Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 2

message: I wanted to thank 199.88.16.253, who noticed when I failed to revert all the vandalism when I submitted. It's really nice to have help from an anon in the midst of all the attacks. Thank you, kind sir or madam! Wnissen 14:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to an anon 

message: I'm not sure about this sentence, saying that the opening section of the Declaration of Independence "... laid the foundation for the American Revolution and American democracy".  It's a nice sentiment, but considering that the Revolution had already started in 1775 (and was the consequence of events spanning decades), and America had democratic instutions going back to the House of Burgesses in 1619, I don't think it's really accurate.  --JW1805 22:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of Independence 

message: I cleaned up the bibliography and added numerous important items, such as the Boyd and Bergh editions.
I deleted the esoteric material on 16th Polish influences, which might fit in a 6-volume biography but not in an encyclopedia entry that is already thin on too many topics.  The religion section is unsatisfactory--it's mostly a collection of annotated TJ quotations that do not help readers with the basic questions. Rjensen 09:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography & some text problems

message: So that's what he named his political party. Take a look at the textbooks, for example 
the chapter entitled: Republicanism: Jefferson and Madison 
or look at monographs 
= Jefferson's Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism by Susan Dunn 
or Sellers: 
or Onuf:
Rjensen 08:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to add than substract. Add a new subsection on promoting yeoman farm ideal. Rjensen 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson's political philosophy was called republicanism

message: Jefferson is not important because he was president #3. (He is vastly more important than president #2). Instead it's his political principles that reshaped the USA and indeed most of the world. We should lead off with that. Rjensen 03:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Jefferson Important?

message: Interview with George Will  
http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Will.htm
George Will is a syndicated columnist, best-selling author, and ABC News analyst. His recent political books include The Leveling Wind, Restoration, and Statecraft As Soulcraft. 
  Q How important is Thomas Jefferson?
He’s important to the United States because he defined our creed and we are a credal nation. He’s important to the world because he cast the American truths as universal truths. When the Soviet empire collapsed and Eastern Europe rose, you had, in effect, a second European Reformation—but no charismatic leader. No Martin Luther. Instead, you had the rhetoric supplied by the third and the sixteenth presidents of the United States. And the sixteenth, Abraham Lincoln, was always candid about his intellectual pedigree, which ran straight back to Jefferson.
“The story of this millennium is the gradual expansion of freedom and the expanding inclusion of variously excluded groups.” 	
  Q What do you think about Jefferson’s place in the world?
Jefferson was, I think, the man of this millennium. The story of this millennium is the gradual expansion of freedom and the expanding inclusion of variously excluded groups. He exemplified in his life what a free person ought to look like—that is, someone restless and questing through a long life under the rigorous discipline of freedom. Freedom’s not the absence of rigor; it’s the absence of restraints imposed by others. But it also, if it’s going to be successful, it is going to be lived the way Jefferson lived it, this life of freedom—under severe restraints imposed on yourself. The severe restraints of scholarship and learning and the quest to get better and better—which Jefferson kept up right to the end. He also had a great sense of the perilous equipoise of a free society. You could put it in Shakespeare’s language: Shakespeare said, “Take but degree away, untune that string and hark what discord follows.“ Jefferson understood that you had to have an educated population living in certain kinds of circumstances, under certain kinds of institutions, with certain assumptions and beliefs. Take any of them away and hark what discord follows."    Rjensen 07:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson's Place in History

message: Historians of Latin America attribute decisive impact to the American example.  See 
 a standard scholarly source Rjensen 09:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decisive impact on Latin America

message: Jefferson's views on religion are quite important.  Instead of splitting them up I think the discussion will have more impact if pulled together in one place. (Otherwise a reader will miss key point buried elsewhere) Rjensen 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TJ & Religion is important 

message: That prayer has shown up in the article AGAIN - some people need to check things more before posting their "proofs" - maybe at leasst check the archives?
1805 March 4 was the date of his 2nd Inauguration. The quoted prayer from that date does NOT appear in his address. The prayer is from the Book of Common Prayer - except for one word being changed 
Most likely it was read at his inauguration by someone else.
I am deleting it AGAIN --JimWae 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prayer for a Nation 

