Talk:Alexander Hamilton

• Copied Alexander Hamilton (oldid, history) → Alexander Hamilton and slavery (diff) on 18:36, 20 October 2016
• Copied Alexander Hamilton (oldid, history) → List of things named after Alexander Hamilton (diff) on 10:03, 27 November 2022
• Copied Alexander Hamilton (oldid, history) → Cultural depictions of Alexander Hamilton (diff) on 07:07, 28 November 2022

I suggest you either delete: "The consensus of mainstream scholars and historians who have addressed the underlying question of whether Lavien was Jewish, such as Ron Chernow, is that the assertion is not credible." OR substitute with something like: "Mainstream scholars are divided on the question of The foregoing statement is not accurate. I wrote The Jewish World of Alexander Hamilton, which is cited in the notes and which argues that there is a probabilistic case that Hamilton and Lavien had a Jewish identity. Numerous leading scholars have endorsed the book's findings. Professor Jonathan Sarna, the world's leading authority on American Jewish history, described the research as "remarkable." Professor Stephen Knott, formerly of the University of Virginia, described it as "truly a pathbreaking work." Professor Stephen Whitfield, of Brandeis University, described it as "inge­nious." Pulitzer Prize winning scholar and Harvard professor Annette Gordon Reed described it as "provocative and intriguing." The book was published by Princeton University Press and won the Journal of the American Revolution Book-of-the-Year Award. It is simply not accurate for Wikipedia to dismiss the idea as a fringe theory. To be sure, it would be inaccurate to say there's now consensus that Hamilton likely was Jewish. But it is equally inaccurate to say that there's consensus he was not. The basis for the foregoing statement in Wikipedia is a short passage in Chernow's book. But Chernow made no special study of the topic whereas I dedicated an entire peer-reviewed book to it. It makes little sense to imply or suggest that his book refutes my findings when Chernow's book was written nearly twenty years earlier and thus did not engage my findings nor look at the reams of evidence from the Caribbean that I surfaced. 2600:8800:1B02:F300:81F9:253:808E:893C (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done: The article already acknowledges your book. Without having read your book, this sounds to me like you want your view to be more prominently considered without any other sources. Ultraodan (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Ultraodan, the IP makes a good point in that a full on-topic peer-reviewed book written decades after another cited work should change a word or two in the sentence which includes "...not credible". The IP should list some of their best sources from the book to strengthen the case for the requested change, and/or consider becoming a Wikipedia editor themselves to both learn and climb the ropes here. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

hey can you please respond on Jesus. @Randy Kryn wanna get this over with HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The only relevance your comment has to this discussion is that Jesus was Jewish, otherwise please read WP:CIVILITY, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

how does jesus being jewish have anything to do with this alexander hamilton discussion, and i need consensus just say yes or no to the image i linked please. they don't me to get consensus then ghost me for no apparent reason. i know WP:CIVILITY but i've been ignored for hours now and i'm fed up. please just go to the jesus talk page so we can finish off the discussion. remsense left and i don't know what to do. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

HumansRightsIsCool, it doesn't, and neither does your jumping into this discussion to mention another. Nobody is ghosting you, Wikipedia conversations often go on for weeks, it's the lay of the land here. It's also Wikipolite to ping others editors when mentioning them by name (Remsense), even in a tangential way. Since you came here maybe you can comment on this interesting issue. An IP claiming to be an author of a prize-winning book is concerned that their work and its findings are being ignored within the page wording as well as that wording implying that this author's conclusions are not credible. In my opinion not enough authors challenge Wikipedia wording in such a way, and to do so is commendable as regards defense of their research subject and to care enough that Wikipedia gets it right. I hope that they return and continue this defense. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the original poster here. The claim I'm making in this discussion isn't about Hamilton's possible Jewish identity but rather a claim about how my book has been received by scholars (and the reason I'm putting forward a claim about the book's reception is because I'm responding to Wikipedia's claim about reception: "The consensus of mainstream scholars and historians who have addressed the underlying question of whether Lavien was Jewish, such as Ron Chernow, is that the assertion is not credible.") To be clear, I'm not asking Wikipedia to litigate the theory of Hamilton's Jewish identity.I'm merely asking Wikipedia to correct a claim about the book's reception among scholars. This website, from Princeton University Press, has collated together the responses from many scholars that I mentioned in my initial post above:

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691237282/the-jewish-world-of-alexander-hamilton

The comments from these scholars, many of whom are experts in the field at leading universities, plainly demonstrates that this Alexander Hamilton entry misleads its readers into believing that my book has elicited a consensus--a consensus that the book is not credible. The above cited sources, gathered by a world- leading academic publisher, demonstrates at the very least that there is no such consensus. 2600:8800:1B02:F300:A437:FD6C:2D59:DA53 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Since this topic is semi-protected, I'm not capable of doing it myself. I would appreciate it if someone could link Hercules Mulligan, Revolutionary War/Early Military Career - second paragraph, to his corresponding article. Thanks. BruceHoudini (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Peaceray (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Isn't the lead section awfully long by Wikipedia standards? --142.112.149.206 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, it is. Good catch! I'll fix this later. Ali Beary _(talk!) 19:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The topic is such that a longer lead presents it in appropriate totality. The majority of readers won't get past the lead of any article, and essential topics such as Alexander Hamilton should provide an adequate stand-alone lead summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]