Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 3

message: According to the lisp article, Thomas Jefferson spoke with a lisp. Should this be added to the trivia section? Rmpfu89 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim in the lisp article is unsourced.  We should not spread unsourced information from one article to another. john k 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Moved from my talk page:
==Thomas Jefferson==
Hey, I saw that you reverted my removal of the following text to the Thomas Jefferson article without explanation:
:At the time the Baptists supported his efforts to disestablish the state church; thus D. James Kennedy, a prominent evangelical theologian, says that Jefferson was "a true friend of the Christian faith." But Kennedy concludes, "Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian." (followed by a reference to www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006).
This wikipedia text claims that D. James Kenedy calls Jefferson "a true friend of the Christian faith" because baptists supported his efforts to disestablish the church(something not mentioned at all in the sited article). A look at the source sited shows that D. James Kennedy (a presbyterian) called Jefferson "a true friend of the Christian church" because he thinks believe Jefferson DIDN'T support seperation of church and state. Thus, a claim is made in the wikipedia article which is contradicted by the very article it sites. Shadowoftime 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True friend of the church 

message: see topic.
(Stevenwagner 02:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are his Rules of Conduct? 

message: Not only do we not have an article on this, it isn't even mentioned in the text of the article! This is pretty shameful. john k 02:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the whole point of Wikipedia.  If you know about it, write the article and add it here! Peyna 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of it, but not very much about it.  I do a lot of stuff on wikipedia, but I surely can't be expected to correct every one of the incredibly huge number of omissions that I notice and know some limited amount about on wikipedia.  Noting the absence of any discussion on the talk page might alert an editor of this page who does have sufficient knowledge of the subject to give it a decent write-up. john k 04:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just commenting on your calling it "shameful."  Perhaps the right editor just hasn't come along yet. Peyna 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of wikipedia is still pretty shameful, sadly.  I'm much more surprised when an article is good than when it's bad (well, certain types of articles I expect to be good, others not so much).  Not that I don't love it all the same.  john k 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on the State of Virginia 

message: I really don't think that the slave/paternity controversy merits a mention in the intro.  The paragraph is about Jefferson's important political philosophies and government positions.  It seems very out of place there, and the subject has due coverage in the slavery section of the article, and in the Sally Hemings article.    --Jon Stockton 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave controversy in intro 

message: It seems very odd to be reading about his death before his life? Does anyone object to moving his death nearer to the ending? Skywriter 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does Jefferson's death come before his life?

message: User JW1805 and others have summarily removed comment by former American Historical Association President John Hope Franklin from this page several times, without discussion on this page, so far. In the last revert, User JW1805 claimed the historian's comments were "speculative." In reply, I would ask, what are the other comments in that section? 
*The quote basically said "I don't know if Jefferson fathered Sally's children, but he could have.  Other slaverowners had children by their slaves."  It added absolutely nothing to the section, and was very speculative.  This guy seems to base his opinion on "everybody else was doing it".  The Jefferson-Hemmings argument is based on DNA, historical evidence, and oral tradition of Hemming's children.  That is what should be mentioned.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of Intention to Place POV Flag on Page

message: ...due to previously discussed aggressive suppresion of a viewpoint. The section on slavery is hagiography and does not come close to examining the subject in a non-adoring fashion. 
I welcome discussion but will not support suppression of differing viewpoints. Skywriter 01:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tags now affixed to Slavery section and Hemmings subsection

message: Another quote added from John Hope Franklin: In 1803, President Jefferson signed into law a bill that specifically excluded blacks from carrying the United States mail. Historian John Hope Franklin called the signing "a gratuitous expression of distrust of free Negroes who had done nothing to merit it."  Can sombody provide some context for this?  Does this really belong in the Jefferson article?  The implication seems to be that Jefferson personally conceived and executed a plan to exclude blacks from the post office.  Is that true?  Or was this just a bill that had a lot of items in it, and that just happened to be one of then?  At that time, President's didn't use the veto very often.  So, I'm not sure blaming Jefferson for this is really accurate.  --JW1805 (Talk) 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jefferson and the Post Office 

message: The amount of vandalism from anons that this pages sees is amazing.  It seems like every other edit is anon vandalism.  I've added this article to Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages.  Should we try to get this page protected from anon edits?  --JW1805 (Talk) 02:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon vandalism 

