Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Political party

The article is listed as "part of the Politics series Republicanism". Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. Upon splitting in 1834, the majority of the party evolved into the Democratic party a minority faction became the Republican party. Shouldn't this either list both modern parties or be changed to just Democratic reflecting that most members later embraced that party? Colonial Computer 15:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)

That depends on how one defines Republicanism. In the United States, domestic slavery was legal. Indians were not citizens and women could not vote. Jefferson owned his slaves and their children. In the South, slaves added to white slave owner representation in the House. Also, the South could invade the North at any time to "retrieve" black slaves. Only whites could be citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson had "Republican" values, but it seemed to be limited to white males. With the right source, should this be said in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"That depends on how one defines Republicanism. In the United States, domestic slavery was legal." I don't really understand your point here. Republicanism is typically defined by its opposition to monarchy, and typically includes various oligarchic systems. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The Founders did not oppose monarchy. During the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress in 1778 signed an alliance with King Louis XVI of France, making France, a monarchy, an ally with the United States. A book has been written titled, Louis XVI, America's Forgotten Founding Father, by Maurice Ross, published in 1976. The Patriot forces were funded by French gold and given the French Army and Navy, making a Franco-American alliance. The Naturalization Act of 1790, only permitted whites to be citizens of the United States. During Jefferson's Presidency, women, Indians, and blacks (slaves) were not represented by Congress. As to slavery being legal, that is debatable. The Constitution did not mention slaves, except only in terms of the International slave trade. Concerning domestic slavery, it said nothing. The Constitution referred to domestic slaves as 3/5 person, in order to increase white representation in Congress, and referred to slavery as ownership of property. Property was substituted for the word slave. Jefferson supported Republicanism for whites only. In 1785, Jefferson went out of his way to say blacks were inferior to whites, thus nullifying their citizenship or their right to vote and be represented in Congress. Rather than citizenship Jefferson wanted to send blacks back to Africa. This was realized under the Presidency of James Monroe. Where am I going with this? All I am saying is Jefferson did support Republican values, but only for whites. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Source: What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery Cmguy777 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What Dimadick is saying is that even though Jefferson intended full Enlightenment-style natural rights only for white men, it is still called "Republicanism," because a Republic can and often has existed along with a social hierarchy. E.g., the Roman republic, the early independence era all across Latin America, etc. Also, although the founders were not uniform in their beliefs, most of them were anti-monarchy, and allying with the French to win the war does not negate this.--MattMauler (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the reader should know Jefferson's Republican values extended only to white males. It is difficult to say the founders were anti-monarchy when they welcomed Louis XVI's French gold, French army and Navy to fight the British. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source: For the Founding Fathers only white men deserved rights. Lois Thielen (July 1, 2019) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"But many of those signing the Declaration of Independence, including its chief author, Thomas Jefferson, did not practice what they preached. In fact, most of America did not follow this belief for a good part of this country's existence."

Cmguy777 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"Blacks were mostly enslaved until the Civil War in the 1860s and still had few civil rights for another century after that; Native Americans weren't even declared citizens until 1924; and women were not allowed to vote until 1920."

Cmguy777 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggested edit: Jefferson supported Republican values, but delegated "inalienable rights" only to white males. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I added information on the subject in the historical reputation section using Annette Gordon-Reed as a source. Jefferson's view of equality excluded blacks and women. He did believe Indians could be citizens, as long as they assimilated into white society, forgetting their tribal customs. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I added this sentence to the intro: Jefferson's view of equality included both whites and assimilated Indians, but excluded blacks and women. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm late to this, and honestly, I'm not sure why this discussion seems so critical to some, as it seems as though the original post does not know that republicanism and the Republican Party are vastly different things. In any case, though, I wanted to note that The Heritage Foundation, which one editor used as a source above (and a "commentary" article therefrom, no less), is a known partisan think tank—hardly a neutral, reliable source for academic, historiographical, or scholarly commentary or analysis on Jefferson's complex political language and outlook. When it comes to important, key figures of early US history, especially those whose memories, words, and ideas are easily and often manipulated in today's partisan political sphere, we need to be more discerning and careful with our sources. I see a number of commentary websites, newspapers, and the like on here, which seems to ignore the fact that there is an extremely deep and valuable historiography on nearly every aspect of Jefferson's life. It worries me that The Heritage Foundation and SC Times, for example, are being favored at times over that robust academic discourse. I'm glad Gordon-Reed made it into the article, but we should go to sources like her first. That would save us a lot of time and bickering. Anwegmann (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your view. That is why I used Gordon-Reed as a source in the article. It is always best to have someone with a PH.D. used as a source in the article. I think though for talk pages sources like the Heritage Foundation can be used in the talk page. David Azerrad has a PH.D. Lois Thielen has a Bachelor's Degree. I did not use her in the article. I have been careful to check the historian's educational background before entering any information on Jefferson in the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that Republicanism has several meanings. The major one is support of a form of government where there is no monarch. Having this type of category is problematic because it is so broad and Jefferson is not necessarily one of the top 11 thinkers for this.

The other definition is an ideology identified with Jefferson, also called civic republicanism. This ideology promoted the concept of virtue and looked to ancient Greece and Rome as models.

So I would remove it and consider deleting the sidebar altogether.

TFD (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson was elected by an electoral college. Is an electoral college considered a Republican form of government? It seems the U.S. is a limited democracy. The President also is Commander and Chief of the Armed forces and can pardon people of crimes. That seems to be King-like. The modern White House could be considered a type of fortress or castle for the President. The White House during Jefferson's time was only a mansion. I think the Founders envisioned a Union of Republican States. And yet the constitution Jefferson was under allowed Southern slave owners to invaded northern states to retrieve slaves. This website lists Jefferson as a "Democratic-Republican": [Every US president listed]. I don't think Jefferson authored any book specifically on political philosophy. Does Notes on the State of Virginia offer any insight of Jefferson's ideal national government? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We as editors deciding what's "republican" enough using the logic above involves a lot of WP:OR. Jefferson's political views have been written about extensively, and scholars say he advocated a republican form of government, a representative democracy. I don't know whether he's in the "top ten" thinkers associated with it or not (probably not, because it is an ancient idea), but I think having the republicanism sidebar is fine, even if it is a broad category. That said, I will gladly defer to the consensus, and I am not too attached to it. I am just commenting to steer us back to the right kind of evidence. It doesn't matter if the electoral college seems to us to be anti-democratic, or if pardon power, veto power, etc., seem too "king-like." Firstly, as was pointed out before, these types of un-democratic checks on the will of the people have very often been a part of republics; secondly, we go by secondary sources rather than our own evaluation and categorization.--MattMauler (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any political philosophy by Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia. I would just say Jefferson was a "Democratic-Republican" politically. He does not appear to be a political philosopher. The Declaration of Independence was authored by three people, including Jefferson. Other than the DOI, I can't find anything specific of Jefferson's political philosophy. The DOI primarily seems to be a list of grievances against the King. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Can the scholars who say Jefferson supported a Republican form of government please be listed? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Joseph J. Ellis, Jon Meacham, Merrill D. Peterson (and more I'm sure ...). It strikes me as a pretty big part of his legacy, which I think the article makes clear, despite also going into his inconsistencies/flaws.--MattMauler (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

He was definitely a Democratic-Republican, yes; that was his party. What I'm saying, though, that it is original research for WP editors (us) to comb through Notes on the State of Virginia or the Declaration of Independence looking to discern his philosophical bent, and we should go with what political scientists and historians say his political orientation was. They have more context, more expertise, and draw on a lot more of his writings than just those two things. Should we include the Repub sidebar? I don't know. I am just saying that whatever we decide should not be based on our freelance interpretation of Jefferson's own writings.--MattMauler (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I had asked for the scholarly sources that support Jefferson supported a Republican form of government, to avoid OR. Reading through the DOI or Notes on the State of Virginia, on a personal level, is not OR. It is just reading for the sake of discussion on this talk page. As far as Ellis and Peterson go, we would need books and page numbers. Jefferson is said to be in the article a philosopher and supporter of a Republican form of government. We need sources for verification and clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ellis (1998) pp. 216, 202; Meacham (2012), p. 254; Peterson is already cited in the article with a few different page numbers supporting the statement, "Jefferson is an icon of individual liberty, democracy, and republicanism, hailed as the author of the Declaration of Independence, an architect of the American Revolution, and a renaissance man who promoted science and scholarship."--MattMauler (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

These are for the republic part, not calling him a philosopher, just to clarify--MattMauler (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to try to clarify terms and issues. The key term is Republicanism and there is a long article on it that people should read. It is an ideology. It overlaps with "republic" (a form of government) but is much stronger. Finally Jefferson called his party "The Republican Party" --the term "Democratic-Republican was seldom used at the time but became popular with political scientists in the 20th century tho historians prefer "Republican Party." In 1790s "equality" was a different concept and not the same as today. Republicans said all LAWS had to be equal not all PEOPLE. Republicans strongly opposed special privileges given to royalty and aristocrats. But they did not oppose the advantages held by rich (vs poor) or men (vs women) or whites (vs blacks, Indians). Slavery was a divisive issue--Republicans were pro-slavery in the South but they helped abolish it in all northern states by 1804. (likewise the Federalists were so divided) Jefferson was the #1 leader in opposing and making a crime the international slave trade. However he tolerated and used the internal slave trade--all the while thinking slavery was a negative that some day should be abolished. As for kings all patriots welcomes the essential military support of the French king in the Revolution. The Jeffersonians welcomed the French revolution and the end of royalty in France in mid 1790s. They did not like Napoleon. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

PS let me recommend an excellent book you can read online for free: Lance Banning, The Jeffersonian persuasion: evolution of a party ideology (1978) online Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. There is a book by Alan Taylor (2019), Thomas Jefferson's Education, that discusses Jefferson's Democratic-Republican view, spelled out in his draft Viriginia State constitution. It is basically Jefferson's philosophy of government. I don't think you can have it both ways, be anti-monarchy, but take the French Kings Louis XVI gold, Army, and Navy. I would say Jefferson's Republic was limited to white males. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Alan Taylor is a top historian. The Patriots had no choice in 1778--it was France's help or total defeat. In the 1790s the Jeffersonians supported the overthrow of Louis XIV . Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. In my opinion, it's not a good reflection on the Founders. Double-dealing with Louis XVI during the Revolutionary War, then turning on him. All the Founders seemed to care about was Indian land grabbing and slavery. I believe taxes in the 1790s tripled when Washington was President, compared to their taxes as British colonists. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is Jefferson's Jefferson’s Draft of a Constitution for Virginia I believe this is the document, according to Taylor (2019), expressed Jefferson's ideal state or political philosophy. Later published in Notes on the State of Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well no--there was no double dealing with France. The Americans watched but did not participate in th French Revolution (except for Tom Paine who almost got executed), there was no "land grabbing"--the Indians fought on the losing side, refused to support the new USAm, and moved to Canada;; and taxes in USA remained low under Washington. Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The Indians were fighting to save their land from being taken over by the Patriots and lost. That is called a land grab. Just as the Loyalists to GIII lost their lands and homes. Apparently, the Patriot soldiers were promised land, but Washington and other officers took the best lands for themselves. Double Dealing in the sense of fighting GIII but taking LXVI gold, Navy, and Army. There was the Whiskey Rebellion under Washington. Apparently, the tax rate was high enough to incite a rebellion. I think the taxes were higher under Washington (3%), than GIII (1%). I am not judging the Founders. The Founders needed LVXI to defeat the British King. Thanks for the conversation. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the Indians were paid by London to fight the Americans and they lost and went to Canada. Not true that Patriot soldiers were promised land, but Washington and others took best lands. In fact all Patriot veterans got a lot of land, both officers and privates. Washington got zero land in Am Rev. (he did get lands after he helped defeat France in 1763). New tax rates always cause "rebellion"--look at Canada truckers. In 1795 with the Whiskey tax in effect, the US federal revenue was $6 million ($6,115,000 dollars) and the population was 4,607,000 people. That's a tax rate of $1.33 per person under Washington -- and most of it came from tariffs on imports. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"In the 1790s the Jeffersonians supported the overthrow of Louis XIV" Louis XIV was never deposed, and had already died in 1715. The one deposed was Louis XVI. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to Louis XVI. The British did free Patriot slaves who fought for George III. About 3,000 settled in Nova Scotia. The Patriots gained control of what used to be the Thirteen Colonies colonies. That is a tremendous prize of war. I stand corrected. Washington received lands after the French Indian War. The fact that the Patriot servicemen received land after the American Revolution could imply that is what the Patriots were fighting for. As to the cause of the Whiskey Rebellion, one can ask whether the Whiskey rebellers were adequately represented in Congress. Back to Jefferson and Republicanism. What was Jefferson's view of Louis XVI and the French Revolution? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Rjensen already noted that Jefferson and his ideological allies welcomed the French revolution. Again, he was in favor of a republican form of government. It did not preclude him allying with the French monarchy if it could help the cause of American independence. I think this conversation has long ago drifted away from a useful way to improve the article. The Whiskey Rebellion does not seem to bear any relevance to whether or not we describe Jefferson as a proponent of republicanism.--MattMauler (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Are those things listed above in the article. I asked what Jefferson thought of Louis XVI personally. Was Jefferson in favor of the French King's Gold, Army, and Navy during the Revolution? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

yes TJ was in favor during the rev war. Nearly all countries at the time were kingdoms, and the Patriots were not opposed to royalty there.. no royalty in USA was their goal. Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I agree the Founders or Jefferson did not want royalty in the U.S.A. But it seems the Founders did not fundamentally oppose royalty, just for royalty's sake. Part of being a king is being wealthy and powerful. It is not inherently a bad institution. King Louis XVI seems to be written out of U.S. textbooks or only mentioned briefly. I think it would help, sources provided, to mention Jefferson favored help from the French King. Also should be mention is Jefferson's Virginia constitution draft. Alan (2019) mentions that. It is the actual published source of Jefferson's Republican ideals. Apparently, he was the only author? I think this talk has been fruitful. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Land acquisition

