Talk:Sally Hemings

Enslaved a derogatory term?

Can you explain this edit summary from Sally Hemings: "Restore neutral statement. "enslaved" is a highly derogatory term and is no more "correct" than referring to Hemings in human terms, as a slave and a nanny." [1]? None of that seems to check out but perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, thanks for the inquiry and for not reverting without any discussion. I'm surprised my edit hasn't been reverted already, given all the hype and focus on slavery today hundreds of years later. Okay, the idea of "enslaved" as a derogatory term is of course an idea that falls into the realm of opinion. My reasoning, however, is that I have seen the term used this way by various users before. In one instance, this new user, with what appeared to be a single purpose account, went to dozens of articles and substituted "enslaved", or "enslaver" for phrases like 'was a slave', or 'who owned slaves', or 'who used slave labor', etc. This was obviously a derogatory effort. The idea of "enslaved" as it's often used today suggests, 'kept in chains' and 'whipped', and someone wore rags and was fed slop, etc, and that was rarely the case. Again, this is my opinion, but it is not an unfounded opinion. I suppose if one was to challenge this idea it would be one opinion v the other opinion. In the case of the Sally Hemings article, it is much more objective to define her in terms of what she was as a person, i.e. " a female slave with one-quarter African ancestry and was a nanny," -- not merely some entity who was simply "enslaved". Having said that, if someone decides to revert, I'll not challenge. Thanks again for your inquiry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, today most condisider calling someone a slave to be derogatory and dehumanizing... So refering to somone as an enslaved woman rather than a female slave is preferable if someone is trying to objective to define her in terms of what she was as a person (slave is not part of who she was as a person). Some more context on the debate between the two terms[2][3][4][5]. This bit speaks to a comparable situatuon to Hemming's "For example, we use phrases like enslaved woman, rather than slave. The noun slave implies that she was, at her core, a slave. The adjective enslaved reveals that though in bondage, bondage was not her core existence. Furthermore, she was enslaved by the actions of another. Therefore, we use terms like enslaver, rather than master, to indicate one’s effort to exert power over another." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back — It's already understood that slaves were human. They are commonly referred to as such by multiple reliable sources, much more so than referring to them as being "enslaved", which again, more than suggests that they were kept in chains, work rags and were whipped to make them work. The Sally Hemings article, while including the noun slave, also defines her as a female with one-quarter African ancestry who was a nanny, which is much more humanistic than simply referring to her as being "enslaved" -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone a slave is dehumanizing. You seem to be arguing that Sally Hemings was not treated bad enough for it to count as enslaved? " kept in chains, work rags and were whipped to make them work" all applies to Hemings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Hemings as a salve is no more dehumanizing than simply referring to her as someone who was enslaved, while ignoring (deleting) that she was a female, with a mixed racial background who served as a nanny. As for treatment, she lived in a mansion and as a nanny enjoyed a lifestyle far better than most white farmers did. She had the opportunity to stay in France when she was there with Jefferson taking care of his daughters, but still returned and continued living in a mansion with her own room. Much of the problem is that some people try to interpret the past by look looking through a 21st century lens with their modern day stereotypes. In any case, as mentioned, we seem to be at a point where we are simply having an opinionated tug-o-war. In that case, we should not assert personal opinion and simply say what the overwhelming majority of the scholars say, and have said, all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Most white farmers were raped by their enslavers? Gwillhickers this is a millimeter from outright racism, WTF do you think you're saying? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing Hemings, not the speculation that "most" slaves were raped. Even award winning Annette Gordon Reed acknowledges that the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was consensual. In any case, I just cited the facts surrounding Hemings as outlined by all the reliable sources. That is not "racism". No one is trying to justify slavery because they were black. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that a child can consent to sex with an adult, is that the case? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Can we get clarification on whether or not you really believe that adults can have sex with children consensually? That appears to be beyond what Reed argues so would be your own opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Enslaved person" is the more typical usage in modern vernacular. It is not derogatory, and saying that "slave" is more neutral is nonsense. Let's flip this back as contested, please. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinion. Some people see the term "enslaved" as misleading, others feel the same about "slave". Most of the sources, new and old, use the term slave. re: "modern vernacular", that's too often pushed by the same gender denial crowd that wants to reinvent pronoun usage, etc. Don't expect everyone to buy into it simply because you feel its "modern". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. reinvent pronoun usage!? Do better. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, reinvent, change, whatever. In any case, the major point you seem to be avoiding is that we simply can't go by opinion, but say what the sources say. Again, most of the sources use the term "slave" and in some cases they employ both terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, whatever. Do try to stay on point. No, this is an editorial decision on word choice between synonyms; we absolutely can use our discretion (that is, opinion) in making a decision. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

On wikipedia we use "modern" gender standards, you would have a point if we didn't but we do... You appear to know that given the amount of times you've been warned over it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"same gender denial crowd that wants to reinvent pronoun usage, etc." what do you mean by gender denial crowd? Do you mean the modern media and academia? Because just a reminder... We prefer contemporary sources to historic ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You're not focusing on the main discussion re: slave v enslaved. Gender denial and other sorts of repressive behavior should be self explanatory. If you want to further deliberate over those topics and those who do or do not subscribe to these ideas please do so in the appropriate forum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to deny both the modern standard for talking about gender as well as slavery, hard to not see the two as related. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, but I want to express my support for the position argued by VQuakr and User:Horse Eye's Back. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Been busy. Sorry for replying at this late date. As I said, most of the sources, new and old, use the term "slave", as opposed to "enslaved". Some sources, like Annette Gordon-Reed, use both, depending on the context. As for pronouns used for gender, there is much controversy and disagreement over some of their usage. Trying to pass it all off as "modern" dismisses this idea entirely. IMO, one's gender, regardless of sexuality, should be celebrated or otherwise stated, not hidden or censured. In any case, as I said above, this is off topic in terms of this article. As for the noun and adjective "slave", and "enslaved", respectively, no further attempts to edit the article in this regard have been made, and I'm perfectly willing to let consensus make such determinations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Article is not Neutral

OP and their sock are indef CU-blocked.

As discussed below, This article overall is not a neutral point of view, it seems to be repetitive and there is an obsession with Hemings age and the implication that she was punished and abused. There needs to be a review of it. A POV tag will be placed for discussion. Plus25 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Can you reformat your concerns in the context of WP:NPOV? Repetition isn't a neutrality issue, and there's no "implication" that she was abused. She was enslaved; it's a statement of fact. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC) The sources go on at great length about Hemings' age and her punishment/abuse (not an implication either, enslaving someone is abuse and you can't enforce slavery without punishment)... So what would be the neutrality issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC) I am not denying she was enslaved, the discussion above even seems to state that the word enslavement is problematic, I don't care to talk on that subject. Her age has already been given in the second paragraph, and then we move to them going back to Monticello, which seems to state she was 14 and he was 44, which is wrong since she was not 14 when they went back as it is stated in the article, the lead is not a neutral point of view, it seems to be directed to focus on repeating her age at 14 which does not need to be repeated twice in the lead. Down in the article it also talks of Abigail Adams saying she was young, as Annette Gordon Reed, the Hemings family author states if Hemings was incapable of doing her job she would not have been sent, apart from Abigail Adams, no one else complained about Hemings doing her job as a nanny in Paris. I don't understand why Adams opinion is even highlighted in the article. The focus of this article or more the lead is written to cause anger due to her age at the beginning, as I said she was not a teenager forever. Also above, yes she was a slave, after agreeing to go back to the US and not staying as a free woman in Paris, but if she was abused/punished at Monticello, we need reputable sources, not opinion sources Plus25 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Being enslaved is abuse, you seem to be operating on a whole bunch of mistaken assumption that taken together whitewash slavery and rape. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Again, that is not my focus, what I am saying is the focus on her age at 14, as if she stayed 14 forever and the direction of the article to cause anger, which is not neutral.Plus25 (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC) I don't see the focus you describe, we don't mention it excessively and only when relevant to the biography... That is objectively a notably young age to travel abroad for work and her age at the beginning appears to be one of the important parts historians focus on when discussing her relationship to Jefferson (which is the primary focus of much of the coverage we have). Could we be clearer in the lead? Yes. Is there a pressing neutrality issue here? No. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Hemings lived in the 18th/19th century when many women the same age as her worked and traveled. Didn't her sons start working at 14? Adding Abigail Adams opinion of her directs the article to her age at the beginning which I feel is not relevant, why should her opinion only be highlighted in the article, why not add others? The article seems to tell the readers she was 14 and stayed 14 till the end, especially the lead which makes it uncomfortable and not neutral. This wording in the lead article as I explained above is intent on showing that, "but due to his near-complete control over her life and that she was only 14 while he was 44, the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached," the ages needs to be removed because she was older once they were back in the US and not 14 throughout their liaison. Additionally, it already states intimate relations started sometime in Paris during her 26 months in the lead, there is no reputable source that states it started at 14 when he was 44. Plus25 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC) How does "but due to his near-complete control over her life and thirty year age gap, the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached," sound? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC) What is the obsession to highlight their age difference or her age, in the first paragraph in the lead it is already written, why repeat it, it's unnecessary. Hemings was a slave, it didn't matter if they were two months apart. To keep it neutral, this statement in the lead needs to be entirely removed, "Whether this should be described as rape remains a matter of controversy by historians, as there is no evidence that Jefferson sexually assaulted her, but due to his near-complete control over her life and that she was only 14 while he was 44, the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached." Especially the phrase "the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached" seems to push the reader toward a particular conclusion, making it less neutral by not presenting both perspectives impartially. It sounds like a user's opinion who just added with a questionable source. Suppose we are going to put this in the lead. In that case, we need reputable sources and say "According to most historians/scholars (if indeed most agree that's what happened), not someone's opinion since its a sensitive information or it needs to be completely rewritten to be neutral and present facts more objectively without implying intentions or conclusions or cut short. I see a user keep reverting this specific info when edited which tells me it's their opinion, not most historians' or scholar's agreement. Plus25 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Thats not what neutrality means on wikipedia (you appear to be describing a WP:FALSEBALANCE and calling it neutrality), I suggest you actually read WP:NPOV Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Neutrality on wiki also states to avoid stating opinions as facts, which the statement above is. It reflects an opinion or interpretation, not an objective fact. As I said, this sentence pushes readers toward a particular interpretation, making it less neutral. Overall we will probably end up disagreeing with that statement, it will be best to remove it. Also, Abigail Adams letter on her is irrelevant, especially in a highlighted paragraph, we know she was a teenager due to her age, don't see why her description is important. Im surprised this is a good article, it needs to be reassessed.Plus25 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC) In history facts are the consensus of historians and we appear to be reflecting that consensus accurately. That particular interpretation is the one held by modern historians, thats why it gets the emphasis. Promising to stonewall is not in general constructive. According to the sources Adams letter is one of the main sources we have for the subject outside of the Jefferson family, they cover it extensively so I'm not sure why you would say that its irrelevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Modern Historians? The Hemings family biographer Annette Gordon Reed doesn't seem to think so. Also on Abigail Adams, writing about her in the article is not the problem, why is her description of her in a quote box, this article seems to focus too much on her being 14. Why not just say they stayed with the Adams family? Another example in the article is "The child slave, Sally Hemings, was chosen to accompany Polly to France after an older female slave became pregnant and could not make the journey." Why not just write the young female slave instead of the child slave, it presses on her being 14 and focuses on it, especially the lead. There is a lot in the article, but I can't point it all out, As I said, that statement in the lead needs to be removed, let's let readers form their own interpretation (this is Wikipedia), not lead them to a specific conclusion, especially in the lead of an article. This shows a bias in the phrasing of such an intense statement.Plus25 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC) How does Annette Gordon-Reed's opinion differ from whats in that sentence? Also note that her being 14 is mentioned only three times in the article and would be only twice if you accepted by proposed wording... So we neither seem to be focusing on it or pressing on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC) The example I gave above says it, not that her being 14 is constantly mentioned. If you are intent on putting the intense statement in the lead, then as I have explained it is not neutral. Plus25 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC) So you don't think any mention of the age at which she went to France is due? It doesn't seem like an intense statement, it feels very measured and matches the tone and perspective taken by historians like Annette Gordon-Reed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC) In the lead, her age is mentioned in the first paragraph, "In 1787, when she was 14, Sally Hemings accompanied Jefferson's daughter, which I think should be mentioned. The second paragraph, it mentions it again (not needed), in the intense statement that is non neutral, and I have explained the reasons