Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 39

To ALL of you, I extend my best wishes for 2016! Here's to our average reader, and here's to a 2016 GA for TJ. How about we express this Happy New Year in each of TJ's languages? I have the English covered. Hoppyh (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

¡Próspero Año Nuevo! (Aun si no estoy muy convencida que TJ hablaba mucho español.) Hoppyh es más optimista que yo; le saludo por su buen ánimo y espero que sea contagioso. YoPienso (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Καλή χρονιά -Greek (kali chronya)

felix sit annus novus - Latin

Bonne Année - French

Buon anno / Felice anno nuovo - Italian

From what I can gather, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! The Greek had to be quite a challenge. Hoppyh (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The following is from WP:AS on Article Size: A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style... With Jefferson clearly above that level, I believe my assertion is reasonable that the article is already beyond the length and breadth for the average reader. Nevertheless, I do understand there is no agreement on this. Hoppyh (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I just laboriously copied and pasted the article text into Microsoft Word 2013. I left out as many of the titles as was practical, but it was hit or miss. I had to copy by section to avoid the sidebar and infobox and captions, etc. I did not include any of the end matter, stopping at Most prominent are the words inscribed around the monument near the roof: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." The count is 11,609 words, which is too much but not twice too much. With everything but the left sidebar, it's 12,554. YoPienso (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The page size script I ran gives 11,518 words of readable prose (it tries to skip headings and charts, but it's not perfect). Either way, yes: according to the guidelines, it's too large. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've adjusted my estimate comment accordingly. Ideally, if we could approach the edits as Wikipedians primarily, and Jeffersonians secondarily, keeping the average reader in mind as we go about this, progress could be ours. The substance and scholarship are in place - we have worked our collective tails off to make that happen. Why not maintain it in a manner that maximizes readership? Hoppyh (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just scanning the article off handedly, I would nominate four sections to be cut somewhat based on my overall sense of wp:weight and proportion for a whole-life biography: a) Minister to France, b) Secretary of State, c) Chesapeake-Leapard affair and Embargo Act, and d) Reconciliation with Adams. Yet I think all still deserve their own section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that individual editors pick a section to work on. If anything is removed, put it on the talk p.. When the editor is finished, let the others know and discussion can begin on that section, and votes taken if needed. I would also suggest that if a vote is needed, we should try to get at least 10 editors to chime in if possible. There are editors gnawing at the bit to add further material - I would suggest that be discussed before it is added. These are just suggestions. Hoppyh (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• It was good to see Hoppy's suggestion that if we remove text that it be placed on the talk page so we can deal with it and discuss matters there, however I would not attempt to remove entire sections for the sake of page length alone, as this will also raise guideline issues. Let's not ignore one guideline to satisfy another. Obviously the people who drafted this guideline are more concerned with preserving content than they are about an article's length. It was also reassuring to see the suggestion that if a vote is conducted that we try to get at least 10 votes, so as not to let a couple of disgruntled editors have their way when issues are disputed. Having said that, let's remember that 'page length' is indeed a guideline and we are allowed reasonable discretions if we need a bit more space to sum things up adequately. i.e.Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The Jefferson biography is obviously one of those exceptions. If there is more than a marginal consensus to remove entire sections I would agree with TVH's suggestions for section removal. Section removal will require a broad consensus.
• Regarding the average reader. It's safe to assume that most of them have read books that go beyond 10,000 words, yet they remain interested in the narrative anyway, so let's not be consumed by the notion that if the article goes as a bit beyond this number that the average reader will become board and walk away bleary-eyed. Most readers only read up on the topics they are most interested in anyways, which is why we have a TOC to direct them to the given section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In the Slavery section it says that Jefferson is considered to be a "benevolent slave owner". This is a sketchy claim that could mean any number of things. Jefferson and slavery is a controversial issue and should get a clarifying phrase in the biography that doesn't require the reader to search through other articles for simple clarification. Not long ago I tried adding ...who didn't over work his slaves and provided well for them, but this was deleted, so I have added the clarify tag. If we can clarify things in this article with a short phrase we should do so. Imo, there is no pressing reason why we should not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

there is an good discussion of the issues at James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton (2013). Slavery And Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory. New Press. pp. 156–57. Note that James Horton is himself black is and a prominent historian of blacks America. Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The term "benevolent" can be extremely subjective. Most readers maybe apt to "judge" Jefferson by today's standards. Was Jefferson "benevolent" for his times? I would state: Historians debate whether Jefferson was a benevolent slaveholder. That gives room for the reader to decide. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the sources are all in agreement that he was, in historical context? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Henry Wiencek (2012) Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves and (October 2012) The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson ; Paul Finkleman (April, 1994) Thomas Jefferson and Anti-slavery The Myth Goes On PDF; do not believe Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner. There is disgreement. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree, the typical solution is to summarize their arguments for a position. The Smithsonian article contains a section criticizing previous views on the content slaves of Jefferson as examples of "misconceptions and sappy prose". Then discusses at length Jefferson's views of his slaves as investments and his development on an influential theory on their financial value. Jefferson is quoted as estimating "I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers."

Jefferson began trying to increase the birth rate of the slaves and abandoned any plans for their potential emancipation. As the article points out: "The date of Jefferson’s calculation aligns with the waning of his emancipationist fervor. Jefferson began to back away from antislavery just around the time he computed the silent profit of the “peculiar institution.” "

The article then addresses the fact of how Jefferson treated slaves aged 10 to 12: "A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills. This passage about children being lashed had been suppressed—deliberately deleted from the published record in the 1953 edition of Jefferson’s Farm Book, containing 500 pages of plantation papers. That edition of the Farm Book still serves as a standard reference for research into the way Monticello worked."

Then the article addresses the hierarchy of slaves in Monticello and how slaves of different rank were given very different treatments: "The higher you stood in the hierarchy, the better clothes and food you got; you also lived literally on a higher plane, closer to the mountaintop. A small minority of slaves received pay, profit sharing or what Jefferson called “gratuities,” while the lowest workers received only the barest rations and clothing. Differences bred resentment, especially toward the elite household staff."

The article covers how the boys aged 10 to 16 worked at Jefferson's nail factory, and how their output affected their future work careers. Those deemed successful could receive further training as artisans and house slaves, the failures were demoted to field slaves. The article points out: "The work was tedious in the extreme. Confined for long hours in the hot, smoky workshop, the boys hammered out 5,000 to 10,000 nails a day, producing a gross income of $2,000 in 1796."

Then the article covers an incident in 1798, when one of Jefferson's foremen was reluctant to whip the slaves under his care and this caused a delay in the work schedule. They apparently had to call on another overseer to whip the slaves more and make them work on time.

Then the article discusses a matter of historical censorship and forgery. A historian by the name of Edwin Betts came across a section of Jefferson’s Farm Book covering the whipping of child slaves for truancy. "Betts decided that the image of children being beaten at Monticello had to be suppressed, omitting this document from his edition. He had an entirely different image in his head; the introduction to the book declared, “Jefferson came close to creating on his own plantations the ideal rural community.” Betts couldn’t do anything about the original letter, but no one would see it, tucked away in the archives of the Massachusetts Historical Society. The full text did not emerge in print until 2005."

Then the article reports on how Betts' censorship influenced the inaccurate work of other historians. The article names (with text samples) as examples Jack McLaughlin, Merrill Peterson, Joseph Ellis, and Dumas Malone. All inaccurate on the level of whipping involved in the daily operations of Monticello and all presenting a far too benevolent image of Jefferson himself. Some of these quotes seem laughably bad: "on rare occasions, and as a last resort, he [Jefferson] ordered overseers to use the lash."

