Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Claims made in the lede

Re: The last several edits in the lede. (Here we go again) The partisan claim made about Hemings in the lede is the only claim that exists there. More text is committed to the claim than any other topic, including landmark topics like the DOI. IMO, we should state the fact that there is controversy about Hemings' children and move all other details to the Hemings subsection. There is no reason why this topic deserves special treatment over all the other topics in the lede. As it is, the lede is not neutral. If we leave this claim there then we should also include the claim that this opinion is largely politically and socially driven, and has been since Callender's day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for lede:

• Since his own day, controversy has ensued over allegations that Jefferson fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings; DNA tests in 1998, together with historical research, suggest a number of different fathers related to the Jefferson family, but it is widely held that Jefferson fathered at least one, some or all six of her children.

It's long because a small minority of editors insist on white-washing it as much as they can get away with. That always leads to an expansion of the text, as both sides wrangle for balance. If you want it short, I'd go with "Today, historians generally accept that after the death of his wife Jefferson had a long-running affair with his slave Sally Hemings and fathered some or all of her children." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the only time something needs to be "white-washed" is when someone throws mud (not to be confused with facts) on it. And "small minority" is also another opinion with nothing concrete to support it. Just claims. There are many reputable historians, professors and other scholars who have yet to be goaded into the politically "correct" view. Again, we need to be careful not to prop up one opinion with yet another opinion, or two, or three ...

How about this for the last paragraph of the lede:

As long as he lived, Jefferson expressed opposition to slavery, yet he owned hundreds of slaves and freed only a few of them. Historians now generally accept that after the death of his wife Jefferson had a long-term relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, and fathered some or all of her children. Although criticized by many present-day scholars over the issues of racism and slavery, Jefferson is consistently rated as one of the greatest U.S. presidents. Yopienso (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not bad at all. It mentions slavery, freeing only a few slaves, Hemings, historians and presidential ratings. It still devotes more text than for any other topic, but then the subject of Jefferson and slavery has a number of chapters to it. The important thing here is that Hemings isn't be used to overshadow the other items in this lede passage. I can concede "generally accept" as a couple of sources say this, and though no one has come close to proving this claim as fact (i.e.no one has ever conducted an official poll that includes historians who have published books or essays on the Hemings subject) I can go along with it per WP policy regarding sources, just as long as we don't present the idea as absolute fact. And we haven't. Good work.

Good; I'll edit the lede accordingly.

The second paragraph also needs attention: the prose doesn't flow. I'm not sure this is even true: "After the founding of the nation in 1776 . . ." I count the founding of the nation from 1789. In any case, I think Virginians exercised more democratic freedom before the Revolution than during. Ideas? Yopienso (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Yopienso: I'd wait at least a day. Better to settle matters here than with edits arm-wrestling and via edit history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and made the edit. Okaaaay... Let's hope it doesn't get complicated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoops--sorry. I see the wisdom in your suggestion. Let's see what happens. How about the 2nd paragraph? Yopienso (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Two issues to chime in on. 1) Jefferson had a long-running affair with his slave Sally Hemings, and at his death he had freed all her children. 2) Abraham Lincoln counted the beginning of the nation at 1776 in the Gettysburg Address, Jefferson Davis counted it at 1789 in his Short History of the Confederacy. In the modern era, the birth of the United States is widely celebrated on July 4 (1776) not March 4 (1789). What are the schools of thought in modern historiography? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Re the freeing of the Hemings children, there is another viable explanation. They were all close to the Jefferson family and had skills that could allow them to carry their own weight in society, and they were mostly white and could pass for white. If Jefferson freed them only because they were of Jefferson blood, let's not forget he may have done so indeed because they were his brother Randolph's and/or his son's children. i.e.Jefferson blood. And again, because they had skills that would carry them in white society. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I've been saying for several years, the lede of the article should reflect the body. Since the body is a hardly finished bloated pos, the constant arguing over the lede does nothing. For that matter, why is the mention of a mountain in GB important? This is sickening. Brad (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

One sided opinion regarding Hemings and slavery has taken center stage for years, often distracting and discouraging other editors from making improvements and maintaining balance. Let's be reminded that the Slavery/Hemings sections once upon a time took up some five pages of text, rife with divisive, naive presentist speak with little balance. If a few editors didn't stand up to the reoccurring "boom boom boom" and the repeated (sometimes veiled) attempts to turn this article into a socio-political hit piece, that is exactly what the article would be today. The page has gone through marked improvements. Page length. Encyclopedias often commit many pages to certain subjects, exceptional and important subjects, while average subjects are treated with a page or two. To reduce the Jefferson page in accordance with page length guidelines (all hail and bow down to page length guidelines -- and to hell with article quality and good coverage?) we would have to gut much of the content and probably do away with some sections entirely, thus rendering the article into a glorified table of contents for other articles that would read something like an inventory report. If the lede is out of wack with the body it seems we need to address the actual issues. Snowdon mountain, which originally was mentioned in passing for the sake of geographical context only, isn't mentioned in the lede, btw, nor should it be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The friendship between widower Jefferson and Hemings is also indicated by Jefferson’s keeping to the promise made in Paris to free all of Hemings’ children. The parentage of all the children is sidestepped by simply acknowledging that Jefferson was as good as his word in the introduction: “Jefferson had a long-running affair with his slave Sally Hemings, and at his death he had freed all her children." Determining exact parentage and sequencing manumission, formally and informally, the French custom of freeing all the children of slaves and master, can be left for the reader in the body of the article.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading some time ago that Jefferson made the promise because Sally was entertaining the idea of remaining in France and had French law on her side. At that time she only had two(?) children, pregnant with one. If Jefferson really had an affair with his daughter's care taker it begs the question who was taking care of his daughters, little girls, while he 'was away' -- and how did he manage to steal away with Sally without raising suspicion, and where would they go? To the local hotel with a young girl at Jefferson's side? Certainly not in the same house with his daughters. Too many holes in this theory to even bring it close to a viable explanation. Yes, we should present the facts and let the readers decide if Jefferson abandoned all his morals and embarked on such a reckless and risky venture, the exposure of which would have ruined his political career, his reputation and social standing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your grasp of the historical situation is a bit off here. Jefferson negotiated with James Hemings about his freedom. James had noted that he was free under French law, and Jefferson promised him manumission in Virginia if he came back anyways, and taught another cook. As far as I'm aware, there is no historical record of any promise to Sally in Paris, although this has been shown in one or more of the fictionalised versions of the story, e.g. Jefferson in Paris. Sally was send to accompany Polly on the voyage, not as a permanent caretaker. Jefferson even put Patsy and Polly into the Pentemont Abbey for a time. Sally had no children while in Paris. She may or may not have been pregnant on the way back to the US, but if so, the child probably died. Jefferson did pursue Maria Cosway - so much for his morals. And why do you think the exposure of a relation to Sally would "have ruined his political career, his reputation and social standing"? Affairs were neither uncommon nor unaccepted at the time, both in France and in Virginia. Alexander Hamilton was a bastard (in the literal sense) and had an affair with a married woman. Jefferson's father in law was also Sally Hemings' father. And so on. Society was, in many senses, a lot less prissy than it is today. Note that when Callender broke the story, it fizzled. The risk was quite limited. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: -- Jefferson "pursued" Cosway long after his wife had died -- and Cosway was a grown woman, not a girl who was a baby sitter for his daughters. "So much for Jefferson's morals"? You seem sort of eager to discount them entirely. As for Sally, the article doesn't mention any such promises made, and the question still remains. Why didn't Sally remain in France? Why didn't she tell anyone about who was the father of any of her children? Sorry, I just don't see Jefferson hitting on his daughter's baby sitter and engaging in half a life time of deceiving family members and friends, the repeated risks involved, all of which could, very easily, result in his social and political ruin. It seems to me if Jefferson had engaged Sally all of those years some sort of telling evidence would have surfaced somewhere along the line. There is zero such evidence. No one, ever, claimed to see Jefferson stealing away with Sally -- and I seriously doubt they were having an affair right there in Monticello with family and friends all around, or in his apartment in France where his daughters lived. All we have now are the speculations over (very) circumstantial evidence that points to a number of others. -- Callender. He was largely ignored as he was a disgruntled individual with a history of mud slinging who didn't have a shred of evidence in the first place. Naturally people gave a man like Jefferson, the POTUS, the benefit of the doubt rather than entertain the sour grapes from a character like Callender. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This strong opinion of yours disqualifies you from editing that section of the article because you refuse to consider the opposing academic opinions that are based on historical evidence. I respect your right to your opinion, which you are free to publish elsewhere. Here, we have to go with the academic consensus. Yopienso (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Yopienso: -- Speaking of "strong opinions"... The notion that I refuse to consider other opposing academic opinions is nonsense. How does one refuse to consider an opinion when these very opinions have been outlined, and then challenged with other opinions and possibilities?? I've addressed the academic opinions time and again and only expect others to consider all such opinions, as well as consider all the facts and circumstances. i.e.Not a peep ever from Sally about paternity. Not a peep from paternity proponents about how Jefferson managed to steal away with Sally time and again over almost half a life time without ever being seen alone together anywhere outside of Monticello, by anyone. It would seem you're the one who is not considering all the opinions, and apparently other likely possibilities. Where have I ever said we shouldn't include various academic opinion in the article? I have always stressed balance and fair representation of all significant views. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, you've not "considered" the mainstream academic opinions. You seem to use motivated reasoning and original reasoning to dismiss them. You ignore historical facts that don't fit with your argument, e.g. the simple fact that for significant stretches of time, while Jefferson's daughters "lived with him in Paris", they did not share his accommodation, but lived in the convent they were schooled in. You argue that Jefferson's wooing of Cosway is compatible with his high morals because it was "long after his wife had died", but the affair with Hemings, which, at the earliest, started at about the same time, somehow is not. And you construct an a-historic risk for Jefferson at a time and in a society where such affairs were not quite universal, but common enough that they were quite expected, and despite the nominal taboo, generally tolerated and/or ignored. Again: Jefferson's father-in-law lived openly with Sally's mother. Jefferson's father-in-law lived openly with Sally's mother. Jefferson's father-in-law lived openly with Sally's mother. Even that did not make him a social outcast or, apparently, cause serious trouble - the family was certainly accepted in polite society, and Martha married twice into good families while her father was living with Betty Hemings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No original research is in the article, and I've never deleted any significant view(s), regarding Hemings, et al. Regardless of my opinion of the facts v theories, I've always maintained that fair representation of all significant views be included, which they have, so your above dissertation is sort pointless in terms of how the article is being edited. Also, I didn't say Jefferson's "wooing of Cosway is compatible with his high morals", and only mentioned that he was not married when he expressed love and admiration (or "wooing" as you prefer to say, for some reason) for Cosway, a grown woman, who, along with his wife Martha, should tell you the sort of women Jefferson was attracted to. You're the one who said "so much for his morals" and then carry on about the open relationships of Jefferson's father-in-law as being no big moral deal in those days, which I tend to doubt. Also, you need to be more objective when you use terms like "mainstream academic opinions", (per "most historians" believe Jefferson paternity). As I've demonstrated time and again, this is a spurious often partisan claim, completely unproven. There are many scholars and historians who don't go along with the paternity theory. In any case, my remarks were only made to demonstrate that the paternity theory is full of holes. And the facts remain, Sally never claimed Jefferson was the father of any of her children, and Jefferson was never seen trying to steal away with Sally during all of those very many years that he was 'supposed' to be having an affair. Regardless of where his daughters were staying, it would have been completely reckless of him to bring Sally over to his apartment in France, or to steal away with her and then try to sneak her back to the house without notice, or to have any affair right there in Monticello, with family, friends and servants all around. Jefferson the complete idiot? I don't think so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As an aside: When you say I have "not considered the mainstream academic opinions", is this to say that the "mainstream" believes that Jefferson indeed had his affair right there in Monticello, or that they figured he stealed away with Sally, over and over, for years? Funny how their theories don't entertain these ideas. Guess they don't want to create any more doubt than there already is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Making major additions to the article

@TravellingCactus: Thanks for your recent contributions to the Jefferson page. However, we are currently trying to reduce the page length. If you would like to make major additions to the page please see if you can reduce some of the not so needed content in a given section first. I would recommend discussing matters first so other editors can perhaps help and advise you in this effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know too much about using this talk page. I don't think I added more than probably 50 words to the article, and one of my edits corrected an incorrect fact about when Jefferson left France. I also added some valuable links to primary sources. I would be more than happy to help condense some of the rest of the article and to omit some of the edits, but the correction is pretty important. What do I need to do to make the correction? TravellingCactus (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)TravellingCactus

@TravellingCactus: -- Thanks for your edits, and corrections are always welcomed. I was in the middle of making reductions and was a bit hasty removing the new edits. Sorry. Primary sources are fine, so long as they are published by reputable / established publishers, and are not misinterpreted and used to advance a new position, but use them with caution. Also, if possible, try not to put source info mixed in with the text, esp website addresses and such. Makes reading and editing more difficult. If you are not familiar with linking citations to source listings in the Bibliography then, okay, someone else can do this until you become more familiar with that sort of thing. Just in case you don't know, when you respond to a message on the talk page precede your text with a colon ( : ) or colons ( :: ). The more colons, the more the text is indented. I've done this for you in your response above. This way message text from different editors is indented from the text above it, which makes following the thread easier. Go to the talk/edit page and see how this is done. We also have the 'ping' feature, -- {{ping|username}} -- which instantly notifies an editor with a little red box at the top of the page that a message has been left for him/her on a given talk page. It's usually used once or twice initially and then when the discussion gets going it's sometimes not used. Btw, welcome! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is not a table of contents

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Brad101: Appreciate the effort to further reduce article size, let's just remember there are exceptions, featured and good articles, to page length guidelines, so lets not get blindsided by this idea and over do it. Regarding the Barbary Wars, we should mention 'some' details. I would at least restore the passage below, which includes an important point (i.e.first American naval squadron to cross the Atlantic) and several good links. Many readers only read the lede and maybe a section or two and then leave the page. Personally I find it annoying if I have to wade through several different articles just to get some summary information. IMO, we should restore this (reworded) information. America's first declared war should get at least as much coverage as Hemings which Jefferson in all likelihood probably had little to do with and who had zero impact on the fate and welfare of the nation. At least we know the war is based on established facts, not partisan speculations, conjecture and contempt.