Something could be said about Jefferson and land acquisition. The Founders and the Pursuit of Land The Lehrman Institute "Unlike his fellow Founders, Thomas Jefferson confined his land gathering to his immediate neighborhood in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia – where he hoped to gather as well his intellectual friends such as James Madison and James Monroe. Jefferson's biographer Willard Sterne Randall wrote: “While he was in Baltimore [in 1782], he had been visited by Gov. Abner Nash of North Carolina, who had offered to make Jefferson a partner in a land scheme. The governor and his friends were buying escheated Loyalist lands at rock-bottom prices for resale at high prices once the war ended. On March 11, Jefferson rejected the offer as ‘one of those fair opportunities of bettering my situation which in private prudence I ought to adopt.’ If he had been ‘a private man’ he would have accepted the offer ‘without condition or hesitation.’ But he was well aware that the Loyalists could be a topic on the table for negotiations with the British. He would do nothing that could ‘lay my judgment under bias.’" Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears Jefferson did not want the taint of land speculation while he was a public figure. But it does reveal there was land speculation with Loyalist escheated lands during the Revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit: "In 1782, as a public figure, Jefferson refused a partnership offer by North Carolina Governor Abner Nash, in a profiteering land scheme sale of confiscated Loyalist lands." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

the proposed edit is good. Note that TJ was not worried about "taint" (ie what the public would think) --he instead wanted to protect his ability to negotiate without a personal advantage to one outcome....that's deep honesty. Rjensen (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Negotiate what? Do you mean some sort of arbitration for the Loyalist lands? Jefferson said he would have taken the deal had he been a private citizen. But yes. He would be an honest negotiator. But the fact that the Patriots are profiteering from the Loyalist land take over, to me suggests a land grab. Were any Loyalists compensated for their lands? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Taint", is not what the public would think. Rather, the profiteering off of confiscated lands of the Loyalists. That would be corruption. Jefferson had no problem with the profiteering. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I put the information in the article, but not sure Jefferson viewed the profiteering as corruption. He approved of it. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate information

I removed duplicate information from the article concerning the attempted annexation of Florida. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

In the wake of the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson sought to annex Florida from Spain, as brokered by Napoleon. Congress agreed to the president's request to secretly appropriate purchase money in the "$2,000,000 Bill". The Congressional funding drew criticism from Randolph, who believed that the money would wind up in the coffers of Napoleon. The bill was signed into law; however, negotiations for the project failed. Jefferson lost clout among fellow Republicans, and his use of unofficial Congressional channels was sharply criticized.

Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good article

Jefferson is prominent enough as a President to have a good article status. Is anyone in favor of getting Jefferson to a good article status? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made changes to the structure of the article to make it a more presidential article style. Any improvements or suggestions would be helpful to get Jefferson to good article status. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

My recommendation is that “slave owner” be added to the list of descriptors for Thomas Jefferson. See text below:

“Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743[a] – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, Founding Father, and slave owner who served as the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809.”

I believe that as Americans we need to be honest about this history upfront, rather than it being embedded farther down the page in a hyperlink. Jefferson’s views on slavery had an enormous impact on his philosophy, statesmanship, and political thought and as such, it should not require leaving the page to learn of it.

Furthermore, if those of you who are reading this also have editing permissions for other pages of slave-owning Presidents, then I suggest you make the same edit across the board. After all, these men professed a desire for equality, right? Well, so long as you were a wealthy, white, male, landowner, of course. Yet another fact of our country’s founding that tends to be glossed over. We have come a long way (and still have some way to go) towards realizing the ideals they espoused in a truly egalitarian manner, but let’s not pretend that they had the same designs for the country.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Hmfletcher (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The article does mention Jefferson was a slave owner in the lede. Should it be mentioned in the first paragraph I think that is the issue. I am not opposed since he relied on slavery to make a living. He was paid to be President $25,000 a year, which was good money back in the day. So two terms would be $200,000. His slaves may have been worth more monetarily, maybe $640,000, depending on how many slaves he owned, but I think he owned them all out right after his wife died. I am guessing the bulk of his estate wealth came from his slaves and any product produced by his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A few more thoughts. The Founders were not perfect people. They had flaws. They were fighting to be independent of Britain. Some of their rhetoric could be considered a form of war propaganda to justify the Revolution. I don't think we should hold them to lofty standards or sit in judgment of them. With that said I think saying Jefferson was a slave owner in the first paragraph is appropriate because Jefferson derived most of his wealth from slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

There is a small gramatical issue Thomas Jefferson42 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Randolph cousin pic

I am moving this pic, to reduce crowding, and for pertinence, as he is only very briefly mentioned in the text. File:WILLIAM RANDOLPH (D. 1745).jpg|thumb|William Randolph III, cousin of Jefferson's mother, and close friend of Peter Jefferson|left. Hoppyh (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There is No Scientific Evidence That Jefferson Fathered Sally Hemings' Children

The article makes serious false claims and needs to be rewritten. Oral tradition is not evidence. In Jefferson's case, the claim that he fathered Hemings' children was started by a political rival. There has never been DNA evidence to prove it. Sally Hemings had several children. Only descendants of the youngest, Eston, had DNA from somebody in the Jefferson line. When Eston was conceived, Thomas was 65 years old. At least eight other male Jeffersons visited or stayed at Monticello at that time, most of them younger than Thomas. His younger brother Randolph seems a more likely candidate, or one of Randolph's five sons, who were in their teens and twenties.

It's worth mentioning that descendants of Eston's brother Madison withdrew, decades ago, from the claim that Thomas Jefferson was their ancestor. They believed Madison's father had been a different Jefferson.

Hopefully in the future, with advances in DNA analysis, the "Thomas" claim can be definitely proven to be false or true. 2600:1702:E30:D970:4DB0:F905:69E6:9CEA (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC) 2600:1702:E30:D970:4DB0:F905:69E6:9CEA (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Pontificating on could bes also isn't encyclopedic, but in this case we have numerous historians with credentials over several decades (even centuries at this point) supporting this statement, so it's not going to change any time soon. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is also adequately covered here. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not "pontificating" to mention the plain fact that the writer of the article presented claims, as facts, which have never been proven. There isn't DNA evidence that specifically targets Thomas. Wishful thinking and ancient gossip are not evidence. And it's not "encyclopedic" to pretend that they are. Two decades ago, a Scholars' Commission of Jefferson experts and historians went through every available historical document, Monticello logbook of visitors, Thomas's travels, DNA evidence, dates of conception, Jefferson visitors, diary entries of guests, gossip, political claims,and so forth to reach the most likely conclusion. With one very mild dissent, they believed Thomas was almost the least likely Jefferson to have fathered any of Hemings' children. His hard-drinking, hard-living younger brother Randolph, who seems to have been around at the dates of conception, was much more likely. These findings were published in a book, The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, edited by Robert F. Turner. It is essential reading. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Younggoldchip (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So what do we care what a crackpot wrote to support a fringe view? That ship sailed long ago, and Thomas is considered the father. Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Younggoldchip It would behoove you to read WP:NOR. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll read WP:NOR if you'll read The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, edited by Robert F. Turner. Deal? Deal. By the way, scholars aren't crackpots. And the ship has never sailed.

Younggoldchip (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not bound to do what a random editor wants me to do in my free time, you and I are however bound by Wikipedia policies which doesn't allow for original research. You can choose not to read it and continue on your talk page diatribes but it's unlikely to end well for you. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

My sharing sorely needed facts with a mythomaniac may be a waste of time, but it's not a diatribe. "The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings" is exactly the type of source you should have read, and cited in your article, but you did not. Why write a Wikipedia article if you include only the bits and pieces of reality, dream or delusion that you prefer? Facts are terrifying only to a true believer. You threaten that my continuing to report facts is "unlikely to end well" for me. But an encyclopedia is the place for facts. THE JEFFERSON-HEMINGS CONTROVERSY, edited by Robert F. Turner, was published September 1, 2011, by Carolina Academic Press. "The Myth of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings," written by Robert F. Turner, is an article published in the WSJ of July 11, 2012. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed very often on this talkpage. Please refer to the archives.
It is already noted in the article that there are a few scholars who are exceptions to the near consensus among historians (William Hyland and the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society are two examples). At most (if there is consensus), Turner could be a added to the footnote at the end of that short paragraph: "Still, a minority of scholars maintain ..." Additionally, when considering Turner's view, it is worth noting that his field is law, not history (he teaches law; he has a research doctorate in law, etc.).--MattMauler (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cite Turner in this article. His viewpoint is covered at Jefferson–Hemings controversy. VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that we kind of do cite him already. He was the editor of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report, The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission that is now in the footnote. I did not notice at first because he is not currently listed as editor in the citation.--MattMauler (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is certainly no need to add his WSJ article.--MattMauler (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert F. Turner's is a minority viewpoint. We're not going to report his opinion as fact just because it fits your viewpoint. The clear consensus amongst historians is that TJ was the father. VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson is not on trial. The readers can take away what they want from Jefferson. Whether Jefferson had children by Hemings does not really matter. It did not matter in 1800. He was elected twice as President. Wikipedia states a scientific DNA study on Jefferson and Hemings. That's all. There are no guilty or innocent verdicts. No custody battles or child support issues. Wikipedia does not have to prove or disprove Jefferson had children by Hemings. Assuming Jefferson had children by Hemings, it has not historically hurt his reputation. Historians are more concerned about Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the article could make this statement for clarification: Neither Jefferson's DNA, Hemings' DNA, nor Heming's children's DNA were tested. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We already say that, just not so pointedly. The proposed add wouldn't be an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the whole point. It should be said directly because making DNA tests on those persons would be direct evidence of Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children. The DNA test in the article leaves some doubt since there was no direct DNA testing on those individuals. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically, had there been a Jefferson paternity case trial, the 1999 DNA test would not be strong enough evidence to prove Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children. The case would be thrown out. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a trial; that's irrelevant. No, we don't need to report on whatever goalposts you personally deem important. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I knew this sounded familiar... you were asking about this in 2020 here. At the time you said, "Stick is dropped." Maybe it's time to drop the stick, again. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Per policy, if there is academic consensus for a fact, it should be reported as fact and fringe theories should receive little if any attention, except in articles about them. If the article about the moon landing for example devoted space to the debate about whether it was faked, it would give the impression that it was a valid theory or that it had serious support. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors find the evidence persuasive, but whether experts who have submitted their findings do. Also, articles should be concise, summarizing the facts and major opinions, without meandering into all the bizarre interpretations that some people have of his life.

Incidentally, there is sufficient evidence to prove the case in court. The only way Jefferson could win would be if he could prove he was not the father.

TFD (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No, there is not sufficient evidence to prove Jefferson's paternity in court. The arguments which attempt to "prove" it fall one by one when scrutinized. Of Hemings' several children, only one had descendants with DNA from somebody in the Jefferson line. Why only one? And there were at least eight presumably virile male Jeffersons in and around Monticello when he was conceived. Much was made of the dates of her children's conceptions, which lined up with Thomas's presence at Monticello. But obviously those are exactly the times when his Jefferson kinsmen would be visiting him and frequently staying at Monticello. The evidence of Thomas Jefferson's fathering any of Hemings' children was and is so weak that the descendants of Madison Hemings even withdrew from the claim in embarrassment decades ago. There is frequent mention here of a proliferation of "scholars" who believe in Thomas's paternity. (I posted information here about actual scholars who believe the opposite.) But what could their convictions be based on? Oral tradition is a nonstarter. It's an oral tradition, in some cultures, that the world exists on the back of a big turtle. The "scholars" can't call on science in this case since there is no DNA-based evidence, and nothing else would be valid proof. As Gertrude Stein put it, There is no THERE there. And that is a fact. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a court case. Scholars have weighed in on the issue and have concluded with a high degree of likelihood that TJ was father to some slaves. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not start this talk. Just giving my opinion on the matter. I am not disputing the 1999 study. I believe I was just stating the obvious. I think the section could written better. I have no need to continue the conversation. Dropping the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Religion

I am not sure the article discusses Jefferson's religion completely. He rejected Christ's divinity, miracles, and trinity. It's doubtful he was a Christian or viewed himself as a sinner. He recommended boldly questioning even the very existence of God. One could view Jefferson as anti-Christian. Jefferson I believe had a copy of the Koran. Not sure that is discussed either. No. Not saying Jefferson was a Muslim, but why would he want to read the Koran. Maybe his religion has been understudied by historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

When historians say Jefferson was anti-clerical, is that a polite way of saying Jefferson was anti Christian? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that his views did not fit well with many Christians at the time is pretty clear right now in the article. He certainly was not "anti-Christian." I mean, of course, if you can find a scholarly characterizing him that way, then it can be added, but I doubt such sources exist. Jefferson consistently praised Jesus's teachings as the highest and best moral principles, while largely rejecting the miraculous side of Christianity. He also was suspicious of church hierarchies, but those latter two things don't by themselves make him "anti-Christian."--MattMauler (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

All I am saying is that it is not clear what anti-clerical means in the article. The clerics support Jesus as divine, Jesus' miracles, and the trinity. Removing miracles from the Bible could be considered anti-Christian. Was Jefferson's Bible ever published or was it just a private work? The article could define what anti-clerical means. There is an article by Montichello.org on Jefferson's religious beliefs. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Jefferson Bible was a private work and never published during his lifetime. I added this for better clarification. Actually, that goes in Jefferson's favor. He was not trying to publically overturn Christianity. But what does it mean to be anti-clerical? Was Jefferson basically a pagan? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the Monticello.org site article Jefferson's Religious Beliefs Cmguy777 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Jefferson rejected the notion of the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity. He rejected Biblical miracles, the resurrection, the atonement, and original sin (believing that God could not fault or condemn all humanity for the sins of others, a gross injustice)." Monticello.org Cmguy777 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

