Talk:Alexander Hamilton/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Coat of arms – sources and reliability

@GlasshouseWP: I don't believe that Alexander Hamilton used the depicted arms as his own. The single source for the disputed arms, crest, and motto is an attribution in Bolton's American Armory (1927) to "Bookplate Alex^r Hamilton, Esq^r". Bolton does not seem to be a wholly reliable source. Bolton did not identify the book in which the bookplate appeared, or its owner (as of 1927). Bolton provided no dates associated with the book or the bookplate, and cites no source for the information that it provided. Bolton also made no specific claim that the cited Alex^r Hamilton, Esq^r was the American founding father, rather than some other person having the same name.

Arms of Hamilton of Grange

Arms: Gules, a lion rampant, argent, betwixt three cinquefoils, ermine

Arms, crest, and motto

Arms of the Lairds of Grange in Ayrshire, Scotland, including Hamilton's paternal grandfather

We can only speculate as to what may be the source of Bolton's information, but in 1898, W. E. Baillie of Bridgeport, Conn., described "worthless 'Lynch' plates and their alleged American signatures", which had been the subject of some hype. Against those, Baillie contrasted an Alexander Hamilton book-plate in his own collection, described only as "plain armorial, spade shield and crest, with motto," and he noted that the same bookplate was in Hamilton's copy of The Federalist.

In Columbia University's Rare Book and Manuscript Library (RBML), there is a first edition copy of The Federalist, Volume II, that was personally owned by Alexander Hamilton. A photo shows it to fit Baillie's very general description, and under the arms is the name "Alex^r Hamilton, Esq^r of Grange, Advocate." (The same arms are depicted more clearly in a children's book by Lisa DeCarolis.)

• ARMS.—Gules, a lion rampant, argent, (for the Earldom of Ross,) betwixt three cinquefoils, ermine.
• CREST.—An oak tree, proper.
• MOTTO.—In an escroll above, "Viridis et fructifera."

Those arms, crest, and motto are described as belonging to "Alexander Hamilton of Grange, advocate" in several sources, which leads to the question of whether the American founding father ever added "of Grange, advocate" to his own name. Apart from the existence of the bookplate, there is no evidence that he did so... but there was another Alexander Hamilton who did.

From 1774 to 1837 (that is, during most of Hamilton's adult life), the Laird of the Hamiltons of Grange in Scotland was Hamilton's first cousin Alexander, who was referred to as "Alexander Hamilton of Grange, advocate" in the above-mentioned sources; these sources also identify the arms, crest, and motto described above (which match those on the Federalist bookplate) as belonging to the Laird of Grange.

References

From all this, I conclude:

• Bolton's information is, at best, highly doubtful. See first paragraph above.
• I also don't believe that Hamilton's possession and private use of two bookplates belonging to his cousin, the Laird of Grange, is enough evidence to support a conclusion that Hamilton ever actually adopted his cousin's coat of arms as his own.

In the absence of definitive evidence that the American founding father Alexander Hamilton had any coat of arms of his own, I suggest that the coat of arms should be removed from Hamilton's article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC) rev. 15:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC), 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: I agree with you, and my congratulations for a very well argued and supported case. Isananni (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture

The In popular culture section includes the sentence "The musical, which features music, lyrics, and a book by Lin-Manuel Miranda,..." Book in this context refers to "the story, character development, and dramatic structure, including the spoken dialogue and stage directions" of a musical. I believe the correct grammar is "music, lyrics, and book by Lin-Manuel Miranda..." He did not write "a book", he wrote a musical which is made up of book, music, and lyrics. --Vjinok2 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, and done. Thanks for the suggestion. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the book the original editor referred to was "Hamilton; The Revolution" by Lin-Manuel Miranda which does not only contain the lyrics of the musical, but also articles by critics, artists, producers etc. involved in the making of the musical commenting on the historical differences, artistic choices, personal opinions etc. If this was the case maybe the present description could be further improved? Not that I personally have any objections as it is now. Isananni (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Isananni: See dictionary definition 6a here. It's a term of art that's commonly used in musical theatre; I understood the request in that context. Miranda's actual credits for the show (not for Hamilton: The Revolution) do in fact read "music, lyrics, and book by Lin-Manuel Miranda." Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Lwarrenwiki: Agreed, so it is the equivalent of "libretto" (literally "little book" in Italian) with the lyrics for an opera. Isananni (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional portrait of Alexander Hamilton

The Granger Historical Picture Archive lists a lesser known Miniature attributed to Charles Shirreff, c1790. You can view it here https://www.granger.com/results.asp?inline=true&image=0111491&wwwflag=4&itemx=33&screenwidth=375 You can find the same image with a better resolution here https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/45/97/fc/4597fcf24d6ae09ed021dccd9d428dc2--alexander-hamilton-founding-fathers.jpg It seems to be a more natural pose than the most commonly known pictures, showing his natural hair colour without hair powder,and I personally think it would be interesting to include it in the article alongside his more official portraits. I am hopeless at adding images, could some editor volunteer to help in this respect? Isananni (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Isananni (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Which Schuyler was a speculator during Hamilton's term?

In the section "Report on public credit" the name of several speculators in Hamilton's circle is mentioned, among them a "Schuyler" - was it Hamilton's father-in-law Philip Schuyler or brother-in-law Philip Jeremiah Schuyler or someone else? Can someone help me identify him so we can add a wikilink to his respective page and avoid misunderstanding and confusion? Isananni (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits in section "In popular culture"

To editor Isananni: IMDb is not reliable, regardless of where else you've seen it used. I'm not sure TCMDb is any better. WP:IPC is clear that sections like these need to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS to avoid turning into cruft, which is why I've reverted you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My edits regarding the prominent presence of Alexander Hamilton as main character of the tv series George Washington II: The Forging of a Nation have been removed twice by the same editor, first alleging the provided reference was no real reference, secondly alleging there was no consensus on my edit. Well, there is no consensus on the removal of my edits either even if I had provided an additional reference. The series is very real and even well made for the time, you can buy it on Amazon if you do not believe me https://www.amazon.com/George-Washington-Forging-Nation-VHS/dp/630298534X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501787411&sr=8-1&keywords=George+Washington+II%3A+The+Forging+of+a+Nation. What exactly was wrong in adding the reference to an additional work of art where the historical figure of this article is a main character? What is wrong with any citation by imdb or similar sources provided the information they give are correct and seem to be used with great frequency, thus providing credence to the source in the eye of the users? I ask other editors for their opinion to reach a consensus to add the so far removed reference to Alexander Hamilton in the above mentioned tv series. Isananni (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

rather than reverting the whole edit you might have been so kind as to provide a better source since the information is in itself correct. Please help us improve this article, not destroy new relevant information Isananni (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article is already "good" and doesn't need poorly-sourced content. I am simply maintaining the standards this article has already met. I've reverted you at another article for adding the same IMDb reference about the same movie, which evinces that you find information you think you want to add, rather than assess if the article benefits from that info. Generally, "in popular culture" sections shouldn't exist but sadly they do and the least you can do is stick to our established standards. I see no need to "improve" this article at present. 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: does Amazon satisfy the requirements better? Because the tv series can be bought and it is actually very good, I've seen it, so what do you make of an information that is correct and has multiple references? Isananni (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No. That the movie exists is not the point. You need independent and reliable sources that assert what you're trying to say. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you find one and help reinstating the edit instead of being a killjoy, because I am apparently failing at that? Sorry for sounding frustrated, but removing content is so much easier than scourging the entire web for a source with the other person not even dignifying the fellow editors' attempt to improve on the article, or do we want users to assume the Hamilton musical was the only decent work of fiction where Alexander Hamilton was portrayed? I do not think I have a history as serial disruptor of articles, have I? Just try to be helpful and name a source that would be acceptable instead of just saying which one apparently does not meet the required criteria Isananni (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Isananni: Try EW, decider.com, NYT, and Rotten Tomatoes. It wasn't hard but it's not something I should have to do for you. The onus is on the person adding content. I am not a tool to support your eagerness to tell readers about a forgotten miniseries. Don't call others "killjoy," either. Wikipedia is not a place for you to have fun and I am not some tyrant trying to take your fun away. This is a collaborative project and you're not helping. When you use those sources, stick to what they say, not what you want the reader to see. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Rotten Tomatoes was exactly one of the additional/alternative references I had provided with my second edit before you removed, check the history of the article if you do not believe me. I'll reinstate my edits and use the Rotten Tomatoes reference, thanks for your help, glad we found a consensus. If you think this was fun for me, you're assuming wrong. Isananni (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see wikt:killjoy. Words mean things. Please don't name call if you don't even mean it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: let's leave it at this, shall we? At present I honestly fail to understand the difference between Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, but hey, I'm not the senior editor here and I've used the prescribed references in the article now, so let's call it a night, well in my time zone at least. Isananni (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So we're clear, the difference is Rotten Tomatoes has an editorial staff. IMDb is solely user-generated content and therefore fails WP:SPS. Please take time to read the discussions at WP:RSN about each website. If you think Rotten Tomatoes is scummy then feel free not to use it. To my knowledge, the page in question was not user generated. I wouldn't revert anyone willy-nilly and I don't have a grudge against you or IMDb. I'm trying to protect good content from being eroded. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that was helpful. Good night. Isananni (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Place of Death

The article states that Alexander Hamilton died in New York City. Hamilton actually died in Weehawken, New Jersey. The duel that Hamilton and Aaron Burr engaged in was in Weehawken, New Jersey. There is a monument there in memoriam of the events.

References

Jameseb89 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton did not die immediately on the dueling grounds. He was taken back to New York where he died the next day, his wife by his side after his whole family had paid their last visit to the agonising former statesman.Isananni (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Jameseb89: The duel was in Weehawken, but both of your sources confirm that Hamilton died the day after the duel. The Wikipedia article needs no correction. Hamilton was taken to New York, and died there, as Isananni and the article correctly state. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2017

Izzy003 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
please change Spouse(s): Elizabeth Schuyler,To, Spouse(s): John Laurens
Thanks

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Even were the homosexual relationship thoroughly accepted by mainstream academics, no source seems to suggest that they were married Cannolis (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• This really did make me smile. A semi-protected edit request for vandalism... when you just need a more experienced editor to help with the vandalism! Wikipedia is succeeding in increasing civility, I find! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it was classic :) Isananni (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119235829/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2004/2/2004_2_42.shtml to http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2004/2/2004_2_42.shtml

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) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

There is also a popular musical play called Hamilton (musical) that is written about the events of his life Alec yes its who you think it is (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the section titled "In popular culture". —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait, what? There's a musical? That's just crazy – nobody would want to see a musical about Alexander Hamilton. ;) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone loves the musical, it's like one of the best musicals of all freaking time it is amazing!- A True Hamilfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahTE (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexander Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202034115/http://allthingshamilton.com/index.php/aph-home/caribbean-origins/charlestown-nevis to http://allthingshamilton.com/index.php/aph-home/caribbean-origins/charlestown-nevis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615161002/http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/21464 to http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/21464
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160511155454/http://www.weehawkenhistory.us/whc/providence/pawtucket/themes/weehawken/wtm_assets/duel2004/re-enactment.php to http://www.weehawkenhistory.us/whc/providence/pawtucket/themes/weehawken/wtm_assets/duel2004/re-enactment.php

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) 01:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Length of lead

