Jump to content

Talk:Aaron Burr/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

POV revisited

There does seem to be non neutrality in the article in a few instances. For example, note the following sentence in the lead:

Due to the rumors and the sullying of Burr's name by means of claims as far-fetched as Burr's desire to secede from the United States and form his own monarchy in the western half of North America, Burr was arrested in 1807 and brought to trial on charges of treason, for which he was acquitted.

The sentence makes it sound like he was acquitted because the rumors were false and there was completely nothing to Burr's desire to secede. First of all, what rumors? What sullying of Burr's name - one would think that being blamed, however rightly or falsly, of killing Hamilton would be enough to put a black mark on Burr's name forever. Having read Ellis's "Founding Brothers," there is also something to Burr's desire to secede from US - meaning that it wasn't so far-fetched. --RossF18 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

QUERY: Where is this (discussed above) sentence? Where can I find it? --UserDAVID1239 20 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1239 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a frequent use of the phrase "it seems" - making anything that follows it questionable. Now, there is nothing wrong with saying that this so and so author/historian says that Burr did so and so. That's sourced and agree or disagree, it's coming from an actual historian. But pre-empting anything with "it seems" makes anything seem false. Something may be false - so call it that. --RossF18 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A third point is that the entire article is written from the point of view of Burr against the world, being accosted by everyone, friend and foe alike and always unjustly. Again, that may be true - but without sources, it makes the article sound almost appologist for what Burr may or may not have done as there are many people who are not familiar with Burr and see him mainly as the guy who shot Hamilton - who most view favorably. The article repeatedly notes how Hamilton verbally assaulted poor Burr both personally and through the Federalist party and eventually even Jefferson decided to go after the poor, innocent Burr. Again, Burr may in fact have been innocent - but without any sources to back that up, the article reads like one support piece for Burr. Another example of this would be the following sentence:

His "conspiracy," he always avowed, was that if he settled there with a large group of (armed) "farmers" and war broke out, he would have an army with which to fight and claim land for himself, thus recouping his fortunes. However, that war in Texas didn't occur until 1836, the year of Burr's death.

Historians either think he was part of the conspiracy or they don't. It's even preferable to point out that some historians think he was part of the conspiracy while others do not. Again, sources are key. Without sources, by puting the word conspiracy in quotes, it reads like there was no conspiracy, i.e., yeah, sure, he was involved in "conspiracy" - something that Jefferson or Hamilton's friends cooked up against poor Burr who had to run for his life. That may be true or false, but without support of sources, at the risk of being redundant, reads like it was written by Burr himself. --RossF18 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One final example from the legacy section. Note this sentence:

A lasting consequence of Burr's role in the election of 1800 was the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which changed the way in which vice presidents were chosen.

Now, the sentence makes it sound as if Burr was directly responsible for the Twelfth Amendment - writing it or advocating for it, working to get it ratified in all the states - as opposed to being responsible for it in a negative way, meaning that the Twelth Amendment was incacted specifically to prevent the situation which Burr brought about or played a part in (in a perhaps poor analogy: while the many deaths that cars without seat belts caused may have brought about seat belts standard in all cars - that's hardly an accomplishment of cars without seat belts). Once more, historical sources are key here, because the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the same situation as Jefferson/Burr took place with Adams/Jefferson - so if anything, if one is to say that it is Burr's LEGACY or accomplishment that the 12th Amendment was ratified, well, that's something that needs to be sourced.--RossF18 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE:Your notes are very interesting and a learning lesson. But,again, I can't find this sentence about the 12th Amendment. Perhaps you're referring to an article other than the Wikipedia Article entitled "Aaron Burr"? Am I lost? David1239 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)User:DAVID1239 20 May 2010.

NOTE: You use Ellis' "Founding Brothers" as a source for Burr's secession theory. Recently, Ellis was accused of and determined to have committed plagerism in his historical writing by a large body of his peers. Awards and lectures began to dry up for him. I would rather not use him as a reliable source. User: DAVID1239 20 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1239 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I searched for information on your plagiarism accusation, and found nothing. I think you may have confused something there. Ellis was revealed to have lied about his military service, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of Founding Brothers. Bertport (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has been cleaned up a lot, but there are still many unsupported assertions. Either the article needs rewriting with a more NPOV, or about 50 more citations are needed. Also, even though the article is already too long, many complex subjects are included but given only a sentence or two. Other subjects already have their own thorough articles (i.e. Burr-Hamilton duel) and could be largely deleted from this one. WCCasey (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

commack

I deleted statements that Burr lived in commack. I find no refrences supporting this. following article would appear to say it was a distant relative who lived in commack.--Work permit (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Source for this quote?