One can conclude Jefferson fundamentally rejected Christianity. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"All I am saying is that it is not clear what anti-clerical means in the article." We already have an article on anti-clericalism. Including the widespread 18th-century European belief that the clergy was corrupt, and Freemasonry's traditional association with anti-clericalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there is enough and readers can follow the links if they want to know more. Anti-clericalism merely means he did not think that the Catholic church should not have government powers, such as having religious courts and taxing people. TFD (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is true Virginia has a history of being anti-Catholic. Catholics were not allowed to hold office in 1641 or be fined 1,000 pounds of tobacco. Virginia, however, was a Crown Colony where the King was head of the Anglican Church. This is what Jefferson objected to, Anglicanism, or the King having religious control over the colonists. However, it is clear Jefferson was against any form of fundamental Christianity. I think he goes beyond being anti-clerical, he is anti any religion. That is why he turned Jesus into a benign moral philosopher. Yes. Jefferson was anti-Catholic, or Pope rules, but he was also anti-Anglican, or King rules. That is where clarification is needed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Do any historians call Jefferson a pagan for rejecting Christianity? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That is original thought. What does anti-Christian sentiment have to do with paganism? And why would rejecting Christian superstition and mumbo-jumbo (miracles, resurrections, other bullcrap) make him a pagan? Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I simply asked a question. That is not original thought. Jefferson was interested in religion. But from what I understand about western culture is that anyone who rejects Christianity is considered pagan. The word pagan is not meant to be derogatory towards anyone. I used the Jefferson Foundation as a source provided in this talk page that Jefferson rejected fundamental Christianity. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do I ask the question? That is because Jefferson did not publish his Bible during his lifetime. Was Jefferson concerned about public reaction to his book? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson would be considered an unconverted Christian or "pagan". Jefferson may have agreed with Jesus's philosophy, but that does not make Jefferson a Christian. Jefferson's Bible leaves Jesus dead on the Cross. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The quoted words were Jefferson's words. Jefferson removed the miracles from the Bible because he thought they were a "dunghill". It is clear freedom of religion for Jefferson was to force all people to be atheists. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It is clear freedom of religion for Jefferson was to force all people to be atheists. That is not at all clear from his "dunghill" comments, nor would it be historically accurate to say so. Jefferson and other Enlightenment-influenced thinkers were vociferous advocates of religious tolerance. Even Voltaire, who voiced perhaps even harsher critiques of religion, believed that people should be free to believe what they wanted.
You're welcome to re-add the content I reverted if it's rephrased to make it clear that Jefferson was the one using the "diamond"/"dunghill" expression. As it was, it looked like it might have been Peterson describing or paraphrasing Jefferson's views.--MattMauler (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Any opinions I have are only meant for the talk page, not the article. The quote is Jefferson's. I admit I was a little shocked by the quote. Jefferson had no moral issue with taking out miracles, and in my opinion, his extraction of miracles was what he was referring to as a dunghill. Also, Jefferson went beyond Jesus's philosophy, he purposely left Jesus dead in the tomb. If the book was solely about philosophy, why even mention the tomb and extract the resurrection. What I meant by making people atheists is that Christianity to Jefferson was a weakened Christ who only was a philosopher. In other words, believing in the Bible, as written, was not considered a religion. Also, Jefferson advocated questioning the existence of God. Some people thought he was an atheist. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the article being neutral? Anyone who rejects Christianity, should not that person be considered anti-Christian. Does being a diest make one religious? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources do not call him "anti-Christian."--MattMauler (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources:

• Heretic of the week: Thomas Jefferson Charles Coulombe (February 27, 2020) Catholic Herald Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• The Bible According to Thomas Jefferson Peter Carlson (9/27/2017) Historynet Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Jefferson the Skeptic Brooke Allen (Summer, 2006) The Hudson Review JSTOR Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think it would appropriate to mention that the method Jefferson made his Bible was controversial, such as mutilating the original Bible scripture, by slicing passages up with a knife. Something controversial by today's standards. Carlson (9/27/2017) would be the source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Information added. Please don't revert. There has been plenty of time to discuss this. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reverted due to weight, sourcing, and tone issues. Feel free to propose better phrasing and sourcing. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Tone issues? Jefferson mutilated 8 Bibles. For Christians: The Holy Scriptures and Word of God. There is no politically correct way to put it. Jefferson mutilated eight Bibles. The source I used is reliable. Wikipedia is not a Jefferson protection article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Historynet is not a fringe source. Carlson used the word "mutilated". The elephant in the room is that Jefferson hated Christianity. Mutilating a Bible to a Christian is like burning a flag to an American. These sources have been on the talk page for a significant time. No one questioned their reliability until the edit was made in the article. In retrospect, no historian has celebrated Jefferson cutting up to eight Bibles. It is not Jefferson's finest hour. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no elephant in the room. The matter is discussed in the article. That you want to make something more out of it with rather questionable sources, that's all you. The Brooke Allen article calls him a skeptic, but that's not what you are aiming for, and it doesn't call him an "anti-Christian" in a very indirect way. I'll add that the Hudson Review is a journal on literature and the arts, and that Brooke Allen, while a well-published writer on literature etc., is not a historian, and her Moral Minority, while praised by George Will and some others (non-historians), is not well reviewed by historians: see https://www.jstor.org/stable/27779046--"...As further that Allen has missed the last few decades of historical scholarship...", that sort of thing. So you are not going to get much scholarly consensus for "anti-Christian", and I think this is another stick that should be dropped. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson hating Christianity, refers to Jefferson mutilating 8 Bibles, combined with the fact Jefferson rejected Jesus's miracles, his Divinity, and Ressurection. The Catholic article specifically says Jefferson hated Catholics and labeled him a heretic of the week. It is the act of mutilating 8 Bibles that is questioned. Not Jefferson's religious views or lack thereof. No historians celebrate that. I have no stick to drop. The sources were provided. No criticism of them was made until after the edit. Editors failed to discuss the sources. There was plenty of time for editors to criticize the sources, but none was made. That is why I went ahead with the edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the mutilation of the Bibles an act of hatred? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic sentiment was extremely commonplace in GB as well as the colonies in the 18th century. No one said fringe; I said "weight issues". Can you provide a source that indicates that Jefferson's actions were an "act of hatred"? If you're asking for my personal assessment, pass. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked rhetorically because the Catholic source said Jefferson hated Catholics. Jefferson was capable of hatred. Jefferson also referred to parts of the Bible as a dunghill. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

One might rhetorically ask whether rhetorical questions are the best way to further a content discussion. "Jefferson was capable of hatred" is an remarkably useless sentence. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Mutilate" comes from that obviously opinionated piece on that HistoryNet page, and nothing there convinces me that the author is an authority whose words we should accept. You may agree with the writer saying that it's awful to cut up a bible, but that's you. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe editors don't like what History.net is saying because it is true. But these sources were in the talk page for a while, and could have been commented on saving a lot of time with a lot less vitriol. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No one has said they don't like what history.net is saying. There is zero vitriol from over here. This was a case where a draft or diff was needed in order to determine suitability, "I'm going to add something to this effect" isn't quite the same thing. Having the proposal up on the talk page for almost a week isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources were provided for commenting in the talk page for about two weeks. Since there was no discussion or objections to the sources I proceeded with the edit. The source above used the term "mutilated". There was an objection to this word. I was told to tone down the wording, even though the author used the word. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are at odds with Historynet on this tone issue--It's the same reason we don't call Jefferson a "heretic" in WP voice even though your Catholic Herald source uses it.--MattMauler (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The actual objection was the edit used "mutilated" more times than the source despite being a brief summary. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand religion can be a sensitive topic to talk about, particularly a sitting President cutting up a Bible and taking out the miracles or any reference to Christ's Divinity and Ressurection, and playing Scripture off as Platonic philosophy. That might offend some people. The Catholic Herald has a right to voice an opinion over the matter. All the sources provided have names attached to them. I suppose this can be "toned down" in the article. These articles add neutrality to the article. I will try and write a "toned down" version. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

In making his Bible, Jefferson used two printed Bibles, and "sliced out the parts of the Bible that he believed and pasted them onto a folio of blank pages." For the rest of the scripture. " he didn’t believe— he left behind in two maimed, mutilated Bibles." In 1820, by the same process, cutting and pasting, Jefferson, made a second edition Bible, this time using six Bibles. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

On February 27, 2020, the Catholic Herald said Jefferson was a heretic of the week. The Catholic Herald said Jefferson believed much of Christianity was "a sort of Platonism grafted on to what he considered the “primitive religion of Jesus” – primarily to benefit the priesthood". The Catholic Herald said, Jefferson " conceived a particular hatred of Catholicism and a suspicion of most clerics of any kind." Jefferson said he was a Unitarian, but he never joined a Unitarian Church. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Are these last two comments proposed wording for the article?--MattMauler (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Attributing quotations is a step in the right direction, but The Catholic Herald's take on Jefferson has no place in the article, IMO. We should rely on scholarly sources, and it is a tertiary source from an explicitly religious perspective. Regarding HistoryNet, using words like "maimed" and "mutilated" is very unusual when discussing an inanimate object, even scriptures. It adds a needlessly inflammatory tone, not something a scholarly source would include, I think.--MattMauler (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Catholic Herald (CH) has a right to their historical opinion of Jefferson and is pertinent in this manner. The CH said Jefferson hated Catholics. It somewhat counters that Jefferson was actually for freedom of Religion. How many Catholic historians are there? How many atheist historians are out there? How many Protestant historians are out there? To a Christian, to cut up and mutilate a Bible is heresy and sacrilege. Also, this goes against Jefferson's being for freedom of Religion as popularly espoused by historians. Jefferson never cut up the Koran he had obtained to understand his Muslim slave(s). He cut up 8 Bibles. That would show a direct hostility toward Christians. Jefferson's focus on attacking Jesus is particularly troubling. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course CH has a right to their historical opinion. That doesn't mean we use them as a source though. You are intermingling your own personal synthesis in this by assuming it was a hostile act. Most Christians don't worship Bibles. VQuakr (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The History.net source used the word "mutilated". That would imply a hostile act. The civil rights act of 1968 said it was a crime to defame a religious artifact. That would include a Bible. But I am not proposing anything should be said Jefferson's actions were in anyway hostile in the article. No synthesis on my part. You have given no valid reason for Christan Herald source not to be included in the article. Is there any objection in using the History.net information? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't addressing me, but I have stated objections to both sources right above.--MattMauler (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I was asked to give two toned down edits, now the perfectly good sources are in question because they tell the truth about Jefferson mutilating Bibles and hating Catholics. My perfectly good edit was removed without discussion. No one objected to the sources before for two weeks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Second try

I have made another edit. Submitted for approval. This one is much more concise and nice.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"The way Jefferson made his Bible was both controversial and revolutionary. Although Jefferson sincerely believed he was making the Bible better, he used a penknife to cut out the scriptures he did not approve. Jefferson did this privately, to prevent a public outcry, only telling John Adams of the book.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• We can tear down false idols of history. Thomas Jefferson did it to Jesus Christ. Peter Manseau (August 13, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Why Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible Peter Manseau (September 8, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Thomas Jefferson Tried to ‘Fix’ the Bible. He Only Succeeded in Making It Sad. Daniel Silliman (December 4, 2020) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Why Thomas Jefferson Rewrote the Bible Without Jesus' Miracles and Resurrection Erin Blakemore (August 1, 2019) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• How Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible Owen Edwards (January 2012) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

