Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

To those who wish to edit the page during the GA process

Hi! I would like to thank those who made positive attempts to add onto the page, and many thanks for adding citations, as it would have saved time to track down the source. It was quite surprising to see such an influx of additions within a short time-frame, but a pleasant surprise.

However, please don't make blind additions without making sure that its placement is proper. Check if a particular section has a part that is repeated already, and attempt to add onto the section. Also, try not to overdo the quotations of particular people. You don't want an encyclopedia article to become too bookish in its presentation.

I generally don't like to edit out parts that people have taken the time to incorporate, but if it's improper, especially in the process of being reviewed for GA (or A/FA status for that matter).

Also, if you use a book source, please add it onto either the Biographies, Specialized Studies, or Primary Sources links. There's a possibility that the sources may need to be uniform in citation style, and looking up the ISBN numbers for all of the books can be an absolute headache (I've already had to do it once this year).

Don't want to come off as a page tyrant or WP:OWN, but just want the edits to be proper for GA status. If you have any questions about the edits (I certainly not above being wrong on something), please respond back onto my page. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton lead 2

[copied from: "User talk:Rjensen"
There were a few errors to the lead that needed to be corrected, but I didn't want to rush and make corrections myself, since it was your writing. Just make them when you get the chance, the article status for GA has been put on hold for seven days; hopefully you'll get the chance to edit by then. If not, just let me know. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

which errors? Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing major. In retrospect, my word choice was an overstatement. From the GA review:

Lead

• Mother's heritage isn't really lead-worthy
• "Recognized for his abilities and talent" is POV
• Add a comma after "1795" in "In 1795 he returned to the practice" per MOS:DATE
• "In 1798–99" → "In 1798 and 1799"
• "Hamilton's opposition to Adams' re-election helped cause his defeat in the 1800 election"..... awkward phrasing
• In its current state, the quote "When Vice President Burr ran for governor of New York state in 1802, Hamilton crusaded against him as unworthy. Taking offense at some of Hamilton's comments, Burr challenged him to a duel and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day." seems to suggest the duel was in 1802. Probably best to clarify that the duel took place later on.

As for the Wilentz link, please send it to gtownhoyasdc@gmail.com. I'll use it and give it a proper citation when possible. Thanks for reading, and thanks for your help! LeftAire (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how is "recognized for his abilities and talent" POV? Is there a school of thought that Hamilton was not a talented and able man, and displayed these traits while young?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, I felt the same way. Perhaps it is the wording that has potential issues. Maybe it is thought that it should be Due to his perceived talents and abilities or Due to local wealthy men seeing talent in Hamilton, he was able to obtain a college education (I think that it's something like the latter).LeftAire (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We follow the RS and they are unanimous in emphasizing that his talents were recognized & rewarded by the local elite. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"His perceived talents and abilities" would be more neutral..... if mentioning such a thing at all. Wehwalt, Rjensen, it isn't really neutral to simply say one is "talented" or has "talents"- comes off as puffery and biased. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no bias, we are reporting the consensus of the scholars. They are really quite unanimous on the point and to hedge it somehow tells readers that the scholars are not unanimous. "Perceived" is a weasel word that adds no new information, but seems to hedge or cast in doubt the statement. Rjensen (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd feel more comfortable if it was attributed to them more explicitly per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I fail to see how exactly it is neutral to say things like "_____ is talented" or "_______ has talent(s)" or "known for talent" without mentioning who describes the person as such. Not doubting what scholars deem him to be, just didn't want this to seem like an overly pro-Hamilton piece. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is full coverage in the biographies by Miller pp 5-7, and Mitchell page 34 who says the funds "came from a few individuals of wealth with knowledge of the young man's ability and promise". Chernow p 37 says that "Hamilton's famous letter about the storm astounds the reader for two reasons: for all its bombastic excesses, it does seem wondrous the 17-year old self educated clerk could write with such verve and gusto. Clearly, Hamilton was highly literate and already had considerable fund of verbal riches.... His hurricane letter generated such a sensation – even the island's governor inquired after the young author's identity – that a subscription fund was taken up by local businessmen to send this promising youth to North America to be educated." The citation, of course, should be in the main body of text and not in the lead. Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say those are good quotes to include (or paraphrase) within body. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Popular culture

1. When facts asserted aren't supported by the source, it's probably a good idea to remove them - especially from a prominent article. Rklawton (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
2. A review of a performance is not a sufficient source to make historical claims about a subject's relevance to popular culture. Sure, it's probably a good source of information about the performance - but that's about it. Rklawton (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
3. Citing omission from a reference book on popular culture constitutes original research, and I know you know better. What we need is a reliable source that affirmatively supports the assertion that Hamilton has been ignored by popular culture.
4. I could counter the omission from cultural guides with the raw fact that there are over 1,400 distinct geographic locations in the United States that include "Hamilton" in their names. But drawing a conclusion from a bare fact (as you did) is also original research, and I won't do it. Rklawton (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to respond in-line if you wish. Rklawton (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

1) all assertions are cited. 2) When dealing with popular culture, the reviews by the specialists in the leading media demonstrate the evaluation by experts-- the claim is that Hamilton is finally in the popular culture in 2015 as attested by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Variety, and the New Yorker among others. It appears that Rklawton never bothered to read the cited sources. 3) Original research is forbidden only when it is not sourced & cited-- this research is fully sourced & cited & anyone can immediately access it online within one minute. 4) There are lots of places named Hamilton all across the US & the British Empire--It's a very common name. I don't think any of them were named after our Alexander Hamilton. He was politically very unpopular in the frontier areas where new towns were being formed and named. The faces on the currency and coins are a matter of popular culture, so so that most Americans I think are quite aware that Hamilton's face is on the $10 bill. Rjensen (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

David Brooks is a famous analyst of American popular culture. He says, "Every once in a while a piece of art brilliantly captures the glory, costs and ordeals of public life. Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” did that. And so does Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton,” now playing at The Public Theater in New York." The Los Angeles Times says, "The new musical has received rave reviews...and has also sparked a wider cultural conversation for its casting of minority actors in the roles of America's Founding Fathers." This is exactly the Evidence that is needed to show that historical Hamilton is in 2015 inside the popular culture. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for underestimating the impact of the musical, Rjensen. Before reading the David Brooks quote, I didn't think it would be as significant to Hanilton's depictions as things like Daniel Day-Lewis playing Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. The reviews added also help it stand as a separate section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

My objection is the assertion that Hamilton has been absent from pop-culture until now. No source cited says he has been absent. Yes, we've got sources about pop culture that don't include him, but that's not the same thing. Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What Rjenson "thinks" isn't of interest. What Rjensen can source is. A quick search that Rjenson should have done turns up:

• CA Alexander Hamilton High School
• DC Alexander Hamilton Statue
• IN Alexander Hamilton Elementary School
• MA Alexander Hamilton School
• MD Alexander Hamilton Elementary School
• MI Alexander Hamilton School
• NJ Alexander Hamilton Plaza
• NJ Alexander Hamilton Elementary School
• NY Alexander Hamilton School
• NY Alexander Hamilton High School
• NY Alexander Hamilton House
• NY Alexander Hamilton Elementary School
• NY Alexander Hamilton Square
• NY Alexander Hamilton Bridge
• NY Alexander Hamilton Playground
• NY Alexander Hamilton Custom House
• OH Alexander Hamilton Junior High School
• TX Alexander Hamilton Junior High School

