Alexander Hamilton

[[Image:Alexander Hamilton.jpg|200px|thumb|right|A portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1792.]] Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was an Politics of the United States, statesman, journalist, lawyer, and soldier. One of the United States' most prominent early constitutional lawyers, he was an influential delegate to the United States Constitutional Convention and the principal author of the Federalist Papers, which successfully defended the U.S. Constitution to skeptical New Yorkers. He also put the new United States onto a sound economic footing as its first and most influential United States Secretary of the Treasury, establishing the First Bank of the United States, public credit and the foundations for American capitalism and stock exchange. ==Early years== Alexander Hamilton was born on the West Indies island of Nevis. He was the son of James Hamilton, a struggling businessman from Scotland, and Rachel Fawcett Lavien, who was then married to another man, though the couple lived apart from one another under an order of legal separation. There is some uncertainty as to the year of Hamilton's birth. Throughout his life, Hamilton stated that it was 1757, and that year went unquestioned for centuries. More recent examinations of probate court records at St. Croix indicate the year was 1755 (though the year is not explicitly noted) and for several decades it has been the more commonly cited year. The date, January 11, can be neither substantiated nor refuted, and is still commonly accepted. Alexander had no middle name. Hamilton's father abandoned him, and his mother died when Hamilton was in his early adolescence. As a teenager, Hamilton wrote an article about a hurricane that had severely battered the West Indies in a local paper that caused so much sensation, that the town soon raised money to fund his passage to Colonial America. He settled in New York in 1772 where he began grammar school. Later he attended King's College (now Columbia University). Arriving at King's College, Hamilton originally studied anatomy with the intent of becoming a doctor. Hamilton possessed talents of the highest order. At the start of his teenage years, he was an impoverished orphan with no family connections, working as a clerk on the island of St. Croix in the Caribbean. By the close of his teenage years, he was in America, General George Washington's most trusted aide-de-camp, an accomplished artillery captain, and a published pamphleteer renowned in New York. It was while on the battlefield, however, that Hamilton began formulating the ideas on government and economics that would make him an historic figure. He was one of the earliest and most active nationalists, believing that the continental congress needed to be strengthened or overthrown in favor a new, more imposing federal government that could legislate within the states, which the continental congress could not do. Hamilton was the spokesman for an active government, stressing the principle of government 'Responsibility', against the Jeffersonian/Madisonian principle of public vigilance and suspicion of government power. Recent scholars have argued that these two philosophies form the thesis-antithesis of the post-revolutionnary era. Alexander Hamilton being the figurehead of responsible government. He left Washington to take command of an infantry regiment that took part in the siege of Yorktown, and it is under an assault led by him that redoubt #10 was taken. After the war, he served as a member of the Continental Congress (from 1782-1783), and then retired to open his own law office in New York City. His public career resumed when he attended the Annapolis Convention as a delegate in 1786. He also served in the New York State Legislature and attended the Constitutional Convention (United States) in 1787. Throughout the convention's proceedings Hamilton, a federalist, argued consistently for a strong central government, including a king-like president (minus the familial inheritance of power), and an upper legislative body based on the English House of Lords. Hamilton opposed equal representation in the United States Senate, saying the concept "shocks too much the ideas of justice and every human feeling." He also wanted senators to serve for life, subject to good behavior. Finally, Hamilton strongly advocated the abolition of slavery. Although the U.S. Constitution eventually produced by the convention was less centrist than Hamilton proposed, and the tenures of those exercising power were shorter than he desired, he was active in the successful campaign for its ratification in New York. During this endeavor he made the largest single contribution to the authorship of the Federalist Papers. In 1788, Hamilton served another term in what proved to be the last time the Continental Congress met under the new Articles of Confederation. ==Secretary of the Treasury== On the advice of Robert Morris (merchant), with whom he had discussed economics as an aide-de-camp during the American Revolution, President George Washington appointed Hamilton as the first Secretary of the Treasury when the first Congress passed an act establishing the Treasury Department. He served in that post from September 11, 1789 until January 31, 1795. It is for his tenure as Treasury secretary that Hamilton is considered one of America's greatest statesmen. Hamilton's term was marked by innovation, planning and masterful reports. In office for barely a month, he proposed the idea of a seagoing branch of the military to secure tax revenue against contraband shipments. The following summer, the Congress authorized a Revenue Cutter Service of ten cutters, the precursor to the United States Coast Guard. He also played a crucial role in creating the United States Navy (the Naval Act of 1794). He published ''Report on the Public Credit'' in January 1790, which was a milestone in American financial history, marking the end of an