Talk:Alexander Hamilton

Assfly discussion, diff and link.

• http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly%2FArchive20&diff=199172&oldid=148050
• http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive20#Notice_of_likely_blocking

more off-mission bio

I propose removing the first half of this article. It'll start with "Perhaps Hamilton's greatest contribution..." ^{Stu the Foo'} 02:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? ħuman 03:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see any reason to discuss people's biographies in detail; a quick list of their accomplishments is fine. Articles like this should be more about cheap laughs the subject's stance on religious and philosophical matters, and their contributions to the American experiment. ^{Stu the Foo'} 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, I guess. Generic bio material is the sort of thing we'll never cover as well as WP does. On the other hand, a little bit goes a long way, and I think what would make more sense would be to have a "brief biography" section, before we get into "why" we have an article on the person. ħuman 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to put something together. ^{Stu the Foo'} 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Needing RWification

I tried my hand at it. Let the flame war begin! --Sethpeck (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, my bad...I had Hamilton and Gallatin switched in my mind when I mentioned Libertarians (Total WTF, eh Neb?) --Sethpeck (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential edits to this page based on Chernow's biography of Hamilton

Having recently finished the book in question, I'm noticing that although it's cited as a source, this article contains a lot of arguments or positions on Hamilton contrary to Chernow's. For instance, it repeats a lot of assertions about Hamilton that Chernow attributes to opponents' smear machines rather than to Hamilton's actual behavior or positions—a really prime example of this is calling him a '(crypto)monarchist,' which was more or less just the snarl word (if I understand this wiki's usage of that term correctly) du jour in the time period. I'm talking like crazy fuckin' wack rumors that Hamilton wanted to bring one of George III's sons over and crown him king of America—stuff like that. Characterizing Hamilton as right-wing (let alone 'far' right) and implying that Madison, Jefferson, et al. are left wing kind of misses the point of contemporary politics, which, at least according to Chernow, do not map onto our current right-left concepts in any meaningful way. Were Hamilton and the Federalists elitist? Sure. Were Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans not elitist? Absolutely fuckin' not; they were just better at pretending to be populist. It was more like city-dwelling (Northern) elites vs. plantation-owning (Southern) elites than the common people vs. the Big Man.

But I'm new to this wiki, obviously, and I'm not exactly sure if those sort of historical points are... appropriate to its focus, I want to say? Like, if I were to edit the stuff about Hamilton wanting to form an aristocracy and yadda yadda, would that make this article less true to RationalWiki's purpose? Advice would be appreciated. Esoteric24 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about Hamilton, but the article is lacking in references for most of the extreme claims it makes. Obviously Hamilton can't sue, but maybe someone could have a look at the article and see what is justifiable. --Annanoon (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I agree that "monarchist" was a snarl word, given that that was the primary plank in the party platform of the reactionaries in France in that same time frame. I can absolutely believe though, that some of the information is factually incorrect and derived from inaccurate sources. Please correct what you think is wrong. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I was speaking about the American political milieu specifically with regard to "monarchists," apologies if that wasn't clear. (Although I'd argue that a label that at one point would get you guillotined whether or not it was true counts as a snarl word in France, too.) The issue with this article is that most of it isn't untrue, strictly speaking, or at least not counter to concrete facts; whether or not he was "basically an aristocratic narcissist," to pick one phrase, is ultimately subjective. I don't think it's true, and neither does Ron Chernow (who, as the author of the most comprehensive Hamilton biography in recent memory, read every one of the millions and millions of words Hamilton wrote in his lifetime, not to mention the words of those around him), but disagreeing with one prominent historian's perspective doesn't make whoever made that claim wrong. It sounds like I should be okay correcting statements like that in spite of that, though? I just don't want to buck an established community consensus or anything like that. (I'm unsure, for instance, if one person who really hates banks wrote most of that article, or if twenty-five people have all agreed that banks totally suck in the process of establishing that.) Thanks for the input! I'll start drafting.

(Quick logistical question that I can't find in the style guide: I'm going to be citing Chernow's book approximately 20,000 times. Should I include a <ref> after every sentence? Every paragraph? Should I include page numbers even when I'm paraphrasing, or just if I quote? Is there a preferred or common format for book citations—MLA, Chicago, what have you—or does anything go?) Esoteric24 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)