All I'm asking for is a reliable source that specifically says Hamilton hasn't been part of our popular culture for the last two hundred years (other than the rare honor of having his face on our currency). Or - just remove that bit from the article. This really isn't a big deal. Rklawton (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you have it: I cited a monumental encyclopedic guide to American popular culture with many thousands of listings, in which the editors decided to give zero space to Alexander Hamilton. The text does not say he had zero role-- it says he had an inconspicuous role as decided upon by the experts on the history of American popular culture. I just looked again at The guide to United States popular culture (2001) with over 1000 pages of double columned text, and prepared by 23 editors from 20 different colleges and universities, with dozens of contributors; The index has 630 columns of about 16,000 items that made the cut. Alexander Hamilton did not make the top 16,000 -- But six other people named "Hamilton" did. That I suggest is what evidence looks like when the person is not an important part of American popular culture. As for the high schools that Rklawton mentions, none of them made the top 16,000 either--though it did mention that one person had graduated from "Alexander Hamilton high school." In other words, the statement about Hamilton's status in the Popular culture are supported by the source. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

Why is Hamilton's personal life section below his legacy section? I think the two should be switched at the very least. We might consider placing it more toward the top. Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I rearranged it; didn't really make sense to have "legacy" before "personal life" Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Secretary of the Treasury, Operations of the Act Laying Duties on Imports

Should there be a subheading for Operations of the Act Laying Duties on Imports? It seems to be the only subject listed in the opening paragraph of this section without a sub section. It could fit between Report on Public Credit and Report on a National Bank.

This could cover 1789: Hamilton I, 1790: Hamilton II, and 1792: Hamilton III tariffs and the importance of customs revenue. This would then tie in to the renaming of the U.S. Custom House in NYC to the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there wasn't that much information that I could obtain from it as far as secondary sources outside of the brief information given under the Whiskey as Tax Revenue sectionn. It was one of the areas that I planned on expanding once this GA review process is over, since I do plan on trying go get this article to obtain an FA status if possible. Heck, even the link provided doesn't list more than the copy of the report itself. I'll reread Chernow and try to obtain a physical copy of Murray's book on Hamilton (among other authors) when I get the chance, but I cannot expand as of now. Thanks for your concern, and I'm truly sorry I could not be of assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeftAire (talk • contribs)
  • With or without this, I've passed the article for GA- congratulations! STRONGLY RECOMMEND putting this up for another peer review before going for FA, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Definitely will get another peer review! Just a matter of when... LeftAire (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for the update. Great article! Zeete (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I think that asking for a copy-edit before a FA nomination should be tried. Maybe someone could reach the GOCE. Lutie (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That is definitely in the plans, along with another peer review. I feel that the prose isn't quite the FA status that is needed (not to mention the inconsistency in the presentation of the citations for an FA in contrast to a GA). It is in the works, just a matter of when. Thanks for your concern! LeftAire (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

a bit of obvious copy-editing

• Where I attended elementary school everybody learned that "p." mean "page" and "pp." means "pages"
• Under WP:MOS, ranges of pages, ranges of years, ranges of letters of the alphabet, ranges of measurements, etc., require an en-dash, not a hyphen, thus: pp. 57–61, NOT pp. 57-61.
• Under WP:MOS one does not capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in a section heading, thus "Post-Secretary years", NOT "Post-Secretary Years".
• I don't know whether in some communities within the English-speaking world it is standard to write p.8 instead of p. 8, but when I inquired on Wikipedia's language reference desk, everyone said it's non-standard. I've seen it only on Wikipedia and not elsewhere, AFAIK.

I've done some copy-editing in accordance with these points. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and Republican party being referred to as Democratic-Republican Party

Why is this lie perpetuated. One has only to read Thomas Jefferson's papers. Thomas Hugh William Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.39.56 (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Is not a lie. Political scientists prefer the term "Democratic-Republican Party" And use it in their textbooks, while historians prefer "Republican Party." Jefferson himself called the Republican Party. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Confused

Hamilton was born out of wedlock to Rachel Faucette, a married woman of partial French Huguenot descent

How can you be born out wedlock to a married woman? Is the intended meaning he was illegimate/the result of an affair? --91.209.142.224 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Early Military Career needs updating

Full Disclosure: I am the author of the book and article mentioned below.

In light of recent research (see also Google Books), Hamilton's Early military career needs updating. (Other sections also need updating, but one thing at a time.) As this could be considered a "major edit," it contradicts previous biographies, and I am the author, I felt opening a discussion prior to editing the page made the most sense.

PS I'm a newbie at Wikipedia editing, so please excuse any ignorance or faux pas on my part. FoundingFatherFan (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia's Alexander Hamilton page! yes please help out. However you can't cite your own new book. It's self-published and that's a major problem see wp:UGC . However, you can cite other scholars & the primary sources that you used. This is especially important if you are challenging published biographies (such as Chernow p 63) In general, Wikipedia strongly discourages the publication of new findings here. look at wp:RS Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@FoundingFatherFan: (edit conflict)The page you refer to says, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Does that include public speeches about Hamilton, one of which was broadcast by CSPAN3 and another one to be broadcast shortly? How about reviews of the book by well-known Hamilton experts and biographers? Just as we cite Chernow rather than primary sources, largely because those documents are often not readily available to the public, it would be much more useful to cite my book rather than the lengthy citations (the citations and other supporting material regarding Hamilton's early military career take up more than two pages in the endnotes). Thank you Rjensen for the advice.FoundingFatherFan (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well no--broadcasts don't work well. see WP:RS becuae we have MANY published books. you need published reviews in the scholarly literature to demonstrate you're an expert, and even then it's dicey. Please do NOT try to use Wikipedia to publish new results that only you have validated. Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@FoundingFatherFan: (edit conflict) Thanks for announcing your conflict of interest. While you are welcome to improve Wikipedia, I would caution you about using your own book as a reference for same. I think WP:BRD is the best way for you to proceed. Be bold, if you get reverted you'll need to discuss the issue and determine consensus. Please be aware that consensus includes all of us dilettantes that don't study the subject to the degree you may have. You may find this frustrating. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous two editors are completely correct, as I understand it, and have offered good advice. Shoreranger (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammar review

I overlooked a few mistakes as I was reading, although one sentence structure could influence meaning/interpretation. I don't know what was correct so did not edit. I'm only as far as the incorrect use of "wounded up" for "wound up" (" while William Duer, the governor of the program, wounded up in debtors' prison.[150][152] ")

I stopped there to ask for an editor to review this first half (with the minimum of three major errors). There may be more but I have lost confidence in the article and so will stop reading at this point. It is too bad as there is the highest level of interest in Hamilton right now because of the broadway musical. Perhaps even a more thorough and accessible overview/preview/summary of his accomplishments and defeats, at the start of the article, would be useful to many. Irishstones (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Single most important source" not supported by citation?

