This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zyairah224 (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 22 May 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:55, 22 May 2023 by Zyairah224 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander Hamilton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Alexander Hamilton has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|
pussy as crale
Portrait change
@Shoreranger, SwensonJ, Baguetteboing, and KAYTRA: I have mentioned you all here because of my editing of the portrait of Alexander Hamilton provided in the infobox. As the conversation on my talk page has gone to a standstill, I am opening a conversation on this article's talk page to discuss this in a more appropriate location than a user talk page and so that people who didn't read my previous edit summary can voice their opinions. I will not change the infobox portrait for now to not cause another edit war, but I firmly stand with the belief that the 1792 portrait is way better than both the 1802 and 1806 portraits. I am open to counter-arguments to this statement. Luxtay the IInd () 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- The 1802 portrait is by a huge margin closer to the likeness of the Alexander Hamilton (Ceracchi) bust Hamilton sat for, neither of which bear much resemblance to the 1792 portrait. Shoreranger (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The image is massively cropped and depicts Hamilton out of office. Now I'm not going to change it yet but just be aware that I don't agree with your change (maybe unless you can find the full original portrait). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- If what you mean by "out of office" is that the image depicts him after he was no longer the Secretary of the Treasury, I fail to see the significance. If it is a good likeness of him as an adult, what difference does it make?
- You can find an image of the full portrait here, for what it's worth:
- If what you mean by "out of office" is that the image depicts him after he was no longer the Secretary of the Treasury, I fail to see the significance. If it is a good likeness of him as an adult, what difference does it make?
- The image is massively cropped and depicts Hamilton out of office. Now I'm not going to change it yet but just be aware that I don't agree with your change (maybe unless you can find the full original portrait). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Trumball portrait was also cropped as I recall. (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still prefer the portrait that they use at the Treasury website or the portrait that's used on the $10 bill. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- This?: https://home.treasury.gov/about/history/prior-secretaries/alexander-hamilton-1789-1795#main-content Shoreranger (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I meant the one that you replaced. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you okay with this image as a compromise? It's an official portrait of him as Secretary of the Treasury in 1792 and looks fairly close to your 1802 portrait. Most importantly, it looks official (and doesn't depict Hamilton in a depressed state after the death of his son in 1801). Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, not OK.
- For one thing, that is the portrait I edited out in the first place. Secondly, as I have already contended, it i not "fairly close" to the 1802 portrait I substituted it with. Third, while I have provided a ink to another portrait directly from the Treasury website, there is conversely no indication that the portrait you suggest is "official" in any way. Finally, it is speculation as to what "state" Hamilton was in for the portrait I propose, but it is irrelevant anyway. Shoreranger (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- This?: https://home.treasury.gov/about/history/prior-secretaries/alexander-hamilton-1789-1795#main-content Shoreranger (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still prefer the portrait that they use at the Treasury website or the portrait that's used on the $10 bill. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Trumball portrait was also cropped as I recall. (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
- I actually meant the 1806 posthumous image of Hamilton, that is most frequently used when referring to Hamilton. The 1806 image is the one used for Alexander Hamilton articles on the Mount Vernon website, the National Park Service website, and the Department of the Interior website (you can scroll down Google forever after searching for "Alexander Hamilton" without seeing the 1802 portrait without having to try to find it on Google images, even then, only two websites uses that image). The Ron Chernow book on Hamilton, which inspired the play Hamilton, uses the 1806 portrait on its front-cover (I can't even find a book on Hamilton that uses that 1802 image on Google in comparison). As a counter-point, it appears that his portrait on the Treasury article doesn't use that 1806 image, but it is based on the 1806 portrait and based on the opinions on the Talk Page of the Frederick the Great article, using portraits done many years after their deaths is not ideal (the Treasury portrait was done 80 years after Hamilton's death). The 1806 image, however dramatized, was done just two years after Hamilton's death and is in my opinion, artistically most suitable to be the infobox photo, not the 1802 image. Being historically accurate is one thing, but the presentation or suitability of an image on an infobox representing an important historical person as Hamilton is another.
In comparison, even if your portrait is the most "accurate" portrait, your portrait is square (while the full sized one is low-res). The artist, Ezra Miller, is largely unknown compared to the more famous Turnbull (Miller has a very distinctive style but it seems as if he uses the same pose over and over in his paintings). Your portrait depicts Hamilton ten years after leaving office and in the midst of depression following the death of his eldest son in a duel (according to this post by the Albany Institute of History & Art on Facebook, "The portrait captured a pensive and somber Hamilton who was still mourning the death of his eldest son, Philip, who was killed in a duel in 1801 at age nineteen."), so I don't see how this is the most "realistic portrait", if you don't give any historical evidence. The 1806 portrait is also exclusively used on many foreign language Wiki articles of Hamilton (and on this page prior to the Misplaced Pages phenomenon of everybody seemingly wanting to get a piece of the pie in editing Misplaced Pages infobox photos since the pandemic).
If this debate continues to go nowhere, then I'll have to request a third opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I actually meant the 1806 posthumous image of Hamilton, that is most frequently used when referring to Hamilton. The 1806 image is the one used for Alexander Hamilton articles on the Mount Vernon website, the National Park Service website, and the Department of the Interior website (you can scroll down Google forever after searching for "Alexander Hamilton" without seeing the 1802 portrait without having to try to find it on Google images, even then, only two websites uses that image). The Ron Chernow book on Hamilton, which inspired the play Hamilton, uses the 1806 portrait on its front-cover (I can't even find a book on Hamilton that uses that 1802 image on Google in comparison). As a counter-point, it appears that his portrait on the Treasury article doesn't use that 1806 image, but it is based on the 1806 portrait and based on the opinions on the Talk Page of the Frederick the Great article, using portraits done many years after their deaths is not ideal (the Treasury portrait was done 80 years after Hamilton's death). The 1806 image, however dramatized, was done just two years after Hamilton's death and is in my opinion, artistically most suitable to be the infobox photo, not the 1802 image. Being historically accurate is one thing, but the presentation or suitability of an image on an infobox representing an important historical person as Hamilton is another.
- The 1806 Trumball portrait would be fine, as found on the Naitonal Portrait Gallery webpage here: https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.79.216?destination=portraits Shoreranger (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Short description
Hi @Shoreranger, you reverted my edit to the short description by saying there was consensus made on the talk page to include the years of birth/death in the short description. I can't find the consensus you're talking about in the archives. Could you link me to that discussion? BappleBusiness 17:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the article's current primary portrait
The current portrait being used to portray Hamilton at the top of the article is not Hamilton. The portrait was painted by John Trumbull two years after Hamilton's death, meaning that the portrait is merely what Trumbull remembers Hamilton looking like. There are many other contemporary portraits of Hamilton to choose from, some of which were also painted by Trumbull, that provide a much more accurate depiction of Hamilton particularly in his later years. Thank you for your consideration. UnbearableIsBad (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Second Armed League of Neutrality and the Jay Treaty
This article states that Hamilton revealed to the British the American decision not to join the second league of armed neutrality and that this weakened Jay's hand in dealing with the British. Since the Jay treaty was negotiated in 1794 and the second league of armed neutrality did not come about until 1800, the article cannot possibly be correct. Please make the necessary corrections. 187.230.125.253 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Categories: