Talk:Martha Jefferson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martha Washington[edit]

Martha Washington is not the same person as Martha Jefferson. Matters are further confused in that their nicknames are similar (Patsy/Patty). Lady Washington was however married to George Washington and Mrs. Jefferson to Thomas Jefferson, and Lady Washington was 20 years older than Mrs. Jefferson.Kelt1111 03:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related[edit]

to anonymous, who added that MWJ and TJ were distant cousins, thanks! They were actually related through several lines, through TJ's mother and MWJ's mother, through the Bollings and the Randolphs. In no case was this realtionship closer than third cousins or second cousins, once removed (unlike their daughters and their husbands.) But, 'everybody in Virginia is related!' kelt1111 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negro?[edit]

Um, why is there a sentence about Hemmings having had children with a "Negro"? Did someone copy their information from an "olde" source?

Joanbiased 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to negro and added slave as reflects modern usage. VirginiaProp 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

As a person not particularly familiar with early American family history, I found the first paragraph incredibly confusing due to the large number of people mentioned in it and the Martha Wayles/Patty and Martha Eppes/Patsy situation. May I try to clarify it by not referring to the women by these unfamiliar nicknames? MarianKroy (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The picture in this article is that of Jefferson's daughter Martha Jefferson Randolph. Look at the title of the picture. --DrJos (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Typo Spelling[edit]

The spelling of this name is false. I am in possesion of books who mention Martha Wayles Shelton but not Martha Wayles Skelton. There were no "Skeltons" at the time of Martha Wayles, the name was either Chilton, or Shelton prononced the same. Here is an article, [1]--SpartanGreg09 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I reverted your edit, but please see below. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson → Martha Jefferson —I reverted your edit before looking at this talk page, however, per WP:NAME we should use the common name, and that would be Martha Jefferson. The middle names are debatable and not necessary. Because Martha Jefferson Redirects here, an Admin needs to do this. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Support[reply]

  1. Support as proposer (see above). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. She's known best as Martha Jefferson. Martha Jefferson redirects here (and has always either redirected here or been the location of this article) so if there's any ambiguity whatsoever about who Martha Jefferson refers to, nobody has ever felt any need to provide the user with a way to read about any other Martha Jefferson. If there's another article where one can find information about another Martha Jefferson, stick a WP:HATNOTE on this article, but as it is (and has always been), nobody would be able to find that other article by going to Martha Jefferson anyway. Propaniac (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Her daughter's name is Martha Randolph. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Why are her maiden name and the name of her first husband "debateable"? We should not use common names when they are ambiguous (except when there is one overwhelmingly most common meaning of the name). The proposal is obviously ambiguous, with her daughter, Martha Jefferson, whom I should expect to find under this title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to add a WP:HATNOTE to this article directing users to the daughter's article; there probably should be such a note. But as long as Martha Jefferson redirects here, moving the article to that title or not will make no difference in the ease of accessing the daughter's article, and nobody has ever suggested that Martha Jefferson redirect somewhere else (and I doubt such a suggestion would find a consensus). Propaniac (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portrait[edit]

The portrait on this page is NOT that of Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, wife of Thomas Jefferson. This is actually a portrait of the Martha Jefferson who was the daughter of Thomas Jefferson and Martha Wayles Skelton. There are no surviving portraits of Thomas Jefferson's wife; he destroyed them all after she died at the age of 34 years. Antares0104 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Antares0104[reply]

Can't remove spam from reference list[edit]

The first footnote in this article is spam, a link to an ad for Viagra. I cannot edit it out. For some reason, when I click "edit" it does not appear.

Danblum (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Wife[edit]

The article intro describes Martha Jefferson as "was the second wife of, Thomas Jefferson." besides the typo, she was the first and only wife of Jefferson. 9:58 (EST) 12 July 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.148.154 (talk)

Restored article[edit]