message: I've just noticed this passage, which, I must say is utter baloney:
:Jefferson was an accomplished architect who was extremely influential in bringing the Neo-Classical style he encountered in France to the United States. He felt that it reflected the ideas of republic and democracy where the prevalent British styles represented the monarchy. Jefferson designed his famous home, Monticello, near Charlottesville, Virginia..."
As any book on architecture will tell you, Jefferson's style is essentially a variant of Palladianism, which is an almost entirely British style, and is in no way related to French neo-Classicism (French classical style has distinctive features that are not to be found in Jefferson's work). There have been debates about the extent to which Palladianism was an expression of Whig political values, one of the principal sources of Jeffersonian liberalism, but it is generally accepted that the style was at least strongly associated with Whig grandees in England. So a political meaning may reasonably be ascribed to it, though, of course, the "colonial Georgian" manner was already well established and was not seen as unusual or politically loaded. Paul B 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth noting that this passage completely contradicts what is said in the article on Monticello, and in any case it is an historical absurdity, since France was an absolutist monarchy when Jefferson developed his architectural style, and the most prominent example of French Classicism was the Palace of Versailles - a monument to Absolutism. Paul B 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jefferson as architect

message: "...[I]t [the Jefferson Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw." (in a letter to Charles Thomson 9 January 1816)
This quote reinforces the view that Jefferson was heavily against organized religion. It is matter of controversy because it can be interpreted to mean what he says; that he is a "real" Christian. The quote may indicate that he like many others of his time felt that many Christians where hypocrites and corrupted by the institution of the church, and ironically didn't actually follow the principles of the bible. Past experience with the government instituted Church of England can give insight on this viewpoint. This quote may be perceived to mean that Jefferson was a Christian, but it may also substantiate deist philosophies but it is a matter of personal interpretation.
:I wrote this to give insight to the quote. This quote is very important so I feel that its good to show all viewpoints. I tried to be as balanced as possible. What do you all think?
JJstroker 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I can find your writing at wikideist.org. First of all I dont want to state Jefferson being a Christian as a fact, because it is open to personal interpretation. (Just like him being a deist) That needs to be explained in the article. That is why I put "weasel words" because it is open to personal interpretation as I have stated. I was sure not to state it as a fact because I am explaining the viewpoint that he is also seen as a Christian which is very legitimate. I feel that it establishes equilibrium and shows both viewpoints. I dont see the problem then other trying to eliminate the alternative view. At the end it says this can also reinforce deist philosophies but him being a Christian is open to personal interpretation. The article is already biased as it is and if we left my edits in the article would still slant towards deism. Many people think that Jefferson was a Christian and refer to this quote so I feel that it is important to show the popular viewpoints from both sides. 
PS- I cant help but get the impression that you are contradicting your own argument. The article states that Jefferson was "widely regarded" to be a diest. This is not a statement of fact but opinion. Yet I try to show the alternate opinion and it is not allowed. Do you see the irony?JJstroker 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Like explaining the viewpoint of Jefferson being a deist is not in the article? I am trying to establish equilibruim and show the alternative viewpoint which many people have. If Jefferson was 100 percent a deist without a doubt I wouldnt say anything but it is a matter of personal opinion as the article even states. "It is widely regarded that Jefferson was a deist" Widely regarded is not a fact but a viewpoint. The article goes on to explain why he is regarded to be a diest. He is also "regarded" to be a Christian. The article is doing exactly what you are telling me not to do. Do you see the contradiction? The fact of the matter is that it can not be substantiated that Jefferson was a deist or a Christian therefore both views need to be explained. Explaining viewpoints is not against wiki policy if it is relevant, and in this case it is. 
PS- Yes I am explaining the viewpoint, that is speaking on behalf of others just like every single other wiki editor. JJstroker 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added info to Jefferson religious beliefs.  