era of bankruptcy and repudiation. The plan provided for the assumption of both domestic and foreign debts. Democratic Republicans such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr strongly opposed Hamilton's plan. Surprisingly, it passed overwhelmingly. Hamilton advocated having the federal government assume states' debts. Madison and Jefferson opposed this plan as well, but, according to a story later told by Jefferson which probably greatly simplified matters, they settled their disagreements in a private meeting on July 21, 1790. During this meeting, Hamilton agreed to support the Potomac River as the future location of the nation's capital, in return for Jefferson's support. Hamilton's perceptive and creative mind, coupled with a driving ambition to set his ideas in motion, resulted in many proposals to Congress. His proposals included a plan for import duties and excise taxes for raising revenue, funding the revolutionary debt, and suggestions on naval laws. He also developed plans for a congressional charter for the First Bank of the United States. Strong opposition to taxing liquor erupted into the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania and Virginia in 1794. Hamilton felt compliance with the laws was important, so he accompanied General Light Horse Harry Lee and his troops to help put down the insurrection. During Washington's first term, as Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton put forth a plan to deal with the immense national debt (which consisted of foreign, domestic and state debts). He proposed to pay off all foreign debt to help restore national credit, which would then enable the nation to issue bonds to pay off the domestic debt. He reasoned that this would help ensure that the "aristocracy of wealth and talent" had a stake in the success of the new government. His plan was for the federal government to assume the state debts, which would work to stabilize the country. This would work because if the creditors wanted the individual states to thrive to be able to pay them, the union could crumble, but if these same creditors now needed the federal government, and subsequently the country, to thrive then the country would be supported. Hamilton also asked for a whiskey tax and a high import tax (also known as a tariff) to help pay for the debt. Congress gave him the whiskey tax but not the import tax, which was the only part of the plan Hamilton was unable to secure. Finally, Hamilton asked for the creation of a national bank to help the government fulfill its financial obligations and create some income due to intrest on loans. Hamilton's financial plan is significant not only for its attempt (mostly successful) to restore the nation's credit and deal with its financial difficulties, but also because it resulted in the first national political parties. Hamilton, contrary to popular belief, did not believe in perpetual debt. He thought it was a weakness that should be avoided. He has set up programs that would have paid off all government debt. He wrote numerous articles denouncing perpetual government debt. PAH vol. 6 p.98-106 Report on public debt January 1790 and PAH vol. 12 p570 Fact No II National Gazette, Philadelphia October 16 1792. ==Hamilton as an industrialist== [[Image:DSCN2897 hamilton statue.jpg|300px|right|thumb|Statue of Hamilton by Franklin Simmons, overlooking the Great Falls of the Passaic River in Paterson, New Jersey. Hamilton envisioned the use of the falls to power a new city based on industry.]] Hamilton was among the first to recognize the larger transformations of industry and capitalism of his era -- in particular the trend toward larger-scale manufacturing financed through credit. In 1778 he visited the Great Falls of the Passaic River in northern New Jersey and saw that the falls could one day be harnessed to provide power for a manufacturing center on the site. As Secretary of Treasury, he put this plan into motion, helping to found the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures, a private corporation that would use the power of the falls to operate mills. Although the company did not succeed in its original purpose, it leased the land around the falls to other mill ventures and continued to operate for over a century and a half. The city which grew on the spot of Hamilton's vision, Paterson, New Jersey became one of the most important manufacturing centers for cotton, steel and silk, until its decline after World War II. ==The Maria Reynolds affair and rivalry with Aaron Burr== In 1794, Hamilton became intimately involved with Maria Reynolds, an affair that damaged his reputation and prevented him from rising further in politics. Reynolds' husband blackmailed Hamilton for money, though he was content to permit sexual liaisons between Hamilton and his wife. When James Reynolds was arrested for counterfeiting, he contacted several prominent Jeffersonian Republicans, most notably James Monroe. When they visited Hamilton with their suspicions of malfeasance, he stressed his innocence, while admitting to an affair with Maria Reynolds. Monroe promised to keep details from public knowledge, but Thomas Jefferson had no such compunctions. Hamilton was forced to publish a confession of his affair, which shocked his family and supporters. A duel with Monroe over his supposed breach was averted by then-Senator Aaron Burr. Ironically, Burr would later represent Maria Reynolds in her divorce lawsuit, leading some to suspect he set Hamilton up. However, Hamilton's relationship with Burr had been cordial during their years as New York lawyers. 