I don't think I have to continue with the summary. Frankly, I find that the article sheds some light on the business practices of Jefferson and avoids demonizing or romanticising the slave-owner. Dimadick (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777: Even though Weincek's book is entitled The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson, does he actually say that Jefferson was a cruel slave owner, or that he did not care for his slaves to the extent he did? In any case, the best thing to do is add a few definitive facts in terms of how and to what extent Jefferson provided for his slaves, and that he worked his slaves no more than the average freeman/farmer worked. There are plenty of reliable sources that support this. This is the best way to side-step the various and often highly subjective modern day conjecture and let the readers decide matters for themselves. We have a major section entitled Slavery. You would think we could squeeze in a sentence or two in this regard without any issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Insert: @Gwillhickers: Certainly Weincek is not calling Jefferson a benevolent slave owner. All I am saying is there is disagreement among historians i.e. Weincek and Finkleman are critical of Jefferson owning slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Hoppyh: The idea of "too many details" has already been addressed. We are allowed to add 'some' details, esp where important context is concerned. Could you please discuss this before making any more reverts? i.e.What is the big deal with clarifying a point with a simple phrase here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The unsettled disagreement about the level of detail in the article has been established long ago and the use of a clarification tag assumes a non existent consensus to add more material to an article which a number of editors agree is already well beyond the length guidelines of WP. As these editors have indicated above, further detail/clarification should be in the linked daughter articles.Hoppyh (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree here. This article is already too long and it seems as though some editors just want to add length. The tag should be removed. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers has reinserted the tag - any correction to his edits he views as edit warring. If I remove it again he'll report me so I will leave it to you and others to revert if you agree. Hoppyh (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: There was no "correction" involved here, or with any of my edits. All you've done here in effect was to sling mud and say 'lookit' Gw's edit!' Is there a WP policy that says do not bear false witness against thy neighbor? Probably not, so we have to trust that editors will discuss matters honestly, and not respond at the gut level. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: - I was on your side on the West Point thing, and a few other items on this page. We just happen to disagree here, and repeating yourself isn't really going to change our mind. I think the tag is out of place, and your additional info isn't necessary, but I can live with it as it currently stands with the caveat that I think the section is already too long and needs to be cut down. So if the current sentence is something everyone can live with, then lets go with it. If not, I think we should revert to the previous sentence without the tag. Also, for the record, Hoppyh stating why he isn't reverting it himself on the article talk page doesn't constitute tag teaming and the page you linked also says something about false accusations. I realize that you've written quite a bit on the talk page, but I think you already understand Hoppyh's (and my, in this case) concern about too much detail/lengthiness -- as we're unlikely to agree on this, I think it's best we simply do our best to include only the most important details and keep it right around the maximum length according to the guideline. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Dimadick: Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to discuss the differences between some of the Jefferson historians out there. I think you know that discussion of such differences in terms of what and what not to add to the article will probably result in a long debate over Jefferson and slavery, which has occurred here several times before. In the past the way we have averted all of this was to simply add the facts and let readers decide matters of morality, right and wrong, for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Dimadick: Do you know where we can read Betts' letter? In any case, before the GA squad came through here and gutted much of the narrative there was good coverage about whippings and such. Below is one of the statements that was removed from the section, with no discussion, once again.

-- According to a former Monticello slave, slaves were seldom punished except for stealing or fighting or other extreme offenses, though there were some cases of excessive whippings at the hand of overseers.<Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Treatment> < Miller, 1994, p. 106> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Children "whipped" for truancy: I'll have to searh again, but children weren't actually whipped but were 'switched' (with a stick) on the hindquarters or legs, a disciplinary measure used on children that is still used in China and other parts of the third world, albeit unfortunately. I hardly think children were actually whipped in the stereotypical fashion that some people here in modern times have been led to believe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC).

It would seem we could avoid a lot of drawn out debate if we just regarded page length for what it is -- a guideline, and if we allowed various additions of context so long as it is well sourced, keeping in mind of course that there are limits to everything. Most importantly, some editors need to be more willing to compromise. Overall, we are only debating page length and the amount of details. Time and again I have seen details removed from sections in cases where there were only a few to begin with. The idea of "too many details" should only be an issue here if there are many dozens of them of them and when they are clearly tangential to the topic/section. Again, to sum up a topic adequately we need to include all the important details. The daughter articles are for in depth coverage where we can add more of the lesser details. Above all, context is important and needs to be embraced here regardless of daughter articles. As it is, to get a clear picture of Jefferson the person (ala his biography) a reader is presently required to break away to numerous other articles. Presently this biography begs the ^{[clarification needed]} and ^[why?] tags. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Presently, this article is far too long. I'm very interested in this subject area (this is literally the only article outside my primary area of contemporary Democratic Politics I take an interest in) but even I find this article laborious to read, imagine the average reader. This article suffers from far too many details included that should instead be summarized, shortened and details added to daughter articles. (And I agree -- the page length guideline should be treated as such, and if anything, it should be considered the maximum. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, most people only read the lede and the sections they are interested. If someone is easily put off by the various details, I wonder how they ever manage to read and finish a book. In any case, if the article is well written, people will actually want to read further. Ever read a book you just couldn't put down? Once again, guidelines are just that -- used with common sense per the exceptions to average (e.g.biographical) articles. It is not my intention to go way beyond guidelines, but if we are slightly over, this should not cause any of the readers to walk away board or frustrated. They can 'put the book down' any time they want. Better to clarify things with some (important) context than to leave (esp the intelligent and inquiring) reader wondering due to lack of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeating yourself isn't going to change anyone's mind, dude. You've said the same thing over and over and I, for one, disagree. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As previously noted, I think it is inappropriate to compare WP's encyclopedic article size guideline to books. I therefore disagree with the use of the above mentioned use of tags which encourage the addition of more material to the article when it should be included in the daughter article. Hoppyh (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: My analogy to 'books' was made only in reference to a reader becoming "overwhelmed". Imo, there should be no worry if our exceptional and very involved article here slightly exceeds a page length guideline, so long as the content is not tangential or exceedingly redundant. We are only debating the inclusion of small additions of context -- not major additions of text. Nor is anyone trying to add fuzzy and questionable statements not supported by RS's. That's all. Don't quite understand why this is being contested so vehemently, or as if someone was trying to rewrite history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Holiday is over -- back to the grind. I remain amazed that there is only one sentence covering West Point in what is supposed to become a Good Article, while simple points of context (i.e.British subject) are argued at length as if someone was trying to introduce some radical proposal. Editors here need to lighten up. TVH has done a wonderful job with his proposals, cross referencing Jefferson's military Academy with his political philosophy and such. We should cover West Point with just a bit more context, tying it in with Jefferson's thinking regarding Republicanism, any partisanship, along with his founding of the University of Virginia, where many of his ideas for West Point were incorporated -- including military exercises throughout the entire course for all grades of students. This can easily be accomplished with a few added sentences -- yet there is this monumental disagreement. No one is proposing a half page of coverage -- however, one sentence for West Point is clearly ignoring the scholarship out there (BTW, the scholarship includes more than just biographies.) In any case, this article will never reach GA if various editors continue to behave in such a unyielding and arrogant manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Part of this discussion seems to be about the frontier in Jefferson’s presidency and beyond, and excluding West Pointers from it without references. The American historical narrative is not only advanced by independent civilian yeoman farmers seeking a utopian familial bucolic existence living in a blissful coexistence on the margins of Native American hunting grounds.

The frontiers were also populated by aggressive republican nationalists who sought expanded settlement population and incorporation within the US as states at the expense of Amerindians who independently resisted settlement --- but especially against those who had militarily allied with the British in the Revolution and then again in the War of 1812.

