Talk:Thomas Jefferson: Difference between revisions
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
::::All of this is too complex to put into the lead. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
::::All of this is too complex to put into the lead. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 14:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::Sure... point is, since "individual rights" need to be explained they should, really, not be in the intro at all, unless, I guess, the article is trying to convey TJ's hypocritic contradictions, by implication... so, ideally, "individual rights" are moved from the intro to some other place, and expanded upon... unless, I suppose, articles are in the habit of presenting the subject's PR look of themselves in the intro, uncritically... [[Special:Contributions/92.10.199.195|92.10.199.195]] ([[User talk:92.10.199.195|talk]]) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
:::::Sure... point is, since "individual rights" need to be explained they should, really, not be in the intro at all, unless, I guess, the article is trying to convey TJ's hypocritic contradictions, by implication... so, ideally, "individual rights" are moved from the intro to some other place, and expanded upon... unless, I suppose, articles are in the habit of presenting the subject's PR look of themselves in the intro, uncritically... [[Special:Contributions/92.10.199.195|92.10.199.195]] ([[User talk:92.10.199.195|talk]]) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::I believe the Founders, such as Jefferson, believed their own "individual rights" were being denied by Parliament and King George III. This included taxation without representation and quartering of soldiers. The "individual rights" had to do with the colonists, not the slaves. Maybe add clarification, "individual rights ''of the colonists''", in the introduction. Just a suggestion. One could also say "individual rights ''of white male citizenship''". Basically the Founders were followers of John Locke's rights of man. Source: [https://fpif.org/the-lockean-roots-of-white-supremacy-in-the-u-s/The Lockean Roots of White Supremacy in the U.S.] I am not in any judgement of Jefferson, but I think some clarification is needed concerning Jefferson and "individual rights", in the introduction. I would add this to the introduction, "''individual rights of white men''". [[User:Cmguy777|Cmguy777]] ([[User talk:Cmguy777|talk]]) 05:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
::::::I believe the Founders, such as Jefferson, believed their own "individual rights" were being denied by Parliament and King George III. This included taxation without representation and quartering of soldiers. The "individual rights" had to do with the colonists, not the slaves. Maybe add clarification, "individual rights ''of the colonists''", in the introduction. Just a suggestion. One could also say "individual rights ''of white male citizenship''". Basically the Founders were followers of John Locke's rights of man. Source: [https://fpif.org/the-lockean-roots-of-white-supremacy-in-the-u-s/The Lockean Roots of White Supremacy in the U.S.] I am not in any judgement of Jefferson, but I think some clarification is needed concerning Jefferson and "individual rights", in the introduction. I would add this to the introduction, "''individual rights of white men''". [[User:Cmguy777|Cmguy777]] ([[User talk:Cmguy777|talk]]) 05:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 06:31, 28 September 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Jefferson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Thomas Jefferson was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Frequently asked questions Q1: I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?
A1: In all probability what you added was trivia, unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly. Articles on Wikipedia require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented; consequently, any information added to an article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion. Q2: I tried to edit this article but couldn't. Why?
A2:This article has been indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism or violations of content policy. Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. Q3: I want to add some sourced information with references but don't understand the referencing style.
A3: This article's established referencing is a specific type of Harvard style citations, making use of anchored references, using the hashtag symbol to anchor the references to the cited sources. The nomenclature looks like:
<ref>[[#abc| Author name, 2000]], p.123</ref>...placed as an inline citation within the text, which then creates a shortened footnote in the References section. |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
"individual rights"
[edit]That, in the first paragraph, jars with the second paragraph, with regards to him having slaves, because there's no way in hell he really cared about individual rights, unless, it seems, he was trying to impress his peers, so... it should either be deleted, or qualified with bits from the second paragraph, otherwise even just those two words are doing some PR nonsense that so many people seem obsessed to have with TJ, centuries later, it seems... also, how in the world can the page be in both Category:American_libertarians and Category:American_slave_owners...? Does everything need to be contradictory? 92.10.199.195 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Slavery was consistent with a belief in individual rights at the time, as explained by Coke and Locke. In fact, involuntary servitude is still allowed under some conditions under the U.S. 13th amendment. TFD (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- At some point, though, words might as well have no definitions, and up might as well be down... either way, even if it can be qualified by some chronological context, it seems to need to be said (and, I mean, it's not like there aren't some, right now, who claim to be libertarians, who are really the opposite), and if it's too complex for the first paragraph then, perhaps, "individual rights" don't belong there, as it's not as basic as any straightforward (non-hypocritical) meaning... 92.10.199.195 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course this touches on one of the great discrepancies in Jefferson's thought and legacy. Presentism aside, it's more about individual rights versus public order, monarchy, authoritarian government, and what not ... than it is about equal rights versus white male supremacy. Still, if the concept of individual rights is not explained, qualified or linked (and I'm not sure a link to the article on Individual and group rights would explain it satisfactorily), perhaps it is better to remove this from the lead text. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lead isn't the place to explain modern criticisms of 18th century liberalism.
