Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 4

message: Can I get a source for this? Especially on Federalists being deeply religious?
(This particular writing only futhered the enmity many Federalist party members already have against him since most of the Federalists were deeply religious.) - 12.135.134.146 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The objection raised about the paragraph was that it broke up the flow; if that is the principal objection, you guys could end this revert war by moving it somewhere later in the article, where it is somewhat less obtrusive. It is an interesting point, worthy of comment somewhere in the article, if not right at the top. Considering how down on slavery he was in principle, I had imagined he would have freed a few more of his own slaves. I would have liked to have thought so, anyway…. 
Also, some of this page probably ought to be archived (again). Does anyone know how to do it? —Vivacissamamente 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this is already mentioned in the article.  I think a short NPOV statement on slavery can go in the opening, but I don't think details about who he freed and why really belong there.  And "chattel" isn't a word that most people are familar with.  --JW1805 (Talk) 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, it is there in the article. I agree a short statement should go the opening. I've actually only seen the word "chattel" ever used in connection with slavery. Some people seem to like it. —Vivacissamamente 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed paragraph on freeing of slaves 

message: Everyone, please remember that talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article.  Talking about how good or evil he was is a matter for a forum, not for Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stay on topic 

message: Thomas Jefferson died over one hundred and eighty years ago. He is buried in Charlottesville, VA. You may go visit his grave and discuss the problems you have with him there. Until then I do not believe we need a section like this under an article meant to educate people about him. It is not wrong to point out this inconsistency in his life under the slavery section. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he went through many drafts and included an anti slavery clause in many of them. He was aware it appeared hypocritical. However he was not the only member of the continental congress. Shall we have a criticism section on everyones wiki page where detractors can add their POV about a person? Welsh4ever76 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  I have restored the criticims section until concensus can be reached.  Certainly Wikipedia can report on criticism of a subject.  We can say, for instance, that people were critical of Richard Nixon with regard to the watergate scandal.  We could, likewise, say that Roy Blunt has been criticized in the media and for what.  To not report what might be deemed as critical is to whitewash subjects.  Certainly not all criticism is notable, however.  Looking over the section in question, material PBS documentaries include do seem notable to me.  I would like to request the section be kept in the article until consensus can be reached. --TeaDrinker 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I viewed the Richard Nixon article and no where  do I see a section that is entitled criticism of Richard Nixon. There is a section dedicated to Watergate. I think you proved my point well. I was also going to add that this is modern criticism which is not wrong but very few people criticized him in his own lifetime for owning slaves. Many people owned them. He was elected President after all even though he was a known slaveholder. Welsh4ever76 00:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Critical views of a subject (from reputable sources, of course) are relevant to pretty much any article- this one is no exception.  The details are up for debate, of course.  My preference is to merge the criticism section with the "Jefferson and slavery" section if that's what it relates to.  If we have a lot of criticism for different reasons, maybe then we'd lump them into a "criticism" section. Friday (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly do not object to the merging into the section on slavery, in fact, I would welcome such a move.  The removed section does make a different point, however, than the retained section on slavery.  The retained section highlights the apparent contradiction between his voiced views on slavery explicitly and his action of keeping slaves.  The removed section highlights his views on liberty and freedom, not slavery explicitly.  The authority of the criticisms cited in the removed section also are notable, and deserve to be kept, in my view. --TeaDrinker 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, they are interconnected points, not really separate.  A slight rewording of the Slavery section would suffice.  We don't need a complete new section for that.  The Sam Johnson quote that was removed doesn't really add anything to what is already said (and the quote isn't specific to Jefferson anyway).  The New England Palladium quote is specifically about Jefferson.  The Rahe quote also doesn't really add anything new either, in my opinion.  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what people are overlooking here is that Wiki articles are works in progress.  I don't anticipate that the information included in the section on criticism will always consist of solely the information or perspectives provided here.  And I agree with TeaDrinker.  The Rahe quote does add an interesting perspective in that he participated in the commission and offers an opinion on aspects of Jefferson's character which are not examined or commented upon elsewhere.  I think it's an interesting take on the man.  And I suspect there will be others offered later.  After all, there have been volumes written on the guy, by lots of notable historians and others, and there's certainly more than can, and should, be included there.  deeceevoice 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think this could be incorporated into the slavery section, since the sole criticism is about slavery and repeats portions in that section, but also explores it a little more, so would be perfectly fitting in the slavery area, IMO. plange 02:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.   The material in the criticism section already exists in the slavery section.  I think there's consensus that this info should not be repeated and the criticism section can go.  Justforasecond 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we treat our founding fathers like sacred cows? As an African-American, what comes to my mind first when I see Thomas Jefferson's face is slavery. I know of his other accomplishments, of course, and they were remarkable, but why this Boy Scout version of history? The "criticisms" section is warranted, I believe. Someone proposed to fold the criticisms section into the Slavery section, but that wasn't really done. What you get in the slavery section is a defense of Jefferson. I believe this man warrants criticism and that anyone reading this article shouldn't have to dig down so far to find it. So I'm restoring the criticism section. Although I agree to take out the early "man of contradictions" material. Griot 23:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my vote was for putting it in the slavery section, but not getting rid of it altogether, as a way to balance out that section and since it's the one main criticism of him, I would expect to see criticism of it in the slavery section. If you want to keep it separate that's fine, but it needs to be better sourced and better written. This link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/enigma/ is after saying contemporaries scorned him, but it brought me to a pbs site and I couldn't find something there written by a contemporary. I might have missed it.... To make your point on that, it would be nice to have a quote from a contemporary. If the contemporary is meant to be Samuel Johnson, you don't need the pbs link, but rather have a colon....  I wouldn't call this link reputable - it brought me to some free junky site with all sorts of pop ups and a naked woman in a banner ad: http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/reportessay/Biography/AmericanPresident%5CThomas_Jefferson-32543.htm - surely better ones can be found for the number of slaves he had. plange 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griot, can you address the things I have above? Renaming it contemporary views is a little misleading if you have modern views in there too. plange 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Thomas Jefferson

