Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 16 November 2004

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?? 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? --NoPetrol 00:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia

You're on the news: http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html -- Chris 73 Talk 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. - Taxman 14:20, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Being a former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica may have introduced a bit of bias in his selection and analysis as well. --mav 22:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They're getting nervous about it. :) -- 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 --Captainsubtext 16:41, 16 Nov 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 site this one story. I'm removing it (again). -R. fiend 22:48, 15 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. - 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. -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. - Taxman 17:35, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence: "General James Wilkinson had also approached Hamilton repeatedly with plans for filibuster 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. -R. fiend 17:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Birthyear question

There's some doubt as to Hamilton's birthyear (see Robert McHenry's review of Misplaced Pages). 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 Misplaced Pages points out this poor phrasing: "Arguably, he set the path for American economic and military greatness, though the benefits might be argued."

did[REDACTED] just get pwnd? ✈ James C. 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. -R. fiend 16:30, 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. -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.