Proposal excerpt: From 1802-1833, West Point alumni in uniform and as civilian leaders furnished nationalist administrative and executive leadership in the frontier territories.<Watson, Samuel J. in McDonald, Robert ed. 2004 p.155> TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure there can be a West Point compromise if editors can't continue the discussion. I am not sure why Jefferson's West Point or Military Peace Establishment Act is so controversial even to mention in the article and I do not know yet why West Point was deleted from the article. With that said. Maybe it is time to take a break from West Point. I would hope all editors should be included in good faith discussions. I don't believe West Point has been pushed to an extreme nor Jefferson's involvement in West Point creation has been exagerated. Be that as it may feelings seem to have been hurt. I would hope editors could have a rational discussion and there certainly is no need to have an edit war over Jefferson's West Point or Military Peace Establishment Act. I suggest taking a break if possible from the issue until we can resolve to have a rational discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not controversial, it is trivial. TFD (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that Jefferson Military Peace Establishment Act and the establishment of the United States Military Academy at West Point is trivial, especially since many West Point graduates served in the Mexican American War and the American Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You think that is more important than say writing the Declaration of Independence or becoming president? TFD (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your dispute is quite understandable and it is symptomatic of others which have dominated the less than constructive work we are getting done on the article. You can have your cake and eat it too - in the spirit of the exchange below about the article perhaps being overwhelming. Join us—we need to find a way to work together on this article. Help us find it - for the benefit of the average reader. Hoppyh (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand TFD. Jefferson was the primary author of the DOI and yes while President he passed the Military Peace Establishment Act that created West Point and reformed the military. I can't compare the DOI and West Point. All I said was the Military Peace Establishment Act and the creation of West Point was not trivia. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that Jefferson did many, many, many, many important things. Those many important things can be ranked according to significance and the length of the article will determine the cut-off for inclusion. For example if we had to summarize Jefferson in one sentence, we probably would mention he was president and signer of the Declaration of Independence and probably not mention he distilled rye whiskey. It's a matter of prioritizing what is most important. TFD (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Above I agreed with Hoppyh not to make additions of content without discussion and voting, yet various additions and revisions are being made with no discussion along with reverts with no discussion, so I am abandoning this double standard, which I did not agree to. If this sort of activity continues we should request a One-revert rule which will help to make some editors make reverts only when it is absolutely necessary. These peckish slow-mo edit wars really need to stop and the spirit of compromise better embraced so we can start making real progress with the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Hoppyh and Dcpoliticaljunkie: -- Let's also be reminded that if an editor summons another editor to make the same revert so as to avert violation of the 3RR it involves Tag teaming: ...editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). It also involves gaming the system. If there is a good reason to make a revert then it should be discussed, and if indeed there is a good reason then there will likely be a consensus in favor of the revert. Since my appeals here have typically been ignored it would appear that there is no valid and pressing reason for the revert. If the same revert occurs again, with no discussion, there will be no other alternative but to report the 3RR violation, at which time I will also request a 1 RR. I have made numerous attempts to discuss matters fairly. If policy and good reason are on the side of the reverting editor(s) one would think they would welcome discussion. All I've seen here are attempts to dodge discussion. Please discuss this so we can establish a legitimate consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not intended to enter into any collusion here, only to encourage people to edit according to their previously expressed views that the article should not have a tag which suggests adding more material to an article which some editors think is too long. This issue has been discussed ad infinitum. I will certainly not suggest anyone repeat any revert of mine again. There is no lack of discussion on this issue but there is lack of agreement and this will continue I am sure, I am sorry to say.Hoppyh (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Hoppyh: I think the answer to all our concerns is compromise. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. . When there is a marginal consensus there should be a reasonable compromise. Before the GA nomination there were a few sentences covering Jefferson's treatment and regard for slaves -- very important in terms of Jefferson the person. Now all we have is the sketchy claim that Jefferson was "considered a benevolent slave owner", with not one detail of context. Not one! If it were up to me I would restore the text covering Jefferson's treatment of slaves. I thought a fair compromise however would be to at least make the general statement that Jefferson didn't overwork his slaves and provided well for them -- nothing more. "Details" should not be used to describe general and definitive statements. "Details" pertain to things like, Slaves were allowed to raise their own chickens and have gardens. or Slaves were provided with log-cabins with fireplaces or Slaves were given Sundays and Christmas off, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Regrettably, I am no help on this...I just do not see the importance of any detail about this in the main article. Hoppyh (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, imo, Jefferson's treatment of and regard for his slaves reflects on his person more so than most (if not all) other topics. Thought it would do the biography justice if we could at least hint at his actual efforts with a general phrase. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

• @Dcpoliticaljunkie: Thanks for your explanation and not making another revert. Just for the record, if this all came to a 3RR violation hearing I would not request a block, but only that a warning be given. I think it would be sort of cruel to block someone who has given much of their time and effort to the article because he/she reverted my particular edit. However, I am concerned with the rigid and unyielding stance some editors have taken, esp where West Point and Slavery (treatment) is concerned. One editor, (very) knowledgeable in Jefferson history took the time to author several(!) well written and comprehensive proposals for West Point, well covered by a number of RS's -- and all we have now is one single sentence of coverage. It truly pains me to see such heart felt effort brushed aside with the apparent flip response of "too many details", or that West Point is a 'blip on the radar screen'. I would be happy, and even willing to bow out and let feelings cool off, if we could only add just a (small) bit more context for these two topics. I am going to remove the clarify tag as a gesture of good faith. I am hoping that after tempers level off that there will be a reconsideration here and that 'someone' will add a couple of points of context so we can move on. If not, oh well. Life goes on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't qualify under 3RR anyway because it isn't. :) Lol. I'm not necessarily against more clarity (I think I mentioned above that I didn't mind the edit you tried yesterday, but you reverted back to the tag), but anything more than a few more words and its undoing a lot of work done to bring the article to a manageable length. I oppose the tag because I think it appears to imply a consensus for significantly more content/length to be added to the section. I don't think such a consensus exists. Also -- for the record, I think I supported more on West Point and its inclusion in the lede. Lol Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dcpoliticaljunkie: Yes, I know you were/are supportive of better coverage of West Point. In fact, we should tally up consensus on the matter for better coverage of this important and unprecedented advent. Also, just so you know, if a fourth revert had occurred I wouldn't need any luck, esp since a request was specifically made to make the revert to avoid being reported. In any case, that's behind us and we seem to have risen above this and hopefully the spirit of compromise will override any lesser emotions on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, this is strange. The slavery section still appears to have the ^{[clarification needed]} tag, at least from my end. Yet when I went to remove it, it does not appear in the mark-up. I tried reloading the page several times, and every time the 'clarification needed' is still in the article text. Any ideas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Well, this is even stranger. Several minutes later I checked the markup again, and behold, the tag was there -- so I removed it. Ghost in the machine? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ellis (2008) discusses Indian removal in terms of Jeffersons Louisiana Purchase, but this has been edited out or censured by Dcpoliticaljunkie. Slavery did remain intact...Jefferson only gave a one year moretorium on allowing slaves to be brought into the territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As we've discussed above, this article should only skim/summarize the main issues/themes. There are daughter articles— Thomas Jefferson and Indian removal, Thomas Jefferson and slavery, and Louisiana Purchase—where this information absolutely belongs, that are linked from this article. I'm not sure that this article needs a detailed explanation about a secondary result of the Purchase -- just a summary. Frankly, slavery/Indian removal I don't think were even major issues around the Purchase from a Jeffersonian perspective.

To ignore or censor slavery and Indian removal is POV. Jefferson is treated as 20th-21st century President rather then a 19th Century President. Why is it that anything critical of Jefferson is convienently deleted on the pretext of "summary"? Slavery led to the American Civil War and there were 100s of Indian Wars in the 1860's. I dont know who left that last comment. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There's an entire section dedicated to both of those topics as well as daughter articles. I've cut some stuff about that, but I've also cut plenty of positive/neutral material as well. The article before had many redundancies, and in some ways, could be viewed as a white-washed polemic on those two topics. They're relatively minor parts of Jefferson's presidency (from a historical perspective/compared to other presidents), and I think they're well covered in the dedicated sections without repetition throughout the rest of the already-lengthy article. I don't think that's censoring. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Slavery did remain intact" in the Louisiana Purchase and in Illinois and in what would later be Missouri for the previous French settlers with slaves --- whom Jefferson would not arbitrarily strip of their property before the law. He was anxious to a) make loyal US citizens of the French, b) incorporate their settlement as our own, c) not give grounds for French government protest. This is not the same thing as promoting slavery as an institution in the republic on principle or as secretive deviousness, which is the out-of-context implication.

Jefferson sought Native American farming and integration, peace along frontiers, purchase of lands for settlement, and removal of military of allies of the British who abrogated their treaties with the US during the Revolution and War of 1812. Those treaties cannot anachronistically said to be in force after tribes make war in violation of them in some sort of race-based double standard for modern analysis. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." may be an operating international principle in the law of nations or it may only be a dictum of practical politicians. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian: are you saying Ellis (2008) is not a reliable source ? From your comments I take that you believed Jefferson thought of slaves African Americans as "property" rather then people. Jefferson allowed slaves to enter the LT after a one year moretorium and he remained silent on the issue of domestic American slavery. The spread of slavery throughout the south led to the American Civil War. This is the 21st Century and if historians like Ellis (2008) discuss Indian removal then that would be pertinent for the TJ article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There was slavery in the Louisiana Territory previous to Jefferson’s administration among French settlers there in New Orleans, St. Louis and surrounding areas; he did not provide for their removal. Jefferson did not have the votes to restrict additional domestic slave importation in the Louisiana Purchase beyond one year. Does Ellis dispute that; where were the votes to come from? Slaves were held as property in United States law, whereas there is evidence that Jefferson saw those held as slaves to be people with fundamental rights to self government, hence the popularity of American Colonization Society among Jefferson’s contemporaries in Virginia leadership. While I am for trimming several article sections, I am for expansion of the coverage devoted to Jefferson’s presidential reform of the executive branch to conform with election results from the people in a republic, and I am for expanding coverage of Indian removal especially British military allies in context.

I view Ellis (2008) is a reliable source for modern perspective. Does Ellis omit that the majority of Native Americans east of the Mississippi were British military allies in the Revolution? Does he fail to distinguish among US allies and its enemies in war without distinction on this point? Does he omit continuing British armament of its military allies after the Revolution and continuing occupation of British forts on US soil supplying them? Does he omit US opposition to that policy?

