![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Cm' there are issues with your last edit in the DOI section:
In your typical two-dimensional style, you make it sound like 'race' was the reason Jefferson "did nothing" where in reality Jefferson at that time was only a delegate from Virginia, and because of the revolution he, as one man, was not in a position to spend time trying to advance legislation to make freed blacks citizens. Further, as was already pointed out to you on this discussion page, because of Revolutionary 'war' the priorities were focused on national security and survival. No one had time to devote energy towards advancing legislation for citizenry for freed blacks. This is a very pathetic and narrow minded edit! I added context to your statement, cited, but it still needs further clarification. Your statement should read:
I have not changed the words to your edit but have added others words along after it for context. As soon as I find the sources I will further clarify and add further context to your racially charged statement. Btw, Ferling is totally absorbed with opinions of race and is attempting to use this as a wet blanket to throw over the entire advent of American history. Another Finkelman. Highly opinionated sources like this need to be qualified with more objective sources along side of them. We have repeatedly discussed cherry picking singular sources and using them to make controversial statements. As usual, discussion with you is generally a waste of time, as you turn right around and do your one-trick pony act all over again. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, Ferling directly associated Jefferson not advancing citizenship on blacks because of race. Since the Puritans landed on Plymouth rock both blacks and Indians were enslaved. Jefferson could not tolerate a black man to be his equal in terms of citizenship. Ferling gave a list of racial issues Jefferson had with blacks. Everything Jefferson wrote on white people was formed with praise in terms of intelligence and beauty. Jefferson was repulsed by the black skin color. Jefferson did not want blacks in America, rather, they needed to be deported to a colony. Jefferson did not want Indians to be U.S. Citizens either, rather push them back across the Mississippi River or be exterminated. I admit that the Indians had a tribal warrior society and were hard to incorporate into a democracy. What is clear is that Jefferson and Americans wanted their land. Push them West or extermination was the answer, manifest destiny. I agree Jefferson was kind to his slaves at times, but he was capable of being physically and psychologically cruel to blacks. Can you find in any of Jefferson's writings where he supported black citizenship? Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
At this point I don't believe anything you say anymore. You say one thing and do another; aside from jumping to other topics and ignoring discussions, you talk about "the truth", and take one sliver of it, e.g."Jefferson thought white-red skin to be more beautiful", and then use that as your ticket to throw mud in the Jefferson biography at every opportunity. Many attempts and much time and effort have been given you to explain the many circumstances, looming threats and priorities of the day, i.e.War, slave power, French interests in the L.T., Missouri compromise geo' dividing line instigating civil war, all supported by numerous sources, past and present -- and all you do is come back and blow the same horn. Given your racist slur "the superior lily white race", indeed these are your words, I believe my observation was a fair one, as all you do is focus on race and ignore everything else involved. If you want to see systematic, fundamental and acute racism, look at the way many tribes lived. Completely xenophobic -- even towards other tribes. Various countries in Africa, are still practicing slavery today, in barbaric form, during 'modern times' -- those slaves are not living in 10 x 20 foot cabins with Sundays, Christmas and Easter off, growing their own gardens, etc, etc. Then take a good look at the color of their masters. Do you think any of them are discussing the evils of slavery in their Congress? Opps, they don't have a congress, they dictate policy and enforce it at the end of a gun. There is just so much you seem to be unaware of and unappreciative of. Let's get back to business: Please present any 'facts' in context. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, over 200,000 men died in action during the American Civil War over slavery. The Constitution failed. And even when slavery was abolished, blacks given citizenship, and the right to vote; conservative white Southerners formed the Solid South where blacks were lynched and treated as second class citizens. Prior to the American Civil War, the Constitution protected slavery. The American Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constitution allowed blacks to participate in government. Asians were excluded from citizenship until the 1940's and the 1950's. Indians were excluded from citizenship until the 1920's. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Article 4; Section 2; Clause 3 was affected by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
Gwillhickers. The slaves could not vote since they counted 3/5 person in terms of apportioning representation. Jefferson's slaves got him elected since Southerners dominated the House. The Fugitive Slave clause allowed slave hunters to retrieve slaves. That is protection of slavery. The 13th Amendment was ratified after the Confederacy was defeated. Over 200,000 soldiers died in action during the American Civil War. The South never conceded slavery until after their defeat. Your personal attacks against me Gwillhickers are unwarranted and inappropriate. You monitor this article like a hawk hunts for mice. You rarely allow criticism concerning Jefferson and make editing on this article extremely difficult. I don't worship Thomas Jefferson or put him on a pedestal. My edits into the article are not POV as you contend. If you want to believe Jefferson is a nice guy go right ahead, but please don't force your opinion on other editors. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Cm', what is your last edit doing in the DOI section in the first place? That edit has nothing to do with the drafting of the DOI and ignores the fact that Jefferson included a clause blasting the British crown for initiating slavery in the colonies. "Jefferson did nothing"?? The DOI was a Declaration to Britain, it had nothing to do with advancing legislature of any sort, for the colonists or the slaves. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I have Ellis' 'American Sphinx in hand (1996 printing, not 1998). On page 141-142 ( 167-168 in the 1998 printing) Ellis discusses life at the nailry in length and that special privileges were given to the boys who performed the best. Not once does Ellis mention whippings. I am sure they occurred once in a while, but if this was as significant an event as some would have us believe it seems Ellis, one of Jefferson's known critics, would have mentioned it. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, if Jefferson was a nice guy he would have released his slaves. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson had a forgiving heart. I don't disagree with that. He did not start the slave system in Virginia, either. After 1782 he had the opportunity to set free all his slaves. He set two of his slaves free. He deserves credit for that, even if one was purchased and the other traded, Jefferson deserves credit for setting two Hemings slaves free. One of the slaves, possibly James Hemings, was beaten for being sick and could not make to the nailery on time. Maybe there were two Jeffersons, Gwillhickers, the forgiving father and the slave owner who desired profits. Having black boys whipped at the nailery to increase profits does not sound like a nice guy. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, why do you mention Sunday like some judgement day? According to Wiencek, Jefferson put in a nicer task master, but the children were producing less, so Jefferson reinstalled the initial task master who was cruel and who beat up James Hemings. If this is true, then how can you continue to assert Jefferson was a nice guy? Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, now your making sense. I am not trying to assert that Jefferson was a bad person in the article. I believe that the Wikipedia article needs to give all Presidents a fair article. Wiencek only gives snippets of Randolph's letter. I have been trying to find the letter. Maybe Wiencek's book on Jefferson gives the source for Randolph's letter. That is the best suggestion for now. My goal is to present Jefferson as he was. I am not judgeing Jefferson for slavery or even for his policies at the nailery regarding slave children and profits. Jefferson's words and actions are not always in agreement. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The Aaron Burr - Alexander Hamilton dual needs to be mentioned in the article since Jefferson and Hamilton were political rivals. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the article is semi-protected I cannot fix the error myself so instead I will just highlight it here
"In 1871, Jefferson's friend, General Tadeusz Kościuszko died and left a bequest of nearly $20,000 to free slaves, including Jefferson's slaves, and purchase land and farming equipment that would enable the freed slaves to start new lives."
This should read 1817, as the source attests. Thanks. :)
I found a "new" source on Jefferson that I believe would be good for the article. The source comes from Dictionary of American Biography (1933) edited by Dumas Malone. Although slavery is rarely mentioned, the article gives an accurate assessement concerning Thomas Jefferson and may help give a better understanding of Thomas Jefferson. The article on Jefferson begins on page 17 and ends on page 35. One interesting assessment of Jefferson is that he viewed Hamiltion and an enemy, and his antagonism towards Hamilton was held with religious fevor. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I find, in reference to election of 1800:
"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson and Burr received the most electoral votes, but since neither had a majority, the election was decided in the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."
