![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I edited the background section to include the election of 1800. Currently it is crudely done and unsourced, but I feel it is vital in understanding the long-lasting bitter opposition between Hamilton and Burr. 75.23.137.30 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 75.23.137.30 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that the article is slightly biased making Hamilton seem like the good guy. This may be unavoidable as most sources do put Hamilton in the good light, but it still should be examined. 75.23.137.30 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably should wait for the story to fully develop before devoting much time to the hunting accident's relevance in the Hamilton-Burr duel entry. Ucsbalan 10:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Dick Cheney was the first sitting Vice-President since Aaron Burr to shoot a person. That warrants inclusion in the Hamilton-Burr duel article. The details can be referred to the Dick Cheney hunting incident link.
Now that the Burr article includes a category about VP's shooting people, we can remove the Triva reference here - a reference that actually had nothing to do with the Burr-Hamilton incident in the first place. Rklawton 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the best features of wikipedia is that you can start reading an article about Apples and end up in an article about Ninja rocks. See Wikipedia:Build the web. I for one am sick and tired of single users deciding that events which get huge amounts of coverage in mainstream media are simply not notable. Perhaps it is true that you personally do not care about them. But that does not mean that they should not be included in the project. I dare you to propose Dick Cheney hunting incident or Harry Whittington for deletion. It won't happen. There is an obvious connection between these events. A Vice President shooting someone is inherently notable; we don't need to wait 10 years to figure that out. There should be some mention of this in the article. I propose a simple, "See also" section. savidan (talk) (e@) 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the best account of the event was catalogued in the writings of a local stable-boy, Jake Simons, who secretly watched the event from afar. His journal was later published, although his writings and record of his business are now lost. citation needed
If you can source this then put it back in. Cheers, savidan (talk) (e@) 04:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys... we're grown people here. This Cheney thing is just downright adolescent. I wish people would just get a clue about what does and doesn't have real importance (and I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, please...). Just step back and take a look. --
DanielCD 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the edits in question above, I think you've made some really nice improvements to the article. The disputed edits revolve around adding an incident that occurred 200 years after the duel to the duel article. The fact that the two examples you provided make excellent illustrations against your case should convince you that the edit in question should be removed. Your unwillingness to discuss the matter and your threat to undo any changes is entirely inappropriate in this media. As an experienced editor, you know this. I suggest you sleep on this and reconsider. Rklawton 00:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well clearly, good sirs, this calls for a gentlemens duel. The winner shall be entitled to either insert or ban the said remarks as it relates in our present time to the aforementioned fiasco of our good Vice President, Mr. cheney. Tis' truly the only way to solve said argument, ahrun ahrum! Good day
67.171.17.174 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've passed the GA nomination for this article. A few comments toward future FA consideration: the introduction is much too short. It ought to summarize the context and significance of this duel, which is arguably the most significant in United States history. A good introduction for this article would be three to four times longer than the present introduction. I also doubt the "contemporary" illustration really is contemporary since the clothing depicted in the sketch is more in the style of the 1780s than the early nineteenth century. That looks like the kind of mistake an illustrator from several generations later would make. Finally the citations to online sources ought to include an access date so that readers can view the appropriate material on the Internet Wayback machine in case the referenced site changes. Other than that, good work and best wishes toward future FA status. Durova 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a good deal of information off some excellent primary sources I ran across. If anyone else wants to check them out and help get this article to FA status, please read them and add in relevant facts. Here they are: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/burr/burr_duel.cfm
Also something that needs to be added is the role of women into this purely male occurance. Such as Hamilton's wife not even knowing of the duel taking place until after his death. I'll look for sources on that later.
A few edits on my part to correct what I feel is a pro-Hamilton bias and give this article a more neutral tone.