The frigates, under the command of Commodore Richard Dale were the famous USS Philadelphia, USS President, and the USS Essex along with the schooner USS Enterprise, which became the first American naval squadron to cross the Atlantic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the article's added dimension showing the U.S. as a maritime nation of commerce with an active naval tradition from early on. It is an aspect of the nation too often overlooked in economic, military and diplomatic histories. The earlier summary did note that there was a American naval squadron crossing the Atlantic...it should be noted that it was the first. Wellington considered the actions of the U.S. Navy against the Barbary Pirates as world class fighting. If the passage calling out each ship is a favorite of yours, let's put it back in. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A big problem with this article is that imperfectly informed editors unaware of the weight professional historians attribute to specific events put in their favorite points. I have only a rudimentary understanding of the the Barbary Wars (i.e., am imperfectly informed), but a fairly thorough internet search turns up no scholar who attaches great importance to Dale's squadron. I find the squadron named, but not identified as a turning point in US naval history or TJ's presidency. Since this is a bio of TJ, WP:WEIGHT means such detail in this article is unwarranted unless a source is found that ascribes importance to that squadron in the life of TJ.

However, this detail probably should be added to First Barbary War.

Also, Gwillhickers, you need to stop mentioning your speculations and conjectures wrt TJ's relationship with Sally Hemings and about your contempt for scholars whose research suggests it was a relationship that produced children. Yopienso (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with giving weight to any established facts, and you should learn someday that the only "contempt" I have ever harbored around here was always directed at those who try to pass off as fact something that is only speculation at best. In any event, it would seem that America's first declared war, and the first American fleet to cross the Atlantic, under Jefferson's directive, needs to be covered a bit better. These events don't require that they have to be a "turning point" in Jefferson's life, anymore than the artificially inflated Hemings theory has to be, so let's not invent double standards just to get you through an otherwise tough moment in the discussion. Every section needs some details, and the ones mentioned here are definitive to the subject of the Barbary war, and yes, the first American naval fleet to cross the Atlantic would indeed serve to mark a turning point in American naval history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I follow your compelling logic, and might even agree with it, but insist we must follow the scholarship. What are your RSs for the importance of that squadron in TJ's life? Even Malone, Vol. 4, p. 98, merely notes that TJ "had ordered to the Mediterranean a squadron of four vessels under Commodore Richard Dale . . ." without naming each one.

The Barbary War wasn't one of our 5 formally declared wars.

WP is supposed to reflect current mainstream scholarship, not refute it. Yopienso (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yopienso: -- No one's trying to refute anything. 'Amazingly', many sources cover Jefferson's involvement with the Barbary War ("formally declared" or not) and the Navy, so by all means, let's follow the scholarship, not try to refute it, and more importantly, let's not get eternally argumentative over restoring one definitive sentence that was in the section for the longest time, posed no issues with anyone, or you, until someone mentioned it. Any time a president is standing during a war it gets covered rather well in his biography. We have a rather small paragraph here. It shouldn't be an issue on the level of a content dispute just to add another undisputed, factual and definitive sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A little historical context has been restored, this time with no mention of the names of the individual ships. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My comment about refuting referred to TJ/Hemings. Imo, even on the talk page you should refrain from criticizing the scholarly consensus. I'd be happy to discuss it on your or my talk page.

My issue is that since you and TVH are trying to tighten up the article--Bravo!--I can't understand why you want to add 127 characters of details omitted by most sources that are far broader than an encyclopedia article. I don't dispute your facts, but I do question whether they fit in this article.

I appreciate your willingness to leave out the names of the ships, which I support adding to First Barbary War. Yopienso (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The first US naval fleet sailing across the Atlantic was a landmark event, initiated by Jefferson, and deserves mention in this little paragraph which you now seem to think is too broad because of this statement. Right...
Hemings. Once again, consensus is widely split regarding the theory of Jefferson's paternity, regardless of the self supporting claims that, for all practical purposes, have merely said 'Most historians agree with me' -- an unqualified claim and hardly objective. I naturally question any one source that makes claims about "most" other sources in an attempt to buttress their highly questionable speculations. Once again, please don't refer to historians and consensus as if they're all on the same page. They're not. Far from it. If nearly all the sources said the same thing, with no significant difference of opinion, that would be a different story and it would be a little unreasonable to question them all, but that's not the case here. The reason the article is now neutral and objective is because some of us have questioned the speculations, often presented as fact. We've been through this time and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, are you trying to trim the article or bloat it?

Until you provide RSs that show the squadron was not only a landmark event in naval history, but also pertinent to a brief biography of TJ, you are engaging in WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. I don't say you're wrong; I say we can't give that much weight to the squadron without reliable sourcing.

I won't clutter this page with questions about speculations. Yopienso (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page length

GW we've had this conversation many times. What subjects are important to the article is how much weight historians have placed on the same subject. We have much weight on the DOI so it rightly belongs in the article as it's own section but very little weight has been given to TJ and the APS in comparison. The APS section that you added, does not have enough importance to warrant anything more than one or two sentences of mention. But that isn't all.. NOTSOV does not get much attention from historians either, and deserves no more than a mention of its creation after TJ's term as Governor. Monticello has been given a lot of weight but here we have just a mini-section devoted to it. Yes? I could go on but I'm confident of wasting my time trying to explain it all over again. If you're genuinely interested in seeing this article progress then you'll do what needs to be done instead of filibustering. Brad (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

change of plan

        @Brad101: -- even if we removed the APS section entirely, along with a couple of others, we're still faced with a lengthy article that would well exceed guidelines. Your argument about historical weight given to a subject v the weight we give it is a valid one as page length guidelines are concerned, but I think your estimation of the weight historians have given the APS is perhaps a bit understated. As I've maintained, if page length guidelines were practiced 'to the letter' it would result in an article that resembled an outline more than a biography. Given all the dedicated articles for Jefferson this article should really be turned into a list of Jefferson subjects, with a sentence or two to describe each of them. But the reality is, page view statistics for this article dwarf those of all other subject-dedicated articles for Jefferson. If we don't cover the given subjects adequately here they'll never get read about by most visitors to this page.
        I don't have any problem removing tangential bloat, but I like to think between the lot of us, we've built an article that doesn't include enough of it to speak of. Yes, we could shrink the article to outline proportions, and make no mistake, we would have to, given all the subjects directly related to Jefferson -- but consider the consequences. A good portion of the readers read the lede and then the sections they are interested in. It's not like we're forcing readers to read the entire Bible. If the article was nominated for GA or FA, and they made an issue of page length, I would withdraw the nomination rather than degrade the article and would tell them to keep their little gold star. After all, it's only something contributing editors gloat over, myself included. The readers could care less mostly. They come here for information, and hopefully, they'll find it well covered. My interest is in article quality and coverage, and is genuine. So now what? Change the article name to 'Outline of Jefferson subjects' and have at it? If there's a significant consensus to shrink the article just to satisfy guidelines (almost no one has made an issue over), I'll go along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Brad101: While writing the above response (now hidden) I could see your eyes rolling back, along with that, 'yeah, sure, right...' look, so I'm at least making an attempt to reduce some article size here, trying to keep the article so it reads like a biography. We'll see how it goes here. I removed and condensed some text from the lede, and have greatly reduced the Barbary Wars section, so far. I also removed the cites from the lede, the details of which are cited in the text. If there is more than a couple of objections about that then, no biggie I guess, we can restore them, though it isn't necessary, per no cites in the lede convention often used in other articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• @TheVirginiaHistorian: -- since you authored most of the Democracy section, which is rather large, it seems you would be the most qualified to perhaps condense it a bit? Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a first pass, keeping the elements of Jefferson's progression, and outlining the techniques used to double presidential election turnout. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Thanks. I'm wondering if the content in the Political philosophy and views section and its subsections can be merged somewhat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to start chopping with an axe. If the two of you are seriously interested in making the article more presentable with less wording, I shall go through and suggest some things. If this turns into an argumentative boomboom free-for-all I shall not continue. Brad (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do help out. The key focus here is that Political philosophy and views should not redundantly recap the political history of Jefferson’s administration which is available to readers in sections above. Most of my axing has been relative to my own contributions with this consideration in mind. The focus in this section should be as it is titled, Political philosophy and views. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked over that section and there doesn't seem to be much info which is duplicated elsewhere in the article. I think it's an excellent section that explains TJ's thoughts on those subjects and it does so precisely. This section should stay in the article as is. Brad (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement following the Banks section copy edit. The header for 'Banks' might be better termed 'Banks and financing'. The last part of Foreign Policy and the first part of Rebellion are still rocky. The point of this copy edit is firstly to a) keep the descriptions of philosophy addressed currently, and b) preserve sources, unless they are redundant. Secondly, where there is imbalance in the narrative, provide balance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Word counts by section

'Section' refers to the word count in each top level section including any sub-sections. For example: early life and career will include the word count of its 4 sub-sections etc.

• Early life and career = 1,895
  • sub-article Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson = 5,547
• Political career 1775–1800 = 3,637 but is also covered in Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson
• Election of 1800 = 174
  • Sub-article United States presidential election, 1800 = 2,038
• Presidency 1801–1809 = 4,434
  • Sub-article Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, = 4,568
• American Philosophical Society = 280
• Later years = 1,439
• Political philosophy and views = 2,002
• Slaves and slavery = 1,377
  • Sub-article Thomas Jefferson and slavery = 7,991 (lol)
• Religion = 614
  • Sub-article Thomas Jefferson and religion = 3,570
• Interests and activities = 1,021
• Memorials and honors = 311
• Historical reputation = 327

Reduction

A sub-article is normally larger to take on more narrative from the main article.

• Presidency 1801–1809 can certainly be reduced of content. It and the sub-article are closely equal in word count.
• Political career 1775–1800 can certainly be reduced of content to Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson. Possibly the sub-article would have to be renamed.

You should see the trend here; that of trying to maintain 1500 to 2000 words per section maximum. Brad (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh well. Brad (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the presidency section should be reduced in light of the information which can be found at (or moved to) the main article on that topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sections that need elimination and or moving

• American Philosophical Society does not hold enough weight in the life of TJ to warrant its own section. It's out of continuity to the rest of the article and would be out of place if joined with his term as Governor since APS was not a political office. Interests and activities seems to be the best fit for that subject.
• notes on Virginia was not an official political work of TJ but one he took interest in and apparently shared with the APS. It does not belong in the Governor section but would go nicely into interests and activities in a less wordy manner. There is an entire article for notes itself.
• speaker This is perhaps the silliest of all sections. His speaking ability was not a handicap to his personal or political life. It's hardly worth a mention unless we care to explain why TJ had his State of the Union addresses published instead of being spoken by himself, and even that's debatable. All that should be mentioned goes something like this: Jefferson, a poor public speaker, ended the tradition of delivering a State of the Union speech and instead just sent a copy, which Congress then published. Brad (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson presidency reductions

Burr conspiracy

@Brad101, Binksternet, and Gwillhickers: A beginning in reducing the presidency section can be made at ‘Burr, duel with Hamilton and treason’ --- move to "Burr Conspiracy" in Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, which is poorly noted and lacking detail of the narrative here. The replacement text might read, refocusing to Jefferson and his presidency, retitling the section, “Burr conspiracy” here,

On July 11, 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr mortally wounded Federalist Party leader Alexander Hamilton in a duel at Weehawken, NJ. Becoming persona non grata, he was replaced on the 1804 ticket with Jefferson by George Clinton of New York. Burr headed west planning a military adventure. REF Meacham, Jon. 2012, p.404-405.

International tensions surrounding the Spanish in North America preoccupied much of 1805 for the Jefferson administration, revolving around the exact boundaries of the Louisiana Territory with Mexico, and the fate of the Floridas, which Spain refused to cede to the United States. REF Meacham, Jon. 2012, p.413 Into this tinderbox strode Aaron Burr, in 1806 spreading numerous rumors of military adventurism, recruiting men, stocking arms and building boats on the upper Ohio River. U.S. General James Wilkinson, also a spy for Spain, reported from New Orleans that Burr was planning to separate the southwestern U.S. territory along the Mississippi from the Union, whereas Burr’s conflicting rumors spoke of a filibuster to Texas, Mexico and Spanish America. In November Jefferson issued a proclamation warning that persons including “citizens of the United States” were conspiring to take over Spanish territory. REF Meacham, Jon. 2012, p.420.

Jefferson sought a law from Congress authorizing him to act, employing the land or naval forces of the U.S. “in cases of insurrection”, and in his message to Congress on January 22, 1807, Jefferson declared Burr’s “guilt is placed beyond question”. By late March 1807, Burr was under arrest, but he was acquitted in a treason trial. Jefferson did not appear in person to answer Chief Justice John Marshall’s subpoena to testify, but sent relevant documents instead, setting a precedent for executive privilege. Burr’s acquittal enraged Jefferson, but Burr’s career was at an end. REF Meacham, Jon. 2012, p.421-422.

Should we try out copy edits section by section? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Section by section would be the way to go. I'm not well read on the Burr stuff other than basics. I've been skimming through the presidency article and Burr needs better coverage there than what exists now. Your rewrite drops the word count by about 100. Brad (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I need assistance in transferring text and notes from here to the other article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you have specific concerns? I'll see what I can do in the meantime. Brad (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I pasted the current section into the presidency article. Now you are able to replace the section here with your proposed one. Brad (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

First Barbary War

Copy edited for conciseness, all footnotes in tact. One sentence switch for chronology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I went back into article history and salvaged the text you eliminated. The whole section as it stood before is now in the presidency article. No sense in flushing good work down the drain. Brad (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase

Copy edited for conciseness, all footnotes in tact. One sentence switch for chronology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Loosing some footnotes, the section might be consolidated into two paragraphs,

In 1802, Jefferson had arranged for the purchase of the city of New Orleans and adjacent coastal areas. Napoleon I offered to sell the entire territory for $15 million. Most contemporaries thought that this was an exceptional opportunity, apart from any Constitutional reservations.[134] The Purchase territory marked the end of French imperial ambitions in North America which were potentially in conflict with American expansion west.[137]

The achievement of the Louisiana Purchase was domestically complicated by the pre-existing establishment of French slaveholders there. Faced with the option to confiscate the slaves of French nationals, Jefferson chose to quickly incorporate resident settlers politically into U.S. territories, allowing for slavery to continue in the newly acquired territory and the adoption of the Code Napoleon. Since the Purchase, historians have differed in their assessments regarding constitutional and slavery issues, but Jefferson is considered as a major architect of America's western growth.[139]

Again, assist is needed to avoid orphaning citations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with this. The current version in the presidency article should be checked beforehand to see if there are any points worth keeping. Most of it is unreferenced anyway. Brad (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark and other explorations

Suggested copyedit for conciseness, some loss of footnotes and detail.