Try this instead: "He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson, along with Burr, received a majority of electoral votes, but because they were tied (the electoral voting at the time did not disinguish between President and Vice President), the election was decided in the outgoing Congress, by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."
This assumes "rallying support for his party" refers to Jefferson. Also, I have corrected "neither had a majority"; each had 73 electoral votes, which was a majority but, under the laws of that time, left undecided who would be President and who would be Vice President. So, also under the laws of that time, the election went into the outgoing House of Representatives; the 22nd Amendment now has it that if Congress gets involved in something like this, it would be the new Congress, not the old one.
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you understand the Electoral College (and what I am saying in the paragraph you are reading)? Each elector votes for TWO candidates, and 73 votes was a majority of the electors at that time. If you look up the 1796 presidential election, you will see John Adams getting 71 electoral votes, and there were a total of 276 electoral votes cast (that would mean 138 electors). The Constitution does provide that the winning presidential candidate must have received votes from a majority of the electors; try reading that. Maybe you want to reconsider the change, which I am amending to what is in April 16 edit request.
Net-buoy ( talk) 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)I went to check citations for fn 77 and 78 and found that in my copy of Chernow (2004) Penguin Press the cited text is at 573-574. This is confirmed as well here: http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA573#v=onepage&q&f=false Can someone confirm whether the pages from the wrong edition were cited (as the course notes both the earlier and later edition.)
As noted in the April 2 edit request, I am amending the request to the following:
"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson, along with Burr, received votes from a majority of the electors, but Jefferson and Burr were tied (the electoral voting at the time did not disinguish between President and Vice President). Therefore, the election was decided in the outgoing Congress, by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A very minor issue is present in the 3rd and 4th-to last paragraphs of the Slaves and Slavery section, where the last sentences are nearly identical and have slightly different inline citations.
70.110.17.199 ( talk) 06:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the subsection on Democracy, there should be one on views on Equality (arguably no less important, and certainly a more broad and wide-ranging area than "Banks" about which a subsection aleady exists). Found these two just now, putting below in wikiquote format for others interested (or myself, when time permits to return ehre) to incorporate into paragraph form for subsection:
Harel ( talk) 03:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC) And
The Virgina Statute for Religious Freedom was considered by Jefferson to be one of his greatest achievments. It needs a more prominent place in this article.
I would recommend putting it in at the begining, and again under his Virginia legislature accomplishments.
You could also consider adding an entire section devoted to it.
This is onee of the three things on Jeffersons tombstone, and is a seminal event in the history of secularism.
Please fix this! Or at least allow others to do so. An important part of the Jefferson legacy has been truncated brutally here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.64.161 ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposed addition for the article under "Election of 1800 and first term". From Edward Coles, Jefferson's secretary and neighbor, From Ordinance of 1787 1856. Hist. Society of Pennsylvania, p.29. viewed July 5, 2013. paraphrased:
As president, Jefferson, the author of the Ordinance of 1787 in Congressional committee under the Articles of Confederation, used his influence to bring Ohio, the first state under the Ordinance prohibiting slavery into the Union on April 30, 1802. The Act of the 7th Congress provided that the state have a republican government, and conform to the Ordinance of 1787 prohibiting slavery. He had been instrumental in prohibiting slavery not only to new territories, but in the new states to come (p.29).
or words to that effect. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
-- Gwillhickers 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Comic relief This is Sunday afternoon when maybe we're more relaxed and less professional about WP. Here's a very
old column (hideous with typos, for some reason) from The New Yorker about
somebody's various professions.
Yopienso (
talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
DNA evidence proved that the claim that Thomas Woodson (Sally Hemings first child) was fathered by Thomas Jefferson (and in fact any Jefferson at all) is untrue. Absolute negative paternity was established in the case of the first child. This should be altered accordingly and I suggest the following so that the historical context can remain intact. It's also very unlikely that they had a sexual relationship at that time since sally had no other children at all for five years after returning. I present the evidence after the suggested edit that follows.
From the Wiki Article - Jefferson Hemings Controversy
"The DNA study showed conclusively that there was no match between the Woodson descendants and the Jefferson male line. Four of the five Woodson descendants had a common haplogroup suggesting a common ancestor of Thomas Woodson; it is typical of European origin."
The Woodson line is that of Sally Hemings first child. This positively establishes negative paternity in the case of the first child.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Sally's son Madison Hemings, Sally and Jefferson began a sexual relationship in Paris and she became pregnant and agreed to return to the United States as his concubine after he promised to free her children when they came of age, [1] however other scholars note that, Madison made this claim many years later in 1873 at the age of sixty eight, during a politically motivated interview arranged by the Pike County Republican newspaper and that Sally herself produced no known historical documents or statements regarding this or any other issue. DNA evidence has since proved negative on any Jefferson paternity in the case of the first child and only possible paternity in the case of her sixth child Eston. [2] [3]
Here is part of an article from the pbs website on the subject. This is to show that the Woodson line of the first child es excluded from paternity in the case of Thomas Jefferson and that there is only a suggestion of possible paternity in the case of Sally Hemings sixth child Eston.
"Misleading Headline - "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child." On 5 November 1998 the journal Nature placed an inaccurate and misleading headline based on this study which read, "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child". Most of the mass media and many others assumed the headline to be correct. At the time Daniel P. Jordan, Ph.D. and President of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) stated that "Dr. Foster's DNA evidence indicates a sexual relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings." Subsequently Mr. Jordan admitted that "after the initial rush to conclusions came another round of articles explaining that the study's results were less conclusive than had earlier been reported." Dr. Foster also later admitted that "it is true that men of Randolph Jefferson's family could have fathered Sally Hemings' later children. The title assigned to our study was misleading in that it represented only the simplest explanation of our molecular findings: namely, that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was likely to have been the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson. We know from the historical and the DNA data that Thomas Jefferson can neither be definitely excluded nor solely implicated in the paternity of illegitimate children with his slave Sally Hemings."
Eugene Foster, the scientist who led the DNA study in question said the following:
"
New Woodson DNA Tests. DNA tests performed on 1 Eston line came up positive, but tests performed originally on 5 Woodson lines in November 1998 came up negative, as did a recent DNA test on a 6th line performed in March 2000. These results should demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of Tom Woodson. The Woodson DNA tests are important because if Tom Woodson is Sally Heming's Paris-conceived son and could be shown to have Jefferson DNA, it would then be almost certain that Thomas Jefferson was his father, since Thomas was the only Jefferson in Paris at the time who could have impregnated Sally. Last week the Thomas C. Woodson Family Association declined to attend The Monticello Association's Annual Business Meeting to be held on Sunday, May 7. The Woodson Family Association's President, Robert Golden, stated that the care of the Jefferson family cemetery and possible burial there "is not of interest to the Woodson Family Association itself but might be of interest only to specific individuals within the Woodson family."
Here is part of an article at scienceclarified.com on the Woodson paternity.
Interpreting the DNA Testing Results
"The wide spectrum of reactions to the DNA evidence of Jefferson paternity can be seen as an important symbol of the tense history of racism in American society. Reports that the Y chromosome study proved that Thomas Jefferson definitely was the father of Eston Hemings failed to explain the limitations of the study. The study proved that someone with the rare and distinctive Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Sally Hemings' youngest child, and the data eliminated the "usual suspects," i.e., the Carrs. The tests found no match, however, between the Jefferson Y chromosome and that of Thomas Woodson's descendants, who continue to believe that they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Although no other Jeffersons had previously been implicated as the fathers of Sally's children, after the DNA tests were published, genealogists noted that at least 25 adult male Jeffersons, including eight who lived within 20 miles of Monticello, could have fathered Eston Hemings."
