Gwillhickers (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
* '''For''' reducing the "Controversy" section as long as content is kept. '''Against''' reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Reasons_for_vote Reasons for vote] [[User:Cmguy777|Cmguy777]] ([[User talk:Cmguy777|talk]]) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
* '''For''' reducing the "Controversy" section as long as content is kept. '''Against''' reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Jefferson#Reasons_for_vote Reasons for vote] [[User:Cmguy777|Cmguy777]] ([[User talk:Cmguy777|talk]]) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
* '''For'''. Adequately and appropriately covered elsewhere. Nothing short of vandalism to have ANY subject run that long in this venue. [[User:Carmarg4|Carmarg4]] ([[User talk:Carmarg4|talk]]) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
* '''For'''. Adequately and appropriately covered elsewhere. Nothing short of vandalism to have ANY subject run that long in this venue. [[User:Carmarg4|Carmarg4]] ([[User talk:Carmarg4|talk]]) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Undue weight in lede== |
|||
How is it that Hemmings is referred to, by name, in the lede when there is no mention of even people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin or even his wife, Martha Jefferson? 'Does anyone remember her?' These are all people who had had a direct bearing on Jefferson's revolutionary and political involvements and are -completely- pivotal to Jefferson. -- In the second paragraph the topics of.. ''wartime Governor'' and ''1st US Secretary of State'', the ''2nd VP'', the ''Louisiana Purchase'' and ''Lewis & Clark'' ..are all crammed into one sentence! In this sentence mention is made that Jefferson was 1st Secretary of State, but did not mention under Washington. Meanwhile mention is made of slavery and not only is Hemings mentioned by name, there is additional info' present 'in the lede' for it. There is even mention of ''DNA analysis'' and ''historical studies'' and ''leading scholars''. There are EIGHT references for the paragraph that has been given this topic -- while the the other THREE paragraphs in the lede have only 'four' ref's. The first sentence in the slavery/Hemings paragraph has FOUR references. Has the writer(s) here lost all sense of proportionality and UNDUE weight? Jefferson's slaves by all means warrant mention in the latter part of the lede with one sentence and a link to the section on slavery, where this topic should get no more than one page of coverage, if that, and in summary form only. There it can link to where this information is expounded on to the editors in question heart's delight. -- Again, the Hemings sections, (yes, more than one) has 4 to 5 pages. What's next? DNA charts? This topic has gotten the most coverage in the lede and in the body of text -- BY FAR. This flagrant violation of undue weight needs to be stopped immediately. The talk has gone on long enough and the page just worsens. It is no wonder to me why this page has lost its GA status. I am going to bring this problem to the attention of someone, I am not sure who, someone who is best suited to be presented with this. If any of the other seasoned editors know of other administrators or others who can effectively deal with this situation, please direct them to this talk page. Btw, we need more than a 'Request for Comment'. A clear line must be laid down. One sentence in the lede. No more than one page for the slavery/Hemings topic. -- [[User:Gwillhickers|Gwillhickers]] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers|talk]]) 05:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Rework of the Lead section == |
== Rework of the Lead section == |
Revision as of 05:59, 2 March 2011
Thomas Jefferson was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject United States governors
|
FIVE PAGES FOR HEMINGS/CONTROVERSY??
What in the world is going on with this page?? There is currently FIVE PAGES of material on Hemings/controversy. This is a clear undue weight issue. The section needs to be reduced immediately and material removed/moved to the Hemings (and other) page(s) where this material is already covered. Enough talk/speculation/theory/conjecture. Weigh in please: (Please don't use this section for discussion. Vote/explanation only. Start new section if necessary.)