My take: the only source above that I would say should be used is Smithsonian Magazine. The others are general knowledge tertiary sources. When it comes to issues of weight and tone, we need to go with better scholarly ones, and there are many, many of these available for Jefferson. I would be OK with inclusion of info that comes from these two Smithsonian articles (we can discuss and consider due weight still, I suppose). Generally, some of the Smithsonian ones are journalist-written, but their editorial board is such that I think they would be solid sources. Notably, only one of these two articles uses the term "controversial," and it says it has been so since 1904, so I would not advocate using "controversial" and "revolutionary" in the article, unless the timeline is somehow made clear.--MattMauler (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I believe we have to use internet sources sometime or other. One article says Jefferson's action could affect millions of people who hold to the Christian faith. I think it is agreed Jefferson took a blade to the Bible. It is not the book necessarily. It is the way he made the book that is controversial. I am all for using the Smithsonian articles. If the paragraph needs more "toning" that is fine by me. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources on blading bibles? I think the scholars shy away from this part of Jefferson's life. This article is supposed to be neutral. We can't sweep ugly events such as slavery and blading bibles under the rug. Scholars are human too. Two so-called "Jefferson Establishment" scholars Merrill Peterson and Dumas Malone attacked a woman historian Fawn McKay Brodie, because she brought up time line evidence Jefferson fathered slaves by Sally Hemmings. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We are obviously not going to make judgement calls like "controversial" in Wiki-voice. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The source said it has been controversial since 1904. I am willing to work with other editors. I can leave out controversy. But if it was not controversial, why did Jefferson not publish his Bible during his lifetime? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Toned version 2: [Influenced by deism, Jefferson used a razor to cut out the scriptures he did not approve of from New Testament Bibles.] Jefferson did this privately, to prevent a public outcry, only telling John Adams of the book. [Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University said Jefferson's Bible was “scripture by subtraction". The first version was produced in 1804 (now lost), and the second version was produced in 1820.] Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Any objections? Should all the sources be from the Smithsonian? Smithsonian sources in []. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Influenced by deism, Jefferson used a razor to cut out the scriptures he approved from New Testament Bibles and pasted them onto blank paper, leaving damaged discarded bibles. Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University said Jefferson's Bible was “scripture by subtraction". The first version was produced in 1804 (now lost), and the second version was produced in 1820. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Still seems overly hysterical, like we're trying to convince the reader something terrible happened here. VQuakr (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Histerical. Just the cold truth. Jefferson defaced the Bible, by the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Jefferson could be committing a crime today, defacing a Holy relic. I suppose the objection is saying he discarded damaged bibles. But it seems odd that Jefferson did not deface his Koran. Just new Testament Christian bibles. It also is odd Jefferson proclaiming Freedom Religion but defacing 8 Bibles. I can tone the words down and just use Smithsonian sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson's aim wasn't to deface Bibles, but to cut out excerpts he liked and paste them into his own book, like a scrapbook. Saying otherwise is akin to saying a surgeon mutilated a patient. Nothing needs to be changed in the way it's covered in the article now. YoPienso (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The way you intersperse your personal assessments and opinion into the content discussion is really unhelpful, FYI. I think we're verging on WP:DEADHORSE territory. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I stand corrected. This is a talk page. The Arson Prevention Act 1996 prevents the defacement of religious real property. Now if Jefferson broke into a church and destroyed the Church's bibles, that would more likely be a possible crime today. So Jefferson was not committing a legal crime, because the bibles were apparently his property. I don't want to beat a dead horse. And yes we have talked enough about this issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is(Are) there any objection(s) to adding the Smithsonian references? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the benefit of just adding more sources to the existing text? VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Because "compile" is misleading and inaccurate. That is the real issue. The passages were cut out of New Testament Bibles. It is obvious editors don't want the readers to know this. The sources mention how Jefferson's Bibles were made and the number of additions. I don't believe the article is neutral. Why not use the sources? One editor said Smithsonian was alright? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We understand you think it's a big deal. That doesn't mean it warrants mention. I'm not sure what other method besides physical cutting you think was available in the early 19th century though, and if you are trying to imply that it was because TJ hated Christianity then the sources don't support that. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I used the information from the sources. That was taken out without justification. I don't want an edit war. I don't have to have editor concensus. Just reliable sources. Smithsonian is reliable. Why not let the reader know what Jefferson actually did? It no use to go around in circles. I need to get off this merry go round. Good day. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course you need consensus per WP:ONUS. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If I am seeing the diff correctly, the only additional words were a conjunction and "cut out" added to "compile" (then more bytes added because of the additional source too). If that is correct, I would be fine with adding that extra phrase. It's not inflammatory tone-wise, doesn't add undue emphasis imo, and it's in the source cited.--MattMauler (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear I am contesting the addition of "cut out" as undue and the addition of the sources without added content as unnecessary ref bloat. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no editor consensus. But editors don't have to get a consensus unless there is an actual dispute. There seems to be one here. Who is contesting? The last message was left unsigned? Yes. All I did was add cut-out, going by the reliable Smithsonian source. The source actually said to use a razor. Jefferson had problems with clerics, but he had problems with the New Testament Bible too. I agree with MattMauler. I believe the edit was toned and appropriate for the article. The controversy, in essence, is not Jefferson's Bible, it is just the way he made the Bible. He did compile passages by cutting them out of the Bible. The term compiles alone makes it sound as if Jefferson is just gathering loose manuscripts and putting them together. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I dropped a fifth tilde into my signature on accident; fixed now. "Had problems with the New Testament Bible" is your personal synthesis. You are not the arbiter of whether an editor's reasons for contesting are valid. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That was Jefferson's synthesis. Jefferson believed the authors of the Bible corrupted Christ's teaching. Obviously, there is an issue with the words "cut out". MattMauler has no issue with the words. I am just defending the edits I made. I am not an arbiter of anything. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I boldly edited that part about an hour ago. I don't specifically object to "cut out," but did not add those words. VQuakr is mistaken about synthesis, since the sources are clear that TJ thought most of the New Testament distorted the historical Jesus. YoPienso (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

change ((Declaration of Independence)) to ((United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence)) 2601:541:4580:8500:983D:84D3:D1C9:1FE1 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That's what it reads. Can you provide an example of how it appears incorrectly? Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I found the instance IP was mentioning and just unlinked it since we already wl to the US Declaration of Independence 3-4 times. Cannolis (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Errors on page

As I was just now tweaking the lead, I received these notices in garish colors:

Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).

Script warning: One or more {{cite magazine}}: Empty citation (help) templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

Script warning: One or more {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

I didn't touch any citations. Just putting this here for someone who's good at fixing such errors. YoPienso (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

I suggest trimming the initial description of TJ from ...was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, architect, philosopher, and Founding Father who served as the 3rd president of the United States from 1801 to 1809 to ...was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, and Founding Father who served as the 3rd president of the United States from 1801 to 1809.
After the first sentence, we can add other descriptors.
Sample:
...was an American statesman, diplomat, lawyer, and Founding Father who served as the 3rd president of the United States from 1801 to 1809. He was previously the second vice president of the United States under John Adams and the first United States secretary of state under George Washington. Born a planter, he was also an architect, philosopher, and linguist. As the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was a proponent of democracy, republicanism, and individual rights, motivating American colonists to break from the Kingdom of Great Britain and form a new nation; he produced formative documents and decisions at both the state and national levels. YoPienso (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change "philosopher" to "man of letters". Also, Jefferson was a proponent of democracy for white males. Jefferson was a strong proponent of slavery. Henry Weincec says Jefferson calculated how to profiteer from slavery. These are statements of fact. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson viewed blacks were inherently inferior and whites should be their caretakers, according to his Notes on the State of Virginia. Blacks would not serve in Congress until the Grant administration during Reconstruction. This is not judgemental. Just statements of fact. Also, the intro makes Jefferson look like a 21st Century civil rights activist. Why not present the man for who he was. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

My God, this was already settled in the incredibly long discussion about Jefferson being a philosopher above. Just drop it. The word "philosopher" belongs in the lead. I support the sample provided by YoPienso. Anwegmann (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing was settled in the above discussion on changing the word "philosopher" to "man of papers". No one gave any input on that. I have made no word changes to the lead. I did not start this new discussion on the lead. I will agree there is no editor consensus to change the word philosopher. Consider it dropped. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead also says Jefferson was a proponent of Democracy and individual rights. Senators were elected by state bodies, not the people. The President is elected by the electoral college, not the people. Slaves had no individual rights nor for that matter women and Indians. What did Jefferson do that was democratic and helped individual rights? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• How Wealthy Were the Founding Fathers? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson, a compulsive shopper, married the daughter of a slave trader, inheriting his fortune and his debts. Jefferson went on a fifty-year spending spree, furnishing his mountaintop mansion with art and artifacts from London and Paris." How Wealthy Were the Founding Fathers? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is. Does the lead saying "wealthy person," and I'm just not seeing it? Also, did Jefferson write the Constitution, which established (originally) that Senators would be elected by state legislatures? No. Was Jefferson a notable critic of the Constitution? Yes. (see Shankman's Crucible of American Democracy at https://books.google.com/books?id=AK4oAQAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PR3&dq=jefferson's%20democracy&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false and Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy at https://books.google.com/books?id=2kybvdPsBTYC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=jefferson%27s%20democracy&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false) Did he advocate for a more democratic future for the United States, seeing expansion westward as a critical action to that end and the establishment a so-called "Yeoman Republic"? Yes (see Onuf's Jefferson's Empire at https://books.google.com/books?id=lyj04Yksc1kC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=Thomas%20Jefferson%20the%20west&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false). I think you would also benefit from the perspective of Alan Taylor here https://books.google.com/books?id=yvyKDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=Thomas%20Jefferson&pg=PT12#v=onepage&q&f=false and John Boles here https://books.google.com/books?id=TYbUDAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA1&dq=Thomas%20Jefferson%20boles&pg=PT10#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20Jefferson%20boles&f=false when considering Jefferson's legacy and the moral weight of his life in the past. To advocate for something is not to advocate for every imagined version of that thing. Nothing is pure, especially in an individual's mind and especially in the past when seen from the present. I, too, am not very interested in debating you. Anwegmann (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not debating anything. I supplied a reliable source for discussion. The source presented Jefferson as a self interested person. Nothing wrong with that, but the current lead makes Jefferson look like a political saint. It is also contradicting to say Jefferson supported democracy, but at the same time profited from slavery. All I am suggesting is to add a little more critical assessment of Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point, Cmguy777. I made a minor tweak, though it doesn't nearly go far enough IMO. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I think the addition looks good. Nothing judgmental. Just telling people who Jefferson was and referenced to the time he lived in. Some critical commentary in the lead is good. Jefferson fully approved of the Constitution as created in 1787, even though he was not there. He did advocate the 1st Amendment rights, to his credit. The original constitution was very conservative. Senators are elected by state legislatures. The President by an electoral college. Blacks were not specifically named but were viewed as "property" and there was a fugitive slave clause embedded in the constitution. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I know what's in the Constitution. I also know that Jefferson did not remotely "fully approve" of the Constitution, and the historiographical consensus—see above—would say the same. Again, if you would bother to read established scholarship about Jefferson and the Early Republic (you can begin with the many books I have linked in my many responses on this page), you would realize that you are incorrect and see that his political and social views were not as black-and-white as you seem to want to paint them. It is so tiresome discussing all of this with you, because you don't pay attention to the sources others provide, repeat incorrect (or at least woefully under-supported) facts and opinions in the guise of facts, and seem to refuse to engage or consider why the scholarly consensus is the consensus. I'm not saying any of this because I want Jefferson to look a certain way. I don't care about that at all. I only care that we don't misconstrue and misrepresent what the scholarly consensus is concerning Jefferson.

As for the addition Drmies included in the lead, I'm not entirely opposed to it. I don't agree that the point that brought it about was good. The opening paragraph of the lead did/does not at all make Jefferson appear to be a "political saint." It simply stated the facts behind why he is historically important and notable. Whether an individual chooses to see those facts as "positive" or "negative" is up to that individual, not Wikipedia. Regardless, my only serious concern with the new addition is that the lead already mentions all of the things added. In the fifth paragraph of the lead, his plantation ownership is mentioned. In the sixth paragraph, his ownership of more than 600 slaves is mentioned alongside his fathering of six children with one of them. One could reasonably argue that because those facts are not definitive of his historical importance/notability (they are, however, very important to the context of his life), they do not belong in the opening paragraph of the lead, alongside such things as his primary authorship of the Dec of Ind, his vice-presidency, his presidency, and his importance to the founding of the United States–all facts that define why there is a Wikipedia article about him and why he is notable. Rather, they should be spread over the lead section. The newly added facts are important to Jefferson's life, and they belong in the lead and in the article, but they are not definitive of his overall notability, so they do not belong in the opening paragraph of the lead. They belong where they already appeared before the new addition—in the lead but in the contextual paragraphs below the opener. That's my "two cents." Anwegmann (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Anwegmann, "It simply stated the facts behind why he is historically important and notable"--well, it stated some of those facts. I can sum up a few more things, things that I teach in my Early American Lit class, when we get to his writing on slavery, but the most important thing for me right now was to make that first paragraph at least a bit more balanced. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don't fully disagree with you. Hardly. I totally get what you're trying to do, and I think it's valid. The problem I'm having is that his ownership of a plantation, his ownership of slaves, and his fathering of children with one of those slaves do not, unfortunately, separate him from a great many others in his time and space. They do not define his notoriety in broad expanse of (U.S.) history. That doesn't mean that's not important or meaningful. Far from it. Indeed, I am well aware of his writings on race and the repugnance of his comments on Africans in Notes on the State of Virginia as well as in a number of letters (notably that to Francis Gray in 1815—https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-08-02-0245). Those things define the circumstances of his life and portions of his character, no doubt. But on their own, they tell us very little about why he deserves as dedicated Wikipedia article—the ultimate goal of the opening to the lead. They belong in the article and in the lead—and perhaps they deserve their own article—and they are important facts about Jefferson, but they are not facts that make Jefferson important. The notability derived from what is already in the opening paragraph is what makes his slave ownership and vile racial theories important, not the other way around. Anwegmann (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll take that as "agreement". I'm hoping that you are not going to spend a million words to argue that we should not include that information early on. "On their own"--no one is arguing to replace the lead with "Thomas Jefferson was an American rapist and slave owner". The ultimate goal of the lead is not to explain why the subject needs an article--it is to summarize the subject. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That's precisely why I didn't revert your addition. I think it's clear that I don't think that information fits in the first paragraph of the lead, for the reasons I have made clear above. That said, I don't think it has a negative effect on what that paragraph is there to accomplish, and I am more than willing to compromise and work with other editors. I think your addition, more or less, represents a success to that end. Anwegmann (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My sources for Jefferson include Weincec (2012) Master of the Mountain Thomas Jefferson and his slaves; Kilmeade-Yeager (2015) Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates; and Merrill D. Peterson (2002) Thomas Jefferson The Presidents a Reference History ed. Henry F. Graff. I am not disputing any sources given on the talk page for reference. So Jefferson being a wealthy slave owner is "not definitive of his historical importance/notability". Weincec's (2012) definitive and groundbreaking book demonstrated how slavery was historically important and part of Jefferson's life at Monticello. I believe the subject belongs in the first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, slavery was "historically important and part of Jefferson's life at Monticello." What I say above fully agrees with that statement, and I agree with Weincek to that end as well. It is not, however, as you now seem to agree, not definitive of his historical importance/notability. The ultimate purpose of the opening paragraph of the lead to establish the latter.

And just as an aside, Kilmeade-Yeager is an admittedly partisan, non-peer-reviewed narrative published by the "dedicated conservative imprint" Sentinel. This is not to say that it has no value. But we should be skeptical of its intent and the way it construes sources to meet its partisan argument. I continue to urge you to engage more peer-reviewed scholarship on Jefferson to get a better sense of scholarly consensus.

