Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Unstable editing by Quarkgluonsoup

Quarkgluonsoup, you need to slow down, you just jumped in and made one major change after another with no discussions. This is higly provocative and inconsiderate. The rest of us have been moving at a slow and cautioned pace because of past trouble, blocked pages, etc -- yet you come along in complete disregard for this, have ignored past discussions and are editing like you own the page, one major edit after another. Please slow down and go at the pace the rest of us have been moving at. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Two new sources

The two new sources that Yopienso introduced, Poplar Forest and David Post, actually support the idea that Jefferson remained opposed to slavery all his life.

• Post : Jefferson was no hypocrite when it came to the slavery question – even his most
  fervent detractors have to admit as much. He loathed slavery – this “great political and moral evil.

• Post: There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige
  of this moral and political depravity - Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 1814.

The Polar Forest cite will be useful, as it presents various Jefferson writings, written at different points in his life, which clearly outline Jefferson's opposition to slavery.

• Poplar Forest : His public and private writings throughout his life make it clear that he held the
  institution of slavery to be an abomination, its practice immoral and fundamentally
  inconsistent with his ideas about the natural rights to “life, liberty ....

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking and willfully ignoring the other side of the story. (See above and the ANI page.) What about this from the same document?

And in his role as “elder statesman” in the years following the end of his Presidential term, perched on his mountaintop at Monticello, he turned aside many pleas to lend his considerable prestige to the growing abolitionist movement, preferring, instead, to maintain an enigmatic silence on the question. Yopienso (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"ignoring"?? You are ignoring your own sources, along with a life time of historical evidence, backed by many other RS's. This is getting ridiculous. Yes, it is well established Jefferson was generally silent during his presidency -- however, there is still plenty of evidence that shows him opposed to slavery right up until 1820's as I just showed you above. This is coming from the very sources you brought to the discussion claiming his views of slavery "changed", not supported by your sources and which by itself doesn't say much even if true. "Changed" how?. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Finkleman shows how historians have manipultated events or rhetoric to prove Thomas Jefferson was anti-slavery, because Thomas Jefferson is deemed as being perfect without any faults "almost perfect" with the exception of slavery. Saying that Jefferson was anti-slavery is not proving that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson is deemed as being perfect without any faults" --nonsense. No historian has ever claimed that -- certainly no scholar in the last 75 years.Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Finkleman shows..."? This should say, 'Finkleman claims...' Apparently Cm' is still trying to hold up Finkleman as some sort of special source who can cancel out years of historical evidence and numerous other RS's. Unbelievable. Cm' also fails to say which events were "manipulated". So I suppose we can all assume that Jefferson's lawyers years were all manipulated, his days drafting the DOI were all just one big scheme, his attempts at emancipation were all one big manipulated affair, his outlawing of the slave trade, meaningless, all a manipulated show of events, never mind all his writings and speeches. Bear in mind, Finkleman exposed his complete lack of objectivity when he said "Jefferson hated the negro", which flies in the face of so much historical evidence to the contrary. I would think that any other speculations coming from this individual should be considered in this light. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is Finkelman's statement, "Thomas Jefferson is certainly the most popular saint of American civil religion...The virtual deification of Jefferson is engrained in the general public, sustained by popular biographers and scholars, supported by the mass media, and bolstered by recent Presidents...Both conservatives and liberals look to Jefferson as an icon and a role model...Jefferson's image would be almost perfect, were it not for slavery." Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery; The Myth Goes On

No one here disputes the argument that "Jefferson's image would be almost perfect, were it not for slavery." I don't think Finkelman has criticized TJ on any other issue. Let me add that "almost perfect" is much too strong for me. I would agree with a statement like this: "Jefferson's image would be very high indeed, were it not for his ownership of slaves." Lots of historians (like Peterson) feel Jefferson blundered badly on some major issues, such as the embargo, the gunships, and preparation for war with Britain. Personally I would add his attacks on judges and the courts. Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree completely. I think Jefferson deserves some criticism on the issue of slavery, since he was more accepting of it than most of his day, and even more on his view of blacks, which was one of an unusually strong scientific racism. But these are minor compared to many other actions he took during his career, of which you list a few. It is these that should earn him far more criticism than slavery, yet people are so focused on slavery that they miss this. Finkelman seems to miss this entirely, even claiming that Jefferson helped start the revolution, which he did not. The article reflects this to some extent though needs to do a better job.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It is encouraging to hear you say these things Q'. Jefferson was born into slavery, opposed it at the age of six. In his adult life, as time when on he realized he was beating a dead horse. He tried to get the ball rolling with the original DOI, but his anti-slavery language was gutted. His attempts at emancipation were also stonewalled. He managed to outlaw the slave trade, only because it did not outlaw domestic slavery. At life's end he left his slaves to be sold with his estate, no doubt (my speculation) because his first allegiance was to his family, not wanting to leave them with his debts. If we can get past all the stigma piled onto slavery it shouldn't be difficult to see these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My concern for this article had to do with what I perceived was a push for Jefferson as a constant foe of slavery while disregarding other scholars who state that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Jefferson's embargo clearly led up to tensions between Britain and the U.S., there was corruption in the Postal Service, and Jefferson was historically criticized for his protection of General Wilkinson, involved in the Spanish Conspiracy. As has been mentioned before, the article should not condemn Jefferson for being a slave owner. The scholars viewpoint that Jefferson was not anti-slavery needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The degree to which Jefferson can be criticized for slavery is limited, and is mostly due to his strong support for the institution (usually strong by the standards of his day) and his unusually strong (by the standards of his day) racism. Far more criticism can be made against him for far more than slavery. The article shouldn't criticize him much for slavery, but the question of weather he supported the institution isn't a question of values or weather he can be excused but simple historic fact, and of that here is no question what of his support.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote:

". . .he was more accepting of it than most of his day, and even more on his view of blacks, which was one of an unusually strong scientific racism."

"strong support for the institution (usually [sic Did you mean unusually?] strong by the standards of his day) and his unusually strong (by the standards of his day) racism."

I can't believe TJ was more accepting of slavery that other southerners or that he was more racist. Do you have sources for that? Yopienso (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He owned far more slaves than most slaveowners, partly due to his unusually extravagant lifestyle (which was also why he didn't free any at his death; even the Hemmings children weren't freed but "allowed" to escape and listed as runaways). Even the location of Monticello was an act of unusual cruelty to his slaves, as it was on the top of a hill so construction and maintenance was unusually laborious compared to most other plantations. The few times when he did actually criticize the institution, it was due to the impact of the institution on whites, not any moral problem or concern for slaves. He never even signed on to any emancipation efforts (his rival Alexander Hamilton was a leading figure in the successful effort to end slavery in NY). Most of his anti-slavery actions and writings came before he was radicalized in France. Actually one problem here is that people are assuming that certain views he may have had at one point were held throughout his life, when this certainly isn't true.