I removed this alleged Aaron Burr quote from the article after an unsuccessful search for its source: "In the past even I was afraid of my own greatness, therefore I could not stand in front of mirrors." It's all over the web, but without citations. Does anyone know of a source? WCCasey (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revert

The following was recently added to the 'Marriage and family' section of this article:

"Reverend Andrew Eliot was married to a cousin of Aaron Burr and, in a series of weekly letters from January 1777 to August 1778, he detailed the extent of spy participation by Thaddeus Burr (a first cousin of Aaron Burr). These missives were inherited by noted Long Island television and radio personality Bernadine Fawcett."

I propose to revert/remove this edit because the info about one of Burr's non-notable cousins is 1) unsourced and 2) does not relate to Aaron Burr. Does anyone disagree? WCCasey (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit removed 26 May. WCCasey (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy and trial

I think this section needs some rework, it's pitifully vague and confusing. For example, the first sentence refers to "his plans" without having mentioned what those plans were. It reads as though one came into a conversation half-way through. I wanted to ask everyone's thoughts before I began to work on it though. Jvanhoy (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Extensive review coming

This is a head's up. Within the next month there may be some significant changes to this entry. I am requiring students in a college class of mine to edit this entry based on review of major sources on the topic. Most of these editors are new to Wikipedia; I'm a neophyte myself. We aim to follow standard protocol, but we'll doubtless makes some mistakes (by being bold) along the way. LuigiV (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning! I hope the new editors will have time to quickly review the core content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. However if they're starting from good sources the biggest hurdle will have already been passed. If anyone needs help just leave a message here. The page has over 100 "wathcers", so help should come quickly. You can also leave a message for me if there are any unresolved questions.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New accounts please respond

Why have 10 new user accounts made major changes to this article in the past hour? I have opened an ANI thread to help find out what is happening.--JOJ Hutton 18:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Pando03894 has recently read Thomas Fleming's Duel.... I don't know about the other 9. I did some clean up, but more could be done. WCCasey (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This Article has Problems with Citing Certain of its Statements

The way I look at it, an editor doesn't need to go around putting "citation needed" tags on innocuous, non-controversial material that is probably accurate. In fact, Wikipedia is probably 75% to 85% composed of that. If it's not a BLP there's likely no need for a big hassle about it. But some of the stuff that is present here? That Burr and his wife were "separated" before divorce in the early 1800s, isn't that more a modern legal concept? And to say (in the lede now) that he's running off to England to "flee his creditors" and that that country kicked him out a few years later (umm, why?)? Without more I'm not prepared to accept that this stuff is any sort of historical consensus or even sourced to any historian at all. According I've marked some of it with the "citation needed" tag, and I do plan to wipe it out down the road a bit if no-one defends it. DanielM (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of recent edit removed

I removed the following from a recent edit to the Conspiracy and trial sub-section:

"Others have concluded that the trials resulted in acquittals because much of the evidence against Burr was unavailable to the prosecutors, often because his confederates refused to testify and withheld incriminating written evidence. In an oral and written statement to Jefferson, one confederate (Erich Bollman) plainly stated that Burr intended an invasion of Spanish lands that would have violated federal law. (David O. Stewart, "American Emperor: Aaron Burr's Challenge to Jefferson's America (2011), pp. 212-15, 267-68)."

I have not read the source but, as noted earlier in the article, a treason conviction is not possible without commission of an overt act. Therefore, a written statement about Burr's intentions would not have changed the verdict. WCCasey (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Burr Homestead, Fairfield, CT

I'd like to note that in Fairfield, CT there is a historical building called, "the Burr Homestead." A link can be found here: http://www.fairfieldhistory.org/site-rentals/burr-homestead/

I am trying to decide if it is a good idea to incorporate this information into Aaron Burr's article, or create an article for Thaddeus Burr.

Thanks in Advance!

Twillisjr (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Can anyone vouch for the neutrality of this article? There seems to me to be a clear bias in favor of Burr. For example, the article notes that Burr sponsored a anti-slavery bill in New York but doesn't mention he was selling slaves years after that.