message: We need to be careful here. In his day he was not a contradiction. We're judging someone from the past by today's standards. Perhaps re-word to something akin, to "in modern times, he's a man of contradictions..." plange 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-adding the "criticism" section when the information is already covered in the slavery section seems repetitive to me (even using "hypocrite" twice).  Is there any consensus on whether this belongs?       Justforasecond 01:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly we should make no attempt to hide obvious facts about Jefferson, but I'm not sure this warrants an entire paragraph in the intro.  We do have the "Jefferson and slavery" section already.  Friday (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it needs to be in the lead too. On another note, I see it says he only got some of the 600+ from his father and wife, when in fact most came from his wife whose father was a slave trader and died right when he'd received a huge shipment for sale right after they married (ugh, that was creepy to write)... anyway, I'll dig up the cite... Also, what is everyone's thoughts on exploring, in the interest of NPOV historians take on why he freed so few? I've read various theories but see none explored here.plange 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be something in the lead, but we should try to make it as succinct and NPOV as possible.  The opening is getting too long.  Maybe find some way to condense it into one sentence and put it in the 2nd paragraph?  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Absurd.  You deleted the paragraph regarding contradicitions because you persist in edit warring/censoring the article.  The text clearly states and cites:  "This double standard occasioned scorn from Jefferson's contemporaries.  'How is it,' asked Samuel Johnson, 'that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?'"  This isn't about what you "feel."  This isn't about your apparent hero worship of the man.  The passage is restored.  deeceevoice 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil deeceevoice.   It's not OK to refer to an editors opinions as "absurd" or accuse him of engaging in "hero worship" of an individual you've criticized extensively or to say that constructive edits (rather than reverts) are "merely an attemp to censor the article".   I don't think there's support for a full paragraph in the intro about TJ's being a "man of contradictions".   Are there any other "contradictions" Jefferson is known for?  Justforasecond 07:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: deeceevoice you were indeed uncivil and failing to assume good faith.   as for "contradictions", you seem to have only one issue -- slavery.   i'm not sure one issue makes someone a "man of contradictions".  it also strikes me as original analysis and, as i said before, there isn't support for making a full paragraph about this in the intro.  how about a single sentence, such as in the version i created?  Justforasecond 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: More detailed, sourced info regarding TJ as a slaveowner is provided later in the body of the document.  Again, the intro provides a general framework for what is to follow.  Note that other statements in the lead paragraphs are, likewise, unsourced/uncited.  The fact is the contradictions of Jefferson's life were on display and constantly remarked upon in his day, from his slaveholding to the gaggle of quadroon children who looked like him. Finally, IMO, the language in the lead is perfectly sound and measured.  However, if you'd like to suggest alternative verbiage, I invite you to do so -- and we'll see what sticks.  deeceevoice 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool.  deeceevoice 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, Welsh4ever.  And it should contain information -- all of it -- and not be some expurgated pap.  And I'm not citing anything; I simply expect the article to contain all the information that is pertinent.  And I disagree.  It is a striking and notable feature of the man's life, is an important dimension of his life's work (in that it is so contradictory) and one that continues to cloud the man's legacy today.  It's one of the things that makes him most notable.  It's no different from, say, an article on Richard Nixon.  And guess what?  That Wikipedia article mentions Watergate in the first paragraph.  IMO (and others here have concurred), the paragraph belongs in the article, and it belongs in the lead.  deeceevoice 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, Wikipedia is not censored (for minor or anyone else).  The fact that folks like PBS are bringing this up as a point of criticism is notable in my view.  It is not a matter of judging him by modern standards, indeed it is not judging him at all (Wikipedia is not a place to pass judgement).  It is simply reporting on notable criticism.  If we can agree that the criticsm is indeed notable, then the question is one of prose: where should it go in the article, and how should it be worded.  I tend to agree that the paragraph taken out here in unneeded and editorializing.  The last paragraph of the section on slavery, however, is I thnk appropriate.  --TeaDrinker 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the paragraph under slavery is appropiate. It should be mentioned but as stated by Plange "we needed to be cautious about judging someone from a time period over 200 years ago." He was elected President even though he owned slaves. To look back now and say what a hypocrite he was and make it a focal point of his achievements is pointless. Many people owned slaves. People owned slaves before Thomas Jefferson and people owned slaves after Thomas Jefferson. What makes Jefferson more notable? Because he believed freedom was important. So should he not have believed that? Should he not have tried to change things because of it. I am not advocating censorship. My point is that he did much more than own slaves. Lots of people did that. It seems strange now and contradictory but that is our view of it now and should not be a focal point. That and it does not go well in the opening. Welsh4ever76 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Man of contradictions/hypocrite