I think we fully agree, very basically, that slavery was important to Jefferson and his life. Although that was not at all in question at any point here, I see that as a "handshake moment." ;-) Anwegmann (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes a "handshake moment". As far as the Kilmeade-Yeager book, I found no obvious partisanship in the narration, conservative or liberal. However, I am not a fan of double authors because I don't know whose opinion is who. Weincec said Jefferson rationalized slavery to "a point where an absolute moral reversal was reached and he made slavery fit into America's national enterprise." Also, slavery was part of the revolution because slavery was part of the constitution. Slave masters like Jefferson could retrieve slaves from other states. Slaves gave Jefferson more representation in Congress in the 3/5 person clause. Slavery was part of the American Revolution. I know there is repetitive information in the first paragraph. I would put in the first paragraph Jefferson represented a moral paradox, who made slavery fit into America's national enterprise. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We're talking in circles now. No one is challenging anything you're saying about slavery as it existed in the Constitution and Jefferson's life.

Based on what you're saying, though, Jefferson was not a moral paradox at all. Indeed, based on your comments, the founding of the United States itself was a moral paradox, of which Jefferson was but one of many parts. I don't disagree with that at all. Slavery absolutely called into question almost all of the standards upon which and by which the United States took form, especially in the Constitution. That too is long established in scholarship (see Fehrenbacher's The Slaveholding Republic at https://books.google.com/books?id=tY8_W36yZCwC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false). But, again, this goes beyond the bounds of what makes Jefferson notable—what makes him deserving of a Wikipedia article of his own rather than a place in the article for, say, the American Revolution. And to single Jefferson out for something that is inherent to one of the larger processes in which he took part, and that is encapsulated in a Constitution he did not sign, write, take part in, or fully support, is disingenuous and misleading, especially in the opening paragraph of a lead. Anwegmann (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I made changes to the lead. I moved the first paragraph sentence to the last paragraph in the lead. I quoted Wiencek in the first paragraph. Jefferson is mentioned as a moral paradox who rationalized slavery into America's nation enterprise. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The addition that was already there is better than what you added and functions as a better compromise. Your addition also did not represent this discussion or any agreement we had arrived at. I'm fine with keeping it as is. Anwegmann (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I was fine with the compromise too. But there was said to be duplicate information. I am content leaving it the way it is now. My edit was sourced by Wiencek. I gave the page number. Wiencek said Jefferson was a paradox concerning slavery. Wiencek believed Jefferson rationalized slavery, making slavery acceptable for American society. I believe that was done in Notes on the State of Virginia. That counters that Jefferson was for democracy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So much for the compromise. I think the Thomas Jefferson Foundation is more critical of Jefferson. Is there a cult of Jefferson? Maybe. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say Jefferson was a disciple of philosophy or philosophers, modern French and ancient Cicero, but what was Jefferson's original philosophy? There is no dedicated book by Jefferson on philosophy. Reading through multiple letters by Jefferson to friends, and then trying to piece together some vague philosophical outline is both impractical and unreliable. What was Jefferson's original philosophy? Maybe he had none. It was not enough to call him a philosopher. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to delete his relationship from the article about Maria Cosway

This article contains a short paragraph about Jefferson's relationship with Maria Cosway. On the other hand, the article about Maria Cosway has a very lengthy section about it. I propose to remove that section from the Cosway article on grounds that it is undue emphasis. So I am leaving this topic to alert anyone who is particularly attached to it.

Here is the assessment I left for discussion in the article about Maria Cosway.

The statement that painter, musician, and educator Maria Cosway is best known for a relationship with Thomas Jefferson seems undue emphasis at best and incorrect at worst. None of the following sources mention the relationship. 1. the entry for Maria Cosway in the Dictionary of National Biography 2. the entry for her husband Richard Cosway in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (sadly there is no entry for Maria Cosway herself) 3. the entry for Thomas Jefferson in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica nor 4. the entry for Maria Cosway in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia The Wikipedia article about Thomas Jefferson has only one short paragraph about him falling in love with Cosway over six weeks, after which they stayed in correspondence, as did many people in that era, until his death. I conclude that the section is undue emphasis and does not belong here. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy clarification statement

No. I am not trumping up old arguments or rehashing older issues. However, since the article calls Jefferson a philosopher, a statement in the article should clarify what Jefferson's philosophy was. Is there such a statement in the article "Jefferson's philosophy was...". It could be just one or two sentences. He could be called an Epicurian. He had a taste for the finer things in life. What philosophy did Jefferson practice? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, since he did not talk or write about philosophy, we cannot say what his philosophy was. TFD (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I think it better to call him a "disciple of philosophy" and a "man of letters" rather than a philosopher. The text addition says: "his work provided the theoretical background to, and the substance of, the social and political events of the revolutionary years and the period of the development of the American Constitution in the 1770s and 1780s" This does not explain what Jefferson's philosophy per se. By his lifestyle, Jefferson was an Epicurian. Jefferson admired Cicero and French Philosophy. That does not make him a philosopher. The addition does not say what Jefferson's philosophy was. It also says "his work". What work? The Declaration of Independence was authored by three people. But there is no way to authenticate Jefferson was the sole author. The DOA is the closet document that Jefferson co-authored that resembles philosophy. That is not enough to call him a philosopher. "All men are created equal" but he owned hundreds of slaves. "Pursuit of happiness" but his slaves (except two) and their offsprings were slaves perpetually. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Philosopher

What do sources say Jefferson was a philosopher? Did Jefferson espouse any philosophy? Apparently, his only published work was Notes on the State of Virginia. That seems more like history and geography than a philosophy book. In other words what was Jefferson's philosophy? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson's philosophy was that citizens have "certain inalienable rights" that are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". However the Declaration of Independence was written by three people, including Benjamin Franklin. Is that enough for Jefferson to be a philospopher? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson wrote far more than just the Declaration of Independence. His letters to Buffon, his work with Lafayette, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, to name just three of many, many other examples, firmly establish Jefferson as a known and active member of the Enlightenment and the Atlantic intellectual world. Peter Onuf's work (see Jefferson's Empire at https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/1917) as well as Maurizio Valsania's work (see Nature's Man and The Limits of Optimism at https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4579 and https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4243) do well at exploring, in great detail, Jefferson's complex philosophy as well as his interaction with and acceptance by the philosophical world of the late 18th century. Anwegmann (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Burstein's work also discusses it (see Sentimental Democracy and Madison and Jefferson [with Nancy Isenberg] at https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780809085361/sentimentaldemocracy and https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/85579/madison-and-jefferson-by-andrew-burstein-and-nancy-isenberg/) and so does Robert McDonald's work (see Confounding Father at https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4775). Anwegmann (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The first three seem to be Jeffersonian apologists. That is not bad in itself. I take Jefferson's letters to Buffon were private letters. One source, the Madison and Jefferson biography, describes Jefferson and Madison as men of "their times, hardboiled operatives in a gritty world of primal politics where they struggled for supremacy for more than fifty years." That does not sound like philosophy. Are freedom of religion and the enlightenment considered a philosophy? The DOI could be considered a philosophy, at least in the first part. But again, there were three authors to the document. My concern is that Jefferson, as far as I know, never wrote a published book on philosophy. What philosophy tells people to question the existence of God? So my main concern, again, is what document, specifically states Jefferson's own philosophy of life? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• 10 American Philosophers and Why You Should Know Them Jefferson is not listed. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• The Most Famous Philosophers from the United States Jefferson is not listed. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• 10 Greatest American Philosophers Jefferson is listed #3. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Famous American Philosophers I could not find Jefferson included in the ranking. Thomas Paine seems to be more of an American philosopher than Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• 20 Major Philosophers & Their Big Ideas Jefferson is not listed. John Locke is. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Onuf and Valsania are categorically not Jefferson "apologists". What makes you figure that? More to the point, though, to be a recognized member of the Enlightenment is certainly to be a recognized philosopher and thinker, as that was the predicate of the Enlightenment itself. Philosophy of thought does not need to be a public act. It must be acted upon in some fashion, but it itself does not need to be public, insofar as public writings are concerned. He acted upon, considered, reconsidered, tested, and advocated for a complex and dedicated philosophy throughout his entire life, most notably, of course, in his service to the Early American Republic and as president. I would be skeptical of using www.thefamouspeople.com, www.toptenz.com, and www.bigthink.com over peer-reviewed, globally acknowledged experts. A Google search is not necessarily going to explain and lay out the full complexity of Jefferson's philosophy, just as it is not going to flush out the significance of an important event. Indeed, isn't that was Wikipedia, in part, is for—synthesizing important, complex information? Does one need to be called a "philosopher" in order to have a practicable, acknowledged, and considered philosophy? I'm not sure what you're getting at with this inquiry, as I think you should read the books I cited above to get a full picture of how important Jeffersonian philosophy was to Early American political and cultural discourse. Saul Cornell's The Other Founders also discusses this, as does Peter Kastor's The Nation's Crucible. There's an entire historiography on this that you seem to be pushing aside either as "apologists" and/or in lieu of Top 10 lists. Also, did you read beyond that sentence in Madison and Jefferson? If you did, you'd find that Madison and Jefferson's relationship was largely defined by a shared concept of political philosophy that both sought to enact, at least at first, in different ways. Their once disparate visions of the future, though, eventually came together, creating the "Jeffersonian Era" the attempted enactment of the Jeffersonian vision—i.e. philosophy. Anwegmann (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, a lot of philosophy's instruct people to question the existence of God. Walt Whitman does that, in part, in his preface to Leaves of Grass, Descartes fumbles with the idea, Voltaire is pretty obvious about it, as is Rousseau in The Emile, although to a much less virulent degree than Voltaire. The Enlightenment itself, while not declaring itself atheistic (which is certainly wasn't), came pretty close to an explicit suggestion to question at least God's place in human life. The French Revolution espoused about as close to that belief as possible without stamping it across its proverbial face (which it kind of did with churches and monasteries, etc.). Again, I'm not sure what you're asking or why that's critically important to Jefferson. I wouldn't say that he ever explicitly (or really clearly implicitly) instructed anyone to question the outright existence of a god. I can't say the same thing about the Christian God, necessarily, but he was never outright atheistic in his cultural and social vision. He was very human, focusing on a citizenry of virtuous yeomen to fulfil his republican vision of the future, but that is not necessarily attached to the direct questioning of the existence of g/God, even if it suggests a renewed focus on an active humanity over an active deity. Anwegmann (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The idea that being an atheist makes Jefferson a philosopher is ludicrous. Jonathon Edwards was a philosopher. Jefferson was a follower of the enlightenment, not it's inventor. If Jefferson was a philosopher what was his philosophy? That is all I am asking and why I started the talk page. The DOI was written by three people, not Jefferson alone. Was Jefferson's philosophy basically to pursue happiness? Does that merit him being a philosopher? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Rather than call Jefferson a "philosopher" I propose calling him a "champion of the Enlightenment" for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't just a "champion of the Enlightenment." He was a member of it, actively engaged with other thinkers and philosophers of his time and a participant of the conversations and discourse that defined the later periods of the era. Again, to be a philosopher does not require one to have written specifically for a popular audience. One can just as easily have been a philosopher by actively and continually engaging in philosophical discourse. Jefferson did both of those things, the latter more so than the former. Anwegmann (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Who said that being an atheist makes Jefferson a philosopher? I certainly didn't, because that is indeed an ludicrous claim. I'm not sure what you're reading into here. In any case, Jefferson was not a "follower" of the Enlightenment but rather a member of it. Obvious he didn't "invent" it; and no one here is claiming anything close to that. Jefferson's philosophy is not a single sentence, just like Rousseau's, Voltaire's, Locke's, Smith's, etc. are not single sentences but rather lifetimes of thought. Like almost every other philosopher who has ever lived, Jefferson's philosophy is incredibly complex—hence the 8 books I have recommended above (which, for the record, cover only a small portion of scholarship available on Jefferson's philosophical framework and outlook). Given that he authored the vast majority of the Declaration of Independence, including a personal draft in Notes on Virginia (along with the several incarnations available in the Papers of Thomas Jefferson series from Princeton University Press), that's certainly a starting point. The problem is that above you reduced the "philosophy" of the Dec. of Ind. down to "unalienable rights." That's certainly a core principle of it, but the paragraph that follows that assertion of those rights means much more and lays out a critical philosophy of republicanism very much in the style of the Enlightenment. It is that philosophy—that of republicanism and social optimism and liberty—that most closely define Jefferson's philosophy, at least as far as single terms can define it. Those ideas find their ways into almost everything Jefferson wrote and did for the rest of his life and are not only found in the Dec. of Ind. The Declaration is merely a starting point, an opportunity for him to craft a philosophy of national creation on the eve of that very creation. The technical fact that there were others on the committee does not away from the more direct fact that Jefferson's words define the framework and ideology (and the action itself) of the document—as evidenced both by his drafts and, most importantly, the continuity of the philosophy of republicanism, optimism, and liberty throughout both that document and Jefferson's intellectual life. I feel like you're talking past me a bit. I appreciate the work you're doing on this page and in the Talk page, but you seem caught up on specific notions (belief in God, the idea of having a specific philosophy, etc.) I suppose the crux of what I'm trying say in all of this is that you need to do the reading in order to get a full answer to your question. It would take several books to explain exactly what Jefferson's philosophy was—and, hell, even what "pursuit of happiness" means. That's why I don't entirely understand what you're trying to do here. Read the books cited above if you're interested in Jefferson's philosophy. It's a very interesting and complex topic that can't be reduced to the Talk page of a Wikipedia article. Anwegmann (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The first part of the DOA is written well and in a philosophical manner. I agree with that. But the two other authors deserve credit, not Jefferson alone. It is doubtful Jefferson corresponded with respected British moralist and educator Samuel Johnson, for eight years during the revolutionary war. Plato has his Republic. What book does Jefferson have? None. I don't want to go in circles. Jefferson enveloped the enlightenment but that does not make him a great philosopher like John Locke. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Thomas Jefferson was a philosopher by all measures, except perhaps the arbitrary ones you have created here, as well as an active member of the Enlightenment who has the ear, pen, and respect of nearly every active political philosopher of the late Enlightenment from the 1770s well into the 19th century. Again, if you would actually read into the subject, rather than establish random and haphazard measurements of "great[ness]", that would become clear to you. And yet again, you are speaking past me and clearly not actually reading what I have said here. No one has even suggested that the other two members of the Declaration committee don't deserve or should not get credit. That is an invention of your mind. The reality, though, is that Jefferson's social and political philosophy is/are the framework upon which the Declaration of Independence was drafted, edited, adopted, and put into place. The books I have mentioned above as well as an entire massive historiography make that exceedingly clear. I don't know what else to say to you. You are not interested in reading my responses in earnest, and you seem hellbent on finding exacting definitions where they simply cannot exist. To list someone as a philosopher does not insinuate that they were "great" or prolific. It only suggests that they engaged earnestly and meaningfully in the philosophical discourse of their time. Jefferson decidedly did that. I don't know any other ways to put it that you are willing to engage. Oh, and the Enlightenment did not only take place in Britain, obviously. If you would actually look into it—like in the Papers of Thomas Jefferson volumes 2 through 6—you would see that Jefferson wrote something like 1,500 letters during the Revolution, nearly 100 to noted philosophers and thinkers across the Atlantic World, including Prussia, British North America, Spain, and, most notably, France. This discussion is no longer productive. Please engage the scholarship on this topic. Anwegmann (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have read your comments. I even said the first part of the DOA was written philosophically. Thought was put into it. Jefferson was a great letter writer. Letters are not the same as a book and are private. I am not discounting the letters in any way. If there are discussions of philosophy or anything that reveals Jefferson's philosophy, in his letters, that is good. All I am saying is that there is no one book, authored solely by Jefferson, that gives his specific philosophy, like Plato and the Republic. I have given 5 links above. I don't think they should be discarded, especially the one that ranked Jefferson as the #3 philosopher. I am not "hell-bent" on anything. We don't have to continue the discussion. We can stop. I just felt having one was appropriate. Thanks to everyone who participated. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