As for race, he was an adherent of scientific racism, which makes his racism unusually cold and strong compared to contemporaries. Usually slavery supporters justified it on economic and cultural grounds without trying to justify it on moral grounds or address the question of the well being of the slaves. Jefferson did, which was highly unusual, and he did it with claiming that blacks were so inferior that they were better off as slaves. I noticed many of his writings on blacks have been removed from the article, such as his comparison of blacks to orangutans. These arguments weren't made often at the time by others. If you want to see a slaveowner who was arguably anti-slavery, look a Mason, who went on a tirade at the constitutional convention on the immorality of it and the need to abolish it in the constitution. Yes I have sources for all of this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

These arguments do not show TJ to be less liberal on slavery or more racist than other Virginia elite. Holding more slaves certainly doesn't mean he was more accepting of slavery. The suggestion that building on a hilltop was cruelty is ludicrous. Since you have sources that show he was "worse" (a shorthand word) than most, please divulge them. Some time ago we discusses Ira Berlin's slave societies. Virginia planters formed one, and it was not a society of which TJ was the only member. Yopienso (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso is correct. First we must remember there are scientific differences in race. Jefferson had his views about racial differences, based on simple observation and science, but this by itself does not establish the idea that his feelings were "unusually cold and strong", esp when there is very much evidence to the contrary. Monticello.org, whom I've criticized for their handling of the Hemings issue, offers a wealth of information about Jefferson, slaves and plantation life. There you can see Jefferson's "unusually cold and strong" feelings in action. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical evidence v views

Is there an actual author that goes beyond criticism for, e.g.Jefferson's silence, and actually says that Jefferson (was always/became) pro slavery? If that's the case it would be interesting to see how they can write off a life time of evidence and so (very) many RS's -- and it would be twice as interesting to know on what evidence they are basing this assertion. If it's just a 'view' based on something Jefferson didn't do this is speculation and belongs in the 'Reputation section, regardless if it's Finkleman or 'the Pope' making the claim. There are more than 'views' to consider. Historical evidence is what establishes facts. For Jefferson's views and dealings with slavery there is almost a life time of it. An encyclopedia is supposed to presents facts first and foremost. Any views and speculations about what someone 'should have done' are given mention but are not stated as established facts. A good example: Finkleman said "Jefferson hated the negro". If there were lots of evidence to this effect we could say this, but since it is a speculation with no concrete evidence to support it, it is only a view. We shouldn't be trying to treat 'views and speculations' like they were facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, from what I understand, Finkelman was taking the Jefferson anti-slavery arguements and gave evidence that these arguements were either misleading, false, or in error in order to create a myth that Jefferson was anti-slavery. I would say selling slaves, working slave children, and having the slaves whipped, is evidence Jefferson was pro-slavery. Jefferson himself viewed the increase of slaves as "capital" for his Monticello estate. The reader needs to be given enough information to decide if Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an issue of personal life versus his political views. He wanted to change society in the future by outlawing the slave trade and ending slavery's expansion in the territories. That made him a leading anti-slavery advocate among the main political figures of the day--it's hard to think of an American of his day who was more active in limiting slavery. That was a future vision--for the moment he lived inside the system. Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: If I am reading your statement correctly Rjensen then Thomas Jefferson in his personal life could have been proslavery, but then in his public life he was anti-slavery. Let's look at his public life. Ferling states that the 1782 Virginia Manumission law passed the legislature because Thomas Jefferson was not in the legislature at that time. While Secretary of State Jefferson and President Washington funded the slave owners in Haiti, not the slaves in rebellion. While Jefferson was President he did not recognize Haiti as an independent state. Then there is the Louisianna purchase that allowed the spread of slavery throughout the entire region. There was no anti-slavery provision by Jefferson attached to the sale of the immense purchase. Banning the slave trade in 1807 was pro slavery in terms of domestic policy since this increased the value of Jefferson's slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well no. Jefferson was more outspoken against slavery than any president before Lincoln (even JQ Adams) or any other major politician of his day, as in his message to Congress. Foner notes that Lincoln changed over from Clay to Jefferson as he became an enemy of slave expansion in the 1850s. The Southerners had rejected Jefferson as their hero for the same reason. The closing of the slave trade was a top issue for antislavery forces around the world circa 1807 and Jefferson took the lead and succeeded in the US. To call the antislavery leaders hypocrites and dishonest and self-interested was the standard technique of the proslavery elements in those days, and I'm surprised to see the same tactic used today. Rjensen (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: Rjensen. No one is denying that Jefferson in his rhetoric was anti-slavery. I believe we can agree on that one. There is no place in this article that states "antislavery leaders" were hypocrites, dishonest, or self interested. I personally do not believe "self-interest" is necessarily a bad thing since that is what drives our capitalist system of supply and demand, speaking only in terms of material products, not slavery. I have noticed you did not address any of the issues I brought up, especially concerning the Louisiana Purchase that expanded slavery. As far as I know there are no proslavery forces in the Wikipedia editors, including myself. What I disagree is being forcefully endoctrinated into the opinion that Jefferson was anti-slavery. You can have your own opinion on Jefferson, but to suggest Finkelman, Ferling, or Appleby as being pro-slavery historians, as far as I know, is not supported in any of their writings. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: Banning the slave trade was both anti-slavery and pro-slavery. Banning the slave trade was anti-slavery, while the value of domestic slaves increasing was pro-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillickers wrote: "If that's the case it would be interesting to see how they can write off a life time of evidence and so (very) many RS's. . ." Indeed. How can you write off a life time of supporting slavery by:

• Buying slaves
• Forcing slaves to work his plantations
• Posting wanted ads for runaway slaves (Wonder why they ran away from Jefferson's happy plantation?)
• Writing about the usefulness of female slaves who "bring a child every two years"; i.e.--breeding slaves for his own use and/or for sale
• Selling slaves

By being a life-long slaveowner, TJ was supporting slavery. Did you read my post above at 23:39, 20 July 2012 under "Slavery in the lede"?

You are again seizing upon words; you want a RS that says, "TJ was pro-slavery" or "TJ extolled the virtues of slavery" or "TJ worked hard to entrench slavery ever further." The University of Maryland Baltimore County, developing a middle school history program in conjunction with the U.S. Dept. of Education, writes (emphasis added): [Look under the green hat below.]

Yopienso : Yes, Jefferson bought and sold salves. This doesn't mean he didn't oppose slavery on moral and political grounds, as much of the historical evidence clearly reveals to us. This is not a two-dimensional issue. You're saying because he bought/sold slaves he therefore did not oppose slavery. Period. Oh yes, there was that wanted poster. That really undermines Jefferson's life time of efforts trying to abolish slavery. And anyone who's looked into how Jefferson managed his slaves and ran the plantation I believe will see a more clear picture than the one you are trying to present with the usual out of context claims. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said didn't oppose slavery. I've consistently said, as the historical records show, that he both opposed and supported slavery. This is the contradiction and the paradox that makes the TJ/slavery issue so very complex. What we must do is show the contradiction, not try to say he either opposed or supported slavery. Yopienso (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Excerpt from UMBC history program including TJ's support of slavery

While Jefferson contributed much to our American historical culture, he often comes under criticism for his support of and participation in the enslavement of African Americans. Jefferson, who called the institution of slavery an abominable crime," was a slaveholder for all of his adult life. Successful in outlawing the international slave trade to Virginia, he was disappointed by the failure of his early efforts to end or restrict slavery, and came to believe that a practicable solution to the problem could not be found in his lifetime. He continued, however, to advocate privately his own emancipation plan, which included a provision for resettling slaves outside the United States. While considering slavery a moral travesty, hideous evil, and clearly at odds with his values of the American Revolution and republican virtue, Jefferson owned several hundred slaves at his home at Monticello and surrounding agricultural farms and businesses. In much of his correspondence to friends and business associates, Jefferson laments the immoral institution of slavery and yet describes how it must continue. Jefferson and many of his peers were afraid that the abolition of slavery would cause violence throughout the South and racial prejudice in the North. They were concerned that agriculture on large farms, long dependent on slave labor, would collapse without a subjugated labor force. While Jefferson defended abolition in the Northwest Territories, he allowed it [sic; apparently referring to slavery] to expand in the Louisiana Territory. As a revolutionary, he attacked slavery. As an elected politician of a divided nation, he defended it. Jefferson's relationship with slavery is certainly riddled with contradiction, both in words and deeds. His words expressed a hatred and disdain for an institution that ran contradictory to the ideals of democracy and human rights; while defending racial inferiority, political indifference, and economic security. His deeds reflected a dedication to righteousness, but only when they were socially popular or relevant to personal or political security. Many questions remain unanswered. Why did Jefferson change his views over time and when his responsibilities to the nation were altered? How did he feel about the African-American and his capabilities, as well as his rights? After studying the many documents presented here, one question might be answered: "Where Did Thomas Jefferson Stand on the Issue of Slavery?" Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC) You may have to click on a tab, "Topic Background," on that page. Or, click here for a printer-friendly version. Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored reverts