For or against reduction/removal with brief explanation for vote. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- For. Clear undue wight as issue has little to no impact on American history/fate of the nation. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- For the obvious solution is a separate article, with a few sentences summary in this article. This is the recommended Wikipedia policy when articles get too long, and in this case the controversy can be easily packaged. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- For. This section is getting to be the tail that wags the dog. --Coemgenus 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- For reducing to a section with one or two paragraphs and a hatnote to a main article. Currently off-focus because of undue weight.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) - For MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- For The reduction of the "Controversies" section, against removing all references to Hemmings. The Hemmings relationship is settled history. --Jojhutton (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- For reducing the "Controversy" section as long as content is kept. Against reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections. Reasons for vote Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- For. Adequately and appropriately covered elsewhere. Nothing short of vandalism to have ANY subject run that long in this venue. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Undue weight in lede
How is it that Hemmings is referred to, by name, in the lede when there is no mention of even people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin or even his wife, Martha Jefferson? 'Does anyone remember her?' These are all people who had had a direct bearing on Jefferson's revolutionary and political involvements and are -completely- pivotal to Jefferson. -- In the second paragraph the topics of.. wartime Governor and 1st US Secretary of State, the 2nd VP, the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark ..are all crammed into one sentence! In this sentence mention is made that Jefferson was 1st Secretary of State, but did not mention under Washington. Meanwhile mention is made of slavery and not only is Hemings mentioned by name, there is additional info' present 'in the lede' for it. There is even mention of DNA analysis and historical studies and leading scholars. There are EIGHT references for the paragraph that has been given this topic -- while the the other THREE paragraphs in the lede have only 'four' ref's. The first sentence in the slavery/Hemings paragraph has FOUR references. Has the writer(s) here lost all sense of proportionality and UNDUE weight? Jefferson's slaves by all means warrant mention in the latter part of the lede with one sentence and a link to the section on slavery, where this topic should get no more than one page of coverage, if that, and in summary form only. There it can link to where this information is expounded on to the editors in question heart's delight. -- Again, the Hemings sections, (yes, more than one) has 4 to 5 pages. What's next? DNA charts? This topic has gotten the most coverage in the lede and in the body of text -- BY FAR. This flagrant violation of undue weight needs to be stopped immediately. The talk has gone on long enough and the page just worsens. It is no wonder to me why this page has lost its GA status. I am going to bring this problem to the attention of someone, I am not sure who, someone who is best suited to be presented with this. If any of the other seasoned editors know of other administrators or others who can effectively deal with this situation, please direct them to this talk page. Btw, we need more than a 'Request for Comment'. A clear line must be laid down. One sentence in the lede. No more than one page for the slavery/Hemings topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Rework of the Lead section
NOTE* This is not concerning Hemings or slavery.
"The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs" - it's got 5. Some material has got to go.
"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." WP:LEAD We need to know what those aspects are, and remove that which is outside of it. Some material that looks unnecessary in the lead:
- 1 Jefferson envisioned America as the force behind a great "Empire of Liberty" that would promote republicanism and counter the imperialism of the British Empire. - Perhaps
- 2 To date, Jefferson is the only president to serve two full terms in office without vetoing a single bill of Congress. Jefferson has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest of U.S. presidents. - interesting, but can be discussed elsewhere, and THESE topics in themselves do not get their own paragraphs elsewhere in the article; not significant in terms of the article
- 3 As a political philosopher, Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment and knew many intellectual leaders in Britain and France. - Ok, a philosopher, but who he knew is not necessary in the lead; that goes elsewhere
- 4 When President John F. Kennedy welcomed 49 Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962 he said, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - not opposed to this info, just that it's in the lead. JFK's opinion in itself doesn't get 2 or 3 paragraphs in the article - can't understand the logic for inclusion in the lead.
- 5 Some want to reduce the size of Hemings - that's to be discussed over there.
A reduction in words since wikilinks allow the reader to go to the articles in question to read more: :Major accomplishments during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), which doubled the size of the United States, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806), which significantly advanced geographic and scientific knowledge of North America.
As the article is now, it's a mass of mixed up ideas, and is not well integrated. In order to get it back to good article status, it must adhere to the manual of style of guidelines.