RESTORED
Consensus is that this should remain its own article. Only Snuggums has expressed an opinion that the article should not stand on its own, while a number of editors have expressed the opinion that the article should be retained. pbp 19:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article was recently converted into a redirect, without any apparent discussion beforehand. I have restored the article, and invite people to explain why they think it should be deleted. There seem to be plenty of reliable sources available, including entire books about this person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anythingyouwant. All of the links to this page throughout Wikipedia have also been removed and should be returned. She is notable, not only as the wife of Jefferson during the years that he was one of the major founding fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence but within the Betty and Sally Hemings timeline and history. Randy Kryn 13:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restoration: I have notified User:SNUGGUMS of this action and have undone some of his links. pbp 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose restoration notability is not inherited, and she fails WP:Notability (people) since she was not noted for anything outside of family affiliations. Being Thomas Jefferson's wife IS NOT BY ITSELF enough to make her notable, and neither is being a half-sister of Betty and Sally Hemings. Not enough for a separate article. Also, users are allowed to be bold and redirect clearly non-notable articles to other pages. This honestly should not have been made into a separate article to begin with since she was not noted for anything on her own that didn't have to do with family affiliations. There also is no meaningful content that can't be briefly discussed and summarized in her husband's article. I could understand having this if she was First Lady, but she died before Jefferson even took office. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hemings connection itself is notable. The marriage connection to the author of America's Declaration of Independence at the time he wrote it (and the interaction between them at the time) itself is notable. There are books written about her. Quite a notable woman in the flow of history at the time. You used twinkle to remove links to her page, a tool I've never used but it should, as I understand it, be used carefully and not in a 'being bold' format. Martha Jefferson's connection to Jefferson makes her important to American history, the birth of a new form of democracy and freedom, and thus her notability is established by her life. That graphic of a woman that leads off the page should probably be removed though, unless it was modeled by Martha Jefferson herself. Randy Kryn 16:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a reference that states this graphic is a shadow tracing that was indeed modeled by Martha Jefferson herself and created by her daughter. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, Randy, WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". She would need more than just family connections to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: While it's technically OK for you to do what you did, you should have exercised a little common sense that this would likely be controversial. Also, you probably should've waited to remove all the links until after it was unimpeachably clear that people wanted this article redirected pbp 19:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restoration: Among several valid reasons, it must be vociferously emphasized that being Thomas Jefferson's wife IS BY ITSELF enough to make her notable. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's OK for "a" notable person. But this notable person is Thomas Jefferson, among the most notable of notable persons in the history of the world. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is notable for having been First Lady of Virginia, and for convincing TJ to never remarry, and for being the main focus of a number of reputable books, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convincing him to never remarry and any books written are entirely moot when she wasn't noted for anything that didn't involve family. It doesn't matter who the notable person is that someone is related to. Also, I was talking about First Lady of the US. Being a governor's wife..... not too sure about that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: do you really believe there isn't enough citeable information about her for her to fail ANYBIO? Or isn't Thomas Jefferson's article long enough that this would be a reasonable content fork? pbp 19:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article size not withstanding, all meaningful content is already included on Thomas Jefferson's page. She doesn't really meet WP:ANYBIO since she wasn't noted for anything on her own. No independent notability = Not worth an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restoration: I can not believe someone thinks this article should be deleted. This is American History. She is a prominent character in films, books, musicals, etc. Extremely notable. Seems misogynist to suggest otherwise. HesioneHushabye (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with misogyny. See WP:Notability (people) (particularly the WP:BIOFAMILY section) for why she doesn't warrant her own article. All films, books, and musicals are irrelevant when only noted for being Thomas Jefferson's wife. As for American history, not really a prominent figure compared to women like Martha Washington or Abigail Adams who were actively involved in the American Revolution. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if all misanthropes are by definition misogynists.  :-) But seriously, I think what our policies and guidelines mean is that a family member is not notable if reliable sources only mention them in passing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of links have been removed, some at the rate of 30 a minute with this twinkle thing. I put a couple back but it's a big job, can someone who uses one of those tools return the links to the pages? Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, policies and guidelines say family connections aren't enough on their own for someone to warrant an article. The WP:BIOFAMILY quote I gave above makes that quite clear. Brief, passing mentions in reliable sources also aren't enough for separate articles. The notability criteria for biographies is WP:Notability (people), which states that one does not become notable solely because of who he/she is related to. The criteria exists for very good reason and should be applied here. Per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Such events can include marriages, and she wasn't exactly noted for anything other than being married to TJ. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is entirely moot when she wasn't noted for anything beyond family connections. Again, WP:BIOFAMILY states Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. She has nothing of her own merit to warrant a page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know you think that. You've said it a hundred times. It's obvious the rest of us don't think that; we believe what you are saying to be a perversion of WP:BIOFAMILY. pbp 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a "perversion", I am simply quoting a portion of the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quote omitted this: "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." An entire book is not a passing mention, no way, no how.