On advice I have just reversed two major reverts to Quarkgluonsoup edits to two sections. Quarkgluonsoup, please move at a pace other editors can deal with. It is not fair for you to come in and make dozens of major changes where any one editor can only make 3 reverts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "fair" isn't the best word to use here. If somebody's large body of edits is truly objectionable, then more than one editor will jump in to set things straight. What concerns me much more is Quarkgluonsoup's habit of not giving edit summaries. This, combined with the large number of edits at a single time, makes it very difficult for other editors to see what has been changed.--Other Choices (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. Yopienso (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs it's hard to determine just what was removed or edited. I can say that the word count on the article dropped at least 1000 words which is a good thing. Quarkie needs to learn some etiquette when dealing with controversial articles. Brad (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

TJ 1820 plan to free all newborn slaves

In 1820 Jefferson worked with the governor of Virginia (his son in law) on a plan to free all the newborn slaves in Virginia and send them to Haiti as free people. At this point Haiti was welcoming freed blacks emigrating from the US -- over 13,000 American free blacks did emigrate there, so there was a core element for TJ's colony. Jefferson considered compulsory manumission and resettlement of newborn slaves to Haiti to be a practical solution to how to abolish slavery in Virginia. TJ wrote to U. S. minister to France Albert Gallatin: "My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the state, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo [ie Haiti]. There they are willing to receive them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of [Virginia state] taxation aided by charitable contributions." The governor agreed with TJ and called on the legislature to endorse the plan but it refused. We see TJ devising an actual plan to free slaves. See Arthur Scherr, "Light at the End of the Road: Thomas Jefferson's Endorsement of Free Haiti in His Final Years," Journal of Haitian Studies Volume: 15. Issue: 1/2. 2009. pp 203+ online version; for more email rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link isn't allowing anyone without a subscription to read the article. What is the context of this? What exactly did he do to "work" on this issue? Why would this mean he was anti-slavery, since his main problem with the institution is widely known to be the risk of slave revolt and the effect it was having on whites? Really, I think part of the problem here is that we are working with different definitions of "anti-slavery". It is clear he feared slavery due to the risk of slave uprisings (an almost universal fear in VA through he Civil War), and as much as your link is correct and in context, it provides yet another piece of evidence for this view of his. Notice here he doesn't want to simply free them, but rather to get them out of the country entirely. It is fine if we mention this particular context of his slavery views (his fear of uprisings) but the article currently writes up whatever opposition he had to slavery to compassion towards blacks and a view that is was morally wrong, which is what we today think of it but Jefferson certainly did not. We should differentiate this distinction in the article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

yes TJ was afraid of a slave revolt. I think that annoys his critics today who seem to celebrate slave revolts despite their huge death tolls. Yes he did have a concrete proposal in 1820 to abolish slavery in Virginia. Yes he told the nation as president that the slave trade was a violation of human rights (he said a law was needed to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights … which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe." He got the law and criminalized the international slave trade.) I think the article in question brings up lots of new facts -- and I would be happy to help anyone read it if they email me at rjensen@uic.edu. Rjensen (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Again good points by both of you. I have access to the article and it does raise another wrinkle, namely the playing out of his deportation solution for gradual emancipation. Do you have a suggested edit? And does this belong here or in the daughter article?Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

None of his critics think slave revolts were good. I think, as is common with people who really want to see Jefferson in a certain positive way, Rjensen is reading his own hopes into Jefferson's actions. People want to believe that any actions or words Jefferson did against slavery was due to moral opposition and seeing it the way we see it, making him a visionary and champion of human liberty. This simply warps the historical record, and Jefferson himself, beyond the actual facts and fits them into the image people want to believe of Jefferson. He didn't care about the slaves, and had an unusually strong sense of racism. He really wasn't even that concerned of slave revolts (much like us and global warming, we know it might one day lead to disaster and like talking about it but it never seems urgent enough to cause action). This is another case of cherry picking Jefferson to construct an image people want to believe of him.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think RJ is trying to bring the disparate sources into a cohesive whole picture like you are. Don't we have to present the positive and the negative facts? For example, one thing I just tried to correct in the article, is that some of the discussion on this page elides Virginia and the United States. Virginia was 'his country' and slavery was (except the shared issues of the international trade and territorial expansion) a state issue, especially for a state guy like Jefferson (as RJ's source exemplifies). Details like these bring the whole picture (of this complex subject with contradictory currents) into better focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Also, note that although TJ supported this law, he does not appear to have done it for his slaves -- this goes along with other evidence that Jefferson was a often a theoretical opponent and often an in-practice supporter (hence his in-practice rationalizations). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker. Having a one sided view with Jefferson and slavery is misleading for the reader. I do not believe in the forced endoctrination that Jefferson was anti-slavery. The alternative in my opinion is to state that Jefferson is "traditionally" viewed as anti-slavery and that certain modern scholars disagree. If everything is true that Jefferson actually sponsored an initiative to free slave children, I would call that anti-slavery. However, that does not explain Jefferson's silence on domestic slavery as President, his boycott of Haiti, his continued slave ownership while President, and the Louisiana Purchase that spread slavery, or that the value of his slaves increased after signing the ban on the slave trade. As I have stated many times before, let the reader decide if Jefferson was anti-slavery. Wikipedia needs to be neutral, since their is disagreement among scholars. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did Jefferson have to use Albert Gallatin to suggest this initiative to the legislature? Did the legislature know that Jefferson was behind this initiative? Gallatin was actually Swiss born, not from Virginia. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase

Regarding the Purchase as a means intended to spread slavery: well no. We know Jefferson's plans in terms of his instructions to his diplomats. TJ above all wanted free navigation of the Mississippi, and perhaps purchase of New Orleans as a suitable port. No one dreamed that Napoleon would offer the whole territory. I believe historians are unanimous in applauding the purchase. Note that anti-slavery northerners like JQ Adams supported it. As for the new lands the compromise of 1820 split it in half with slavery outlawed in the northern half. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson strongly opposed the Missouri Compromise saying that this would be the "death knell of the Union". No one is denying that the Louisiana Purchase was a monetarily valuable land purchase, however, the Indian tribes had no say in the negotiations and all their lands were succeeded to United States authority without any compensation. I am not sure how JQ Adams, an anti-slavery northerner, support of the Lousiana Purchase makes the purchase anti-slavery. Slavery did spread throughout the region and Louisiana was one of the most resistant states during Reconstruction. Why didn't Jefferson by the purchase agreement outlaw slavery in the Louisiana Territory? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

there was no "purchase agreement" There was a treaty that had to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate or Louisiana was lost. Historians are pretty near unanimous that ratification was a very good idea. As for the Indians, their personal behavior included endless warfare, genocide, slavery and torture, so they are not exactly model citizens. Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points. The thing about the spread of slavery, is TJ, made the rather remarkable argument that its spread would lead to its diminution, because there would be more whites (that were not involved) and fewer slaves by comparison to them. But I wish all editors would REALLY focus on summary in this article because that's the purpose of this section of the article, and having another detailed article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery and a further info article on Louisiana purchase Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, aside from the Indian hostility debate, President Jefferson never advocated that slavery be abolished in the territory and he was strongly against the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Article II of the Constitution gives the President the primary power to negotiate treaties. Jefferson was the primary negotiator of the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson had every opportunity to speak out against domestic slavery and their was silence. I believe JQ Adams was anti-slavery as U.S. Congressman after the Louisiana purchase. The conservative whites in Louisiana were not exactly "model citizens" in their violence and intimidation tactics toward blacks and white Republicans during Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Monroe negotiated the Louisiana treaty with France not Jefferson or Madison. (transatlantic messages took 2 months each way in those days). It was a land sale. No slaves were bought or sold (slaves already there they belonged to private owners or to Indian tribes and their status did not change.) What the US did about slavery after it purchased Louisiana had no role in the treaty with France and of course was not there--how could it be otherwise? Congress of course ratified treaties and makes the laws, not the president, a Constitutional point TJ knew all about. Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert:Sec. Monroe or President Jefferson did not desire to have slavery on the agenda. I would call this a land and people sale. Once the land is bought up the people are under the control of the U.S. Congress. I would say Congress ratifies treaties submitted by the President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution. That Jefferson did not make slavery an issue in the Louisiana Purchase would support that he was silent on speaking out against domestic slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cm', Re:Missouri Compromise, it's generally well known (or should be) why Jefferson felt the way he did about the M.C.

