Talk:Sally Hemings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sally Hemmings was 9 in 1782 when Martha Jefferson Died

I tweaked this... she was 9-years-old in 1782 at the death of his wife Martha Jefferson, who was the half-sister of Sally Hemings. 73.85.202.240 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sally Hemmings didn’t return to Monticello because of her family

What was Sally Hemmings supposed to do? Emancipate herself in France when Thomas Jefferson owned everyone she loved and could legally beat them to death? Please change that speculation that a slave ever had choices and she CHOSE to return because she missed her family. She didn’t fall in love with Jefferson. She was not allowed to say “no”. She was a slave, and seen as 3/5 of a person. Why would this be written with the tone that any of this was voluntary? No 16 year old slave “fell in love” with an old white man who owned her and denied her consent. He never freed her... she died his slave. They were not in love, and she was not “in a relationship with him.” Again... he owned her. She had no say in the matter. Egregious romanticism of Rape and Slavery. Please change the Strong speculative tone In this article to reflect the actual truth of the matter. DollyAva (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The wiki article Jefferson-Hemings controversy includes a relevant bit of text:

Gordon-Reed is frequently asked about the emotional relationship between Jefferson and Hemings when giving talks. She writes, "In all the venues I have visited, from Houston to Stockholm, one question always arises: Did they love each other?" The question brings up many thorny issues in the context of a master-slave relationship. "Rape and the threat of it blighted the lives of countless enslaved women," she notes. "At the same time, some black women and white men did form bonds quite different in character than from those resulting from sexual coercion."

Attic Salt (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Page protection request

Page protection request

• Sally Hemings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Attic Salt (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Paternity of Sally Hemings' male children

This article asserts that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of Sally Hemings' children. This assertion is based on the finding that a descendant of Hemings' youngest son carried a Y chromosome belonging to haplogroup K2. Based, on historical accounts, it has been postulated that Randolph Jefferson was the actual father of Sally Hemings' youngest son and perhaps her other children. Regardless, the available information does not establish that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings' youngest son, and this appears to be unlikely. It is possible that a patrilineal relative of Thomas Jefferson fathered Hemings' youngest son. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17274013/

This article demonstrates a social pathology present in many wikipedia articles where a particular political or cultural point of view distorts the accuracy of the article. Based on review of the edit history and the archives of this talk page, there does not appear to be a path forward at this time for correcting the errors in the Sally Hemings wikipedia article. Perhaps a study of this social pathology will identify a corrective measure for this problem. Sbelknap (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not following your reasoning. Why do you say that it appears "unlikely" that Jefferson was the father of Eston? Certainly the fact that Sally Hemings was Jefferson's slave, and that she was often in his company, is part of the evidence, in addition to the DNA evidence which you seem to doubt. The abstract of the article you cite (by King et al.) is not (to me) especially clear on the subject of paternity; perhaps the article itself is clearer, but it is behind a paywall.

Also, note that this Wikipedia article says the following:

Since 1998 and the DNA study,[54] several historians have concluded that Jefferson maintained a long sexual relationship with Hemings and fathered six children with her, four of whom survived to adulthood. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), which runs Monticello, conducted an independent historic review in 2000, as did the National Genealogical Society in 2001; scholars concluded Jefferson was probably the father of all Hemings' children.[8][56] In an article that appeared in Science,[57] eight weeks after the DNA study, Eugene Foster, the lead co-author of the DNA study, is reported to have "made it clear that Thomas was only one of eight or more Jeffersons who may have fathered Eston Hemings".[58]

What is "pathological" about this?

Attic Salt (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead for the Sally Hemings article contains false statements. Dr. Eugene Foster analyzed the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings and those of a paternal uncle of Thomas Jefferson. This analysis found that Hemings' eldest son, did not carry the haplogroup K2 Y chromosome, and therefore was not the descendent of any Jefferson male. Hemings' youngest son did carry the haplogroup K2 Y chromosome and may have been a descendent of a Jefferson, but this test does not speak as to which of the 25 Jefferson men in Virgina at that time was the father. It really would be better to look at the scientific sources but if you don't have access to these, here's a link that describes these findings: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/primer.html

Sbelknap (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Trying to stay on track, at first you were discussing Jefferson's youngest son, now you are discussing his (possible) oldest son, Tom Woodson. As I understand it, the Foster DNA tests indicate that Woodson was not Jefferson's. I don't know of a reliable source saying that he was Hemmings's son. This site: [1] indicates that he is probably not Hemmings's son. So, I don't know where you are going with this. Attic Salt (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lead of the current article states, "Jefferson had a long-term sexual relationship with Hemings, and he was the father of her six children." This statement is false. The available genetic evidence does not support the assertion that all of Sally Hemings' children were fathered by Thomas Jefferson. Sbelknap (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It is overly definitive, though that is the assessment of most historians. Attic Salt (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The cited source is the New York Times, which at one time was considered a reliable source by many people, and is still considered such for purposes of wikipedia editing. In this case, the NY Times source clearly has got it wrong. Jefferson was not the father of all of Hemings' children. Will this falsehood be allowed to stand in wikipedia despite clear evidence otherwise? Sbelknap (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is an accurate statement that I propose be substituted for the inaccurate second sentence of the lead. "An analysis of the Y-chromosome of living male descendants of Sally Hemings found that her eldest son was not fathered by any Jefferson and that her youngest son may have been related to some Jefferson male, though not necessarily Thomas Jefferson." Sbelknap (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that the issue of Tom Woodson has been previously discussed here: [2] and [3] and given that there is apparently no documentary evidence that Tom Woodson was the son of Hemmings: [4], you're going to need some pretty darn good sources to justify the addition you propose. Until then, there isn't much to talk about on this subject. Attic Salt (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Tom Woodson links you gave do not contradict the sentence I proposed. The current second sentence of the lead is false, as the patrilineal descendants of Hemings' oldest son do not have the Jefferson haplogroup K2 Y chromosome. There isn't any genetic evidence supporting any Jefferson patrimony of the next four children, and the youngest son has the haplogroup K2 Y chromosome, which was not unique to Thomas Jefferson. There are not multiple lines of evidence supporting the assertion that Jefferson fathered any of Hemings' children. There is no consensus among historians that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. I've read through all the edit comments and the talk pages on this. Please explain your analysis, Attic Salt. Sbelknap (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Failure of NPOV regarding Jefferson fathering Hemings' children

Why does it say that Sally's maternal grandmother (Elizabeth Hemings' mother) was called Susanna? The sources are Annette Gordon-Reeds book and Madison Hemning's statements, none of those mention a Susanna. Gordon-Reed says the grandmother's name might have been Parthenia, but also says that we can't know for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.23.235 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. It might be related to the family tree that somebody developed (from Wikipedia) and is in the article: [5]. I'm going to take this family tree out of the article. I also note that the Betty Hemings article does not mention "Susanna" but does mention the speculation by Gordon-Reeds that her name might have been "Parthenia". Will address, and thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of historical and Genetic Evidence that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children

This article asserts, in wikipedia voice, that "Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Jefferson had a long-term sexual relationship with Hemings, and the consensus among historians is that he was the father of her six children." There is no such consensus. In fact, neither the historical evidence nor the genetic evidence supports such a definitive statement. My attempt to correct this serious error was reverted. Here is the statement I added with a high quality reliable source:

Specifically, the Y-chromosome of a descendent of Eston Hemings was of haplogroup K2, which although a relatively rare European clade, does not prove that Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings' children.King TE, Bowden GR, Balaresque PL, Adams SM, Shanks ME, Jobling MA (April 2007). "Thomas Jefferson's Y chromosome belongs to a rare European lineage". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 132 (4): 584–9. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20557. PMID 17274013.