I personally would note that the Jefferson male chromosone could certainly have come from a black man who was fathered by some other Jefferson or Thomas Jefferson himself and I'm not sure why this hasn't been considered. Why is it only possible that Sally Hemings had children by a white man when she lived among black men? Is this a suggestion that Sally Hemings was racist as she refused to have children by a black man, instead preferring to wait around until the right white man showed up? Again note that there were five years between the time Jefferson and Sally returned from Paris and that she had her next child. Does this really reflect the red hot discretion painted by "many historians"?
I additionally find that even the monticello.org report loses footing as they failed to even CONSIDER the (very rare) minority report in their findings before publishing supporting final conclusions.
In any event, it has been proven conclusively that Thomas Jefferson, and indeed no Jefferson at all, was the father of Sally Hemings first child, thus disproving Madison Hemings claim that Sally became pregnant due to a sexual relationship with Thomas Jefferson that begin in Paris.
While the historical context of the claim should remain in place, the article should be appended to reflect the scientific evidence as well. If this is not reflected in an article that presents itself as fact then it becomes merely sprurious and cannot be regarded as informational or protected.
Thank you,
Steven Stout stevestout@gmail.com
71.219.149.65 (
talk) 15:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems this is far from being resolved on an intellectual level. Since professions like diplomat were short lived, and since there's no source that says he "was paid" for that effort either, yet it's listed in the infobox, then we should also include Architect, because Jefferson spent most of his adult life at one point and another pursuing Architecture and is quite noted for it. It can even be argued that after he was President he devoted much more time to architecture than he did with politics. Jefferson was working for the government when he was a diplomat, and he was working for the government when he designed Washington and the capital house building in Virginia which is considered by the AIA to be the best example of early American architecture in the country. I think it's safe to say he was a master architect as this seems to be evident in the landmark masterpieces he designed and in his many drawings, and esp since he is recognized as an accomplished Architect by the AIA and is roundly referred to as such by historians. As consensus goes, we have three oppose and two support. We need to bring in other opinions. Maintaining that a source hasn't been found that says he "was paid" by itself is a poor argument, esp since they don't say this verbatim for the other listed professions. i.e. No double standard. Diplomat and Lawyer are there. So should Architect be. In fact, given Monticello, UVA, Capital bldg in Virginia, etc, etc, Jefferson is much more famous as an Architect than he is for being a diplomat. He devoted much more of his life to it than he did being a diplomat. -- Gwillhickers 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Consensus seems final for the idea that 'Architect was not TJ's profession', while all the weight of this argument has rested on the idea that Jefferson didn't cut a steady paycheck from the practice as he did when he was a diplomat and lawyer, that somehow being an Architect didn't contribute to his livelihood, ever. Given the many and diverse architectural involvements he was involved with I think most would assume that Jefferson had some sort of financial arrangement in place much of the time. IMO this would be likely, as Jefferson was money minded and was always finding ways to spend it. Yet we know we can't assume he made any money, or didn't make any, so we remain at an impasse on that note. But weight should still be given to the idea that at any given time, Jefferson was practicing more than just one profession. He was a planter, lawyer, diplomat, SOS, President and businessman. Yet among all these pursuits, architecture remains the one 'profession' he retained and practiced throughout his adult life, unlike any of the others. He even gave up planting to a great degree in later years to get into other pursuits, like the nailry and forge. It would be an uphill battle, but the argument could be made that architecture was his main profession when we look at the man's entire life, but again, some would measure and decide that in terms of how much money be made. And in that event we would have to consider how much money he made as an architect. If a source turns up that reveals Jefferson made notable amounts of money from time to time then we're all set to go ahead and list 'Architect' as one of his professions, because that has been the rational we've established here, and now it's anchored in consensus. -- Gwillhickers 01:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Howard and Straus make reference to Kimball's book Thomas Jefferson, Architect, a book devoted to Jefferson's architectural pursuits. I saw a similar source that referred to Jefferson as an Amateur only in reference to the fact that he was self taught, not in reference to Jefferson's capability, so it would indeed be interesting to see what context these authors make the statement. -- Gwillhickers 04:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz. There is nothing misleading about my above statement. Jefferson studied Palladio. Therefore he was a student of Palladio, even though Palladio was no longer alive. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I urge you to search for the word "amateur" in this book and read carefully every passage where it appears, also reading the surrounding text. Author Hugh Howard does a great job of describing the "gentlemen amateurs," a category which included TJ, and the development of the architectural profession in the U.S. Follow the career that grew out of Chas. Bulfinch's hobby, and the non-career of William Thornton, who designed the Capitol. Two short quotes:
The most important thing I want to say is that I think the article does TJ justice wrt his architectural accomplishments. (And then there's a whole article on Jeffersonian architecture.) This is much ado over one word in the infobox. I'm satisfied with omitting architecture from the infobox and covering it appropriately in the article because the infobox gives highlights, not the whole story. Yopienso ( talk) 06:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There are and have been a number of quotes, and other statements taken from primary sources, often found in secondary sources, that exist on the page. Please do not remove them. They are allowed if there's no OR or new position being advanced. If you feel there are issues, please discuss. -- Gwillhickers 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yopienso, I have no problem with your latest edit, removing Diplomat from the info box, because it was a short lived practice and is covered by politician, imo. But let me just say that when an issue is still being disputed it isn't the best time to "be bold", because someone can always come along and 'be bold' and revert it. Frankly, I don't think that's one of Wikipedia's wisest ideas. It can be used to cancel itself out by someone else and sort of goes against the idea of 'talk page'. Having said that, your edit was not reckless, as two other editors including myself expressed a willingness to remove it.
In any case, consensus is now pretty split over including Architect with a small lead wanting to keep it out of the info box, so it seems we should decide the matter on the strength and validity of ideas and the amount of evidence there is to consider, which is considerable. If we were to ask people what are the two professions Jefferson is most famous for, Architect would be among them. Are there any books entitled 'Jefferson the Planter' in so many words? I don't think so. There are several for Architect, and understandably so. After all he studied and practiced architecture extensively much longer than he did law. Below is a list of items that support and don't support. Feel free to add others items, keeping it brief, with explanations, comments below. -- Gwillhickers 17:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ideas that support Architect:
Ideas that don't support:
This is not about one item in the info box. Reexamining this will determine how much we should devote to Architect in the article. All things considered, we should have a subsection for architect, (following Lawyer and House of Burgesses) whether we call it a "profession" or not. -- Gwillhickers 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is becoming ridiculous. The bulleted points show that Jefferson was indeed an architect (and accomplished at that), in the sense that he designed buildings. No one disputes that he was an architect. You have not shown that he engaged in architecture as a profession, which is what the infobox listing requires. Dezastru ( talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Repeatedly discussing the same thing over again is not helping. Per the multiple points above made by multiple editors, and even the !vote asked for, there is no consensus for architect as Profession in the infobox.
