sleeping with a concubine or that was an acceptable practice for slave owners. The truth is the we do not know what exactly went on in Jefferson's bedroom at Monticello. I believe Wikipedia editors need to assume the readers are intelligent enough to make their own minds up. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)