After the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, Jefferson needed the mostly unknown part of the continent explored and mapped for expanding westward settlement and trade. It was important to establish a U.S. claim before competing Europeans, and perhaps to find the long-sought-for Northwest passage. (Ambrose, 1996, p.76, 418) Knowledge of the western continent was limited to what had been learned from trappers, traders and explorers. (Ambrose, 1996, p. 76) Influenced by exploration accounts by Le Page du Pratz’z on Louisiana (1763) and Captain James Cook to the Pacific (1784), (Ambrose, 1996, pp. 154) Jefferson along with the American Philosophical Society persuaded Congress in 1804 to fund an expedition to explore and map the newly acquired territory to the Pacific Ocean. (Rodriguez, 202. p. xxiv, 162)

Jefferson appointed Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to lead the Corps of Discovery, to explore and document scientific and geographic knowledge. (Rodriguez, 2002, p. 112, 186) Lewis had extensive military woodlands experience and proved an apt student of the sciences of mapping, botany, natural history, mineralogy, and astronomy/navigation. (Ambrose, 1996, p.76) Lewis and Clark recruited their company of 45 men and spent a winter preparing near St. Louis. (Ambrose, 1996, p.128) Guided by Sacagawea and various Native-American tribes along the way, the expedition traced the Columbia River and reached the Pacific Ocean by November 1805. They returned to St. Louis by September 23, 1806, having lost only one man to disease. The expedition obtained a wealth of scientific and geographic knowledge, including knowledge of the many Indian tribes. (Fritz, 2004, p.3)

In addition to the Corps of Discovery, Jefferson organized three other western exploration expeditions including the William Dunbar and George Hunter expedition on the Ouachita River (1804–1805), the Thomas Freeman and Peter Custis expedition (1806) on the Red River, and the Zebulon Pike expedition (1806–1807) into the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest. All of the exploration expeditions sent out under Jefferson's presidency produced valuable information about the American frontier and wilderness.(Editor's: Trey Berry, Pam Beasley, and Jeanne Clements (2006), The Forgotten Expedition, 1804-1805: The Louisiana Purchase Journals of Dunbar and Hunter, Editors Introduction page xi)

@Gwillhickers: Will this work for the summary article 'Thomas Jefferson'? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Status

TVH I have copied two existing sections over to the presidency article; what is the status now? You could replace the two existing sections here with your revised editions. Brad (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried out the Lewis and Clark copy edit in the article mainspace and consolidated pics; alignment of image to West Point section text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyedited Burr conspiracy and Louisiana Purchase per Talk drafts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is great progress. The reader isn't being cheated out of anything and the word count has dropped by about 2000. Brad (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Two foreign policy section discussions

In an effort at reducing the article why are there two sections concerning Jefferson's foreign policy? Foriegn policy needs to be reserved for the Presidency section. Seems repetative to me. Information in the "Forein policy" section needs to be incorporated into the Presidency section. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the section in question that either should be incorporated into the Presidency section or deleted. Part of this information, in my opinion, in uneccessary for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The second section quoted below is within the “Political philosophy and views”….which seems to admit to the first paragraph and extended quote, but not the second paragraph beginning, “This statement expresses Jefferson’s refusal…”

The second paragraph might be subject matter pertaining to the Presidency section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

TVH what were your intentions behind the foreign policy section? Was it to explain TJ's overall views and thoughts or to list the incidences he was faced with during his Presidency? Brad (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest incorporating some or all of this information into the article rather then a seperate section. That makes two sections that concern foriegn policy in the "Presidency" section and in the "Political philosophy and views" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I see little if any information in the presidency section regarding foreign policy. So where is the duplicity? Brad (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Foreign policy is discussed in the Presidency 1801–1809 section five times.

• First Barbary War
• Louisiana Purchase
• Attempted annexation of Florida
• Chesapeake–Leopard Affair
• Embargo

Foriegn policy should be discussed in the Presidency section only. The State Department was created under an act of Congress and is more then just an "interest" of Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy of foreign policy

@Brad101 and Cmguy777: I would rewrite Foreign policy for the Philosophy section as,

Jefferson argued that America would become the world’s great “empire of liberty”, a model for democracy and republicanism. He observed in 1809 on departing the presidency, that the United States was the “solitary" example of a free, self-governed republic of human rights. If ever other world regions might be “susceptible” to its uplifting example, the sacred fire of “freedom and self-government” would be lit in other regions of the earth. REF Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (1900), p. 895.

Generally, he considered Britain an adversary to continued U.S. independence and prosperity, and looked to France as a balance to Britain’s maritime dominance in world affairs. He said of the Napoleonic Wars against the monarchies of Europe, that “The liberty of the whole world was depending on the issue of the contest.” REF Malone, 1962, pp. 48-49.

Thus the philosophy section would omit Jefferson's Haitian policy from the philosophy section, --- which should be addressed in the presidency section because Jefferson adopted more than one position concerning events there as conditions changed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree the Haitian policy belongs in the presidential section. I suggest renaming the "Foriegn Policy" section to "Empire of Liberty". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok TVH this clears things up now. Haiti does belong in the presidency section along with the other incidences. Brad (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Foreign policy

In the decades after the Revolutionary War, Jefferson considered Britain as an adversary to the United States and usually favored France. He said of the Napoleonic Wars, "The liberty of the whole world was depending on the issue of the contest". Jefferson once argued that America would become the world's great "empire of liberty"—that is, the model for democracy and republicanism. On departing the presidency in 1809, he described America as:

"Trusted with the destinies of this solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights, and the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government, from hence it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth, if other regions of the earth shall ever become susceptible of its benign influence."

This statement expresses Jefferson's refusal as president to diplomatically recognize Haiti, founded in 1804 as the second republic in the world, after its successful slave revolution in the French colony of Saint-Domingue. Fearing the success of the "slave republic" would rouse the American South's slaves to rebellion, Jefferson supported an arms and trade embargo against Haiti. But during the revolution, when Jefferson had wanted to discourage French efforts in 1802–1803 at regaining control (and rebuilding their empire in North America), he had allowed arms and contraband goods to reach Saint-Domingue.

Grammar

OK, I made an account to query the grammar in the intro:

"When Britain threatened American shipping challenging U.S. neutrality during its war with Napoleon, he tried economic warfare with his embargo laws. But it only damaged American trade"

That period/full stop is clunky and ruins the flow. Shouldn't those two sentences be merged? --StableSupply (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done (with some rewording) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Monticello section, second paragraph, frist sentence. I think it should say "As there..." NOT "As here..."

 Done (second request) Thanks for spotting that.--JayJasper (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Foreign Policy section, first paragraph, third sentence. "1774r" should be changed to "1774." Thanks.

Lot'sa links in the lede

Seems there's a bit too many links in the lede, esp in the first paragraph. Makes you wonder if the reader will ever make it to the body of the text. Seems we could move some of these links there. e.g.United States Minister to France, Democratic-Republican Party, '. . . Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk), 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure is to link the first occurrence of a term in the article. That's not written in stone (I think), but we should have good reasons to deviate - if the reader is looking for a link, that's where they will look if they have any Wikipedia experience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Commonly known subjects should not be linked. I believe that the majority of people who read this article would know what Secretary of State and President of the United States are. Probably less known would be Democratic-Republican. I can make a go of it but likely that would result in 14GB of discussion and argument. Brad (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I punched it around some. Delinked repetitive links in the infobox but allowed links to stand that I eliminated from the main text. Well... just look and let the fighting begin. Brad (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Voyage to France, through a black hole, apparently

"Taking his young daughter Patsy and two servants they departed from Boston on July 5, 1784 and sailed to Paris, arriving on August 6.[74] During his nineteen-day voyage to France Jefferson taught himself how to read and write Spanish." This just seems so obvious to me that I'm asking here in case I'm missing something: wouldn't a voyage from 5 July to 6 August actually be thirty-two days? Binabik80 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another hole in that statement is that TJ only took one servant with him; another arrived in France later on. Better refs are needed if anyone cares. Brad (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The ref for the statement about servants is Hyland, 2009. Don't have it handy. Seems to me if he had said one servant, the existing statement would have said this. If you know for sure Jefferson had brought only one servant initially do you remember the source? Anyone? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson made landfall at Cowes on the Isle of Wight on July 26th, and then visited Portsmouth, Titchfield, Fareham and Gosport, England, then crossing the Channel stopped in La Havre and Rouen before finally arriving in Paris on July 29. That still makes for a 21-day crossing by my reckoning, so I removed the "nineteen-day" as unsolvable, and tidied up other little points. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/chronologies Yopienso (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I've ever read about TJ has said that two servants went with him to France. It's always been made clear that James Hemings, TJ and Patsy made the initial voyage. Later on Sally Hemings accompanied Polly to France. The current wording leaves out entirely the Polly and Sally details. There are still areas of this article that contain elementary information that belongs on simple wiki. Brad (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to improve it. Yopienso (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sections that need elimination and or moving

• American Philosophical Society does not hold enough weight in the life of TJ to warrant its own section. It's out of continuity to the rest of the article and would be out of place if joined with his term as Governor since APS was not a political office. Interests and activities seems to be the best fit for that subject.
• notes on Virginia was not an official political work of TJ but one he took interest in and apparently shared with the APS. It does not belong in the Governor section but would go nicely into interests and activities in a less wordy manner.
• speaker This is perhaps the silliest of all sections. His speaking ability was not a handicap to his personal or political life. It's hardly worth a mention unless we care to explain why TJ had his State of the Union addresses published instead of being spoken by himself, and even that's debatable. All that should be mentioned goes something like this: Jefferson, a poor public speaker, ended the tradition of delivering a State of the Union speech and instead just sent a copy, which Congress then published. Brad (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this was archived I'm restoring it here. Brad (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the Speaker subsection could be removed and mention of Jefferson's speaking ability could be mentioned elsewhere. The section on Notes on the State of Virginia, a significant work in terms of Jefferson's biography, is only a short paragraph long. I'd say we should leave it alone. Disagree also about the APS removal. Jefferson was a member for 35 years, half his adult life, and its president for 18 years. His involvement there overlapped with his political thinking greatly (enlightenment, abolition, science, Lewis and Clark Exp, etc). While the APS may not have been an actual political office, this alone is not grounds for the section's removal -- anymore than the section on Hemings theories is not political and should also not be so removed. And I still don't like the idea of gutting information from this biography just to satisfy page length guidelines. Again, there are GA's and FA's that exceed guidelines, so we should employ a little discretion here. The Jefferson biography is not your run of the mill biography and is among the most exceptional here at WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Same old tired debate that's been had over and over again. You should dismiss yourself from this article. Brad (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brad101: Baloney. The points in contention have been ignored, by you mostly. Again, the Jefferson bio' is exceptional, per his extensive involvement in colonial and early U.S. history and should be dealt with as such -- not treated in the robotic rules & regs's fashion that you seem to ascribe to. The article has grown again to 198k, and rightly so -- so it seems your concerns are not shared by most. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• "notes on Virginia" under the Slavery section on this page, "Notes on the State of Virginia" can be linked to this page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Notes_on_the_State_of_Virginia* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmcassel (talk • contribs)

We generally only link the first occurrence of a term. Notes on the State of Virginia is linked from the subsection with that name. Please try to make sure that your text is identifiably yours on talk pages in the future. Thanks!--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record I would eliminate the "Speaker" section..."Notes" is important in terms of slavery and Jefferson's views on race. This could be mentioned in the slavery section. Maybe the APS can be incorporated into the article...There really are two "Foriegn policy" sections. This article is approaching the 200,000 mark...something needs to be done to reduce the size of the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• The whole Burr Conspiracy subsection seems unimportant and unnecessary. Eliminate it? -- ghosts&empties(talk)

I would say keep since Burr was Jefferson's Vice President and President of the Senate able to cast deciding votes and Hamilton was Jefferson's political enemy. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

By the time of the alleged conspiracy Burr was literally in the political wilderness. Jefferson really had very to do with it other than being peaved with the outcome. ghosts&empties(talk)

Keep the Burr section, --- Burr was able to attract considerable funding and a corps of volunteers to threatened international relations with Spain along U.S. borders and federal relations with western states in a belligerent time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually the section may need to be expanded concerning James Wilkinson, possibly a Spanish spy, and alleged payment from Spain...Interesting Jefferson did not force Wilkinson to resign when he probably should have...Burr may have been aided by Wilkinson who was appointed by Jefferson governor of the Louisiana Territory in 1805 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I added more on Wilkinson not wanting to expand the section too much...There was the New England conspiracy also that did indirectly involve Burr...if Burr was elected governor would New England have succeeded from the Union ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaker

I moved the speaker section to the talk page...incorporated and edited into the language and linguistic section... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Although his political career and private activities required him to speak in public and his writing on a wide range of topics was regarded as brilliant, Jefferson was not known as a good orator and preferred to remain silent if possible. Early in his political career in the Continental Congress, colleague John Adams wrote: "Mr. Jefferson had been now about a Year a Member of Congress, but had attended his Duty in the House but a very small part of the time and when there had never spoken in public: and during the whole Time I sat with him in Congress, I never heard him utter three Sentences together." Jefferson's two Inaugural Addresses were delivered in so "low a tone" as to be "only partly audible". Copies of the addresses were quickly printed and distributed and, once read, received much praise. Instead of delivering his State of the Union addresses himself, Jefferson wrote the annual messages and sent a representative to read them aloud in Congress. This started a tradition which continued until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson chose to deliver his own State of the Union address.

Jefferson the Freemason (?)

