Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

In Popular Culture - Television

Someone please include under the above: "In the The Jack Benny Program episode "Alexander Hamilton Show", Jack Benny dreams that he is Alexander Hamilton." Thank you. 47.152.71.253 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

73.105.14.117 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Alexander Hamilton was born 11 January 1755
 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK Talk 02:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Polymath?

Can Hamilton accurately be describe as a polymath? Being profound in lawmaking (as well as the law in general), writing, diplomacy, military tactics, economics and banking, it is definitely a shout. There are some mentions of Hamilton described as a polymath on articles too, which I could link here if this idea is accepted. Josharaujo1115 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New "paper" on Hamilton and slavery

A new essay claims to find evidence that "Not only did Alexander Hamilton enslave people, but his involvement in the institution of slavery was essential to his identity, both personally and professionally." (essay) And the New York Times has reported on it ([1]). Dropping the links here should any interested editor want to consider if anything in them is appropriate for the article (and also a head's up in case casual readers take it upon themselves to change the article based on NYT). Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for bringing this up. The day after you wrote your comment, The Associated Press also reported on the same research as well so we can add them to that list. I think that the conclusions of this research should be in the lead, just like Jefferson's ownership of enslaved persons is in the lead of his article, since this research has been editorially reviewed by three sources (The Associated Press, NYT, and a New York government historical entity). I did add a "dubious – discuss" tag to the statement in the slavery section that "Hamilton is not known to have ever owned slaves". This statement should be replaced in light of evidence but of course I wouldn't remove that statement without discussing it first.Stephenamills (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Stephenamills, I noticed your edits. You didn't seem to notice that Anne McDermott had already added this information to the "On slavery" section. Regarding the lead, I disagree that it should be added as a fact in wikivoice based on a single researcher's paper. The article should acknowledge both that the weight of historians on Hamilton believed he was not a slaveowner and that recent research had found evidence to the contrary, and the lead should summarize that. Schazjmd (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:Schazjmd. GranChi (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with Schazjmd. Stephenamills (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Stephenamills, then would you modify the edit that you made to the lead? Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd I'm trying to gather some opposing viewpoints, but the problem I'm running into is that the "On Slavery" section primarily talks of Hamilton's stated viewpoints but does not provide the statements of those researchers who state that Hamilton did not own slaves. What I'm going to do is use the Jessie Serfilippi research paper in the meantime to gather some of the opposing viewpoints. I'll also try the Michael Chan (and Rob Weston) papers from this article's bibliography. Let me know if you have any paper suggestions. Stephenamills (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Stephenamills, no problem, but I've removed that statement from the lead for now. Good luck with the research and framing! Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Understood, when I'm finished gathering those opposing viewpoints, I'll bring up the draft here in the talk page first before I add it to the lead.Stephenamills (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The essay is not peer-reviewed and was given undue weight. Both are justification for removal. You can easily see the need for peer review and why every collection of data does not constitute a viable historical claim here: http://discoveringhamilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Opening-a-Door-to-Their-Emancipation-Alexander-Hamilton-and-Slavery.pdf Shoreranger (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Shoreranger, well, that counter-essay (by a descendent and pseudonymous authors) isn't peer-reviewed either. The initial essay has NYT coverage, while the rebuttal is only mentioned so far in The Daily Gazette, although the rebuttal is just recently published so there may be more coverage in time. Seems to me that both should be summarized in the article (in the body; none of this belongs in the lead). Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The point of sharing the counter essay is not as an example of a peer-reviewed or even a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards, but only to demonstrate how susceptible to criticism and flawed the original essay is because it was never peer-reviewed. There is no new evidence. Nothing in the original essay has not been evaluated by other historians through peer review. It doesn't change the fact that the original essay is a fringe theory that is given undue weight in the article. Simply being sensational is not sufficient for inclusion in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight Shoreranger (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that bit to the current information about the new paper. It is indeed too early to consider it a mainstream view, but I would stop way short of calling it fringe. I think the facts that ...
(1) professional historians either praised it (albeit reservedly, or at least did not reject it).
(2) national media has covered it
... argue for its inclusion, with the proper context. The "bald" assertion was the fact that slavery was a fundamental part of Hamilton's "identity" (which really does seem like it goes too far), but the claim that he owned slaves wasn't contradicted. Currently, the article mentions both praise and criticism of the paper, which I think accurately represents the current state.
I would rather not have the RS? tag be there too long. I think the fact that it comes from a museum/historical site makes it RS even if it's not peer reviewed. We should continue discussion here (or maybe consider an RFC, if necessary).--MattMauler (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am afraid you have not read or are misinterpreting the Wikipedia information on "fringe": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories In addition, professional historians did not praise the content of the essay, they praised the fact that broader attention to slavery in northern states is being explored. Two very different things, and the latter is not the rationale for inclusion in this article. Further, it was "bald assertions" - plural - not a single assertion that was questioned. Finally, to say "the claim that he owned slaves wasn't contradicted" is abjectly false, because two centuries of *peer reviewed* history have concluded otherwise. Simply making the sensational contradictory claim with absolutely no new evidence that has not already been researched and evaluated by peer scrutiny is not sufficient to warrant equal consideration. Coverage in a major news outlet is not sufficient justification to provide additional platform for its acceptance. It may be news, at best, but it is *not* scholarship at the level that deserves parity with centuries of history that has stood the test of scrutiny. If new evidence arises and is subjected to peer review that will be another matter but, as of now, that we do not have. Shoreranger (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand. What I meant was that in the tertiary, journalistic sources (yes, I know) that discuss the Serfilippi paper, none of the historians quoted flatly contradict the claim that Hamilton owned slaves. Even Chernow ("bald assertions") is fairly measured in his criticism, calling it nonetheless a "terrific research job that broadens our sense of Hamilton's involvement in slavery in a number of ways." You're correct that it does not overrule years of historical consensus, but the way it is included in the article does not suggest that it does either. I understand your perspective and would be OK with a wait-and-see approach before inclusion (so I am removing it). I am curious to see whether or not Serfilippi's claims hold up to actual historians' scrutiny, which they will most surely receive.--MattMauler (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Consider that neither a Pulitzer-winning author nor a Yale professor at the top of her profession want to publicly beat up on an interpreter at a relatively obscure state historic site, in what is effectively the national paper of record. Absence of contradiction does not imply legitimization. Shoreranger (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Possibly. I wouldn't presume to guess what their motives were, nor do I think that contradicting a finding if it's obviously false would mean figuratively "beating up" on an amateur historian. There would be plenty of perfectly kind ways to word it. At any rate, we're agreed that it should stay out until (and only if) it's more firmly established--MattMauler (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Kudos to all of the participants in the discussion above. I found it remarkable for its civility and open-minded consideration of the relevant facts by all concerned. I think Shoreranger (talk · contribs) comes closest to expressing my own position on the matter – and for what it's worth, count me in the consensus for the present outcome. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