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 adviser and friend. Hamilton is believed to have influenced Washington in the composition of his George Washington's farewell address. Relations between Hamilton and Washington's successor, John Adams, were frequently strained and Hamilton's attempts to frustrate Adams' adoption as presidential candidate of the United States Federalist Party split the party and contributed to the victory of the United States Democratic-Republican Party in the U.S. presidential election, 1800. With the House split and Burr seeking Federalist votes, Hamilton threw his weight behind Jefferson causing one Federalist to abstain from voting. This ensured that Jefferson was selected rather than Burr. Even though Hamilton did not want Jefferson as president, he was quoted as saying that "at least Jefferson was honest." Burr later sought the New York governorship in 1804, first running as a Federalist, then as an independent. One newspaper referred to a "despicable opinion" that a Dr. Charles D. Cooper attributed to Hamilton about Burr. This probably resulted from comments Hamilton made in private circles sarcastically questioning Burr's integrity. Sensing a chance to regain political honor, Burr demanded an apology. Hamilton refused on the grounds that he could not recall the instance the newspaper mentioned. [[Image:Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg|thumb|320px|Hamilton fights his fatal duel with Aaron Burr.]] A duel was set July 11 on a rocky ledge in Weehawken, New Jersey, the same place where Hamilton's son Phillip had been killed in a duel three years earlier. At dawn, the duel began, and Vice-President Burr shot Hamilton below his chest. Hamilton probably fired his shot into the air, deliberately missing—two of his letters were found afterwards saying he was going to throw away the first shot. Some Democratic Republicans said he misfired his pistol, one of a pair that belonged to his family. Hamilton died the next day and was buried in the Trinity Churchyard Cemetery in Manhattan. Burr fled New York under charges of murder and later of treason. He died in 1836, having squandered his fortune and almost universally reviled because of his 1807 conspiracy trial. ==Hamilton and modern politics== Arguably, Hamilton set the path for American economic and military might. His most important contribution may have been establishing the supremacy of the executive (government) branch of American government over the legislature and judiciary branches. At the moment of founding, it was not clear whether the executive should wield most of the power, especially when it came to the creation of policy, which was supposed to be a legislative task. From the start, Hamilton set a precedent as a cabinet member by dreaming up federal programs, writing them in the form of reports, pushing for their approval by appearing in person to argue them on the floor of Congress, and implementing them. Hamilton did this brilliantly and forcefully, setting a high standard for administrative competence. In the whole of Hamilton's policy making, the legislature was a passive observer, ultimately approving his projects with little left for it to do. Another of Hamilton's legacies was his strongly pro-federalism interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Though the Constitution was drafted in a way that was somewhat ambiguous as to the balance of power between federal and state governments, Hamilton consistently took the side of greater federal power at the expense of states. Thus, as Secretary of the Treasury, he established, against the intense opposition of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, the country's first First Bank of the United States. Hamilton justified the creation of this bank, and other robust federal powers, on Congress's constitutional powers to issue currency and to regulate interstate commerce. Jefferson, on the other hand, took a stricter view of the constitution: parsing the text carefully finding no specific authorization for a national bank. This controversy was eventually settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in ''McCulloch v. Maryland'', which in essence adopted Hamilton's view, granting the federal government broad freedom to select means to execute its constitutionally-enumerated powers. Hamilton’s portrait began to appear during the American Civil War on the $2, $5, $10, and $50 notes, which was symbolic of his ideological opposition to the ideas of the Confederate States of America. His face continues to grace the front of the ten dollar bill, but after the death of Ronald Reagan small movements began making noise about replacing Hamilton with Reagan. Hamilton also appears on the $500 Series EE Savings Bond. == Writings == * Federalist Papers under the shared pseudonym "Publius" by Alexander Hamilton (c. 52 articles), James Madison (28 articles) and John Jay (five articles) * ''Hamilton: Writings'' by Alexander Hamilton (2001 in literature, ISBN 1931082049) == References == *Hendrickson. Robert A. The Rise and Fall of Alexander Hamilton. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1981. *Mitchell, Broadus. Alexander Hamilton. == Biographies == *McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton: A Biography. W. W. Norton & Company, 1982 in literature (ISBN 039330048X). *Flexner, James Thomas. The Young Hamilton: A Biography. Fordham University Press, 1997 in literature (ISBN 0823217906). *Brookhiser, Richard. Alexander Hamilton, American. Free Press, 1999 in literature (ISBN 0684839199). *Fleming, Thomas. Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America. Basic Books, 2000 in literature (ISBN 0465017371). *Knott, Stephen F. Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth. University Press of Kansas, 2002 in literature (ISBN 0700611576). *Randall, Willard Sterne. Alexander Hamilton: A Life. HarperCollins, 2003 in literature (ISBN 0060195495). *Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Books, 2004 in literature (ISBN 1594200092). ==External links== *[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000101 Hamilton's Congressional biography] *[http://www.alexanderhamiltonexhibition.org The New York Historical Society's Alexander Hamilton Exhibit] *[http://web.archive.org/web/20001110000000/www.ios.com/~alstone/forthebk.htm Alexander Hamilton: Debate over a National Bank (Feb 23 1791)] 1755 births 1804 deaths Continental Congressmen Foreign-born US political figures Signers of the U.S. Constitution U.S. Secretaries of the Treasury Scottish-Americans Episcopalians