message: hey griot -- please be sure not to violate the "three revert rule"
Justforasecond 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rr 

message: In the opening sentence of the paragraph in the section titled "Jefferson and Slavery," he is stated to have owned 650 slaves, but it closes with his owning 600. (refers to this version.)  Neither gives a source.  Any thoughts on clarifying this seeming contradition?  --TeaDrinker 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a biography published of him at home, will dig that up tonight...plange 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of slaves 

message: I believe that the current picture of a gray-haired Jefferson, similar to the one found on the two-dollar bill and many other famous portraits and depictions of Mr. Jefferson, should be left as the one for this site. This portrait is overwhelmingly the one recognized by the majority of Americans as well as foreigners, and the former portrait was one of a far less recognizable Jefferson, one with brown hair that may confuse the uninitiated with another president, a young Andrew Jackson or James Monroe being the most popular. CinnamonCinder 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any evidence to back your assertion? Popular movies in the US in recent years protray him as the red haired Jefferson. I recognized the picture over the grey haired one you reverted to. JPotter 21:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the red/brown haired version better too.   Jefferson did some of his mos important work while he was still young (he wrote the declarataion at 33) -- the image of an old, gray-to-white haied man perpetuates a false image of TJ.   Justforasecond 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too prefer the red/brown haired version. I think this image is better than either, but that is just my opinion. Also, if you are going to use an image of Jefferson painted while he was president use one of the Rembrandt Peale paintings since they are of a higher quality. --Sparkhurst 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Justforasecond and Sparkhurst. Can we get one of the younger images of Jefferson in there? KingWen€ŸØãç 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Thomas Jefferson 