Sbelknap (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This article cherrypicks the available historical evidence and mischaracterizes the genetic evidence as definitive, when it most certainly is not. The article represents the view point of Brodie, Gordon-Reed and Burstein and omits the viewpoint of other historians. Sbelknap (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See also Holowchak, Mark (2013). Framing a legend : exposing the distorted history of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1616147296.

Sbelknap (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems it's not the article doing the cherry picking. Anyways, we cover the debate at Jefferson–Hemings controversy. We should acknowledge the existence of the minority viewpoint in this article, but your proposed edit doesn't do a great job of neutrally communicating that viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It is undeniably the case that the article cherry picks its sources. Those reliable sources that conclude that Thomas Jefferson did not father Sally Hemings children are omitted from the article. If one reviews the edit history for oneself, one can see that text citing these RS has previously been proposed for inclusion and that such text was reverted or removed. Citing some RS while omitting other RS with a different conclusion is the very essence of what cherry picking sources is. Sbelknap (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We already acknowledge the existence of a minority viewpoint in the article already. We do not need to spell out minority views in detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a minority viewpoint. The various articles that touch on the Jefferson paternity question all misstate the meaning of the finding that a descendent of Eston Hemings had a Y chromosome of haplogroup K2. This most definitely does *not* establish that Jefferson fathered Hemings children. The current Sally Hemings article is simply wrong on this point. Sbelknap (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, the neutrality of this article is in dispute. The removal of the NPOV tag from the front of the article is inappropriate. Please see WP:NPOV. Sbelknap (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does not say that Jefferson's paternity is "established". It says that Eston's paternity is from "the Jefferson male line". It then uses words such as "likely" and "probably" to say the same paternity probably applied to her other children, or that the father was likely Jefferson himself. It attributes the opinion to scholars. It also acknowledges that some disagree. That's neutrality. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. The assertion that it is neutral is simply false. The second sentence of the lead states, "Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Jefferson had a long-term sexual relationship with Hemings, and the consensus among historians is that he was the father of her six children." The second paragraph of the lead then states, "Following renewed historical analysis in the late 20th century and a 1998 DNA study that found a match between the Jefferson male line and a descendant of Hemings' last son, Eston Hemings, the Monticello Foundation asserted that Jefferson fathered Eston and likely her other five children as well.[4] However, there are some who disagree." The use of the term "Jefferson male line" will imply to most readers that Jefferson is the father of Eston. The presence of a K2 Y chromosome in a descendent of Sally Hemings does not carry this implication at all. The lead is misleading. I note that previous attempts to correct the misleading and false content of the Sally Hemings article have resulted in reversion or removal of reliable sources. This is a matter of dispute among historians (and wikipedia editors), and that dispute ought be reflected in the article. The current article cherry picks sources, excludes reliable sources with an alternate point of view, and asserts that there is a consensus of historians on this matter, when there most certainly is no such consensus among historians. Sbelknap (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

25 other Jefferson men with the same K2 Y chromosome haplotype were in Virginia at the time of conception of Eston. Eight of them made frequent visits to Monticello. Thomas Jefferson was frail and ill at the time of Eston's conception. This article presents the paternity of Eston as established, based on historical and genetic information. In fact, it is unlikely that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston. Sbelknap (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a first-person account of the erroneous title of the Nature article on the K2 haplotype Y chromosome evidence. https://jeffersondnastudy.com/background-dna-study/ Sbelknap (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You are conflating your disagreement with neutrality. Your claim that a consensus of historians seriously dispute a sexual relationship between TJ and Hemings is laughable. VQuakr (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There has been no such claim. Instead, there is the obvious fact that there is no consensus of historians on this matter. That is different. Let us focus on content here. The NY Times article that is cited in support of the second sentence in the lead describes a "growing consensus", not a consensus. It also mentions that the information about Jefferson fathering Hemings' children is "presented as fact" not that it is an established fact. If you have a RS that states that there is a consensus of historians that TJ fathered Hemings' children, please provide that RS. No such RS is in evidence at present. There is also cherry picking of RS. Two dissenting sources are in the "further reading" section, but are not cited in line. Instead, TJ's paternity is presented as fact with statements indicating that "some disagree." This is not an accurate rendering of the available secondary sources. Sbelknap (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

from: https://www.sallyhemings.org "The Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission, consisting of thirteen distinguished academics from across the nation, independently examined all of the evidence for and against Thomas Jefferson’s paternity of one or more of Sally Hemings’ children. Working without compensation at the request of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, the scholars concluded that, “the allegation is by no means proven; and we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people.”"Sbelknap (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, you seem to be confusing "proven" with "evidence". No one here is asserting that paternity is proven, and the second sentence of the lede, to which you object, doesn't assert proof. Please consider. Attic Salt (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, you asked for a RS on "consensus". How about this one? [6]. It is from PBS Frontline, which you had previously cited: [7]. Attic Salt (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lead asserts that "the consensus among historians is that he was the father of her six children" There is not such a consensus. In fact, the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission, which sought to establish such a consensus, concluded that this allegation of paternity is unproven. Please see the report of this commission at sallyhemings.org. The neutrality of this article is clearly in dispute. As per wikipedia policies, please do not remove the NPOV tag until the dispute is resolved. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The executive summary of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission states that, "With the exception of one member, whose views are set forth both below and in his more detailed appended dissent, our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly false." It is quite odd that this information is in a footnote and not covered in the article. It is also absurd that the lead makes a statement that there is a consensus among historians that TJ was the father, when the actual commission report expresses serious skepticism. Sbelknap (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In citing the Scholars Commission, you neglected to note that the report was issued 20 years ago. There has been a lot of additional research and study since then - including the 2007 study that you cite above. Several organizations - the Monticello Foundation and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation - have now gone so far as to assert Thomas's paternity as fact. We do not do that in Wikipedia's voice; we attribute it to them. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have links to the "lot of additional research"? Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Rape?

There are claims that Jefferson actually forced her (since she was his slave she had no choice). Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 21:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That will forever remain the question history leaves us, I don’t expect it’s knowable. Leaving aside the sticky question of what constitutes force it doesn’t seem like their relationship was antagonistic at all, quite the opposite to be frank. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is it possible some commentators may also be concerned over her age? Her age, during her 26 months in Paris, was 14-16 or 17. By today's standards, a middle-aged man having sexual relations with a young teenager, is rape, even if she wasn't a slave, and was actually an enthusiastic participant. Geo Swan (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fairly cut and dry. Regardless of motive someone who can't revoke consent without consequences beyond their control cannot give consent. This is why children, prisoners, institutional patients, and any other person who does not have power over themselves cannot give valid consent. Av slave who has no more legal protections than a chair will definitely fit that description. As a result these encounters were rape. Even if no direct threat was made refusal to do as he wanted would possibly carry dire (even fatal) consequences. To argue she wasn't aware of that is to rob her of her humanity and to regard her as less capable.

Plenty of rapists don't have antagonistic relationships with their victims - they just choose victims who they know must say yes and play along regardless.

The fact that being Jefferson's plaything definitely would yield better treatment than if she refused is also implicit coercion; especially since that treatment likely meant a reprieve from violence as well. Aria.c.s (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You cannot invoke a crime, and define that crime according to modern (and in some respects, US-specific) criteria, iro a time before the crime was defined in that way. Certainly by modern standards Hemings did not, and could not meaningfully have consented, since the power relationship was so unequal, but however we feel about it - it is not meaningful to apply modern criteria. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That it was an unequal relationship is clear. Interpretations of this relationship should be attributed to sources instead of being stated in Wikipedia's voice. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Whitehouse Years

Did Sally live in the president's residence when Jefferson was president? If so, what position did she have? Or, did she remain at Monticello for the entire time? What was her life like while Jefferson was president? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodExplainer (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

She remained at Monticello for the entire time, as far as we know. Libertybison (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The PBS Frontline episode

I watched this 2000 episode. IIRC it relied on the Y chromosome. Researchers had to find male descendants of Hemmings sons, who descended down an unbroken male line. It is why speculation that her children were fathered by Jefferson's uncle or nephews could not be dismissed, as they were so closely related they would share the same Y chromosome as Jefferson.

Well, that was 20 years ago, and DNA testing was more expensive and less powerful then. However more modern testing taken place? Geo Swan (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, another interesting thing about the Frontline episode, as the DNA evidence was being compiled descendants of Hemmings were preparing to sue an exclusive club, only open to descendants of Jefferson. At the time its membership were all white, of course, and generally wealthy. However, there was no lawsuit, no need for a lawsuit, as the club changed its policy, opening its membership to anyone who could claim they descended from anyone who lived on Jefferson's estates, during his lifetime. The episode showed a nice ceremony where the exisitng members welcomed the Hemming descendants into the club. Geo Swan (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The most recent DNA testing was the Foster study. Foster, E., Jobling, M., Taylor, P. et al. Jefferson fathered slave's last child. Nature 396, 27–28 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/23835

The title of the Foster article is in error. Here is an interesting first-person account of how this came to be: https://jeffersondnastudy.com/background-dna-study/

Sbelknap (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, the title has not been corrected, and a WordPress blog set up to dispute it is not a reliable source. See also WP:RS. Oh, and note what RS have to say about contemporaneous references to Jefferson's "conversations with Egeria". Guy (help!) 13:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The implied assertion of certainty in the title *has* been corrected by the authors, Foster et al. See: Foster, E., Jobling, M., Taylor, P. et al. Reply: The Thomas Jefferson paternity case. Nature 397, 32 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/16181 Sbelknap (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, And as they say, the simplest explanation is the one that is supported by, for example, Monticello. Guy (help!) 14:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And they agreed in their reply to critics that their initial conclusion was wrong. The Y chromosome DNA analysis provides no certainty as to who fathered Hemings children. So why doesn't it say that in the Sally Hemings wikipedia article? Sbelknap (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing evidence with "no certainty". The article says that the DNA test showed a "match between the Jefferson male line and the Eston Hemings descendant." I believe that is an accurate summary of the DNA results. Attic Salt (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We are writing for a lay audience. The term "Jefferson" is used elsewhere in the article (and by convention) to mean "Thomas Jefferson." Most people will interpret "Jefferson male line" as meaning "descendents of Thomas Jefferson." It is incumbent upon us to state things clearly so that our intended audience will not misinterpret what is said. The actual finding is that a descendent of Sally Hemings has a Y chromosome of the K2 haplotype. The K2 haplotype is not restricted to Thomas Jefferson, nor to Jeffersons more broadly. This article also states with certainty that Jefferson fathered Hemings children when many scholars, including a Commission of eminent scholars, strongly disagree with this conclusion.Sbelknap (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You say that we are writing for the lay audience. But you seem to be suggesting that we say something like "Sally Hemings has a Y chromosome of the K2 haplotype". I don't think that qualifies as lay language. It also doesn't summarise the bottom line about a "match between the Jefferson male line". Then, you say that the article "states with certainty that Jefferson fathered Hemings children". Where does it say that? Attic Salt (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We have an article in wikipedia about the Y chromosome Haplotype K2. It doesn't seem so difficult to explain the simple facts of this matter in lay language. Sbelknap (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sally Hemings was a woman, so she wouldn't have had a Y chromosome of any haplotype. Sbelknap (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lead states "Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Jefferson had a long-term sexual relationship with Hemings, and historians now broadly agree that he was the father of her six children." This would be read by most lay readers as indicating a high degree of certainty on the matter. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case; the consensus among historians is that Jefferson did not father Hemings' children. Please read the Commission report and you will see that this is the case. Sbelknap (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please try to use your own words more carefully. The article does not state anywhere that there is "certainty" and "Sally Hemings has a Y chromosome of the K2 haplotype" is not lay language (I hope we can agree on that). In an effort to tend to your concerns by adjusting language as here: [8]. Attic Salt (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sally Hemings is female. Sally Hemings does not have a Y chromosome. Sbelknap (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point, I truncated your words. I should have included this: "a descendent of Sally Hemings has a Y chromosome of the K2 haplotype". Those are still not lay words. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The current article asserts, "…John Weeks Jefferson is the Eston Hemings descendant whose DNA was tested in 1998; it matched the Y-chromosome of the Thomas Jefferson male line." This is simply false. There are many other men who also had the same Y chromosome haplotype. Referring to this as "the Y-chromosome of the Thomas Jefferson male line" is simply wrong." There are other Jeffersons with the same Y chromosome haplotype. There are other men not named Jefferson with the same Y chromosome haplotype. Sbelknap (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You wanted to cite the paper by King et al.: [9]. It is in this article now: [10]. In the King et al. paper it says: "Our findings show that firm conclusions can be difficult to draw, but taken together are consistent with Jefferson’s patrilineage belonging to an ancient and rare indigenous west European type; they also increase the strength of the evidence that Thomas Jefferson, or one of his patrilineal relatives, rather than some unrelated man, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson." So, while there were other men not named Jefferson with such genetic signatures, they were few and far between, and they were not living with Hemings. Jefferson was. Attic Salt (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The commission report is a minority viewpoint. See cherry picking. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was some other report of a commission of scholars that studied the paternity of Sally Hemings children. Do you have a link to that? Sbelknap (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"These two publications caused historians to re-evaluate the evidence and to conclude that it was likely that Jefferson and Hemings had a sexual relationship. Indeed the relationship was quickly accepted as a new orthodoxy." [11] p171, emphasis mine. The whole chapter is a good read actually, lays out the historiography quite nicely. Long story short, since everyone involved has been dead for more than a century there's no absolute proof but it's extremely likely Thomas Jefferson fathered Heming's children. I also personally find that Joseph Ellis, who was a major critic of the Jefferson-Heming connection, did a complete volte-face when the DNA evidence came out to be rather telling. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors, we don't include our own personal original research as content in wikipedia articles. See WP:OR. The consensus among scholars is as follows: "In 2000, the newly formed Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society asked a group of more than a dozen senior scholars from across the country to carefully examine all of the evidence for and against the allegations that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by Sally Hemings, one of his slaves, and to issue a public report. In April 2001, after a year of study, the Scholars Commission issued the most detailed report to date on the issue. With but a single mild dissent, the views of the distinguished panel ranged from serious skepticism to a conviction that the allegation was almost certainly false. This volume, edited by Scholars Commission Chairman Robert F. Turner, includes the Final Report--essentially a summary of arguments and conclusions--as it was released to the press on April 12, 2001. However, several of the statements of individual views--which collectively total several hundred carefully footnoted pages and constitute the bulk of the book--have been updated and expanded to reflect new insights or evidence since the report was initially released." Source: Turner, Robert (2011). The Jefferson-Hemings controversy : report of the Scholars Commission. Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press. ISBN 0890890854. Sbelknap (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason, repeated attempts to correct the egregious errors in the Sally Hemings article have failed. Perhaps the information preserved in the edit comments and on this talk page may be useful to those who are interested in the facts. Sbelknap (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As already noted in the article, the opinion of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS) is a "minority opinion". Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The opinion of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society is not relevant. What is relevant is the report of the Scholars Commission on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. The sources you cite do not establish that the report of the Scholars Commission is a minority opinion. In fact, the consensus of these scholars is the opposite of what is stated in the wikipedia Sally Hemings article. Sbelknap (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Commission was formed at the behest of the Society. The Commission's findings are still generally regarded as a minority view. Attic Salt (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The members of the commission were unpaid. There were no restrictions on their research, analysis, or reporting. These were independent, eminent scholars. There is simply no other source that is better qualified to render judgement on the issue of paternity of Sally Hemings' children. The Commissions findings represent the current consensus among scholars. The wikipedia article lists the Report of the Commission but does not explicitly cite their findings in the article. That is quite interesting. For whatever reason, the Sally Hemings article has been politicized and reflects a bizarre contrafactual point of view. This issue is clearly in dispute, yet when the POV tag is affixed, as per wikipedia policy, this is removed without resolving the issue. Engaged editors are encouraged to adhere to wikipedia policies. Sbelknap (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in this discussion is clear. Your inability to accept it is not WP's problem: it is not our job to satisfy you. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No RS citations have been given supporting the assertion that there is a consensus among historians that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children. One RS supports the assertion that there *is* a consensus among historians that TJ probably was not the father of Sally Hemings children. Sbelknap (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The source I provided says exactly that. By contrast the Final Report of the commission that Turner chaired does not say anything about the consensus among historians. It expresses the consensus of thirteen scholars involved in the project without any reference to the views of the rest of the profession. The majority of historians were not convinced by the Final Report, hence why a scholarly book published a decade afterwards refers to TJ fathering Sally Hemings' children as the "new orthodoxy". --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the book you are citing? I have. Cogliano nowhere states, implies, or concludes anything like, "The majority of historians were not convinced by the Final Report." Your assertion is simply false. It seems OK to cite Cogliano as a RS, but it is absurd to suppress the actual conclusion of the Final Report of the Commission from the Sally Hemings article. The most interesting observation about this article is that the only actual report of a consensus among scholars presents a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to the POV presented in the Sally Hemings article, yet the conclusions of that Commission are not explicitly given anywhere in the article. Why do you think that is? Sbelknap (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Final Report of the Scholars Commission *is itself* a report of a consensus among historians. That it is given short shrift in this article is distinctly odd. Sbelknap (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap: On pages 183-184 of Cogliano [12] it says the following: "For most of the twentieth century serious Jefferson scholars denied the likelihood of a sexual relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. That, by 2001, the primary ‘defense’ of Jefferson was maintained by a fringe group espousing reactionary politics and employing hysterical rhetoric is testimony to how quickly the historiographical consensus regarding the Jefferson-Hemings question shifted in 1997–8." That, to me, sounds pretty much like an assessment that the Scholars Commission is a "minority view". I'm going to add this to article. Attic Salt (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap:I'm intereted in your response to this quote I've taken from the book you said that you read. Attic Salt (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The author is referring here to the members of the TJHS, not to the Scholars Commission. Please read the Report of the Scholars Commission, which provides some information on the Commission members themselves. Sbelknap (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, the preceding discussion was of David N. Mayer, a member of the Scholars Commission. But perhaps I'm just a textualist. When Cogliano says "fringe group", he means more than one person. Attic Salt (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The preceding discussion was not of David N. Mayer. Instead, the preceding discussion on that page was of John Works, in the context of his role as the president of TJHS. Cogliano is clearly referring to the TJHS here and not to Mayer. Sbelknap (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph discusses both David N. Mayer and John H. Works. Mayer was a member of the Scholars Commission and John H. Works was president of the TJHS which commisssioned the Commision. I don't see anything, here, by Cogliano that shines good light on either the TJHS or it Commission. Attic Salt (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cogliano describes the findings of the scholars commission without offering any criticism at all. From the context, his use of the term "fringe group" is very clearly intended to apply to TJHS and not the Scholars Commission. You might want to read the whole thing. Sbelknap (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There are also several cited sources on "consesus" and the "minority" view in the article section Jefferson–Hemings controversy. Attic Salt (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I've read those cited sources, however its been a few months. I'll take a look and see if there is anything new. I've also read most of the sources cited for this Sally Hemings article. It appears to me that the information about TJ's paternity of Hemings' children that is presented in the wikipedia articles for Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and Jefferson–Hemings controversy is contrafactual. This appears to be yet another example of a peculiar wikipedia pathology, where RS are cited or included in the 'primary sources' or 'further reading' but the information presented in the actual article is flat out wrong, contradicting the sources. One possible strategy for a person seeking accurate knowledge would be to write a simple program to scrape the cited sources, the edit comments, and the talk pages (including archives) and to then use an NLP agent to digest this information and present it in some accessible manner. Interesting problem. Perhaps one can use the history of POV tagging to identify the articles that have been vandalized. Regardless, it would be nice to repair the damage and correct the misinformation presented on this Sally Hemings' page. How can we do that? Sbelknap (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: there is some relevant advice for you at WP:1AM. As suggested there, if you really can't let this go you could try asking for additional opinions at WP:NPOV/N. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful advice. I notice that you deleted my Sally Hemings query to you on your talk page and that, AFAICT, you never replied to my query. I'm still interested in your answer. Sbelknap (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You asked for citations that the Scholars Commission is a minority view: [13]. These citations are given in the article: "A consensus began to emerge after the results of a DNA analysis in 1998." "A vocal minority of critics." I hope that helps. Attic Salt (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

