Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Hamilton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAlexander Hamilton has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
March 10, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 21, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2015Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 11, 2005, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2010, September 11, 2016, July 12, 2019, and July 12, 2024.
Current status: Good article


Regarding the article's current primary portrait

[edit]

The current portrait being used to portray Hamilton at the top of the article is not Hamilton. The portrait was painted by John Trumbull two years after Hamilton's death, meaning that the portrait is merely what Trumbull remembers Hamilton looking like. There are many other contemporary portraits of Hamilton to choose from, some of which were also painted by Trumbull, that provide a much more accurate depiction of Hamilton particularly in his later years. Thank you for your consideration. UnbearableIsBad (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed Wcamp9 (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2024

[edit]

Please add to the "Studies" section:

Siwisa James, Davida (2024), Hamilton Heights and Sugar Hill: Alexander Hamilton’s Old Harlem Neighborhood Through the Centuries, New York: Fordham University Press, ISBN 9781531506148 FordhamPress (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. That took me a while. Thanks for your contributions! Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of quoting Paul Johnson?

[edit]

In the intro, too... just calling him a genius is insubstantial, without even him backing it up, and, also, coming after AH agreeing to his own demise makes 'genius' sound bizarre... I think it should be removed, possibly to some other section with quotes about AH, as it seems extraneous (non-neutral as well, although quotes are treated differently), and repetitive too (a lot of insubstantial 'geniuses' in the intro, makes Paul Johnson sound like some cultish fan...) 92.18.124.187 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

[edit]

I suggest you either delete: "The consensus of mainstream scholars and historians who have addressed the underlying question of whether Lavien was Jewish, such as Ron Chernow, is that the assertion is not credible." OR substitute with something like: "Mainstream scholars are divided on the question of The foregoing statement is not accurate. I wrote The Jewish World of Alexander Hamilton, which is cited in the notes and which argues that there is a probabilistic case that Hamilton and Lavien had a Jewish identity. Numerous leading scholars have endorsed the book's findings. Professor Jonathan Sarna, the world's leading authority on American Jewish history, described the research as "remarkable." Professor Stephen Knott, formerly of the University of Virginia, described it as "truly a pathbreaking work." Professor Stephen Whitfield, of Brandeis University, described it as "inge­nious." Pulitzer Prize winning scholar and Harvard professor Annette Gordon Reed described it as “provocative and intriguing.” The book was published by Princeton University Press and won the Journal of the American Revolution Book-of-the-Year Award. It is simply not accurate for Wikipedia to dismiss the idea as a fringe theory. To be sure, it would be inaccurate to say there's now consensus that Hamilton likely was Jewish. But it is equally inaccurate to say that there's consensus he was not. The basis for the foregoing statement in Wikipedia is a short passage in Chernow's book. But Chernow made no special study of the topic whereas I dedicated an entire peer-reviewed book to it. It makes little sense to imply or suggest that his book refutes my findings when Chernow's book was written nearly twenty years earlier and thus did not engage my findings nor look at the reams of evidence from the Caribbean that I surfaced. 2600:8800:1B02:F300:81F9:253:808E:893C (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]