For the article, I think what Jefferson wrote is less important than how he is viewed by historians and biographers:

• Meacham, Jon (2016). Thomas Jefferson: President and Philosopher. Random House. ISBN 9780385387521.
• Lerner, Max (2011). Thomas Jefferson: America's Philosopher-King. Routledge. p. 98. OCLC 1067240252. ...although his broad generalizations about press freedom, as a famed philosopher of the Enlightenment...
• Holowchak, Mark (2019). The Cavernous Mind of Thomas Jefferson, an American Savant. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 213. ISBN 9781527541146. He was a philosopher, an inventor, a philologist, a religionist, a farmer, a musician, an architect, a naturalist, a lawyer, a diplomat, a scientist, among other things...
• Ellis, Joseph J. (1998). American Sphinx. Knopf. p. 184. ISBN 9780375727467. ...the happily retired farmer-philosopher...
• Holowchak, M. Andrew (2014). Thomas Jefferson and Philosophy. Lexington Books. p. VII. ISBN 9780739180921. Thomas Jefferson is widely recognized to have worn numerous "hats" — that of statesman, farmer, inventor, scientist, religionist, and philosopher, among others.
• Holowchack, Mark (2014). Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision. Prometheus Books. ISBN 9781616149536. ...significant American political and education philosopher
• Kaminski, John P. (2005). Thomas Jefferson: Philosopher and Politician. Parallel Press. ISBN 9781893311596.
• Whitelaw, Nancy (2002). Thomas Jefferson: Philosopher and President. Morgan Reynolds. ISBN 9781883846817.

Schazjmd (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Burstein and Isenburg book says Jefferson and Madison were men of their times and hardboiled operatives. Not that that is a bad thing in itself, but certainly not enlightened ivory tower philosophers. Some critical view should be allowed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have sources that disagree with that characterization of Jefferson or have a critical view of it that should be detailed in the body, great. Schazjmd (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Allowing cited, critical views in the body was never at issue here. I will remind you, though, that the sentence you continue to cite from Burstein and Isenberg's Madison and Jefferson is from the introduction of an 800-page book on Madison and Jefferson's political philosophy and relationship and does not challenge the idea of Jefferson being a philosopher, especially in light of the rest of the narrative laid out in the book. Many philosophers are political operatives, and all philosophers are people of their times. It remains, too, that the historiographical consensus (including the work of Burstein and Isenberg) is that Jefferson was very much a philosopher of the early national United States. Indeed, on page 625 of Madison and Jefferson, Burstein and Isenberg state that "Jefferson strikes us as an exacting natural philosopher who, though he dreamed incessantly, simultaneously cultivated a stern moralism that yielded a binary outlook on many subjects." We need to be sure, then, that we are not simply adding "critical" perspectives because they exist or because they appear to challenge the consensus. If they are meaningful, consistent, and clear, go ahead and add a cited comment about it in the body. But opposing views exist for almost every established fact. As such, we need to be discerning about which ones we take seriously and/or which ones are consistent enough deserve coverage alongside and in light of scholarly consensus. Anwegmann (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd goes to the heart of the issue. I am commenting just to affirm and remind that what matters for the article is how he is characterized in WP:RS, many of which call him a philosopher. That's all we need.--MattMauler (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd quoted, "Jefferson strikes us as an exacting natural philosopher. . ."

Let's remember that meant a scientist before modern science existed. YoPienso (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they did. In any case, I agree with Schazjmd entirely, and the quote only serves to reinforce the point they were making.

And during the Enlightenment, when the scientific method was being established, science was very much a philosophical endeavor. Anwegmann (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

100% Anwegmann (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I randomly selected one of your sources you quote as saying Jefferson was a "significant American political and education philosopher." By selectively quoting the text, you misrepresented that he is "viewed by historians and biographers" as a philosopher. The full sentence says, "I treat Jefferson as a philosopher and aim to show that he is a significant American political and education philosopher whose contribution to philosophy has gone unnoticed because he never concretized his philosophy in published formal treatises."

The author begins his book by saying, "Jefferson has been treated seriously as a biologist, paleontologist, agrarianist, architect, meteorologist, and philologist among other things but seldom as a philosopher. Moreover, except for reading his Declaration of Independence, he is mostly disregarded by philosophers." (p.1)

All you really say is that some writers have attempted to find a coherent philosophy through careful examination of his writings. You have not shown that they have had any success in persuading most "historians and philosophers.

TFD (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The author's assertion of previous scholarship not taking Jefferson seriously as a philosopher seems to run counter to the 14 other works cited in this discussion alone that do, indeed, take Jefferson seriously. I'm not sure what to make of that. Indeed, based on the historiography listed in this discussion, that statement by Holowchack would appear to be incorrect, or at least self-serving (an attempt at "uniqueness of argument", the classic "No one has ever said this before..."). In any case, though, the reason he is making that claim in the first place is because he is arguing that Jefferson is and ought to be seen as a philosopher—an argument supported by more than a dozen other works cited here. Whether or not the author thinks that is a unique position to take is less important than the fact that he is taking the position. Anwegmann (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any of the books myself to view the full contexts, The Four Deuces, I just did a simple GB search to confirm what I'd always considered general knowledge, that one of Jefferson's primary descriptors is "philosopher". I think it's common enough that it would seem odd to omit it from the opening. Absolutely that should be expanded on in the body. An interesting paper on the topic (though not as recent as the books) is "Jefferson Among the Philosphers" in Ethics, which says In fact, he went to France and was received in France not as a student and a disciple but as a master and a political philospher in his own right. and concludes The practical statesman who made an unprecedented effort to combine, harmonize, and institutionalize the teachings of the ancients, the morals of Jesus, and the new science of man may not have been a 'philosopher of genius' or even a very profound thinker; he stands among the philosophers not only as the herald of positivism but as the champion of self-disciplined individualism and the prophet of a new humanism. Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TDF. The remedy then would be to add some critical counter point to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Do that. Just be sure to cite the sources and make sure that the sources say what you think they are saying. Remember, too, that a philosopher does not need to be on par with Locke, Johnson, Rousseau, etc. to be seen as a philosopher. "Great philosophers" are not all philosophers, just as "great footballers," "great bowlers," "great poets" are not all footballers, all bowlers, and all poets. Again, adding a reasonable, consistent counter point to the body of the article was never at issue here. Anwegmann (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think that Holowchack is wrong, then please provide me with a quote that contradicts him. The fact that you have listed books that call Jefferson a philosopher (three of them by Holowchack btw), does not establish that it is a significant view. There must be thousands of books about Jefferson. Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson barely touches the surface. I appreciate you do not have access to these books. But you should not try to insert material if you are unfamiliar with the sources.

As someone who has studied philosophy, I don't recognize Jefferson's writings as philosophical texts. Where are his essays on the mind-body debate, causation, or epistemology? It seems that he is only a philosopher in the vernacular sense: he thought about big issues of morality, society and religion.

A similar discussion continues to arise at the Ayn Rand article, where her followers attempt to insert that she was a philosopher. In fact, she did write books about philosophy, it's just that they have had no impact on the subject and it isn't what she is known for.

TFD (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't recognize Jefferson's writings as philosophical texts. This and your stated definition/requirements to be considered a philosopher appear to be WP:OR. Also, Ayn Rand is a terrible philosopher (and a terrible novelist), but she is a philosopher according to WP. Why? Reliable sources call her that. Same with Jefferson. If there are RS that contradict this, then a critical view can be added, but it can't be based on what we think a philosopher is or should be.--MattMauler (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you addressing me or Schazjmd? If you're addressing me, your assumption that I don't have access to the books is incorrect. As someone who wrote part of their dissertation of Jefferson and his philosophy of republicanism and nation-building and has studied the Early American Republic as a professional historian for nearly 15 years, I am very well versed in his political philosophy as well as the historiography on Jefferson and Jeffersonian thought. That Jefferson is considered a philosopher, even if a "lay" one, by historians and biographers is all but entirely standard. It would take an unreasonable amount of time to comb through every book on Jefferson to find exacting quotes demonstrating the consensus of the historiography to that end. I have listed 9 books, each of which convincingly demonstrates that Jefferson was actively engaged in philosophical debates for the majority of his life and enacted a philosophical vision while in positions of power, known and acknowledged in both Europe and North America. None of those books argue outright that Jefferson "is a philosopher," because that is not the way historiography is created. But they all clearly demonstrate it. Additionally, none of those books were written by Holowchack, and all of them were published by peer-reviewed university presses by noted Jefferson scholars. I'm not sure what more you want beyond what would require a book-length synthesis of all the ways Jefferson's "philosopherhood" is demonstrated in dozens and dozens of texts.

As for his expected essays, I would refer you back to my comments above. It is unfair and unreasonable for you to establish a list of topics that one must have engaged in order to be deemed a "philosopher." Valsania's work Nature's Man, cited in my comment above, is entirely about his philosophy on humanity's existence in nature, the nature of the self, and his philosophy on how an ideal society can and ought to be formed. It is supported by hundreds of Jefferson's writings and actions and studied in the context of those and the writings and actions of others in relation to Jefferson. Although they are not on your list of philosophical topics, they were important ideas in the mid-to-late Enlightenment on both sides of the Atlantic and demonstrate that Jefferson's thoughts were not wholly internal and very much affected the thoughts and actions of others.

And it does not require someone to be a "follower" of Jefferson to see him as a philosopher. Of course, "followers" of any idea or person are difficult to side with fully. I am not arguing for or against Jefferson's ideas, at least on merit. I am, however, stating that Jefferson's ideas, and his actions in support of those ideas, were definitively philosophical, for better or for worse. Anwegmann (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I admit that I'm beginning to tire of this, and I'm becoming exhausted and frustrated by it. For my own sake, it is not worth the level of frustration I have gotten out of it. So I am taking myself out of this discussion, having demonstrated the reasoning behind my "vote" that Jefferson was a philosopher and should be listed as such in the lede. I have provided a meaningful collection of scholarly texts that support my position. I can't do much more without synthesizing all of them at great and unnecessary effort to me. I hope you all engage that scholarship before making a decision on this and take into account what I have written here. If you don't, so be it. I appreciate each of your voices here and the discussion that has come out of it. Til next time. Anwegmann (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As stated above I think that this can be resolved by a compromise. Keep Jefferson as a philosopher, but add a critical assessment. I can try to write a sample. It could be two or three sentences. Maybe it is similar to this. Jefferson was a lawyer, but he did not make his living as a lawyer. As far as I know, he may have only formerly represented a few people, including a slave, in his younger days. Without an actual book on philosophy, it is difficult to assess what Jefferson's actual philosophy was. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sample

Jefferson did not formalize his philosophy in a book, as a result, his contribution to philosophy has gone unnoticed or is disregarded by most philosophers. One critical source, Burstein and Isenberg, suggests Jefferson, rather than viewed as a philosopher, was a "hardboiled" operative and a man of his times "in a gritty world of primal politics". Cmguy777 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to comment. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

These quotations do not appear to be from the book itself, but from the blurb on the publisher's website here. Also, and just as importantly, does the book place Jefferson's status as a philosopher in opposition to his status as a calculating ("hardboiled") politician? These are not mutually exclusive (unless they are somehow explicitly defined as such by these scholars). The blurb places it in opposition to Jefferson as a "proper gentleman," e.g., and that's an issue immaterial to the question of whether he is a philosopher.--MattMauler (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I take that you are referring to the second sentence and that the first sentence is acceptable. As to the second sentence, the source was taken from the book's publisher, but that makes the source reliable. I was not quoting the book. However, publisher reviews are a reliable source and can be used in the article. Also, I used the word "suggests", rather than "said" to connote that the quote was not from the book. There is nothing wrong with being a hardboiled politician and can be interpreted as a compliment. Therefore it does not imply Jefferson was not a "proper gentleman". One can be a hardboiled operative and a gentleman. Jefferson was more of a politician and less of a philosopher. That is what is being suggested. You are free to make your own paragraph at any time. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The wording of the first sentence is fine I think, but it would not be acceptable without a source (and it would be helpful to include a quotation from that source here on the talkpage).
As for the second sentence, ...
1. in your sample, it definitely falsely appears that the quotation comes from Burnstein and Isenberg, and the word "suggests" does nothing to contradict that.
2. Also, a publisher blurb might be usable in some contexts, but not here: It is not scholar-written and is a vague, marketing-driven approximation of what the source contains.
3. It is not clear that the source actually says that Jefferson being "hardboiled" etc. in any way contradicts him being a philosopher. You have said this more than once on this talkpage, but does the book say this? If so, where?--MattMauler (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The source and quotes are provided above for the first sentence. The publisher represents what the authors say in the second sentence. But the second sentence can be left out of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