These RSs present opinion in the absence of evidence or analysis. See WP:RSOPINION. An opinion can be cited when it is identified as an opinion in a wikipedia article. The Sally Hemings article presents opinions mentioned in RSs but neglect to mention the the only available RS that actually presents evidence of a consensus. This article would be improved by describing the consensus opinion of the Report of the Scholars Commission. AFAIK, that is the only RS available on this, and it directly contradicts the major conclusion about TJ's paternity of Sally Hemings children. Sbelknap (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com (a tertiary source) provides both perspectives. Why does wikipedia not do the same? https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/has-dna-testing-proved-thomasjefferson-fathered-least-one-child-one-his-slaves-sally-hemings Sbelknap (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Omission of the findings of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission from this article

The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society in 2000 commissioned a group of 13 distinguished American scholars to study all of the evidence for and against the allegations that Thomas Jefferson had a sexual relationship and fathered one or more children by one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. After one year of study, the Commission, in April 2001, issued the most detailed report available on this issue. With the exception of one dissent, the views of the distinguished panel ranged from serious skepticism to a conviction that the allegation was almost certainly false. This volume, edited by Scholars Commission Chairman Robert F. Turner, includes the Final Report--essentially a summary of arguments and conclusions--as it was released to the press on April 12, 2001. Several of the statements of individual scholars--which collectively total several hundred carefully footnoted pages and constitute the bulk of the book--were later updated and expanded to reflect new insights or evidence since the report was initially released.

The report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission runs to 565 pages.

Here is their summary:

In the end, after roughly one year examining the issues, we find the question of whether Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by his slave Sally Hemings to be one about which honorable people can and do disagree. However, it is our unanimous view that the allegation is by no means proven; and we find it regrettable that public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people into believing that the issue is closed. With the exception of one member, whose views are set forth both below and in the more detailed appended dissent, our individual conclusions range from serious skepticisms about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly untrue.