Article says zip about the fact that Jefferson was a Freemason. Topic deserves at least a sentence or two to that effect. Many of the signers of the DOI were Freemasons and their ideology and enlightenment ideals played a significant role in Jefferson's outlook, thinking, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson's connections to fraternal organizations have often been misunderstood. He is frequently, yet falsely, linked to the Freemasons." Monticello.org Yopienso (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Who besides TJF makes the claim? In any case they seem to offer a viable explanation. I read an account that he was a member a couple of weeks ago. Can't seem to substantiate it any further though.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Who makes the claim that he was a Mason? That's the criterion for inclusion in the article. Yopienso (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Coemgenus: (edit conflict) In his essay Mike Akpan cites historian H. Paul Jeffers' [http://www.amazon.com/The-Freemasons-In-America-Society-ebook/dp/B002U7E926 book] to this effect. Not sure how reliable it is however. Jefferson had many close associations with Fremasons, including Washington, Franklin and others, so it's no leap of faith to at least consider the possibility. Time is very limited for me lately so I'll look into it further when I get the chance. As of yet I can't find any other sources that corroborate either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

[http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=H.%20P.%20Jeffers&search-alias=digital-text&sort=relevancerank Jeffers's other publications] don't suggest a serious approach to history. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Writing about less than popular views doesn't automatically mean Jeffers' approach to history is less than serious. In any case, I remain undecided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It's said that he joined a French lodge, but the records of that lodge are lost, and he apparently never stated outright that he was a Mason. Wouldn't surprise me at all, but without proof, we can't say much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I am not sure if mentioning Jefferson was a Freemason would be ground breaking news...He seemed to be more of a rational scientist...Jesus was a reformer...but the apostles and church leaders corrupted Christianity...according to Jefferson...my view is that the current article needs to be reduced...while other longer sections can be summarized and made into seperate articles... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Masons were a secretive order and if I'm not mistaken its members didn't go around and advertise their membership much, if at all, esp a reserved character like Jefferson. As I said, I remain undecided, and we need more than one source to say if he was or wasn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't say Yes or No, but it was hardly something people were secretive about at that time -- Washington and Franklin being two notable Masons in Jefferson's circle. We could say something to the effect of "While Jefferson is often identified as a Freemason, there is no extant documentary evidence that he was one." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Well, I don't know if Jefferson is often identified as a Freemason -- so far the sources I've checked, including Malone, Cogliano, Ellis, Ferling, Chernov and others don't say either way. TJF says no. Jeffers says yes. We can say there is uncertainty but here also to assert this we'll need more than one reliable source, as questionable topics go. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Mackey says that the "assertion has frequently been made", and I'd consider him a reliable source as well. Morris, on the other hand, gives a flat no. Porter says that his writing suggests he was never a Mason.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Good leg work. I've just finished checking more than a dozen sources, contemporary and old, and none of them even mention 'Freemason' so I think at this point we can say that there is no evidence to suggest he was in fact a Freemason -- and we can use TJF and Mackey as sources. Without close paraphrasing TJF, we can use their account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: You do realize that Mackey says that Jefferson died in 1829, which is of course an error, as he died in 1826. Any other serious errors with this source? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know offhand. It's reliable for scholarly information about Freemasonry -- it's never been claimed that reliable==error-free. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: That Christianity was "corrupted" by the apostles is an opinion albeit embraced by Jefferson, and along with page length, has nothing to do with whether Jefferson was a Freemason. Please try to keep your line straight and don't use one topic as an excuse to vent views on other topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How will mentioning Jefferson is a Freemason make the article better ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

TJ is often believed to have been a Mason, as Monticello.org points out and refutes. No reliable source claims otherwise. Mike Apkan misconstrued H. Paul Jeffers' statements wrt the issue. Jeffers' wrote on page 44:

"Known Masons were Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock . . . Those for whom there is evidence of membership or affiliations were Elbridge Gerry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson . . ."

Personally, I think he should have said "inconclusive evidence." But no matter; on p. 49 he wrote:

"Of the five dominant and guiding men . . . three were Freemasons: Washington, Franklin, and Edmund Randolph. The others, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, while not adherents of the Craft, held views that were similar." Yopienso (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning Jefferson was a Freemason could be confusing for the reader...What is a Freemason? Also this could bring up some contradictions...isn't freemasonry a form of "corrupt clergy" that Jefferson was opposed too...wasn't Jefferson opposed to religion being involved in politics such as the King and Head of the Church were one and the same... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffers states: "...there is evidence of membership or affiliations..." concerning Jefferson and freemasonry...that is not an overwhelming endorsement Jefferson was a Freemason...how about this statement, "Jefferson was not publically known to be a freemason but there is evidence he had freemason affiliations." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the Jeffers 2005 book source and information to the article that there is evidence Jefferson had Freemasonry affiliations using the Jeffers 2005 book source as reference... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Good choice of words imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Thanks...possibly Jefferson did not want to be publically affiliated with the Freemasons...That might go against his view of a "clergy" of Freemasons running the government...that is only my opinion...I would think politically he would had to attend a few Freemason meetings at some point during his career... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I missed this addition, and am immediately removing it.

First, Freemasonry has nothing to do with religion, so it shouldn't be mentioned in that section even if it belonged in the article.

But it doesn't belong in the article at all. None of TJ's mainstream biographers suggest he was a Freemason, so we shouldn't, either. Seizing on one ambiguous statement by an obscure historian to add speculation ignored by great historians is contrary to Wikipedia's principles. Jeffers himself wrote a few pages later that TJ was not an adherent of the Craft. It damages WP to add the unsupported conjecture that TJ was a Mason or affiliated with Freemasonry. Yopienso (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Yopensio...I respectfully disagree...How can you arbitrarily remove an edit established by a reliabe source...Editor consensus is two to one who favor the edit...I think you can't deny the political realities of Jefferson's times...Jeffers stated there was evidence he had ties with Freemasonry...You even were the one who found the source...This does not make any sense...There was plenty of time to comment before the edit was made... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly in my opinion there really should not be much controversy whether Jefferson was a Freemason, had ties with Freemasonry, or not a Freemason Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cm', including his estimation of Yopienso's behavior here who claims we added "conjecture that TJ was a Mason" and that the statement and sources are "cherry picked". The edit should however be placed under Interests and activities, not under Religion, per Yopienso's contention. Jefferson was closely affiliated with many Freemasons. It would be presumteous and a bit naive to assume there was no connection at all. TJF has committed an entire page to the subject, so we can at least mention that there is not enough evidence to say Jefferson was in fact a Freemason, who were very influential in the founding of America, as was Jefferson. There is however enough to say Jefferson was closely allied to many of them, which indeed he was. Since I am no big fan of a two to one (circumstantial) consensus, which is not really a consensus imo, we can leave the edit out of the article for now. We should at least look into the matter a bit more before we come down with the hammer of finality on the topic as it concerns Jefferson. Yopienso, I suspect you haven't looked into enough sources to make your sweeping statement that Jefferson biographers overall don't mention the topic. Enough of them do and I'm still looking and have made no such carvings in granite as of yet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gwillhickers. I am not so certain Freemasonry was not a religion or affiliated with a religion...There are certain "ancient cultic" symbolisms, some controversial, associated to Freemasonry in addition to so called secret ceremonies...That is besides the point...I would be for mentioning Jefferson and Freemasonry in the "Interests and activities" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Break 01

This is a simple matter of policy. We have no reliable source that demonstrates TJ was ever a Freemason. (If that's "sweeping," cite to one.) Everybody in upper-class Virginia society knew and consorted with Freemasons, so there's no reason to note that TJ did, too. There's no reason to mention he wasn't a Mason, either; why don't we add that he wasn't a Muslim or a Supreme Court justice?

Using Jeffers' statement that "there is evidence of membership or affiliations" to insert the word "Freemasonry" into the article is a textbook example of cherry picking. Jeffers himself a few pages later makes clear that TJ wasn't a Mason. WP:UNDUE says, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." What source cited on this page, from however tiny a minority, even says TJ was a Mason? We have no source, reliable or unreliable, for the claim. All we have are Gwillhickers' and Cmguy's speculations about it. Yopienso (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What cherry picking ? There seems to be some contradiction to Jeffers statements...How can Jeffers state there is evidence Jefferson was a Freemason but then state he was not a Freemason...I was not cherry picking when I quoted Jeffers...his full statement was the following..."Those for whom there is evidence of membership or affiliations were Elbridge Gerry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson Jr., John Penn, George Read, and Roger Sherman." Thomas Jefferson is on the list. What is the exact quote Jeffers makes when he denies Jefferson was a Freemason? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"The others, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, while not adherents of the Craft, held views that were similar."

"Not adherents of the Craft" means they were not members of the fraternity. Yopienso (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the term "...not adherents of the Craft..." is open to interpretation by the reader...I would not say that is the same as "...not a Freemason..." Jefferson may have attended Freemason meetings as an observer or for political and fraternity reasons...At least we can let the reader make their own decisions...that is why I put Jefferson was "...not publically known..." to be a Freemason...whatever Jefferson did or did not do concerning Freemasonry was private... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is so not important Brad (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Not adherents of the Craft" is synonymous with "not a Freemason". They mean exactly the same thing. He could not have attended meetings unless he was a member. Membership in the order is not secret. This is a silly conversation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If that is true then Jeffers is contradicting his previous statement of "there is evidence of membership or affiliations" and then specifically naming Jefferson. The question then is did Jefferson attend meetings...Jeffers stated there was evidence of "membership or affiliations"...I would take that to mean Jefferson attended Freemason meetings...If not then what is this "evidence" Jeffers is speaking about ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitions:

* adherent: someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas

* craft: an activity involving skill in making things by hand

* Craft: This is the term Jeffers uses...is Jeffers refering to Freemasonry or some other meaning ?

* Freemason: a member of an international order established for mutual help and fellowship, which holds elaborate secret ceremonies Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

* member: an individual, thing, or organization belonging to a group

* affiliated: (of a subsidiary group or a person) officially attached or connected to an organization Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

* mason: a builder and worker in stone

Capitalized and in this context, "Craft" definitely means Freemasonry. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

From the above definitions and if one considers "Craft" to be synomous with Freemasonry, I don't speak for Jeffers...although I have yet to find the term "Craft" in a dictionary defined as Freemasonry... then Jefferson did not practice Freemasonry but was officially a member...that is confusing... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Adherent and affiliated have two different meanings... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Hancock-Bauval The Master Game: Unmasking the Secret Rulers of the World page 524 author and 33° Mason James W. Beless stated : "Jefferson may not have been a card-carrying Mason, but his philosophy and actions paralled Masonic ideals and practices." While in Paris Jefferson was confirmed by Dr. Guillotin to have attended the Masonic Nine Sisters Lodge at least once. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Jefferson's philosophy and actions paralleled Masonic ideals and practices, and he was closely allied to many Masons, unlike 'Muslims'. However, at this point I'm inclined to leave the edit out until we can show more than a parallel association or similarity between Freemasonry and Jefferson's thinking. We also need more than one source that says he was confirmed in Paris, ala controversial or contested topics. If we can show how it influenced the man, then that would indeed be "so" very important. We need more opinions from those who have looked into more than a few books on Jefferson or whose primary concern has been page length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting sources: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson was on the committee that designed the great seal on the one dollar bill which has Masonic symbolism. There seems to me more than a passing association between Jefferson and Freemasonry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are several good reasons, including historical background, why we should mention that Jefferson was closely associated, in many respects, to many Freemasons who were a very prominent influence during the Revolution. In fact there is often debate on whether America was founded on Christian or Masonic principles. Jefferson's life long interest in architecture and mathematics were both prominent in Masonic lore; a Masonic lodge was named after him; the great seal, a Masonic symbol, found on the one dollar bill, was chosen by Jefferson and the corner-stone of the University of Virginia, one of Jefferson's crowning achievements, bears a Masonic symbol -- not a coincidence. Mention should also be made however that there is no conclusive evidence that he was in fact a bonafide Freemason. This will help to bring perspective to any reader who thinks or is wondering whether Jefferson was a Freemason, which according to TJF, is a misconception that occurs frequently. We can use TJF as a source since this is covered by it and is among the most authorative sources on Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• We need not mention every item above necessarily, but at least that Jefferson was closely allied to many prominent Freemasons, embraced some of their principles and symbols, while mentioning there is no conclusive evidence that he was actually a Freemason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed drafts

Proposed content would work well either in the Political philosophy and views or the Interests and activities sections:

• Though there is no conclusive evidence that Jefferson was a Freemason, as was Washington, Franklin, Layafette and many of his other friends and close associates, Jefferson demonstrated an affinity towards Masonic philosophy and chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the University of Virginia.

Comments

Comments for drafts:

• The first part of the draft is irrelevant to the article and the last part is untrue. Yopienso (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with your generic claim entirely. You need to be more specific. Freemasons were a very influential group in the Revolution, (i.e.historical context) and Jefferson as an architect, mathematician and Diest was surrounded by them and shared many of their ideas and views. Are you saying Jefferson did not chose the above mentioned Masonic symbols? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Speculation and conspiracy theory. Yopienso (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theory only pertains to whether or not the symbol has some "sinister influence" behind it. The section you picked has nothing to do with, nor does it refute, the fact that Jefferson, along with Adams and Franklin, who was a Masonic Grandmaster, was on the committee that chose this symbol. And again, a Masonic symbol is carved into the corner stone of the University of Virginia, which was laid during a Masonic ceremony. It would be very naive to assume that Jefferson just chose this symbol by picking it out of a hat. Jefferson's associations and affinity with Freemasonry is not at all coincidental. We should make clear to the readers that there was such an association to Freemasons, who were very influential during the Revolution, but that there is no conclusive evidence that Jefferson was in fact a Freemason, as again, this is a misconception that occurs frequently. On that note alone we should include the short passage. The historical context wouldn't hurt either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Added note: Freemasons were dedicated to the Enlightenment principles as is mentioned and sourced in the George Washington article. Since Jefferson was one of the leaders in the enlightenment movement there should be little wonder at this point that his affinity with Freemasonry was not coincidental. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward

If there are no viable arguments not to, I'll add the following, slightly modified draft to the Interests and activities section.

• Though freemasons were very influential during the Revolution, there is no conclusive evidence that Jefferson was a Freemason, as was Washington, Franklin, Layafette and many of his other friends and close associates. As a Diest, architect, mathematician and proponent of the enlightenment movement he demonstrated an apparent affinity towards Masonic philosophy and chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the University of Virginia.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that neither Jefferson nor anyone else chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. or the cornerstone of the University of Virginia is a pretty viable argument not to. Yopienso (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that Jefferson did not do these things? Again, he, along with Franklin and Adams, was on the committee that chose the seal, and if Jefferson didn't chose the symbol for the corner stone of the University he founded, then who did? That's yet another item you're attempting to smooth over. If you're going to eat up bandwidth in these discussions you need to start explaining yourself. So far all you've done is drag your feet and throw out pointless items like "conspiracy theories" etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof to demonstrate your assertions lies with you. Show the RSs. Yopienso (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have. You have made your own assertions here. Where is your RS?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not shown a single RS that demonstrates the Great Seal or the cornerstone have a Masonic symbol on them.

[Sigh.] I shouldn't have to do your homework for you; read here to learn what TJ suggested as a member of the first committee, and who finally chose the design. (There's lots to click on as you scroll down the page.) Also see here.