I'm not a heavily-involved editor and am certainly not knowledgeable in Constitutional interpretation - I initially noticed the bit because the tenses were off. But after looking into it, the citation doesn't seem to support the claim that the Federalist Papers are the single most important source for constitutional interpretation. I attempted to tone down the absolute claim, but was reverted, so just corrected the tense, and am addressing the citation issue here.

I don't doubt that they are very important and may be "most important", but I tracked down the linked citation via my local library and Academic OneFile, and it simply ranks the individual papers against themselves. I couldn't find any statement in the article about the Papers′ import as a whole, relative to anything else. The article on the Federalist Papers themselves has this to say, while citing the same source:

Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use The Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.

Shouldn't the claim here either be similarly non-absolute, or have a citation that backs up the absolute claim? In the former case, the language before the current iteration was most recently introduced seems suitable: "still an important source", which is certainly true, without making any uncited absolute claims. In the latter case, perhaps the language could be tweaked to incorporate the citation used earlier in the Papers' wiki page:

According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellcheck (talk • contribs) 22:18 28 December 2015

Here are the most cited sources of Supreme Court opinions 1953-1984: #1 = Federalist Papers N=102 decisions cite it; #2 Story's Commentary N=36 decisions; #3 Cooley N=21 decisions. from Pamela C. Corley, Robert M. Howard and David C. Nixon, "The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Use of the Federalist Papers" Political Research Quarterly Vol. 58, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 329-340 at p 330 in JSTOR. Wilson gets the same result with a longer time frame 1925-1984: Wilson, James G. "The Most Sacred Text: The Supreme Court's Use of the Federalist Papers." Brigham Young University Law Review 1985. 65-135. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

The Wikipedia article on Alexander Hamilton has the following statement referring to the Bank of the United States:

    "...create the government-owned Bank of the United States."

In actual fact the bank was not government-owned, and the bank ownership was as described in the Wikipedia article on the Bank of the United States:

 " Hamilton proposed establishing the initial funding for the First Bank of the United States through the sale of $10 million in stock of which the United States government would purchase the first $2 million in share.  The remaining $8 million of stock would be available to the public, both in the United States and overseas. The chief requirement of these non-government purchases was that one-quarter of the purchase price had to be paid in gold or silver; the remaining balance could be paid in bonds, acceptable scrip, etc."  [This financial requirement severely limited the ability of non-wealthy individuals to purchase shares.]

The incorrect statement in the present Alexander Hamilton article should be replaced by something like the correct statement from the Bank of the United States article. I would also suggest the bracketed statement as a clarification. However, I have no authority for that statement.

Gottliebpet (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I changed it to government backed, it's a bit better. Someone might be able to expand on it a bit, but for now it does match the sources better. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Recentism of "in popular culture"

The popular culture section (as is often the case) has some problems. It chiefly raves about the musical, and implies that Hamilton was an obscure character until recently(using an odd "negative reference" to a single pop culture guidebook). In fact, IMDb lists Hamilton as a character in over fifty film and TV productions, played by some major actors: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0032796/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t39

The Chernow book the musical was based on was itself on the bestseller list for three months, and Hamilton was a major character in Gore Vidal's #1 bestseller Burr: https://books.google.co.jp/books/about/Burr.html?id=X_EEAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

It's true that Hamilton is having a moment now thanks to the excellent musical, but he has always been acknowledged as one of the key founders, just not on the level of Washington or Jefferson. Some perspective would be good. I would have edited myself but the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.141.8 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

the reference is to the major standard scholars' guide of popular culture, not to some "odd" source: it reports almost no significant pop culture on Hamilton in last 80 years Hamilton was rarely the central character in any of the slight pop culture items about the Founding era, and that has radically changed. (The listing includes a lot of short documentaries for school use--that's not pop culture. The kids are forced to watch the stuff.) The Chernow book is high scholarship, not pop culture, and the article makes clear that scholars never neglected Hamilton. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The "pop culture" section should indeed at least mention Hamilton being a major character in the Vidal bestseller Burr (which is actually one of the first places I learned about his life). He was also a significant character in the PBS series The Adams Chronicles from 1976. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Edited to add, I went ahead and added two lines with sources. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Add popular culture reference to L. Neil Smith novels

Propose adding to the "In popular culture" section (the quote could be dropped):

Hamilton appears as a major historical figure in L. Neil Smith's Libertarian alternate-history series beginning with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Probability_Broach . He is considered to be an authoritarian, with a contemporary terrorist movement naming itself after him. Quoting from the novel:

"In 1789, the unlucky year 13 A.L., the Revolution was betrayed. ... The fiend responsible for this counter-revolutionary nastiness was Alexander Hamilton, a name Confederates hold in about the same esteem as the word "spittoon." He and his Federalists had shoved down the country's throat their "Constitution," a charter for a centralist superstate replacing the thirteen minigovernments that had been operating under the inefficient but tolerable Articles of Confederation. Adopted during an illegal and unrepresentative meeting in Philadelphia, originally authorized only to revise the Articles, this new document amounted to a bloodless coup d'etat."

not much visibility here. Awards? The Probability Broach won the 1982 Prometheus Award--which the author himself had created. A book has to be "popular" with the general public before it enters the realm of "popular culture." Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Turning off semi-protected request (because it looks like you are able to do the edit yourself). I looked some stuff up, and it looks notable enough. I'd say, go for it, and if there are objections, they should voice it here. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Trimming Musical reference

I love the musical, don't get me wrong, but I think we've strayed into talking about the Musical specifically (the indented quote praising Miranda) rather than its relation to the subject of the musical. I know that quote is cited, but I think it belongs on the musical page, not this one. We've already established that the musical is in reference to Hamilton, and that it's popular. We're veering toward fanboyism by adding a superfluous quote. I'm being bold and deleting it, but knowing how many fans there are, I thought I'd pre-emptively explain here. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why "Rachel"?

This article refers to the men in Hamilton's early life (Alexander Hamilton himself, James Hamilton, Peter Lytton, and Thomas Stevens) by their last names, but for some reason the only woman mentioned (Rachel Faucette) is constantly referred to by her first name. She should be referred to as "Faucette" for consistency. (I can't make the change myself, as the article appears to be locked.) 74.71.74.187 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I'd guess the original author wrote it that way based on the source material and no one prior to you noticed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2016

The sentence below does not belong in the lead paragraph despite the popularity of the musical.

"Actor and musician Lin-Manuel Miranda wrote the musical Hamilton after reading Ron Chernow's biography about Hamilton's life."