This scholarly report, despite being the definitive analysis of this issue, is mentioned only in passing in this article. It's findings are described as "some disagree" and are relegated to the footnotes. A false assertion has been made that this commission is a "minority view" or that it has been obviated by later scholarly work. There is no reliable source that supports these assertions. I fear that this matter has been so politicized that it will be extremely difficult to correct the errors in this page, yet those of us who are committed to an accurate wikipedia are obligated to try. I urge engaged editors to reconsider their stance on this matter. Sbelknap (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a relevant review of the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission.[14] Sbelknap (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Omission of the findings of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission from this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to include these findings in the article, other than the way that they are already mentioned. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the major findings of the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission be included in the Sally Hemings article? [15] Sbelknap (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close RfC. See preceding discussion, WP:1AM, and WP:TE. No attempt was made to present this query neutrally or briefly per WP:RFCBRIEF. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  The query was presented neutrally and briefly, "Should the major findings of the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission be included in the Sally Hemings article?" I'm not sure why the query failed to propagate to the history RfC. Perhaps there is a formatting error? I have made very few edits to the article, instead participating in discussion with other engaged editors on this talk page. Sbelknap (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  Background material for this RfC moved to separate section, just above RfC. Sbelknap (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  It wasn't listed correctly because the statement was not brief. Legobot begins at the {{rfc}} tag and searches forward from that point until it finds a valid timestamp; if it cannot find one within a certain distance, it gives up. In this case the statement was 3,340 bytes, and Legobot gave up long before that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for the info. I moved the background info to a separate section. I also added RfC:Biographies to the tag. Will these revisions propogate to the respective RfCs? Sbelknap (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  WP:RFCBRIEF, last paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Look, I'm going to quote what I had to say yesterday: the Final Report of the commission that Turner chaired does not say anything about the consensus among historians. It expresses the consensus of thirteen scholars involved in the project without any reference to the views of the rest of the profession. The majority of historians were not convinced by the Final Report, hence why a scholarly book published a decade afterwards refers to Thomas Jefferson fathering Sally Hemings' children as the "new orthodoxy".

The article should note that a minority of scholars continue to reject the possibility, but we need to give due weight to the majority position. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A Louisville Slugger is not *about* a baseball bat. A Louisville Slugger *is* a baseball bat. The Final Report of the Commission is not *about* a consensus of scholars. The Final Report of the Commision *is* a consensus of scholars. Sbelknap (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

No reliable source supports the assertion that the Final Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission is a minority view. Sbelknap (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

So far Attic Salt has produced eight sources that say exactly that, while I have produced a ninth. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please address the RFC in this section. You are OT. Sbelknap (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A twenty-year old source that is contradicted by newer sources is safely disregarded. There is no evidence that the final report convinced anyone or that it had a significant impact on the field. Devoting additional space to it is not an improvement to the article. Dimadick (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This RFC asserts that there has been an "omission" of the findings of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission in this article on Sally Hemings, and it suggestes that these findings be "included" in the article. This is potentially confusing, unless one looks closely at the article. The major findings of the Scholars Commission, itself commisioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation, are already represented in the article: 1. briefly in the lede, with a link that provides an excerpt from the summary of the Scholars report, and 2. in more detail in the section on the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy [16]. Assuming that the scope of RFC is incorrect, intended, instead, to suggest that the findings of the Scholars Commission be more prominently represented, I think that the present representation of their findings is adequate. Attic Salt (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for cleaning this up; I struck my speedy close !vote above. As written now, the RfC query asks if the findings of the JHSC should be included. The answer is yes, but also that they already are included in the article, [17]. An expansion of the coverage from the minority viewpoint promoted by JHSC is not warranted, nor is a POV shift such as [18]. VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The quote in the lead notes that "there are some that disagree." There is a brief mention of "TJHS Scholars" and that they disagree about the DNA evidence. There is the assertion that the Commission's report mentions a minority view. As mentioned above, there is a claim here on the talk page that there are nine sources that describe the findings of the commission are a minority view. I've gone through seven of those sources, and none of them make any such assertion. Sbelknap (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, you are asking if there is, specifically, a source saying that the view of the Scholars Commission is a minority view. What you aren't acknowledging is that what is cited in the article is something more general -- sources saying that it is a minority view that Thomas Jefferson did not father Hemings's children. Of course, the Scholars Commission is just one group holding that minority view. Attic Salt (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost. The point is that in each of the sources cited, there is a statement (phrased in various ways) that there is an opposing or minority view regarding TJ's paternity of SH's children *but* in none of the cited sources is any evidence provided supporting this assertion. A scholarly argument provides evidence, analysis, and a conclusion. That is absent from these cited sources. And in no case does any cited source describe the Report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission as representing a minority opinion. Sbelknap (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The most recent consensus among scholars is the one described in the report of the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission. Some later addenda were made to this report that provide additional information. Some books have been written since then about TJ and SH. None of them is anything like a consensus report. The implication that the report of the Scholars Commission has been deprecated somehow, perhaps by later primary evidence or research, or historical scholarship is simply false. The Report of the Commission is the best quality information available. It warrants inclusion, with a more accurate discussion of its findings, which contradict the findings in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least as framed. It's a fringe view motivated by a specific POV. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As with the cited sources, this is a bald assertion unsupported by evidence or analysis. The contributors to the Report of the Scholars Commision are eminent scholars who provide evidence, analysis, and a conclusion after a year or more of study. Several of the contributors are members of the National Association of Scholars. All are prominent intellectuals. Sbelknap (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you intend to argue with everyone who !votes in this RfC? VQuakr (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What is your understanding of the purpose of the wikipedia talk pages? Sbelknap (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TPYES: Avoid repeating your posts: Your fellow editors can read your prior posts, so repeating them wastes time and space and may be considered WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Question unclear, ask again They are already included ("However, there are some who disagre," in the lede references it, as does "All but one of 13 TJHS scholars expressed considerable skepticism about the conclusions," and "The TJHS report suggested that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph Jefferson could have been the father - the DNA test cannot distinguish between Jefferson males, such as Randolph Jefferson or Thomas Jefferson. They also speculate that Hemings might have had sexual relations with multiple men."). Could you provide some sample text that describes what you want to do with this source more specifically? Note also the sub-article Jefferson–Hemings_controversy which goes into this in much more depth, including an entire section, "Dissenting_views," that is basically this report. Hipocrite (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The query itself is required to be brief. Again, here is a hyperlink to the major findings of the report: [19] Sbelknap (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dimadick - Idealigic (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (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.

GA criteria?

If the NPOV issues are resolved, tag should be removed. If not, this will need GA reassessment. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV objection never got significant traction, The NPOV tag should be removed. Attic Salt (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The article misstates the consensus of historians. The consensus is that Thomas Jefferson did not father Sally Hemings children. What is needed is for engaged editors to defer to the consensus of historians. Sbelknap (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

7/8 white

I have put in the lede the fact, to me important, that she was 7/8 white. This fact makes some uncomfortable, but I think it's fundamental. deisenbe (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Her mother was half white, making her 3/4. Her children were 7/8ths though. And if you need a source, here's the monticello offical website. https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Why'd you change it back? I gave a reputable source, monticello.org itself, so please stop. 173.15.96.125 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Skelegreen

You are quite right that she was three-quarters white, as supported by the Monticello website. It already says that in the article text; I have added the website as a reference. IMO it does not need to be in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. If deisenbe changes it back again, could you inform someone by any chance?73.176.1.245 (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Skelegreen

Enslaved by ??

There are several uses of "enslaved by" including Sally being enslaved by Jefferson, her mother by Wayles ("Sally's father was their enslaver John Wayles") and later the generic "although the fathers were the white enslavers" to refer to the 'follow the mother' aspect of Virginia slave-law at that time.