Etc, etc, again. I'm sure I missed a few given the large number of editors who have said they do not support it. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, what are the sources that state Jefferson was an amateur architect? We have established that he was an architect. What reliable sources specifically state Jefferson was an amateur architect? Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is a source that supports Jefferson equal to any professional architect: The Architectural Ideology of Thomas Jefferson Ralph G. Giordano (2012) Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"[Jefferson] kept a complete memorandum of all the cases in which he appeared before the courts of Virginia and opposite each case the fee he received for his professional services . . . its no exaggeration to say that no day passed during the 12 years he remained engaged in the law without his giving considerable time to his profession." Thomas Jefferson: The Apostle of Americanism, Gilbert Chinard (2011) p. 51 (emphasis added). No source says he was an amateur lawyer, unlike amateur architect. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yopensio, you are misreprenting the source that states Jefferson was known as a "gentleman architect" not that he was one. Also, the source in no way states Jefferson was an amateur architect. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Fact is that we have several sources (already on this very page) that call Jefferson an amateur architect. What we do not have is a single source that calls him an professional. What we also don't have is any source that states that "Knowledge, Practice, Accomplishments" are sufficient (or even necessary) for the definition of "professional". On the other hand, our own (sourced) definition of
profession clearly excludes him. When you have to start needing to reject ever wider sources and invent your own definitions, it's time to step back an re-evaluate whether your commitment to a given position is clearly justified. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 06:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
While it's bad practice to just search for confirmation, here are some sources for Jefferson as an amateur architect (the original ones seem to have been archived already):
It took about 10 times longer to copy them here than to find them - and there is a nearly unlimited supply of more right at Google. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't contributed to this page for a while, but I think this debate is rather unproductive. Firstly, it's somewhat ahistorical. A simple distinction between "amateur" and "professional" is inappropriate to the period, when it was very common for "gentlemen" with independent means to engage in creative or scholarly activity. For example William Jones was, nominally at least, a judge by profession, but he is known as a linguist and scholar. Much the same could be said for many other scholarly figures of the era. Was William Payne Knight a historian by "profession" or not? This was certainly also true of architects. John Vanbrugh and Christopher Wren were both "amateurs". As far as I know, neither of them had any professional training. I don't think it's appropriate to just list Jefferson's architecture as an "interest", which just could mean he liked looking at buildings, or collected a lot of books about architecture. I fact he "professed" in the sense that he practiced, architecture, which is a valid meaning of the term in the historical context. We should not be fixated on terminology here. It just so happens that this infobox has a section called "profession" (which as I have suggested, is really rather a clumsy fit for the period). Christopher Wren's infobox happens to be "infobox scientist". It has no section for "profession" but does have a section entitled "field" (clearly intended to mean 'area of scientific specialism'). Architecture is listed there. It's not a "field" of science, strictly speaking, but it's the best place to fit something that really has to be included, within the particular format of that infobox. Jefferson actually designed and had built a number of important buildings. In that sense he "professed" architecture and was not just "interested" in it. Paul B ( talk) 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that recent scholarship that states Jefferson was an amatuer architect? My book source was (2012) and had a greater appreciation of Jefferson's architecture. We need to judge Jeffesron by the standards of his time. Remember when the White House or President's House was being designed Jefferson drew up plans. However, another architect's plans were chosen. Was Jefferson by profession an architect by the standards of his times. Have historians used modern standards of architecture and applied them to Jefferson? By modern standards, yes, Jefferson was an amateur. His buildings are still in use today and I would believe that would make him an architect by profession. Cmguy777 ( talk)
Paul Barlow. Thanks for your input. I agree. I am for "architect" alone in the infobox, but I thought that adding "amateur" would achieve a compromise. I believe Jefferson's architecture is taking on more appreciation in the scholarly community and I believe that he needs to be known by profession as an architect. This was a compromise solution in terms of getting the word "architect" into the infobox even if there is the condition word "amateur" added. Another compromise would be adding "gentleman" to the word "architect". Possible Alan Scott Walker and/or Gwillhickers would agree to this compromise. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Cm' thanks for your willingness to compromise. I too was giving that some thought, that we could say 'Amateur architect' but that would easily throw the reader off and give them the impression that Jefferson was not of professional and accomplished capacity. On the Benjamin Franklin page 'Scientist' is in the info box. He too was self taught and practiced it and is famous for it. In his day he was recognized as an accomplished man of science by his contemporaries and others, and no one called him an "amateur". By 'modern' standards he was an "amateur" but we are not talking about a modern day person. Jefferson was an accomplished architect, he practiced architecture extensively, so much so he is famous for it. 'Amateur' is a modern day connotation mostly. When we get around to writing the section for Architecture we of course mention he was self taught, and we can also mention that he is referred to by some modern historians as an "amateur" if enough people happen to think this is important to the biography. -- Gwillhickers 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is another source: Architecture: Celebrating the Past, Designing the Future Richard Guy Wilson (2008), Hon. AIA. This article I believe is a great source on Jefferson and Architecture. He was the only architect to serve as President of the United States. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. "Amateur architect" is the best alternative, since Jefferson was an architect having designed homes for several friends and designed several court houses. Jefferson was an influencial architect. Prior to Jefferson, architecture had been domintated by Europeans. Jefferson apparently was in a transitional period when architecture had yet to be liscenced as a profession. In my opinion, Jefferson's architecture became a reality, and that is what would make him a professional, even though technically an amateur. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just added 'Amateur Architect' to the info box. Also, I have restored 'Diplomat', as this was an important role, even if short lived. Yopienso, I appreciate the removal of diplomat as I took exception to its inclusion, but only because the same standards were not being used. Hope there are no issues now. Yes, we have five items in the info box, but the Jefferson page is unlike that of most other Presidents. A polymath who lived in colonial times, through the Revolution, War of 1812 and everything in between it's a wonder this page doesn't explode.
--
Gwillhickers 04:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
TFD, I believe you are going have gone against editor concensus on this issue. We are not advocating Editors have not advocated every profession be listed. "Amateur architect" had been agreed to be used in the article.
Cmguy777 (
talk) 06:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Dezastru, with all due respect, there was no liscensing practice during Jefferson's times for an architect. Jefferson's architecture became a reality and is even recognized in by an Architecture magazine. Jefferson was an architect. We added "amateur" because that indirectly implies that Jefferson was not a liscensed architect, there were none, and that he relied on slavery and his Monticello plantation for his income. As Gwillhickers mentioned, we don't know if Jefferson was ever compensated for his architecture. I would state there was a strong possibility he was paid by his friends whom he designed homes for. We have reached a compromise. This compromise may not be a perfect one, but then again, compromises are never perfect. Thanks for your input. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Our new friend seems to think the slavery section is far too large, claiming info is covered on other pages and took it upon himself to delete nine entire paragraphs, not specific topics, so his aim seems sort of obtuse and generic. He's claiming "twelve paragraphs" are covered elsewhere and evidently feels they should be deleted. -- Gwillhickers 17:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Blinkerset, possibly you could give editors an outline of your planned delete intentions for the Slaves and slavery section. What do you want to delete? Please be specific. Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet or Bink. Thanks for the correction. I looked at your deletion and there seemed to be neither rhymne nor reason for your editing. The more you delete, the less people will understand about Jefferson and slavery. Jefferson was complicated. There are no simple answers as to whether Jefferson was for or against slavery. Your deletions dilute the slavery issue of Thomas Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves and controlled their individual destinies. I believe your deletions have POV in that you are side stepping the slavery issue, whether you are doing this on purpose or not, I don't know. To delete only to delete is not a valid wikipedia reason for deletion. To delete without a formal discussion is also not standard Wikipedia policy, especially in such a popular article as Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
With tempers flaring and absolute statements being made about "the only way it's going to fly", I would like to point out that Cmguy777 and Gwhillhickers have indicated they approve of the current 12-paragraph slavery section, while Binksternet, Stephan Shulz and Yopienso have voiced a preference for a trimmed slavery section. That's 2 vs 3. With even this slight majority we can move forward with judicious trimming, with determining what are the core themes and what are details best taken to the sub-article
Thomas Jefferson and slavery. To all editors: if you want to be part of the solution, please start thinking about what the summary version of the slavery section must include.
Just so you know, I'm not going to appear at the sub-article to gauge the progress; my only interest is to get this prominent biography article to hew to summary style, which is a necessary step in the direction of returning this article to GA status and perhaps FA.