Wrt conspiracy theories, I didn't waste my time on Feb. 20 helping you read the paragraph I linked to. In its entirety--and I'm bolding and enlarging for emphasis--it says:

Some conspiracy theories state that the Great Seal shows a sinister influence by Freemasonry in the founding of the United States. Such theories usually claim that the Eye of Providence (found, in the Seal, above the pyramid) is a common Masonic emblem, and that the Great Seal was created by Freemasons. These claims, however, misstate the facts. Yopienso (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory while interesting does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again this subject is so not important Brad (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep the erroneous ideas about TJ being a Mason/sort of being a Mason/almost being a Mason/agreeing with the Masons/using Masonic symbols out of the article. What's truly unhelpful is your gratuitous sniping. If you don't think the subject's important, just ignore it. Yopienso (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Insert No one said that "the Great Seal was created by Freemasons". What was said, in plain English in full view of your retort, is that Jefferson "chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the University of Virginia." Big difference. Please keep your line straight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes mommy Brad (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good boy. Yopienso (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It was my intention to have the article say there is no evidence that Jefferson was a Mason, as this is a common misconception. Conspiracy theory. -- no one wants to add that idea. Just want to show the similarity between Jefferson's political/social ideals and that of the Masons. Sort of naive to assume there were none. Yes, we need better sources on a couple of accounts, but please don't make your own statements of fact without them. You said Jefferson did not choose Masonic symbols for the great seal and the corner stone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, WP:BURDEN says, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (Bolding in original.) That means that you, Gwillhickers--not I, Yopienso!--have to verify anything you add. I did indeed say Jefferson did not choose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal or the UVA cornerstone. If you think he did, it's your job to provide the RSs. Yopienso (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing this, so kindly not wrap yourself with this idea in an obvious attempt to skirt the idea that you made a statement as if it were fact that you're really not sure about and can't back up yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson the Freemason (?)

Article says zip about the fact that Jefferson was a Freemason. Topic deserves at least a sentence or two to that effect. Many of the signers of the DOI were Freemasons and their ideology and enlightenment ideals played a significant role in Jefferson's outlook, thinking, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson's connections to fraternal organizations have often been misunderstood. He is frequently, yet falsely, linked to the Freemasons." Monticello.org Yopienso (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso: Who besides TJF makes the claim? In any case they seem to offer a viable explanation. I read an account that he was a member a couple of weeks ago. Can't seem to substantiate it any further though.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Who makes the claim that he was a Mason? That's the criterion for inclusion in the article. Yopienso (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Coemgenus: (edit conflict) In his essay Mike Akpan cites historian H. Paul Jeffers' [http://www.amazon.com/The-Freemasons-In-America-Society-ebook/dp/B002U7E926 book] to this effect. Not sure how reliable it is however. Jefferson had many close associations with Fremasons, including Washington, Franklin and others, so it's no leap of faith to at least consider the possibility. Time is very limited for me lately so I'll look into it further when I get the chance. As of yet I can't find any other sources that corroborate either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

[http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=H.%20P.%20Jeffers&search-alias=digital-text&sort=relevancerank Jeffers's other publications] don't suggest a serious approach to history. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Writing about less than popular views doesn't automatically mean Jeffers' approach to history is less than serious. In any case, I remain undecided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It's said that he joined a French lodge, but the records of that lodge are lost, and he apparently never stated outright that he was a Mason. Wouldn't surprise me at all, but without proof, we can't say much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I am not sure if mentioning Jefferson was a Freemason would be ground breaking news...He seemed to be more of a rational scientist...Jesus was a reformer...but the apostles and church leaders corrupted Christianity...according to Jefferson...my view is that the current article needs to be reduced...while other longer sections can be summarized and made into seperate articles... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Masons were a secretive order and if I'm not mistaken its members didn't go around and advertise their membership much, if at all, esp a reserved character like Jefferson. As I said, I remain undecided, and we need more than one source to say if he was or wasn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't say Yes or No, but it was hardly something people were secretive about at that time -- Washington and Franklin being two notable Masons in Jefferson's circle. We could say something to the effect of "While Jefferson is often identified as a Freemason, there is no extant documentary evidence that he was one." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Well, I don't know if Jefferson is often identified as a Freemason -- so far the sources I've checked, including Malone, Cogliano, Ellis, Ferling, Chernov and others don't say either way. TJF says no. Jeffers says yes. We can say there is uncertainty but here also to assert this we'll need more than one reliable source, as questionable topics go. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Mackey says that the "assertion has frequently been made", and I'd consider him a reliable source as well. Morris, on the other hand, gives a flat no. Porter says that his writing suggests he was never a Mason.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Good leg work. I've just finished checking more than a dozen sources, contemporary and old, and none of them even mention 'Freemason' so I think at this point we can say that there is no evidence to suggest he was in fact a Freemason -- and we can use TJF and Mackey as sources. Without close paraphrasing TJF, we can use their account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: You do realize that Mackey says that Jefferson died in 1829, which is of course an error, as he died in 1826. Any other serious errors with this source? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know offhand. It's reliable for scholarly information about Freemasonry -- it's never been claimed that reliable==error-free. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: That Christianity was "corrupted" by the apostles is an opinion albeit embraced by Jefferson, and along with page length, has nothing to do with whether Jefferson was a Freemason. Please try to keep your line straight and don't use one topic as an excuse to vent views on other topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How will mentioning Jefferson is a Freemason make the article better ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

TJ is often believed to have been a Mason, as Monticello.org points out and refutes. No reliable source claims otherwise. Mike Apkan misconstrued H. Paul Jeffers' statements wrt the issue. Jeffers' wrote on page 44:

"Known Masons were Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock . . . Those for whom there is evidence of membership or affiliations were Elbridge Gerry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson . . ."

Personally, I think he should have said "inconclusive evidence." But no matter; on p. 49 he wrote:

"Of the five dominant and guiding men . . . three were Freemasons: Washington, Franklin, and Edmund Randolph. The others, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, while not adherents of the Craft, held views that were similar." Yopienso (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning Jefferson was a Freemason could be confusing for the reader...What is a Freemason? Also this could bring up some contradictions...isn't freemasonry a form of "corrupt clergy" that Jefferson was opposed too...wasn't Jefferson opposed to religion being involved in politics such as the King and Head of the Church were one and the same... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffers states: "...there is evidence of membership or affiliations..." concerning Jefferson and freemasonry...that is not an overwhelming endorsement Jefferson was a Freemason...how about this statement, "Jefferson was not publically known to be a freemason but there is evidence he had freemason affiliations." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the Jeffers 2005 book source and information to the article that there is evidence Jefferson had Freemasonry affiliations using the Jeffers 2005 book source as reference... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Good choice of words imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Thanks...possibly Jefferson did not want to be publically affiliated with the Freemasons...That might go against his view of a "clergy" of Freemasons running the government...that is only my opinion...I would think politically he would had to attend a few Freemason meetings at some point during his career... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I missed this addition, and am immediately removing it.

First, Freemasonry has nothing to do with religion, so it shouldn't be mentioned in that section even if it belonged in the article.

But it doesn't belong in the article at all. None of TJ's mainstream biographers suggest he was a Freemason, so we shouldn't, either. Seizing on one ambiguous statement by an obscure historian to add speculation ignored by great historians is contrary to Wikipedia's principles. Jeffers himself wrote a few pages later that TJ was not an adherent of the Craft. It damages WP to add the unsupported conjecture that TJ was a Mason or affiliated with Freemasonry. Yopienso (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Yopensio...I respectfully disagree...How can you arbitrarily remove an edit established by a reliabe source...Editor consensus is two to one who favor the edit...I think you can't deny the political realities of Jefferson's times...Jeffers stated there was evidence he had ties with Freemasonry...You even were the one who found the source...This does not make any sense...There was plenty of time to comment before the edit was made... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly in my opinion there really should not be much controversy whether Jefferson was a Freemason, had ties with Freemasonry, or not a Freemason Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cm', including his estimation of Yopienso's behavior here who claims we added "conjecture that TJ was a Mason" and that the statement and sources are "cherry picked". The edit should however be placed under Interests and activities, not under Religion, per Yopienso's contention. Jefferson was closely affiliated with many Freemasons. It would be presumteous and a bit naive to assume there was no connection at all. TJF has committed an entire page to the subject, so we can at least mention that there is not enough evidence to say Jefferson was in fact a Freemason, who were very influential in the founding of America, as was Jefferson. There is however enough to say Jefferson was closely allied to many of them, which indeed he was. Since I am no big fan of a two to one (circumstantial) consensus, which is not really a consensus imo, we can leave the edit out of the article for now. We should at least look into the matter a bit more before we come down with the hammer of finality on the topic as it concerns Jefferson. Yopienso, I suspect you haven't looked into enough sources to make your sweeping statement that Jefferson biographers overall don't mention the topic. Enough of them do and I'm still looking and have made no such carvings in granite as of yet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gwillhickers. I am not so certain Freemasonry was not a religion or affiliated with a religion...There are certain "ancient cultic" symbolisms, some controversial, associated to Freemasonry in addition to so called secret ceremonies...That is besides the point...I would be for mentioning Jefferson and Freemasonry in the "Interests and activities" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Break 01

This is a simple matter of policy. We have no reliable source that demonstrates TJ was ever a Freemason. (If that's "sweeping," cite to one.) Everybody in upper-class Virginia society knew and consorted with Freemasons, so there's no reason to note that TJ did, too. There's no reason to mention he wasn't a Mason, either; why don't we add that he wasn't a Muslim or a Supreme Court justice?

Using Jeffers' statement that "there is evidence of membership or affiliations" to insert the word "Freemasonry" into the article is a textbook example of cherry picking. Jeffers himself a few pages later makes clear that TJ wasn't a Mason. WP:UNDUE says, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." What source cited on this page, from however tiny a minority, even says TJ was a Mason? We have no source, reliable or unreliable, for the claim. All we have are Gwillhickers' and Cmguy's speculations about it. Yopienso (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What cherry picking ? There seems to be some contradiction to Jeffers statements...How can Jeffers state there is evidence Jefferson was a Freemason but then state he was not a Freemason...I was not cherry picking when I quoted Jeffers...his full statement was the following..."Those for whom there is evidence of membership or affiliations were Elbridge Gerry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson Jr., John Penn, George Read, and Roger Sherman." Thomas Jefferson is on the list. What is the exact quote Jeffers makes when he denies Jefferson was a Freemason? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"The others, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, while not adherents of the Craft, held views that were similar."

"Not adherents of the Craft" means they were not members of the fraternity. Yopienso (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the term "...not adherents of the Craft..." is open to interpretation by the reader...I would not say that is the same as "...not a Freemason..." Jefferson may have attended Freemason meetings as an observer or for political and fraternity reasons...At least we can let the reader make their own decisions...that is why I put Jefferson was "...not publically known..." to be a Freemason...whatever Jefferson did or did not do concerning Freemasonry was private... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is so not important Brad (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Not adherents of the Craft" is synonymous with "not a Freemason". They mean exactly the same thing. He could not have attended meetings unless he was a member. Membership in the order is not secret. This is a silly conversation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If that is true then Jeffers is contradicting his previous statement of "there is evidence of membership or affiliations" and then specifically naming Jefferson. The question then is did Jefferson attend meetings...Jeffers stated there was evidence of "membership or affiliations"...I would take that to mean Jefferson attended Freemason meetings...If not then what is this "evidence" Jeffers is speaking about ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitions:

* adherent: someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas

* craft: an activity involving skill in making things by hand

* Craft: This is the term Jeffers uses...is Jeffers refering to Freemasonry or some other meaning ?

* Freemason: a member of an international order established for mutual help and fellowship, which holds elaborate secret ceremonies Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

* member: an individual, thing, or organization belonging to a group

* affiliated: (of a subsidiary group or a person) officially attached or connected to an organization Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

* mason: a builder and worker in stone

Capitalized and in this context, "Craft" definitely means Freemasonry. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

From the above definitions and if one considers "Craft" to be synomous with Freemasonry, I don't speak for Jeffers...although I have yet to find the term "Craft" in a dictionary defined as Freemasonry... then Jefferson did not practice Freemasonry but was officially a member...that is confusing... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Adherent and affiliated have two different meanings... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Hancock-Bauval The Master Game: Unmasking the Secret Rulers of the World page 524 author and 33° Mason James W. Beless stated : "Jefferson may not have been a card-carrying Mason, but his philosophy and actions paralled Masonic ideals and practices." While in Paris Jefferson was confirmed by Dr. Guillotin to have attended the Masonic Nine Sisters Lodge at least once. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Jefferson's philosophy and actions paralleled Masonic ideals and practices, and he was closely allied to many Masons, unlike 'Muslims'. However, at this point I'm inclined to leave the edit out until we can show more than a parallel association or similarity between Freemasonry and Jefferson's thinking. We also need more than one source that says he was confirmed in Paris, ala controversial or contested topics. If we can show how it influenced the man, then that would indeed be "so" very important. We need more opinions from those who have looked into more than a few books on Jefferson or whose primary concern has been page length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting sources: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson was on the committee that designed the great seal on the one dollar bill which has Masonic symbolism. There seems to me more than a passing association between Jefferson and Freemasonry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are several good reasons, including historical background, why we should mention that Jefferson was closely associated, in many respects, to many Freemasons who were a very prominent influence during the Revolution. In fact there is often debate on whether America was founded on Christian or Masonic principles. Jefferson's life long interest in architecture and mathematics were both prominent in Masonic lore; a Masonic lodge was named after him; the great seal, a Masonic symbol, found on the one dollar bill, was chosen by Jefferson and the corner-stone of the University of Virginia, one of Jefferson's crowning achievements, bears a Masonic symbol -- not a coincidence. Mention should also be made however that there is no conclusive evidence that he was in fact a bonafide Freemason. This will help to bring perspective to any reader who thinks or is wondering whether Jefferson was a Freemason, which according to TJF, is a misconception that occurs frequently. We can use TJF as a source since this is covered by it and is among the most authorative sources on Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• We need not mention every item above necessarily, but at least that Jefferson was closely allied to many prominent Freemasons, embraced some of their principles and symbols, while mentioning there is no conclusive evidence that he was actually a Freemason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed drafts

Proposed content would work well either in the Political philosophy and views or the Interests and activities sections:

• Though there is no conclusive evidence that Jefferson was a Freemason, as was Washington, Franklin, Layafette and many of his other friends and close associates, Jefferson demonstrated an affinity towards Masonic philosophy and chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the University of Virginia.

Comments

Comments for drafts:

• The first part of the draft is irrelevant to the article and the last part is untrue. Yopienso (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with your generic claim entirely. You need to be more specific. Freemasons were a very influential group in the Revolution, (i.e.historical context) and Jefferson as an architect, mathematician and Diest was surrounded by them and shared many of their ideas and views. Are you saying Jefferson did not chose the above mentioned Masonic symbols? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Speculation and conspiracy theory. Yopienso (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theory only pertains to whether or not the symbol has some "sinister influence" behind it. The section you picked has nothing to do with, nor does it refute, the fact that Jefferson, along with Adams and Franklin, who was a Masonic Grandmaster, was on the committee that chose this symbol. And again, a Masonic symbol is carved into the corner stone of the University of Virginia, which was laid during a Masonic ceremony. It would be very naive to assume that Jefferson just chose this symbol by picking it out of a hat. Jefferson's associations and affinity with Freemasonry is not at all coincidental. We should make clear to the readers that there was such an association to Freemasons, who were very influential during the Revolution, but that there is no conclusive evidence that Jefferson was in fact a Freemason, as again, this is a misconception that occurs frequently. On that note alone we should include the short passage. The historical context wouldn't hurt either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Added note: Freemasons were dedicated to the Enlightenment principles as is mentioned and sourced in the George Washington article. Since Jefferson was one of the leaders in the enlightenment movement there should be little wonder at this point that his affinity with Freemasonry was not coincidental. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward

If there are no viable arguments not to, I'll add the following, slightly modified draft to the Interests and activities section.