• By 1820, during the political crisis that resulted in the Missouri Compromise, Jefferson had come to believe that the spread of slavery into the west&—its "diffusion"&—would prove beneficial to the slaves and hasten the end of the institution.
• He feared it {the 'Compromise) could threaten the union and lead to civil war. (insert mine)

Anyone who looks into this history should see that Jefferson's regard for the M.C. is not anything that can be construed as pro-slavery. Esp when there is much historical evidence that corroborates TJ's position on slavery overall. We have gone over all of this before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: OK. Gwillhickers then you admit that Jefferson did desire to spread slavery into the Louisiana Territory. Slavery did spread into the territory and surprise slavery was not extinguish as an institution, rather became more firmly entrenched. So if laws against stealing are repealed, then people will of course stop stealing. How does that make sense? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Attention all editors! I've been ragging on QuarkGS to write edit summaries. Things were slow enough here before he arrived I hadn't noticed other editors regularly omit edit summaries. Now, in going to the article history, it's impossible to tell what's been added. Please, everyone, write summaries for your edits. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that more definitive summary is needed from some editors, esp when they are removing lots of sourced information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You just made 19 edits to this page in 16 minutes, not a single one of which has an edit summary. Yopienso (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Financial situation and slavery

I believe one unrated view that has been overlooked concerning Jefferson and slavery was Jefferson's financial situation. For all practical purposes Jefferson was broke. I believe anyone who has been in finacial dire straights will hold on to anything that has value. I don't know if their are any sources that state this, however, his finacial situation would make Jefferson extremely reluctant to free his slaves, thus not anti-slavery. Who would Jefferson be if he did not have his slaves to his support excessive spending habits? Jefferson's financial situation could be expanded in the slaves and slavery section. This might give better understanding, not an excuse, why Jefferson for the most part did not free his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This topic is too complicated to sum up in the slavery section without bloating the section. I have read sources that claim TJ couldn't free his slaves because he was in such debt at the end of his life. Another factor is his concern over providing his daughter Martha and grandchildren security after his death since her marriage to TMR was on rocky ground and there was no income or shelter for her other than Monticello. His slaves could not possibly be considered as supporting his lavish lifestyle. In his retirement years the prices for wheat, tobacco and land were all depressed making any effort expended by his slaves on growing crops a losing operation and TJ went further in debt because the cost of feeding, clothing and sheltering his slaves remained the same even though Monticello was not turning a profit. The War of 1812 further damaged TJ's finances as exports to Britain were suspended during the 1812-1815 period. Periods of drought and then deluges of rain wiped out crops at Poplar Forest and Monticello. The dam that provided power to his gristmill, a source of income, broke and had to be rebuilt at great cost. There's more but I digress. Brad (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are many factors to consider. His selling of slaves could be wrapped up with a couple of summary sentences.

• During the final years of Jefferson's life the price for tobacco and other crops fell because of war, drought and other factors, making it impractical to continue paying the living costs of slaves at Monticello. Consequently Jefferson was compelled to sell off his slaves to settle debts and to help provide security for various family members.

Will look into sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No Gwill, what you suggest is also wrong in part. See what I wrote below here. Brad (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson did not have to pay his slaves, so in that sense profit did not matter. My point is that Jefferson was 130 slaves in debt after he died, whatever that cost is. His slaves apparently were the only assets he maintained and thus was reluctant to free them. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Cm' please read what you are responding to. No one said that Jefferson had to "pay his slaves". They were sold for the reasons clearly outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

CMguy, you continually believe that slavery was the cause of everything wrong in TJ's life. Jefferson was not "130 slaves in debt" after his death. The 130 slaves were part of his entire estate including Monticello and all property and land holdings. TJ was $100,000 in debt when he died which was an immense sum for the time. TJ did not and could not have sold his slaves to pay his debts after his death...because he was dead! The entirety of his estate was left to his daughter Martha but since women of the era did not have the rights to property an executor (male) was appointed to oversee the estate for her and IIRC it was his grandson TJRandolph. As time passed it was decided to first sell off the 130 slaves and suspend the plantation operation to help pay off some of the debt. It was TJR and Martha who made this decision. But the sale of slaves at depressed prices barely put a dent in the debt. Monticello itself sold for the dismal sum of about $8,000 a few years later. TJR assumed all the debts of TJ's estate after Martha's death and it took him decades to pay it off.

You seem to believe that the sale of slaves solved all of the debt which is entirely wrong. You have a great inability to see past slavery and realize that there were dozens of reasons why TJ didn't free his slaves in his will and the scenario surrounding their eventual sale. Of all of the reading I've done on TJ so far I've concentrated on his retirement years of which you seem to have little knowledge of and continue to beat the slavery drum. You don't show any interest in TJ other than the slavery issue. Brad (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad. I do have interest in Jefferson as a person and the slavery issue is a source of contention among historians. Slavery affected Jefferson's life from his birth to his death and I believe understandably the institution is worth studying. I never stated that slavery was the "cause of everything that was wrong with Jefferson". If this will help I can give my personal views on Thomas Jefferson. First of all there is nothing we can do to change the past. Thomas Jefferson controlled his own world while historians can only control his legacy reputation. Secondly, I do not judge Jefferson for owning slaves. He did not start slavery and he was not the last slave owner to live. Third, I believe that there needs to be an open forum for discussing Thomas Jefferson and slavery. I don't believe that historians, teachers, or Wikipedia editors should bully their opinion that Jefferson was anti-slavery on the readers or other Wikipedia editors or castigate other scholars who believe Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we just make the slavery changes already?

While I don't really care about the slavery dispute, I don't think Gwillickers is going to be convinced of anything. Most editors here agree he was not anti-slavery all his life, so the changes to that effect should be made, to both the lede and the body. Gwillickers is outnumbered and thus won't be able to maintain his view in the article. If he reverts, he can be reported for edit warring again and his reversion can be undone.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ermm, you care enough about it to start a section and urge action. Please read just above here about etiquette. I'm not OK with saying Gwillickers is outnumbered and then implying that we can just gang up and pounce on him.