My issue is SOLELY with the use of the word 'enslaved' - the usual meaning of which is "to put into slavery/to make someone a slave" whereas these were all people who owned slaves. There may be no substantial moral distinction to most of us in modern times, but there is a purely factual distinction between being an enslaver and being a slave-owner. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree; any usage such as "as well as some of the people he enslaved" in reference to Jefferson's role, is not accurate. Jefferson did not himself enslave the people in question. Rather, they were passed along as part of his wife's father's estate, to his wife. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I also concur, and came to suggest as such. Jefferson did not 'eslave' anyone, per the webster definition. -anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.188.53 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I see that one such reference - as "a person he enslaved" - has been changed to "an enslaved person he owned", and I just changed another. He owned them, often by inheritance, but he himself did not make slaves out of them. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

They were not sexual partners. He raped and abused her for years. She was a slave trapped in a basement. Calling them sexual partners eludes to it being a consensual/healthy relationship. The relationship was involuntary as well as the intercourse. She was never freed by him either. 198.54.107.43 (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Baloney. The relationship started when Hemings was a free woman in Paris and treated as a paid employee by Jefferson. She also had plenty of job skills at the time, and could have survived had she left him. She negotiated with Jefferson and agreed to return with him to Virginia (where she resumed her slave status) if he agreed to free all their children when they reached 21. The room in which she stayed was meager and sparse, but in NO way qualifies as a "basement" or a "hole in the wall".--WickerGuy (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Experienced editors needed on similar article

Wikipedia currently has an article about a man named West Ford who may have been a descendant of George Washington or his brother John Washington. This raises issues (e.g. notability) similar to the issues for Sally Hemings and her children, three of whom have Wikipedia articles. So any input from editors of this article would be appreciated over at Talk:West Ford. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No Scientific Proof Exists That Thomas Jefferson Fathered Sally Heming's Children

The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Heming's children exists only as an oral tradition. The article presents it as a settled fact, which is not the case. The Jefferson/Hemings rumor was started in the first place by a political rival of Thomas's. Although Sally Hemings had several children, only descendents of her youngest, Eston, had DNA from somebody in the Jefferson line. At the time of Eston's conception, Thomas was 65. There were eight male Jeffersons, almost all younger, who frequently visited or stayed at Monticello at that time. Thomas's younger brother Randolph is a possible candidate, or any one of Randolph's five sons, who were then in their teens and twenties. The following link gives a detailed analysis of the Jefferson DNA:

https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/primer.html

Human nature will always find something fun and intriguing in the belief that a Founding Father had feet of clay. But, so far, proof does not exist that Thomas Jefferson did. A claim that's essentially ancient gossip does not belong, unchallenged, in Wikipedia. The article needs serious revision in the direction of science and proven reality. Younggoldchip (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The PBS.org page you linked to says this is a "dissenting memo from John H. Works, Jr., a Jefferson descendant and a past president of the Monticello Association":

Dr. Foster concluded that "the simplest and most probable explanation for our molecular findings are that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson, [Sally Heming's youngest son]... This DNA study testing the Y chromosome found that there was a link to "some" Jefferson, but not necessarily Thomas, having been the father of Eston, Sally Heming's youngest son. These DNA tests indicated that any one of 8 Jeffersons could have been the father of Eston and there was nothing to indicate it was Thomas."

So even according to this conflicted source you cite, Thomas Jefferson still could have been Eston Heming's father—he wasn't eliminated as a candidate, and according to the study the most probable explanation is that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson, a fact of "proven reality" in the "direction of science" that you omit (i.e., the fact that this is "the most probable explanation"). The article can reflect that. Carlstak (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't deny that Thomas Jefferson "could" have been Eston Heming's father, I pointed out only that this has not been proven. Any one of eight male Jeffersons were also on site and equally likely to have fathered Eston. In fact, it would seem likelier that one of Randolph Jefferson's young sons was the father, rather than a 65-year-old Virginia aristocrat who had a very strong sense of his own dignity, and even wrote tracts against relations with enslaved women. But, this is only opinion. I look forward to advances in DNA assessment which will give the answer to this longstanding question. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This was the conclusion of an expert group of historians. This wikipedia article can best be understood by reviewing the extensive attempts to correct misinformation, which at this point have failed. sbelknap (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't present it as settled fact; we link to Jefferson–Hemings controversy and summarize here. @Sbelknap: "lack of any documentary evidence" is a bizarre phrase that doesn't summarize the article body and obviously is not going to be used. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead states, "During this time, under circumstances that are not well understood, she and Jefferson began having intimate relations." No citation is given. Those who are familiar with the historical record are aware that this assertion is not supported by the available documentary evidence. As a separate point, an analysis by a group of eminent historians concluded that Jefferson was almost certainly not the father of Sally Hemings' children.sbelknap (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"As a separate point, an analysis by a group of eminent historians" the TJHS you mean. They're not particularly eminent and they certainly represent a minority viewpoint. We needn't cite in lead when it's cited in the body. VQuakr (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not referring to the TJHS but instead I am referring to The Scholars Commission on the Jefferson-Hemings Issue. This was an independent professional committee of historians, genealogists, lawyers, and other scholars funded by TJHS. By any reasonable criteria, this was an accomplished and prominent panel of experts. A description of the panel and the report of the Scholars Commission can be accessed here: https://www.tjheritage.org/the-scholars-commission.

This article on Sally Hemings violates one of The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Specifically, the genetic information about the haplogroup K2, a Y chromosome lineage representing about 1% of Y chromosomes worldwide does not conclusively show that any particular man fathered any of Sally Hemings' children. Further, the available historical information shows that it is unlikely that TJ fathered any of her children. Is it possible? Sure. But some other person with the haplogroup K2 lineage of Y chromosome is likely the father of SH's children. This article presents independent research of wikipedia editors as fact. sbelknap (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The movie poster as an image

A bot has removed the movie poster, saying this is not a valid fair use of it. But as I read the usage information at File:Jefferson in paris ver2.jpg [20], "scaled-down, low-resolution images of posters" qualify as fair use. Anybody able to enlighten me on this? MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Caricature