• Though freemasons were very influential during the Revolution, there is no conclusive evidence that Jefferson was a Freemason, as was Washington, Franklin, Layafette and many of his other friends and close associates. As a Diest, architect, mathematician and proponent of the enlightenment movement he demonstrated an apparent affinity towards Masonic philosophy and chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the University of Virginia.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that neither Jefferson nor anyone else chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. or the cornerstone of the University of Virginia is a pretty viable argument not to. Yopienso (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that Jefferson did not do these things? Again, he, along with Franklin and Adams, was on the committee that chose the seal, and if Jefferson didn't chose the symbol for the corner stone of the University he founded, then who did? That's yet another item you're attempting to smooth over. If you're going to eat up bandwidth in these discussions you need to start explaining yourself. So far all you've done is drag your feet and throw out pointless items like "conspiracy theories" etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof to demonstrate your assertions lies with you. Show the RSs. Yopienso (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have. You have made your own assertions here. Where is your RS?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not shown a single RS that demonstrates the Great Seal or the cornerstone have a Masonic symbol on them.

[Sigh.] I shouldn't have to do your homework for you; read here to learn what TJ suggested as a member of the first committee, and who finally chose the design. (There's lots to click on as you scroll down the page.) Also see here.

Wrt conspiracy theories, I didn't waste my time on Feb. 20 helping you read the paragraph I linked to. In its entirety--and I'm bolding and enlarging for emphasis--it says:

Some conspiracy theories state that the Great Seal shows a sinister influence by Freemasonry in the founding of the United States. Such theories usually claim that the Eye of Providence (found, in the Seal, above the pyramid) is a common Masonic emblem, and that the Great Seal was created by Freemasons. These claims, however, misstate the facts. Yopienso (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory while interesting does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again this subject is so not important Brad (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep the erroneous ideas about TJ being a Mason/sort of being a Mason/almost being a Mason/agreeing with the Masons/using Masonic symbols out of the article. What's truly unhelpful is your gratuitous sniping. If you don't think the subject's important, just ignore it. Yopienso (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Insert No one said that "the Great Seal was created by Freemasons". What was said, in plain English in full view of your retort, is that Jefferson "chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the University of Virginia." Big difference. Please keep your line straight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes mommy Brad (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good boy. Yopienso (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It was my intention to have the article say there is no evidence that Jefferson was a Mason, as this is a common misconception. Conspiracy theory. -- no one wants to add that idea. Just want to show the similarity between Jefferson's political/social ideals and that of the Masons. Sort of naive to assume there were none. Yes, we need better sources on a couple of accounts, but please don't make your own statements of fact without them. You said Jefferson did not choose Masonic symbols for the great seal and the corner stone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, WP:BURDEN says, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (Bolding in original.) That means that you, Gwillhickers--not I, Yopienso!--have to verify anything you add. I did indeed say Jefferson did not choose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal or the UVA cornerstone. If you think he did, it's your job to provide the RSs. Yopienso (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing this, so kindly not wrap yourself with this idea in an obvious attempt to skirt the idea that you made a statement as if it were fact that you're really not sure about and can't back up yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Politcal and philosophical views section

The Political and philosophical views section needs to be its own article...in my opinion...somehow this section needs to be condensed and the content in this article needs to be moved to its own seperate article...In essense the Jefferson article seems to be two articles, possibly more, in one...I understand this would take time to summarize Jefferson's political and philosophical views...This talk page could be used for such purposes...any objections or suggestions ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sample summary

Jefferson's intial political philosophy was influenced by French author Baron de Montesquieu's 1748 The Spirit of Laws treatise as well as other English and Scottish Enlightenment authors. Jefferson envisioned a republican form of government that derived its power not from a monarch, but rather the people. The purpose of the government according to Jefferson was to execute the will of the people. Jefferson's contemporary John Adams shared such philosophical sentiments. Jefferson, however, believed that qualified voters be given a limited power in the selection of public officials. Jefferson desired to limit suffrage to adult European American males, hoping to expand the electorate through land giveaways. Jefferson advocated that suffrage be given to person owning 25 acres of land. Jefferson also believed that the federal government could encumber the liberty and happiness of humankind. To prevent this Jefferson's solution was to propose a balanced government whose powers were derived from the executive and bicameral legislature. Jefferson believe the executive should be elected by the legislature from both lower and upper houses in addition to having annual elections. Jefferson advocated a seperate judicial branch and believed society should be ruled by law rather then men. Many of Jefferson's ideas were incorparated into the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson's primary political philosophy was the people would be free from federal government intrusion. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Source: Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, pages 152-156

Cmguy, I wouldn't support replacing the section with this summary. Montesquieu's name could be added to what we have, though.

More importantly, I think the Historical Reputation section should be at the end of the article. It's about his legacy and is a fitting conclusion to the whole article. Yopienso (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Montesquieu should be mentioned in the article...This article however does not fit in with other Presidential articles...I am not disputing any content, but rather the amount of content...The historical reputation needs to be put in right after his last days or death...other presidential articles are written this way...placing this at the end of the article in my opinion reduces the signifigance of his reputation...especially in light that there is so much material in between his last days or death and his reputation section...more editor input is needed...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to make the article more concise. This presidential bio is indeed special. So are Washington's, Lincoln's, and FDR's. Washington's has his Legacy section 9th of 10 actual biographical sections, which follows the organization you favor. (There are 16 in all with end matter.) Lincoln's death is section 7 and his Historical Reputation is 10; 5 end-matter sections follow. FDR's death is in section 6 and Legacy 8, with 5 more following. Both of them follow the organization I favor. I suggest TJ's Hist. Rep. section be placed between current sections 11 and 12.

Btw, FDR's article is 182,277 bytes long; TJ's is 198,187. As long as we keep it under 200,000 I think we're OK. (Just a quick opinion; I don't mean to sound like the boss of the applesauce here.) Yopienso (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's one editor's summary of one writer's opinion and probably is far from a neutral presentation of how Jefferson's views are generally understood. I doubt for example that his "primary political philosophy was that the people would be free from federal government intrusion." How does that fit in with his setting up a federal government and using it for land giveaways? It should too explain what set him a apart from the federalists, that is, his "republican ideology" that is mentioned but not explained. TFD (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson dismantled the federal government lowering costs; however, this proved to be costly since the U.S. was unprepared for war with England... Cmguy777 (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Who says "Jefferson dismantled the federal government"? Between war on Barbary Pirates, Louisiana Purchase, "exploration" into far northwest (British territory), far southwest (Spanish territory), repeated federal prosecutions of Burr, How? Jefferson left most Federalist appointees in place among the federal bureaus... land sales contributed to expanding westward surveys and settlement and retiring the national debt... is this "dismantling" point of view of Jefferson unsourced? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This was Merrell D. Peterson's (2002) view on Jefferson..."Men rubbed their eyes in disbelief at the spectacle of the chief magistrate (Jefferson) renouncing taxes, patronage, and power...The program was rapidly put in place...During the next seven years the nation liberated $33 million in debt. In the end the program was derailed by foreign crisis and war..." Source: The Presidence A Reference History editor Graff page 44. The U.S. military was unprepared for the War of 1812... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's not dismantling the federal government. He was the executive-in-chief of the federal government. Yopienso (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And the reduction of the national debt -- the program to eliminate it entirely was derailed -- is not dismantling the federal government. Note that as Obama reduces the national debt to the lowest it has been in a decade, no one accuses him of dismantling the federal government as you would accuse Jefferson -- and that conclusion is not in your source as you report it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We are getting off track ! This is about summarizing a section and putting what is in the article in a seperate article...Peterson says Jefferson renounced goverments "power"...that is where I got dismantling...Jefferson reduced funding to the U.S. military Jefferson released a third of all soldiers, eliminated 87 officers and 195 Navy men. He cancelled plans to build Navy ships. He cut the Navy budged in half by 1 million dollars... "The naval cuts hurt the United States in its open seas conflicts with Britain before and during the War of 1812" Jefferson also cut the U.S. Army budget in half ! These savings reduced the debt but also reduced the size of the government...I would call that dismantling the government... Source: Dennis Gaffney (03-04-2013) History News Network Thomas Jefferson's Radical Plan to Avert the Fiscal Cliff Cmguy777 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Check the definition of dismantle. You mean downsize the government. Yopienso (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Yopensio...downsizing should not hurt national security...dismantling would...the U.S. military was unprepared for the War of 1812, particularly the U.S. Navy...I would call the stopping of U.S. navy ships being built dismantling...Jefferson also continued to trust General Wilkinson...we are going around in circles...should the section be it own article and replaced by a summary? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the Political philosophy and views section be its own article editor survey

In the interest of discussion I propose the following question open to editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the Political philosophy and views section be converted to its own article and replaced by a summary ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Favor I favor this action because the article is over sized (currently 198,187 bytes)...a summary and seperate article would serve three positive purposes...1. reduce article size giving readers an appropriate summary written under editor consensus 2. give readers appropriate information on Jefferson's political and philosophical views...3. A seperate article would allow for further expansion of Jefferson's political and philosophical views...the focus of the biography should be on Jefferson's life activities...article seperation would also allow editors to only focus on Jefferson's political and philosophy views...additionally the Political philosophy and views section is ready-as-is to be its own article and this would be a good time to split off from the aritcle...editors could work on a summary approved by editor concensus and work out any disagreements... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak favor In theory, this is a good idea. In practice, who's going to do it? How do I say this gently? Cmguy, you don't have the competence to do it. I don't have the time or will. @Parkwells: could do a great job, but she's not willing to put up with the chronic obstructionism on this article. Yopienso (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yopensio...I stated that the summary is suppose to be done by editor concensus...I respectfully disagree that I lack competence...however out of editor courtesy and in the interest of this article I will disregard your personal comment concerning myself...wikipedia is an open editor format for all editors that requires reliable sources for edits...I am all for a group effort on the summary...I gave a sample summary not a conclusive one...I am more then willing to be corrected or led in a better direction...I value editor concensus... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please take this as constructive criticism, not a personal attack. TFD and TVH have pointed out some problems with your summary. I'll point out others. First, you didn't summarize what we already have, but started from scratch, basing it on one biased source. Next, it really doesn't summarize TJ's philosophies well. Generally speaking, your writing skills aren't at an appropriate level: your writing is rife with mechanical errors and is wordy. Your research is lopsided, generally favoring an extreme. You try to collaborate, but often insist on your view. You can't even accept that you've used the word "dismantle" erroneously.

I credit you with working in good faith; it's just that you are not competent at researching or writing. When I edit WP, there's a spellchecker. I assume you have that same technology. Just in Section 5 you have a spelling error in the title (Politcal) and have misspelled initial, separate (several times), incorporated, article, consensus (several times), and my name. Can you see what's wrong with the syntax of this sentence? Jefferson believe the executive should be elected by the legislature from both lower and upper houses in addition to having annual elections. Many competent editors are careless on talk pages but careful in articles; you carry the same errors into articles. Yopienso (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Yopensio...I was hoping this talk would be on Jefferson...I gave a sample summary...not a defacto summary...I did not want to cut and past from the article...that was just a start...I never claimed to be a perfect editor...I politely disagree with your assessment of me...If using the word "dismantle" was a mistake, I freely admit I made a mistake...but I would state that the term downsizing is not completely accurate since the U.S. Navy was put in jeopardy and unprepared, i.e. Jefferson stopped the building of new ships, prior to the War of 1812...There are no qualifications to be a Wikipedia editor...I have a BA in History...I must have something going for me...some of my college professors were extremely tough...I believe context is more important then grammar and syntax...those can be fixed later...I am trying to encourage other editors to participate in writing a new summary for the Political and views section...You even alluded to that the Montesquieu information may be worth mentioning in the article...I was only trying to add a new perspective using Ferling (2000) as a source...can we have a truce and keep the talk focused on Jefferson ? ... Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A truce is called to halt hostilities, which are absent here, but we can and should move on.

I favor summarizing the section, but think a suggested summary should be hashed out here before anything is done to what we already have. Also, my Christmas break is nearly over, so I wouldn't have much time to devote to the effort. Yopienso (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We are in agreement...finding a neutral editor to make the summary would be good if one is available...maybe the summary could be three paragraphs...Coemgenus is a good editor...or Rjensen...maybe I can ask one of them for assistance...I can read more of the article section and try to find the main points that should be stressed in the summary...I am in favor of starting out with a core summary that other editors can improve on...I welcome any involvement from other editors...the goal in my opinion is to get Jefferson to GA and FA status...reducing the size of the article is the first step... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Yopienso (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Core sample summary

This is a core sample summary of Jefferson's Polilical philosophy and views section open to all for discussion, critisims, and further editing...This is only meant to improve the quality of the article...I have reduced the section to three paragraphs... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson's early philosophic influence was French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu's 1748 The Spirit of Laws treatise as well as other Enlightenment author's works including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton Jefferson envisioned a republican form of government that derived its power from the people not from a hereditary monarchy or divine right of Kings. Jefferson strongly believed that the monarchial and established religious system was fundamentally corrupt leading to the tyranny and misfortunes of the common citizen. Jefferson was a leading reformer calling for the separation of church and state at the federal levels, having supported efforts to disestablish the Church of England, whom the King was head, and authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. In 1801, President Jefferson explained his political philosophy advocating an America without political parties, equal justice for all men, freedom of religion, speech, and press, minority rights, civil rule rather then military, and encouragement of agriculture and commerce. President Jefferson attempted to revert to the power balance between the state and federal governments as it existed under the Articles of Confederation believing personal liberty could only be retained in small, homogeneous societies.