About the changes, yes, I think there's a consensus that TJ had conflicted views on slavery. Written and sourced properly, they will not be reverted. Yopienso (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, this should be done then. The slavery section right now is in really bad shape. I put a POV tag on the section, as its pro-Jefferson and anti-fact bias is quite explicit.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't make an edit summary, though. Please adopt this useful and cooperative habit. Your failure to do so creates difficulties for your fellow editors. Yopienso (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. I will start doing that.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Quarkluonsoup for interest in the Thomas Jefferson article. Since there is disagreement among historians I believe both pro and anti sides need to be addressed in terms of Jefferson and slavery. Gwilhickers wants to choose anti-slavery while Quarkluonsoup wants pro-slavery. Both sides need to be in the article and the reader is the ultimate judge in terms of Jefferson and slavery. Wikipedia is not about endoctrinating the reader to accept this or that point of view. Traditionally Jefferson has been viewed as anti-slavery, but certain modern scholars view that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. That really is all that needs to be said. There is no DNA test, as in the Sally Hemings and Jefferson controversy, that can prove Jefferson was pro or anti slavery. Gwillhickers apparently has allowed anti-slavery sentiment into the article. All I believe is that the reader needs some historical "breathing space" to make their decision whether Jefferson was pro or anti slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I am surprised that people are claiming that historians and biographers have argued that he was anti-slavery. I have read Peterson's biography and most of Wood's books and I never came to the conclusion that either thought he was anti-slavery, though both argue (correctly I think) that he should be judged by the standards of his day, not ours. The common view, from what I have read, is that he shouldn't be judged negatively because of slavery (a question of values), not that he was anti-slavery (a question of historical fact). I have read a lot on Jefferson and this is the first time I have heard claims that he is commonly held by historians to be anti-slavery. Most of the time the contradiction people focus on isn't being anti-slavery and owning slaves, but writing the declaration of independence and supposedly being a great champion of liberty while owning slaves. I think the view of editors here is highly skewed on the question of what historians have commonly think, as most modern historians certainly don't think he was anti-slavery.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears part of the problem is what is meant by 'anti slavery.' He expressed moral opposition to it as an institution and some political routes for ending it. Yet, he practiced it, while at times expressing some bewilderment and frustration, as how to end it. Because of his racial theories, his main expressed route was deportation. Africans could not really be part of the "United States" but he still didn't end his own involvement and deport them, as it was an infeasible idea (although attractive to many early opponents of the institution of slavery in the United States) and based on speculative theory. The peculiar institution (as practiced) was about race, in the United Sates (as well as economics). In sum, his enlightenment ideals cause him to oppose, his racial ideas caused him to continue the institution and his personal involvement in it (along with his financial investment). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuity problems

I'm not sure where to put this since the conversation has spread all over. But the section as it stands atm needs editing for continuity. It bounces around with entries that aren't quite relevant to where they're placed. Subject wise I picture something like:

• The situation and happenings with TJ's slaves. How they were treated, sold and what they generally did for labor assignments and which were freed in his lifetime then in his will.
• TJ's personal thoughts on the institution of slavery
• TJ's attempts to end the practice via legislation and private words/actions
• Some historical analysis.

Just some initial thoughts anyway. Brad (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. I started working on something in my sandbox but my break from real life responsibilities is drawing to a close. (Plus, it's just not worth the hassle from other editors.) I was thinking:

• Begin by setting the context of Virginia's slave society and the conflict between TJ's daily realities and his soaring Enlightenment ideals. Something like, "As a member of the planter elite in Virginia's slave society, Jefferson relied on slavery for his livelihood. This fact conflicted with his belief in freedom, causing lifelong contradictions between his words and actions in regards to slavery."
• Then briefly describe how his slaves fared, including his wishes, deeds, and what his overseers did.
• Brief historical analysis.

A key point is that this section should be a brief summary that points to the daughter article. Yopienso (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

YES. Please, it is a mess currently. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've just made a good-faith effort. I know the last paragraph is too brief and uncited. There may well be other problems, but it's a start. I was aiming for conciseness, leaving details for the daughter article. This is all about collaboration, so I expect changes, but beg for no wholesale revert. Yopienso (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's a large improvement over the previous version. There are some picky things that need tidying which I'll look into eventually. Brad (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson the abolitionist

Yopienso, the source you just provided above claims Jefferson was an abolitionist.

Thomas Jefferson has achieved fame as a founding father of the United States. He was an accomplished Revolutionary author, foreign diplomat, secretary of state, vice-president, president, inventor, educator, planter, slave owner and abolitionist (bold added)

This will be the second time you have made a claim and provided a source that says the opposite. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The source confirms exactly what I claim: TJ was a slave owner AND abolitionist. Get it? He was both! This is not either/or, it's BOTH.

Please STOP this tiresome arguing. Read what I write. Read the sources. Stop picking and choosing some words while ignoring others. Please do not engage in disruptive editing. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Glad to hear you say this. There are those who maintain that Jefferson could not be an abolitionist simply because he was a slave owner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is from a middle school essay. That is not a legitimate source for this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a resource for middle school teachers developed by the University of Maryland Baltimore County. A Guided Approach to Historical Inquiry in the K-12 Classroom was developed through a partnership between the UMBC Center for History Education (CHE) and Maryland school systems, with support from the United States Department of Education's Teaching American History grant program. Click on the "Topic Background" tab here. But I was not suggesting this be used as a citation in the article, anyway; innumerable sources already cited show TJ was both for and against slavery. Yopienso (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He was "for slavery" only inasmuch as he felt it was necessary for Africans in 18/19th century Virginia, et al in terms of their survival and practical placement. Jefferson was never for slavery on moral and political grounds, that is absolutely clear with many RS's that outline his activities to this end. His 'contradictions' (i.e.selling of slaves to settle estate) are only apparent and are easily explained in the light of all the historical evidence. There is no RS that says Jefferson was for slavery on moral and political grounds. At best, all they do is criticize him and speculate about what he didn't do, or should have done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps that's exactly what we should say in this situation -- instead of saying anything at all in wikipedia's voice, summarize the sources with a sentence like: "Many scholars acknowledge Jefferson's opposition in principle to slavery while criticizing him for not doing more to live up to his convictions."--Other Choices (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He also supported slavery because slavery supported him. In short, he had a long-time massive conflict of interest on this topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right, Other Choices and Aswalker. TJ wasn't "for" slavery on moral or political grounds, but on practical and pragmatic grounds. Gwillickers idea that TJ was "for" slavery only for the slaves' sakes is woefully skewed. Yes, he was paternalistic, but he needed them for his very survival. Yopienso (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite "exactly". Jefferson was always opposed on a higher level and in practice he made numerous concessions to allow slaves to live like people even though they were "slaves". e.g.Keeping families together, Sundays off, Christmas, allowing them to raise their own chickens, etc. This is why I will be restoring much of the slaves activities that was recently removed from the section. ASW, yes, there was a "massive conflict of interest" but he never waiver on principle and made many efforts to assert it. Yopienso, your version is an acceptable one, however, we should (re)include some of the roles that the actual slaves played as this gives the reader much more insight into Jefferson's relationship with slavery than any of the views ever will. It's late. I will do this tomorrow if someone else hasn't already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, your points about Jefferson's personal treatment of slaves are well worth discussing on the Thomas Jefferson and slavery article. In my opinion, which is clearly shared by others, they are not necessary for this article, which is getting uncomfortably long. Please work for consensus instead of unilaterally adding more verbiage about Jefferson and slavery to this article.--Other Choices (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The amount of text I added about the actual slaves amounted to only a few sentences and was and is not what has turned the slavery section into a very long section all over again -- now with three sub sections while the section continues to grow at a fast rate -- and with not a lot of discussion beforehand. Once again we need to condense the text and summarize better. We should try to keep the text under one page and give the reader as many important facts as is possible so they are not mislead. While the current version we have now says that Jefferson split up families, this rarely occurred and leads the reader into thinking this was the norm . I see other inaccuracies that need attention. e.g.Southerners were not the only ones who viewed Africans as inferior, this was a common view in those days, shared by most western and other civilizations of the time. Also, at one point the section says Jefferson owned 600 slaves during his life while another passage says he "owned 700 different people at one time or another". He never owned 700 slaves at one time, this was over the course of his life. Section is once again way too long and is filled with skewed claims and inaccuracies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New section on slavery

We have now a new section on TJ and slavery that may prove a useful compromise. Yopienso drafted the part on TJ's ownership of slaves and I drafted a part on his policy positions over the years. Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not bad, however, we need to briefly outline the lives of the slaves, as after all they are the essence of the subject. We can do it with two or three sentences -- and why not? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that Thomas Jefferson is the essence of this article Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea to split. Good work. Agree with RJ, 600 other individuals, besides TJ, are going to have 600 different experiences. Slave life depended on who you worked with, where you worked, whether you remembered Africa or freedom, and how badly you desired freedom or could accommodate yourself to the indignities or rewards, among multiple other things that make up life and health. Such details, to the extent they can be found belong in the daughter article or in the biographies of individual slaves, or individual plantation articles. A good resource would most recently be the Smithsonian exhibit on 6 slave families but that's their detailed story, and not summary of TJ. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with this progress, and agree with RJ and ASW. Some detail on the life of slaves at Monticello, including Christmas and the many jobs they performed, should be added to the daughter article. Yopienso (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Slow down, please, Quark.