The lead is clocking in at 840 words & 7 paragraphs. Taking a look at other similar articles, Thomas Jefferson's lead is 588 words, George Washington's is 636, (though Napoleon's lead clocks in at 884 words.) MOS:LEADLENGTH only says that "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." and "A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." Would welcome other editors' thoughts on this. Shearonink (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's down to 723 words. That covers a very complex and eventful career. The lede in my opinion moves well and is NOT intimidating, NOT difficult to read, and UNLIKELY to cause the reader to lose interest halfway. If they lose interest at 360 words -- less than one printed page--they will be hard pressed to handle a high school history textbook. Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with editor Rjensen.Isananni (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Shearonink's concern. The length is defensible, but it's longer and more detailed than it needs to be. I find it unwieldy; sometimes I find myself wondering how much longer I've got to scroll down just to get to the table of contents! I'm thinking of doing some careful and judicious trimming in the near future. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Needs more copyediting than I initially thought, for accuracy and focus as well as length. I made a smallish edit today, but it will require more than that. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The article has been peer-reviewed and rated GA. I’m sure every article on Wikipedia has room for improvements, but I do not see the need to make excessive amendments here at this point. Isananni (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The article was passed to GA status in 2015, and articles change over time, it's always a good idea to peer under the hood (so to speak) and keep an article humming along. I think the word count (as of the most-recent version) is fine but that 840 words/7 paragraphs was somewhat long. Shearonink (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

Delete duplicate "was" in first sentence of subsection "Emergence of political parties". 82.1.122.99 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) 82.1.122.99 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Done st170e 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Date of duel

The date of the duel was July 11,1804
Not July 7, 1804
Spjames220 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and Hamilton died the day after the duel. Strange that the lead had a different date compared to the infobox, and a wrong one at that, thanks for pointing it out. Isananni (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

I would like to talk about the show Hamilton 108.2.69.51 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The show “Hamilton” has its own wiki page and is discussed at length here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hamilton_(musical). Enjoy. Isananni (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article Alexander Hamilton. Note that Wikipedia talk pages are not social media outlets for discussing the theater performance itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

After the sex scandal with Maria Reynolds, George Eacker Made a speech that disperished Alexander Hamiltons Legacy on the 4th of July in 1801. Not Happy that his father was insulted this way Hamiltons son Philip confronted Eacker about this while seeing a play. Eacker called Philip a rascal, and Philip challenged him to a duel. The duel took place in Weehawken New Jersey and Philip was shot in the arm. He died after and the death caused Alexanders second child, Angelica Hamilton (named after her aunt Angelica Schuyler on Her mothers side) to gave a mental breakdown in which she never recovered from causing her mental issues and was unable to be a productive human in society. The next year The last Child of Alexander Hamilton was named Philip after the eldest child which died in the Eacker duel. Yas Kween (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC) I would like to write a small part on this article about Philip Hamiltons death, just a paragraph with some minor details about how it affected the family.

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This topic is already covered in Philip Hamilton’s page. Isananni (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding educational institution in Infobox

There has been a recent series of edits with changes involving the following:

• [[Columbia College (New York)#History|King's College]] which became ([[Columbia University]])

or

• [[Columbia College, Columbia University|King's College]] ([[Columbia University]])

or

• [[King's College, New York]] {{small|(now [[Columbia College, Columbia University]])}}

The version that makes the most sense to me is "Columbia College (New York)#History|King's College" since that specifically delineates King's College as being the historical antecedent of Columbia University - but others may differ and that's fine - let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important what the text is in the link, but there's no reason to refer to "Columbia University" by name as there was no such thing at the time he attended. Much like Albert Einstein says he was born in the German Empire and doesn't clarify the current country. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

King's College isn't a historical "antecedent". King's College is the same institution as Columbia College. Please see the consensus reached on the Columbia University talk page concerning this matter. We should use that consensus as our basis. I would go as far as to simply state alma mater as "Columbia University". If you see the Aaron Burr page, you'll notice that alma mater is noted as "Princeton University" despite the institution being called "College of New Jersey" when he attended. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The position taken by Shearonink (talk · contribs) is reasonable, and the consensus prior to today’s edit war conveys the maximum useful information to a reader. I have read the suggested Columbia talk page, and find no persuasive support there for the suggested change here. (Princeton isn’t an apt comparison; long before its name was officially changed, the college was commonly referred to by the name of the town.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Columbia University's charter is that of King's College and vice versa. It is the same institution. Hamilton as well as Jay, Livingston, Benson, and Morris are alumni of the institution. King's College was renamed for similar publicity reasons to why Princeton was renamed. Are we going to call all graduates of Yale from 1700 to 1718 graduates of The Collegiate School? HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Shearonink. Institutions change with history and saying Hamilton attended Columbia is revisionism. New editors would do well to temper their enthusiasm with respect to existing consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I agree with that as well. And again, not including a link to Columbia College or Columbia University after it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It is revisionism not to note that Hamilton is a graduate of Columbia University. It would be like claiming Burr is not a graduate of Princeton, or Wolcott is not a graduate of Yale because they graduated when the school was called "College of New Jersey" and "The Collegiate School", respectively. The University and every known source considers Hamilton a graduate of Columbia University. See the following sources (and there are a plethora of others-look for yourself): https://www.college.columbia.edu/alumni/content/alexander-hamilton-cc-1778, https://www.college.columbia.edu/alumni/about/honors/alexander-hamilton-medal, http://www.businessinsider.com/most-successful-columbia-alumni-2015-10, http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/alexander_hamilton.html, https://books.google.com/books?id=XeFhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=alexander+hamilton+alumnus+columbia&source=bl&ots=QYFN8NJ_YY&sig=O_IgGyGWqdpD2hQ19nmbgsGh0rI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz8dyAz4XbAhXRdN8KHd_CAfU4FBDoAQhSMAk#v=onepage&q=alexander%20hamilton%20alumnus%20columbia&f=false. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny you mention it that way. Aaron Burr's infobox lists [[Princeton University|College of New Jersey]]. I agree we should follow that. Wolcott graduated from Yale College, which is what it was called at the time; it stopped being called "The Collegiate School" in 1718, before he attended. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Regardless of which name you decide to note as his alma mater, you must link King's College to the Columbia University page. King's College is Columbia University. Not doing so is fundamentally and factually incorrect. I am the editor who changed it from Princeton to College of New Jersey – it had previously said "Princeton University", which didn't exist as a name until 1896. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton graduated from King's which is now Columbia. I don't care how it's worded, but it would help readers to point them to the connection. Jonathunder (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And "Columbia University" didn't exist when Hamilton attended, it was "King's College". So what are we debating here? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Columbia University" is the institution formerly known as King's College. There are several King's Colleges including King's College, Cambridge and King's College, London. You must differentiate and note that King's College is now Columbia University. This is standard practice in all biographies. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I propose the text should be written as: "King's College (renamed Columbia)". And just so we have a common understanding here, Muboshgu, Columbia University did exist then. Columbia's founding date is 1754 – because King's College and Columbia University are the same legal entity. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The link is all that's needed to point them to the onnection. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add something further for all to take into consideration – Columbia University's legal founding date is 1754. In other words, as a legal entity it existed in 1754 and existed when Hamilton attended. It was renamed in 1784, but the same legal entity existed 1754. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@HudsonValleyHistorian: The parenthetical "(renamed Columbia)" is OK with me. I consider that an improvement over a reference to "Columbia University", because Hamilton was an alumnus of an undergraduate college that was renamed Columbia College, and it is still Columbia College. It is part of Columbia University, not the same as the university. However, by calling it just "Columbia", we can avoid having that argument. (Similar reasoning applies to using "Princeton" on Aaron Burr's page, vs. Princeton University.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: I agree. Either "King's College (Columbia), "King's College, Columbia" (as in King's College, London or King's College, Cambridge), or "King's College (renamed Columbia)" would be fine with me. Additionally, on the Burr page: "College of New Jersey (Princeton)", "College of New Jersey, Princeton" or "College of New Jersey (renamed Princeton)". HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• @HudsonValleyHistorian: Good (but let's talk about Princeton on Burr's page). And I was pleased to see that you clearly made the same distinction yourself in your response at WP:AN3, where you consistently wrote Columbia College. I would favor using this version of your suggestion:

[[Columbia College (New York)|King's College]] (renamed Columbia)

with no wikilink needed for Columbia in "(renamed Columbia)". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't think the "(renamed Columbia)" is needed at all. A link there for his alma mater will provide all the needed info. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I believe it's very helpful to readers to identify the college as Columbia, its current and much more familiar name, without requiring them to follow a link. It's far less helpful to hide that information behind the link. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor HudsonValleyHistorian: You have already been warned about edit warring. The consensus view was implemented per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Please accept that. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I was incorrectly warned about edit warring and subsequently acquitted by a moderator. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the policies of civility on Wikipedia and about making threats – Chris troutman. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, I personally find the present version, aka “King’s College (now Columbia)” with wikilink for Columbia to be clear, informative and helpful. Just my twoppence. Isananni (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the "Hamilton electors" be mentioned in the 'Legacy' section?

Several faithless electors in the 2016 presidential election called themselves the Hamilton electors, as reported on by many different reputable news sources (Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, Fox News, New York times again, CNN, Washington Times, Fox News again, Washington Post again, ABC, CBS, ABC again, for examples). The movement led to multiple electoral votes being cast for alternate candidates, and I think it should be mentioned in the Legacy section, even as just a quick sentence. Since there is a user who reverted my edit, and we've been unable to come to an agreement on his talk page, I thought it best to get some additional opinions rather than editing the page again. --Aabicus (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I see reliable sources here, but limited relevance; it was just a nickname that was sometimes used for a group of temporarily notable people, with nothing official about it. I would support a sentence in the Legacy section, with 2 or 3 refs. I’m not sure I’d support two sentences. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

negative--no reliable source on Hamilton says that the 'faithless elector' business is part of his legacy. None of the people who coined the term displayed any knowledge of Hamilton or his legacy. "Faithless" refers to breaking faith with your political party. Federalist 68 was written before parties existed and Hamilton (and everyone else) did not contemplate the existence of parties in America. The sense of "faithfulness" to parties requires parties to exist--a condition we had in 2016 but not when Hamilton wrote in 1788. So what we have are two politicians who tag "Hamiltonian" with no understanding of Hamilton's legacy as shown in hundreds of scholarly reliable sources. Wikipedia has to do better than that. Aabicus seems to believe that the 2016 "movement led to multiple electoral votes being cast for alternate candidates." The "faithless elector" phenomenon has been going on for 200+ years (with no reference to Hamilton until 2016)--there were 23 faithless electors in 1836 and 32 in 1832, as well as 7 in 1828 and 4 in 1812--compared to 7 Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 of whom n=2 did not vote for Trump, which is what the "Hamiltonian" group was seeking. Rjensen (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate to characterize the so-called “Hamilton electors” as part of the musical’s legacy, rather than Alexander Hamilton’s. Let me be clear, my halfhearted support extends only to the “In popular culture” subsection of “Legacy”, where I believe the standards for inclusion are not nearly so strict as they would be elsewhere in this article. Your preferred rules aren’t applicable, because if applied, they’d exclude nearly everything that’s already listed in the Legacy section. Unfortunately, there are barely any standards at all for “In popular culture“ sections (which has been a problem and a subject of controversy, throughout Wikipedia). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If an editor adds content that makes a statement of fact, a major newspaper can clearly be cited as a reliable journalistic source in support of that fact. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that. But you’re requiring the editor to cite a source for a meta-fact; to cite a source that instead proves that the admittedly factual statement (about people who invoked Hamilton’s name) is part of his legacy, and to prove the source is qualified to say so. That’s a justifiable standard, one that the musical would pass due to the sheer volume that’s been written about it. But it isn’t a standard that Wikipedia policy requires us to apply. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it is relevant in this article, in this respect I agree with Lwarrenwiki. If there is a page on the election itself, it should be there with wl to this page and to the page of the Federalist Papers. Isananni (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact that two people set up a program they called "Hamiltonian"--and it can be included in articles on the 2016 election. The question is H's legacy, and the statement by the two that Hamilton discussed "faithless" electors is false and is not supported by any RS. They invented that and none of the newspapers made the claim that it was H's legacy. A wikipedia editor invented the connection between the 2016 episode and Hamilton's legacy. Rjensen (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I agree completely with what you just wrote. So perhaps a simple resolution to this minor conflict would be facilitated by removing one "=" from each side of the subheading Alexander Hamilton#In popular culture, so that it is no longer a subsection of Alexander Hamilton#Legacy. See WP:POPCULTURE. Pop culture sections don't usually reside under a "Legacy" heading, and I think it's merely accidental that the one in this article is under "Legacy." With that done, there would be absolutely no implication or allegation that the soi-disant Hamilton electors are included in his legacy. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Lwarrenwiki has a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Hopefully, my recent edit addresses the initial request by Aabicus (talk · contribs) as well as legitimate concerns raised by Rjensen (talk · contribs). The wording of the entry is altered from Aabicus's original to better satisfy WP:NPOV policy. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! --Aabicus (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