Alexander Hamilton

Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page and see the ranks for honored Americans. Does Hamilton have a rank anywhere from 5 to 10?? User:66.245.115.51 00:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) Hamilton is America. He belongs more on Mount Rushmore than Roosevelt or Jefferson. People want to honor those who are excessively naive and can't accept a prophet. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt set Thomas Jefferson as pretty much the patron saint of the United States, Alexander Hamilton was considered as such. In fact his contributions to economics, especially the United States economy, affected the world eventually. Americans live in a Jeffersonian political system with a Hamilton economy. He might not have been one of the most honorable men, but he is extremely important, nonetheless. == Capitalization question I linked the words "Revenue Marine force" to the "Revenue Cutter Service" article. Should the word "force" be capitalized? --User:NoPetrol 00:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) == The Faith-Based Encyclopedia == You're on the news: http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html -- User:Chris 73 User talk:Chris 73 05:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) :Yes and I added him as an explicit reference to that date. While some of his observations were correct, much of his analysis is misplaced. He is however likely to know what he is talking about in this instance. - User:Taxman 14:20, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) ::Being a former Editor in Chief of the Encyclop�dia Britannica may have introduced a bit of bias in his selection and analysis as well. --User:Maveric149 22:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::They're getting ''nervous'' about us. :) -- User:Decumanus 22:49, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC) ::::Hate to be glib but the only innacuracy he could nitpick over was a fact no-one knows anyway --User:Captainsubtext 16:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::I dont think it matters how many perople know that fact, if we get it wrong, then it reflects badly on us, no matter how obscure a fact it is. User:Tooto 03:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::::Err, the issue is that nobody knows what Hamilton's birth year is, so we ''weren't'' actually wrong... User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 07:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) And why the hell is an article in a webzine critical of this very article cited here as a ''reference''? A reference to what? The uncertainty about the year of his birth? That's mentioned on hundred of other sites, and is well-documented. No need to cite this one story. I'm removing it (again). -User:R. fiend 22:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) The author of that article says "Hamilton himself used, and most contemporary biographers prefer, the latter year" [1757] in giving his date of birth. Don't you suppose Hamilton knew how old he was? Why don't we go with what Hamilton said it was, and refer to the other in a footnote? User:Jonathunder 00:38, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC) :It still is not clear. Having looked through several Hamilton biographies today it appears that most of the more recent ones had 1755 as the year of birth. According to one biographer he gave contradictory accounts of his age at various points in his life: "He himself, mentioning his age in several connections (each time approxiamtely), in effect assigned different years for his birth". He cites a few statements he made, putting his year of birth between 1754 and 1757, including: "...in a communication to the Christiansted newspaper, April 6, 1771, signed 'A.H.', he gave his age as 'about seventeen' (that is, born 1754)" (Mitchell, p.12-13). So it isn't clear, and I think the way we have it is the best for now. -User:R. fiend 01:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==References== Were any of the biographies or other items listed at the end used as actual references for this article? If they were they should be properly formatted as such. If not, can someone get a hold of these or another authoritative source and fact check this article? The above webpage criticizes the facts and fact checking so far. - User:Taxman 14:20, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) :Well, the article really only attacked one ''factual'' problem (or rather factual controversy not mentioned: uncertainty of his year of birth, which I sort of addressed, but should probably be mentioned specifically (oh yeah, the years he was Sec. of Treasury too, I think; I didn't address that)), and was more of an attack on style and grammar. I did a pretty quick proofread and edit of the article, and there were some pretty egregious grammar, punctuation, captialization, and punctuation problems. Others should probably do the same; my repair was rather cursory. -User:R. fiend 16:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Removing the reference is irresponsible. The information is taken from that article, so leave it as a reference. I'm sorry I put it back in without looking here, but the removal of a valid reference is what should face the burden of proof, not its addition. - User:Taxman 17:35, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) :::An authoritative reference should be used, if one is used at all. Tech Central Station is a propaganda source, not a scholarly work. It should not be used as a citation, for any article, for any reason, just as one would not use a National Review or Mother Jones article as a citation. ::::Yes tech