As late as negotiations for the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, British diplomacy had held out the promise of an independent Native American nation from the Great Lakes south to the Ohio River as a buffer state between the US and Canada. Does Ellis not take US opposition to that policy into account? The Treaty of Paris had nominally ceded British claims to the Northwest Territory west to the Mississippi River based on the military defeats of British and Native-American allies in the West by Virginian and French settler allies. Where does Ellis dispute this? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

The three of us, among others, discussed many of these things before: (1, 2, 3, etc). Jefferson was reluctant to abolish slavery in the newly acquired territory for a number of reasons, foremost among them was the idea that France still had large slave holding interests in the territory and that if Napoleon/France thought Jefferson was going to abolish slavery the Purchase never would have occurred. This was well covered in the article before the GA nomination. Some of the content in the 5th paragraph there should be restored to the current section, which only gives the reader token coverage. We should give the readers all the important and definitive details so they don't have to repeatedly break away from the biography and sift through other articles to get this basic information. Jefferson's primary reasoning for not abolishing slavery in the territory is not some minor detail that only belongs in a daughter article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Jefferson was silent on domestic slavery then we can only guess his intentions concerning the LT. But someone of Jefferson's prestige could have influenced Congress to ban slave imporation beyond a year. Jefferson was a very popular President, especially during his first term when the LT was purchased. I still contend that editing out Ellis (2008) and slavery and Indian removal is ignoring the issue in the article concerning the LT. Maybe another source besides Ellis (2008) can be found ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss this at length several times before? Jefferson was silent on slavery during his terms as President because the issue was becoming very heated and controversial and driving a dangerous wedge between members of the House and elsewhere. Meanwhile Britain, as usual, was waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces, ala the War of 1812 which followed almost immediately after Jefferson's final term. Jefferson was obviously a man of deep convictions. It would be a reaching assumption to claim that he just up and had this change of heart at that late date in his life. (Note, editors need to scan archives more often before repeating the same debates all over again.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Noting removal of tribes that violated peace treaties with the US by making war as allies of Great Britain subsequent to the US winning the war, is an important circumstance of Jefferson’s administration; another source besides Ellis should be found if he is silent on the context of the removal.

Here’s what Jefferson’s party said by treaty in the administration following, --- it is the first instance of a UK-US military alliance I can find: “Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both his Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object." — Article the Tenth, Treaty of Ghent, 1814. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In the lede it says that Jefferson was an "American lawyer", which seems a bit misleading because during this time (1767+) there was no 'America' in terms of the country that exists today. Wouldn't it be more adequate to simply say that he practiced law, or that he was a Colonial lawyer? Today the term America is generally understood to mean the United States which didn't officially exist until after independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The British, including the colonists, used the term "America." Note that modern Canada has a "1st American Regiment". TFD (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Reaching, argumentative. Seems we still need to make the clarification. I doubt the average reader knows about this Canadian regiment, and even if they did, this doesn't really provide us with a valid reason not to be clear on this point. As I recall, several editors here, including yourself, TVH and myself debated whether we should use the term 'America' to refer to the U.S.A., which you were in opposition to -- a debate that resulted in a consensus for using this term. Are you saying that we shouldn't use terms like American Civil War or the American Revolution? It is generally understood that 'America' or 'American' refers to the United States, per the first sentence in the United States article. As such, using the term American lawyer could mislead many of the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course readers are unfamiliar with the 1st Canadian Regiment, which is why I mentioned it. The point is that people living in the 13 colonies were called "Americans." The 1st American Regiment for example was originally formed during the French and Indian Wars. The Tea Act refers to any "British American colony." Dr. Johnson in Taxation no Tyranny (1775), refers to people living in what is now the U.S. as "Americans." In 1776 13 of the American states united to form the "United States of America." It does not mean they were not American before 1776, just that they were neither united nor independent. TFD (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your first sentence is not very clear. You add this to the discussion 'because' readers are not familiar?? This is all besides the point of being clear that Jefferson was not an "American lawyer". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be pretty boring if people only told you things you already knew. But rather than descend into a morass of irrelevant argumentation, let's get back to the issue. People living in the American colonies were called Americans, both by people in the UK and in the colonies. Contemporary writers still refer to them as Americans. The fact that the American states only united in the late 18th century to form a nation called the "United States of America" is irrelevant. Now if they had called the new nation "Columbia" or something new, it might be different. TFD (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson was a British subject Virginia colony lawyer of British America up to July 4, 1776. From July 4, 1776 to March 1, 1781 Jefferson was a Virginia state lawyer and U.S. citizen. From March 1, 1781 to June 21, 1788 Jefferson was a Virginia state lawyer and U.S. citizen under the Articles of Confederation. After June 21, 1788 Jefferson was a Virginia state lawyer and U.S. citizen under the U.S. Constitution. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

None of which means he was not an American before 1776. Incidentally, is there any reason why you use extremely wide

indentations? TFD (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

True...The term "America" was used in the first Virginia Charter in 1606, so in that sense Jefferson was a British American, then on July 4, 1776 Jefferson became a United States American due to the DOI. But Gwillhickers has a point as far as the reader is concerned. Calling Jefferson an "American lawyer" may mislead the reader to believe that Jefferson was born a U.S. Citizen. Are there specific rules concerning outdenting ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

See "Indentation": "The first comment in a section will have no colons (or one asterisk - see below) before it. When you reply to a statement, you should use one more colon (or asterisk) than the number that appear in the statement you're replying to." I do not think that readers will be confused about nationality laws. India, Canada and Australia did not have nationality laws until 1947, yet we still refer to people living in those countries as Indians, Canadians and Australians, not British subjects living in those countries. The King's Royal Rifle Corps, was founded in 1756 as the Royal American Regiment. TFD (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Both @The Four Deuces and Cmguy777: make some good points here, as I believe I have, per the average reader. How about if we just said 'Colonial American lawyer' or 'practiced law'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not a big deal. However Jefferson was both a colonial and a post-colonial lawyer. Certainly he was not an English barrister, because that requires residence in an Inn. Did the U.S. have separate barrister and solicitor professions, was qualification for solicitors required, were lawyers able to practice in other colonies, did Jefferson? I really do not see any reason to research these issues when we can just say he was an American lawyer. TFD (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Colonial American lawyer is the more accurate term, reminding/informing the reader that Jefferson was a lawyer during colonial times, in America. Is this not both more accurate and a fair compromise? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That implies he ceased to be a lawyer after colonial times. TFD (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson was a delegate in 1776 and soon after a governor and did not practice law after independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If Jefferson did not practice law after July 4, 1776, then putting in "colonial American lawyer" is appropriate. Is there anyway to substantiate he did not practice law after July 4, 1776? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Source: Thomas Jefferson and the Practice of Law Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson retired his law practice in 1774 turning his practice over to Edmund Randolph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I added "colonial" to the lede section. I believe this appropriate since Jefferson did not practice law after 1774 and he entered the bar when Virgina was still a British colony in 1766. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

we do not say someone ceases to be a lawyer when they sell their practice, but when they cease to be qualified. Would we say that Obama and both Clintons are not lawyers? Jefferson worked in a committee of the Virginia legislature to reform laws after the U.S. declared independence, and of course later presided over the upper house of the U.S. legislature (a body that writes laws). And apparently English barristers were allowed to practice in Virginia. TFD (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you guys think of omitting lawyer from the first line of the lede? It's mentioned at the end of the paragraph so it's redundant and, frankly, I don't think lawyer is the most important thing Jefferson is known for so it shouldn't be the first line anyway...

I agree: drop lawyer. it's not in the top list of his roles. ("lawmaker" is not the same as "lawyer." eg "John McCain is a lawmaker.") Rjensen (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with DCpoliticaljunkie and Rjensen, we can omit lawyer from the first line of the lede.

Aside @The Four Deuces: Is Clinton reinstated in Arkansas from his disbarment, or has he passed the New York bar in the state wherein he resides? Is he a some-time lawyer? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's licence to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for 5 years and he resigned from the Supreme Court of the U.S. bar. Incidentally articles in England refer to people practicing law in the U.S. as lawyers even though they are not qualified to practice law in England. TFD (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Lawyer infers that Jefferson practiced law at the bar...but he retired in 1774 and his legal career was only 8 years starting in 1766...Jefferson never tried a case after 1774...and he never was appointed Attorney General...The edit looks good... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it does. For example, the U.S. Congress defines a lawyer as someone who holds a law degree and lists 162 members as lawyers. So to them having sufficient education to practice law is sufficient. Of course they could be wrong, they have made mistakes in the past, but that seems to be what most readers mean by lawyer. Maybe what you mean is "employed as a lawyer." TFD (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Jefferson was a lawyer. The issue is listing it as a major role, when he abandoned the practice when he entered the public arena. Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes as Cm' mentions, Jefferson never tried a case after 1774. Also, Dc's edit seems the most appropriate -- esp since mention of 'lawyer' came before 'Founding Father', which is a somewhat all encompassing term that would include all Jefferson's activities before independence. Also, before independence, the laws were that of the British crown -- after independence Jefferson and other delegates were busy drafting the new American laws. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered this guideline, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which I didn't know existed. It's pertinent when daughter ("child") articles are created or enlarged from this one. YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, WP:SPLIT. Here we see, by size, 60kB “Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time).” Using this guideline the article is 15% over at 69kB. That seems to me to be primarily an exercise in copyediting. I have suggested several sections which seem visually long under Presidency sections.