TFD provided the source and quotes for the first sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be no objection to the first sentence. The purpose is not to disprove Jefferson was a philosopher, rather, one can conclude Jefferson was a philosopher, but not on the caliber of someone like Plato (Republic)(authored at least 25 works) and Aristotle (Politics) (authored 200 works). That is my view of the source and quotes provided. I suppose one could say Jefferson was a philosopher by letters and meetings he had with people at Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Here Are Top 25 Greatest Philosophers Who Ever Lived Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The view that he was a philosopher is held by a tiny minority, as the sources say. Therefore it does not belong in the lead if it belongs in the article at all. Anyway, I don't know what he wrote that was philosphy and at least people who want to call him a philosopher should explain what his philosophy was. The term itself had a broader meaning in his time. What we today call physics for example was called natural philosophy and still is in some physics departments. TFD (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Although Jefferson's authored writings contain interjected philosophical content, Jefferson never wrote a formal work on philosophy. Jefferson is not listed as a great philosopher. The word philosopher does not belong in the introduction. No one has explained what Jefferson's philosophy was. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I added information using the Stanford website. So far seems to be holding. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Poll

Should Jefferson be called a philosopher in the introduction? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• No. Since Jefferson is not viewed seriously as a philosopher by most scholars. Jefferson's philosophy is infused in his writings, but not a formal work. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I recommend calling Thomas Jefferson a man of letters rather than a philosopher. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Jefferson As a Man of Letters Edd Winfield Parks The Georgia Review

Vol. 6, No. 4 (WINTER - 1952), pp. 450-459 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thomas Jefferson, the Man of Letters Hardcover – August 22, 2015 by Lewis Henry Boutell (Author) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. See above. Anwegmann (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

* No.

• Eva Brann argues (2018), "Why, then, except under an extremely restricted understanding of the term philosopher, should we withhold that appellation from such a man? The difficulty is that Jefferson is pointedly unsystematic and notoriously anti-metaphysical. . . What I mean is that he never makes an effort to bring all his views under one plan. She concludes, "No, Jefferson is not a philosopher in the full sense." (She puts him among the philosophes. I agree that TJ was akin to the French philosophes, but we won't be adding him to that article. Nonetheless, he is known as a thinker of the American Enlightenment.)
• In a 1963 essay, Stuart Gerry Brown wrote, "Jefferson was neither systematic nor was he a philosopher." YoPienso (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• The American Philosophical Society wasn't a consortium of philosophers per se, but a "scholarly organization that promotes knowledge in the sciences and humanities through research, professional meetings, publications, library resources, and community outreach," according to Wikipedia. :-) Check out what the Society says about itself, and you'll learn it's not about philosophy itself: "the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language." (Again, per Wikipedia.) Ergo, the fact that TJ was the president of the fledgling Society underscores his habits of inquiry and civic improvement but doesn't make him a philosopher. YoPienso (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. After reviewing the definition of philosopher in our article, I see TJ fits the definitions given in the third paragraph of the lead. He was an intellectual who contributed to political philosophy. He worked in the arts, history, linguistics, anthropology, theology, and politics. It's appropriate to use in WP's article on TJ the same definition of philosopher that is used in our article, "Philosopher," regardless of the stricter definitions used by experts Brann and Brown. YoPienso (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Insert: I was hoping to have more editor participation. So far 2 to 1 is against inclusion. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reconsidered. Anyway, we don't tally "votes," but look at the strength of the arguments. YoPienso (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the fast change of mind, especially with all the sourcing you provided. Jefferson was a man of letters, not a philosopher. What was his philosophy? There is no book to read. Just a lot of letters. There is no central philosophy with Jefferson, not even for the nation. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson worked in theology? He destroyed eight bibles. He did not believe in Christ's deity or resurrection and encouraged people to be atheists. Jefferson was anti-theology and anti-religion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

My change of mind came after hours of research and thought. I could argue both sides convincingly! :-)

TJ wasn't a philosopher in the sense Brann and Brown give the word. Please read the third paragraph of the lead in Philosopher for the modern sense of the word. Not all philosophers or academics would agree with that, but it's what we have.

TJ was a philosopher in the sense I gave above.

Theology? Please read the lead of the Theology article. TJ cared deeply about studying religion and wasn't reluctant to decry its abuses. He declared himself to be a real Christian--a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. Reread "Early draft" and "Purpose" at Jefferson Bible. Read the opening lines of Religious views of Thomas Jefferson. He was so proud of his "Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom" that it was one of the three achievements he had engraved on his tombstone. He also studied Hinduism and other religions. But no matter--even if he hadn't studied religion, he would still qualify as a philosopher as defined in Philosopher.

I was hoping for more participation, too. It's of no importance to me whether we call TJ a philosopher or not, but I had fun reading all that stuff. YoPienso (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't be a theologian of the Bible when you don't believe in it as Jefferson did. No Ressurection. No Christ Divinity. No Miracles. One can't be an atheist and a theologian at the same time. Yes. Jefferson studied Hinduism and Muslim religions. He was kinder to them. Jefferson seemed to show the most hostility toward Jesus and people who preached the Gospel, whom he called clerics. For that matter, none of the Founders would be considered Christian. Rather Deists. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I choose not to debate with you. You may enjoy an academic essay, "Thomas Jefferson, Nature’s God, and the Theological Foundations of Natural-Rights Republicanism." YoPienso (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not debating anything. The U.S. Constitution does not mention God. Jefferson destroyed Christian theology, literally and figuratively, by creating his atheist-type bible. One can not equate a Diest with a Christian. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Response to @Schazjmd:'s list of books

Meacham, Jon (2016). Thomas Jefferson: President and Philosopher
This is a children's book based on Meacham's Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, a full biography in which Meacham does call TJ a philosopher, but in the sense of a thinker. He says "philosophers think; politicians maneuver."

Lerner, Max (2011). Thomas Jefferson: America's Philosopher-King
Do we conclude from the title that Jefferson was not only a philosopher but also a king?
(Yes, I know what the theoretical "philosopher-king" is, and it isn't a philosopher).

Ellis, Joseph J. (1998). American Sphinx.
This is the only book in the list I've read every word of, but that was some years ago. I don't remember anything and can't find anything in it online that makes claims of TJ being a philosopher.

Holowchak, Mark (2019). The Cavernous Mind of Thomas Jefferson, an American Savant
The publisher's summary says Holowchak studies "Jefferson as lawyer, moralist, politician, scientist, epistolist, aesthetician, farmer, educationalist, and philologist."
Not philosopher?? He was a savant and polymath, not a philosopher.

Holowchak, M. Andrew (2014). Thomas Jefferson and Philosophy "Jefferson--qua architect, lawyer, farmer, inventor, astronomer, statesman, classicist, anthropologist, musician, surveyor, philologist, naturalist, economist, and philospher, among other things--" Are we going to include that entire list from p. 17 in the lead? I say much of it is summarized with "polymath." ("Polymath" used to be in the lead; now it's not in the article at all. Maybe we should restore it.)

Holowchack, Mark (2014). Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision
This is the only book on the list that purports that TJ should be recognized as a philosopher. Holowchak states in the introduction (p. 13): "I . . . aim to show that he is a significant American political and educational philosopher . . ." He ends the introduction (p. 25), hoping that other scholars will either build on his premise that TJ was a philosopher, or, if they disagree, will refine the "critical assessment of Jefferson qua philosopher."

Whitelaw, Nancy (2002). Thomas Jefferson: Philosopher and President
Juvenile nonfiction. Publisher's blurb: "An account of Jefferson's life highlighting his many accomplishments as governor, architect, gardener, inventor, and president." Not philosopher?

I'm not arguing Jefferson was in no sense a philosopher. In fact, there are 5 categories at the end of the article that identify him as some sort of philosopher. I'm saying he wasn't in the full sense of the word as described in Wikipedia, and so we should avoid using the word as a descriptor in the lead. We should have at least a paragraph in the body that makes clear TJ was a thinker and a proponent of Enlightenment and Revolutionary philosophies. Many people have a "philosophy of life" and enjoy philosophical moments, but that doesn't make us philosophers, at least not of a caliber to be so identified in an encyclopedia. And that's what we must remember--we're not writing an open-ended rambling essay or an academic monologue on TJ, but an encyclopedia article in summary style. YoPienso (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Jefferson was not what would be called a classic philosopher. He seemed to be a student or follower of philosophy and a man of letters. He definitely was Epicurian and liked the finer things in life. Jefferson even remodeled his mansion, probably using slave labor, to make Monticello look like a one-story building in the front. He could not have a house that looked storied. He had to be like the other aristocrats. That actually sounds very shallow and not the type of person who would be called a philosopher. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Recent edit summary by @Anwegmann:

In yesterday’s partial revert of @Cmguy777: Anwegmann I believe has abused the edit summary in two respects. One, the edit summary is not to be used to criticize another editor—please see WP:SUMMARYNO. Second, the language used in the summary borders on incivility—please see "Direct rudeness", at WP:IUC. More is expected of Veteran editors. Hoppyh (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes here here. Full agreement. I was using Peterson 2002 as a source. Civility is in order. Peterson was just saying Jefferson had a practical side to politics. Whatever Jefferson's anymosity was to Hamilton, Jefferson thought the national Bank had some practical uses for the nation. Peterson is a pro Jefferson historian. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. Rudeness was not intended. I will try to check to my tone next time. Again, I apologize sincerely. Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your apologies. My sole purpose of the edit was to put Jefferson in the best light as President. Rather than let petty grievenes with Hamilton affect his good judgement, Jefferson was able to compromise with the national bank. A hallmark of a great President. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No mention whatsoever of Jefferson's letter about Washington to Philip Mazzei?

This letter, in which Jefferson makes reference to Washington as one of "men who were Samsons in the field & Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England." It forever ruptured the already highly-strained relationship between Jefferson and Washington and, as renowned historian Merrill Peterson put it, “No single writing from Jefferson's pen pursued him so remorselessly beyond the grave.”

Pretty important in his life I would say. 2601:643:8D00:970:B122:F143:2D28:F6E5 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Like often Jefferson was trying to achieve a style worthy of literature while not already exposed to a judgement by the public. For someone familiar with Jefferson like Mazzei, a piece like "to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model" couldn't but make it clear that Jefferson was not perfectly clear as to which position he was to take - relatively to the questions of the day. If the “Mazzei letter”, as it is said, prompted Jefferson to become considerably more circumspect in his correspondence, so much the better as Jefferson was to become POTUS only a little bit later. --Askedonty (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson's differences with Washington are mentioned throughout the article and it says this led him not to attend Washington's funeral. I do not see that much more detail is required, considering that there are so many important things in his life that the article needs to cover. I would say for example that writing the Declaration of Independence and his many public positions as well as his building of Monticello were much more important in his life. TFD (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

Thomas Jefferson was also a Surveyor. Please include in his occupation. Thanks 98.45.214.136 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is covered in the article. The infobox is for their most notable professions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

? There aren't any mentions of Jefferson being a surveyor in the article, it does mention that his father Peter was a surveyor. Shearonink (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Debate to delete a Category

There is a debate over whether to keep Category: Homes of United States Founding Fathers as a category. More opinions are needed. The discussion is located Here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Presidency

Thomas Jefferson was President from year 1801-1809. When he was President he was only (age 57) years old. 47.156.120.20 (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh. Your point? You say that he was "only" 57 like 57 is young. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023

“Jefferson began raping Hemings” instead of “started a relationship”.

Hemings was a young slave. She could not give consent and this is called rape. To call it a relationship gives the impression that it was consensual, which is not only misleading, but completely incorrect and offensive. This is an example of whitewashing history and leaving out the ugly facts that fuel misogyny. 2001:56A:78B8:7800:24D5:E6A3:EBE0:7D4B (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This will clearly be a contentious change. There is an active discussion above that is about some of this prose. I suggest you bring up your suggested change there, or wait for someone else to respond in this section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The truth is only Hemings and Jefferson know what happened in France. As far as is known there was no French authority that mentions the incident. All we know for sure was that she was pregnant when she came home from France. Also, Hemings was not technically a slave in France. Slavery had been outlawed. I believe her brother was learning how to become a French chef. The other issue is that Wikipedia is not a format to put historical figures on trial. A "relationship" is a neutral word. Any change would require editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about the short description

There is an ongoing discussion about the short descriptors of the first four U.S. presidents at Talk:John Adams#Short description, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a whole paragraph in the lead about Sally?