should include relationship with john Laurence Hamiltonforlife (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Reduction of overlink

@Dilidor: You're absolutely right that this was badly overlinked, per WP:OVERLINK. Thank you for addressing it! Of the links you removed, good riddance to most of them. There are just a very few that I think should be restored. Those are primarily for specialized phrases that are more than just common terms used with their everyday meaning – for example, implied powers and Commanding General of the United States Army. Because the target articles provide additional substance and historical context, rather than just a definition, I believe wikilinks like those are valuable here. I'll restore those few now. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: Sounds good. I hesitated on "implied powers" before removing it and so will certainly defer to your judgment. Thank you for restoring it. —Dilidor (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Alexander Hamilton and slavery for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Hamilton and slavery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hamilton and slavery until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Introduction is too long

Biography should be covered in the first numbered section. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Reynolds affair

Request moved from Talk:Alexander Hamilton/to do:
Alexander Hamilton had an affair with a young woman named Maria Reynolds. The affair lasted for one year. It started when his wife, Eliza, was on a trip uptown to see her father with their children. She said that she needed a walk home but in unraveled into an affair. He was later contacted by James Reynolds, Maria's husband. He said that if Alex wished to keep sleeping with his wife, he must pay him. So he payed him a total of about $1000. Sdog22206 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sdog22206: It is unclear what you are requesting, but this article already contains appropriate sourced content concerning the history of the Reynolds affair. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

British and American

In the lede it states he was American but he was born and grew up British and only became American in his early 20s, should the lede say "British and later American" ? Unibond (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

we call "American" those people who gave allegiance to the USA when it was founded in 1776, regardless of where they were born. Rjensen (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, Hamilton didn't exactly "grow up British". He was born on the island of Nevis, which was British. But at age 9 (or 11) his mother moved the family to St. Croix, a possession of Denmark. He "grew up" there, from 1765 until he left for New York in 1772. The place where he grew up didn't make him Danish, any more than it made him British. Rjensen is right: he was American. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, but I still think the article should really reflect the fact that he was born British Unibond (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The great majority of Americans in his generation as babies had been ""born British" --so it tells us nothing. Rjensen (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

But you are assuming everyone reading the article is aware of that fact, I certainly wasn't, and I imagine many others aren't Unibond (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that everyone who reads this article is aware that the United States didn't exist (i.e., had not declared independence) until 1776, and that Hamilton was already an adult by then. This puts Hamilton in precisely the same category as George Washington, John Adams, etc. They were all born in British colonies: Virginia, Massachusetts, and Nevis. I don't think readers need to see Washington, Adams, or Hamilton called out as "British-born" in order to recognize that they were all Americans who were born before the American nationality existed. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a lot of assumptions, isn't the purpose of wiki to provide facts. I only just learned of the British dominions citizenship status, maybe I am amongst the most ignorant but why not help out other poor ignorant souls like me. It now appears as if his citizenship/nationality just popped into existence along with the USA. For the sake of completeness and accuracy why leave out the previous nationalities of anyone, why deny history for assumed assumptions :-) Unibond (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"citizen" is the wrong term. Until late 20c people born in Britain itself or the British Empire were NOT "citizens." They were "subjects". The question of losing or giving up up your British status was a central issue in the fierce debate over impressment (one of the causes of the War of 1812). Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

very good point and even more reason to include the fact he was a British Subject for all of his life and to a lesser extent an American in the article Unibond (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen an RS claim he was a British subject all his life. You need to cite your sources. Rjensen (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Now I am totally confused, you said he was a British subject, was he or wasn't he ? Unibond (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Unibond: If you can locate a reliable scholarly source that contains exactly the statement about Hamilton that you want to see included in the article, please post a link to it, and quote what it says about Hamilton's birth or nationality. Then we'll have something to discuss. Till then, there's no consensus for changing the lead. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

I have found a few shortcomings in your article. MadeleineHarp (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I await the opportunity to learn what they are. And the article is yours as well. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

<!- change the title to who was Alexzander Hamilton--> - Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 141.239.182.254 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2018 (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. DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018

Ice Wolf 101 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Whiskey Rebellion Suggestion in December 2018

Point-of-view here is questionable. This section merits further consideration to better show the extent to which Hamilton's policies hurt farming families living in the Appalachian Mountains who relied on whiskey as a currency. The current description in the article emphasizes a traditional view that favors Hamilton's own views. In western Pennsylvania, there is an annual Whiskey Rebellion festival and Hamilton's portrait hangs in one store upside down. In her recent book "Amity and Prosperity", Eliza Griswold summarized the event this way: "In 1791, under the auspices of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, the federal government imposed a Whiskey Tax intended to help repay the young republic's debts. Hamilton also hoped it would drive small rural producers out of business in the favor of larger ones. It was one of Hamilton's less laudable ideas, and the residents of Washington County reacted..."