Under Content split: “Consideration must be given both to notability and to potential neutrality issues as discussed at the linked WP:Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks. “The generally accepted policy it that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.” Even with the proposed split, there should be an abbreviated section on Jefferson’s thought on political and religious views.

Care must be taken to maintain balance. Removing all reference to Jefferson’s thought promoting democracy for all humanity, equitable American society and good governance while emphasizing criticisms of such things as Indian removal out of context, slavery practice out of context, and personal indebtedness out of context -- would make the proposed article split a POV fork. Jefferson was prominent as an idealist as well as a practicing Virginian politician of his time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Those guidelines were written for the benefit of articles on videogame characters. The guideline clearly states that there will be exceptions, and dealing with one of the most exceptional figures in world history seems a good place to use our own judgment. Rjensen (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. It would seem anyone eager to write a comprehensive and well written article would welcome this idea. Funny, and sort of disappointing, that a few editors have habitually scoffed at the idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• To remove all reference to Jefferson’s thought while only emphasizing criticisms would be POV pushing. This is the Jefferson biography and mentioning Jefferson's thinking must be included to give perspective to any criticisms, which too often are little more than conjecture that ignores many of the facts. This is why I have always emphasized including all the important facts so we can let readers make their own decisions where morality, right and wrong are concerned. Any significant discrepancies among historians has always been dealt with by simply mentioning it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should not be happening again. Our collective judgement is to trim the article (somewhere in the neighborhood of the guidelines even if not exact or under). We already know that some disagreed with that but they are in the minority (I would suggest they are so, because all they say is 'longer, longer'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is yet another misrepresentation, as several editors, very knowledgeable of Jefferson, and major contributors btw, feel we should have the discretion, per guidelines, to write a comprehensive article and include various hitherto missing and general facts. Since there is a marginal consensus, what would your suggestions for a fair compromise be? Remember, there was a standing consensus to include many of the things that were removed, often without discussion, so perhaps we should summon all involved editors and get a more accurate account on the matter, that is, if you can't present us with any pressing reasons not to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Negative POV can be subjective. Slaves did increase to over a million by natural reproduction and were moved to the Louisiana Territory. Jefferson signifigantly decreased the slave importation by banning the international slave trade although there was some smuggling in Louisiana. Noting Jefferson did this without a Civil War. Stating facts is not POV and as far as I know there are no negative judgemental comments concerning Jefferson in the article. That would be POV. But I do not believe the discussion of slavery and/or Indian removal and the Louisiana Territory should be censured from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Yes, I am for including all the significant facts. Bear in mind however that natural reproduction occurred by itself and wasn't something that depended on the new territory. Jefferson authorized the acquisition of the new territory for nationalistic reasons that were far more more pressing than allowing slavery to "spread", waiting a year before he allowed slaves to be moved there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Congress debated the spread of slavery after the aquisition of the LT. The aquisition, spread of slavery and Indian removal are three seperate issues. The aquisition is mentioned but the spread of slavery and Indian removal have been excluded. That is censureship. The discussion of these issues in the article does not undermine in anyway Jefferson's reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is worried about Jefferson's reputation or trying to censor anything in this article. It's simply a matter of needing to trim the article, and as it so happens, there are sections devoted to slavery and Indian removal -- along with full-length articles on those topics. We obviously must include the Louisiana Purchase but I don't think we need to include a lot of detail about its affects on any number of sociological topics, particularly those that have entire sections and articles devoted to them already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is slavery and Indian removal not pertinent to the article? Because that could be a critical assessement of Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While there was a marginal consensus not to mention West Point in the lede I don't recall any consensus to cover this topic with only one sentence. We should really say something more here, esp since the topic ties in with Jefferson's political philosophy, his ideas for national defense and the Univ of Virginia, which was largely modeled after West Point. These general and definitive ideas could be covered inside one or two more sentences. Yes? No? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No -- unless it is a part of a paragraph on executive branch reform. see comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

In spite of difference among some editors it would seem that a 'GA' is still within sight. Are there any major issues that need to be addressed before we consider renominating the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the elephant in the room is still the excessive length of the article. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup. That was the biggest problem last time, and the criteria haven't changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is better trimmed. Also converting all references to sfn format would help. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My two cents on the length issue—the article is 25% smaller than when I began a major edit in the summer. As stated earlier, it is now just above the maximum limit guideline of 10,000 words at this point. My own sense has been that at this level, a compromise on the length has been reached. I think the article failed the GA nom recently because of the edit war which ensued over attempts to add back some of the detail that had been cut. Having said that, I do support the revisions by VH below. Hoppyh (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: Okay, but remember, the failure came a while after our little head-to-head and right at the time when significant additions were being made and all the lengthy (and not so friendly) talk was occurring. That is not to say we didn't contribute to the instability, such that it was. Yes, @TheVirginiaHistorian:, as usual, is making some well written proposals, but bear in mind they likely(?) will increase the length of the article (though I haven't done a comparison count), which is okay by me and a few other editors. Again, page length is supposed to be employed with discretion, and given all the discussion regarding it, we've been more than discrete on the matter. I have only three things I'd like to add, which won't affect page length to speak of. One. We should at least say 'something' general and definitive about Jefferson's actual treatment of his slaves i.e.not over worked -- provided well for. The existing statement is short and sketchy. Two. West point, per my proposal, should be covered with at least a couple of sentences. I believe that's a fair compromise. Three, the Louisiana Purchase (section), one of Jefferson's corner-stone accomplishments, needs a little attention. There are some errors there and a couple of important points of context are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that all of @TheVirginiaHistorian:'s current edits would reduce article length which is welcome. Haven't had a chance to review but I assume they're good. @Gwillhickers:, I agree with you on relatively good treatment of slaves and West Point, and I'm interested to see what you propose on the Louisiana Purchase. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dcpoliticaljunkie: Thanks. See my comments below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The section suffers from elements of an historiographic essay for scholars which takes away from describing the events in an encyclopedic style for the general reader. Add link to Embargo Act of 1807. Reduce length about 15%-20%.

Main article: Chesapeake–Leopard Affair

Main article: Embargo Act of 1807

The British conducted raids on American shipping and kidnapped seamen in 1806–07; thousands of Americans were thus impressed into their military service. In response, Jefferson issued a call for a boycott of British goods; Congress passed the Non-importation Act but it was never enforced. While Jefferson sought a treaty to ease relations through negotiations by James Monroe and William Pinkney, the result lacked any provisions to end impressment.[169]

The British ship HMS Leopard fired upon the USS Chesapeake off the Virginia coast in June 1807, kidnapping American citizens, and Jefferson prepared for war.[170] He issued a proclamation banning armed British ships from U.S. waters. He presumed unilateral authority to call on the states to prepare 100,000 militia and ordered the purchase of arms, ammunition, and supplies, writing, "The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation [than strict observance of written laws]". The USS Revenge, dispatched to demand an explanation from the British government, was also fired upon. Jefferson called for a special session of Congress in October to enact an embargo or in the alternative consider war.[171]

Despite Napoleon’s extending the Berlin Decree and Britain’s redoubling efforts at impressment, the war fever of the summer faded. Jefferson asked for and received the Embargo Act of 1807, an alternative that allowed the U.S. more time to build up defensive works, militias and naval forces. Later historians have seen irony in Jefferson's assertion of such federal power in a national sphere of affairs.[172]

Secretary of State James Madison supported the embargo with equal vigor to Jefferson,[173] while Treasury Secretary Gallatin opposed it, due to its indefinite time frame and the risk it posed to the policy of American neutrality.[174] The U.S. economy suffered, criticism grew, and opponents began evading the embargo. Instead of retreating, Jefferson sent federal agents to secretly track down smugglers and violators.[175] Three acts were passed in Congress during 1807 and 1808, called the Supplementary, the Additional, and the Enforcement acts.[170] Though the government could not prevent American vessels from trading with the European belligerents once they had left American ports, the embargo triggered a devastating decline in exports.[170]

Most historians consider Jefferson's embargo to have been ineffective and harmful to American interests.[176] Others, however, portray it as an innovative, nonviolent measure which aided France in its war with Britain while preserving American neutrality.[178] Jefferson believed that the failure of the embargo was due to selfish traders and merchants showing a lack of "republican virtue", and maintained that had the embargo been widely observed, it would have avoided war in 1812.[179]