I figure it should be reduced to one sentence? 77.103.3.53 (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The lead is already too long. Suggest keeping the first section mentioning her and leave the details to the body of the article. TFD (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Which part do you mean when you say the "first section"?--MattMauler (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The last sentence can be ommited in the introduction. Possibly the Hemmings information can be reduced to one sentence. Keep the DNA information. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see removing the last sentence and possibly these two sentences "Evidence suggests that Jefferson started the relationship with Hemings when they were in Paris, some time after she arrived there at the age of 14 or 15, when Jefferson was 44. By the time she returned to the United States at 16 or 17, she was pregnant.[15]"–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"1998 DNA testing of Jefferson's and Hemings' descendants" this is factually untrue. the tests were not done on any descendent of TJ, because none existed for testing, at least not for y chromasome (paternal) testing. testing was done on the descendent of a cousin of TJ's. TJ's younger brother randolf was at monticello for each of hemming's pregnancies, and she had no more children after randolf got remarried and never returned to monticello. while TJ was a widower, alone, at monticello only a few doors away from hemmings when hemming was by all accounts very attractive and still young, she had no more children. this paragraph in the article makes assertions that are highly speculative and contain factual errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christo1234 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

We have to go by what the sources say. A woman historian showed by time line Jefferson was there everytime Hemings got pregnant at Monticello. Randolph was not in France, as far as I know, when Hemmings got pregnant. But Jefferson was. Readers can conclude whatever they want on the matter. I agree the DNA test was not directly from Hemmings, her children, including Eston, and Jefferson. But the 1999 DNA test was important to historians. We are just trying to reduce wording in the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree to significantly reduce the lede paragraph about Hemings. as there is more text devoted to Hemings than any other topic in the lede. This presents a due weight and NPOV issue.
Let's not forget that this was Jefferson's home, and Sally's home, so it is nothing amazing that they were both around during times of conception. Also, Jefferson was often swarmed with visitors, including other Jefferson males, like Randolph, who had a reputation for fraternizing with the slaves, while the DNA evidence is not Thomas Jefferson's but a distant relative and points to more than 20 other Jefferson males. The statement "Since Jefferson's time, controversy has revolved around his relationship with Sally Hemings," That should read his alleged relationship, as there are no accounts from any one except a couple of Jefferson's resentful enemies, like James Callender, that they were having a relationship. As it is, the lede makes the statement as if it was an undisputed fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with undue weight. I believe the whole issue centered around whether Heming's ancestors should be buried at Monticello. That has more to do with Hemings's family and is more of a family concern than a historical one. Jefferson is not on trial. The whole issue has been overblown and the least said on the matter the better. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The last two sentences are unnecessary. Also, the wording reads like a trial. Gathered evidence? Fathered six children with Hemings? Is Jefferson guilty? The tone is too weighted. The DNA test only had to do with Eston Hemmings. Should not the reader have some choice concerning how many children had with Hemings? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I submit the following change: Since 1800 Jefferson was rumored to have had children by his [sister-in-law and] slave Sally Hemings. A 1999 DNA test concluded that one of Sally Hemings's children, Eston Hemings, was of the Jefferson male line. [According to historian consensus,] D[d]ocumentary and statistical evaluation combined with oral history, suggests that Jefferson [probably] fathered at least six children with Hemings, including four that survived to adulthood. This is just a start. I think the tone is better and leaves the reader room for their own opinions on the Jefferson and Hemings controversy. Editor opinions are welcome. Nothing is set in stone. Editor consensus is essential. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Cmguy777, would add "sister-in-law" before 'slave' in your wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Randy Kyrn. I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually I meant put an 'and' in there too ("sister-in-law and slave"). Else it reads like a badly attended porn title. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Adding "and" would be good. Are there any other changes you would make? I added "probably" and "According to historian consensus" to the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change

Please vote or state your opinion. Thanks. The following is a replacement paragraph to replace the current information in the article's introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Since 1800 Jefferson was rumored to have had children by his sister-in-law and slave Sally Hemings. A 1999 DNA test concluded that one of Sally Hemings's children, Eston Hemings, was of the Jefferson male line. According to historian consensus, documentary, and statistical evaluation combined with oral history, Jefferson probably fathered at least six children with Hemings, including four that survived to adulthood. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is better than what is in the current article. It is less wording and written in a neutral tone, not trial speak. I think this is enough for the introduction section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there anyone still interested in this subject? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Other opinions welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I would only change the phrase historian consensus, documentary, and statistical evaluation combined with oral history to "scholarly consensus, based on documentary and statistical evaluation as well as oral history". Antiok 1pie (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with your changes. Sounds good. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think editors have had enough time to respond. Here is the final compromise edit: Since 1800 Jefferson was rumored to have had children by his sister-in-law and slave Sally Hemings. A 1999 DNA test concluded that one of Sally Hemings's children, Eston Hemings, was of the Jefferson male line. According to scholarly consensus, based on documentary and statistical evaluation, as well as oral history, Jefferson probably fathered at least six children with Hemings, including four that survived to adulthood. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This was the edit I put in the introduction. I added "known as the Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to the paragraph. Since 1800 Jefferson was rumored to have had children by his sister-in-law and slave Sally Hemings, [known as the Jefferson-Hemings controversy]. A 1999 DNA test concluded that one of Sally Hemings's children, Eston Hemings, was of the Jefferson male line. According to scholarly consensus, based on documentary and statistical evaluation, as well as oral history, Jefferson probably fathered at least six children with Hemings, including four that survived to adulthood. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

With a source, it possibly could be added that a minority scholarly opinion disagrees. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I added the 2001 dissenting report by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society in a note. It should be kept in a note, to avoid confusion for the reader. We don't want to establish an argument in the introduction narration. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No note warranted; very much a minority viewpoint. That's what the article body is for. VQuakr (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That is fine by me. It was a scholarly commission report. Leaving dissent in the article body is alright. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society is already cited in article body. There is no need to add anything further. Thanks.. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I missed this before editing the article: I've cut down most of that paragraph and merged it with another. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Resumption of work at Montecello

There is a huge information gap between the next to last paragraph of the Montecello section and the last paragraph. Why is there a gap in work on it, was Martha's death the reason, his involvement with state and national politics, what? Wis2fan (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Jefferson's campaign for President?

One section ends with Jefferson resigning from Washington's cabinet, the next with him loosing the Presidential election. How & why did he get from point a to point b? Wis2fan (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Potrait of Jefferson near Presidency

The portrait's link states the artist is Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn. It can't be since he died before Jefferson. NUMBAH31 (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed The 1805 portrait was painted by Rembrandt Peale (1778–1860), not Rembrandt a/k/a Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn. The caption has been corrected. General Ization ^Talk 04:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

In this sentence:

During his first year at the college, Jefferson spent a considerable amount of time attending and parties and dancing and was not very frugal with his expenditures; in his second year, regretting that he felt he had squandered away time and money in his first year, he committed studying fifteen hours a day.[24]

the word "and" should be removed after the word "attending".

The sentence would then read: During his first year at the college, Jefferson spent a considerable amount of time attending parties and dancing and was not very frugal with his expenditures; in his second year, regretting that he felt he had squandered away time and money in his first year, he committed studying fifteen hours a day.[24] Bigstrongmama (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

Please change

"He began to construct his third library with many of his personal favorite book."

to something along the lines of

"...with many of his personal favorites from former libraries", or simply

"...with many of his personal favorites." Oddnaud (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, using "...with many of his personal favorites."–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Under Legacy

Since they talk about pop culture under the legacy heading I think they should mention the Hatsune Miku Binder Thomas Jefferson meme 108.7.207.196 (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

In "Final days, death, and burial" section, fix the following line:

"The self-authored epitaph was notable for it conscious omission of Jefferson's role as the nation's role as the nation's third President of the United States."

by changing it to:

"The self-authored epitaph was notable for it conscious omission of Jefferson's role as the third President of the United States." Jackstraw97 (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Much better, thank you - FlightTime (open channel) 02:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Length

At over 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. See WP:TOOBIG. Detailed content should be condensed or moved to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:George Washington about the recent addition of these templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding a topic to this article

The article is long, but it also underrepresents Jefferson's contributions to science. Jefferson is credited as reading (1797) and then publishing (1799) the first paper on paleontology in North America, and in effect, co-founding the science of paleontology (along with Baron Georges Cuvier of France, 1796). Jefferson named the first genus of fossil from North America (Megalonyx).

It would be worthwhile to add the word 'scientist' to the list of Jefferson's occupations. It would also be worthwhile to note his role as the originator of paleontology in North America.

It might be of general interest to note that Jefferson used a room in the West Wing of the White House as his personal study and Cabinet (museum) for display of his fossil collection. Thus, the White House became one of America's first museums. He also instituted a public display near the White House entrance highlighting artifacts and geologic objects of the America West. Al2oh3 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Al2oh3 pleaaaase write a brief article (even a stub) on Thomas Jefferson and science. Definitely sounds like a worthy topic. jengod (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests concerning clarity

Hello, I only occasionally edit, and have never posted in a Talk page, so please forgive me if I've submitted this request in a manner that does not follow the conventional or preferred style. Thank you to all contributors who work to make this information widely available. -- KC

Under the subsection "Lawyer and House of Burgesses," the final paragraph is unclear: "British Parliament responded by passing the Intolerable Acts..." However, it is unclear what Parliament was responding to, as there is no lead-in. I think the clauses could be reordered: "Jefferson wrote a resolution calling for a "Day of Fasting and Prayer" as well as a boycott of all British goods as part of a response to the British Parliament's passing of the Intolerable Acts of 1774."

Under the section "Minister to France," the word "jesture" (3rd paragraph) is written when I believe the word "gesture" is intended. The "jesture" spelling may be quoting the original source, but that is not made clear.

Under the section "Election of 1800," the Three-Fifths Compromise is mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 in a way that is redundant. Although the mentions are framed slightly differently, they are very much in overlap and only one seems necessary (personally, I would remove the mention in paragraph 2, the second clause of the first sentence).

Under the subsection "Re-election in 1804 and second term," the final sentence feels particularly disjointed from the rest of section. The section is concentrated on Jefferson's reelection and foreign relations. While the content of the final sentence, pertaining to the birth of Jefferson's grandson, does technically fall under events from his second term, it feels like this fact may be better suited for a "Personal" section (which currently doesn't exist). In any case, the use of the word "Domestically" to introduce this fun fact seems misleading. Again, it is technically true that the birth happened on domestic soil, or perhaps the word is intended to refer to Jefferson's domestic life (i.e., as opposed to his political life), but use of the word "Domestically" following several paragraphs on foreign relations implies that the rest of the sentence will address domestic issues that Jefferson contended with in his capacity as president.

Under the section "Post-Presidency (1809-1826)," the first sentence may be considered for editing or removal. The fact about Jefferson's book collection and sale of books to the White House is already described previously in the article, and this fact seems too minor of a point to mention twice. If the sentence remains, it should be revised. The prose is also weak, especially the phrase "get the library going again." One suggestion would be to begin this section by stating that, following Madison's inauguration, Jefferson returned to his private life at Monticello. In general, the facts reported in this paragraph are scattered and disconnected. The passing mention of Jefferson's founding of the University of Virginia could be omitted, as it is the focus of the following subsection. Additionally, parts of the description of Jefferson's daily routine feel unnecessary. In particular, the claim that Jefferson developed a habit of waking up early seems false. In Meacham's biography, Jefferson's early awakenings are described at points other than his life post-presidency, so I doubt that Jefferson's development of this habit only occurred after he left office. 2601:249:8100:60D0:F841:3B49:EAEF:BCE8 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You're already doing a great job. You should make all these changes, one at a time. Just click the edit button [pencil] in each section. At the bottom there's a little place for an edit summary. Just put in a few words explaining what you did. For these changes "cleanup/copy edit" should suffice although more detail is always ever so welcome. Cheers. -jengod (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

jengod, the page is semi-protected - IPs will not be able to make changes directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hahah I see we met in the middle! I don't know why I started from the bottom of the list but maybe it was a cosmic message LOL. Thank you @Nikkimaria and IP user. Pleasure working with you both. jengod (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Too long

I will be working to reduce this article down to <15,000 words so we can forgo the {{too long}} template. Please discuss errors, issues, concerns here. Be gentle if you can. jengod (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this can be addressed by simple editing. For example, the summary style layout of article families tends to bloat over time at the top level with content that should be in child articles. The section Presidency (1801–1809) could be pared back down to a couple of paragraphs with anything that isn't already redundant moved to Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Similar repetition issues exist with Religious views of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Use of Template:Excerpt might help prevent future bloat. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I am in no way equipped to summarize Thomas Jefferson's presidency, views on religion, or relationship with slavery in two paragraphs. I hope it gets sorted. Cheers all. jengod (talk) jengod (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't do any cutting of the page because of a toolong tag (which I'll remove again but it seems to keep getting reverted). WP:LENGTH is a guideline, and guidelines include language about using common sense and exceptions. Removing good text harms the page, so please don't do so, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about "cutting"; moving things to subpages isn't generally considered a cut. I don't see any reason for special pleading for this particular article. VQuakr (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

Add in 1 sentence Jefferson vice-presidency section on Georgia electoral irregularity. It can be in Vice presidency or 1800 election as Vice president is President of the senate.

Jefferson presided over the electoral college vote count of his candidacy's election

Sources here https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/774/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/03/how-jefferson-counted-himself-in/302888/ https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/valr90&id=5&div=&collection= 207.96.32.81 (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Since this edit request has been open for almost a month, it seems people are hesitant to enact it on a well-watched page. I'm going to decline it for now, but if a consensus is established by other editors I certainly don't think that is unreasonable. I think adding this in may provide undue weight to the issue, as the paragraph in question is relatively small and already links to 1800 United States presidential election and already has a section on the issue. The main article is already tagged with {{very long}}, which should make us cautious about adding undue weight to anything new. Bestagon ⬡ 15:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

George Mason, not Thomas Jefferson, wrote The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. On the George Mason University campus, his statue holds a book marked The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. Additionally, on the website, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/virginia-statute-for-religious-freedom# it explains those who wrote The Statute. 2600:6C58:64F0:E70:5457:765F:37C6:DA18 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Your source says Mason was involved in codifying religious freedom into law but Jefferson drafted the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, which is in line with current text here and in line with current citations both here and on Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom including the Library of Congress Cannolis (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

might want to add in the fact that he raped his slaves because people need to the truth 24.53.78.25 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"at least six children"

I removed the words "at least" from the intro, since I don't see any reference to there being any possibility of more than six. I think the wording is a holdover from this edit. The sidebar says "up to six." Also, everywhere all across Wikipedia, Sally Hemings is mentioned as having six children. I don't have access to the sources directly cited in the edited sentence, though. Philosophistry (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)