In partiular, the section on the AH-AB duel seems to paint Hamilton as a mustache-twirling villain and contradicts most of the accounts I have read of the duel. Just for example, the article simply dismisses the reasonable argument that Hamilton intended to throw his shot and ignores other evidence that places AH in a better light: such as how widely he missed Burr. I feel like both sides of the arguments should be shown. The actual Hamilton-Burr article being a good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.147 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can document that Burr owned slaves add it to the page. If there is any proof Hamilton threw his shot add it and document the same. I don't see that it matters where Hamilton meant to shoot. Burr would have been a fool to base his actions on the chance Hamilton was not taking the duel seriously.Nitpyck (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is definitely biased in favor of Burr. 24.254.152.253 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of inquiry to put on trial the guilt or innocence of any person living or dead. However, neutrality is essential and important. Obviously, Burr's two indictments in New York and New Jersey, one, show the unpopularity of duels, and two, the view that Burr murdered Hamilton, his political rival. If Hamilton did shoot in the air rather then at Burr, that would show Hamilton was a trusting person, in the face of his mortal enemy. Burr meant to kill Hamilton, his and Jefferson's primary rival. Another question is whether Burr fled America because of the two indictments. Burr was no longer protected by being Vice President. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


I would agree this article is extremely biased in favor of Burr, and is likely to mislead unwary readers. The article consistently characterizes events in a pro-Burr light by leaving out details unflattering to Burr. A few examples:

Chernow, in his bio of Hamilton, states one key cause of the breach between Hamilton and Burr was that Burr misled Hamilton during founding of the Bank of Manhattan. Burr claimed he was founding a water company for NY out of civic duty; after receiving the endorsements of Hamilton and others, Burr quietly changed the charter to allow banking services and told no one. Once the charter was approved, Burr dropped any pretense he was building a water company and capitalized the bank. Not only did Hamilton and other Federalist supporters believe Burr acted dishonorably in deceiving them, Chernow states the Burr-caused delay in constructing a real water system led to numerous additional deaths. The article does not disclose any of these details, and implies the cause of the bad blood between the two men was simply Hamilton's jealously at Burr's political success.

The article also indicates there was no evidence that Hamilton intended to avoid firing at Burr during the duel. According to Chernow, this is incorrect. A number of Hamilton's friends stated Hamilton told them of his intention before the duel. In addition, Hamilton wrote multiple letters dated prior to the duel stating that was his intention; eighteenth-century paper trails don't get much clearer than that.

Re: the "treason conspiracy", the article claims "historians have long doubted Burr's involvement". This is a distortion of the record. Historians have long debated the truth of the allegations, some believe he was guilty, some don't. The majority view is probably that the murky details may never be known. making it impossible to pass judgment.

The above are not isolated cases. The entire article is plagued by the same sort of selective pro-Burr story telling.

SJaco (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)SJaco

The current section on the Battle of Monmouth is sprinkled with unsupported opinions, which can be corrected with selective editing. I will do so.Princetoniac (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)



.

Confusing section

The section mentioning Burr's unsuccessful support for the abolition of slavery with the line "The legislature passed a bill for gradual abolition, and the last slave was freed in 1824" is confusing. Perhaps an edit would be in order? As of now it reads (to me) that the last slave in the US was freed in 1824....

I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Please be aware that I'm having my students at SUNY Potsdam edit this page in the next week or so. They have been given readings by historians on the subject of Burr. They will be working in teams to edit the page in light of those readings. Most of them are new to Wikipedia editing. I've given them a crash course in editing, but they undoubtedly will make some mistakes. Nonetheless, I hope the result will benefit the page. I'll have them consider the question of neutrality as noted above.LuigiV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this; I'm pretty sure Burr was NOT dropped from the ticket for killing Hamilton. That decision was already made; Burr was running for Governor of NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.122.102 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Burr was not dropped from any ticket in 1804 because there were no tickets. The president and the vice president were elected by the electoral college in two separate ballots according to the 12th Amendment. I learned this from the wikipedia article entitled "Vice President of the United States" and its link to the article entitled "Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.166.237 (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

well yes there were tickets. The Republican caucus in Congress selected the two candidates and sent their names to the state parties. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Projecting PC to the past?

"[John Pierre Burr] identified as African American". That would be odd. The term was not in use then as far as I know. Are we projecting modern political correctness backward in time? More likely he identified himself as black or african, but without the source we don't know. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Biased pro-Burr

We're given a sentence about Chernow's Hamilton, who told people he'd not fire at Burr, and a long paragraph that suggests Hamilton planned to. The 1800 election is glossed over. Hamilton was key to Burr's failure to become president, and that was key to their later enmity, including the duel. Hamilton was aware of the danger he courted in crossing Burr, but he did so anyway. Like Washington, a good judge of character, he considered Burr a charlatan. The article blithely states "Burr intended to found a dynasty in what would have become former Mexican territory." then notes this was just a misdemeanor. Later, his trial for treason is painted as an excessive charge, although testimony exists to convict him. "We'll never know" the truth, the article says, an overstatement.