Article reflects these changes, and now is 4 paragraphs: some of the material moved to "Reputation" needs sources or will be deleted. All current info in the lead must have sources added to it, and the section should not be enlarged. Ebanony (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The material in the lede is supposed to be a summary of properly sourced content in the article. It generally does not need cites in the lede, according to WIKI MOS. This got cluttered up with cites because of editors arguing that certain things didn't exist.Parkwells (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The President Kennedy quote, although good, seems to be irrelevant and opinion. Did Jefferson ever dine alone at the White House? That is historical speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it was already settled that this would come out.Parkwells (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the lede could say something that scholars today have been critical of Jefferson's inconsistencies with his "idealistic" statements and his views that blacks, American Indians, and women were not equal to white men. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's an anachronistic view, or presentist, to try to force our own meaning back to another age; scholars mostly accept that Jefferson was of his time and place, in which he could work on the Declaration of Independence and believe that women and minorities were not equal to white men. That's a given for most of those men and I don't think lede space should be spent on it.Parkwells (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Anachronistic and presentism are rationalistic views in order to keep historians from accessing Thomas Jefferson in any critical manner. Historians look for inconsistencies and Thomas Jefferson had many. Thomas Jefferson authored a law against miscegenation, and yet slept and had children by a slave woman. Thomas Jefferson said "All men are created equal", claimed to abhor slavery and yet owned hundreds of slaves on Monticello, having them whipped, and teen agers to work in a nailry. And then when historians claim that Jefferson was a racist who held views that women, American Indians, and African Americans are inferior, all of a sudden those protectionist words "Anachronistic" and "presentism" are thrown around to keep Jefferson safe from any substancial historical debate. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not really a necessary quote; Kennedy just gave an opinion, and this article is too long. But on the lede, I'd avoid that part. You might add something to a section dealing with those things (Declaration maybe?), but why not put a proposal here so it's clear what you want to add? At any rate, still too many redundancies, and the general size of the article needs to be reduced. Some sections need citations. Some stuff (like the JFK quote) is unnecessary. I think we can agree the old version was no good. Glad you're both here; you too Cmguy777. I think you mentioned his work on penalties for slaves (part of his reform); that might be good to put here. Had to remove some material in the beginning. Some was taken from Mullin's book, with little changed (no CopyViol, but it's clear where it came from). Ebanony (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can't grasp how this article was ever allowed to get so large; there were sections on everything, much relying on primary source materials. The section "self-esteem" I can see no reason for. The Judiciary is covered elsewhere. The general wording of some parts was not within the reading level of many visitors. Bottom line: the article is so big that nearly impossible to make sense of it. I've reduced & removed some of the above; the Native Americans views have got their own section, and so do slaves. They were too many redundancies. Honestly, if every sentence in this section [1] were deleted, the article would improve (maybe some can stay though). Political and philosophical views is perhaps the only part worth keeping. It's not normal to have section on everything in a biography. Ebanony (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed sentence in lede: "Modern scholars have reevaluated Jefferson's legacy as a champion of liberty due to inconsistencies in his rhetoric and lifestyle." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, here's what the problem is: the lead as it is needs no real change in the Hemings wording. What does need work, Cmguy777, is the Hemings section, among other things. I like the new Hemings better, but it's just too long. Some info can be added to her article, and we should condense the most important aspects here to only what is needed. An article's recommended length is between 40-60KB WP:SIZERULE (this has many references etc which may inflate it, but it's currently at 109KB - and that's with all the edits I've just done to clean it up & reduce it. So we need to worry about the big problems, and get the content in order before worrying about a single sentence (though I'm not opposed to your idea, just that it's not priority, and it's likely to cause more fighting by some who wanted all mention of her gone.) Simply put, a good number of sentences/sections have too few or no sources for their claims (even though most look accurate). What good is having the best slave coverage, but an article that fails a 100-level requirement of having citations for most other sections? It's like a car with a good engine, but the trans & suspension are only half installed. No point worrying about wood trim until the rest is fixed. Ebanony (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Good analogy Ebanony. One thing all editors can agree on is the Thomas Jefferson generates tremendous interest and controversy. I believe that is a good for a Wikipedia article to have editors who want a fair assessment of Thomas Jefferson as a person and President. I am not attempting to judge or compare Jefferson with the standards of our times as Parkwells suggested. My objection is this can be used as an excuse not to look critically into Jefferson's lifestyle as a slave owner, when in fact, Jefferson is historically known as a champion of liberty. The Sally Heming's section can be reduced in size and the sources should match the main Sally Heming's article. Their is opposition to Jefferson having children by Sally Hemings by David M. Mayer. His views in the article would add balance. I believe that Jefferson's inconsistancies as a slave owner and champion of liberty needs to be mentioned or discussed in the article and lede. Historians are very interested in Jefferson's opinion on separation of Church and State. This needs to be in the lede. I believe the lede needs to cover what historians are most intersted in Thomas Jefferson. Here is the link to the Mayer article: The Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings Myth and the Politicization of American History Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"article is not readable for many school aged children"
Sorry, but I really don't agree with the sentiment. First, it's not aimed at (all) school-aged children - we don't censor for their benefit, so we don't need to write down to their level, either. Secondly, the prose is really not beyond most teenagers ability to parse, and offering them a reasonable challenge is not negative. There always is simple:Thomas Jefferson on the Simple English Wikipedia (which, admittedly, could use a lot of work). Here we should aim for a tone appropriate for a general reference work, not for a 6th grade text book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I completely agree with your sentiments, Stephan Schulz. Editing in this fashion on wikipedia is a misguided idea. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since the simplified version also had a number of grammatical problems (e.g. "In 1768 building Monticello, a neoclassical mansion, something he had always to do." - no verb, "The committee selected Jefferson to write the first draft probably because of his reputation as a writer, but was a routine assignment." - no subject in the relative phrase), I've reverted the last two edits for now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify:
- I didn't make arbitrary edits to "dumb it down". Much of what was there was completely unnecessary. A case in point: the undue weight given to University of Va, and the level of English employed here (this is an old version): [2]. If you contrast it to my edit, it's clear that my edits corresponds to WP:undue weight policy, WP:V policy, and common sense.