• He expressed some reservation about flogging, once saying it would "degrade them in their own eyes." Why "once"? You're changing the meaning.
• he declined to free any slaves upon his death, though he allowed five to escape, and listed them as runaways This is not true. See the source.
• You've utterly removed the sense of many historians that TJ sowed the philosophical seeds of freedom, despite his own actions. Yopienso (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the section has been improved, however, there is is minimal effort to put into the article that scholars disagree that Jefferson was a life long foe of slavery. In fact the first sentence states that Jefferson believed slavery was a bad policy. That is not entirely true. Jefferson believed slavery was good for blacks because he viewed them as inferior. The reader in the first paragraph is forced to believe this statement without any point of view from scholars who disagree that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert : Jefferson never said slavery was "good for blacks", he said they were better off as slaves in America for reasons of their survival and practical placement. This has been pointed out to you several times. Jefferson was ALWAYS opposed to slavery, and again, there is a lifetime of evidence and RS's that say so. This view needs to be restored to the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound like he was enslaving them out of benevolence. He thought they were better off as slaves because he saw them as little more than animals.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

{E/c}

I forgot to say, even Lincoln, a northerner, was emphatic 100 years later that Negroes were inferior to whites and advocated deportation.

The new section, "Views of slaves and blacks," is great information, but for the sake of brevity in this article, I believe it should be in the daughter article. What do other editors think? Yopienso (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cmguy, RJensen helpfully split the issue into public and private views and actions. I believe the last paragraph of the "Plantation owner" section should be expanded and cited to highlight the criticism. Try your hand at it! (Succinctly.) Yopienso (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Section needs to be scaled down considerably. It is now the largest section in the biography, over three pages long. Once again, we have undue weight (and other) issues emerging all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated, Rjensen and Yopienso improved the slavery section. Thanks. Finkelman specifically lists the names of scholars who oppose Jefferson as anti-slavery. I do not believe this has been adequately addressed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The views on blacks and slaves needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of Jefferson as not anti-slavery has to do with Jefferson's both public and private life. The plantation owner segment only addresses his private life. As the article currently is written, the reader is forced to conclude that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The article currently states that there are scholars who view Jefferson as anti-slavery. That is good. I am not sure Finkelman is addressed correctly, since he believed that scholars created a "myth" that Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just redid the slavery section. What comments or concerns do you have about it?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert:As mentioned before, there are scholars who view that Jefferson was not anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As of right now the section is completely unacceptable because of size concerns. Brad (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, apparently Quark does not realize that this is suppose to be a summary, see Wikipedia:Summary style, and stop this foolishness with getting the page locked. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be condensed, but it needs to be condensed to something that is historically accurate, which it was not before.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Quark, you introduced at least 4 historical errors. I listed them above and corrected them, but you reverted my corrections. What errors do you believe I introduced? Yopienso (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely want you to correct any errors I might bring into the article, but you reverted everything instead. My change to the slavery section wasn't supposed to be a final version but the starting point of an effort to condense the many sources into a well-sourced and balanced section. Because of this I didn't delete much of what was there before, but rearranged it. When you revert the entire set of changes, we can't even begin this process.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please, Quark. This is a cooperative venture. If you would have introduced condensed material as you should have there is allot less we would all have to work together over. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fresh bloat

I've just removed a lot of bloat, imperfectly due to time constraints. I've asked Quark not to edit here until he can be more collaborative. Yopienso (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask me not to edit. Your blanket revision restored a very flawed version. Lets not start an edit war.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

For anybody's information, Quarkgluonsoup has reported me for edit warring. Yopienso (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery in lede

From the discussion above it appears that a single editor is claiming that Jefferson always opposed slavery, while everyone else agrees that his views were complex, changing, and at times contradictory, and this view is easily sourced. So can we agree that the lede needs to be changed to reflect this? If most editors here agree, I will make the change.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can show a long line of historical evidence to support your view you will be in luck. And kindly do not speak for "everyone". So far you have not produced one RS that says Jefferson's view on slavery changed. Again, there is much historical evidence at various points in his life that clearly shows him in opposition to slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are in complete denial that there are other historians that disagree that Jefferson was anti-slavery. I propose to state that Jefferson has traditionally been viewed as a life long foe of slavery. That puts the historical view of Jefferson and slavery in perspective. Then simply state that some modern scholars disagree with this view and state Jefferson was not anti-slavery. The reader then can understand that modern scholars are reassessing Jefferson and slavery. If there is a reliable source that states Jefferson's views are complex, changing, and contradictory, then the lede needs to reflect this opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am keenly aware of the other 'views', so much so that I can tell you they are not based on a long line of established historical fact. Numerous RS's say Jefferson opposed slavery all his life, including a source (Poplar Forest) that Yopienso just brought to the discussion. This is all based on Jefferson's actions. i.e.lawyers years, DOI language, emancipation legislation, slave trade, letters, speeches, etc. Everyone has a 'view', but the question you seem to be avoiding is 'are they based on established historical facts?' Historical facts, sourced, belong in the lede and slavery section. Views and speculations with no established historical evidence to back them belong in the reputation section, if anywhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep posting a source that says his views were complex and changing, and then claim they were not complex and changing.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a reading problem. Again this is what the sources says. Poplar Forest : Jefferson’s views on slavery and blacks are complex. It says nothing about Jefferson changing his views about slavery. Enough of your half baked conjecture. If you make any changes please make sure they involve historical fact and are backed by a RS that says 'Jefferson no longer opposed slavery', in no uncertain terms. And good luck with your 3rr claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are not the sole judge on the validity of sources and any attempt to do so is ownership of this article. Finkelman, Appleby, and Ferling are some of the most reliable and authentic authorites on Thomas Jefferson. Yet you deny their works simply because you disagree with them or other historians do not support their views. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rhetoric. If they are as reliable as you claim, present something from them that is based on historical facts. And if there was any basis to this view you would not have to cling to the same couple of sources all the time. Again, there are plenty of RS's, backed by historical evidence, that clearly outlines Jefferson as always being opposed to slavery. No one says you can't use Finkleman, only that speculations from any source be backed by historical facts, so again, you are just horn blowing, with no established historical facts to carry the ball any further for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you have made it clear that you have no interest in presenting anything other than your own personal view Jefferson, no matter how many sources contradict you.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No source has been presented that establishes Jefferson as not always being an opponent of slavery. Only criticism about his not freeing slaves, silence, etc. have been presented, once again, as we've discussed this before. Views: I have only added context to the stubby isolated claims regarding Jefferson and slaves, their lives and treatment, etc. Historical facts, (i.e.slave life at Monticello), not views. I have repeatedly asserted that the facts, all by themselves, will give the readers a clear picture of Jefferson's involvement with slaves and slavery. I have repeatedly pointed to a long line of established historical facts (ie.Starting with TJ's lawyer years, DOI, on through...) that establish Jefferson as a constant opponent of slavery, backed by numerous sources. And if you would bother to check your facts, I have made numerous concessions regarding my edits to this page, including recently. Next time you should take a long hard review of edit and discussion history before you start talking. It has already been asserted that Jefferson's view of slavery has been criticized for not freeing slaves, his general silence, etc., so it would seem that this is not your primary concern, only that someone reverted some of your undiscussed major editing. Dissenting views about Jefferson are allowed and exist in several sections already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

TJ wanted to grow slaves; I call that supporting slavery.