why.Plus25 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC) The sources include Hemings' age, the sources include Jefferson's age. The disparity in age really can't be glossed over or diminshed by Wikipedia if the sources treat the ages and the power disparity at length. So, Plus25 your issue seems to be the number of times that Hemings' age at the time she traveled to France appears in the text? Maybe this sentence could be recrafted from this: Whether this should be described as rape remains a matter of controversy by historians, as there is no evidence that Jefferson sexually assaulted her, but due to his near-complete control over her life and that she was only 14 while he was 44, the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached. to this: Whether this should be described as rape remains a matter of controversy by historians, as there is no evidence that Jefferson sexually assaulted her, but due to his near-complete control over her life and their age disparity, the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached. The editorial consensus seems to be that the ages and the power dynamics inherent in this relationship should stay in the article in something fairly close to their present form. Plus25, you seem to perhaps be having an issue not with the editorial community but with the cited sources. - Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC) She was a slave, the power dynamics don't need to be explained, also as explained above the age difference doesn't matter since she was a slave, so the control was there, I don't see why it has to be mentioned. As I said above again on this phrase, "the conclusion that Jefferson was coercive is easily reached" seems to push the reader toward a particular conclusion, making it less neutral, lets let readers form their own interpretation, not leading them to a specific conclusion, especially in the lead of an article. This shows a bias in the phrasing of such an intense statement. To make it neutral, especially for a lead it should be removed, but if not then it should be completely rewritten to be neutral. This is what it should be written as, "The nature of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings is a subject of ongoing debate among historians. While some historians state there is no direct evidence of sexual assault, the significant power imbalance between Jefferson and Hemings has led some historians to interpret the relationship as coercive due to the context of slavery." or "The nature of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings is a subject of ongoing debate among historians. Some emphasize the power dynamics of slavery, noting that Jefferson's control over Hemings as an enslaved person may suggest coercion, while others highlight the absence of direct evidence of sexual assault."Plus25 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC) No, we cannot and won't remove reference to the age disparity, since that would violate the relevant NPOV policy at WP:WEIGHT: it's an aspect of the subject covered in the relevant sources so it gets mentioned in the article. Since you haven't brought forth any policy-based reasoning and haven't convinced anyone else of your proposed changes, I think this discussion can be safely closed. VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Hello, I agree with Plus25 that the sentence or statement is not neutral, the user is right that the age difference is not important due to her being a slave but since a reference is provided it can be added to it, however, the sentence needs to be rewritten to sound neutral, Plus25 provided two rewritten sentences above which we can choose one and add the age disparity in it. Hopefully, this will solve the discussion.SundayAugust (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC) How did you become aware of this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC) It should be written as this to keep it neutral then the discussion can be safely closed, and also the user above is convinced of my proposed changes. The nature of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings is a subject of ongoing debate among historians. While some historians state there is no direct evidence of sexual assault, the significant power imbalance and age difference between Jefferson and Hemings has led some historians to interpret their relationship as coercive due to the context of slavery. I also have three sources to add to the one source already provided which supports this neutral statement, Annette Gordon Reed, the Hemings of Monticello: An American Family pages 551-556, also pages 559-562, Jan Ellen Lewis, Sally hemings and Thomas Jefferson: History, memory and civic culture pages 43-48 and a from the book, Lucia Statanton, those who labor for my happiness: Slavery at Thomas Jefferson Monticelo pages 172-174.Plus25 (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Again, you claiming it isn't neutral doesn't make that the case. You haven't presented any policy-based reasoning for your proposed suppression of this content. VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC) I am not going to continue back and forth with you, your opinion alone doesn't matter since you are intent on not suppressing this, and you can't close this discussion because you think it should be closed, a user agrees with me so clearly I am not wrong. I have provided additional legitimate sources to keep this neutral, you can't just add one source and make a conclusion for such a statement, read what I have provided above to support this and go to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, According to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, significant opinions should not be stated as facts, which this heavy content does. I have explained too much of this above. Plus25 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Are you saying that you are intent on suppressing this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)