Shoreranger (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Agreed, and removed. 192.231.133.247 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this was answered. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton Historical Society

Hello all! While sifting through piles of orphan articles I stumbled upon Alexander Hamilton Historical Society. If it's somewhat notable, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me might be interested in referencing it in the Legacy section here. If not, please consider nominating it for deletion (or finding some other way to connect it to the rest of the encyclopedia). Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

I, Jackinthebox17, have quite the issue with your One Direction page. I see you have the potential to have an outstanding article, but you suck because One Direction is tragically no more. I'd highly appreciate if you would take it down because every time I look it up I cry because well, they were everything to me in 1857. So thank you for listening and I wish you the best of luck in life. Jackinthebox17 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This request has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Topher385 (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party

Due to the popularity of the play - we shoud clarify that the 'Republican Party' in first summary is Democratic Republican Party. Not the party of Lincoln. Unless we are being willfully dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.57.156 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

nobody will be fooled for too long--the text says it's the party of Jefferson & Madison. That is the name Jefferson & Madison used & historians prefer. People who want to learn more can click & learn in one second. The modern GOP explicitly named itself after Jefferson's party. Rjensen (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I have a bachelors and a juris doctor and I learned it was Whigs and Tories, and when I read it I was confused as heck. I did not know we had our 'own' parties at that time... That may be a new discovery... Or new historian made up. I was educated at a Big Ten school. However if you look at list of Presidents they are all Democrate Republicans until Andrew Jackson then it was Whig v. Democrate. Just think we should be honest unless I am misunderstood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.57.156 (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a long debate on the name of Jefferson's party. In 1790-1810 era it was called the "Republican Party" and historians usually use that term (or use "Jeffersonian Republicans.") HOWEVER political scientists for 80 years have used the D-R variation (which indeed was used in the 1810s and 1820s). They often have tables that cover 200 years of politics & then the two Rep parties get confused. Wikipedia uses both depending on the context. for lists of presidents (which are used in pol science textbooks) Wiki uses D-R. For historical events Wiki often uses "Rep". Rjensen (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I read your CV. I would reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#1860_election_and_secessionI would also reference the books I had in College and my fathers. I am a 'nerd' I actually read them when college meant something. I grad college in early 2000's both of my parents doctorate grads, mine in science incase you cant tell from my english ability. I kept all the books I can scan them not sure where to to send them once scanned. I have my inherited fathers library and my own. English is one of 4 langagues I speak. However I think that Lincoln forming the third party of true 'republicans' is important. I think it provides hope to Americans that a third party can and has won. That is why I care. I still believe they where called Jefferson's party or Democrate - Republican. I am not a historian. However law is a study of history. Also if memory serves it was dealing with England or not dealing with them. A lot different then current political parties. Again different from current problems. Hence why we sent John Adams to England as an insult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.57.156 (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the coments. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

On slavery section needs reframing

The section on Hamilton's views on slavery does a pretty good job of showing the complexity of his viewpoints and different interpretations of how he actually viewed slaver.

But... it reads way too much like an academic research paper rather than an encyclopedia entry. Each sentence doesn't need a preface of "[Researcher] notes" or something along those lines. Proper credit can go to the original researchers in the notes. I believe that this format is generally confusing for people unfamiliar with academia (who are a large portion of Wikipedia readers) and is just inconsistent with how Wikipedia usually looks. Blumenblatt (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably true, but FWIW I've seen people criticised with GA and FA nominations in the past for not making the source of the opinion clear inline in the text. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure how much it has eveolved in the interveining timeframe, but I'd also point out that this seems to be biased a bit toward recent popularity, drawing very heavily on Chernow. I am not an expert enough to suggest specific changes, but I would challenge anyone interested to try to portray a more robust view of the issue by bringing in some more sources. Chernow's book is a very good one, but is not wholly objective (I';m not questioning it as a source, just saying that it would be best balances with other accounts). Some bits read as an apologetic, pre-emptively arguing against other view points (e.g. ownership of slaves). This gives the appearance of opinion in Wiki's name. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The idea that Hamilton never owned slaves or participated in the slave trade is a fairly modern invention. See for example "It has been stated that Hamilton never owned a negro slave, but this is untrue. We find that in his books, there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others."From the 1910 book, The Intimate Life Of Alexander Hamilton, Based Chiefly Upon Original Family Letters and Other Documents, Many of Which Have Never Been Published by Allan McLane Hamilton page 268 here: http://play.google.com/books/reader?id=bYk296DTf_8C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA268 The primary source cited is a Hamilton expense book from 1796 in which he entered, "Cash to N. Low 2 negro servants purchased by him for me, $250." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

there is no "modern invention." Chernow has 92 pages that mention slavery-- a vastly more sophisticated & reliable coverage than this random sentence. Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the slavery section needs to be reworked. It should at least address Hamilton's own connections to the institution - including documented instances where he bought and traded slaves for the Schuyler family. This article lists 3 different episodes where Hamilton engaged in slave trading. [1] It also makes a pretty convincing case that Chernow exaggerates Hamilton's abolitionism. MelanctonNYC (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was indeed wanting.  I've edited it.

I did not remove any of the sources that say he was an abolitionist, but for balance, I added some sources that say he was not.  I also added some specific details of his purchasing and selling of slaves.  One can't have an objective discussion of Hamilton's role with slavery without mentioning these.

Now, thanks to my edit, the section is balanced, presenting fairly the nuance of Hamilton's involvement with the institution.

allixpeeke (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

On slavery

@Allixpeeke: Your recent addition of content is undue. There's no way that one section should be longer than the rest of Hamilton's personal life and you've used some really large sections of quoted text. Please consider spinning that out into a separate article and chopping down the amount of text here. I haven't assessed the quality of what you wrote but it's way too long. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, consensus above (see #On slavery section needs reframing) was that the section needed improvement.  The section, as it was previously constituted, did not present a neutral point of view.  I did not remove any of the sources that claimed Hamilton was an abolitionist, but I did add some sources that claimed that Hamilton was not an abolitionist in order to counterbalance the claims that he was.  The section, now, is balanced, fair, and accurate.

That said, I think you make an excellent point in suggesting that the section can now be spun-out into a separate article.  I will get to work on that effort.  Thank you for suggesting it!

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I split the section off as Alexander Hamilton and slavery, a title that bears reasonable similarity with other articles that already exist on Wikipedia (e.g., Thomas Jefferson and slavery, George Washington and slavery).  (I also went ahead and created a template for those three articles.)  Thanks again for the fantastic suggestion!

Best,
allixpeeke (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PROSPLIT the child-article "...and slavery" should have had "an edit summary noting "split content from [parent article]...." etc. Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you had actually had done the edit summary - I somehow missed that. Apologies. I did add the missing attribution templates on the two articles. Shearonink (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.  allixpeeke (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Allixpeeke: I fixed the attribution issues on both the parent article & the child article. You're welcome. Shearonink (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton and slavery...