T. Jefferson said: "1 know no error more consuming to an estate than that of stocking farms with men almost exclusively. I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm. What she produces is an addition to capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption." Ibid., 45-46. T. Jefferson's keen awareness of the profit to be derived from the natural increase of his slaves is also shown in his observation that "our families of negroes double in 25 years which is an increase of the capital invested in them, 4. per cent over and above keeping up the original number." --William Cohen, p. 17, footnote 54.

The very fact that he was a slave owner, albeit a conflicted one, shows he supported the institution by his participation, regardless of his moral compunctions. His refusal to execute Kościuszko's will or accept his money in order to free the slaves shows tacit support.

Furthermore, he bought and sold slaves, had them whipped, occasionally turned a blind eye to abusive overseers, and made them work his plantation. He relied on their forced labor for his very living. That, my friend, supports slavery. It gives it a place and enables and perpetuates it.

See Post on the dichotomy:

"Jefferson’s Contradiction. . . liberty and slavery are the twin poles of the American experience,

and Jefferson embodies them both, in extremis." Yopienso (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, you have only pointed at Jefferson going along with the system of slavery while he was making efforts to end it. There are numerous actions that show Jefferson specifically opposing slavery. He has also made numerous statements specifically opposing slavery e.g."contrary to the laws of nature", an "abomination", etc, etc. It's like you're accusing someone of 'supporting war' because he had to fight in it. Not enough. You would need something to show where a person actually promoted the war on moral grounds. Where Jefferson is concerned, his main contractors can only speculate about what he didn't do and they have to ignore a lifetime of historical evidence to make it sound half believable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Article lock

The article has been locked so that the current dispute can cool off. I think we need to get a couple of facts straight on the topic of Jefferson's views on slavery:

• He had no moral qualms with enslaving blacks, and he saw them as little better than animals. Some editors are spinning this into some perverted form of benevolence or moral concern for them on his part.
• His treatment of his slaves showed how little he cared for their well-being. He beat them, separated them from their families permanently as punishment, freed only a handful, and bought and sold many.
• His concerns on slavery were only on its effects on whites, in particular the risk of slave uprisings and on its ability to corrupt whites.
• His only legislative actions against slavery were the proposal of a law to prohibit slavery in the territories in the 1780s (though it allowed slaves to be brought into them and would have freed none) and his singing of the law that ended the slave trade.
• He undermined other attempts to crack down on slavery (notably as chairman of the committee to revise Virginia's laws), and never joined the many others of his generation to push for emancipation or even manumission (he opposed manumission and almost never did it himself).

I have noticed that the quotes some editors have used to argue that he was against slavery out of moral concerns for blacks either badly distort and decontextualize the quote, or simply use fabricated quotes (I don't think anyone here is acting in bad faith, but that we have a bit of a telephone game effect going on with his quotes). Many of the citations in the slavery section before my changes to that section were badly misquoting the sources. People are conflating opposition to slavery due to the fear of uprisings with his racist belief that blacks were better off enslaved to claim that he opposed slavery out of paternalism and concern for blacks and moral opposition to slavery. This constructs a version of Jefferson that is completely foreign to he Jefferson of history.

What changes do the editors here want to make to the slavery section (besides condensing it)? What is wrong, out of context or unnecessary?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be pleased to work together with you on this.

• Your first two points above are unhistorical. The section would have to align with Monticello.org's take on TJ and slavery (also here) as well as D.B. Davis's. The 1911 Ency. Brit. is a good source for your angle that Jefferson's anti-slavery sentiments were political and pragmatic. Putting all sources together, he was against slavery both for the good of the Negroes and for the good of the [white] USA. The second footnote in the Enc. Brit. article says, " He owned at one time above 150 slaves. His overseers were under contract never to bleed them; but he manumitted only a few at his death." This was considered humane treatment in that day.
• We will need to remove the word "southern" wrt views on black inferiority; this was the general, not only the regional, view. See my links above (17:09, 23 July 2012) for Lincoln's superiority and advocacy of deportation.
• For brevity's sake, we'll have to remove the list of historians (or tuck them away in a note), the mention of Haiti, and the details of the slaves he freed.
• We'll have to source or remove, ". . .compared with other slave owning Virginians of his day, Jefferson was unusually hostile to the idea of emancipation. . ." If this refers to Edward Coles and Robert Carter, they were the exceptions.
• We'll have to restore and complete my conclusion to the section or craft another conclusion that reiterates the contradictions of the issue.
• We'll have to remove the section, "Views of slaves and blacks".

This list is not comprehensive, but is a starting point. Real life is picking up speed for me, and I'm not sure how much time I will be able to dedicate to helping, but I look forward to a collaborative effort. Yopienso (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On your points:

• Monitcello.org is the website for the foundation that runs part of his plantation and makes money by selling tours of it. It is a source with a conflicted interest, not an RS. Per wikipedia policy, "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." These are secondary sources written by scholars, not websites written by people trying to make money off of the reputation of the individual in question. Monitcello.org shouldn't be used at all because of its vested interest in Jefferson's reputation, and it certainly shouldn't be used when it conflicts with the work of scholars. It is odd that you cite Davis in support of a claim that Jefferson was anti-slavery, as he published a seminal work on the topic that settled whatever doubt was remaining that he was pro-slavery. I don't even see in your link where Davis says Jefferson was anti-slavery. An article from 1911 is too old to use, especially when so much has been written since. You confuse his low opinion of blacks with a concern for their well being.
• It is not true that most of Jefferson's day had a low opinion of blacks. If anything, most did not (don't confuse late 19th century racism with late 18th century racism), and those who did mostly thought it was because of their status as slaves. Jefferson was one of the few of his day to actually argue that they were inferior because of their race.
• I am all for brevity, but we can't have the article portray him as anti-slavery when he was not.
• See my prior comment.
• I am not sure what you want to say.
• We need a section on his view of blacks, or a least integrate the core of it into the larger slavery section.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your input. I'm responding to your responses in hopes other editors will join the discussion and, with compromise on all sides, we can move forward.

1. In April there was consensus that Monticello.org (but not the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation!) is a RS for this article.

2. Henry Louis Gates (quoting Hume and Kant) and A. Leon Higginbotham (deceased) think blacks were always deemed inferior. I realize they are in all likelihood biased, but they are respected scholars. Shakespeare's Othello shows 16th-century Venice discriminated against "Moors." Look at Julien-Joseph Virey's 1801 illustration. Or consider the Negro's place in the 18th-century's Great Chain of Being. During the Revolution, New Hampshire lumped Negroes with "lunatics and idiots" as exempt from bearing arms. The notion of black inferiority was not peculiar to southern whites. (Maybe we can get rid of these unwieldy links after we've adjusted the article.)

3. We have discussed at great length the paradox of Jefferson's being both anti- and pro-slavery. Davis, in The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823, writes, ". . .he was one of the first statesmen in any part of the world to advocate concrete measures for restricting and eradicating Negro slavery" (174) and, "The truth was that Jefferson had only a theoretical interest in promoting the cause of abolition" (178). We have also long discussed the difference between his words and actions. You saw fit to remove my line, "This fact conflicted with his Enlightenment ideals, causing lifelong contradictions between his public rhetoric and his daily realities."

4. "See my prior comment." Sorry, I can't make the connection with any statement by you or me.

5. I want to say something to this effect: Some modern historians criticize Jefferson for perpetuating slavery; others praise him for propounding ideals that eventually bore the fruit of freedom for African-American slaves. (The NY Times's review of the Smithsonian exhibit ends, If slavery was, throughout global history, the rule, the exception was the last 200 years of gradual worldwide abolition. And Jefferson, for all his “deplorable entanglement,” helped make it possible.)

6. We certainly need it in the daughter article; consensus here seems to be it's too much for this one. Yopienso (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On your comments:

1. Wikipedia is not a Wikiality, Monticello.org is not an RS, especially when scholarly works contradict it. Odd that you would conclude that it is when you admit that the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation is not, since this is the website for that foundation.