- Coke and Locke said that a heathen prisoner taken in a just war had no rights. Therefore he could be killed or forced into servitude. Because he was considered an enemy alien, his children inherited his status and could be killed or enslaved. That was the generally accepted view of the law in 1776.
- Under current laws, people convicted of crimes can be deprived of life or liberty, and denied other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. There are of course debates about this a well.
- All of this is too complex to put into the lead. TFD (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure... point is, since "individual rights" need to be explained they should, really, not be in the intro at all, unless, I guess, the article is trying to convey TJ's hypocritic contradictions, by implication... so, ideally, "individual rights" are moved from the intro to some other place, and expanded upon... unless, I suppose, articles are in the habit of presenting the subject's PR look of themselves in the intro, uncritically... 92.10.199.195 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the Founders, such as Jefferson, believed their own "individual rights" were being denied by Parliament and King George III. This included taxation without representation and quartering of soldiers. The "individual rights" had to do with the colonists, not the slaves. Maybe add clarification, "individual rights of the colonists", in the introduction. Just a suggestion. One could also say "individual rights of white male citizenship". Basically the Founders were followers of John Locke's rights of man. Source: The Lockean Roots of White Supremacy in the U.S. I am not in any judgement of Jefferson, but I think some clarification is needed concerning Jefferson and "individual rights", in the introduction. I would add this to the introduction, "individual rights of white men". Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure... point is, since "individual rights" need to be explained they should, really, not be in the intro at all, unless, I guess, the article is trying to convey TJ's hypocritic contradictions, by implication... so, ideally, "individual rights" are moved from the intro to some other place, and expanded upon... unless, I suppose, articles are in the habit of presenting the subject's PR look of themselves in the intro, uncritically... 92.10.199.195 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course this touches on one of the great discrepancies in Jefferson's thought and legacy. Presentism aside, it's more about individual rights versus public order, monarchy, authoritarian government, and what not ... than it is about equal rights versus white male supremacy. Still, if the concept of individual rights is not explained, qualified or linked (and I'm not sure a link to the article on Individual and group rights would explain it satisfactorily), perhaps it is better to remove this from the lead text. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- At some point, though, words might as well have no definitions, and up might as well be down... either way, even if it can be qualified by some chronological context, it seems to need to be said (and, I mean, it's not like there aren't some, right now, who claim to be libertarians, who are really the opposite), and if it's too complex for the first paragraph then, perhaps, "individual rights" don't belong there, as it's not as basic as any straightforward (non-hypocritical) meaning... 92.10.199.195 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Top-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- B-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- B-Class Aesthetics articles
- Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
- Aesthetics task force articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- B-Class Modern philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Modern philosophy articles
- Modern philosophy task force articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class Libertarianism articles
- High-importance Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class U.S. Presidents articles
- Top-importance U.S. Presidents articles
- WikiProject U.S. Presidents articles
- B-Class US State Legislatures articles
- Low-importance US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- High-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- B-Class United States governors articles
- Mid-importance United States governors articles
- WikiProject United States governors articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Virginia articles
- Top-importance Virginia articles
- B-Class University of Virginia articles
- Top-importance University of Virginia articles
- WikiProject University of Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press