The split-off article Alexander Hamilton and slavery was created earlier this week. There is a large amount of quoted material in this article which (keeping in mind WP:QUOTEFARM & WP:LONGQUOTE) seems to go somewhat against WP:MOS. Maybe I'm wrong on this so would welcome other editors' opinion on the child article, please respond there with any thoughts. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-reliable source

Cerniglia, Keith A. "An Indelicate Amor: Alexander Hamilton and the First American Political Sex Scandal", Master's Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 2002. is not a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP since there is no evidence that this Master's thesis has "had significant scholarly influence." And there's no point in attempting to do so since the editor who added it has now added another apparently reliable source to support the claim in question. Meters (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

the point is that it is helpful to readers interested in the sex-scandal topic issue. A MA thesis from a major university is typically a good place to look for additional bibliographical citations for example. Therefore it fulfills the explicit Wiki recommendation You also help users find additional information on the subject WP:WHYCITE Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

As I already pointed out on your talk page, if you wish to include the thesis you will first have to show that it can be considered a reliable source. Some PhD theses are suitable as sources, if used carefully, but Master's theses are generally not acceptable. If it can be shown that the claim that this sex scandal was the first US political sex scandal originated with this thesis, or that the analysis of this point in the thesis "had significant scholarly influence" then I agree that the thesis can be used. I don't think it would be necessary, but I wouldn't object to it. Meters (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I believe Meters is correct on this point. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"Adopted"?

The word "adopted" is used many three times in the article, describing situations when Hamilton was briefly taken in after his mother's death by Lytton and Stevens. I don't believe that the sources support labeling this as adoption. Any dispute about this? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC) rev. 02:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Seeing no objection, done per notice. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

I wound like to change the year he was born. It wasn't January 11, 1757. It was January 11, 1755. Multiple sources from Hamilton's writing suggest that he was born in 1955 instead of 1957. Epicj7 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Not established. The dispute is already covered in the body of the article. There are credible historians on both sides. I find Brookhiser (p. 16), who supports 1757, to have a more convincing argument than Chernow (who supports 1755). In a dispute of this kind, Wikipedia is not in the business of picking a side and calling it right. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton = leader of Nationalism

The debate in the 1780s was between nationalism and a states emphasis (as in the Confederation). Hamilton was leader of the national forces = strong national government (in terms of economics, debts, tariffs, national bank, suppress Whiskey revolt, a standing army, and national power over-rides the states. Jefferson was the leader of the opposite faction--he worried that a strong national government would be corrupt just like Britain, and time and again accused Hamilton of being too favorable to London (as in Jay Treaty debate). For example Jefferson wanted no navy at all & reliance on state militias in wartime rather than a powerful standing army. This is standard history and has echoes in the 20th century. eg 1) "These measures were enacted by Congress between 1791 in 1792, thus insuring the realization of the federalist vision of US nationalism. Rather than remain an agrarian nation centered around the yeoman farmer under a relatively inactive central government, as the Jeffersonian Republicans preferred, Hamilton's financial program contributed in large part to the evolution of the United States into a nation devoted to mercantile and industrial pursuits under the governance of a strong central authority." [Encyclopedia of Nationalism, (2000) vol 1 p 209]; "Croly's (1869–1930) Promise of American Life, which took Hamilton's nationalism as inspiration" [in Lapham's Quarterly 2016]; 3) Henry Cabot "Lodge's admiration for Hamilton's nationalism is apparent throughout his biography" Ambrose 2007. 4) "Biographer John Miller concluded that these efforts demonstrated Hamilton's nationalist sensibilities " [Kaplan 2002]; 5) "Hamilton's powerful vision of American nationalism, with states subordinate to a strong central government and led by a vigorous executive branch...[ Chernow 2005]. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Those that are familiar with this period in history (and/or those sources) will know what we mean by nationalism in this context. However, many readers will be more familiar with such concepts as Black nationalism and White nationalism. I think it is OK to use the word nationalism in this article if we explain what it means. Perhaps the most sensible option would be to not use the word in the lead but create a subsection of the Legacy section, that gives his influence on American nationalism. This would be similar to Alexander Hamilton#On slavery.

In the lead, I see no harm in describing what Hamilton advocated for, without giving it a name that can be misunderstood.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I see zero evidence that "natonalism" is misunderstood by anyone. The current RS like Chernow rely on the term. I agree we should have some sort of definition in the lede & will add one. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not a consensus here for "nationalism" in the lede. I believe it belongs in the body, but adding it with a definition needlessly expands the size of the lede, and omitting the definition does create potential confusion with contemporary usage of the term. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lwarrenwiki. Rjensen says 'I see zero evidence that "natonalism" is misunderstood by anyone', but offers no evidence that this meaning of the word nationalism is the meaning commonly understood by our readers. Yaris678 (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If we assume the readers have had secondary school experience in a history course, then they will have exposure to "nationalism" one of the most important concepts used by historians covering the modern world since 1789. This article emphasizes national versus local/states themes and it's hard to see someone mix that up with black nationalism. To leave out the theme will leave most readers puzzled why Jefferson was so unhappy with Hamilton's programs. Rjensen (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that strengthen the federal government is more "nationalism" as we understand the word today than what Jefferson propose? This looks more like the old centralization/decentralization debate. Bertdrunk (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That is the widely-accepted meaning of the term. Read e.g. Daniel Walker Howe's "What hath God Wrought" for a recent example of this usage. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1) " a nationalist in the sense that he wanted to strengthen the national government and its authority" [Greene, A Companion to the American Revolution - Page 462]; 2) "many nationalists seek to strengthen national governments at the expense of smaller political communities" Schumaker, From ideologies to public philosophies:--re nationalism worldwide; 3) "Hamilton's nationalism was consistent with his commitment to public and private libeety. The impetus behind Hamilton's persistent attempt to strengthen national government..." Read, Power Versus Liberty: Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, and Jefferson 4) "the general issue of strengthening the national government (what will be referred to as supporting nationalism rather than confederation)" Maguire, To Form A More Perfect Union. Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

None of these examples relate to how the term "nationalism" is commonly understood. Rather, they explain what the term "nationalism" means when used in relation to Hamilton. Yaris678 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

we're talking about using the best RS for Hamilton. The puzzle is the claim here that some editors know "how the term "nationalism" is commonly understood." well tell us: How is the term "commonly" understood, and how do they happen to know that. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't understand (I actually do, but) why this is even an argument. We are a tertiary source and we go by what the sources say. What Yaris suggests is OR and is not allowed. Any supposed "explanation" that the way Hamilton was a nationalist isn't the same the way other people are nationalists will likely violate NPOV and will probably be UNDUE. Readers that are too uninformed to understand nuance need to read nationalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't claim anything, but now you said it, all the examples have to qualify nationalism pretending they have a slightly different meaning. And now I'm confused if I should read nationalism to enlighten me or go back to XVIII century to discover it's context~. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

we start with the mission of editors to summarize what the RS have to say about Hamilton. They all emphasize his vision of American nationalism = building a strong central government, with Jefferson his main opponent. Keep in mind that in the 1780s the new country had a very weak central government (no president, no courts, no taxation, very little $$, very weak military etc etc) and Hamilton set out to change all that. Does the article mislead readers in any way on those points? Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is very good at explaining those points, it just doesn't need to use the word "nationalism" to do so. Using the word "nationalism", especially in the lead, could mislead people who don't know what it means in this context.