73.105.14.117 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Born 11 January 1755 (See Who Was? Alexander Hamilton)

This is already discussed fairly extensively in the article; see the second and third paragraphs under Alexander Hamilton § Childhood in the Caribbean. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Monroe duel

Alexander Hamilton once challenged James Monroe to a duel, but there's nothing in this article about it. Someone should take the information at James Monroe#Confrontations and strife with Alexander Hamilton and add it to this article's section Alexander Hamilton#Reynolds affair scandal. I'd do it myself, but unregistered users like me can't edit semi-protected articles like this one. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:FC65:69A8:4585:8339 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Hello! You need to edit the Alexander Hamilton page. The main picture of him says it was painted in 1806..but Hamilton died 1804 2600:4040:10F0:5000:9832:E70C:4E51:3F3D (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Many such portraits of Hamilton were painted posthumously, based on earlier portraits or sketches. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

reerer amazing preformance and stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AC91:F800:A9C8:DF5A:5933:F2DF (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton was a smart, great, but errogant man. He was born in 1755..but Hamilton died 1804. His dad left when he was little and his mom died near that time. He was the secretary of state and also participated in the American Revolutionary War. He was spouses with Elizabeth Schylur and gave birth to a boy and named him Phillip Hamilton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzybreathebp1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

Hamilton is not an American. Hamilton as it says was born in Charlestown, Saint Kitts and Nevis. So technically, he is a Caribbean British not America. Your nationality is what nation you were born in not where you became a founding father. He is a Immigrant not America. Alisonwhome (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Your nationality is not (necessarily) the country of your birth, Hamilton was indeed American. The country of his birth is not relevant to his notability so we don't include it in the opening sentence, see MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Volteer1 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton: Human Trafficker and Slave Owner

So I don't know if this has been discussed in a now archived discussion, but I find it odd that Jessie Serfilippi's paper 1 hasn't made its way in here? Smithsonian Mag gave a good summary of it here. Additionally, I find it incredibly weird that the section on slavery here mostly is doing apologism, starting out saying "Hamilton is not known to have ever owned slaves" and completely burying that he was a slave trader at the very least (thats not even disputed, he trafficked people into rape and slavery), and that it now looks like he purchased slaves on his own behalf. SomerIsland (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are links to some of the archived threads re: Hamilton/slaves/slavery:
Agree that Serfilippi's paper is a recent and important addition to Hamilton scholarship. I adjusted some content in the slavery section & added her paper. Shearonink (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm still fairly new to wikipedia so I couldn't really figure out how to search for old discussions. I'm going to fully read through the paper, to see what it actually shows, and if its enough to discount older sources saying he didn't own any as outdated. SomerIsland (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Serfilippi does state from researching Hamilton's cashbook, accounts, and letters 1)that he owned slaves himself and 2)that he acted as a slave trader, buying & selling human beings for other people. I personally am not sure that it would be quite correct, to state in Wikipedia's voice, that Hamilton owned slaves - WP relates what is published in reputable sources and various sources apparently hold different opinions as to whether or not Hamilton owned slaves. Shearonink (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This user found "it odd Jessie Serfilippi's paper hasn't made its way in here" but then it turned out hadn't read the paper nor been informed of its relation to prior research. Archive 8 seemed to have reached a consensus the paper was unworthy of inclusion in the article on the grounds it was not peer-reviewed, presented nothing not already addressed by earlier researchers, was exposed for shoddy scholarship and numerous demonstrable errors, and on the whole seemed to have garnered its attention owing to its sensationalistic character rather than to its scholarly merit. Has anything new come to light justifying a departure from that consensus?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A460:1DF0:C14B:10BC:CB72:DE58 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