In December 1807 Jefferson announced his intention to not to seek a third term, leaving Madison and Gallatin in almost total control of affairs.[180] Shortly before leaving office in March 1809, Jefferson signed the repeal of the Embargo. In its place the Non-Intercourse Act was passed, but it proved no more effective.[170]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hoppyh (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that Tucker's work, 1837, is used as a source in the biography, which is one of the oldest accounts to speak of on Jefferson. Tucker was the Dumas Malone of his day. In any case, I have no objections but thought maybe some discussion might be needed, as we're supposed to use modern sources (only?), unless there is a consensus for its use. I support the use. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tucker is my doing—the age was discussed and agreed to in the GA review—it is listed in the other biographers' bibliographies. The work received a favorable review at the time of publication by Edinburgh Review. I was careful to use the source only for undisputed facts—full disclosure, he is an ancestor of mine.Hoppyh (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the inclusion of earlier scholars in the tradition of Pauline Maier for undisputed facts. Modern scholars with an enthusiasm for domestic social history often omit related elements of international ramifications that were of interest to earlier historians. Insight and judgment from their good scholarship is sometimes prescient, sometimes an antidote, to modern historiography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

An example I think would be Tucker's perspective on the Notes on the State of Virginia. Hoppyh (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It's a good idea to have a balance of both new and older publications, esp since many of the modern sources use them as references. While some (few) newer sources sometimes offer newly discovered ideas, few of them present newly discovered facts and too often only offer us new opinion, conjecture, often the product of academic peer-pressure. This is esp so if they're trying to publish a book and simply want an overall good review. As I've always maintained, there is no guarantee for the integrity of a publication based on its date of publication alone. i.e.Sources should be evaluated on a per source basis. Nuff' said.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite, cutting approximately 15-20%. Portions copy edited, ellipses note sentences deleted. smaller image.

See also: First Party System

Soon after returning from France, Jefferson accepted Washington's invitation to serve as Secretary of State.[78] ...The first major issues before the Cabinet were the national debt and the permanent location of the capital. Jefferson opposed a national debt preferring each state to retire its own, while Hamilton, desired consolidation of various states' debts by the federal government.[81] The second major issue was the capital's permanent location. Hamilton favored a capital close to the major commercial centers of the Northeast, while Washington, Jefferson, and other agrarians, wanted it located to the south.

After lengthy deadlock, the Compromise of 1790 was struck locating the capital on the Potomac River, while the federal government assumed the war debts of all 13 states.[82] In May 1792 Jefferson, alarmed at the political rivalries taking shape, wrote to Washington, urging him to run for re-election that year as a unifying influence.[83] He entreated the president to rally the citizenry to a party that would defend democracy against the corrupting influence of banks and monied interests, as espoused by the Federalists. Historians recognize this letter as the earliest delineation of Democratic-Republican Party principles.[84] ...

Jefferson supported France against Britain when the two nations fought in 1793, though his arguments in the Cabinet were undercut by French Revolutionary envoy Edmond-Charles Genêt's open scorn for President Washington….[86] In his discussions with British Minister George Hammond, Jefferson tried unsuccessfully to persuade the British to acknowledge their violation of the Treaty of Paris, to vacate their posts in the Northwest, and to compensate the U.S. for slaves whom the British had freed at the end of the war. Seeking a return to private life, Jefferson resigned the cabinet position in December 1793, perhaps seeking to bolster his political influence from outside the administration.[87]

After the Washington administration negotiated the unpopular Jay Treaty with Great Britain (1794), Jefferson saw a cause around which to rally his party and organized opposition from Monticello.[88] The treaty, designed by Hamilton, aimed to reduce tensions and increase trade. Jefferson warned that it would increase British influence and subvert republicanism, calling it "the boldest act [Hamilton and Jay] ever ventured on to undermine the government".[89] The Treaty passed, but when it expired in 1805 during Jefferson’s administration, it was not renewed. Jefferson continued his pro-French stance; during the violence of the Reign of Terror, he declined to disavow the revolution because "To back away from France would be to undermine the cause of republicanism in America."[90]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Hoppyh (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As @Cmguy777: mentions above, we need to adopt a single citation convention. Currently there are two conventions used extensively in this article. (Harvard and the SFN) I am not sure if this is a GA requirement -- have to check -- but it most certainly is a FA requirement. IMO we should go with the SFN convention. Either way, this is going to involve a fair amount of editing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm barely involved here anymore, but I agree with GWillhickers on this. For me, sfn is the easiest to work with. There's a little more work the first time you add a cited work, but after that it saves a lot of time and, more importantly, when a new editor edits the page someday, it's easier to read the editing screen with only small sfn cites between the sentences. Articles with long cites in the middle of the text are much harder to edit. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I just did a citation type count (SFN v Harvard style). There are only seven occurrences of SFN type, while there are more than 300 of the the Harvard type, so we should go with the Harvard'. Besides, there is not much difference in the number of characters used in either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What will happen when we try to bring the article up to FA standards, where good writing and comprehensiveness are FA requirements, if we continue to let the idea of page length determine how we author the narrative? There will be no more room to add comprehensive content/context if we continue to subscribe to the page length guideline dogmatically here and now. The idea of page length has been the cause for too many needless debates here for the last several months. Much of this could have been averted if we didn't blindly fixate on this idea. As editors WP allows us to use common sense and discretion here. We need to do so or we will never be able to bring the article up to FA standards where we will be required to add context and comprehensiveness. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The following is criterion #4 for Featured Articles—Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. There are a number of editors who believe this length/summary style policy as numerically set out earlier has real meaning, including the recent reviewer on the GA nom. At a current length of 10% above the maximum readability range, the editors' discretion has been exhausted according to WP length policy. There is no agreement on this issue and hence there will be no GA or FA upgrade in my view. Hoppyh (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary style involves moving content to sub-articles when the main article grows too long. Why not just do more of that? Everyking (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Why not employ a little discretion regarding the "occasional exceptions" outlined in the page length guideline? This is indeed an exceptional article whose subject is complex and extensively involved in many areas of early American history. Re:Criterion #4 -- Yes, we stay focused on the main topic (per section). No one is asking that we fill up the given sections with numerous minor details. This is a distinction that's always glossed over, along with the following two FA requirements:

FA criterion #1a says the article must be 'well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.

FA criterion #1b clearly says the article must be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.

• As for the sub articles, currently the reader has to break away from this article more than a dozen times and search through other articles just to get the basic stuff. Sub-articles are for in depth coverage. Too many times basic and definitive statements have been deleted (rarely moved) or are outright blocked entirely. None of what has been presented here really negates the idea that we are allowed to employ discretion when it comes to page length.
• We have already removed much content and have scaled down almost all the sections. Now what? We'll still be facing the problem of trying to add context and comprehensiveness in the effort to bring the article up to FA standards. If we employ simple common sense and discretion we avoid this calamity and all the lengthy discussion that goes with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The map that was depicted in the Indian removal section deals with the relocation of "Native Americans from the Southeastern United States between 1832 and 1835." as it says in the image description. The areas effected, in dark green, also depict the year dates involved, years after Jefferson had died, and long after his presidency, so this map has been removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The map should be removed. That map would belong in the Andrew Jackson bioagraphy article if not their already. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit of section proposed, ellipses show redaction. No change in wording or citations other than "campus" buildings, reduced image.

Main article: University of Virginia

Jefferson envisioned a university free of church influences where students could specialize in many new areas not offered at other colleges. He believed education engendered a stable society, which should provide publicly funded schools accessible to students from all social strata, based solely on ability.[281] ...He was the principal designer of the campus buildings, planned the University's curriculum and served as the first rector upon its opening in 1825.[283]

Jefferson was a strong disciple of Greek and Roman architectural styles, which he believed to be most representative of American democracy. ...The layout of the university's grounds, which Jefferson called the 'Academical Village', reflected his educational ideas. ...The university had a library rather than a church at its center, emphasizing its secular nature—a controversial aspect at the time.[286]