As for the accusation that I am advocating original research, that is incorrect. If I was advocating we all write an essay on the changing meaning of the word "nationalism", that would be original research. What I am advocating is that certain content not be used, or be delayed until later in the article where it can be explained more fully. As the policy on verifiability says "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" and "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Yaris678 (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

our job is to follow the rs which use the terms. They don't think readers will get mixed up so why should we? Again no one has specified how any reader will get misled into thinking the article is about black nationalism. Rjensen (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no dispute about whether the terms "nationalism" and "nationalist" should be used in this article, or whether references support including those terms. The dispute is only about the location of that information in this article. Our job includes seeking and following a consensus of editors, and although Rjensen has made a forceful argument that "nationalism" should be included in the lede, the apparent consensus seems to be that the body of the article is the best location for that information, because the lede needs to be concise and needs to be able to stand alone (for readers who go no farther). In the body of the article, editors have the space to clearly define the term as it applies to Hamilton and his contemporaries. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

https://www.queerty.com/was-founding-father-alexander-hamilton-bisexual-his-letters-suggest-so-20140704 Alexander had a thing with laurens confirmed please fix JohnLaurensIsVeryGay (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Not established or confirmed. In the days when a man routinely addressed his worst enemies with "My dear sir... I have the honor to be your obedient servant," how do you think he would write to a friend whom he actually liked? With remarkably excessive effusion, by our modern standards, but that was the style in the late 18th century. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016

In the fifth paragraph there are the words "splitting defining" together. I think it should just be "defining" to be good English. 73.181.94.156 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Good catch. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

Though there is information on John Laurens' page, it would be appropriate to add information on the nature of their relationship to Alexander Hamilton's page as well. Zorkzei (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane ^talk 04:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:HAMILTON, Alexander-Treasury (BEP engraved portrait).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:HAMILTON, Alexander-Treasury (BEP engraved portrait).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 11, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Alexander Hamilton (1755 or 1757 – 1804) was an American statesman and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He was an influential interpreter and promoter of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the founder of the nation's financial system, the Federalist Party, the United States Coast Guard, and The New York Post newspaper. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton was the main author of the economic policies of the George Washington administration.

Hamilton emphasized strong central government and successfully argued that the implied powers of the Constitution provided the legal authority to fund the national debt. In the early 19th century, Hamilton conducted legal and business activities in New York City, and was active in ending the international slave trade. He was killed during a duel with Vice President Aaron Burr, after the latter took umbrage at Hamilton's campaigning against him in the New York gubernatorial election.Engraving: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; restoration: Andrew Shiva

Semi Protected Edit Request: In Popular Media

Rufus Sewell plays Alexander Hamilton in the HBO miniseries John Adams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14A:8200:FCA0:742E:BDBF:CE08:6CCE (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Added in popular culture section.Isananni (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reynolds Affair

It says, "... and at one point James Reynolds requested to 'befriend' her." What does this mean? That Reynolds requested Hamilton to befriend her? Because James Reynolds was already her husband, so how could he befriend her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.150.30 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be better edited. It must refer to James Reynolds' letter to Hamilton dated 17 January 1792 where Reynolds invites Hamilton to ignore his previous order to stop seeing his wife (possibly issued early in January at the same date as the second installment of the $ 1000 blackmail payment was paid, for which Reynolds signed the corresponding receipt) and to resume his visits to his wife "as friend" for the sake of Maria's happyness. In this letter Reynolds also wishes Hamilton to consider him at his service. Hamilton related in the Reynolds pamphlet that he did not act on this invitation until after receiving some pathetic letters from Maria (which he all published in the Appendix of the pamphlet). Based on the timeline of James and Maria's letters, Hamilton paid some visits to Maria between February and April 1792, that were followed by requests of "loans" in the amount of $30 to $50 (the last receipt dates 24 June 1792), though striving to get rid of an increasingly embarassing and annoying (and expensive) liason. When James Reynolds in early May 1792 writes to Hamilton to stop seeing his wife lamenting, among other things, that Hamilton was too careful not to be seen visiting his house (whyever would he have paid hush money if he did not care for secrecy...) Hamilton writes that he was more than happy to comply, sensing that Reynolds' wish to be publicly associated with him could hint at a larger and more dangerous scheme than the mere blackmail over his adultery. Maria's last letter to Hamilton dated 2 June 1792 seems to confirm a prolongued lack of visits and though still striving to win her lover's attentions back, she seems more resigned to an end of the affair and bids Hamilton literally adieu, something she had not done in the previous hysterical correspondence. I hope this helps. I will try to rephrase the reference in the article tomorrow. Isananni (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• On rereading the Reynolds section I noticed that while it has improved in terms of accuracy, it has grown too large in the context of this article, considering the Reynolds affair has its own article and is also extensively related in Maria Reynolds' article, and this detracts from the overall balance of the Alexander Hamilton article. Furthermore, it comes before the 1796 election while the scandal broke out in 1797 (even if it referred to events of 1791-1792), so there's an error in timeline in the general Post-Secretary Years section. I will try to work on these issues asap, moving the 1796 Election before the Reynolds affair and making the Reynolds affair section a bit more concise without losing on relevant content and related references.Isananni (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done Isananni (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017 The Year should be changed for when he was born it should 1755

AlexanderHamiltonGeek (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 21:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Addendum: No change is needed. Hamilton's birth year is not established. This dispute is already covered in the body of the article. There are credible historians on both sides. I find Brookhiser (p. 16), who supports 1757, to have a more convincing argument than Chernow (who supports 1755). In a dispute of this kind, Wikipedia is not in the business of picking a side and calling it right. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: Thanks for the clarification, I must admit I didn't understand what the section header was trying to imply, since, as you say it is mentioned both in the lede, and in the body of the article. — Iambic Pentameter _{(talk / contribs)} 21:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: I agree Brookhiser's argument sounds more convincing, I find it unlikely Hamilton could have lied about his year of birth so consistently all his life without a single slip and I have a case in my own family of a clumsy clerk who issued a passport for my husband (quite an official document) where he mistyped the date of birth of our second daughter so it's not an unplausible scenario that the mistake is in the document rather than in Hamilton's statement. However, as you quite rightly point out, it is correct to report both positions in the article without taking a stand as it has already been done.Isananni (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Isananni: Even America's favorite Hamilton expert, Lin-Manuel Miranda, who met with Chernow and relied on him as a consultant, apparently wasn't buying Chernow's argument about the earlier birth year. The lyric "Only 19, but my mind is older" appears in a scene set in 1776, without any hint or suggestion that Hamilton is lying about his age. :)  Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: ha ha, yes, with all the historical inaccuracies he put in the show for dramatic purposes despite Chernow's consultancy, Miranda must have thought that he owed the chap at least to take his word on the birth date :) Isananni (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Education

The link for King's College should direct to Columbia College, Columbia University not The King's College (New York). The King's College is unrelated to the original King's College which is now Columbia College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.154.247 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It can be specified "now Columbia College" with the related referral link. Linking King's college to the Columbia college page without explanation can be confusing and misleading. Isananni (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed erroneous referral link to present King's college, the reference to Columbia University as present name of the old King's College was already in the article. Isananni (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton's Censure

Hamilton's censure for mishandling two congressionally authorized loans while he was secretary of the treasury should probably be discussed. There are at least three reasons.