Binksternet (
talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Cm' there are issues with your last edit in the DOI section:
In your typical two-dimensional style, you make it sound like 'race' was the reason Jefferson "did nothing" where in reality Jefferson at that time was only a delegate from Virginia, and because of the revolution he, as one man, was not in a position to spend time trying to advance legislation to make freed blacks citizens. Further, as was already pointed out to you on this discussion page, because of Revolutionary 'war' the priorities were focused on national security and survival. No one had time to devote energy towards advancing legislation for citizenry for freed blacks. This is a very pathetic and narrow minded edit! I added context to your statement, cited, but it still needs further clarification. Your statement should read:
I have not changed the words to your edit but have added others words along after it for context. As soon as I find the sources I will further clarify and add further context to your racially charged statement. Btw, Ferling is totally absorbed with opinions of race and is attempting to use this as a wet blanket to throw over the entire advent of American history. Another Finkelman. Highly opinionated sources like this need to be qualified with more objective sources along side of them. We have repeatedly discussed cherry picking singular sources and using them to make controversial statements. As usual, discussion with you is generally a waste of time, as you turn right around and do your one-trick pony act all over again. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, Ferling directly associated Jefferson not advancing citizenship on blacks because of race. Since the Puritans landed on Plymouth rock both blacks and Indians were enslaved. Jefferson could not tolerate a black man to be his equal in terms of citizenship. Ferling gave a list of racial issues Jefferson had with blacks. Everything Jefferson wrote on white people was formed with praise in terms of intelligence and beauty. Jefferson was repulsed by the black skin color. Jefferson did not want blacks in America, rather, they needed to be deported to a colony. Jefferson did not want Indians to be U.S. Citizens either, rather push them back across the Mississippi River or be exterminated. I admit that the Indians had a tribal warrior society and were hard to incorporate into a democracy. What is clear is that Jefferson and Americans wanted their land. Push them West or extermination was the answer, manifest destiny. I agree Jefferson was kind to his slaves at times, but he was capable of being physically and psychologically cruel to blacks. Can you find in any of Jefferson's writings where he supported black citizenship? Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
At this point I don't believe anything you say anymore. You say one thing and do another; aside from jumping to other topics and ignoring discussions, you talk about "the truth", and take one sliver of it, e.g."Jefferson thought white-red skin to be more beautiful", and then use that as your ticket to throw mud in the Jefferson biography at every opportunity. Many attempts and much time and effort have been given you to explain the many circumstances, looming threats and priorities of the day, i.e.War, slave power, French interests in the L.T., Missouri compromise geo' dividing line instigating civil war, all supported by numerous sources, past and present -- and all you do is come back and blow the same horn. Given your racist slur "the superior lily white race", indeed these are your words, I believe my observation was a fair one, as all you do is focus on race and ignore everything else involved. If you want to see systematic, fundamental and acute racism, look at the way many tribes lived. Completely xenophobic -- even towards other tribes. Various countries in Africa, are still practicing slavery today, in barbaric form, during 'modern times' -- those slaves are not living in 10 x 20 foot cabins with Sundays, Christmas and Easter off, growing their own gardens, etc, etc. Then take a good look at the color of their masters. Do you think any of them are discussing the evils of slavery in their Congress? Opps, they don't have a congress, they dictate policy and enforce it at the end of a gun. There is just so much you seem to be unaware of and unappreciative of. Let's get back to business: Please present any 'facts' in context. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, over 200,000 men died in action during the American Civil War over slavery. The Constitution failed. And even when slavery was abolished, blacks given citizenship, and the right to vote; conservative white Southerners formed the Solid South where blacks were lynched and treated as second class citizens. Prior to the American Civil War, the Constitution protected slavery. The American Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constitution allowed blacks to participate in government. Asians were excluded from citizenship until the 1940's and the 1950's. Indians were excluded from citizenship until the 1920's. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Article 4; Section 2; Clause 3 was affected by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
Gwillhickers. The slaves could not vote since they counted 3/5 person in terms of apportioning representation. Jefferson's slaves got him elected since Southerners dominated the House. The Fugitive Slave clause allowed slave hunters to retrieve slaves. That is protection of slavery. The 13th Amendment was ratified after the Confederacy was defeated. Over 200,000 soldiers died in action during the American Civil War. The South never conceded slavery until after their defeat. Your personal attacks against me Gwillhickers are unwarranted and inappropriate. You monitor this article like a hawk hunts for mice. You rarely allow criticism concerning Jefferson and make editing on this article extremely difficult. I don't worship Thomas Jefferson or put him on a pedestal. My edits into the article are not POV as you contend. If you want to believe Jefferson is a nice guy go right ahead, but please don't force your opinion on other editors. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Cm', what is your last edit doing in the DOI section in the first place? That edit has nothing to do with the drafting of the DOI and ignores the fact that Jefferson included a clause blasting the British crown for initiating slavery in the colonies. "Jefferson did nothing"?? The DOI was a Declaration to Britain, it had nothing to do with advancing legislature of any sort, for the colonists or the slaves. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I have Ellis' 'American Sphinx in hand (1996 printing, not 1998). On page 141-142 ( 167-168 in the 1998 printing) Ellis discusses life at the nailry in length and that special privileges were given to the boys who performed the best. Not once does Ellis mention whippings. I am sure they occurred once in a while, but if this was as significant an event as some would have us believe it seems Ellis, one of Jefferson's known critics, would have mentioned it. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, if Jefferson was a nice guy he would have released his slaves. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson had a forgiving heart. I don't disagree with that. He did not start the slave system in Virginia, either. After 1782 he had the opportunity to set free all his slaves. He set two of his slaves free. He deserves credit for that, even if one was purchased and the other traded, Jefferson deserves credit for setting two Hemings slaves free. One of the slaves, possibly James Hemings, was beaten for being sick and could not make to the nailery on time. Maybe there were two Jeffersons, Gwillhickers, the forgiving father and the slave owner who desired profits. Having black boys whipped at the nailery to increase profits does not sound like a nice guy. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, why do you mention Sunday like some judgement day? According to Wiencek, Jefferson put in a nicer task master, but the children were producing less, so Jefferson reinstalled the initial task master who was cruel and who beat up James Hemings. If this is true, then how can you continue to assert Jefferson was a nice guy? Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, now your making sense. I am not trying to assert that Jefferson was a bad person in the article. I believe that the Wikipedia article needs to give all Presidents a fair article. Wiencek only gives snippets of Randolph's letter. I have been trying to find the letter. Maybe Wiencek's book on Jefferson gives the source for Randolph's letter. That is the best suggestion for now. My goal is to present Jefferson as he was. I am not judgeing Jefferson for slavery or even for his policies at the nailery regarding slave children and profits. Jefferson's words and actions are not always in agreement. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The Aaron Burr - Alexander Hamilton dual needs to be mentioned in the article since Jefferson and Hamilton were political rivals. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the article is semi-protected I cannot fix the error myself so instead I will just highlight it here
"In 1871, Jefferson's friend, General Tadeusz Kościuszko died and left a bequest of nearly $20,000 to free slaves, including Jefferson's slaves, and purchase land and farming equipment that would enable the freed slaves to start new lives."
This should read 1817, as the source attests. Thanks. :)
I found a "new" source on Jefferson that I believe would be good for the article. The source comes from Dictionary of American Biography (1933) edited by Dumas Malone. Although slavery is rarely mentioned, the article gives an accurate assessement concerning Thomas Jefferson and may help give a better understanding of Thomas Jefferson. The article on Jefferson begins on page 17 and ends on page 35. One interesting assessment of Jefferson is that he viewed Hamiltion and an enemy, and his antagonism towards Hamilton was held with religious fevor. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I find, in reference to election of 1800:
"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson and Burr received the most electoral votes, but since neither had a majority, the election was decided in the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."