2. Gates was a 20th century poet and Higginbotham was a 20th century judge, so I don't know why that is relevant. You are looking for bits and pieces of the historical record to validate your claim, which is prohibited on Wikipedia as it is original research. The fact is that Jefferson's views on blacks were based on scientific racism, which was rare before the mid 19th century. In any case this is relevant, as this article is not trying to compare his views to others, but to describe his views.

3. There is no paradox in Jefferson being proslavery and antislavery because he wasn't antislavery. There is, however, a paradox due to him writing that "all men are created equal" while being proslavery.

4. OK

5. No serious scholars make that argument, nor would any give him credit for events that happened long after his death.

6. I agree that this article is too long, but it needs to be condensed in a way that makes it historically accurate.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I meant the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. I wasn't involved in that discussion, which I hope you've read. Contradicting a group of editors Dismissing consensus isn't the best way to collaborate. Adding: You would need to discuss this.

2. Gates is a scholar on black culture. Do you remember Pres. Obama's "Beer Summit"?

I see I didn't say in my edit summary that I moved the "Views of slaves and blacks" section to the daughter article. Anyone frustrated at not being able to edit this one could tackle that one. Yopienso (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note Let's not go back to this useless just attack the sources. (It's always blanket statements like 'yours are all bad because their lying or corrupt'). As was discussed, the TJ Foundation is a publisher of high quality secondary and tertiary sources, and it has an expertise on Jefferson and Monticello. Its website (monticello.org) in its history pages is a tertiary source, (although where there are academic papers on it those would be secondary). Secondary sources are what is wanted for detailed information. If there are intractable disputes that cannot be resolved about a particular sentence and a particular source, take it to the reliable sources notice board. (Any sentence in a source should be read in full context both of itself and other sources -- sections do not align with one source as may have been suggested above) I would suggest you guys sandbox it for a few days (if one of you is willing to offer your sandbox) Finally, Jefferson had various clashing moral concerns (many were for whites and the United States) but one of them (perhaps not paramount) was the proper treatment of slaves and Africans (see, eg his letter to his friend where he asked him to keep and protect them). Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See also, this list of sources TJF/slavery/race Biblio searchAlanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of article-size...

Just ran the Page size utility on the article. Want some stats?

Document statistics:

File size: 543 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 123 kB

References (including all HTML code): 22 kB

Wiki text: 170 kB

Prose size (text only): 83 kB (13535 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 1501 B

This is what WP:SIZERULE states:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 50kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40kB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.

And it seems that this article is somewhere near #660 on the List of Long pages (last I looked it is apparently at #661 at [173,198 bytes]), but not sure how the size is assessed for this grouping: Longest Wikipedia articles. I know I haven't edited this article much lately, but maybe we all should

Think

Think before we add anything more to this article...

Food for thought anyway... Shearonink (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't realize it had been locked (again...that's twice it's gotten full-protection in the past six months?), but for everyone to keep in mind the sheer size of the article would probably be a good thing. This is assuming, of course, that the article does get unlocked... Shearonink (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been ever vigilant about the size of this article and there are several archived threads about this. Most recently the article has dropped from about 15,000 words which is good progress but naturally this is ignored and pumped up almost constantly. There is a lot of information about TJ still missing from the article that needs to be covered which will only increase that word count unless serious summary style is adhered to in existing sections. Brad (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

{E/c}So our readable prose text size is 83 kB. I looked up Jefferson in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, notorious for long articles. Theirs is, according to my word processor, 8145 words long, with 50525 characters, including notes and a bibliography "Authorities" which are far briefer than our refs, notes, etc. I think that's about 49 kBs. Conclusion: 50 kB of readable text may be a good goal. Yopienso (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The trend at WP these days seems to be allowing articles to exceed the 10,000 word limit quite often. Several featured articles are over that by several thousand words. I'm not suggesting that we should abandon the guideline of 10,000 words but with a topic like TJ you have to expect that it will. I've said elsewhere that a realistic goal for this article would fall somewhere around 11-13,000 words. But editors keep ignoring this because spin-off articles don't allow for main-stream grandstanding of their pov. Brad (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked page, once again

Q' you're a lose cannon. You've come through this page like a bulldozer making numerous major changes/deletions most often without discussion or edit summaries. Looking at recent history it's clear you are almost entirely responsible for and have provoked at least two edit wars that have now resulted in the blocking of the page. And what do we have for all your trouble? -- a section that is almost four pages long that looks like it was thrown together by a high school student with an attitude problem. Once the page is unblocked we need to do a major revert and start over -- with DISCUSSIONS first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you continue edit warring, you will do yourself no favors.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Like the banner says above here:

Please adhere to it. Brad (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, please tread lightly wrt edit warring. As far as I know, you're the only participating editor who has been warned and blocked for edit warring in the past. Please take to heart the message Gwillickers inelegantly expressed. Yopienso (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should tread lightly on this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean you should stop blustering about it. Yopienso (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two hot button issues with this article; slavery and Sally Hemings. Ouark, you cannot just come in and dick-slap either of these sections without discussion. Disputes here have been going on for at least the past 18 months and it's been a lot of hard work and discussion to get things where they are now. Your tactics are to make substantial changes without discussion and then report people for edit warring when they revert you. That's really annoying underhanded behavior. Knock it off. Brad (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Course of action

In three days we will be facing the same issues so we need a general consensus about how to rebuild the section. Above work has begun on a draft for the intro'. Now we need to come to terms about the bigger picture before we start hacking out all the details and 'views'. Section length. Not long ago many of us concurred to scale these sections down and between the few of us we did it. This is why it's important (and considerate) that editors review page/talk history before they plunge the article into the same problems that were previously resolved. Three to four pages for this one topic presents us with a glaring undue weight issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

• I propose no more than one full page. (+ -) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what "page count" is? It's a very strange and incomprehensible way to talk about size since users will have their own screen sizes and settings. How about saying 500 words + or - 100? Brad (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For example, the section is currently at 1,602 words. Brad (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have a wide screen, and of course, if I adjust my hardware and/or browser settings I could render a page to include lots of text. However, to make reading easier I use default browser settings (Firefox) for text and a separate window, not the full width of my screen, as I don't want to have to turn my head back and forth when I'm reading and writing. For all practical purposes I would say a page is about, yes, 500 words, more or less. In any case, the section has bloated out, once again, and it needs to be de-bloated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

At User:Dr pda/prosesize read about installing or using the tool for realistic judgment of article sizes. Brad (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly interesting. For my calculations above, I copied and pasted into a word processor and counted there. The directions don't say how to install on Google Chrome. Do you know how? Yopienso (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't install to a browser but to your .js page; here's mine User:Brad101/monobook.js. Putting it there means the tool is active all of the time. If you don't want it that way you can simply put the code into the address bar of your browser for the count results. Brad (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I just realized that it doesn't appear like the script will work with Google Chrome at all but you could certainly try it. Brad (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

About ten days ago the 'Slavery' section looked like this. I did a rough count of about 650 words. We shouldn't try to be too rigid about any particular number but 5 to 6 hundred words seems about right. If a few contributing editors, or anyone, would weigh on this we could go from there. i.e.Historical content, closing with equal weight from both camps among historians. I'm even open to letting ASW and Brad write/draft the section if it can be done in a few days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that each time I bring up word counts someone will say not to be rigid on word count. I've never suggested any such thing. When I say 500 words it doesn't mean that it can't be 501 or 100 words higher. Since the section is currently 1,600 words then setting a goal to chop off 1000 words is not unreasonable.

Secondly, the section should be returned to the version that existed before rjenson made his monumental addition without discussion. However, rjenson's work should not simply be wiped out but transferred the main slavery article. It's a good write up despite its size. If we return to the pre-rjenson version, it wasn't far from being finished so the work going on above here to reconstruct the section is time wasted. Brad (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as long as we can get the section back to a reasonable size with neutral language that would be fine by me also, but now we have to settle on which version to restore -- then, where to go from there. Neutral and brief are the operative themes here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)