btswanfury 17:47, 25 January 2007 (EST)
In the Aftermath section I changed that Hamilton was nominally an Episcopalian, to that he was an Episcopalian. Short of evidence that his religous beliefs were in name only, (and none is supplied), it should be assumed his belief was sincere. It can be argued either way, but without evidence, his own letters and esp. his asking for a confessor as he lay dying should preclude the 'nominal Episcopalian' phrase. jbarntt 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
In the Aftermath section I changed that G. Morris secretly founded a fund to support Hamilton's widow and kids to that Morris privately did so. "Secretly" implies something disreputable, or underhanded. Morris sought funds from friends of Hamilton, nothing more. It was only "secret" in that he did not advertise in newspapers for the general public. jbarntt 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt ( talk ⢠contribs)
The founder of the above society wrote several works regarding this matter, for fairly obvious reasons, I think. The organization's web site is [: http://www.aaronburrassociation.org/]. There is just cause for speculating, as I remember reading earlier, that Hamilton may have intentionally provoked the duel as a way to effectively commit suicide after he suffered serious financial reverses. I did myself have to write a theme in my first year at college on the subject, and as I recall the reconstruction of events could easily support that hypothesis. Don't actually know of any sources which make that point, though, but some might be found at the website above or by contacting the association. Badbilltucker 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to play sides, but most academic sources (books, articles, monographs, historic signs, television documentaries) refer to Burr first in titling the duel. Typically duels are named challenger-challengee. Google is about even...785 for B-H, 782 for H-B, but many of the sites have both names, so it's largely a case of inconsistency. Should it be moved? â ExplorerCDT 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I intend to get my hands messy on fixing up this article so possibly it could be an featured article. â ExplorerCDT 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Burr-Hamilton is correct as it is most common in my experiences. 75.23.137.30 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a source confirming that Hamilton was involved with 10 duels prior? I can't find anything else on this, especially since I was informed that Hamilton was apposed to them. Thanks.
I've heard that he was in 22 "honor disputes" prior. I want to say that this came from the Freedman Article dueeling as politics. As I understand it an honor dispute leads to a duel. change it? Gpepe13 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Since The New Yorker published a book review [2] siting the duel's date as June 11, 1804, the article has been changed to this, then reverted to July 11, 1804 and then reverted to June, where it now stands. I believe the June date is wrong (see any number of examples, such as [3], [4], [5], [6] or [7]. The New Yorker is, I believe, in error. I am new to editing Wikipedia pages, so I am unsure how to proceed. Rather than engage in a battle to correct this, I am leaving this note here. Cutfromthetop 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Every article i've read has said July. Gpepe13 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I like seeing illustrations with Wikipedia articles, but found this picture unsatisfying in several respects. The style is blatantly not "contemporary" with the event discussed, so I looked for the source reference, and was disappointed to find:
"Alexander Hamilton dueling with Aaron Burr. From http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/0/6/4/10644/10644-h/Illus0368.jpg, a Gutenberg file of a 1902 book."
The Gutenberg in-line link is broken, as it violates their policies on in-line linking. The artist "J. Mund" does not appear on Artnet, and despite a good-faith effort, a 30-minute search did not uncover for me the title of the work nor biographical data regarding the artist.
I would be grateful if the original poster would cite the source for the illustration in some standard format, and if the art is a romantic 1902 version of an event that occurred nearly a century earlier, I'd suggest the word "contemporary" be removed from the caption as misleading.
Perhaps photographs of the site, weapons, or portraits of the men themselves would better suit the article.
Euphronius 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made multiple corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and if progress is being made then the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Here are the points that need to be addressed:
Needs inline citations:
I'll leave messages on the talk pages of the contributors of this article (using WikiDashBoard) along with any related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. The above issues shouldn't take too long to fix and if you have any questions about them let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
After leaving the article on hold for over a week and no corrections were made, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the above corrections are made, the article can be renominated at WP:GAR. I would also recommend giving the article a good copyedit as well. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good aritcle reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
When I notice the position on your map, and I notice the location of the present day monument, and when I notice the roads and railroads that have been built through the location at the bottom of the cliff, I have come to suspect that the northern branch of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail now runs through or very close to the duel site, alongside the road next to the system, and that Port Imperial is probably the nearest stop. Trouble is, this is WP:OR, and so I have put this on the talk page rather than the main. Hmmm. 68.36.214.143 ( talk) 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The "contemporary" drawing of the Burr-Hamilton duel is not historically accurate.
For starters, it shows six persons in addition to the duelists: two "seconds," three other by-standers, and someone by the coach. In fact, only the two seconds were that close to the scene. A doctor, named Hosack, was waiting below the ledge on which the duel was fought and came to the scene only after Hamilton was shot.
As far as the coach, the duelists and the seconds arrived by row boat from Manhattan, and the ledge on which the duel was fought was inaccessible by coach.
Additionally, the scene appears to take place on a winter day, given the leafless trees and the clothing of the participants, but the duel was fought on a sunny July morning.