- I didn't delete all the info:
- Stamp & coin sections, for example I merged what I could to the memorial section, and deleted the things not directly related to him, or that lacked sources. There was an enormous amount of repetition, and it's clear some editors were showing off with fancy language just to do it when there were simpler, more common ways to speak. That makes it less accessible.
- Articles should be 40-60KB.
- This one was 109KB as of my last edit WP:SIZERULE. Do we really need an article on coins/stamps dedicated to him? Not even George Washington gets that. Not even the articles on Jesus, Mohamed or God or get as much detail as Jefferson. If God doesn't get, why should Jefferson? (disclaimer* I never worked on those articles) Now I made an error in my edit, and Stephan Schulz fixed it, so I thank him for it, but that's the point: we do what can to improve the article. Please understand, my edits were not about just simplifying; I wrote that because I was upset that this article still wouldn't be good enough for a 100-level class. So I actually agree with the above comments, but perhaps we didn't understand each ether's goals. Ebanony (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is designed for adults; however, specifically obscene material needs to be watched for and deleted. There is no obscene material, as far as I can tell, in the Thomas Jefferson article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The "40-60KB" is a rough guideline and refers to "readable prose", excluding things like the footnotes, image captions, table of contents, and so on. The readable prose is, unless I miscounted, around 48 KB at the moment, comfortably within the limit. The fact that other articles are shorter is completely irrelevant - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a volunteer effect, and alway will reflect the interests of the volunteer editors, not some absolute measure of importance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate Ebanony's merge, reduction, and grammar edits to the Thomas Jefferson article. To edit "fancy language" is subjective. What "fancy language" was edited specifically? Were these English words or alternative language root words that have been incorporated into the English language. I understand making the narration flow better, that is always good, however, an explanation would be appropriate for editing out words that younger readers may not understand. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stephan Schulz, I agree with you on some of those things. Yes, readers have different interests, which is why I kept the most relevant info on coins/stamps/Univ of Virginia - without giving them too much space. Think about it: some editors went on and on about Hemings & how it was not good to discuss her in the lead (some wanted her out almost entirely). Those same editors had nothing to say about giving "undue weight" to stamps, and a university though. Or how about some JFK quote in the lead? They didn't complain about this even though it took up more space & was not at all important. See the old version: [3]. However, since the University is more important, I kept it but condensed it. But now, a section for stamps? A section on "corporations" & "self esteem"? [4] Contrast it to the section now: [5] There were 9 areas! Absurd. I kept what was good from different paragraphs so people can enjoy their interests, but also so that the article is encyclopedic. I merged it with Philosophy or memorials, but deleted the constant redundancies (that lowered the level of the article, not I).