When Jefferson died in 1826, James Madison replaced him as rector.[287] Jefferson bequeathed most of his library to the University.[288]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This may be getting ahead of ourselves, but when the article reaches GA status it becomes eligible for a DYK presentation on the WP main page. Just wondering what we should say. Reminder, DYK's are supposed to be especially interesting and perhaps somewhat unusual. We don't say things like e.g.DYK, Jefferson authored the D.O.I.? We could say, perhaps, Jefferson was a slave owner but while a lawyer represented slaves seeking to establish their freedom. Of course this will no doubt pop a lot of modern day bubbles, esp in academia, but what the heck, one can never get enough education, even in modern times. :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: - You removed a link claiming "link is not needed--it tells zero about TJ" -- What about all the other links, like Maryland and other places, for openers, that tell us "zero" about Jefferson? Seems that the link for List of amendments to the United States Constitution is well placed in the Louisiana purchase section, regarding Jefferson's concern for a Constitutional amendment. If there is a better place for the link I can understand that, but are you sure you want to apply the 'Tells us zero about Jefferson' yardstick to all the other links? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

yes let's get rid of useless links. The question to ask: does it help; the reader if we encourage him to jump to a different article. In some cases yes but only if there is a good reason. The List of constl amendments is of zero use here, I suggest--why should a reader jump there?? Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't be serious! WP articles are filled with 'tells us zero about THE subject' links. Do you have any idea of what road you're about to embark on with your desire to get rid of "useless links"? We'll be here forever trying to decide what and what not to include. We should of course not link 'everything', but this tells us zero approach is a recipe for never ending debate. The existing link for the Ohio River tells us zero about Jefferson, for openers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am serious. this article should have zero useless links. That's called quality control--telling readers to go elsewhere when we know they will learn little of use about Jefferson is a bad idea, I suggest. Wikipedia guidelines say do not link to common words: Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. WP:LINKS. words like Maryland and Spain and Atlantic Ocean are common. "Ohio River" is just useful enough because that article has a useful map. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

RJ is correct on links to common words/places. Hoppyh (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen and Hoppyh: Rj', I have no qualms about dropping 'some' common knowledge links, esp in the lede section, but that's not addressing your original contention that links that have 'zero' to do with Jefferson should be removed. e.g. 'Polymath' (having much to do with Jefferson, btw) and 'constitutional amendments' are not exactly common knowledge items, so please be careful. Jefferson originally thought a constitutional amendment was necessary for governing the Louisiana Territory. I suspect most readers have an idea of what a constitutional amendment is, but many do not, and it's doubtful most readers know what a Polymath is, so we should link these. Louisiana and Georgia were linked in the Ulysses S. Grant article when it became a Featured Article -- even New York is linked in the Benjamin Harrison featured Article, and I could easily go on, so unless there is a definitive policy not to link such items in the body of the text I am taking strong exception to removing 'all' such common knowledge links -- esp ones for geographical items, where even though a reader may know of the topic, will still want to do a quick check to look at borders, the capitol, rivers, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We started here with complaints about the article being too long-- that it takes too long to read. It takes much longer to read when the user is diverted off to side articles. I suggested only if the side article has some new information about Jefferson should we link to it. The list of constitutional amendments has no new information about constitutional amendments involving Jefferson. For the person who does not know what a polymath is, it takes them five seconds to find out on their smart phone. I think we should assume that the readers of this article are at least as well-educated as the average Wikipedia reader, which means a few years of university education. In my opinion this article should be directed at the typical first or second year university student taking a history course And these reading this much on Jefferson he should not have to be told that Georgia is a state. Rjensen (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Following hyperlinks is an option, not an obligation. The ability to look up unfamiliar words and concepts allows us to taylor the text to more than just one particular demographic group. No-one forces a user to click on links when they don't need the information. On the other hand, it's a much bigger diversion to get out my smartphone than to right-click on polymath, then hit Cmd-W to close the tab when I'm done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with @Stephan Schulz: -- disagree with @Rjensen:. Links don't make the article longer. Links are only used when a reader wishes to learn, or learn more, about the topic linked to. While the link to 'Amendments doesn't tell us anything about Jefferson, anymore than the link to the Ohio River does, it allows the reader to do a quick check, as I've explained above, where the topic will be summed up in the lede. Also, we should link Polymath, or else say that Jefferson was a man of many talents. Most readers now will have to stop and consult a dictionary just to get through the lede section to find out this very basic fact about Jefferson. Having said that, I can compromise and live without links to places like France, Great Britain, etc.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Rather than link to ' List of Amendments we could instead link to the History of the United States Constitution where Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase are covered specifically in terms of an amendment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Have just completed moving Cite book templates and web addresses from body of text to the bibliography. Have also converted the few SFN citations to Harvard style. For those unfamiliar with linking citations in the body of the text to the Cite Book template in the bibliography below is a simple example.

Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Apparently you're not concerned about consistency in the citations. We are not using the SFN type of citation and are trying to keep all the cites under one convention. In the future, please use the above Harvard style citation when adding them to the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I just corrected a couple of errors (date of ratification, etc) and added some important points of context, along with an important quote from Jefferson regarding his feelings towards France's acquisition of Louisiana from Spain, which he felt threatened the security of the continent and compromised U.S. relations with both Spain and France. I also removed the picture of Napoleon, as Jefferson never saw the man and was only involved with him remotely and briefly. For those still concerned about length, the section only increased in size by aprox 600 characters. (not including citations, links, etc) Other than wanting to add a point of context, a few words, to the slavery section, I am done adding content to this article and will concentrate my efforts on tweaks, citations, linking etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jefferson looks like a 20th century President. What about Indians ? What about slavery ? None of this is addressed. Ellis (2008) addressed Indian removal but this has been deleted. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am reluctant to allow whimsical speculation and scholastic ironies to interrupt the narrative flow in an article of Jefferson’s life. Both points of Ellis related to Indians and Louisiana Territory slavery can be addressed in the “Historical reputation” section because Ellis is important in any treatment of Jefferson’s historiography.

It is striking in how many respects Jefferson’s vision of a virtuous republic anticipated our own, or, it is striking how many elements of Jefferson’s vision we have adopted in this century. That take-away should not be watered down with stylistic artifice using anachronistic criticism out of historical context. Historiographic asides are not historical context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Jefferson's reasons for (eventually) allowing slavery in the Louisiana territory were not a factor in the purchase. National security was the paramount reason. Having said that, I noticed that the Slavery section doesn't mention slavery in regard to the purchase, so I would not mind a balanced and neutral statement regarding the spread of slavery in that section. i.e.Not wanting to compromise the purchase of the Louisiana territory, and French slave holing interests, Jefferson eventually allowed slavery after a one year moratorium. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

VirginiaHistorian Are you saying Indian removal and slavery are "stylistic artifice" and "whimsical speculation"? Avoiding signifigant issues does not make them go away. We are not talking about French slave holding interests. We are talking about U.S. slave holding interests at that time period and the diffusion of slaves into the Louisiana Territory particularly in Louisiana the Pelican state. Jefferson did want Indians to be removed west of the Mississippi and Congress gave him authority to do so. Jefferson moderated his ban on slavery in the West such as in 1784 and 1787. Jefferson believed in a diffusion theory of slavery that if slavery diffused from the East to the West there would be less likely a slave revolt that took place in Haiti. Indians and slaves were not involved in the LP purchase rather Europeans and European Americans were. I believe that the article should discuss these issues. Ellis (2008) discusses both issues and Freehling (2005) discusses slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: -- why not just mention the idea of slavery in the Louisiana territory in the Slavery section per my suggestion? Also, there is also a dedicated section for Indian removal. While we're on the topic there, I noticed there is a lot of one sided commentary in that section where four (!) different authors are mentioned, so I'm not quite understanding your complaint. Meanwhile that section doesn't mention that Jefferson tried to encourage agriculture, ranching and other forms of assimilation to the Indians who overall were racist and xenophobic and were much more inclined to pick up the 'sword' than were the largely Christian settlers. Given the one sided commentary it almost seems we should place a POV tag in that section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is suggesting Indians were non violent or pacifists, although, that is another discussion, how many Indians tribes used violence. Some European "tribes" used violence, including the Vikings who discovered America ca 1000. Indian wars had been going on for about 800 years before Jefferson's presidency. A genuine Peace Policy was not proposed until President Ulysess S. Grant. We are getting off subject. Although if there were Indian wars under Jefferson it might be good to mention them. We can mention the LP and LT in the slavery section and the Indian removal section. I am not sure what law but Congress authorized Jefferson to remove Indians from the LT. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The List of wars involving the United States mentions as the only war of his term: the First Barbary War (1801-1805). The previous major war against Native Americans was the Northwest Indian War (1785-1795) and the next was Tecumseh's War (1811). Jefferson was not really involved in either of them.

A significant event of his term in relation to Native Americans was the Treaty of Grouseland (1805) which peacefully purchased additional areas from the tribes of modern Indiana and Ohio. However, this treaty is credited to William Henry Harrison, the Governor of Indiana Territory. Harrison was originally appointed by previous president John Adams. According to Harrison's article, Jefferson simply "granted Harrison authority to negotiate and conclude treaties with the Indians."