Try this instead: "He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson, along with Burr, received a majority of electoral votes, but because they were tied (the electoral voting at the time did not disinguish between President and Vice President), the election was decided in the outgoing Congress, by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."
This assumes "rallying support for his party" refers to Jefferson. Also, I have corrected "neither had a majority"; each had 73 electoral votes, which was a majority but, under the laws of that time, left undecided who would be President and who would be Vice President. So, also under the laws of that time, the election went into the outgoing House of Representatives; the 22nd Amendment now has it that if Congress gets involved in something like this, it would be the new Congress, not the old one.
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 20:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you understand the Electoral College (and what I am saying in the paragraph you are reading)? Each elector votes for TWO candidates, and 73 votes was a majority of the electors at that time. If you look up the 1796 presidential election, you will see John Adams getting 71 electoral votes, and there were a total of 276 electoral votes cast (that would mean 138 electors). The Constitution does provide that the winning presidential candidate must have received votes from a majority of the electors; try reading that. Maybe you want to reconsider the change, which I am amending to what is in April 16 edit request.
Net-buoy ( talk) 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)I went to check citations for fn 77 and 78 and found that in my copy of Chernow (2004) Penguin Press the cited text is at 573-574. This is confirmed as well here: http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA573#v=onepage&q&f=false Can someone confirm whether the pages from the wrong edition were cited (as the course notes both the earlier and later edition.)
As noted in the April 2 edit request, I am amending the request to the following:
"He had worked closely with Aaron Burr, and after rallying support for his party Jefferson, along with Burr, received votes from a majority of the electors, but Jefferson and Burr were tied (the electoral voting at the time did not disinguish between President and Vice President). Therefore, the election was decided in the outgoing Congress, by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A very minor issue is present in the 3rd and 4th-to last paragraphs of the Slaves and Slavery section, where the last sentences are nearly identical and have slightly different inline citations.
70.110.17.199 ( talk) 06:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the subsection on Democracy, there should be one on views on Equality (arguably no less important, and certainly a more broad and wide-ranging area than "Banks" about which a subsection aleady exists). Found these two just now, putting below in wikiquote format for others interested (or myself, when time permits to return ehre) to incorporate into paragraph form for subsection:
Harel ( talk) 03:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC) And
The Virgina Statute for Religious Freedom was considered by Jefferson to be one of his greatest achievments. It needs a more prominent place in this article.
I would recommend putting it in at the begining, and again under his Virginia legislature accomplishments.
You could also consider adding an entire section devoted to it.
This is onee of the three things on Jeffersons tombstone, and is a seminal event in the history of secularism.
Please fix this! Or at least allow others to do so. An important part of the Jefferson legacy has been truncated brutally here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.64.161 ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposed addition for the article under "Election of 1800 and first term". From Edward Coles, Jefferson's secretary and neighbor, From Ordinance of 1787 1856. Hist. Society of Pennsylvania, p.29. viewed July 5, 2013. paraphrased:
As president, Jefferson, the author of the Ordinance of 1787 in Congressional committee under the Articles of Confederation, used his influence to bring Ohio, the first state under the Ordinance prohibiting slavery into the Union on April 30, 1802. The Act of the 7th Congress provided that the state have a republican government, and conform to the Ordinance of 1787 prohibiting slavery. He had been instrumental in prohibiting slavery not only to new territories, but in the new states to come (p.29).
or words to that effect. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
-- Gwillhickers 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Comic relief This is Sunday afternoon when maybe we're more relaxed and less professional about WP. Here's a very
old column (hideous with typos, for some reason) from The New Yorker about
somebody's various professions.
Yopienso (
talk) 00:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
DNA evidence proved that the claim that Thomas Woodson (Sally Hemings first child) was fathered by Thomas Jefferson (and in fact any Jefferson at all) is untrue. Absolute negative paternity was established in the case of the first child. This should be altered accordingly and I suggest the following so that the historical context can remain intact. It's also very unlikely that they had a sexual relationship at that time since sally had no other children at all for five years after returning. I present the evidence after the suggested edit that follows.
From the Wiki Article - Jefferson Hemings Controversy
"The DNA study showed conclusively that there was no match between the Woodson descendants and the Jefferson male line. Four of the five Woodson descendants had a common haplogroup suggesting a common ancestor of Thomas Woodson; it is typical of European origin."
The Woodson line is that of Sally Hemings first child. This positively establishes negative paternity in the case of the first child.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Sally's son Madison Hemings, Sally and Jefferson began a sexual relationship in Paris and she became pregnant and agreed to return to the United States as his concubine after he promised to free her children when they came of age, [1] however other scholars note that, Madison made this claim many years later in 1873 at the age of sixty eight, during a politically motivated interview arranged by the Pike County Republican newspaper and that Sally herself produced no known historical documents or statements regarding this or any other issue. DNA evidence has since proved negative on any Jefferson paternity in the case of the first child and only possible paternity in the case of her sixth child Eston. [2] [3]
Here is part of an article from the pbs website on the subject. This is to show that the Woodson line of the first child es excluded from paternity in the case of Thomas Jefferson and that there is only a suggestion of possible paternity in the case of Sally Hemings sixth child Eston.
"Misleading Headline - "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child." On 5 November 1998 the journal Nature placed an inaccurate and misleading headline based on this study which read, "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child". Most of the mass media and many others assumed the headline to be correct. At the time Daniel P. Jordan, Ph.D. and President of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) stated that "Dr. Foster's DNA evidence indicates a sexual relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings." Subsequently Mr. Jordan admitted that "after the initial rush to conclusions came another round of articles explaining that the study's results were less conclusive than had earlier been reported." Dr. Foster also later admitted that "it is true that men of Randolph Jefferson's family could have fathered Sally Hemings' later children. The title assigned to our study was misleading in that it represented only the simplest explanation of our molecular findings: namely, that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was likely to have been the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson. We know from the historical and the DNA data that Thomas Jefferson can neither be definitely excluded nor solely implicated in the paternity of illegitimate children with his slave Sally Hemings."
Eugene Foster, the scientist who led the DNA study in question said the following:
"
New Woodson DNA Tests. DNA tests performed on 1 Eston line came up positive, but tests performed originally on 5 Woodson lines in November 1998 came up negative, as did a recent DNA test on a 6th line performed in March 2000. These results should demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of Tom Woodson. The Woodson DNA tests are important because if Tom Woodson is Sally Heming's Paris-conceived son and could be shown to have Jefferson DNA, it would then be almost certain that Thomas Jefferson was his father, since Thomas was the only Jefferson in Paris at the time who could have impregnated Sally. Last week the Thomas C. Woodson Family Association declined to attend The Monticello Association's Annual Business Meeting to be held on Sunday, May 7. The Woodson Family Association's President, Robert Golden, stated that the care of the Jefferson family cemetery and possible burial there "is not of interest to the Woodson Family Association itself but might be of interest only to specific individuals within the Woodson family."
Here is part of an article at scienceclarified.com on the Woodson paternity.
Interpreting the DNA Testing Results
"The wide spectrum of reactions to the DNA evidence of Jefferson paternity can be seen as an important symbol of the tense history of racism in American society. Reports that the Y chromosome study proved that Thomas Jefferson definitely was the father of Eston Hemings failed to explain the limitations of the study. The study proved that someone with the rare and distinctive Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Sally Hemings' youngest child, and the data eliminated the "usual suspects," i.e., the Carrs. The tests found no match, however, between the Jefferson Y chromosome and that of Thomas Woodson's descendants, who continue to believe that they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Although no other Jeffersons had previously been implicated as the fathers of Sally's children, after the DNA tests were published, genealogists noted that at least 25 adult male Jeffersons, including eight who lived within 20 miles of Monticello, could have fathered Eston Hemings."