I can see many people have worked very hard on this page, from reviewing the archive of previous discussions and edits. However I could not find any discussion of how it came to be that a caricature of Sally Hemings is used as her primary photo. While this is taken out of context, the original caricature depicts Hemings as a chicken, or hen. I find this offensive as there is a long-standing tradition of depicting African Americans as animals which continues to the present day in many more insidious forms. Not only is this offensive, it is also historically inaccurate. The man who created this caricature never saw Sally Hemings with his own eyes. Furthermore, the few contemporary descriptions of Hemings describe her as 'nearly white' or something to that effect. Obviously this image presents an imagined African American enslaved woman. I know the article is much enhanced by an image, but I think a different one should be used. I believe there are other artistic depictions of her that are more respectful (if also doubtful in their historical accuracy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:6004:C500:3129:56F:5A43:5E9E (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Although in the original caricature Jefferson is also shown as a chicken, so it's not clear that this particular portrayal was meant as a racialized insult. Nevertheless, given the history, and the exploited nature of the subject's life, and the fact that it's unlikely to even be an accurate image of her, it doesn't seem like a good choice as the primary image. Perhaps a more respectful artist's imagining or even some place or object associated with Hemings can be used?Curious georgianna (talk) Curious georgianna (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd guess she never had her portrait painted, and they didn't have cameras. So unlikely to find an appropriate image. YoPienso (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, they didn't have cameras and everyone realizes she wouldn't have had her portrait painted. What I said was "Perhaps a more respectful artist's imagining or even some place or object associated with Hemings can be used?" For instance, a photo of an actress playing her in a film, perhaps. Given the amount of current cultural interest in her, there may be an IMAGINED rendering of her by some modern artist. Even though they would obviously look nothing like her, since nobody has any idea how she looked. But this caricature also almost certainly looks nothing like her, since, rumors about Jefferson's life aside, the caricaturist is extremely unlike to have known or cared if he was rendering her with any accuracy. This makes the current image just as "inappropriate" to use your term. Finally, I also suggested maybe using an image of a place associated with her. For example, the room where she lived, according to the museum at Monticello. I made a respectful and tentative suggestion for something to think about. Snarky responses are unhelpful.Curious georgianna (talk) Curious georgianna (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the caricature image should be removed. I would do it myself, except that it is long-standing in the article so consensus will be needed. It isn't true that "nobody has any idea how she looked". She was often described as light-skinned, being three-quarters white, and even as bearing "a strong resemblance to Martha Jefferson". But this image shows her as dark-skinned and is therefore very misleading. I vote to remove it, and leave no image if a better one can't be found. I see that several other people in this discussion seem to agree with removing it. @Curious georgianna and Yopienso: Would you agree with removing it and leaving no image at all, if a better one can't be found? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. There is nothing of any use at Wikimedia Commons. But she has been portrayed in numerous productions, see Cultural depictions of Sally Hemings. One major portrayal was a 2000 TV miniseries titled Sally Hemings: An American Scandal. Maybe we could use a picture of the actress who portrayed her, Carmen Ejogo? She could well represent Hemings, since she herself is of mixed race (Scottish mother, Nigerian father), but in the picture on her page she appears mostly white, as Hemings herself is said to have appeared. What would you think about using the photo from her page, with a caption like "Actress Carmen Ejogo portrayed Hemings in the TV miniseries Sally Hemings: An American Scandal ? Alternatively, there are several good pictures of Thandiwe Newton, who was also of mixed race and portrayed Hemings in Jefferson in Paris. The one captioned "Newton in 2007" would be the best, since she appears fairly young and nothing about the picture places her in modern times.-- MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the caricature should be removed. That was actually the whole point of all my comments on this topic. Sorry if I was unclear in that. I made some suggestions on the type of image we might consider replacing it with (though I don't have a particular image recommendation). I looked at wiki commons and creative commons hoping to find something useful but couldn't come up with anything. I also agree that it would be better to have no image than the caricature. But, like you, I also didn't want to take it upon myself to edit this longstanding item without some discussion. Should we just remove it and add a note in the edit summary directed to this discussion? What's the protocol? Thanks. ~ Curious georgianna (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

In my earlier comment, I also recommended considering the image of an actress portraying her, but when I looked for images, I couldn't find one that would be clearly permitted, in terms of copyright issues. All the ones you suggested sound good. Are they in the public domain or otherwise permitted for use?~ Curious georgianna (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This one (below and to the right) is listed as CC by 2.0 so I believe it should be OK to use:

Actress Thandiwe Newton, who portrayed Sally Hemings in the 1995 film Jefferson in Paris.

What do you think? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is better served with no image of Sally Hemings. The photo of the actress who portrayed her should not be at the top of the article. It would be appropriate to use it in a mention of Jefferson in Paris, but not as a substitute for an actual image of Hemings. It's a shame the present one from the caricature probably shouldn't be used—I think it actually portrays her as rather beautiful, and it's contemporaneous, having been made when she was still alive. Damn the luck. Carlstak (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility, the one on the left: this one is listed as Fair Use. This one actually is a portrayal of Hemings, while the other one is just a picture of the actress who portrayed her, so maybe it would be more appropriate.

File:Jefferson in paris ver2.jpg

The one on the left got deleted by a bot because "non-free files can only be used in articles". This is a talk page so apparently we can't use it here. However we could use it in the Hemings article. It's a copy of the movie poster for Jefferson in Paris and shows her as a child or young teenager listening while Jefferson and his paramour talk. You can see it in the infobox of the Jefferson in Paris article. If it's not appropriate in the infobox here, we could (as Carlstak suggested) use it to illustrate the Paris part of this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Curious georgianna: Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I do think the caricature should be removed from the infobox. I wouldn't object to the entire (not cropped) caricature farther down, as it shows how some people perceived TJ's relationship with her.

I do not think it's a good idea to put an actress's face or other cultural image there in the infobox. Such an image could be OK later in the article with an appropriate explanatory caption. YoPienso (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Although I do appreciate the desire to remove the caricature, I agree with @Carlstak and @Yopienso- I am reluctant with using an actress to represent Sally Hemmings in the info box. Additionally to the points raised, the studios seemed to have picked actresses with more significant African ancestry to accentuate the character they wanted to portray. This is also likely the case with the depiction in the caricature. I am not saying that everyone with a 3/4 European, 1/4 African ancestry looks the same. However, perhaps in general (seeing as how we don't know what she looked like other than being "fair skinned"), it would be wise to not include any picture near the beginning of the article. I particularly agree with @Yopienso, that both an unedited caricature and the actresses' faces should be in the article, just further down with appropriate comments on their relevance. SuperTah (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the reluctance to use another person's image in the info box. I also like the idea of using the caricature in full, including the Jefferson caricature further down in the discussion of the social reputation/rumors surrounding their relationship, rather than as a stand in for the actual image of the subject.

@MelanieN @SuperTah @Carlstak and @Yopienso, Any thoughts as to using an image of a place such as her quarters at Monticello or if there is any structure or memorial dedicated to her (I don't know if there are)? Otherwise, I think it would be best to leave it without an info box image. ~ Curious georgianna (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about placing a picture of her quarters at Monticello in the infobox, but a memorial is certainly possible. A quick glance through Wikimedia Commons didn't return much though, unless someone uploads a picture themselves, or does a more thorough search. I think it could be relevant to place a picture of Monticello or other relevant locations of Sally's life, as the article could do with a few more pictures. SuperTah (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everybody. I'm glad to see there is currently no image in the infobox; that was clearly the consensus here. I have put the movie poster for Jefferson in Paris in the Paris section, and rearranged a few things so that the section reads easily. You all are welcome to edit or tweak what I did. I am now going to see if I can find a place to put the "chicken" poster; ideally it should go where we have information about rumors or public opinion about Jefferson and Sally, if I can find such a place in the article. Anyone able to help on that? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I found the info in the "controversy" section, expanded it a little, and added the caricature there. That makes the placement of the Gordon-Reid video link a little awkward. Anybody got any ideas? Maybe it could be moved to the "external links" section at the end? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Good work! I don't think it looks awkward, but the external links section also wouldn't be a bad place to put the video. My only gripe is that the external links section is almost inaccessible regarding its placement in the article. SuperTah (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good work all! I didn't get the ping because it wasn't formatted correctly.

About external links, maybe you're accessing the article on your phone? It displays perfectly on my desktop. YoPienso (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yopienso Ah, I wasn't super clear in my original message... it definitely works. However, as it's under the references, I'm not sure how accessible it is. I'm not sure how many people scroll to past the references on a wiki page. I myself didn't realise that it was there until it was referenced here. I would prefer it to be under the main article itself, but this may be the preferred layout of History-related GA articles. SuperTah (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Undetected Vandalism made 2 years ago

In August 2020, several vandalous changes by an anonymous IP editor who did TWO consecutive edits were mostly undone. However, one of those changes was to change the name of a Washington Post article actually titled "For decades they hid Jefferson's relationship with her" to "For decades they hid Jefferson's rape". This change was NOT undone in the broad reverting of this editor's changes. I have just now fixed it. Needless, to say altering the title of outside sources is utterly unacceptable. WickerGuy (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced intro claims

The claims I removed from the intro are not sourced on this article. The name "Susannah" for Hemings's grandmother is unsourced and does not appear anywhere else in the article, with the only citation for her name being in the below quoted sentence, where it is given speculatively as "Parthena" or "Parthenia":

Annette Gordon-Reed speculates that Betty's mother's name was Parthena (or Parthenia), based on the wills of Francis Eppes IV and John Wayles.