"Seems to have reached a consensus the paper was unworthy of inclusion" and "was exposed for shoddy scholarship"? That was not the consensus of that particular discussion - the paper does speak to the fact that Hamilton was a slave trader and he did buy & sell human beings at least for other people - those statements were not refuted in the previous discussion. Besides, past Wikipedia editorial consensus is not etched in stone going forward and can change in time... At least some of the paper's conclusions have not been contradicted and, also, it and its assertions have been mentioned in multiple reputable sources. Seems to me that to not even mention Serfilippi's research here and to ignore its appearances in the press would be evidence of a confirmation bias in Wikipedia's voice and violate WP:NPOV. Shearonink (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
That indeed was the consensus. The two leaders of the discussion were the person advocating for removal on the one side, who gave as his reasons precisely the things I wrote (including, in different words, that it was exposed for shoddy scholarship, which is also supported in much detail by the critical review essay that user provided), and the person offering counterarguments on the other side, but who ultimately yielded, with these words: "I understand your perspective and would be OK with a wait-and-see approach before inclusion (so I am removing it)" and "At any rate, we're agreed that it should stay out until (and only if) it's more firmly established." Then lastly a third person commented that the first user was closest to expressing his view, finishing with "count me in the consensus for the present outcome". The most you could urge against my summary of the consensus is the rather hairsplitting objection that likely the second of the three users would not have cosigned each of those judgments of the essay; but nevertheless those were the reasons given for the outcome he ultimately supported. Those journalistic tertiary sources to which you allude are considered reputable as relaters of news, not as arbiters of historiography, for which they are untrained and unqualified. ('Confirmation bias', incidentally, is a clue to why some of those sources would be unhesitant to mention that essay.) You are right of course that "past Wikipedia editorial consensus is not etched in stone going forward and can change in time", but any such change should be supported with reasons, which is why I asked, "Has anything new come to light justifying a departure from that consensus?" Nothing has been presented in this discussion. Your inclusion of the essay as a reference was gratuitous precisely because you are right that those are already established facts related in any number of other sources. To arbitrarily single out what is considered a fringe essay in regard to its substance, merely to pile on further documentation of facts already supported and undisputed, on the plea that the essay also acknowledges those facts, is what in fact smacks of bias. It seems like a plug designed to get further exposure for that essay. I also disagree incidentally with your edit adding the words "sometimes work as a slave trader," which merely superadded a label to a description communicating the same information. The new wording has the demerit of lending itself to the confusion either that "slave trader" was some kind of profession that Hamilton sometimes participated in, which some readers will think, or at a minimum that he was involved in the exchange of slaves in a greater capacity than the evidence supports. In other words, it makes the sentence less rather than more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A460:1DF0:C39:EC0D:AB0F:766B (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
If you feel so strongly about this issue you might want to think about creating an account so you can contribute directly to the article - then you can open an RfC on the present state of that section, adjust/change/revert my or anyone else's contributions, etc. This is Wikipedia, where everyone has an opinion and - on this article if they are auto-confirmed - anyone can contribute. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
For the reasons stated in Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 8#New "paper" on Hamilton and slavery by User:Shoreranger, among others, I have reverted the WP:BOLD citation to Serfillipi's amateur scholarship, and the accompanying edits to the article body, which are contentious and not supported by WP:RELIABLE sources. The section heading of this discussion summarizes Serfilippi's WP:FRINGE position on Hamilton. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Lwarrenwiki. Serfilippi's notions have not been accepterd by scholars (a few undergraduates have cited it but no historians--see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=JESSIE+SERFILIPPI&btnG= ). She does not have any history degrees (she has MA in creative writing) and works as a tour guide at a mansion in New York. see https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessie-serfilippi-282753a6/ --the same mansion "published" her paper on its website and it is not a scholarly reliable secondary independent source. Rjensen (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hamilton's support for the navy?