I personally would note that the Jefferson male chromosone could certainly have come from a black man who was fathered by some other Jefferson or Thomas Jefferson himself and I'm not sure why this hasn't been considered. Why is it only possible that Sally Hemings had children by a white man when she lived among black men? Is this a suggestion that Sally Hemings was racist as she refused to have children by a black man, instead preferring to wait around until the right white man showed up? Again note that there were five years between the time Jefferson and Sally returned from Paris and that she had her next child. Does this really reflect the red hot discretion painted by "many historians"?
I additionally find that even the monticello.org report loses footing as they failed to even CONSIDER the (very rare) minority report in their findings before publishing supporting final conclusions.
In any event, it has been proven conclusively that Thomas Jefferson, and indeed no Jefferson at all, was the father of Sally Hemings first child, thus disproving Madison Hemings claim that Sally became pregnant due to a sexual relationship with Thomas Jefferson that begin in Paris.
While the historical context of the claim should remain in place, the article should be appended to reflect the scientific evidence as well. If this is not reflected in an article that presents itself as fact then it becomes merely sprurious and cannot be regarded as informational or protected.
Thank you,
Steven Stout stevestout@gmail.com
71.219.149.65 (
talk) 15:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems this is far from being resolved on an intellectual level. Since professions like diplomat were short lived, and since there's no source that says he "was paid" for that effort either, yet it's listed in the infobox, then we should also include Architect, because Jefferson spent most of his adult life at one point and another pursuing Architecture and is quite noted for it. It can even be argued that after he was President he devoted much more time to architecture than he did with politics. Jefferson was working for the government when he was a diplomat, and he was working for the government when he designed Washington and the capital house building in Virginia which is considered by the AIA to be the best example of early American architecture in the country. I think it's safe to say he was a master architect as this seems to be evident in the landmark masterpieces he designed and in his many drawings, and esp since he is recognized as an accomplished Architect by the AIA and is roundly referred to as such by historians. As consensus goes, we have three oppose and two support. We need to bring in other opinions. Maintaining that a source hasn't been found that says he "was paid" by itself is a poor argument, esp since they don't say this verbatim for the other listed professions. i.e. No double standard. Diplomat and Lawyer are there. So should Architect be. In fact, given Monticello, UVA, Capital bldg in Virginia, etc, etc, Jefferson is much more famous as an Architect than he is for being a diplomat. He devoted much more of his life to it than he did being a diplomat. -- Gwillhickers 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Consensus seems final for the idea that 'Architect was not TJ's profession', while all the weight of this argument has rested on the idea that Jefferson didn't cut a steady paycheck from the practice as he did when he was a diplomat and lawyer, that somehow being an Architect didn't contribute to his livelihood, ever. Given the many and diverse architectural involvements he was involved with I think most would assume that Jefferson had some sort of financial arrangement in place much of the time. IMO this would be likely, as Jefferson was money minded and was always finding ways to spend it. Yet we know we can't assume he made any money, or didn't make any, so we remain at an impasse on that note. But weight should still be given to the idea that at any given time, Jefferson was practicing more than just one profession. He was a planter, lawyer, diplomat, SOS, President and businessman. Yet among all these pursuits, architecture remains the one 'profession' he retained and practiced throughout his adult life, unlike any of the others. He even gave up planting to a great degree in later years to get into other pursuits, like the nailry and forge. It would be an uphill battle, but the argument could be made that architecture was his main profession when we look at the man's entire life, but again, some would measure and decide that in terms of how much money be made. And in that event we would have to consider how much money he made as an architect. If a source turns up that reveals Jefferson made notable amounts of money from time to time then we're all set to go ahead and list 'Architect' as one of his professions, because that has been the rational we've established here, and now it's anchored in consensus. -- Gwillhickers 01:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : Howard and Straus make reference to Kimball's book Thomas Jefferson, Architect, a book devoted to Jefferson's architectural pursuits. I saw a similar source that referred to Jefferson as an Amateur only in reference to the fact that he was self taught, not in reference to Jefferson's capability, so it would indeed be interesting to see what context these authors make the statement. -- Gwillhickers 04:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz. There is nothing misleading about my above statement. Jefferson studied Palladio. Therefore he was a student of Palladio, even though Palladio was no longer alive. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I urge you to search for the word "amateur" in this book and read carefully every passage where it appears, also reading the surrounding text. Author Hugh Howard does a great job of describing the "gentlemen amateurs," a category which included TJ, and the development of the architectural profession in the U.S. Follow the career that grew out of Chas. Bulfinch's hobby, and the non-career of William Thornton, who designed the Capitol. Two short quotes:
The most important thing I want to say is that I think the article does TJ justice wrt his architectural accomplishments. (And then there's a whole article on Jeffersonian architecture.) This is much ado over one word in the infobox. I'm satisfied with omitting architecture from the infobox and covering it appropriately in the article because the infobox gives highlights, not the whole story. Yopienso ( talk) 06:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There are and have been a number of quotes, and other statements taken from primary sources, often found in secondary sources, that exist on the page. Please do not remove them. They are allowed if there's no OR or new position being advanced. If you feel there are issues, please discuss. -- Gwillhickers 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yopienso, I have no problem with your latest edit, removing Diplomat from the info box, because it was a short lived practice and is covered by politician, imo. But let me just say that when an issue is still being disputed it isn't the best time to "be bold", because someone can always come along and 'be bold' and revert it. Frankly, I don't think that's one of Wikipedia's wisest ideas. It can be used to cancel itself out by someone else and sort of goes against the idea of 'talk page'. Having said that, your edit was not reckless, as two other editors including myself expressed a willingness to remove it.
In any case, consensus is now pretty split over including Architect with a small lead wanting to keep it out of the info box, so it seems we should decide the matter on the strength and validity of ideas and the amount of evidence there is to consider, which is considerable. If we were to ask people what are the two professions Jefferson is most famous for, Architect would be among them. Are there any books entitled 'Jefferson the Planter' in so many words? I don't think so. There are several for Architect, and understandably so. After all he studied and practiced architecture extensively much longer than he did law. Below is a list of items that support and don't support. Feel free to add others items, keeping it brief, with explanations, comments below. -- Gwillhickers 17:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ideas that support Architect:
Ideas that don't support:
This is not about one item in the info box. Reexamining this will determine how much we should devote to Architect in the article. All things considered, we should have a subsection for architect, (following Lawyer and House of Burgesses) whether we call it a "profession" or not. -- Gwillhickers 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is becoming ridiculous. The bulleted points show that Jefferson was indeed an architect (and accomplished at that), in the sense that he designed buildings. No one disputes that he was an architect. You have not shown that he engaged in architecture as a profession, which is what the infobox listing requires. Dezastru ( talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Repeatedly discussing the same thing over again is not helping. Per the multiple points above made by multiple editors, and even the !vote asked for, there is no consensus for architect as Profession in the infobox.