- We need to use the same standards, and not let people go off on tangents, particularly when their edits said nothing at all: self-esteem & corporations, a case in point. What did that add? Nothing but wasted space. It's mostly original research of some quote they found. That's just one example, and there's plagiarism in some of the text I removed - like from Mullin's book in Jefferson's early life. That's why I reduced it, not language (that was only in a few sections, and when I did that, I paraphrased the text or removed it because it lacked sources). As to Cmguy777's question, the section that had fancy language was this: [6]. The current version is simple, to the point, and doesn't go on and on about every detail on the location of a garden & its symbolism. I'm not against the interests, just saying those things prevented the article from being decent. I'd say let's go through the current article, condense Hemings, improve the Native American section (too many direct quotes, and they say very little); the other sections currently need sources, some additional info added (relevant stuff), and a reworking of the pics (some were just thrown in there). If we want "good article" or GA, then it's not going to happen with "self-esteem" and out-of-place quotes and the most detailed section of the university of Va anyone ever saw.Ebanony (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sally Hemings
The Sally Hemings and Thomas Jeffeson issues appears to be the most contentious in this article. This section needs to be balanced as possible. All editors help and input would be grateful. If there are two historical camps on this issue, I believe modification can be done on this segment. Callender's disregared reputation needs to be addressed. A counter arguement by David M. Mayer would be a good modern refutation that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children. The issue of Randolf Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's brother, needs to be addressed also. Was Randolf Jefferson there everytime Sally Hemings got pregnant? We know that Jeffeson was. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, what we know is somewhat irrelevant. What reliable sources write. Likewise, while a note on Callender is appropriate, we must be careful to avoid ad-hominems and guilt-by-association. The modern consensus opinion is not to any significant part based on Callender's claims, but on several other lines of evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The above examples for the article were only a few pointed out concerns. I was trying to get a whole concensus on the Sally Heming's issue, as far as allowing alternative theories or critisism on the majority historian consensus. I am not trying to promote any viewpoint, rather balance in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't have a problem mentioning this bloke Mayer, whose work you included here [7]. However, his criticism is not a majority pov, nor is it correct to say there were 25 other possibilities. He accused Gordon-Reed of being racist against whites (according to your edit). Ok to insinuate Sally slept round with dozens of men regardless of how it affects her reputation or how it promotes stereotypes of black women.
- As a minority POV, his reference should be a sentence under something like the few who disagree; the 25 possibilities claim is without merit - totally. The DNA people said the exact opposite, and that only Field Jefferson's male offspring were alternatives. And only those who happened to be with Sally at the time of conception. And they said there was no evidence for any other possibility. David Mayer has what evidence for those claims? Notice how the so-called "racist" Gordon-Reed won a Pulitzer & national book award & fellowship. Did Mayer? His objection could be noted, but not in a whole paragraph.Ebanony (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I personally do not agree with Mayer, even if his 25 possibilities claim is bogus. I believe Mayer made that statement to create doubt among other historians and demonstrates the politics of history. However, that is his opinion, not Wikipedias. I put the paragraph in for balance since Gordon-Reed has two paragraphs on her works and Gordon-Reed is mentioned in 3 paragraphs. In my opinion Mayers claim that Gordon-Reed is a quasi racist is another attempt to undermine her book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. I believe Mayer best expressed the conservative views on Jefferson and Sally Hemings. That is why I put him in the article segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- People are well aware of the politics of history - Mayer was one of the last-gasp efforts at refutation soon after the DNA studies. Repeating all his concerns is not necessary. The National Genealogical Society in 2001 went into detail about the bias and failings of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report, some of whose views he represents. The proper way to do historic research and present evidence is to show the weight of evidence, which he and other deniers continue to try to avoid. No, Randolph Jefferson was not there every time Hemings conceived and was not a frequent visitor.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved from Article:
"after reviewing the 1998 DNA test claimed that 25 male Jefferson relatives could have fathered Sally Heming's children, including Jefferson's younger brother Randolph."
"Mayer accused Gordon-Reed of being prejudiced against white historians such as Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson."
- (This is an example of an ad hominem attack lacking the historical basis to challenge her work. She showed their research was flawed.)Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Mayer claimed Gordon-Reed misquoted an 1858 letter by Ellen Randolph Coolidge that claimed no female slave could have entered Jefferson's bedroom without public notice."