message: I managed to track down the actual quote which was being falsely modified to say "That government is best which governs least." Jefferson's actual words were: "I hold the world is governed too much. I hold that when we have established justice and so legislated as to prevent the strong from preying upon the weak, then the least governed country is the best governed country." It was written from Jefferson to John W. Eppes and is quoted in The Freeman, November 3 1920, page 185. How's that for research? C-Liberal 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find. Welsh4ever76 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A quotation in "The Freeman" from 1920 is not a good source (what is "The Freeman" anyway? A magazine?). We would need something far more authoritative  - an edition of Jefferson's letters, a book on his political philosophy. The quotation does not sound right to me, but that's just a hunch about the use of English. More to the point, I can find no authoritative source for it. I such a quotation were authentic, it would be splashed everywhere. It isn't. Paul B 08:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a journal dealing with classical liberal issues ...The Freeman. Apparently, the quote got lost over the years and I found it. C-Liberal 09:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Got lost over the years"? If it were lost and then found - in authetic form - it would certainly be incorporated into the literature on Jefferson. Paul B 09:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "will" be incorporated into the literature...I mean the internet. A lot of you people think if you can't find it on the internet, it's not real. The internet is not even the tip of the iceberg of all the information that's out there. I'm not going to force it into the article. If any historian wants to delve deeper, there it is. Jefferson wrote it to John W. Eppes. C-Liberal 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather doubt it. And I mean literature - books, articles, and, yes, also authoritative websites. Paul B 10:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also it appears that you have miraculously "found" a 1920 edition of a journal that was founded in 1946. You are a brilliant researcher indeed! Congratulations. Paul B 09:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't assume bad faith. Look at the bottom of The Freeman article. There was another Freeman: "Albert Jay Nock, a noted literary figure and author, edited a magazine called The Freeman in the early 1920s." That's the one I'm talking about. C-Liberal 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's great. Who's assuming bad faith? It's still just an unregulated, unpeer-reviewed magazine, and not a legitimate or authoritative source. Paul B 09:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The least governed country is the best governed country"

message: I thought I would copy and paste a quote that I do not think we need on the wiki TJ article page.
Prof. Paul A. Rahe, who authored the lone dissenting opinion in the 2001 report of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society commission, remarked on the inconclusive findings regarding the question of Jefferson's paternity of Sally Hemings' children:
What we do know, however, is damning enough. Despite the distaste that he expressed for the propensity of slaveholders to abuse their power, Jefferson either engaged in such abuse himself or tolerated it on the part of one or more members of his extended family. In his private, as in his public life, there was, for all his brilliance and sagacity, something dishonest, something self-serving and self-indulgent about the man.''
-We do not know what he thought or what he did. He may not have been the father, he may not have known what was going on and did not feel the need to control every aspect of the slaves lives. He may have become angry when he found out. While we do know a lot about him we do not know everything. Since there is no way of knowing exactley what went on concerning him, someone else or what he even knew about it, I think this quote is a point of view and in a section of the article that does not have other points of view to counter it. We could easily add the points of views of others on the panel but we decided earlier that this was pointless and to just add a link to the Sally Hemings page was sufficient. Welsh4ever76 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul A. Rahe quote 

message: Reverting a long list of inventions added without citations.  Jefferson did introduce a swivel chair to the united states after seeing them in Europe, and did create an improvement to the dumbwaiter, but he didn't invent either one.  The other additions, so far as I can tell, are entirely fabricated, and Jefferson's actual inventions are omitted entirely.  If I'm wrong, could someone provide a verifiable citation before re-adding the text?  Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventions 

message: It seems there is a massive discrepency between the Jefferson article on wiki and the one of Sally Hemings.  The Hemings article actually goes on to provide further proof that Jefferson was the father of her four children and the  National Genealogical Society Quarterly conclusion that he did indeed father the children.  However, it seems the Jefferson arcticle is highly edited to keep out as much of a blemish as possible on Jefferson's record.  It seems rather seedy to me.Sally Hemings
*I think the idea is to briefly mention the subject here, and provide detailed info at Sally Hemings.  This article is long enough as it is.  --JW1805 (Talk) 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepencies with Sally Hemings article 

message: I do not see any discussion of the matter on the current discussion page, and because there is not even an allegation that I have read anywhere to the effect that Jefferson actually married Sally Hemmings, I am changing the 'spouse' entry in the sidebar to reflect the name of the woman he actually did wed. Ari 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism from earlier today-- thanks for catching it! The person who rolled back a vandalism didn't roll it back far enough. This page is constantly hit, and so pretty much most edits to it are rolling back, but we all need to be careful and click back until we get to a good version. --plange 18:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse? 

message: Here is the quote.
During his lifetime, and in his will, Jefferson had freed only eight of his slaves (all of them members of the Hemings family) Finkelman, Paul, Slavery and the Founders pp. 105, 107, 129..
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/freed.html
He freed two men during his lifetime. Robert Hemings and James Hemings. In his will he freed five men. Joe Fosset Jr., John Hemings, Burwell Colbert, Madison Hemings and Eston Hemings. I counted seven people. He allowed three slaves to run away. Jayme Hemings, Beverly Hemings and Harriet Hemings. That would be ten. Welsh4ever76 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Slaves Freed 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Thomas Jefferson]] 

message: Does anyone know anything of Thomas Jefferson ever being suicidal? 
Zidel333 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Question