The first reason is, it appears to be the first use of censure in US history. Second, readers need or deserve a more complete view that presents the not-so-flattering-side. The third reason is, "mishandling" is sufficiently vague so it needs a discussion. Its not clear to me if Hamilton was, say, late releasing an interest payment, or something else.

If the history lessons are lost, then folks like Hillary Clinton will continue to escape justice and reprimand due to their role in the deaths of Americans, their lying to congress and the american people, their unabridged destruction of evidence, etc. Consider, Germany teaches about one of their ugliest moments in recent history - the Holocaust - so the lessons are not lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please end this obstruction

Wikipedia is where anyone can edit. Not this article. It is not the penis or vagina article so I am not sure why it is like this. Hamilton is not controversial nor the brunt of juvenile vandalism. Please end this. I have a correction to make but do not want to go through red tape of applying to the Central State Bureau of Wikipedia, General Secretary and Comrades Office. Thank you.

Hampton Sally (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hampton Sally: While I appreciate the inconvenience this presents, we will not be removing the current page protection. This article (and that of any subject covered in secondary schools) receives a significant level of vandalism and our effort to protect the article is neither taken lightly nor done arbitrarily. Those of us Wikipedians have been editors for years and are interested in writing an encyclopedia. Drive-by editors that want to make small corrections can either register an account and build an edit history before earning autoconfirmed status or they can make a request on the talk page. There is no "red tape" to go through. You could have posted your request instead of your complaint. I might also add that your poor attitude in this matter does not help your cause. Wikipedians have to deal with a significant amount of hate and harassment from internet denizens and yet we provide a free encyclopedia for you to read. When you criticize us as if we were some totalitarian workers' collective you only underline the fact that you would not be a useful contributor but just another mess we'd have to clean up. That said, perhaps you would prefer screeching on Facebook. We're busy here. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

These two sentences aren't clear

"When the war ended, after some months of self study by July 1782 Hamilton passed the bar exam and was licensed to argue cases before the Supreme Court of the State of New York. By October 1782 he obtained certification as a counselor, which meant that he could argue cases in court."

Because the "Supreme Court" in New York is actually the trial court of general jurisdiction, the difference between what Hamilton could do as of July 1782 and October 1782 isn't clear. They sound like the same thing. Cwoberdier (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote it in simple form: Hamilton studied law in New Jersey, passed the New York bar in 1782, and set up his practice in Albany. ...well that was wrong so I used Chernow p 169 and wrote "Hamilton studied law on his own in 1782, and in six months passed the New York bar and set up his practice in Albany." Rjensen (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen:A considerable amount of referenced content has been removed without reason. The section "Education" should encompass all his education and that includes Hamilton's discountinuing his college studies as well as his studies to become barrister, regardless if a barely two lines sentence on his career after the war is present in a later section.

@Cwoberdier: The lines "When the war ended, after some months of self study by July 1782 Hamilton passed the bar exam and was licensed to argue cases before the Supreme Court of the State of New York. By October 1782 he obtained certification as a counselor, which meant that he could argue cases in court." are taken word by word by the provided reference which you may find at this link https://books.google.it/books?id=2If-6zJM8VIC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=Hamilton+passed+the+bar+exam+and+was+licensed+to+argue+cases+before+the+Supreme+Court+of+the+State+of+New+York&source=bl&ots=tJkX_vCEhU&sig=b_PK0LDZiw1caxvEoWZegG4WN44&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyude47MvSAhXGUBQKHYmGAucQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=Hamilton%20passed%20the%20bar%20exam%20and%20was%20licensed%20to%20argue%20cases%20before%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20the%20State%20of%20New%20York&f=false

The fact that we may not appreciate the differences of what could be argued in one court with respect to another BACK THEN is not, imo, a good reason to remove referenced content that is relevant to the section and Chernow is not the only biographer that tackled this historical figure, so I would suggest to avoid monopolizing this article with his references when other reliable sources are available and can be cross checked online. I am proceeding to reinstate the removed content, in a slightly shorter form.Isananni (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Two small clarifications

"Hamilton felt the money from the bonds should not go to the soldiers, but the speculators that had bought the bonds from the soldiers, as they had little faith in the country's future."

ARENT THOSE OF "LITTLE FAITH" THE SOLDIERS? THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE MAKES IT SOUND AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE SPECULATORS.

"Congressman James Jackson also spoke against New York, with allegations of speculators attempting to swindle those who had NOT yet heard about Hamilton's report."

"NOT" NEEDS TO BE INSERTED AS SHOWN ABOVE.

Cwoberdier (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cwoberdier: the sentence on the speculators and soldiers has now been specified as "Hamilton felt the money from the bonds should not go to the soldiers, but the speculators that had bought the bonds from the soldiers, who had shown little faith in the country's future." I trust it is clear the "who" refers to the preceding "soldiers". Proceeding to insert the missing "NOT" in the following sentence too. Isananni (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton Slavery on 2 April 2017

In the slavery section of the Alexander Hamilton article, it says "He occasionally purchased or sold house servants" and sourced a piece on Hamilton on the issue of slavery. I read the entire source and this statement is highly misleading and implies he owned or traded in slaves while in America, when he didn't and no where in the article gives that implication. The article is a good source on his (Hamilton's) fight against slavery and his change of view from hopeless opponent of the institution who utilizes it to survive yet relating to the enslaved(due to his own background as an outcast in Caribbean society who was worked heavily in his youth) to a strong and progressive opponent of the institution in america and a rare champion of a multiracial society in America. If you will, please correct this error because it is a false attribution to an article that gives no indication of what the statement claims. Cdspickes (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The source states:

but he remained a part of the business, participating, at least indirectly, in buying and selling human beings. A letter written in his hand ordered the acquisition of “two or three poor boys” but asked that they be “bound in the most reasonable manner you can.” Despite this gesture, Hamilton clearly intended that these slaves generate profit. “I want them to be put on plantations,” he explained. Surely, he understood what plantation labor would mean for these “poor boys.”

I'd like to mention a few things about this cited letter - 1)It was written as part of Hamilton's clerkship for the Beekman and Cruger company, 2) part of this cited letter is in someone else's handwriting and part of it is in Hamilton's 3)Hamilton was poor, and I do mean dirt-poor. Even though his mother had owned slaves and in her Will had left one slave to him and one slave to Hamilton's brother, she was judged to be a fallen woman and her sons were judged to be illegitimate so they never received her slave-property.