Etc, etc, again. I'm sure I missed a few given the large number of editors who have said they do not support it. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, what are the sources that state Jefferson was an amateur architect? We have established that he was an architect. What reliable sources specifically state Jefferson was an amateur architect? Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is a source that supports Jefferson equal to any professional architect: The Architectural Ideology of Thomas Jefferson Ralph G. Giordano (2012) Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"[Jefferson] kept a complete memorandum of all the cases in which he appeared before the courts of Virginia and opposite each case the fee he received for his professional services . . . its no exaggeration to say that no day passed during the 12 years he remained engaged in the law without his giving considerable time to his profession." Thomas Jefferson: The Apostle of Americanism, Gilbert Chinard (2011) p. 51 (emphasis added). No source says he was an amateur lawyer, unlike amateur architect. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yopensio, you are misreprenting the source that states Jefferson was known as a "gentleman architect" not that he was one. Also, the source in no way states Jefferson was an amateur architect. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Fact is that we have several sources (already on this very page) that call Jefferson an amateur architect. What we do not have is a single source that calls him an professional. What we also don't have is any source that states that "Knowledge, Practice, Accomplishments" are sufficient (or even necessary) for the definition of "professional". On the other hand, our own (sourced) definition of
profession clearly excludes him. When you have to start needing to reject ever wider sources and invent your own definitions, it's time to step back an re-evaluate whether your commitment to a given position is clearly justified. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 06:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
While it's bad practice to just search for confirmation, here are some sources for Jefferson as an amateur architect (the original ones seem to have been archived already):
It took about 10 times longer to copy them here than to find them - and there is a nearly unlimited supply of more right at Google. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't contributed to this page for a while, but I think this debate is rather unproductive. Firstly, it's somewhat ahistorical. A simple distinction between "amateur" and "professional" is inappropriate to the period, when it was very common for "gentlemen" with independent means to engage in creative or scholarly activity. For example William Jones was, nominally at least, a judge by profession, but he is known as a linguist and scholar. Much the same could be said for many other scholarly figures of the era. Was William Payne Knight a historian by "profession" or not? This was certainly also true of architects. John Vanbrugh and Christopher Wren were both "amateurs". As far as I know, neither of them had any professional training. I don't think it's appropriate to just list Jefferson's architecture as an "interest", which just could mean he liked looking at buildings, or collected a lot of books about architecture. I fact he "professed" in the sense that he practiced, architecture, which is a valid meaning of the term in the historical context. We should not be fixated on terminology here. It just so happens that this infobox has a section called "profession" (which as I have suggested, is really rather a clumsy fit for the period). Christopher Wren's infobox happens to be "infobox scientist". It has no section for "profession" but does have a section entitled "field" (clearly intended to mean 'area of scientific specialism'). Architecture is listed there. It's not a "field" of science, strictly speaking, but it's the best place to fit something that really has to be included, within the particular format of that infobox. Jefferson actually designed and had built a number of important buildings. In that sense he "professed" architecture and was not just "interested" in it. Paul B ( talk) 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that recent scholarship that states Jefferson was an amatuer architect? My book source was (2012) and had a greater appreciation of Jefferson's architecture. We need to judge Jeffesron by the standards of his time. Remember when the White House or President's House was being designed Jefferson drew up plans. However, another architect's plans were chosen. Was Jefferson by profession an architect by the standards of his times. Have historians used modern standards of architecture and applied them to Jefferson? By modern standards, yes, Jefferson was an amateur. His buildings are still in use today and I would believe that would make him an architect by profession. Cmguy777 ( talk)
Paul Barlow. Thanks for your input. I agree. I am for "architect" alone in the infobox, but I thought that adding "amateur" would achieve a compromise. I believe Jefferson's architecture is taking on more appreciation in the scholarly community and I believe that he needs to be known by profession as an architect. This was a compromise solution in terms of getting the word "architect" into the infobox even if there is the condition word "amateur" added. Another compromise would be adding "gentleman" to the word "architect". Possible Alan Scott Walker and/or Gwillhickers would agree to this compromise. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Cm' thanks for your willingness to compromise. I too was giving that some thought, that we could say 'Amateur architect' but that would easily throw the reader off and give them the impression that Jefferson was not of professional and accomplished capacity. On the Benjamin Franklin page 'Scientist' is in the info box. He too was self taught and practiced it and is famous for it. In his day he was recognized as an accomplished man of science by his contemporaries and others, and no one called him an "amateur". By 'modern' standards he was an "amateur" but we are not talking about a modern day person. Jefferson was an accomplished architect, he practiced architecture extensively, so much so he is famous for it. 'Amateur' is a modern day connotation mostly. When we get around to writing the section for Architecture we of course mention he was self taught, and we can also mention that he is referred to by some modern historians as an "amateur" if enough people happen to think this is important to the biography. -- Gwillhickers 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is another source: Architecture: Celebrating the Past, Designing the Future Richard Guy Wilson (2008), Hon. AIA. This article I believe is a great source on Jefferson and Architecture. He was the only architect to serve as President of the United States. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. "Amateur architect" is the best alternative, since Jefferson was an architect having designed homes for several friends and designed several court houses. Jefferson was an influencial architect. Prior to Jefferson, architecture had been domintated by Europeans. Jefferson apparently was in a transitional period when architecture had yet to be liscenced as a profession. In my opinion, Jefferson's architecture became a reality, and that is what would make him a professional, even though technically an amateur. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just added 'Amateur Architect' to the info box. Also, I have restored 'Diplomat', as this was an important role, even if short lived. Yopienso, I appreciate the removal of diplomat as I took exception to its inclusion, but only because the same standards were not being used. Hope there are no issues now. Yes, we have five items in the info box, but the Jefferson page is unlike that of most other Presidents. A polymath who lived in colonial times, through the Revolution, War of 1812 and everything in between it's a wonder this page doesn't explode.
--
Gwillhickers 04:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
TFD, I believe you are going have gone against editor concensus on this issue. We are not advocating Editors have not advocated every profession be listed. "Amateur architect" had been agreed to be used in the article.
Cmguy777 (
talk) 06:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Dezastru, with all due respect, there was no liscensing practice during Jefferson's times for an architect. Jefferson's architecture became a reality and is even recognized in by an Architecture magazine. Jefferson was an architect. We added "amateur" because that indirectly implies that Jefferson was not a liscensed architect, there were none, and that he relied on slavery and his Monticello plantation for his income. As Gwillhickers mentioned, we don't know if Jefferson was ever compensated for his architecture. I would state there was a strong possibility he was paid by his friends whom he designed homes for. We have reached a compromise. This compromise may not be a perfect one, but then again, compromises are never perfect. Thanks for your input. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Our new friend seems to think the slavery section is far too large, claiming info is covered on other pages and took it upon himself to delete nine entire paragraphs, not specific topics, so his aim seems sort of obtuse and generic. He's claiming "twelve paragraphs" are covered elsewhere and evidently feels they should be deleted. -- Gwillhickers 17:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Blinkerset, possibly you could give editors an outline of your planned delete intentions for the Slaves and slavery section. What do you want to delete? Please be specific. Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet or Bink. Thanks for the correction. I looked at your deletion and there seemed to be neither rhymne nor reason for your editing. The more you delete, the less people will understand about Jefferson and slavery. Jefferson was complicated. There are no simple answers as to whether Jefferson was for or against slavery. Your deletions dilute the slavery issue of Thomas Jefferson, who owned hundreds of slaves and controlled their individual destinies. I believe your deletions have POV in that you are side stepping the slavery issue, whether you are doing this on purpose or not, I don't know. To delete only to delete is not a valid wikipedia reason for deletion. To delete without a formal discussion is also not standard Wikipedia policy, especially in such a popular article as Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
With tempers flaring and absolute statements being made about "the only way it's going to fly", I would like to point out that Cmguy777 and Gwhillhickers have indicated they approve of the current 12-paragraph slavery section, while Binksternet, Stephan Shulz and Yopienso have voiced a preference for a trimmed slavery section. That's 2 vs 3. With even this slight majority we can move forward with judicious trimming, with determining what are the core themes and what are details best taken to the sub-article
Thomas Jefferson and slavery. To all editors: if you want to be part of the solution, please start thinking about what the summary version of the slavery section must include.
Just so you know, I'm not going to appear at the sub-article to gauge the progress; my only interest is to get this prominent biography article to hew to summary style, which is a necessary step in the direction of returning this article to GA status and perhaps FA.
Binksternet (
talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)