@Shoreranger: Since you claimed that Hamilton support the navy (not just revenue cutter/USCG), can you cite source in the article to support that? Sea power is a vague term. In particular his support for what we call blue-water navy today, which requires major expenses. CG would be called brown water navy today. --Happyseeu (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your distinction between the two uniformed services in not germane to the issue. Hamilton was in favor broadly of creating a nation that had the ability to protect its interests on both land and sea. It is really up to you to demonstrate he was *not* in support of a Navy. Regardless, read Federalist 11. Shoreranger (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

Two changes ought to be made, both in the 'Childhood in the Caribbean' section:

(1) At the end of the third paragraph of this section it says,

"Richard Brookhiser noted that 'a man is more likely to know his own birthday than a probate court.'" This should be removed. It adds nothing worthy to the discussion but merely serves to distract it by giving the impression the question turns on which party would have better known his birthday, when in fact, as prior text expressly points out, the question turns on things like possible motives of Hamilton's for lying about his birthday. Nowhere is it suggested that the earlier date would have implied or rested on Hamilton not knowing his own birthday.

(2) Toward the end of the fifth paragraph of this same section (following mention of his mother's death) it says,

"This may have had severe emotional consequences for him, even by the standards of an 18th-century childhood."

This is gratuitous psychological speculation. It is gratuitous firstly because it goes without saying that losing a mother at such an age would likely have serious emotional consequences of some sort and duration, and secondly because the article offers no grounds for supposing these would have been more likely or 'severe' than can go without saying. It contributes a non-objective and amateurish quality to the article and would be better left out.