Burr's character may be complex, but it was notorious, criminal, and dangerous. Let's try to get more balance into this biography, instead of such a slanted version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Burr. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

John Pierre Burr and Louisa Charlotte Burr

They should be added to the list of Burr's children, right now it only says Theodosia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storeynd (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Burr was also featured as one of the main characters in the 1995 book, Kentucky Home by Betty Layman Receveur. Harroso2545 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure such trivia would be appropriate to mention on the main page for him. Perhaps we could still use this piece of information elsewhere? Feinoha Talk 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

Please remove "This brigade included Alexander Hamilton, who was one of its officers." because the reference, Chisholm 1911, p. 861, does not support it. Alternately, include an additional source that actually supports the statement. Mh 13:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Where did Theodosia and Burr live?

The last paragraph of the sub-section Revolutionary War indicates that Burr and Theodosia married in 1782 and lived on Wall Street in New York City for several years after that. The next paragraph, which is the first paragraph of the section First marriage and family, indicates that Burr and Theodosia married in 1782 and it states that they lived in Philadelphia; it suggests pretty strongly, but does not quite state, that they lived in Philly right after they married. The issue of where they lived should be clarified.Britishisles (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In the second and eighth paragraphs of "conspiracy and trial" the word proved is used. I think it looks really ugly, can someone please edit it slightly?

"Wilkinson was later proved to be a bad choice." I think this would look significantly better if it was either "Wilkinson later proved to be a bad choice." or "Wilkinson was later proven to be a bad choice." I have a strong preference toward my initial sentence structure.

"or proved by an overt act witnessed by two people." I believe that "or proven by an overt act witnessed by two people" would look significantly better.

I understand that this may seem trivial, I would gladly do it myself but I do not have the ability to edit the main article, only the talk page. I also completely understand that according to most English scholars, it is grammatically correct as it stands. I simply strongly believe that using 'proved' in a context other than past tense is ugly English. Thank you very much my fellow wikipedia editors. Casazza.anthony (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Limit to categories

User Koavf has lately added a category "Activists from New Jersey" to the historical figure this page is dedicated to. Well, why not set up a category for tea-drinking vets from Montana, or fashion-addicts journalists from New York, etc.? My point is, that while categories like "Vicepresidents of the USA" refer to a publicly acknowledged role, further fanciful categorising should be avoided, especially when e.g. In this case the category does not in itself define anything. What exactly does "activist" mean? What area is an "activist" activ in? Etc. I would kindly ask fellow wikipeadians for their educated opinion in this issue.Isananni (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Isananni: Tea-drinking is not a defining characteristic, unlike being an abolitionist. Rather than get up in arms about this, you could have asked me directly or just clicked up the hierarchy from Category:American abolitionists yourself. Have a nice day. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of the category inappropriate and have removed it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Why? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Koavf added the category "Activist", not "Abolitionist", neither apply to Aaron Burr.Isananni (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Koavf: Burr worked at a paper advocating abolition. The article doesn't otherwise portray Burr as an abolitionist personally and certianly that doesn't make him an "activist" which can be a pretty charged term. If the article doesn't call him an activist then the category should not be applied. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Koavf: I know you've got a great deal of experience, and a quick look tells me that there seems to be a good deal of activity in the Category space for American activists by state, and I can't find any talk page (in the Category space) that discusses what's supposed to go into the "activist" category. I was particularly a bit surprised by the application of "activist" to Aaron Burr. The term "activist," to me, seems like a 20th century neologism — the word doesn't sound right when applied to historical figures prior to the 20th century. Either that, or it's so overbroad that it becomes meaningless, by encompassing every political figure who was actively advocating a cause, any cause, in any time or place in all of world history. If Aaron Burr (a man who was famously accused of not standing for anything!) is categorized as an activist, what politician wasn't an activist? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lwarrenwiki: You don't consider suffragettes or workers on the Underground Railroad activists? Either way, the category scheme is a lot larger than me and I was just diffusing by state. If he wasn't an abolitionists, as suggested above, then he should be taken out of that category and consequently the entire scheme of Category:American activists. This would have solved the problem rather than bickering and petty sniping (which I am not accusing you of doing, Lwarren). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead portrait

The image in the infobox is of Burr as a relatively young man. Might it be more appropriate to have an image of him painted while he was a sitting Vice President? This one here by John Vanderlyn was painted during his term in office.--134.226.214.249 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The picture you suggest is rather famous (was used on the cover of some biographies as well) and I personally agree with your suggestion, but do not know how to replace pictures. I hope a fellow editor may be of help. Isananni (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, a friend told me how to do it.Isananni (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Burr. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion of edits

@X4n6: You left no edit comment when you reverted my recent series of edits to Aaron Burr. Please explain what you perceived as the problem, so we can try to find consensus about improving the article.