All that being said, many historians state that Hamilton owned slaves outright - and even his grandson agreed that this was the case, if one reads Alexander Hamilton and slavery this assertion is well-supported by reliable sources. The article-text has been adjusted and additional sources provided to support the changes. Would suggest you read the article Alexander Hamilton and slavery for additional information. Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Excellent contribution, thank you.Isananni (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits about Hamilton & slavery

Re: Here and here: It's probably been discussed before but let's try to reach some kind of editorial consensus about whether or not Hamilton owned, bought & sold people as property. Many historians state that he did own slaves, some say he didn't. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am unable to quote the sources right now, but as far as I am aware Hamilton was involved in slaves trade on other people's behalf (when he was working as an accountant clerk for a living or when he acted as intermediary for his father and brother in law) and borrowed slave help from his in-laws on a few occasions when he had to host dinner parties and his household staff was not large enough to sustain the task (in some cases he hired an additional paid cook too) otherwise I do not recall recorded contemporary documental evidence that he actually owned slaves. Isananni (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest addition on historian Joanne Freeman's opinions and possible WP:PROMOTION

I reviewed the latest edit by user Minard38 on Ms Freeman's opinion on Alexander Hamilton in the Legacy section - the edit has a referral link to Ms Freeman's page, a page that was created by the same user on the very same day of his/her edit on the Alexander Hamilton's page, where Ms Freeman is praised as one of the leading experts on Hamilton (too bad she seems to have only published one work in what are claimed to be over 40 years of research on this specific Founding Father out of her 55 years of actual life, an early high school bird apparently) and clearly promotes Ms Freeman's upcoming book on Hamilton, due for release next month May 2017. The previous edit with Ms Freeman's supposed opinion on Hamilton on the Alexander Hamilton page was not even correctly referenced and simply further pointed to Ms Freeman's page on the Yale University website.

I have now replaced it with a statement derived from an online article by Ms Freeman and the reference now at least points to said article (it had been previously added to the Hamilton Musical page, where it is still visible in the "historical inaccuracies" section). I honestly have some doubts on whether this whole edit is 1) correctly positioned since it does not seem to add anything to the Legacy section in terms of detailing Hamilton's achievements whose effects are felt to this day 2) correctly left on the Alexander Hamilton page: apart from sounding like blatant WP:PROMOTION, if we start referencing each and every historian's opinion on Hamilton instead of the facts we might as well start a separate page with all historians' opinions on Hamilton, it might result longer than the Alexander Hamilton page itself, but would at least be transparently biased instead of delivering single historian's opinions as facts. All things considered, my personal opinion is that the latest edits concerning Ms Freeman's opinion on Hamilton (referenced or unreferenced) do not add an iota to sharing knowledge on documented facts and achievements related to Alexander Hamilton and should be removed from the page, not just the Legacy section. The suspect of WP:PROMOTION does not add a positive perception of the quality of the related edits. I would welcome other editors' opinion. Isananni (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would not object to the deletion. If not outright WP:PROMOTION, there's certainly a great deal of WP:PUFFERY around Joanne B. Freeman and the notability of her work. For example, I reverted this edit to Hamilton Grange National Memorial that was outright unsupported by the cited source. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hamilton authority" again... Ms Freeman seems to have quite a fan in that editor... considering that Ms Freeman publicly stated that she thought Hamilton was an asshole (her precise words, see the 2007 PBS Documentary on Alexander Hamilton for reference) I would like to think that an authority in any field would be a bit less crass in stating their opinion and possibly elaborate their thoughts to argue their point a bit more. Isananni (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm astonished at the hostility directed at efforts to expand the number of pages on Wikipedia about respected historians, particularly women. It is discouraging to see such Gender bias on Wikipedia in action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minard38 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minard38 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• • There's no Gender bias in action Minard38, but WP:PROMOTION is forbidden. Other edits related to other historians regardless of gender on countless Wiki pages have been equally revised/deleted based on irrelevance/inadequacy of the edit as is, in the best case, the issue in this instance. It is a fact that a single historian's opinion on a historical figure does not equal consensus and should be removed according to Wiki neutrality policy regardless if said historian calls e.g. Hamilton "a mass of contradictions" as in the rmv edit or "an arrogant asshole" as Ms Freeman did in the 2007 PBS documentary on Alexander Hamilton (you can find the dvd on sale for your reference). Also, please remember to sign your edits on talk pages. Isananni (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. The goal is to expand neutral discussion and knowledge about Hamilton, not limit it. I am not promoting Freeman however she has done a major amount of research and was already cited as a reference on the Alexander Hamilton page before. She is credited by Chernow and Lin Manuel Miranda as a source and did in fact act as a consultant for the Grange. I don't believe the use of expletives negates a person's credentials as a historian or authority on Hamilton (and she has done significant work on other early American history as well). As for crass, some may look askance at Lin Manuel-Miranda's historical use of language (see for ref.stealingyourpixels. "Hamilton Musical: Why did Lin remove so many swear words between the Off-Broadway and Broadway versions of the show?". reddit. Retrieved April 11, 2017. and "DRUNK HISTORY: LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA'S MOTHERF***** COUNT}". Drunk History. Retrieved April 11, 2017. ) but then again I have not used any foul language in my postings, edits or citations. Not sure what happened to my tildes on the last two posts but I will try to be mindful of that. Also your Isananni user name shows up red - you may want to create a user page to fix that. Another helpful editor told me that red links look suspicious.contribs) 08:15, 11 April 2017

No objection on previous references to Ms Freeman's work has been made, so you were perfectly aware that no gender bias was in action when you posted your earlier comment. good faith should also apply to my and other editors' edits. I certainly have no interest in favoring one historian or another, so much so that my edits were previously aimed at at least providing a referenced statement by Ms Freeman instead of her Yale University page with no connection at all with the previous statement. Historians' argued opinions are mentioned when a) they are relevant to discussing different views on documented facts related to the specific section where generally all sides should be represented (see e.g. The different opinions on Hamilton's date of birth) b) they are unequivocally referenced. The latest edits on Freeman's personal opinion on Hamilton did not seem to be adequate under this light, regardless of her gender and even granting you good faith on the WP:PROMOTION issue. I think I can safely say Lin-Manuel Mieanda is not generally acknowledged as a scholar or leading expert on the historical Alexander Hamilton, nor is his show however awesome as far as artworks are concerned, and I personally find it sad that someone who is instead referenced as a scholar shoukd stoop so low as to use crass lamguage on television (years before the musical btw), but personal opinions are not an adequate content on a page dedicated to a historical figure regardless of propriety of terms.

I do not feel so important as to have a personal page, anyone can check my contributions as related to my username. If some kind admin saw fit to upgrade me to autoconfirmed user I feel so bald as to say I have done something good. I of course am not infallible and have had edits removed/revised in my life. Once the reasons were discussed and I found myself in a minority I accepted the revision. Have a nice day. Isananni (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208110342/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fwashington%2Ffitzpatrick%2Fsearch%2Fgw.o2w to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fwashington%2Ffitzpatrick%2Fsearch%2Fgw.o2w&act=surround&offset=32820924&tag=Writings+of+Washington%2C+Vol.+26%3A+%2ATo+ALEXANDER+HAMILTON&id=gw260334
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.explorechicago.org/city/en/things_see_do/attractions/park_district/alexander_hamilton.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017

Plz change the title so it says "NOT WIKIPEDIA" so i can use it for a a school project. thanks 198.97.62.94 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm....No. Btw, it's not really a good idea to attempt to use an encyclopedia to try to cheat on an assignment.... Shearonink (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202053442/http://1847usa.com/1954identifier.htm to http://www.1847usa.com/1954identifier.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170130021429/http://www.playbill.com/article/tony-time-its-broadways-biggest-night to http://www.playbill.com/article/tony-time-its-broadways-biggest-night%23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)