I agree on both points. Though they are longstanding, that should not be an excuse to preserve them. Shoreranger (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

(1755-01-11)January 11, 1755 2600:8802:2400:590:7C08:8836:9F8B:6719 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Battle of Monmouth Siege of Yorktown Quasi-War

Change from siege of Yorktown to battle of Yorktown

(Siege of Yorktown is a battle from the American civil war) 152.179.246.14 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The link to Siege_of_Yorktown is correct. The article about the civil war battle is at Siege_of_Yorktown_(1862) RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Eliza Hamilton

Elizabeth Hamilton, also called Eliza or Betsy, was an American socialite and philanthropist. Married to American Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, she was a defender of his works and co-founder and deputy director of Graham Windham, the first private orphanage in New York City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:A647:2D00:2C9E:5A2B:1ED7:B23C (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

who is "jay"?

Hello

for some reason, in the part above 'the Federalist Papers where it is talking about the New York state convention (don't know what the actual name is) when its listing names it says after listing Hamilton "jay," I am guessing this is referring to John Jay but if it isn't please clear this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.224.154 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment on 20 July 2021

See also the New Yorker July 26, 2021 article I Ain’t Been Mean Enough by Julian Lucas page 46 discusses several forthcoming books about Hamilton keeping enslaved servants until his death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c9:200:9150:d1a2:7d5c:35e9:cec7 (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is the relevant citation:
  • Lucas, Jules (2021-07-19). "Ishmael Reed Gets the Last Laugh". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2022-11-28. Reed's view was bolstered last year when new research concluded that Hamilton had kept enslaved servants until his death;
However, I think it would be better to find the new research itself rather than rely on some vague reference to it. Peaceray (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

Footnote 20 to the sentence: "Alexander supplemented his education with a family library of 34 books" should reference page 24 of Chernow's biography of Hamilton, not 34; 34 books as referenced on page 24. 64.231.36.132 (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hamilton's Jewish roots

The Wikipedia article negatively depicts my research on Hamilton's Jewish origins by making reference to two critics: Michael Newton, who was not actually responding to my book (as mine came out six years after his self-published book did), and Mara Cohen Ioannides, an instructor (she is erroneously identified as a professor in the Wiki article) who published an H-Net review that was roundly debunked here: https://networks.h-net.org/node/8585/reviews/10784192/cohen-ioannides-porwancher-jewish-world-alexander-hamilton Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article makes no mention of reviews from established scholars who have accepted the book's findings, such as Stephen Whitfield, who called the book "ingenious" here: https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/the-jewish-world-of-alexander-hamilton or Mike Fink, who called it "remarkable" here: https://www.providencejournal.com/story/opinion/columns/2021/08/26/opinion-fink-jewish-world-alexander-hamilton/8237924002/ or Nan Goodman who called it an "invaluable contribution" here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14664658.2021.2015304 Porwancher (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the current text does appear misleading. Feel free to make a conflict of interest edit request. My first impression is that that paragraph could be cut down to one or two sentences tacked onto the previous paragraph, sticking to the facts and mentioning that Hamilton might have been raised Jewish but little is known for certain. Freoh (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording regarding Newton's argument as to not seem like a response of any sort. Regarding Cohen-Ioannides, you're correct that she's not a Jewish Studies professor (she's an English professor) but she has a Doctor of Science in Jewish Studies and she has authored several books regarding Judaism & Jewish people in the U.S. so she qualifies as an expert in the field [2]. By the way, regarding the reviews you listed: 1) Whitfield's review actually notes that the work is "supreme­ly revi­sion­ist" and its claim and although he calls the book's thesis (as you noted) "ingenious", he also calls it "tentative". 2) Fink's review doesn't comment on the theory at all. 3) Goodman calls the theory "compelling" (i.e. interesting) but that's about it. We should follow the scholarly consensus and make sure not to create a false balance as the theory hasn't (yet) been adopted by the majority of scholars. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and for editing. A few comments: (1) Cohen-Ioannides is still inaccurately described as a "professor" when she is in fact an instructor, (2) Contrary to the entry, I don't actually argue that "Hamilton's mother must have converted to Judaism" but rather that she "probably" did [see https://networks.h-net.org/node/8585/reviews/10784192/cohen-ioannides-porwancher-jewish-world-alexander-hamilton], (3) to describe a work as "revisionist" is not to gainsay its credibility but merely to comment on its departure from conventional thinking. In fact Whitfield says that chapter one (wherein I lay out my evidence for Hamilton's likely Jewish identity) would have made "a ter­rif­ic schol­ar­ly arti­cle." (When he says the theory is "tentative" he's referring to my own description of my thesis as probabilistic, rather than to his tentative acceptance of my thesis.)(4) Jonathan Sarna, widely accepted as the world's leading authority on American Jewish history, has also praised the book [see https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691237282/the-jewish-world-of-alexander-hamilton], (5) the book won two book prizes, including the Journal of the American Revolution Book-of-the-Year Award.
These latter three points are antecedent to my main point: the Wikipedia entry *only* refers to two scholars who are highly critical of my theory (one of whom self-publishes books and has no graduate training in history), while not mentioning *any* of the scholars who are more amenable to it. Readers of this entry could easily draw the mistaken impression that my theory has only elicited negative reactions when in fact the reaction is mixed, with more senior scholars proving more amenable. Porwancher (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
You know more about Hamilton than I do, but in my opinion all of this debate only distracts from the main point of this article, which is encyclopedic information about Alexander Hamilton. I made an edit that cut down and reorganized the Judaism section into § Faith. Porwancher and Antiok 1pie, does that work for you two? Freoh (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I wholly agree and support your edits. This Wikipedia entry is not the proper place to litigate the issue. Porwancher (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 Resolved Freoh (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