- We can mention the objections, but it should be brief like "so-and-so claims the following... citing... & this position is not widely held". In other words, a sentence, maybe 2 at best - on the objection itself. He can't more than that because, unlike Reed, he's fringe. Lots of fringe writers to and contradict scholars on every topic, but those we mention get a line or two in general Fringe stuff (the 25 is impossible) can't be used to balance the experts like that. He made claims. Anyone can do that. We note their objections (fairly), and move on.Ebanony (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Both Mayer and Wallenborn M.D. are in the same paragraph. I was just trying to add balance to the article. I would call Mayer the opposite of fringe, rather, conservative. I would call Mayer a protectionist and Jeffersonian defender, just like Malone or Peterson. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I took out two sentences and part of one sentence. I am not postive that Mayer's views are not widely held in general or even dismissed. I believe a poll would need to be taken among academics and find out if there is wide spread concensus. There is concensus among historians that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children; but how wide spread is this among historians is this consensus? As far as I know the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) has not allowed descendents of Sally Heming's children to be buried at Monticello. There was controversy over that. Has anything changed? My personal view is that there remains controversy over this issue and until the TJF allows Sally Heming's descendants to be buried at Monticello, this controversy will continue. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting note. If you check out the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society four of its links to the TJF currently go to "Page Not Found". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The TJF has made a conservative statement on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account "...the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known. The Foundation encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- "decide for yourself"? Experts already decided in 1999: see the first article called Taking New Measurements for Jefferson's Pedestal [8] "Most people at the meeting agreed" TJ was the father. The 1998 DNA study shows clearly why this "25" others claims in nonsense: there's an "absence of historical evidence" for any other possibility (as in that 25 others nonsense); read it: [9]. They say consider the evidence but they don't want people to; hence the bloke you posted basically called Reed a racist against whites. Based on what evidence?
- That said, the Hemings section is too long, and we must condense it (it's covered in other articles) so that the 3 parts on it do not take up so much space.Ebanony (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not siding with Mayer or any ad hominems. The racist allegation was taken from the article. I am concerned with the 2003 view TJF view that the evidence was not conclusive. The lede says there is consensus. I am not saying I agree with the TJF view, in my opinion, is contradictory. The evidence is given, yet TJF states this evidence in inconclusive. I have mentioned before that the TJF has not allowed descendents of Sally Hemings in their burial grounds. There is concensus outside the TJF but not inside the TJF. My opinion is that there is not overall consensus among historians on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. The TJF view needs to be in the article for balance. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are confusing the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns Monticello and runs it as a museum and educational facility, with the Monticello Association, a group of elitist Hamiltonian aristocrats who think they are better than anyone else because nobody has bothered to check their claim of linear descent from Jefferson. (Exceptions acknowledged [10] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)) The Monticello freaks run the graveside, presumably to extract energy from Jefferson spinning in his grave. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. Cmguy, you keep citing objections made in 2001 - we've acknowledged those people in the text. But this is today, and the MacArthur Foundation award pretty well sums it up when it says that Gordon-Reed "dramatically changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship." That means most of the field accepts her work as a starting point. Consensus does not mean absolutely everyone agrees on every point, but the direction has changed. The 16 major awards made to Gordon-Reed's second book, which went into the Jefferson-Hemings relationship in depth and referenced the DNA studies, were a consensus recognition of the value and quality of her work and research. Editors can't make up their own standards "there isn't consensus until the TJF/Monticello Ass'n allows Hemings descendants to be buried there." That has nothing to do with the state of academic studies. As Stephan Schulz noted, those people do not speak for scholars but claim to be descendants. One way to shorten this section is to reduce the space given to presenting the historiography of the people who were wrong, but I will look at it again. I am not given more space/credence to opponents than they deserve today, not 10 or 12 years ago. Parkwells (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the Mayer and the Wallenborn M.D. quotes were 10 and 11 years ago respectively. Those are dated. If the reader reads there is concensus on Wikipedia and then goes to the TJF Monticello web page that says the evidence is not conclusive, that creates historical doubt. Not able to bury Sally Heming's descendants at Monticello is signifigant, especially to the actual descendants. My personal opinion is that TJ fathered SH's children and I concur with the "consensus". I am not attempting to rock the historical boat here, just wanted to make sure there is balance in the article. I believe the current TJF cite should be used as a descenting opinion. Mentioning Mayer, Wallenborn M.D., and the TJF disagree in one paragraph would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know you're not siding with them. That's why I say your edit is well intentioned Cmguy777, but as Stephan Schulz points out, it is a bit confusing with so many groups. Today in 2011 the overwhelming majority say it happened, but a few voices say otherwise. They never agreed, and