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said it was a passing mention. My point was (and still is) that being a famous person's relative doesn't by itself make one notable. Having an entire book doesn't change the fact that she was only noted for family connections. Seems like a case of WP:MASK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was the only wife of Thomas freaking Jefferson. My God, man! Open your eyes! Your argument is perverse. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) It doesn't matter who she was the wife of, 2) my eyes are wide open and I know exactly what I'm talking about, 3) "perverse" is a misleading description when I have quoted notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone with a sense of history and a passing knowledge of American history will quite likely want to keep this page. But SNUGGUMS, what you've done here is also inspire, with tough love I guess, a few people to improve the article. It's a keeper for sure, too much history entangled with this woman's life, but now it's a better article than when you removed it. I'll have to take a turn at it at some point soon, owe you that much. But, yeah, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson fans are fans because he deserves it. Martha Jefferson was his wife and the sister of the woman he then likely had five or six children with, a woman she brought into their marriage. There is much more than a passing mention of her in the literature about the American Revolution. Of course, if she wasn't married to Thomas Jefferson, she probably wouldn't be notable. But she was. Being married to him at the point she was married to him, and the circumstances of her involvement with the events of her time, have made her notable enough. And then there's that cool cookie-cutter graphic of her... Randy Kryn 23:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Shakes head in disappointment) that's not at all what I was getting at. None of those are valid reasons for this to have a separate article, and really is just WP:Masking the lack of notability. Being married to someone famous isn't an automatic pass for notability. See WP:INHERIT, which states Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INVALIDBIO, "That person 'A' has a relationship with well-known person 'B', such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on 'A' (unless significant coverage can be found on 'A')...." Here, significant coverage can be found on "A". End of story.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple. The problem is that none of it discusses her own merits, not what she herself was independently noted for that didn't have to do with her connections to other people. Let's not forget WP:BIOFAMILY, which states that being related to a famous person in itself doesn't make someone notable. Just because one can come up with a reason to have an article doesn't necessarily mean that article should be made. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that being related to a famous person by itself doesn't make someone notable. If there is significant coverage about being related, then that's more than being related by itself. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If all of that coverage is about being a spouse of a famous person, then that does not create an exception to the general notability criterion, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed notable" ≠ "is notable". As for all coverage being based on one event (such events can include relationships), WP:BIO1E applies, which recommends to cover the event, not the person. Given that her relationship with TJ was really the only thing she was noted for, it's more appropriate to simply discuss his relationship with her in his article than it is for her to have a separate page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much material here to fit into Thomas Jefferson without running into all sorts of problems. Just out of curiosity, what would be your opinion about re-naming this article The marriage of Thomas Jefferson?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the meaningful material on her is already covered on his page, article size not withstanding, so she can simply redirect to his page without any worries. The marriage by itself doesn't really warrant its own article. In theory, one would be better off with a personal life/personal relationships subarticle talking about her and Sally Hemings, though I am often against such articles since they frequently become targets for bloating with trivia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Don't tell me you think Sally Hemings should be deleted or merged also, because that's just ridiculous... pbp 05:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Family members of celebrities ..." Celebrities?! This is not the Kardashian family. This is not Hollywood. This is the third president of the United States, a founding father. Celebrity has nothing to do with it. I must agree with Anythingyouwant generally and, in particular, about Snuggums' selective quoting . I also agree that this article has now become a keeper. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't saying to delete/redirect Sally Hemings. No, my quoting is NOT "selective"; I'm just emphasizing some things for a point. "Celebrity" in this case refers to famous people, including politicians. Political spouses are not exempt from needing to be noted for their own merits to warrant an article. Merely expanding the article doesn't make it anymore of a "keeper" than it was before. It's just WP:Masking the lack of notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS:, have you considered that if you read the guidelines (not policy, a guideline) in a way that would exclude on article on Martha Jefferson, that maybe the guidelines themselves need to be revised? Maybe that's what we should be focusing on, to expand the definition to allow more articles on family members. But in the case of this particular page, of course it's a "keeper", too much important history and momentous events riding sidesaddle throughout the lives of the people closest to this particular flame of freedom. Randy Kryn 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Not policy" is just a cop-out excuse. Notability guidelines exist for very good reason and should be applied. They don't really need much if any revising. There is nothing meaningful she was independently' noted for (aka not involving family or other connections). No amount of text can change that. Again, all the essentials and "important history" are already included on TJ's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three Marthas[edit]

As I am working on improving the article (adding citations and clarifications or additional content), I am getting confused about how to write about all three Marthas in this article and their name before and after marriage. The text seems to call them by their maiden name until they are married... but that confuses matters and goes against the guideline to use the subject of the articles most common / married surname... as in "Jefferson was..." but that also gets a bit confusing as many may think that refers to Thomas Jefferson (I have been making edits calling him Thomas or Thomas Jefferson).

The three Marthas are Thomas Jefferson's:

  • Mother-in-law
  • Wife (also called Patty)
  • Daughter (also called Patsy)

Thomas Jefferson's daughter is Mary, aka Polly, aka Maria. I have just been using Mary, but noted in the list of children her two nicknames.

Any helpful pointers would be much appreciated!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Someone added "but disputed by the Scholars Commission Report of 2001," in this edit -- but did not provide a source, so I reverted the edit. Is there a source for this to add it back in?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martha_Jefferson&oldid=1207810933"