message: There seems to be an issue with deleting "and was the precursor to today's Democratic Party" in the second paragraph in reference to the Democratic-Republican Party.  This statement is not in the correct context to make in this article.  The correct context is presented in the Democratic-Republican Party article.  What it says is the first national political party convention was held in 1832, and Jackson and Van Buren still styled their party "The Republican Party"; the name "Democratic Party" was adopted in the mid 1830s. This was the beginning of the modern-day Democratic Party.  Note that it did not say "today's" democratic party - it was the "beginning" of the modern-day party.  The article continues to state the Democratic Party was often called "the party of Jefferson"; whereas the Republican Party, was called "the party of Lincoln," by its members which was true until 1932 when the roles began to reverse into the modern party formation that exists today.  So if we wanted to actually say "today's" party, it would be the Republican party as the roles reversed after 1932.
Why is it important to include this information in the second paragraph of the Jefferson article? If people want to read the development of the party they can read the party article which puts it in the correct political context. Personally, I don't believe either party represents the philosophy of Jefferson.  I would say that he would probably be a libertarian if we looked at today's parties.  To say that the Jefferson Party was the precursor to today's Democratic party gives the wrong perception.  The political philosophy of Jefferson is very different.  Morphh 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse the view that which modern U.S. party is more Jeffersonian does not belong in the intro to this article.  For at least each of the two major parties, there are some of his views that they represent better than their opponent, and some that they represent a major difference of perspective on.  This is all too complicated to address in the intro.  I'm not even convinced that it belongs in this article at all.  Let the article on Jefferson be about him, not about the politics of centuries later.  GRBerry 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a testimony to Jefferson's greatness that a political party he founded 200 years ago still lives on in the modern-day Democratic Party. Saying he helped found the Democratic-Republican Party isn't saying much, as most people will assume the party he founded is long gone unless they understand that Jefferson's party was a precursor of a modern-day party. The American Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world. People discuss whether it was founded by Jefferson (the official Democratic Party line) or whether the Democratic Party dates to Andrew Jackson in the 1820s, but either way, it's important for readers to know that Jefferson still has a hand in modern American party politics. Griot 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His party is long gone.  His greatness still lives on in each party in different areas.  It would be much more applicable to say that the party was the basis for several parties today.  What is a party but the ideas of political philosophy? Yes, there is a direct link by name to the Democratic party but this is far from Jefferson's classical liberal philosophy.  I see the historical roots and put in the correct context it makes sense.  This article is not the correct context and gives the wrong impression.  It gives the idea that his party (his philosophy) lives in the modern-day Democratic party.  This is very deceiving.  Morphh 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He does have a hand in modern American politics, but it is not by there being a modern party that is based on his political philosophy.  It is by both parties citing him as a reason for what they believe in.  Well, more specifically, both parties selectively citing him where they happen to agree with what he said.  There is no party today that bases its policies primarily on either Jefferson's philosophy or on the views of the party he founded.  Discussion of how his philosophy influences modern politics today is encyclopedic, and belongs somewhere.  It may well merit an article of its own.  My belief is that a NPOV version of that article could in its intro have to reference the official Democratic Party line but if it did must also in the intro say that this is contrary to the general consensus of historians.  Not being a professional historian I could be wrong about the general consensus.  However, my general knoweldge, plus articles like United States presidential election, 1828 that have been edited by other parties, show the Democratic Party as either a new organization or at most a splinter organization at the time of Andrew Jackson's election to the presidency.  Including the official democratic party claim in intros is to my eyes unacceptable political advocacy, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  GRBerry 14:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I hear your points about wanting to avoid POVs. However, the modern-day Democratic Party literally is an offshoot of Jefferson's party. It was formed by Andrew Jackson and other prominent Democratic-Republicans (along with some Whigs) in the 1820s. Whatever link the modern Republican Party or the Libertarians have with Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans -- and certainly those parties share many of Jefferson's philosophies -- those links can be a subject of debate. The Democratic Party's ties to Jefferson's party are incontrovertible because the Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Repubican Party. This is why the official Democratic Party Web site claims that the party was formed in 1792 by Jefferson and why the Democratic Party is sometimes called (rightfully or wrongfully) the "party of Jefferson." Griot 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with your points here.  You've explained it well and in context - I agree.  What I have a problem with is putting it in the intro without the proper context.  Morphh 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not put in the context? Septentrionalis 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an article about Jefferson and not the party.  It is put into context in the party article in the history section.  We could add a section here that puts it into context but I don't think it should go in the intro.  Make the intro about Jefferson and not the transformation of his party. It is an issue of placement and context.  The context should be provided for the statement and the placement of the context should not be in the intro.  Morphh 21:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a substantial part of Jefferson's importance; I have extended it to a form which you agree with here. It is at least as important as the unfortunate Governorship of Virginia; or would you reduce the intro to the "triple boast"? Septentrionalis 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While I disagree with placement, I could compromise on this point if the context was provided. Your edit looked ok but you reverted it.?  While I think the creation of the party is of substantial importance, I think it's modification to something completely different throughout history is of little importance to who he was and what he accomplished.  Morphh 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have been content with tweaking the original phrase; if you want to go back to a single sentence, fine by me. Thank you for noting the self-reversion. 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Party 

message: Were any laws made under the presidenticy(sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of John Adams ruled unconstitutional? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.32.202 (talk • contribs) .
:Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia!  First, a bit of terminology: The supreme court can rule laws unconstitutional, the president can not.  The president can however veto a law he disagrees with.  this site (pdf) indicates that Jefferson made no vetos during his two terms.  Incidentally, the best shot for asking questions is Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.  Cheers, --TeaDrinker 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vetos