I'll note that the first reverted edit was directed to removing gratuitous overlinking, per MOS:LINK (particularly WP:OVERLINK). The remaining reverted edits were confined to Aaron Burr#First marriage and family, which I viewed as noncontroversial copyedits and clarifications, based on and supported by the sources cited in that section. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lwarrenwiki:. As a rollbacker yourself, you know that when you rollback, there's no option to leave an explanation. That's unfortunate and something that should be addressed. But my concern is that you were leaving what appeared to be unsourced editorial commentary about "coloreds" and "African-Americans." So that content had to be removed. Perhaps you viewed it as noncontroversial, but it really should be linked - and wikilinked as well - so that folks clearly understand the contextual definitions of those terms. But please feel free to restore that content with the proper attribution and links added. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I checked the article history and there does seem to be a case of overlinking. "vicepresident" is linked at least 3 times,,and only in the last edits, a link to such words as "law" and "murder" has been added (really? Why not link each and every single word to the dictionary?) and I find that linking e.g. the countries that Burr travelled to in early 1800 to the page of the present country hardly adds to the knowledge of the conditions Burr met in those countries over two centuries ago. As for the edits in the family section, the history of the edits is very confusing and it is hard to understand what content has been removed, what I noticed is that the statement in Lwarrenwiki's edits that Burr's illegitimate children by his Indian servant were colored and treated as free African-American people (not very well I suspect) is not supported by a specific citation. If a citation from a reliable source for that statement, is provided, then I do not see why it should be removed. Isananni (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @X4n6: I believe I understand the concern. No editorial commentary was intended on my part. I'll try to more clearly explain (with citations to references) that Burr's half-Indian children were subject to discrimination under law or customs that classified them as colored, and they ultimately married into Philadelphia's community of free African-Americans, in which their families became prominent. And as for the removal of overlinking, I'll go ahead and restore those edits. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Lwarrenwiki:. Those adjustments should significantly improve the content. Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Burr. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight in the treatment of the 1800 election

There are four paragraphs, totalling 500 words, in the Vice presidency section which are exclusively sourced to a 2011 journal article by Thomas N. Baker, and which take a POV view of Burr's supposed intriguing in the 1800 election. So we have "William P. Van Ness, now believed to be in cahoots with Burr...", "While Van Ness and Burr had their own plans to turn the election in their favor...", "Livingston was the key to the details to take down Burr", "Livingston's resistance to Cheetham's push for information...was what saved Burr from exposure, at least temporarily", and "Burr dragged out the uncertainty of the 1800 election to manipulate it to his will. Burr's actions resulted in general political instability in the nation." I have looked to see if this represents the consensus view of the election, but it seems to be at odds with what I found in Encyclopaedia Britannica, in the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, or in chapters by James A. Lewis, Jr., Michael A. Bellesiles or Joanne B. Freeman, in The Revolution of 1800: Democracy, Race, and the New Republic (2002). I am aware that these allegations were made in Cheetham's pamphlets, and it would be no harm to make a brief mention of these, but these four paragraphs as they are seem to me to constitute massive undue weight, and should be removed, unless somebody more knowledgeable that me can show why they should not. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