probably never will - no matter what. That is the point of Gordon-Reed's earlier work: some don't care about evidence. But since 1997, we've learnt a lot; so there is no reason to give "hold outs" more than a brief mention as a minority pov. To contrast everything Reed says against their claims is undue weight (we note an objection by a minority pov briefly). They claim things like black on white racism, but it's beyond absurd to think they gave a Pulitzer etc to promote hatred of white people (that's the implication). That's fringe stuff. Reed is a scholar. Can we say the same for all her critics? Consider the source. Ebanony (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- The TJF is not fringe, in my opinion. Their current site has the 2003 posting that says the evidence is not conclusive. Sally Heming's children can't be buried at Monticello. Yes. Gordon-Reed is accepted in academic circles and has deserved the Pulitzer, I understand that. If Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson are accepted then why can't Sally Heming's descendants be buried at Monticello? A conservative group is keeping them from being buried. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say TJF is extreme or fringe; I said that those making those claims support a WP:fringe theory. That particular bloke you quoted is outside of the academic community's consensus, and his other claims have no support. Making accusations of racism - against Reed - need no coverage; his other claims have no foundation either, particularly with the stuff on other possibilities. There is no historical data for it, no matter what that guy says.Ebanony (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- There appears to be an influence of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society over the TJF. I am not sure who, possibly Mayer, Wallenborn M.D., or some other person(s). I do believe not allowing Sally Heming's descendants to be buried at Monticello is signifigant and needs to be addressed in the article. I can give Mayer and Wallenborn M.D. one sentence each and mention the 2003 TJF position or view that the evidence is not conclusive. I do not have all the information on Sally Heming's descendants being denied burial at Monticello. Apparently there is some conservative group blocking their burial at Monticello. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sub-headers and placement on Hemings section
I added some sub-headers to try to define the controversy and changing scholarship. Put Mayer and Wallenborn in where they belonged chronologically in the history of the controversy. (Wallenborn's wife was in the TJHS, as I recall, whose findings were discredited on grounds of historical practice by the Natl Genealogical Society.)Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Jefferson retirement library
Why was the discovery of Jefferson's retirement library edited out? Wikipedia needs to keep up with new information on Jefferson. In my opinion, Jefferson's retirement library discovery is historically valid. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The section was edited out because it wasn't needed. He's got a section on personal interests; however, if you look at it, you'll see that I placed some of your work on that library there. So some is still there. I did the same with the other editor who added content after you; his edits repeat things over and over, and he's done that to this article many times. We've got limited space, and need to think of the importance of these topics. We can only add so much.Ebanony (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not against adding some things, but these don't need their own sections. The previous article was too crowded, and had too many topics. I'd suggest also combining Inventions and improvements with the preexisting parts. Yes, he did many things, but it's easier to mention the more important things briefly than to give each a section.Ebanony (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I combinded sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Inventions and improvements
There needs to be a brief section on Thomas Jefferson's inventions and improvements of other inventions. He invented a gravity powered Great Clock and improved the moldboard wood plow and the polygraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs a section because there already is one. Better to add the info to Interests, inventions and improvements [11] This should also be brief, though.Ebanony (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Concensus Sally Hemings
What source says there is concensus with Thomas Jefferson being the father of Sally Heming's children? I read the paragraph and there was no source cited. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, the lede is based on the content of the article, which discusses at length the changes in Jeffersonian scholarship. It does not usually require separate sourcing but I put it in as the issue is controversial. Consensus is indicated by the fact that her work has changed Jeffersonian scholarship - writers now start from the basis that he fathered Hemings' children. The major awards made to Gordon-Reed's work are the result of numerous juried processes among distinct scholarly bodies - those awarding the Pulitzer and various history prizes. Her book, The Hemingses of Monticello, is based on Jefferson's relationship with Heming and paternity of her children. I used the MacArthur Award paragraph as a way to sum up that sense - that's what they mean by saying that she has changed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship. The recognition given to her work and its conclusions is discussed in the Hemings section.Parkwells (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- This has gotten into more historiography because of some editors who keep bringing up those who disagree with the changes in scholarship. I agree it would be better elesewhere, but it keeps getting brought it, as some editors earlier would not accept references.
The Pulitzer is in concensus with Gordon-Reed's book. That does not neccessarily mean all or a majority of historians concur with Gordon-Reed. I suppose the difficulty is defining what historical concensus is, then, applying this criteria to Jefferson and Hemings. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Her book is based on Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children. Those 16 awards represent separate group decisions by leading historical associations in the field that her work is worthy of award, including her conclusions on Jefferson-Hemings.