centeral may well be a load of bollocks, but it WAS this that told us we needed to put in 75, so it should be a reference. Now that in no way stops there being futher references to the same fact, but there is no escaping that that WAS the origanal source for reinserting the 75 date. User:The bellman 05:29, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC) i should have read futher thru the talk page before commenting User:The bellman 05:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC) ==Removed sentence== I removed the following sentence: "General James Wilkinson had also approached Hamilton repeatedly with plans for filibuster (settler) expeditions along the Spanish frontier." If it's to be mentioned it needs some context. It was previously tacked on to the end of the section on Aaron Burr, and was a glaring non-sequitur. I encourage anyone to expand and re-insert it in an appropriate section. -User:R. fiend 17:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Birthyear question == There's some doubt as to Hamilton's birthyear (see [http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html Robert McHenry's review of Wikipedia]). Someone beat me to noting it by a minute or so, but it would be useful if someone could include a new section in the main page noting the sources of the two years. The text "While the day and month of Hamilton's birth are known, there is some uncertainty as to the year, whether it be 1755 or 1757. Hamilton himself used, and most contemporary biographers prefer, the latter year." in the article was a direct copy and paste from the article at http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html. Fixed now. (Someone has reverted this change in wording, perhaps because it was overly verbose and not nearly as elegant as the sentence copied without permission from the critique article. The note still needs to be fixed, therefore.) That same critique of Wikipedia points out this poor phrasing: "Arguably, he set the path for American economic and military greatness, though the benefits might be argued." :did wikipedia just get pwnd? User:Xmnemonic 15:24, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC) :I wrote the original note about the years in question, using my own phrasing and using a separate source. I guess someone thought a word-for-word copy from the critique article was better, for some reason. I reverted it to my wording, which has the advantage of not having to site the mentioned critical article, which seems a sort of asinine thing to link to. If someone wants to site the primary sources of the years in question then they should go ahead, but there is no point in siting another secondary source for general and widely-accpeted information such as this. -User:R. fiend 16:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::[Nitpicking: it's 'cite', not 'site'. User:Mako098765 16:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)] :::Quite right. I have to admit my proofreading of my own writing is more lax on talk pages. And it is a little confusing to cite a website. -User:R. fiend 17:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Currently, Mr. McHenry's article is being cited even though his article never actually uses the quoted passage as written between the quotation marks. :now that is fixed. If the source corraborates the data, it should be listed as a reference. User:R. fiend, if you have another reference that supports that also, please cite it properly too, in the 'Reference' section, as is the accepted practice. - User:Taxman 17:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) ::IMO McHenry's article is pointless to cite as a reference regarding the birth year discrepency. That article is only tangentially concerned with Hamilton and information about the discrepency in birth years in commonly available. If there is a better source that can be readily cited, that is fine, but IMO if we expect every little detail to be substantiated with a citation, then the list of citations will quickly overwhelm the article. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 17:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) :::Very true. It's ridiculous for an article like this to have only a single reference, and for that reference to be an article that basically says "wikipedia is crap". Of the hundreds of facts mentioned in this article, to list one source (let alone the hundreds that could substantiate the year problem) only for this one fact is dumb. If someone wants to cite a source for this, make it the original documents in question. -User:R. fiend 17:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::It is not pointless. It verifies a contended fact explicitly. Until you have a better source properly formatted to verify the fact, please leave this one in. Then please do go get the primary sources and properly format those. McHenry is a relatively respected source, so his article being anti wikipedia is completely irrelevant. You say you have another source for it, so add that. A note without a citation to a primary or secondary source is nearly useless from the standpoint of verifying the material in wikipedia. Having a well researched and properly cited project is an important goal. Removing references doesn't help a bit. Add or replace with better references, don't remove them. - User:Taxman 19:37, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) ==Sources and footnotes== It seems that there is a bit of confusion surrounding the use of footnotes. Let me just point out that footnotes serve two purposes: they can be used to cite sources, and they can be used for further explanation of a point when incorporating it into the main text would be disruptive. The latter is the use here. Inserting a paragraph between the year of birth and year of death at the beginning of the article would be very disruptive, so an explanation is given at the bottom. People have been very anxious to cite a source, any