person role in the 1800 election is one of the three major events in his career, along with the dual and the treason trial. New scholarship on the subject published in the majors historical Journal is therefore not "undue" it is required by the NPOV rules. [Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,]. The POV rule applies to Wikie editors and not to scholars. [ Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. ] We have an editor who seems to believe the history is permanently settled and cites old items. He seems to say new scholarship should be rejected. On the contrary, older cites written without access to Baker (2011) can indeed be challenged by new ideas. Ency Brit is not a RS; nor is Bellesiles [he was disgraced and stripped of tenure by fraud]. Freeman and Lewis wrote a decade or more before Baker. Our editor misreads the TJ Encyclopedia article which explicitly raises the issue of a Burr conspiracy (Delaware’s James Bayard had heard other reports. “By persons friendly to Mr. Bur,” he confided to Hamilton, “it is distinctly Stated that he is willing to consider the Federalistes as his friends & to accept the office of President as their gift. I take it for granted that Mr. B would not only gladly accept the office, but will neglect no means in his power to secure it.”] What is missing is any scholar who challenges Baker--that is NOT a role allowed to a Wiki editor. Rjensen (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. The respondent's view of history seems to be that when a journal publishes a new article, all previous published history is null and void. I think very few people would agree with that. In particular, if (as the respondent concedes) the article is biased, it doesn't invalidate anything previously written that didn't share that bias. If new books, or new editions of books, completely revised the history of the election as a direct result of such an article, that would be one thing, but I can't see any evidence that this has happened.
  2. The 2011 journal article was not "new scholarship" in the sense that the author had unearthed sources hitherto unknown or unavailable. The letters in the American Citizen have been in the public domain since 1801 (Disclaimer: I don't have access to the article so I can't say categorically that this is so, but the text I deleted strongly suggests that it is so, and it is for the respondent to show that it is in fact "new scholarship" in that sense).
  3. NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The question is not, therefore, what the most recently-published article says, but whether the view in an article represents the consensus of the scholarly community at this time. The respondent has not made any attempt to show that it does.
  4. The Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia does indeed "raise the issue" of a Burr conspiracy, but it does not state as a fact that there was one, nor does it make any mention of Van Ness, Ogden or Edward Livingston, so it in no way corroborates the content objected to. I never said that Encyclopaedia Britannica conforms to WP:RS, but it does have standards as high as, or higher than, Wikipedia, so the absence of anything about the Burr-Van Ness-Ogden-Livingston "intrigue" does raise the question of why something that takes up close to 10% of this article should not be mentioned at all there.
  5. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed, but biased language introduced by Wikipedia editors is. I've given five examples of biased language above, none of which can be justified by merely citing a biased source.
  6. The salient facts of the 1800 election in the House are that the Federalists intrigued to elect Burr rather than Jefferson, and that it was the opposition of Hamilton, who hated Burr more than Jefferson, that caused Jefferson eventually to be elected. That fact is expressed in 23 words in this article, as opposed to 500 for what is effectively a summary of one person's journal article. If that's not undue weight, I don't know what is!
  7. The American Citizen letters are worth a brief, neutral mention in the article. Thomas Baker can be cited, as should any other reputable author that takes a different view of them. That should not be too difficult a task for somebody with expertise in that period of American history. But I cannot see any justification for restoring that wodge of text. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
it helps to read the scholarly article that you are attacking. Baker is using new evidence, a secret letter by Van Ness to Livingston organizing a plot to elect Burr president. The letter was in private hands for 2 centuries and Baker is the first scholar to see it. None of the writers cited knew about the key letter and it is a serious mistake for a Wikipedia editor wrong to use their ignorance as evidence that the elect-Burr plot did not exist. New material turns up and historians revise accordingly, which is what Baker did. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't help to use such language as "attacking", "ignorance" etc. I made an assumption based on what I saw, which you have refuted; that's fine. We now know that a new source was discovered in 2011 that showed – well, you have undertaken to tell us what it showed. I have never said that the elect-Burr plot did not exist, still less that my "ignorance" was evidence of the fact. I am only arguing for due weight. And, new evidence or no, that 500-word POV addition was not due weight. Scolaire (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's an informal WP:THIRDOPINION for you:

  • @Scolaire: may I suggest that instead of deleting a large block of content in its entirety, you might instead proceed more judiciously, sentence by sentence, to delete only the disputed or controversial statements, leaving in place statements of fact (or of attributed opinion) that would be found in multiple reliable sources earlier than Baker, which you've already identified?
  • @Rjensen: after that, may I suggest that you summarize in a single paragraph what Baker's research adds to the prior historical record? It seems to me that all that's needed to satisfy NPOV is a clear statement something like this: According to a 2011 article by Thomas Baker, Cheetham's allegations are bolstered by a previously unseen and unpublished letter from Van Ness to Livingston that confirms the existence of a plot organized by Van Ness. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
good idea-- I will do it tonite. Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much a question of what I'd delete, but what I'd add: that electors from South Carolina were expected to withhold one vote from Burr, making it 73–72 for Jefferson, but did not; that this meant the election was decided in the lame-duck House of Representatives, where the Federalists still had a majority; that the Federalists voted for Burr rather than Adams or Pinckney; that each state, rather than each member, had one vote; that there were 36 ballots in total; that Vermont and Maryland cast blank ballots in each of the first 35, because they were split between Federalists and Republicans; that on the 36th ballot James Bayard of Delaware cast a blank ballot, and the Federalists in Vermont and Maryland abstained, allowing Jefferson to get over the line; that Burr always maintained that he had not intrigued to get the Federalists' vote, but that this was disputed both by Cheetham and others at the time and by historians subsequently (obviously, I would defer to others on the accuracy of all that, and would prefer that others produce appropriate sources, since my access to same is severely limited). To this could be added a short sentence or two on the lines that Lwarrenwiki has suggested. I would trust Rjensen to produce a suitably concise and neutral statement on those lines. Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
And indeed, the re-written section is a great improvement. Scolaire (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal journal quotes