Jefferson envisioned democracy as an expression of society as a whole promoting national self-determination, cultural uniformity, and education of all European American males of the commonwealth. To reduce ignorance among the masses and ensure individual liberty Jefferson fully supported free public education and press believing these instituions were vital for the survival of the new nation. In 1801, President Jefferson advocated an America without political parties, equal justice for all men, freedom of religion, speech, and press, minority rights, civil rule rather then military, and encouragement of agriculture and commerce. Although initially supporting restricting voter qualifications to persons owning 25 acres of land, Jefferson later supported full suffurage rights rights to all tax paying European Americans and militia-men. In what was termed the Revolution of 1800, Jefferson supported democracy and the expansion of suffrage to the general population. By 1804 voting by American citizens in individual states during the national election signifigantly increased to an all time high. Several states expanded eligible voters to include male tax paying citizens and those owning individual houses or trade tools. Jefferson supported an equal representation system that did not favor slave holding states supporting a reform of Virginia's country courthouse system to more nearly resemble that of the more democratic townships of New England. Jefferson's vision of democracy, however, did not include suffrage for women, Indians, or slaves. Jeffersron condoned the use of military force and revolution if governement infringed on the peoples fundemental right to liberty.

Jefferson strongly opposed a national bank and federal system created and imposed by Alexander Hamilton, his political enemy, and while president he reduced government expenditures and the size of the U.S. military. Jefferson in his opposition to the National Bank formed his own party along with James Madison known as the Republican Party. Jefferson believed Hamilton's national bank ignored the interests of individuals and farmers and had assumed unconstitutional federal authority by violating the Tenth Amendment Jefferson mistrusted banks and bankers believing that banks increase long term debt, empowered monopolies, and invited dangerous speculation detrimental to productive labor and Rebublican values. Jefferson, as president, reduced the national debt believing that each generation should pay back its debt within 19 years. In retirement, Jefferson wrote in 1816 to John Taylor that banks were destroying state constitutions and that rampant speculation was depriving citizens of thier fortunes and morals. Concerning interpreting the Constitution, Jefferson advocated that the original intent of the Founders must take precedence.

Comments

I think that this is a fair beginning, hitting the high points of Jefferson's thought on a) free society, b) the democratic republic, and c) banking and debt. I think that these are the primary elements to be addressed in summary for this biography article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian...your comments really help ! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the section tends to rely on primary letter sources...I can add Merrill Peterson as a source... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly what you're attempting to do here? The section is fine as it is. TJ's views have been heavily covered by historians therefore should be concentrated on in this article. Brad (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Brad...I am attempting to reduce the article size by making a seperate article... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The section is an important chapter in Jefferson's biography. Please do not gut important information just for the sake of article size alone. We are not writing for robots. Once again, many GA and FA articles far exceed guidelines for article size. No objections for creating a dedicated article for the subject, however, the section in question is a good summary. Please use discretion if you are obsessed with the guideline.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The current section in my opinion is more then a "good summary". I was say a "good article"...I was hoping more editors would help with the above summary... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

edit request for §Political philosophy and views

Thomas Jefferson was profoundly interested in the work of the French philosopher and historian Voltaire and owned seven works by the author.

• "Thomas Jefferson's Library". The Library of Congress. Legislative branch of the U.S. government. Retrieved 28 February 2015.
• The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Retirement Series: Volume 7: 28 November 1813 to 30 September 1814: Volume 7: 28 November 1813 to 30 September 1814. Princeton University Press. p. 27. edited by J. Jefferson Looney

Please add the request to §Political philosophy and views 96.28.43.27 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for providing the sources.--JayJasper (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that detail should be added. This article isn't a comprehensive catalog of everything Jefferson did, read, said, and owned; it's an overview of a very full life. Why specify that TJ had 7 volumes of Voltaire? He sold a collection of 6487 books to Congress, among them 14 by Cicero and 11 by Richard Price. It's true that TJ admired Voltaire, and even had a bust of him, but he had lots of busts. I don't see how Voltaire in particular should be highlighted in this article. Yopienso (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed Voltaire from the intro to the section. Mentioning him there seems to give him undue weight. While I was at it, I changed some wording in that paragraph. Yopienso (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@JayJasper and Yopienso: Yopienso, you're comparing Voltaire with "everything Jefferson did, read, said, and owned" as if he was no more influential to Jefferson's views than his favorite chair. It's a fact that Voltaire was among the few writers that impacted Jefferson's views as much as he did, and he did own seven of his works, unlike almost all other writers of the books Jefferson owned. As such Voltaire deserves brief mention, as he indeed has some weight to lend to the section. If writers Cicero and Price were also as influential we could also mention them too. I'm restoring Jay's good faith and informative edit. Please discuss deletions of good faith and comprehensive/definitive edits when all you have is your own rather opinionated estimation on such matters. Also, this article is supposed to be comprehensive. You should also learn that a summary can be comprehensive, as it should be, per GA and FA articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, please remove your addition about Voltaire. It was added by a drive-by editor an hour after a request from an IP. There was no discussion. I removed it a week ago, and my removal has stood without comment or revert from the editors who watch this article. Should you gain consensus for adding Voltaire, I'll desist. Until that unlikely case, I oppose adding an insignificant detail.

Rebuttals:

• I was referring to intellectual materials like books, papers, busts, etc., not furniture! I think most people could see that by the context. Nonetheless, it was hyperbole, which I now forswear. (No, I know a bust isn't an "intellectual material," but TJ's choice of busts reflects his intellectual leanings.)
• Because I sincerely doubt you have any idea how many books by which authors TJ owned or how much Voltaire impacted him compared to other authors, I reject your second sentence.
• There must be consensus for adding a detail, not for keeping it out. I waited for two whole days after JayJasper added it without comment. Now you are the one who must gain consensus to add it.
• I've repeatedly asked you to write edit summaries; it's really difficult to track through article histories when you refuse to render that common courtesy. Please develop the habit. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@JayJasper and Yopienso: Yp', you waited two whole days? Goodness. In any event, consensus is not necessarily needed unless there is a consensus to delete or not have a given item added -- and there must be a basis to consensus -- not just an empty claim contrary to sources, which btw state that Voltaire had a great influence on Jefferson, who, again, owned seven of his works. This means nothing to you? As far as what I know about who influenced Jefferson, I will let you amuse yourself with your existing notion. Both Jayjasper and myself concede that the detail is important -- and since this can be added with just a comment, I'm not quite understanding the cartwheels you are doing to keep this piece of information out of the biography. Btw, you'll find that I'm not very obliging to requests, i.e.edit summaries, when they're made by someone who says one thing and does another in talk pages, regarding statements of fact. Try to develop a habit of practicing what you preach and you'll usually find other editors more agreeable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Two full days is a reasonable wait period for an article with so many eyes on it.
• Consensus is always needed, though it's often tacit. Please bone up on Wikipedia:Consensus, particularly No consensus.
• I have made no empty claim contrary to sources. I'm saying Voltaire wasn't influential enough to include in this overview, which is what an encyclopedia article is.
• We have been trying to keep this article from being too long, which means we have to leave out lots of interesting details. Again, it's an overview with many daughter articles, external links, and a rich bibliography.
• I've looked through your contributions and know you generally do not write edit summaries. Please don't make this personal. Please specify how I'm not practicing what I preach. Yo Pienso (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally add edit summaries when I edit the Jefferson biography -- including all my latest edits. Don't appreciate you saying otherwise -- and I was very clear about practicing what you preach, taking me to task about sourcing facts, while you made an erroneous statement as if it were fact with no sources to support it. i.e."I think the fact that neither Jefferson nor anyone else chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. or the cornerstone of the University of Virginia..." If Jefferson didn't chose it -- who did?? You forgot to say. Someone had to. I think I'm done here. So should you be. Please direct comments at page improvement. i.e.Finding a source that claims Jefferson's views were closely aligned with the Masons is a tough cookie. There are Masonic sources that say this, but I don't deny that that a source on Jefferson would be much better, which is why I haven't insisted on inclusion of this statement. Help would be nice, rather than the usual recital of policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• As of this moment, you've made one edit summary--"ping" at Village Pump--out of your last 50 contributions. That's a 2% rate. You've edited the TJ article 3 times since Feb. 5; the 2 most recent do not have edit summaries--a 33 1/3% rate. Don't appreciate you saying otherwise.

Insert: Apparently you need to have your eyes checked. First of all you're making issue over edits to talk pages, the likes of which are sort of self explanatory. If you need edit history to make your way through talk page activity I would suggest you find another pass time to amuse yourself with. Starting with Stephen Decatur I have made at least six edit summaries (mostly on talk pages) out of the last 50. You should also learn someday that this is quite common as many editors don't bother with edit history for every single edit in the middle of talk page debates. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Neither Jefferson nor anyone else chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. or the cornerstone of the University of Virginia" is a true statement. I don't have to prove it, although I did, in fact, provide links that do.

Insert : -- You proved no such thing, and once again, the "conspiracy" only lends itself to the idea that the symbol may have some sort of "sinister" meaning. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• You wanted to add "Jefferson . . . chose Masonic symbols for the Great Seal of the U.S. and the cornerstone of the University of Virginia" without providing a scrap of evidence to support the assertion. You can't, because he didn't.

Insert : You're repeating the same nonsense. Jefferson, along with Franklin and Adams, were of the committee that selected the symbol. This has already been brought to your attention, and if you are going to challenge this, you should be able to back it up with a source, which you have yet to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since "Finding a source that claims Jefferson's views were closely aligned with the Masons is a tough cookie," why not quit trying? Obviously, though undoubtedly TJ happened to have some views that the Masons also had, it's not notable enough to include in the article.

Insert : Sorry if I haven't given up yet. We may have to settle for a source from a Masonic historian. There are several good ones. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's helpful to the project to try to help you to understand and follow policy. It's disruptive when you don't. Yo Pienso (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hounding one editor for something that is common on talk pages is not only rude, it's not necessary and disruptive. You need to find another way to relieve yourself. Your activity here is obviously less than honest, brings to attention your ability to remember recent debates and frankly is sort of peckish and childish. Please make more of an effort to keep your own line straight before you antagonize other editors with this sort of thing. Thanks Yopienso. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers:

• 6 out of 50 is only marginally better than 1 out of 50, but I clearly wrote "As of this moment," which was 22:23, 13 March 2015. Your edit summary at Stephen Decatur was a week later. Please apologize for your mistake and for calling my activity "less than honest."
• The official government pamphlet makes no mention of a Masonic symbol on the Great Seal. What is your reliable source that says there is one or more Masonic symbols on the Great Seal?
• Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams were on the first committee, and suggested the Eye of Providence, the Children of Israel in the Wilderness, the Judgment of Hercules, the date, the shield, and the motto. Which is a Masonic symbol?
• I agree there are a few reliable Masonic historians. S. Brent Morris, Master Mason and author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, thoroughly debunks the idea that the Great Seal has Masonic symbols on it.
• I've never heard of a Masonic symbol on the cornerstone of the UVA. What does it look like? The ceremony was Masonic, but that doesn't imply a Masonic symbol on the cornerstone itself. Please share your RS for this. I've been unable to find a likeness or description of the cornerstone. It may include a Masonic symbol, but that must be verified. YoPienso (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• But so long as you refrain from adding unverified info to the article, those questions are moot. This discussion is really about the hasty addition of a detail about Voltaire by a drive-by editor one hour after an IP requested it. There was no discussion, it gives undue weight to Voltaire, so I properly reverted it. You should not have restored it without consensus from involved editors--not a vote, but a consensus based on policy. Please remove it until that happens. YoPienso (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to Voltaire

I'm removing the mention of Voltaire, while agreeing he influenced TJ's thinking. But so did Price, Grotius, and Priestly, and others. TJ wrote to Benjamin Rush on Jan. 16, 1811, "The room being hung around with a collection of the portraits of remarkable men, among them were those of Bacon, Newton and Locke, Hamilton asked me who they were. I told him they were my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced, naming them." These are the three who should be in the article, as they have been for years. Adding Voltaire opens the door to many others. This article is not a book and cannot digress into such detail.

Wikipedia is a tertiary reference that draws mainly from secondary sources. I haven't found a major biographer--a secondary source--who makes a point of Voltaire's influence on Jefferson.

If anyone has a policy-based argument for adding Voltaire, please present it for discussion. Yo Pienso (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@JayJasper and Yopienso: -- Yp', You have not provided a policy based argument for removing the statement, and your opinion here is not very convincing and doesn't overshadow the fact that Voltaire, also a member of the enlightenment, influenced Jefferson, who owned seven of his books, so I'm restoring the edit. Please do not remove good faith, sourced and informative edits based on your singular and sketchy opinion and some theory that the edit will open the door to other such mention of people, many of whom are already mentioned in the first place. Chasing after other editors over these peckish and small minded things is disruptive. Please try to develop more constructive habits and don't use talk pages to vent personal frustrations or any other peeves you may still be harboring at this late date. Thanks for your effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson admired Voltaire greatly, and kept a marble bust of Voltaire in the Monticello entrance hall. --- a) Jefferson included Voltaire's works among a list of books of ancient and modern history, mathematics, astronomy, and religion recommended for the education of his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787.[fn]Jefferson to Peter Carr, Paris, August 10, 1787, in PTJ, 12:19. Transcription available at Founders Online. --- b) Art historian H. H. Arnason called the bust of Voltaire "one of the most famous if not the most famous portrait sculpture in history.” … It is not known which of the five versions of the bust was acquired by Jefferson; the modern replica is in plaster [1]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that Jefferson chose Voltaire's works for the education his nephew gives additional credence to the idea that this individual more than caught Jefferson's eye. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the policy is that you have to have a good argument for adding it: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (Bolding in original.) So far you have presented only your personal conclusions from your original research. Please provide at least one reliable secondary source that verifies Voltaire's influence on Jefferson was strong enough to merit mention here.

TheVirginiaHistorian, your comment is likewise based on primary sources. I acknowledged earlier the facts you present, except for the detail from Arnason, which is a comment on the bust itself, not Voltaire's philosophical influence on TJ.

• Joseph Ellis mentions Voltaire once, but only tangentially; he shows Franklin to be a far greater influence on TJ than Voltaire.
• Cogliano mentions the bust (and Turgot's) and puts Voltaire at the end of a list of historians TJ read: "Gibbon,Hume, Robertson, Bolingbroke, Montesquieu and Voltaire."
• Meacham mentions the bust but not the influence.
• Peterson mentions the influence of "the trinity of Bacon, Newton, and Locke" in a couple of books, but I can't find he gives more weight to Voltaire than he does to Montesquieu, Diderot, Holbach, Beccaria, Racine, Buffon, Bolingbroke, Middleton, etc.