edit request

I have a conflict of interest, of course, but I would ask an editor to revise the Wikipedia article, which one-sidedly depicts my research on Hamilton's Jewish origins by only making reference to two critics (neither of whom has a PhD in the field) while neglecting the established scholars who have widely accepted the book's findings. The Wikipedia page could simply suggest that Porwancher's theory is controversial with a number of established scholars accepting it and others disputing it.

The two critics are: (1) Michael Newton, who was not actually responding to my book (as mine came out six years after his self-published book did), and (2) Mara Cohen Ioannides, an instructor (she is erroneously identified as a professor in the Wiki article) who published an H-Net review that was roundly debunked here: https://networks.h-net.org/node/8585/reviews/10784192/cohen-ioannides-porwancher-jewish-world-alexander-hamilton If the Wikipedia article continues to highlight these critics, it ought also to note reviews from established scholars who have accepted the book's findings, such as Stephen Whitfield, who called the book "ingenious" here: https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/the-jewish-world-of-alexander-hamilton or Mike Fink, who called it "remarkable" here: https://www.providencejournal.com/story/opinion/columns/2021/08/26/opinion-fink-jewish-world-alexander-hamilton/8237924002/ or Nan Goodman who called it an "invaluable contribution" here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14664658.2021.2015304 Porwancher (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Porwancher (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Resolved Freoh (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Portrait change