source, for this, but such mundane facts as years of birth and death (even when they are not known with 100% certainty) do not need to be cited; one can get this information almost anywhere, and to pick one as ''the'' source is pointless. : Since McHenry's article is getting fairly wide publicity it makes sense to neutralize his criticism showing that in addition to size and breadth, the wikkipedia also has the advantage in speed over EB and can match it in accuracy. User:Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::True, but we already did that without the citation. -User:R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) Furthermore, an encyclopedia article does not attempt to argue a point, and has no thesis; it attempts to convey factual information that is widely accepted (contrarily, if we decided to choose one year as the "correct" year of his birth, we would need a citation). Hence sources are not needed for most general statements. If one wants to mention what sources were used in the writing of this article, then that is fine, but I fear it's a bit late. Unless the users who contributed the bulk of the information in this article want to list them now, there is little anyone else can do. To mention what source ''may have'' been used (e.g. the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) is silly. :The citation is not showing what source "may" have been used. It is showing the source that was used. User:Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Not really. I was the first one to add the note on the birth years, and I verified it with a different source. I don't even remember which one; google had several. The McHenry article first drew my attention to the problem, I did not take his word alone for it. -User:R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::Yes, really. I verified on Nov 17 2004 and deliberately cited the source, disinguishing between your actions and mine. User:Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) :As the discussion here and McHenry's original article all deemed the lack of a citation to be problematic, and the citation of McHenry's article seemed to be also problematic I deliberately looked up Hamilton's birthdate in the 1911 Enc. Brit. in order to be able to cite a respected source for the information. User:Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) (In fact, arbitrarily using the 1911 Britannica for the year dispute is wrong, as it states 1757 as the year of his birth.) :I'm sorry. I'm not getting the point of this last statement, could you explain why the 1757 date should not be used or whatever it is that you are proposing is wrong with it? I fear I must be missing something obvious. Thanks. (1757 is the date most widely accepted by historians (McHenry) and this citation provides a credible source for that number.) User:Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::My point was that a previous editor used the EB as a source confirming that the year of his birth was uncertain, when, in fact, it says quite the oppsoite, and gives a year without any mention of uncertainy surrounding it. The alteration of the note (which I think may have been your addition) was better, in that it was used only as a source for the 1757 assertion. Still, as R points out below, using a dated EB as a source when many in depth biographies are mentioned just below does seem a bit silly. -User:R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::Yes, I cited 1911 EB as source for 1757. The Biographies are only mentioned and not cited. Please cite one of them if you prefer. I don't have a preference for which reference is cited as long as we cite something. Unfortunately, until somebody goes and looks it up, (Sincerely, Thank you for offerring to do that below, by the way), we don't if any of the biographies deal with the uncertainty. (They may have all done as McHenry says and taken 1757 as the historically accepted date. :-) ) User:Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) Why there is this strong compulsion to cite this one single fact out of the hundreds of facts in this article is beyond me. I notice no one is adding a source that verifies the year of his death. -User:R. fiend 20:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Because of the wide publicity that particular fact and this article are getting right now it needs to be addressed to reduce any damage from McHenry's criticism. I thought it was also Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Cite sources User:Jjk 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :All facts in the article need to be cited if we want to be the most credible possible. :: I agree, but as you note, this is problematic in the post creation phase. User:Jjk :This is one particular fact that is in dispute across sources, and is specifically called into question by a recent article, so it is valuable to cite. Again, removing the citation to a valid source adds no value to wikipedia, adding it is better than none. Primary sources would be the best, but again, something valid is better than nothing. I agree the 1911 Brittanica is not the best reference for the date dispute since it doesn't even reference the dispute. Please put back the properly formatted McHenry citation until primary or better sources are found. Or do you not have the better source you claimed you had, User:R. fiend? - User:Taxman 22:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) ::All facts do not need to be cited. Citing "Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury" is not the sort of fact that anyone should need to cite. Picking one arbitrary source to mention that is inane. The footnote for such a fact might as well read "1. Every single person on the planet who knows anything about the guy", because, let's face it, it's true. We have tens of thousands of articles on people, and we mention the dates of their births (or approximate dates when the