A more controversial treaty under Jefferson was the Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809). At first seen as another peaceful purchase of land from several tribes, the treaty controversially excluded the Shawnee from negotiations while including areas they had recently claimed. It was one of the causes of Tecumseh's War, but Jefferson was out of office by the time the war started. Dimadick (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: "U.S. slave holding interests” discussion belongs to the article on American slavery certainly. When they are NOT Jefferson’s, it is artificial to discuss them as guilt by association. There is no evidence of Jefferson actively promoting slavery expansion in the Louisiana Territory, only idle scholarly speculation that since there WAS such promotion in his time, the all powerful Jefferson had to be complicit, no, actively engaged in it. That's nonsensical whimsical speculation unhinged from historical research of any kind.

Jefferson sought to remove British military allies which had made war on the U.S., there is no historical evidence that eastern woodland Native-Americans did not make war on themselves and on Europeans in the 1700s. The whimsical speculation that there is any serious question about “how many Indian tribes used violence” is just that. Those not successfully waging war were absorbed or extinguished by other Amerindians, as was the fate of numerous tribes adjacent to the conquering Powhatan in Virginia, north, south, east and west of their origins. The adjacent settlement of English just happened to be an exception.

“Peaceful purchase of additional areas” whether from France or Native-Americans to avoid war and aid western settlement was indeed a Jefferson policy; that should not be conflated with forceable “Indian removal” by Jackson against Supreme Court ruling. Such would be an artifice of rhetorical flourish unsupported by facts of historical record, a mere irony of modern scholarship by its imprecise terminology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Is wikipedia denying that Jefferson was President? Slavery was important during Jefferson's times because there was the percieved threat of slave rebellion. Under law Jefferson as President was required to enforce the Fugitive Slave law of 1793. Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime and he was a slaveowner President. The LP helped the South more then the North in terms on monetary slave interest. These are facts not whimsical theories. To not allow editor opinion in wikipedia talk pages is censorship and to not allow reliable references in an article is censorship. There is no need to attack the intentions of editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is all very interesting but we seem to be getting away from the idea of a simple solution. Let's just make the statement regarding slavery eventually reaching the Louisiana territory in the Slavery section and again, there is already a dedicated section for Indian removal, with (much) more than a fair share of one sided commentary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise I am in agreement. In terms of slavery Jefferson's diffusion theory needs to be mentioned. In terms of Indian removal mentioning the law giving Jefferson the power to remove Indians and the controversial treaty of Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809) should be mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Cm', thanks, I believe this is more than fair. Also, in the Indian removal section it says: Historians such as Peter S. Onuf and Merrill D. Peterson argue that Jefferson's actual Indian policies did little to promote assimilation and were a pretext to seize lands, yet ref [150] gives Miller, 2008, p.94, as the reference. Does Miller refer to Onuf and Peterson? In any case, please keep the language neutral and in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently there was no great Indian War during Jefferson's time, but I think appropriate to put in the Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809) and the law that gave Jefferson power to remove Indians from the LT. Let the reader decide possibly even stating there were no signifigant Indian wars during Jefferson's presidency. The diffusion theory of slavery is what it is. Jefferson moderated his view and was against banning slavery in the LT but rather permitted diffusion. The theory itself is controversial since slavery actually expanded, but Jefferson's main purpose of diffusion was to prevent a slave rebellion in Virginia. Possibly Jefferson thought slavery would be limited by spreading out the number of slaves per acre such as in New England. The subject is a bit confusing in itself but this is the policy Jefferson adopted while president. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: The Louisiana Purchase did NOT “help the South more than the North”, when it broke the slave-based sectional balance in the Senate and contributing to free-soil majorities in the House 6-3 not counting Washington, Idaho, Nebraska or the Dakotas: MI, IA, WS,OR, MN, and KS -- as opposed to LA, MO and AR by the onset of the Civil War. More scholastic speculation asserted as “facts".

“Is WP denying that Jefferson was President?” — no, WP is not asserting an unsubstantiated speculation of scholastic whimsy that everything enacted by Congress was just as Jefferson intended. The factoid of Congressional back and forth on slave settlement does not meet WP:WEIGHT relating to Jefferson’s actions for Jefferson’s article. There is no evidence connecting the two, only a scholastic speculation which amounts to WP:POV.

Rehearsing the "diffusion theory" related to Virginia separated by decades from events decades later in Louisiana is too tenuous to be taken seriously. In the intervening years we have Jefferson’s support of free-soil counties in western Virginia and free-soil territories west of the Appalachians to the Mississippi, both of which failed in the respective legislatures — almost as though Jefferson did not effect every intention he had over legislatures, you see, --- this without denying Jefferson was President in some sort of rhetorical reductio ad absurdum on your part. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Monetarily speaking the LP and LT was much more prosperous in terms of slavery for the South then the north particularly in Louisiana where the soil and climate was made for agriculture products particularly "king" cotton. Jefferson in 1784 was for banning slavery after 1800 in the West. Did Jefferson introduce legislation for free soil counties in West Virginia the western territories ? Jefferson was President. From 1801 to 1809 Jefferson signed bills into law and enforced the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. Jefferson was commander in chief of the armed forces and exerted substancial power even influencing the Barbary Pirates on the African coast. He spoke out on getting rid of the International slave trade and Congress responded. He was quiet on the domestic slave trade while president and he moderated his initial 1784 ban on slavery, why, because of the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804) where the former slaves killed their former masters in a slave revolt. Jefferson believed that diffusing slaves into the West would alleviate the number of slaves in Virginia and thus prevent a slave revolt. That's why there was only a one year moretorium on slaves being brought into the LT. Ferling (2000) critisizes Jefferson for not taking a substantial lead on ending domestic slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Louisiana Territory is “more prosperous in terms of slavery for the South than the North” is a whimsical tautology since the North did not use slavery as a means of production. You unthinkingly dismiss the superior agricultural production of family farms and industrial lumber production in the six states mentioned. Most of "king cotton" was not grown in Louisiana Territory slave states. You are making that up without reliable sources. Jefferson spoke out against the international slave trade when all but South Carolina had outlawed the practice state by state. He did not single handedly transform American public opinion on the subject, he place himself squarely behind a national consensus formed a priori his efforts. There was no such consensus arrived at in the matter of domestic slavery.

Ferling, whom I admire, “criticizes Jefferson for not taking a substantial lead on ending domestic slavery.” Does he discuss where the votes were to come from, and the correspondence to support it? No. It is speculation unrelated to the historical record. Randolph of Roanoke and his Quids were not to be moved on the subject by a frigate demonstration in the Mediterranean to free American sailors from Muslim slavery. There is no reliable source to that effect, and I doubt Ferling attempted it --- even as arm chair whimsy of the what-if-history which is popular with aficionados of the Newt Gingrich methodology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Direct quote William W. Freehling (2005) page 72 "The Louisana fragment of the Louisiana Purchase especially mocked the dream of diffusion toward liberty. This tropical basement of the purchase received an avalanche of blacks, enriching white men who meant to keep slaves forever." Ferling (2000) page 287 "...[John] Adams misjudged Jefferson's commitment to the eradication of slavery. Had Jefferson been the foe of slavery that he claimed to be,...he might have achieved much..."" This arguement is going around in circles. Congress was debating slavery in the LP when Jefferson was President but Jefferson was silent. Had Jefferson advocated a slave ban in the LT he may have gotten the votes he wanted. He spoke out against the international slave trade and got the votes he wanted. Jefferson was not a weak President and his words were taken seriously. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The new and existing account in the Indian removal section is at best sketchy. Removed from the narrative was the statement Jefferson believed assimilation was best for Native Americans; second best was removal to the west. He felt the worst outcome of the cultural and resources conflict between European Americans and Native Americans would be their attacking the whites. ... if we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated ... IOW, Jefferson was partail to the fate of the Indians. The existing account also neglects to say that several India nations (i.e.Shawnee, Creek, etc) embraced Jefferson's "civilization program," and went along with Jefferson's proposals to adapt ranching and agriculture. Our account here is also not in accord with the account given at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, where it states that "...most importantly to keep them allied with the United States and not with European powers..." and "...American Indian peoples were divided as to how to respond to Jefferson's policies. The TJF account also mentions how Jefferson was instrumental in forming the "Five Civilized Tribes" and that "Many in the Creek and Cherokee nations built towns and plantations, and some individuals held African American slaves just as their white neighbors." This did not begin to happen until Jefferson was president. This section needs to be rewritten and more context (re)introduced to the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

good point. Someone removed Sheehan's analysis in violation of POV rules (All major views must be included) --I restored it. (Bernard W. Sheehan at the time was a former Fellow at the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, and was associate professor of history at Indiana University and associate editor of the Journal of American History.) Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some context. I believe more is needed -- and less one-sided commentary. Also, I just tagged the Thomas Jefferson and Indian removal page, as it too had the same wrong map and doesn't even mention the Five Civilized Tribes and Jefferson's concern for the Indian. Not long ago I said I was done adding content, so I'm sitting back, for now, and hope the effort to improve the overall narrative will continue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)