There is a separate & more extensive article on the Whiskey Rebellion. The things you suggest would be better off in that article, not in Hamilton's article. With sources, of course....you could cite the book & author you mentioned, with the pg numbers on which you found additional info. See Help:Contents to assist you in making edits to the Whiskey Rebellion article. ScarletRibbons (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

change this text: to implement an excise tax both imported and domestic spirits. to: to implement an excise tax on both imported and domestic spirits. Mmittelm (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Linguistical (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

WATCH THE MUSICAL !!!!!!!!!!!!! 73.245.249.225 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2019 (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. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Pablo Picasso was a well known man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.1.106 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Power of balance

There is a funny typo in the article. It is in the Report on Public Credit section. It reads "power of balance" and should read "balance of power". I can't edit it, so hopefully someone reads this who can edit it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.115.106 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ...And so the balance shifts. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 05:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture Literature "The Conqueror, A Dramatized Biography of Alexander Hamilton," a 1902 historical novel by Gertrude Atherton, fictionally humanizes Hamilton's life while conforming to known historical facts. JAustinBarryJAustinBarry (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Time of death of Rachel Faucette Lavien Hamilton

I was checking this article for some information regarding Hamilton's childhood that I needed for something I'm writing when I noticed that the time of death for his mother was listed as 1:02am. In Ron Chernow's biography of Hamilton, on page 24, it says that Rachel died at 9:00pm. Concerned about the conflicting times for sake of accuracy of my writing, I checked the source listed for the t.o.d., and flipped to page 19 of Alexander Hamilton: Revolutionary by Martha Brockenbrough, and read through the section; however, instead of 1:02am, the time of death (which is actually listed on page 20) is listed as nine in the evening, which lines up with what is written in Chernow's book and what I understood to be her time of death.

Sources:

--Historynerd51 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Added {{Reflist-talk}}. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019

Add the following entry to the "Literature" category of "In popular culture"

"The Conqueror, A Dramatized Biography of Alexander Hamilton," a 1902 historical novel by Gertrude Atherton, fictionally humanizes Hamilton's life while conforming to known historical facts.

JAustinBarryJAustinBarry (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC) JAustinBarry (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Adding the novel, trimming the description. See WP:NPOV & WP:OR. Rm unsourced statement that Atherton was "conforming to known historical facts", which is not established. Reliable sources have stated otherwise. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment for Lead Sentence update

Hi wise editors,

I propose to update the following

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 – July 12, 1804) was an American statesman and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

to

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 – July 12, 1804) was an American statesman, politician, legal scholar, military commander, lawyer, banker and economist, most notably as one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

The reason is to have a good overall summary of subject rather than only mentioning the subject's only one major achievement.

I'd like to ask for consensus before making the update. Looking forward to your comments.

Xinbenlv(t) ^{please notify me with {{ping}}} 05:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. I seem to recall it used to read very similarly at one time...Shoreranger (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shoreranger:. Thank you! About 2 weeks has passed and there is one support and no objection, I am going to interpret it as a consensus of no objection, and go on to commit the change. Let me know if any fellow watchers have questions. Xinbenlv(t) ^{please notify me with {{ping}}} 17:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

1755 or 1757, what year was Alexander Hamilton born?

Google and the Alexander Hamilton Awareness Society are saying that Alexander Hamilton was born in 1757, his epitaph says he was 47 years old when he died. Ron Chernow has used both 1755 and 1757 in his autobiography on AH, Lin-Manuel Miranda used 1757 as well since there are 46 tracks (23 in act 1, 23 in act 2) on the cast album (47 if you see it live since there is a track that he cut out (Laurens Interlude/Tomorrow There'll Be More Of Us) near the end of the first act) BurrShotHam711 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@BurrShotHam711: In the first section of this article, the section titled Childhood in the Caribbean, your question about Hamilton's birth year is handled in the proper way. Reliable sources disagree about whether it was 1755 or 1757. When a fact is disputed by legitimate historians, it is against Wikipedia policy for editors to simply pick one of the sides and treat it as the "right" answer. It is Wikipedia's policy to state that the fact is disputed among historians, and to explain both sides while maintaining a neutral point of view, without giving either position undue weight. On the question of 1755 or 1757, that's exactly what this article does and should continue to do. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@BurrShotHam711:@Lwarrenwiki: A recently published book, Discovering Hamilton, by Michael E. Newton (who's previous book on Hamilton is cited in the article) essentially rules out both 1755 and 1757. In addition to publishing his work, he's presented his findings at the Hamilton Grange National Memorial. I've written a possible change in a sandbox (see here). I think it sufficiently still includes references to previously believed dates but obviously am interested if others feel differently. Wiki publius (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Newton has done a lot of very interesting research. I've read his blog in the past, and in most cases I've found his conclusions credible. But he's still only one self-published researcher who is, in this case, contradicting what every previous historian has written about Hamilton's date of birth. This change should wait until Newton's sources and conclusions are substantiated and accepted by more WP:RELIABLE scholarly sources. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2019

spouses: John Lawrence, Eliza Hamilton Raychel myers (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

you guys should really say that Hamilton was bi because honestly he was and I won't stand for this canonically homosexual historical erasure. I would do it myself but apparently I can't JackTheSoldier1777 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. You must provide "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."

In addition, you must provide references to impeccably reliable sources that state that Hamilton was bisexual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The musical

Anybody else come here just to see if the musical was here. I did. But it’s also interesting to see how his whole life played out. MHAloverUwU (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton's Jewishness

Lwarrenwiki, what I wrote doesn't give undue weight to fringe theory, it simply doesn't misrepresent and disqualify it as the text you reinstated does. That the first husband of Hamilton's mother was likely Jewish is not even controversial, as it is confirmed by a number of RS. What is speculative is whether Hamilton's mother converted to Judaism before he was born, and whether the converted Jewess' child is still Jewish if she doesn't follow the religion (in her case, that's evident by her marrying a gentile). Her conversion, if indeed she converted at all, may also be controversial, as not all rabbis accept every other rabbi's conversion. What is undeniable, however, is that Hamilton received a Jewish education, and was the highest advocate for the Jews in the nation. It's not, therefore, a question of whether he was Jewish, but of how much he was. Guarapiranga (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Given these, Sergio Della Pergola, the main source of Jewish population by country, by his own definitions, would certainly count Hamilton as either part of the Connected or the Enlarged Jewish population, if not the Core Jewish population itself if indeed his mother converted before he was born (again emphasising that Jewishness, as any ethnic group membership, is a matter of degree, not a binary one). Guarapiranga (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: In response to the points above:

