Talk:Burr–Hamilton duel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBurr–Hamilton duel was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 27, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 11, 2007, July 11, 2008, July 11, 2009, July 11, 2012, July 11, 2015, and July 11, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article

Portraits?[edit]

I was surprised that there are no portraits of either Hamilton or Burr in this article. Do any exist? There is a photo of "Bust from 1935", but it doesn't say of whom. Presumably Hamilton or Burr, but which one? Quentin Durward (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Hooliganish" in the Background Section[edit]

I noticed in the Background section that the word "Hooliganish" is in quotes - does this mean that it's a direct quote from a contemporary source (1801) ? The link on the word "Hooliganish" points to the page on Hooliganism which states that "The term hooligan has been used since at least the mid 1890s — when it was used to describe the name of a street gang in London". Is there a source for that earlier usage ? Aaron Burr was a guy with harry potter like glasses. Search him on google images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.120.64 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) MeBeMe3000 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent contradiction[edit]

The article cites an expert as surmising that Burr didn't mean to kill Hamilton: "What is possible, but beyond the reach of the available evidence, is that Burr really missed his target, too, that his own fatal shot, in fact, was accidental." However, the article later says of Burr that "there is little doubt that he had every intention of seeking full satisfaction from Hamilton by blood." (O hai, purple prose.) That latter statement seems to be contradictory with the opinion of the previously-cited expert.


-Based on the quote you provided, it seems like the expert was simply stating a theory which they believed to have little evidence to support it. Then, the expert later stated the theory they think is much more likely. Could be wrong tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:DE00:68:EC22:10E5:A536:40B8 (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "shotless duel"?[edit]

In the background section it says,

"Hamilton had been a principal in 10 shotless duels prior to his fatal encounter with Burr, including duels with William Gordon (1779), Aedanus Burke (1790), John Francis Mercer (1792–1793), James Nicholson (1795), James Monroe (1797), and Ebenezer Purdy/George Clinton (1804)."

The term "shotless duel" is apparently an obscure one as it does not return any relevant information when searched on the internet. It might be inferred that it refers to a duel where those who would normally shoot at each other for some reason decline to fire shots, but a definition or a link to a definition would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.86.178 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Including that statement is provocative to any thoughtful reader. It sends the reader down a time-wasting google search for citations or a credible overview. A direct citation or footnote is needed... or ideally, a link to a subsection of the WP article on 'duel' (I added a talk request there too). DKEdwards (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


im not the one who wrote this but I assume a shotless duel is when the two party's decide not to shoot each other as they reach a peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.45.149 (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hair trigger[edit]

I am removing the following statement from the pistols section: "According to Louisiana State University history professors Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg, "Hamilton brought the pistols, which had a larger barrel than regular dueling pistols, and a secret hair-trigger, and were therefore much more deadly."[40][41] They conclude that "Hamilton gave himself an unfair advantage in their duel, and got the worst of it anyway."[40]. The reason for this is that the citation is to a Salon.com article about Michelle Bachmann titled "What Michelle Bachmann doesn't know about history". It is not a scholarly article, nor is it even an article about the Burr-Hamilton duel, and the specific part quoted is mentioned only in passing, as an off hand comment within parentheses. I feel the attributing it to "Louisiana State University history professors" and using language such as "They conclude that..." is misleading. This is not a conclusion they reached in the course of a scholarly dissertation, it is a parenthetical aside within the context of an opinion article about an unrelated subject. If a better source can be found for this, if they actually produced scholarly writings about this subject, then feel free to add it back in with better citations. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Alexander's Son Philip Hamilton[edit]

Philip Hamiltons portrait in this article is the same portrait shown for William Hamilton, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Hamilton Anyone know if this is William or Philip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.126.73 (talk)

For context of others here, as discussed on Talk:Philip Hamilton and Talk:William S. Hamilton, there are two books of roughly the same era (first decade of the 1900s) that use this same image, one for Philip, and one for William. I added the image here from the pro-Philip book without knowing about the second book.
The biggest thing in favor of the William Hamilton theory is some Wikipedian-sleuthing, which argues that the clothing in the photo was in vogue 15-20 years after Philip died. The biggest pro-Philip arguments are that the book that captions the photo as Philip was written by a family member, and that Chernow (apparently, I only own the audiobook) also uses this photo for Philip.
Thoughts from this group about how to resolve the issue very welcome! —Luis (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further followup: on re-reading the introduction, the book that says this is Philip was written by Philip's nephew, which I had not previously realized. Obviously he never knew his uncle (his father was born after the uncle was killed) but I'm inclined to treat it as more accurate than the other book. —Luis (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for challenge, according to Gore Vidal[edit]

I have added a sentence to the "Popular Culture" section, pointing out that in Burr, Gore Vidal says that the reason for the challenge was that Hamilton publicly alleged that Burr had had incestuous sex with his (Burr's) own daughter! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Burr–Hamilton duel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burr-Hamilton Duel[edit]

The photograph showing the pistols used in the Burr-Hamilton duel cannot be the pistols used in the duel. One pistol is a full stocked flintlock and the other a half stocked percussion lock. Secondly, as the article states that "hair triggers" were part of the pistols, examination will show that both pistols have but one trigger. Neither pistol sports a set or hair trigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:408:503:4FD0:19B:1A13:6998:2FA (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burr–Hamilton duel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed][edit]

The last two paragraphs of the paragraph of the duel, including a long apparent quote, are without specific source. Book or other is needed, with page number, for this to be a good article. 98.228.192.239 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the Alexander Hamilton killing[edit]

has been added to the List of assassinated American politicians. There is a discussion about this move happening on the talk page, so come on over and offer an opinion. Carptrash (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A duel is not an assassination. He does not belong on that list, so I've removed him. —Dilidor (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wtf??[edit]

I was reading through this, and I saw this part of the letter: "it is undischarged, and still cocked" What??? Why did Hamilton think he hadn't fired?? Why isn't this mentioned anywhere?? I'm so confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper0333 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary spin on Washington's Farwell Address[edit]

This line, in Burr-Hamilton duel#Background, needs to be revised:

"There were only proto-political parties at the time, as disdainfully noted in President Washington's Farewell Address, and no shared tickets."

This wording makes it appear as if Washington were lamenting a lack of partisan politics at the time.

Quite the opposite, he was lamenting the development of partisan politics from what had, for a short time, been a contiguous (if contentious) body.

His statement was a warning to those in power and the people not to submit to factionalism and the ensuing degradation of functional governance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.189.117.167 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton burr dele[edit]

I think Hamilton life was so fascinating even though he cheated on his wife of over 10 years I think that burr should’ve died instead sorry to all the burr fans 2600:1014:B0C1:5780:D121:BEFA:C9EB:A823 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burr–Hamilton_duel&oldid=1206486729"