exact date is unknown) without citing sources in every single one of them (maybe there are a handfull of exceptions, I don't know). Are those pages all flawed? I have in my hands the 1957 EB, and about the only times it directly cites a specific source is for direct quotations (which do need citations), although it does have a pretty comprehensive bibliography. So I'll tell you what I'll do. Tomorrow, if I have time, I'll go down to the library and find one of those biographies of Hamilton and I'll bet it will tell exactly what the documents are that give the different dates in question. I'll mention those documents in the footnote, and we'll have a valid and useful citation, as opposed to an arbitrary one that doesn't really explain anything. If someone can beat me to this, that's fine. -User:R. fiend 03:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::This is an excellent idea. Please do. I support this completely. User:Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) I just stumbled upon this article and the reference to EB felt silly, considering that it appeared right above a long list of biographies which, I presume, all detail the problem with his year of birth. In case none of them cite it, I apologise and kindly ask you to revert me. User:Rorro 02:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Lets leave that citation intact to neutralize the effect of McHenry's criticism until R. fiend gets the better citation installed. We don't know what any of those biographies contain and without any citation at all, all the readers visiting the page because of McHenry's widely publicized criticism will have no reason to disagree with him. This way it is partially neutralized until R. Fiend van put better info in place. Thanks. User:Jjk 12:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) I have now fixed the footnote, so it explains why there is descrepency and gives two biographies that each address the question pretty thoroughly, but conclude different years as being the proper one. I hope the matter is settled now. -User:R. fiend 20:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Yes, excellent work. I take it those two sources at least you have in front of you? For proper form any articles that have been actually used as references for the material in the article should go into a references section and those that haven't should go in something like a further reading section. So I've created the references section. The 'Biographies' section is a bit misleading because those could either have been used in the article or not. If you have them to refer to or they have in fact been used for material for this article please put them in the references section. And yes, ideally all other important or disputable facts in the article should be similarly cited. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for more, and also Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards for a possibly redundant project focusing on making Wikipedia more credible. - User:Taxman 21:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) ==Reverting== Hi all, please read Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. Reverting is meant only for dealing with ''vandalism''. Not for edits you don't agree with or for those that don't make an article clearly worse. Anything but obvious vandalism or clear worsening of an article should be discussed on the talk page before reverting. - User:Taxman 17:15, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) :Sorry, but I think you are misrepresenting Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. It states that ''You may wish to revert an article to an earlier version, perhaps because it has been vandalised or material has been added or removed inappropriately.'' I'd say that pretty accurately describes the disagreement over this article. I see no clear consensus here as to what is appropriate in way of citation. Certainly, persistent reversions are a bad thing, but that really has not been much of a problem in this case. Discussion is taking place here and without any clear consensus there is nothing that should preclude anyone from making a good faith edit to the article, so long as it doesn't devolve into an edit war. While you may see the inclusion of a particular citation as appropriate and beneficial, someone else may not share your opinion and feel that it is an inappropriate addition that clearly makes the article worse. So far as I can tell, NO ONE has used the rollback function, which is clearly a tool intended for fighting vandalism, but editing an article to add or remove disputed content is justifiable where there is no clear consensus. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 18:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) ::Give me a break. For one thing you're ignoring much of the advice in the article "Note that reverts are not appropriate if a newer version is no better than the older version. You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse." Yes the page is not entirely consistent, but are you seriously claiming a properly cited reference makes an article "actively worse"? And yes it was reverted two times without discussion on the talk page. I ''had'' left a message on the talk page noting the citation as soon as I added it. It was reverted without comment on the talk page. That is not a good faith edit. - User:Taxman 20:31, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) :::Well, R. fiend has made all this moot (thanks). But what you describe as a "properly cited reference" is IMO anything but that. The McHenry piece was laughable as a serious reference and the 1911 EB really did adequately not address the discrepancy in birth dates. so yes, I very honestly think that addition of either of those citations made the page "actively worse". It was reverted two times!!!! OMG such an outrage! Among the worst edit wars ever seen. (Actually I think it was reverted more than twice, but with many intervening edits.) Give me a break. This never got anywhere near being a serious edit war. And there has been rather civil discussion on the talk page througout. I have not seen any recent edits to this article (aside from some obvious vandalism) that would qualify as not being good faith editing. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 21:01, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) ::::Relax, I'm not claiming the worst edit war ever. Simply that reverting a non problematic edit multiple times is bad etiquette and not productive. Not being a serious edit war doesn't mean it was a needed revert. If it was put in multiple times by different editors it is not likely to be that bad an edit. Besides, the guy was former editor of EB, a generally respected source. He is likely to have a good idea what he is talking about, and as it turns out he was correct. And yes, it is now moot as to the issue of this specific citation, but not for the issue of unneccessary reverts. Again, I mentioned the citation on the talk page as a made it. Reverting without comment there is the bigger issue of poor wikiquette. I'm really no longer arguing this specific citation, but just trying to help everyone reallize the policy around reverts so we can be more productive, not waste time reverting. - User:Taxman 21:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) :::::OK, but it was the citation was also removed by multiple editors, so it was not unproblematic. There was discussion on the talk page throughout this episode as far as I can tell. And if you are referring specifically to my reversion of your edit without my making a`specific comment on the talk page first, well I apologize, but I actually don't feel all that guilty about it. I had been monitoring the discussion here and felt that the re-addition of the citation was not warranted based on the discussion at that time (even though to that point I had not actively participated). I did not feel it was necessary for me to jump in with a "me too" when the substantive points had already been expressed. You yourself said you had re-added the citation without first checking the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Alexander_Hamilton&diff=7528703&oldid=7528615]. I agree that it is always helpful to keep wikiquette in mind while editing, but I don't see that anything that transpired here came close to improper wikiquette. When substantive positions have already been expressed on the talk page, it is quite common to encapsulate the discussion in the edit summaries. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 22:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) == self-reference and non-reference == I removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alexander_Hamilton&diff=7754104&oldid=7753724 this] which violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and the McHenry source, which is not a reference without the inappropriate self-reference. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 17:14, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) Someone mentioned Hamilton not honorable. Hamilton may have be the most honorable in a time when scandalmongering was the rule. If you consider his roll in the hay with a deceitful and manipulative woman as proof of his dishonor then perhaps men like Jefferson, Madison and Monroe should have partaken if only to gain some valuable and breathtaking understanding that Hamilton had for the development of his adopted country.. ==Proper form for the references== User:R. fiend, if you still have the sources in front of you can you add the publisher, date, and location information to the references? They look a little anemic at the moment. Thanks - User:Taxman 17:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) :They do, but sorry, I used a university library that I could not sign the books out of, so I photocopied the relevent pages, and unfortunately I didn't consider the title pages. I actually expected they'd be included in the biographies section, and was surprised to find they weren't. I'd think that information must be available on the internet somewhere. If not, next time I'm down that way I'll see if I can find the information, but I don't think I'll make another special trip. If I still have the photocopies, which I think I do, I can be specific about the pages at least. -User:R. fiend 18:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::I'm sure you can find them online, at the publisher's site or amazon perhaps. I looked at one time, but I did not know which version/year you used. If you're not positive either, a trip to check the book again would be ideal. - User:Taxman 18:53, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) :::You know, I'm going away for the holidays and am not going to get to that library before the new year. If you have the info on the books you might as well include it, regardless of the edition. I'm sure all editions include the facts I cited; they don't differ that much. -User:R. fiend 21:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) == New photo? == I am new to Wikipedia, and I hope not to bring any wrath upon myself, but I would like to suggest that the portrait of Hamilton be replaced. I think [http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/viewer.html?http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pinfo?Object=570+0+noneluxfiathttp://www.nga.gov/image/a00002/a000027a.jpgluxfiat313luxfiat390 John Trumbull's c.1806] is much more flattering, though I admit I know nothing of the comparative accuracy of the two. == The Reynolds Affair == Alexander Hamilton wrote the confession of his own accord. He gave a copy to each James Monroe, Abraham Venable, and Frederick Muhlenberg. Hamilton believed that Monroe was ultimately responsible for leaking the information to the press and never forgave him.

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

A