1. Please note that articles from the popular press (such as Time and the Detroit Jewish News), websites such as Daily Kos, and unattributed entries in online "encyclopedias" do not constitute reliable scholarly sources. (DellaPergola does not mention Hamilton or Lavien, and the citation is only raised in support of your personal synthesis. See WP:OR, WP:SYNTH.)
2. There is no documentary evidence that Johann Lavien was Jewish. With the sole exception of Porwancher, present-day scholars and historians do not claim that Lavien was Jewish. Ron Chernow, for one, directly addressed the question of whether Lavien was Jewish, and found that the assertion was not credible. Early biographers of Alexander Hamilton followed Hamilton himself in identifying Johann Lavien as a Dane, not as a Jew; more recent historians identify Lavien's origin as German. The unsupported belief that Lavien was Jewish probably originated with novelist Gertrude Atherton, who made that assertion in her 1902 novel The Conqueror, a fictionalized biography of Hamilton – no earlier written reference to Lavien as being Jewish has been identified.
3. We both seem to agree that it would be (at the very least) "speculative" to discuss "whether Hamilton's mother converted to Judaism before he was born". The reason it is "speculative" is because there is no actual evidence of such a conversion – there is only speculation, nothing more. And if I were to address this speculation myself, I would point out that conversion requires, at a minimum, more than mere consent; the convert must convince a bet din of her sincere desire to convert to Judaism. There is absolutely nothing in Rachel Hamilton's background to indicate that her marriage (or the prospect of marrying Lavien) would inspire her to want to be Jewish. To the contrary, Hamilton wrote that his mother reluctantly agreed to what became a "hated marriage".
4. All of the speculation about Hamilton's mother converting to Judaism originates from only one source: Porwancher. As the lone scholarly source, his credibility is not bolstered by numerous additional citations to his publicity in the popular press. Those are not citations to independent scholarly sources.
5. Porwancher has frankly admitted that he is a "lone voice" among historians and that his position is an outlier. This alone is sufficient reason to recognize his position as WP:FRINGE, and supports deleting the additional content as WP:UNDUE.

At this time, I have not deleted the entire paragraph. However, a reasonable argument could be made that this article should omit any mention of his WP:FRINGE theory at all, and that the proper course of action would be to delete the entire paragraph. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: Please note that articles from the popular press (such as Time and the Detroit Jewish News), websites such as Daily Kos, and unattributed entries in online "encyclopedias" do not constitute reliable scholarly sources.

You misunderstand WP:RS policy. Neither are all RS scholarly, nor are all scholarly sources reliable. Time, in particular, is listed as RS (WP:RSP). And scholarly sources are typically primary sources, which WP policy explicitly tells us to avoid (WP:PSTS):

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

So, shall I restore what I wrote, or will you? Guarapiranga (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga re: "So, shall I restore what I wrote, or will you?" I believe this needs more discussion, input from other editors and consensus WP:CON before anything else is done. Lwarrenwiki brings up a number of significant points that you have not discussed.

Speaking for myself, this seems very speculative, and is not supported by scholarly sources (let alone a consensus). Most of the sources your site should be considered biased (not bad, just biased), and the two other sources - Time and Daily Kos - are not sufficient to support the claim being made.

"Hamilton received a Jewish education, and was the highest advocate for the Jews in the nation" - has nothing to do with him being Jewish.

The issue of conversion and the impact it has on children is extremely complex and controversial. Lwarrenwiki points out conversion itself is not simply consent. It is a long and involved process, and there are no Synagogue records or evidence reflecting this for her or Hamiton.

This paragraph seems very WP:FRINGE and I believe it should be deleted.   // Timothy::talk 01:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: When considering the standards for reliable sources, keep in mind that this is not an article about recent or current events, for which journalism in a contemporaneous newspaper would be a perfectly acceptable WP:RS. This is a biographical article about a historical figure in the context of historical events. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Seen them, Lwarrenwiki, and they both say (emphasis mine):

This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

So: not an argument.

@TimothyBlue: "Hamilton received a Jewish education, and was the highest advocate for the Jews in the nation" - has nothing to do with him being Jewish.
Except, as I pointed out above, that applying to Hamilton the definitions of Jewishness set out by Sergio Della Pergola, the Jewish Israeli demographer who is the main source of Jewish population by country, would count him as a member of either the Connected or the Enlarged Jewish population (and that's not even assuming any conversion from his mother!). Guarapiranga (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore…

@Lwarrenwiki: unattributed entries in online "encyclopedias" do not constitute reliable scholarly sources

The editors of 3,448 other articles—on enwiki mainspace alone!—clearly don't agree with you. Guarapiranga (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

[1] A two-paragraph unsourced article on a lobbyist website is not a reliable source on its own for a controversial claim. It also states his mother was "most likely Jewish". This tangles up the claim by Porwancher that she needed to convert. Maybe it means she was Jewish because she converted? Then why does it say "most likely"? Maybe its because they don't know if she converted?

This is all speculation.   // Timothy::talk 07:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also in regard to this source, it is published by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Their purpose is to promote connections between the US and Israel, so they have an issue with WP:BIASED which can be used as long as the source demonstrates the "level of independence from the topic the source is covering". I don't believe they have any level of independence from the topic they are covering. The lack of sources in the article makes this worse. Many of their other articles do contain sources, such as George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. The article on Hamilton does not.   // Timothy::talk 07:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga:
There is nothing but speculation to support the claim Hamilton was a Jew.

Regarding this category of "enlarged Jewish population (EJP—a concept initially suggested by DellaPergola 1975)" - a "concept" he "suggested". A concept suggested by a demographer does not make a generally accepted definition (and his definition is different from Israel's and every rabbinic authority I am aware of). And it is a category that expressly includes "non-Jews" in sections (d) and (e).