@Shoreranger, SwensonJ, Baguetteboing, and KAYTRA: I have mentioned you all here because of my editing of the portrait of Alexander Hamilton provided in the infobox. As the conversation on my talk page has gone to a standstill, I am opening a conversation on this article's talk page to discuss this in a more appropriate location than a user talk page and so that people who didn't read my previous edit summary can voice their opinions. I will not change the infobox portrait for now to not cause another edit war, but I firmly stand with the belief that the 1792 portrait is way better than both the 1802 and 1806 portraits. I am open to counter-arguments to this statement. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The 1802 portrait is by a huge margin closer to the likeness of the Alexander Hamilton (Ceracchi) bust Hamilton sat for, neither of which bear much resemblance to the 1792 portrait. Shoreranger (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The image is massively cropped and depicts Hamilton out of office. Now I'm not going to change it yet but just be aware that I don't agree with your change (maybe unless you can find the full original portrait). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
If what you mean by "out of office" is that the image depicts him after he was no longer the Secretary of the Treasury, I fail to see the significance. If it is a good likeness of him as an adult, what difference does it make?
You can find an image of the full portrait here, for what it's worth:
The Trumball portrait was also cropped as I recall. (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I still prefer the portrait that they use at the Treasury website or the portrait that's used on the $10 bill. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
This?: https://home.treasury.gov/about/history/prior-secretaries/alexander-hamilton-1789-1795#main-content Shoreranger (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I meant the one that you replaced. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you okay with this image as a compromise? It's an official portrait of him as Secretary of the Treasury in 1792 and looks fairly close to your 1802 portrait. Most importantly, it looks official (and doesn't depict Hamilton in a depressed state after the death of his son in 1801). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
No, not OK.
For one thing, that is the portrait I edited out in the first place. Secondly, as I have already contended, it i not "fairly close" to the 1802 portrait I substituted it with. Third, while I have provided a ink to another portrait directly from the Treasury website, there is conversely no indication that the portrait you suggest is "official" in any way. Finally, it is speculation as to what "state" Hamilton was in for the portrait I propose, but it is irrelevant anyway. Shoreranger (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I actually meant the 1806 posthumous image of Hamilton, that is most frequently used when referring to Hamilton. The 1806 image is the one used for Alexander Hamilton articles on the Mount Vernon website, the National Park Service website, and the Department of the Interior website (you can scroll down Google forever after searching for "Alexander Hamilton" without seeing the 1802 portrait without having to try to find it on Google images, even then, only two websites uses that image). The Ron Chernow book on Hamilton, which inspired the play Hamilton, uses the 1806 portrait on its front-cover (I can't even find a book on Hamilton that uses that 1802 image on Google in comparison). As a counter-point, it appears that his portrait on the Treasury article doesn't use that 1806 image, but it is based on the 1806 portrait and based on the opinions on the Talk Page of the Frederick the Great article, using portraits done many years after their deaths is not ideal (the Treasury portrait was done 80 years after Hamilton's death). The 1806 image, however dramatized, was done just two years after Hamilton's death and is in my opinion, artistically most suitable to be the infobox photo, not the 1802 image. Being historically accurate is one thing, but the presentation or suitability of an image on an infobox representing an important historical person as Hamilton is another.

In comparison, even if your portrait is the most "accurate" portrait, your portrait is square (while the full sized one is low-res). The artist, Ezra Miller, is largely unknown compared to the more famous Turnbull (Miller has a very distinctive style but it seems as if he uses the same pose over and over in his paintings). Your portrait depicts Hamilton ten years after leaving office and in the midst of depression following the death of his eldest son in a duel (according to this post by the Albany Institute of History & Art on Facebook, "The portrait captured a pensive and somber Hamilton who was still mourning the death of his eldest son, Philip, who was killed in a duel in 1801 at age nineteen."), so I don't see how this is the most "realistic portrait", if you don't give any historical evidence. The 1806 portrait is also exclusively used on many foreign language Wiki articles of Hamilton (and on this page prior to the Wikipedia phenomenon of everybody seemingly wanting to get a piece of the pie in editing Wikipedia infobox photos since the pandemic).

If this debate continues to go nowhere, then I'll have to request a third opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The 1806 Trumball portrait would be fine, as found on the Naitonal Portrait Gallery webpage here: https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.79.216?destination=portraits Shoreranger (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Short description

Hi @Shoreranger, you reverted my edit to the short description by saying there was consensus made on the talk page to include the years of birth/death in the short description. I can't find the consensus you're talking about in the archives. Could you link me to that discussion? BappleBusiness[talk] 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Second Armed League of Neutrality and the Jay Treaty

This article states that Hamilton revealed to the British the American decision not to join the second league of armed neutrality and that this weakened Jay's hand in dealing with the British. Since the Jay treaty was negotiated in 1794 and the second league of armed neutrality did not come about until 1800, the article cannot possibly be correct. Please make the necessary corrections. 187.230.125.253 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Hamilton/Archive_8&oldid=1215708887"