@Tvanhare: A much briefer quote from Burr's journals might be acceptable, but the lengthy addition you've made to the "Character" section is WP:OR from a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY), and it's excessive in detail and number of examples (see WP:UNDUE). It is barely sourced, with no citation for the translation of Burr's bilingual shorthand. I believe it probably should be reverted in its entirety. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone object to reverting? Work permit (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted the edits Work permit (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Work permit: Thanks. I am sure the removed content was accurate, and it certainly says something deeply unfavorable about Burr's character – but now those conclusions about his character will have to be properly cited to a non-primary reliable source, not just implied. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I would think it wiser to select from the quotes one that you believe best captures the character of the man, as without this we are left with some uncertainty as to his "use" of prostitutes. At the very least, I would petition that you leave in this: "Burr's Personal Journal is replete with such entries, highlighting repeating encounters with the same ladies, who take him for an hour into the woodlands of parks as he walks, and so forth." Again, otherwise, you leave some uncertainty as to the actual historical record, written in the man's own hand, to the detriment of the reader. User:Tvanhare 15 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Find a biographer who makes the point, a reliable source, and quote that. Don't quote Burr, don't write original research by cherrypicking Burr's juiciest quotes and characterizing them. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And honestly, I think the current single sentence about the matter says all that needs to be said. More would be WP:UNDUE. The most it needs is a citation to a reliable secondary source. In addition, since you think the reader needs to see Burr's words: Pick a page in the journal that supports the statement, get the URL, and include the URL in a citation. The interested reader will find Burr's words from that. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The same problem applies to your recent addition about Burr's exile, which I've reverted. This is an encyclopedia, not a history book or a scholarly journal. It's not the place for original research, and that's what your additions appear to be. If you find a published reliable source that quotes Burr's journals, rather than pulling quotes from the primary source yourself, that publication can be cited in a Wikipedia article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Princeton

@HudsonValleyHistorian: Your edits are contrary to the preexisting consensus, here and in other articles about Princeton alumni. As discussed on other talk pages, such as Talk:Alexander Hamilton#Recent edits regarding educational institution in Infobox, students have attended college at Princeton for as long as the institution has been located in Princeton (i.e., 1756). The previous formal name of the institution is largely irrelevant when discussing its notable alumni, and causes confusion in light of the existence of an unrelated present-day College of New Jersey. The 1896 date of Princeton's transformation from a college to a university is tangential at least because it happened long after the death of this article's subject. I hope you will avoid making further reverts or edits concerning Princeton. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: See an expanded version of my response here, but please read what follows as well. The College of New Jersey was the official name of the institution prior to its renaming in 1896. Are you asserting that we should use a nickname for a individual's alma maters on this encyclopedia which is supposed to be based in fact and sourced material? There is no confusion regarding College of New Jersey if the text is written: "College of New Jersey (renamed Princeton University)". You seem to have a sentimental connection to Princeton and I deeply hope you will put this sentiment aside. For your information, there is a modern day King's College in New York City. To avoid confusion with the modern day "King's College" shall we change Hamilton's alma mater to simply "Columbia" to keep consistent with your editing? HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is ongoing at Talk:Woodrow Wilson#Princeton. I have responded there. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted content re: Manhattan Company

@Dilidor: You deleted the following unsourced paragraph:

Burr's Manhattan Company was more than a bank—it was a tool to promote Republican power and influence, and its loans were directed to partisans. By extending credit to small businessmen, who then obtained enough property to gain the franchise, the bank was able to increase the party's electorate. Federalist bankers in New York responded by trying to organize a credit boycott of Republican businessmen. Partisanship escalated.

Your edit comment calls it "sorely biased and completely unsourced", and the second half of that is certainly true. However, you didn't show your work, so I don't know whether it's "sorely biased" or not.