Many people influenced the sensitive, informed Jefferson. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book, so a line of inclusion must be drawn to keep its length within limits. Based on the secondary RSs, it seems obvious to me that Bacon, Newton, and Locke fall well within that line, but Voltaire seems to fall just outside it. There must be a reliable secondary source that demonstrates Voltaire's influence on Jefferson in order to mention that influence in this article. Please remove the mention of Voltaire until you can provide such a source. YoPienso (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I tend to agree with Yopienso. Some interest from Jefferson for Voltaire is obvious ([2]) however there is a pattern behind, which I would love to see enlightened indeed. Just incidentally, having been finding that Jean Jacques Rousseau had been a drafter for an early Constitution: the 1765 draft for a Corsican Constitution. Jean-Jacques does not obviously yet recognize "All men are created equal", this if we are to infer from the following pessimistic extract from his Foreword: "There are peoples who, do what you may, are incapable of being well governed, for the law has no hold over them" [3]. Then however this [4] could be slightly prejudiced and outdated nonetheless they do not seem contradicted by TJ own: [5]. It is well known that Voltaire ended by harassing Rousseau ( knowned for his spirit of a lackey according to contemporary and probably partisan writers ) then maybe Voltaire had an other theory about equality, but if everything about democracy can be resumed by TJ's "Each generation is independent of every other and thus no generation can bind the next" [6] then it should be rather obvious that Americans most were, by simple occurrence of fate, not probable to be in need of a councel for coming to such conclusion by themselves alone. Although comes the hard question of slavery of course. The following otherwise might illustrate TJ's distance from an excess of failing to foreign influences: [7]. My question was, was Jefferson interested in Contitution writers and would he have inquired about them ? Then had he found J-JRousseau and what he'd done of Voltaire's opinion about JJR. Chances are he'd known nothing about it --Askedonty (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Askedonty, JayJasper, and Yopienso: -- Not to be coy here, but you just provided yet another reference that Volataire had a significant impact on Jefferson's views, and in that event Jay's mention of this, and his citations, two, should be a welcomed addition to the biography. Reminder: All we are doing is mentioning some names of people who had an appreciable influence on Jefferson. No one seeks to carry on at length about any such individual, so let's try to keep a perspective, and not go at great lengths as if this were some major content dispute. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Certainly the thinking of colonialists such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams was enormously influenced by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, Voltaire, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. ——Bronski, Michael (10 May 2011). A Queer History of the United States. Beacon Press. pp. 43–. ISBN 978-0-8070-4466-7.
• Ironically, it was the Jesuit Relations from China, with its gross misrepresentation of three Chinese religions separate from an enlightened government ruled by secular philosophers, that stimulated the modern Westem concept of religion as separable from government if not culture itself. Voltaire and Leibnitz were influenced by these Relations (Creel 1970; Mungello 1989) and in turn influenced both the American and French revolutionary theorists. Among those so influenced, Thomas jefferson and others inspired the principle of the separation of church and state in the formation of the United States of America. ——Martin, Luther (1 January 1993). Religious Transformations and Socio-Political Change: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-3-11-088420-3. 96.28.43.27 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right. A short passage here regarding the context, if accurate, is also interesting: ..God And His Coexistent Rel.. --Askedonty (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Askedonty, Yopienso, and JayJasper: -- I restored the statement about Voltaire, sourced by the Library of Congress. Dumas Malone covers Jefferson's relation/views of Voltaire also. If the LOC source isn't good enough for some individuals we can always add the Malone source, and while we're at it, touch on a few of the things Malone covers. e.g.Jefferson was interested in some of Voltaire's scientific views. Voltaire was a contemporary of Jefferson and a notable figure of science, philosophy and the Enlightenment, and subsequently much admired by Jefferson. Voltaire's name and influence is due mention in the Jefferson biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take it out, then, and ask we not have an edit war. Please do not restore it without first gaining consensus here.

Why, imho, we should not include the tidbit about Voltaire::It is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the introductory paragraph describing TJ's political philosophy and views. Please see WP:WEIGHT. With the possible exception of the adjective, profoundly, the statement, "He was also profoundly interested in the writings of the French philosopher and historian Voltaire and owned seven works by the author," is true. But none of TJ's biographers think Voltaire influenced his ideas enough to mention him. Therefore, we don't mention him, either.

The LOC verifies that TJ owned seven volumes of Voltaire among almost 10,000 volumes in his library.

Your reference to Malone is about Franklin's relationship with Voltaire, not Jefferson's. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any influence of Voltaire on TJ or any admiration of TJ for Voltaire. (Ellis, in a link I provided on 22 March, relates the same story of a public meeting between Franklin and Voltaire. TJ was not there and was wholly unaffected by the incident.) YoPienso (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction, not only does the LOC cover Voltaire but Jefferson biographers Malone and Golden, 2002, Bernstine, 2003, Cogliano, 2008, Hayes, 2008, all mention Voltaire in relation to Jefferson. Once again, Voltaire was a contemporary of Jefferson, per the enlightenment, and in science, and quite notable in his time and they corresponded much. The historical context alone warrants his mention. No one wants to write at length about him. Please get a perspective here. You are the one instigating the edit war, and the only one obsessed with the continuous reverting of this informative detail. Editors don't need a consensus to add factual and sourced information -- you however need a consensus, and a basis to consensus, if you insist on reverting such content. Contrary to your edit summary that the source did not cover this item, it did. Please stop using less than truthful statements to back up your groundless and rather petty reversions with no consensus. Your vague claim of 'weight' is not only quite opinionated, but has no consensus either. Please stop this edit war that you alone have initiated from the start. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring, Gw: you originally added disputed material and are now insisting on restoring it. By long-standing consensus we did NOT mention Voltaire as a significant influence on Jefferson's thinking. You ignored my request that you self-revert, so I finally reverted your edit. My revert stood for 20 days--an editorial consensus: see WP:EDITCONSENSUS--and then you restored it without consensus.

Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." You have not done so. You have shown that TJ owned seven books by Voltaire and that someone at the LOC says he was "profoundly interested" in Voltaire's writing, but you have not shown that Voltaire significantly influenced TJ's political views. I don't dispute the quote; I dispute it's pertinence to this article. Since none of TJ's biographers think Voltaire influenced his ideas enough to mention him, our brief summary shouldn't mention him, either.

Per WP:UNDUE, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements," you are giving too much detail and juxtaposing Voltaire's influence with Bacon's, Newton's, and Locke's greater influence. The same LOC page that you quote wrt Voltaire ascribes to Joseph Priestly considerable influence on TJ's political opinions; per WP:WEIGHT we should mention him before Voltaire. But the limited space in an encyclopedia article excludes both.

The authors you cite do not support your assertions:

• Malone shows Ben Franklin's relationship with Voltaire, not Jefferson's.
• Golden shows TJ refuting a scientific argument of Voltaire's. He does NOT show Voltaire influencing TJ's political philosophy.
• Bernstein shows the influence of the Marquis Cesare di Beccaria on TJ's political views; Voltaire wrote an introduction and commentary to an English translation of Beccaria's book.
• Cogliano, whose book I linked to above, puts Voltaire at the end of a list of historians TJ read: "Gibbon, Hume, Robertson, Bolingbroke, Montesquieu and Voltaire." It is illogical and undue weight to include Voltaire in our article without including the others.
• Hayes describes the library of Norborne Berkeley, 4th Baron Botetourt, colonial Governor of Virginia, not TJ's library.

Please revert your edit adding Voltaire as a significant influence on TJ's political philosophy and views. Thank you. YoPienso (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Voltaire II

@JayJasper, Yopienso, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Rjensen: -- YoPienso, thanks for not perpetuating an edit war. Malone mentions more than Franklin, and besides, he is not being used as a source here. You are also forgetting that I'm not the one who originally added content about Voltaire. After making a fair number of other inquiries I am having second thoughts about Voltaire, but not for any of the reasons you're espousing really. Voltaire was considered an infidel in his/Jefferson's day and was largely consulted by Jefferson for his scientific inquiries, some of which Jefferson was not in agreement with, though Jefferson did embrace a couple of his views regarding the rich and pour in French society. When Jefferson sold his library to the Library of Congress in 1814 it was almost rejected in its entirety because it contained more than a couple of works by Voltaire. In any case, I'll remove "profoundly" from the statement because it's an overstatement on the part of the LOC, imo, and evidently yours. Perhaps we can mention Voltaire along with a few other notable contemporaries of Jefferson of whom he made numerous inquiries, for historical context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is easy to miscast the significance of Voltaire to Jefferson. It is not that Jefferson unthinkingly accepted Voltaire as authority on every aspect based on the mere genius of the other man. That Jefferson had a bust of Voltaire in a place of prominence and honor in his home indicates Jefferson's personal admiration of Voltaire as a thinker free from the chains of the past. That is, Jefferson could see things to admire in another (including Hamilton) without submitting to them in every respect. This is difficult to grasp in the modern era, when politicians are asked “yes-or-no” do they unqualifiedly support one or another — and any qualified answer discredits not the reporter and his questioning, but the politician and his character. Jefferson was above that “gotcha” contemporary intellectual level. That is the significance of Voltaire here, Jefferson's unprejudiced admiration for another great mind, the issue should not be Jefferson's degree of conformity or nonconformity to his thought. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Yopienso: -- Locke, Bacon and Newton were the 'big three' in Jefferson's estimation but all lived before his time. Voltaire, and other contemporaries factored into Jefferson's views to one degree or another, but not to the same degree. I'm leaning more towards Yopienso's position that we shouldn't just mention Voltaire by himself, and I've already removed the adjective "profoundly" concerning TJ's interest, but we shouldn't just dismiss the fact that Jefferson owned seven of his works and possessed a bust (sculpture) of this man. Regardless of other busts Jefferson owned, Voltaire, and other notable contemporaries, should be mentioned in the introductory section to give the reader a general idea on what page Jefferson's views were in his contemporary capacity and time. As soon as we can come up with (a) source(s) that pegs this content down (regarding other contemporaries) I'd recommend that we include this important context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

After resting from this for awhile to come back with fresh eyes, I suggest removing all mention of Voltaire and Volney from the "Political philosophy and views" section. I don't see that they significantly informed his ideas on government. (Voltaire opposed democracy.) The comment seems more directed at TJ's reading selections. Should other editors disagree, let's please at least remove the factlet that he owned seven books by Voltaire. He owned more than seven volumes by numerous other authors, so the factlet is meaningless. Furthermore, he also owned a whole 58-volume set of Voltaire.

Note that I am not down-playing Voltaire's influence on TJ, but pointing out it was not primarily in the political sphere, which is the topic of the section into which he has been inserted. TJ admired Voltaire's wit, independent thought, and humanism.

As a compromise between my preference that we disregard the IP's request made in Feb. and add nothing (i.e., remove the addition), I propose we say, "A wide reader, he was also influenced by the ideas of Gibbon, Hume, Roberson, Bolingbroke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire," blue-linking to their respective WP articles and citing to Cogliano. YoPienso (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this has met no objections, I've edited the text, albeit with somewhat different wording than what I proposed. YoPienso (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should this article state, "He [TJ] was also profoundly interested in the writings of the French philosopher and historian Voltaire and owned seven works by the author"?

• No. This is added into the introductory paragraph of the section "Political philosophy and views" and given greater weight than the undisputed influence Locke, Bacon, and Newton had on his thinking. We do not have reliable sources that say Voltaire significantly influenced TJ's political philosophy and views. Please see my rebuttal just above to Gwillhickers' references in his defense of adding (and restoring after my revert) that sentence. YoPienso (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Waste of time for a minor detail. The adjective "profoundly" was removed from the sentence, even though this is how the Library of Congress, the source used for the sentence, offered this content. I believe this is a fair compromise. Btw, people and the things that influenced Jefferson belong in the intro' paragraph/section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Gwillhickers that the removal of the word "profoundly" is a fair compromise.--JayJasper (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

Please change this text: The third of ten children, Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 OS) at the family home, in a one and a half story farmhouse in Shadwell, not far from Richmond and the Virginia wilderness.

to

The third of ten children, Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 OS) at the family home, in a one and a half story farmhouse in Shadwell, not far from Charlottesville and in the Virginia wilderness.

The historical marker noting the event is found here:

http://www.markerhistory.com/shadwell-birthplace-of-thomas-jefferson-marker-w-202/

The distance from Charlottesville to Richmond is noted here:

http://www.distancebetweencities.net/richmond_va_and_charlottesville_va/

WanderingWahoo (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: What about a compromise of: "The third of ten children, Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 OS) at the family home, in a one and a half story farmhouse in Shadwell, not far from Richmond or Charlottesville and the Virginia wilderness"? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've driven there, It is close to Charlottesville (The only town in the vicinity) and it's pretty far from Richmond (which was only a small village in 1743). Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 DoneI can't see why this change wasn't made, so I'm making it. Shadwell is 5 miles from Charlottesville and almost 70 miles from Richmond. YoPienso (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson (sculpture)?

Should Thomas Jefferson (sculpture) be included in the "memorials and honors" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson and Voltaire

@Yopienso, JayJasper, and TheVirginiaHistorian: Yopienso, I've put off pursing the inclusion of JayJasper's entry regarding the seven works by Voltaire in Jefferson's library for now, as I'm involved elsewhere as I think you know. This "factoid" is interesting and informative and distinguishes Voltaire from the others. The inclusion of these seven works almost resulted in the entire rejection of Jefferson's library when he sold it to the Library of Congress, which should also be mentioned. And 'undue weight' is usually only an issue when someone attempts to carry on about the subject, so using this as a standby excuse in an attempt to block a simple mention of this "factoid" is not very appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Those factoids are indeed interesting to me as a trivia buff. But they have much more to do with the history of the LOC than with the bio of TJ. YoPienso (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it depends on the way it is treated. It may be the LOC subject belongs in the LOC article, leaving it as background here to justify some other additional coverage of Voltaire and Jefferson's admiration of the man and his work as a principal in the Enlightenment, freeing the mind from chains of the past. Jefferson's open mindedness is one of the reasons some believe him an atheistic freethinker. That is probably not true, but he certainly was not doctrinaire in his beliefs regarding faith or otherwise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Currently coverage of the LOC, such that it is, is in the Later years section. I would think that mention of Voltaire's works in Jefferson's library would serve to show him as a freethinker, not necessarily an atheist, but one who consulted varied points of view. We could cook two birds in one pot with Voltaire. He gives some insight into Jefferson's varied thinking, while ownership of his works provides a little historical context to the LOC itself where Jefferson was concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Voltaire was a leading historian -- quite apart from his views on religion--and it would be astonishing for Jefferson to not have some of his books. Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, Rjensen. Gwillhickers, I mean the Library of Congress article. YoPienso (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Preface to Jefferson-Hemings controversy

@Nygdan: Please remove your editorializing from the Jefferson-Hemings controversy section. My removal of it was not vandalism. Please feel free to discuss here with other editors your wish to add it. Also, please be careful not to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)