message: The article stated, "Jefferson died on the Fourth of July, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence...".  The 50th anniversary of the SIGNING would have been August 2, 1826, the 50th anniversary of its ADOPTION would have been July 4, 1826, so I changed it.  I don't think it's necessary to get into the whole thing on the TJ page. MusicMaker5376 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 4th 

message: Jefferson was famous for creating a party so that has to be in the article. He was famous for attacking the judiciary so that belongs as well.  GRIOT has actually added nothing new to the article he only erases correct information that displeases him. That is not a good way to build Wiki. Rjensen 06:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Hofstadter is an extremely controversial historian. Why you do present his views as fact in this article. This is POV. GriotGriot
*I think it's fine to include information about Jefferson's "purge" of Federalists from the government.  It just needs to be written in a NPOV way, and it should specifically focus on Jefferson and his actions.  The article is so long as it is, we don't need long essays on all the political maneuverings of the time.  --JW1805 (Talk) 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't blank correct information 

message: I'm a little disappointed I didn't see this discussed in detail (it got a little blurb), as I feel the Kentucky resolution is one of his most important works. M00 04:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and it mentioned and points to a whole article on the subject.  Rjensen 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "whole article" on the Kentucky Resolution is two paragraphs. What I would want to see on the Jefferson page is a little more about the significance to the politics of that time. M00 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I added some more discussion in the K-V article. Rjensen 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes looks great! M00 08:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Rjensen 08:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No real mention of the Kentucky Resolution 

message: Jefferson corresponded with Edward Jenner, congratulating him on formalising vaccination, and in concert with Dr Benjamin Waterhouse  - one of the founders of the Harvard medical school, took an interest in the problems of transport of vaccine material in th eheat of the southern states.  I don't know whether this is sufficiently significant to add here, but I suppose of the religion section was a line or so shorter, this might be a line that could be added. Midgley 16:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallpox and introduction of vaccination to USA 

message: There is a discussion going on at Talk:Jefferson Bible that could benefit from the input of other editors who are familar with the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson. BlankVerse 18:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jefferson Bible 

message: I really wish I could remember where I got it, but the phrase "should more properly be called its draftsman" is not mine. I believe it is important to show that all of the wording in the finished Declaration is not his, in particular the very important "self-evident truths" bit. Also reference the Wikipedia entry, which states: "On 11 June 1776, a committee consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, was formed to draft a suitable declaration to frame this resolution. Jefferson did most of the writing, with input from the committee. His draft was presented to the Continental Congress on 1 July 1776."
Jefferson was not the author of the Declaration. Congress was. He wrote the majority of the draft. I, in particular, don't want people thinking that Jefferson believed in "self-evident truths," as the current wording strongly implies. -- Calion | Talk 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Draftsman" does not, to me at least, imply that anyone told him what to write. It merely states that what he wrote was subject to change and final approval by somebody else. It was changed, in important ways, from his original draft. For reference, see this EB article, which frankly has a better entire introductory paragraph than ours. As for the "inalienable rights" bit, my brain cramped. I immediately changed it to the correct "self-evident truths," but obviously not quickly enough. -- Calion | Talk 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every author discovers there are editors who will change some words.  Look what Ezra Pound did to TS Eliot! A "draftsman" is one of many anonymous people who work over a draft.   TJ insisted that his tombstone be inscribed "Author of the Declaration..." Rjensen 03:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough on the epitaph. Alright; although I believe my "draftsman" language is legit (and borne out by several sources), what do you think about my compromise? Heck, it's even used later in the article. -- Calion | Talk 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Congratulations! You've changed the truth to a lie. The article says "In the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:" This is simply untrue. Jefferson never wrote those words. He wrote some of them, of course, but the paragraph in the article is not his writing. This is patently unacceptable. I thought "primary" was a fair compromise. He did NOT truly author the work; Congress did. He presented a draft to the committee, which modified it and presented a draft to Congress, which modified it and presented it to the states on July 4, 1776. All in all, eighty-six changes to his original document were made. Jefferson was critical of changes to the document. Richard Henry Lee said "I wish sincerely, as well for the honor of Congress, as for that of the States, that the Manuscript had not been mangled as it is. It is wonderful, and passing pitiful, that the rage of change should be so unhappily applied. It is dishonest, disingenuous, and unacceptable that the text of the Declaration, as it stands, should be ascribed solely to Jefferson, particularly in the "Political Philosophy" section. I won't re-revert anything. Yet. But this must be fixed. -- Calion | Talk 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draftsman