I didn't write that paragraph, but it looks plausible, despite being unsourced at present. If it reflects a position taken by multiple reliable sources (even if they have a bias), it's useful content. It's the sort of summary that provides helpful context to readers. Have you done the research to support a position that differs from this, and to show the bias of sources that would support the deleted paragraph? A balanced discussion, stating both sides, would serve readers better than taking an axe to this paragraph.

If you don't have time to source something like that yourself, I'd be very much happier to see you tag it with {{Citation needed}} and {{Unbalanced inline}}, rather than deleting it outright. Deleted content won't ever get sourced, won't ever get corrected. It's gone and forgotten, and that's not always good. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: You have a valid point that it won't get sourced if it's not there, so I've put it back in—along with several caveats drawing attention to its problems. —Dilidor (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy and Trial

The section under conspiracy and trial contains a lot of weasel words and phrases ("so-called letter from Burr" and "conspiracy" in quotes) and almost feels like it was written as a press release by Burr's press secretary. LOL. There are also no citations given for large chunks of these claims. Without backup, I think these sections should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2250:107:40E4:3209:E64E:909A (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post article on John Pierre's descendants

New article today treats his parentage as basically proven/accepted. Someone with more familiarity should review whether there's new information there, or sources that could be cited here. [1] -- Jake (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Article for Mary Emmons?

It feels kind of jarring to go to Mary Emmons but then be redirected to Aaron Burr. I think it would be good to create a separate article for her. For example, the infobox and lead of John Pierre Burr has two links to "Aaron Burr" and "John Pierre Burr", but they both link to the same article. What do you think? Llightex (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

At the moment I don't know that there's enough information about Mary Emmons even to make a stub, unfortunately. The only sources I can find about her are basically passing mentions based on snatches of family traditions that really only amount to guesses at a birthdate, guesses at country of origin and guesses at whether or not she was enslaved. Hopefully more will come to light as the story seems like it's getting attention due to Sherri Burr's work, but until it does, I'm unsure that she merits her own article. Binabik80 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020

76.90.108.157 (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Add that he shot Alexander Hamilton and that

 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. The article already mentions he shot Hamilton. RudolfRed (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Conversely, Burr was considered a notorious womanizer.[citation needed]"

The "Conversely" makes no sense [following note of his support for women's education and a bill for suffrage]. Having many female sexual partnersover the course of his life would in no way be "converse" to his progressive ideas about education and suffrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onecurrency (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Change "During this time, he cooperated with the Holland Land Company in gaining passage of a law to permit aliens to hold and convey lands." to "During this time, he cooperated with the Holland Land Company in gaining passage of a law to permit foreigners to hold and convey lands." 79.36.133.13 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a US article, so alien is acceptable terminology. I've added a link to Alien (law) to explain the term, though. Darren-M talk 17:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

1800 Election

In the lead-in, it sounds like Aaron Burr was Jefferson's running-mate in the 1800 election, which wasn't the case, as there were no running mates and the second-place candidate became vice president. As I understand it, Burr was running for the Federalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.107.213 (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a good article yet??

Holy cow this article is fantastic. I expected it to be featured - it's not even "good"? Red Slash 07:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Burr giving women the right to vote

"Not only did Burr advocate education for women, upon his election to the New York State Legislature, he submitted a bill to allow women to vote" - I'm removing this line as I can't find any reliable source that so much as mentions Burr trying to give women the right to vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5E80:1920:49D7:11A3:F27A:7308 (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Restored content, added reference.
Billmckern (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Treason and the U.S. Constitituion

I changed the article to say that the U.S. Constitution requires two witnesses in the charge of treason. It's not something that Marshall made up. (this unsigned contribution was added on 11 July 2006 by 209.221.185.146)

Confusing section. I am trying to see any explanation for why any of the things Burr did could be considered treasonous. Fighting a war against Spain... isn't that treason against Spain, not the United States? MikeR613 (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Burr's Legacy is the duel. The so-called "Burr Conspiracy (Theory)" is not

Burr's "legacy" concerning Jefferson's 1808 accusation involving the Burr conspiracy is not so well known to be considered legacy worthy. At length, it is an interesting footnote, but it was only a 19th-century conspiracy theory that has never been widely discussed. And, after all, it was just a conspiracy theory and Burr was acquitted.

Osomite hablemos 06:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the contribution to our very restricted definition of what's called "treason" is very important. Maybe John Marshall gets more of the credit. MikeR613 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aaron_Burr/Archive_2&oldid=1136488748"