There are citations for letters Adams wrote to Jefferson but in those letters she does not describe "a strong resemblance to Martha Jefferson" at any point, only this:

The Girl who is with her is quite a child, and captain Ramsey is of opinion will be of so little service that he had better carry her back with him, but of this you will be a judge. she seems fond of the child and appears good Naturd. [21]

If you have sources for these claims, add them to the article. Please do not revert this change unless you are also citing sources to support these additions.

For reference, here is the edit where these additions were first made back in March, un-cited: [22] Vague | Rant 15:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding some further brief descriptions of Hemings from Adams's letters, just for completeness' sake: in [23], also to Jefferson, she writes:

She has a Girl about 15 or 16 with her, the Sister of the Servant you have with you.

And in [24], to her sister Mary Smith Cranch, she writes:

I have had with me for a fortnight a little daughter of mr Jeffersons, who arrived here with a young Negro Girl her Servant from Virginia.

Adams spends very little time describing Hemings's appearance.

While I don't think it's relevant to whether or not the claims are cited in the article, which is the issue here, I will be clear that I am in no way disputing Hemings's parentage. She is John Wayles's daughter and Martha Jefferson's half-sister. She may well have resembled Martha, but if the article is going to state that Abigail Adams wrote as much in her letters, that will require a citation. Vague | Rant 15:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Parthena (Παρθένα) is a Greek name which literally means "Maiden" of "Virgin". Somewhat unusual for the name of an American person. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you didn't merely claim the assertions about Abigail Adams were un-sourced. You stated they were not true!!! However, you are correct that they are unsourced in this article. I did your reversion both early in the morning, and in a hurry. I will get appropriate sources.WickerGuy (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There Has Never Been Proof That Thomas Jefferson Fathered Sally Heming's Children

Of Hemings' several children, only the youngest, Eston, has descendants with DNA from someone in the Jefferson line. At the time Eston was conceived, Thomas Jefferson was 65 years old. He may still have been capable of fathering a child. However, his hard-drinking younger brother Randolph, and Randolph's five sons, who were in their teens and twenties, frequently visited and stayed at Monticello. So did other male Jeffersons. Frankly, it's more likely that one of these younger men fathered Eston than Thomas, who actually wrote pamphlets against relations between the races. As for oral tradition? Descendants of Madison Hemings have said that their own oral tradition was that somebody they called "the uncle," not Thomas, fathered Hemings' children. They have separated themselves from the Sally/Thomas claims. Others excitedly insist that a "secret room" has been discovered in which Sally and Thomas met. However, when you read about this discovery, it turns out nobody knows what the room was for. It could have been a place to bathe, a primitive bathroom, a place to store canning or linen. An unsupported favorite narrative is not fact. The only real proof would be scientific, consisting of DNA in a Hemings descendant which is specifically from Thomas. This has never been found. Following is a link to some DNA analyses. https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/primer.html Younggoldchip (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Younggoldchip! I urge you to update the article with any reliable sources you feel are not currently presented fairly.

Also, if I may gently nudge you, it's time to move on from Jefferson, we have other presidents to research. Would love some help examining Andrew Johnson and slavery#Paternity of Dolly Johnson's children, William Henry Harrison and Dilsia (slave), and John Tyler and the unidentified enslaved woman who were allegedly the parents of John Dunjee? We also really need a genuine article on Zachary Taylor and slavery, not just a redirect. We could also use an article assessing the current historiography on U.S. national leaders in mixed-race relationships prior to Emancipation, beginning with Jefferson, naturally, heavily featuring Richard Mentor Johnson and Julia Chinn, of course, and likely concluding with Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith. Primary sources on private lives of politicians are always coveted and thus hard to come by, but it would be interesting to see the way these relationships have been treated by secondary sources (different journalists and historians) over time. Thanks so much for volunteering to help with Wikipedia. We have a lot to do and we need all the help we can get! jengod (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Jengold, I would love to move on from Thomas and Sally, as you gently suggest. However, this is hard for me as certain words and concepts are important to me, such as Reality,Facts, Proof, and Encyclopedia. Early in the article the writer states, "At some time during (their) 26 months months in Paris, the widower Jefferson began intimate relations with her..." If this were a bodice-ripper novel, this claim would be fine. But in an encyclopedia? Where no proof at all exists? And the most dubious oral tradition is presented as if it were Scripture? Jengold, I think the person you should be gently nudging to walk away would be whatever fantasist wrote the article. Where do they live, Brigadoon? It's not impossible that an old Founding Father who wore his dead wife's hair in a locket over his heart until he died would also exploit an enslaved woman. But there's no reliable evidence to prove that he did. I know this is a hard concept for obsessed people to accept. Still, here it is: reality is not whatever you prefer to believe.

As for the many other allegations of master/slave relations among the famous that you mention, I'm sure some happened, some didn't, and Wikipedians should have fun digging in.

2600:1702:E30:D970:9091:26D5:B8E3:8161 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Please submit your complaint letters to Jefferson biographers and historians for review and assessment of your arguments. Have a blessed day. jengod (talk) jengod (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Brutal.;-) Carlstak (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Jengod, it's not that radical to suggest that an encyclopedia article shouldn't present speculation as fact. Or to point out that a claim isn't necessarily true just because it's a favorite narrative. It would be nice if advances in DNA testing clear this matter up before we're dead. And, have a blessed day yourself.

Younggoldchip (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

2600:1702:E30:D970:E08C:5690:8A1:8940 (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

80 year old men can produce children. 65 years old is NOT out of the realm of possibility. 2600:8801:3909:F300:5C09:6D77:E743:75A9 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I never said that Jefferson, at 65, COULDN'T have children. I simply said that there is no proof that he did. And there isn't. Since the whole article and Talk are rife with speculation, I'll speculate. Who was Eston's father? I would put my money on either hard-drinking brother Randolph, or one of Randolph's horny sons, who were in their teens and twenties and often visited Monticello. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair to say that Sally was ONLY 14

There should be no debate about whether Sally was raped by Jefferson. She was 14 years old and an enslaved child who had NO rights therefore, she did not have a choice. She was considered property. 2600:8801:3909:F300:5C09:6D77:E743:75A9 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there should be debate about whether Sally was raped by Jefferson, because there is no proof that she was.

The claims seem to come from people who either are confused by DNA science, or who want to believe that a revered Founding Father was a nasty sex offender in private. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

Please Change “owned” by Thomas Jefferson to “enslaved” by Thomas Jefferson Mayflower8 (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I apologize -- I agree the wording is harsh and jarring as of currently, assuming this is why you request the change, but I can't say for sure whether or not it should be changed.

Hemings was already enslaved, and rather inherited by Thomas Jefferson, so adding this ambiguity seems unnecessary.

Yes, it is not morally right to possess someone. But the laws during the time period supplied Thomas Jefferson with "ownership" of a person who was considered "property" in this case. Thus, I don't believe the wording is misleading, albeit gross.

Furthermore, changing the phrasing may be somewhat euphemistic. On Wikipedia, we should be open to discussing harsh realities of the past.

Thank you for your request. If you'd like to discuss this more to argue your side, or I am misunderstanding the context, feel free to reply once more and we can consider reopening the request.

— Urro^{[talk][edits]}

17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)