Even if this EJC category was the definition of who is a Jew or how Jewish someone is, his definition would not include Hamilton. but I'm not going to argue that point. If that is your conclusion that's fine. It's also WP:OR, WP:SYNTH so it doesn't belong here.

There is no evidence that Hamilton was a Jew, just speculation. Porwancher's idea is supported by nothing but inferences from circumstantial information. Its speculation not supported or cited by any other Hamilton scholar/biographer. Porwancher isn't even convinced: "Either I’m crazy, or I’m a lone voice of sanity.” is hardly a bold defense of your thesis.[2]

This paragraph is speculation to support a claim that falls into WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and should be deleted.   // Timothy::talk 06:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

TimothyBlue: Porwancher's idea is supported by nothing but inferences from circumstantial information.

That's WP:OR. It's not incumbent on editors to evaluate the arguments presented by sources, but simply to communicate them (without undue weight, and all that jazz of course).

his definition is different from Israel's and every rabbinic authority I am aware of

Rabbis have no authority to say who's an ethnic Jew. They're neither demographers nor anthrologists. Jewishness and Judaism are two different things.

Its speculation not supported or cited by any other Hamilton scholar/biographer.

What's speculative is whether his mother converted. That Hamilton had much Jewish influence in his upbringing is a fact already established by the sources cited in the article.

Porwancher isn't even convinced: "Either I’m crazy, or I’m a lone voice of sanity.” is hardly a bold defense of your thesis.

As an editor, I'm not defending any thesis. "I’m a lone voice of sanity” does sound like a bold defence of his thesis, though. Guarapiranga (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

As a postscript concerning Porwancher's credibility on this point: Several 2016 articles mentioned that he was under contract with Harvard University Press for a book to be called The Jewish Founding Father: Alexander Hamilton’s Hidden Life, and in 2018 he told Moment that it is set to be published by Harvard University Press in 2019. I see that it was not published in 2019, and there is no mention of the book (even as forthcoming) at the publisher's website. This could mean any number of things, but my opinion is that the work can't have satisfied this highly reputable publisher's standards. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Lwarrenwiki My first thought when I saw the book mentioned was even if it's "true" how could someone possibly have enough material on this to write a book (or even a journal article).   // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Hight: alexander hamilton was five feet four inches. coming in as the second shortest after James Maddison. Zambrano2006 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; anything about this would need a reliable source too. And unless placed in some kind of context, this is simply trivia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

In the part where it is talking about Hamilton's accomplishments, under "8th Senior Officer of the United States Army it says 'precede by George Washington", yet Washington is not linked. Igloodog84 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: ...because it's linked in the immediately preceding section of the infobox, so this would be redundant, see WP:SOB. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Laurens affair scandal?

What should be the "Hamilton–Reynolds affair" is the "Hamilton–Laurens affair" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8B:8400:5A0:C4A6:6B9:C34F:50F6 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Replace Header Reynolds affair and replace references to a male with female Maria Reynolds. Also, there was no child. Basically edit this (in quotes): In the summer of 1797, Hamilton became the first major American politician publicly involved in a sex scandal.[167] Six years earlier, in the summer of 1791, 34-year-old Hamilton started an affair with 23-year-old ″John Laurens and they had a son called Cabrita. According to Hamilton's recount, John approached him at his house in Philadelphia, claiming that his" husband, James Reynolds, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.42.76 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Really, No. Although I liked the idea that Hamilton and Laurens had a child. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

In section, early life in the Caribbean, the current article suggests that there is no strong evidence for the mixed race of Hamilton's mother and that she was likely white. This is incorrect. It would be more correct to reflect current scholarship's lack of consensus on her ethnicity. We do not know the ethnic heritage of his mother, and we may not even know who Alexander Hamilton's real father is as described in recent DNA tests conducted at Penn State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herodutus86 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Hamilton's lineage, recent DNA results have been inconclusive. According to a study from Penn State, James Hamilton may not have been Alexander's real father.(1) There is no verifiable evidence if Alexander's mother, Rachel was white or of mixed heritage as census records did not distinguish between white and free-persons of color. Persons at the time would be incentivized to list themselves as white, regardless of their own ethnic history.(2)

Source: (1) http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/g/a/gah4/HamDNA/Results.html (2) https://books.google.com/books?id=2_acDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=british+caribbean+census+white+black+1760&source=bl&ots=7o72vvIsDW&sig=ACfU3U0kXQnLyAFtRepZErUHjNMA5aJ2jw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjf5uKJ87LqAhUKM6wKHY52BgoQ6AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=british%20caribbean%20census%20white%20black%201760&f=false Herodutus86 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this correct?

This seems out of place to me or maybe a definition should be added:

“as well as the founder of the polity's financial system”

What is “polity’s financial system?”

Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{My Contibutions} 06:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

See First Bank of the United States (and for that matter the entire section on his service as Secretary of the Treasury in the article.) Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

it's too obscure for the lede--I changed to "founder of the nation's financial system" Rjensen (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Good call, @Rjensen: I support your change. Polity is a fine scholarly word, but needlessly pedantic. "Nation" is clear. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020

There is currently a wrong link on the page. Change "[...] when Hamilton submitted a letter to Washington with his commission enclosed, [...]" to "[...] when Hamilton submitted a letter to Washington with his commission enclosed, [...]" Lukas.spiess (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The link is correct; the word commission here refers to the commissioning of an officer, not to the exchange of money. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - spoken Wikipedia

I'd like to request updating the article with the recording of the text, from Spoken Wikipedia WikiProject:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:En_Alexander_Hamilton-article.ogg

Rupert-ap-Gruffydd (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

The Line under Post-secretary years 1796 presidential election

Hamilton's resignation as Secretary of the Treasury in 1795 did not remove him from public life. With the resumption of his law practice, he remained close to Washington as an advisor and friend. Hamilton influenced Washington in the composition of his farewell address

Needs to be change to his 'farewell address' Umbrachimera (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)