- This defininition of concensus is taken from Wikipedia:"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks not only the agreement of most participants but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first – general agreement and, second – group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together.[1]It is used to describe both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
For example, Sally Heming's descendants can't be buried at Monticello. That is an ongoing controversy. The TJF also stated that the evidence is not conclusive. Has there been resolution and/or mitigation with the burial controversy and TJF view point on Jefferson and Sally Hemings? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Enough already! We already have a consensus here that the position of the Monticello Association does not represent academic consensus nor professional historians; their position on not admitting Hemings' descendants also goes against the conclusions of the National Genealogical Society. The lineage society is taking a narrow line and not wanting to change their criteria for membership application.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a quote to the article by Stein, a curator at Monticello, who estimated in 2003 that "90 percent of professional historians agree" about Jefferson's relationship with Hemings. You're picking out only part of what the TJF posted - they repeated the 2000 statement by their committee, as well as numerous facts about Jefferson-Hemings. They say that the evidence as to the type of relationship is not conclusive - they invite visitors to make up their own minds about "the nature of the relationship". We are not going to continue to turn the article inside out because of your concern about a few outliers. You are giving them too much weight.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The Stein source is valid. I am not sure how Stein arrived at 90%, however, the article needed some source that mentioned concensus. Thanks Parkwells. I do not call barring burial rights to almost 250 descendants of Sally Heming's insiginifigant from Thomas Jefferson's graveyard. Remember concensus requires resolution and/or mitigations to minority objections.Hemings' Descendants Meet That controversy remains. Even in the Stein article there was mention of Sally Heming's descendants barred from being members of the Monticello Association. I never mentioned turning the article inside out. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- My point was that the Monticello Association issue does not represent an academic controversy, but the decision by a private lineage society not to alter their rules at all to accommodate different criteria for membership for the Hemings descendants. This is a private organization; they are choosing to follow people whom they commissioned, willfully misreading the DNA study, and denying the statements of the National Genealogical Society, among other major groups that agree with the consensus on Jefferson's paternity.Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The MA is in charge of Thomas Jefferson's graveyard. The MA does not endorse that Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Heming's children and bars them from membership into the organization. Even if the MA followed "people whom they commissioned, willfully misreading the DNA study, and denying the statements of the National Genealogical Society, among other major groups that agree with the consensus on Jefferson's paternity." concensus by definition requires "resolution or mitigation of minority objections". As of yet there has been no mitigation or resolution with Sally Heming's descendants with the MA. The MA wields power over whom is buried at Monticello and in essence has denied the opinion of 90% of academic historians. My suggestion is to change the section title from "Consensus" to "Academic consensus" or "Academic agreement". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I added material on differing opinions to the Monticello Association article, which is where it belongs. They are judging based on their own criteria for membership, which is different than what others are evaluating - although they have also ignored the statement of the National Genealogical Society. Too much space in this article is already given to those who cannot accept the body of evidence. Academic consensus sounds good, as generally the article has relied on the published works of historians.Parkwells (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Controversy Sally Hemings
On the "relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings" the TJF says that "the evidence is not definitive". The site also says, the "paternity of one or more of Sally Hemings' children cannot be established with absolute certainty". This needs to be in the article for balance. Why was this information edited out from the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why they put in all those qualifiers - most historical evidence cannot support "absolute certainty". I think if you use only those qualifiers, it does not indicate the sense of that web page, which has the committee's saying Jefferson's paternity was probable. You'll note the page ends with saying the nature of the relationship may never be known - but not that there is a question as to whether there was a relationship.Parkwells (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Reasons for vote
These are explanations for how I voted in the "FIVE PAGES FOR HEMINGS/CONTROVERSY??" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- "For reducing the "Controversy" section as long as content is kept."
- Reasons: The first five paragraphs can be summarized into one paragraph. Dr. Foster information can be summarized into one paragraph. The conclusions and critisism can be reduced to one paragraph. That would leave three paragraphs for the "Controversy" section. Since the information is good, any paragraphs taken out of the Thomas Jefferson article could be used in the Sally Hemings article, if needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Against reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections."
- Reasons: There may be undo weight with Gordon-Reed in the "Academic concensus" section. To be honest, that section reads as if Wikipedia is attempting to convince or prove a point, rather then state there is academic consensus. As Rjensen suggested the information would be good in the Gordon-Reed article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Against reducing the "Sally Hemings and her children" and the "Academic consensus" sections."