Since the day the duel was fought, there have been many myths and inaccuracies surrounding it. 38.115.185.130 ( talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Friend of Colonel Burr âPreceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.185.130 ( talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Why does the illustration depict an autumn scene? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.62.101 ( talk) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked up shot-less duels on google and there is exactly 1 page with that expression- this page. I don't what it means. A duel where they pointed fingers at each other? Everyone chickened out? A little explanation would be nice. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Rodeored ( talk ⢠contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit included two bits on the duel in Pop culture, one being an SNL skit and the other being the 'Got Milk" commercial. From the viewpoint of someone who grew up during that commercials popularity and who wasn't a history buff (still am not...) that was actually my first exposure to the duel, no thanks to school or even the fact that I live not just in the state but less than 10 minutes from it!. My point is that I could imagine the inclusion of the commercial, properly referenced of course, in this article and was anticipating finding it in here and was surprised it wasn't (although I bet there have been some who have tried unsuccessfully) It is mentioned and referenced in both the Got Milk article and the Aaron Burr article, and on a side note, there is a Facebook group claiming the only way they knew about the duel was through the commercial (I know this is not a great support tool as there are FB groups for practically everything). I am not trying to start a revert war or anything, but I am going to make an addition unless there are great outcries in the opposition (still might :)) - Theornamentalist ( talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a request for citation after "The guns are on display on the first floor lobby of 353 Madison Avenue in Manhattan". The ground floor at this address is now part of a J Crew retail store, and it seems an unlikely place for historical display. WCCasey ( talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere is mentioned the distance at which combatants stood. Certainly this would assist in helping to determine Hamilton's intentions. Mr. Pendleton's statement that the limb of the cedar tree (struck by the ball)was 12 1/2 feet above a point on the ground 4 feet to the side of Burr's centerline, and 13 to 14 feet from the mark where Hamilton stood, makes no sense. Since the tree was (unspecified distance)behind Burr, this would put the combatants 10 feet or less apart, or else the branch overhang extending 10 or so feet over Burr towards Hamilton to create a respectble distance. In either case the angle of fire would be so extreme as to indicate an intentional throw away.
99.34.226.231 ( talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
WCCasey ( talk) 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Further, Hamilton's death fatally weakened the fledgling remnants of the Federalist Party which, following the death of George Washington five years earlier in 1799, was left without a strong leader." This quote in the beginning of the first paragraph seems to contradict the fact that Washington had no allegiance to a specific party, and so could not be the leader of the leader of the federalist party. Furthermore, Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist party, and so, because of Hamilton's death, the party itself came to a halt. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington Na217253 ( talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Please insure consistency in quotes in the article. The article should not quote "Pendleton knows that I did not intend to fire at him" and then "Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at Col. Burr the first time" a few paragraphs later. Some guy ( talk) 10:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I see where someone flagged the article as factually inaccurate. I reviewed at least the past six months of discussion but nothing is said about that. In my estimation the article has errors but is of a general quality not to warrant such a bold flag. If you are among those who feel the flag is warranted, please renew or state your objections. DanielM ( talk) 16:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I edited the background section to include the election of 1800. Currently it is crudely done and unsourced, but I feel it is vital in understanding the long-lasting bitter opposition between Hamilton and Burr. 75.23.137.30 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 75.23.137.30 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that the article is slightly biased making Hamilton seem like the good guy. This may be unavoidable as most sources do put Hamilton in the good light, but it still should be examined. 75.23.137.30 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably should wait for the story to fully develop before devoting much time to the hunting accident's relevance in the Hamilton-Burr duel entry. Ucsbalan 10:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Dick Cheney was the first sitting Vice-President since Aaron Burr to shoot a person. That warrants inclusion in the Hamilton-Burr duel article. The details can be referred to the Dick Cheney hunting incident link.
Now that the Burr article includes a category about VP's shooting people, we can remove the Triva reference here - a reference that actually had nothing to do with the Burr-Hamilton incident in the first place. Rklawton 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the best features of wikipedia is that you can start reading an article about Apples and end up in an article about Ninja rocks. See Wikipedia:Build the web. I for one am sick and tired of single users deciding that events which get huge amounts of coverage in mainstream media are simply not notable. Perhaps it is true that you personally do not care about them. But that does not mean that they should not be included in the project. I dare you to propose Dick Cheney hunting incident or Harry Whittington for deletion. It won't happen. There is an obvious connection between these events. A Vice President shooting someone is inherently notable; we don't need to wait 10 years to figure that out. There should be some mention of this in the article. I propose a simple, "See also" section. savidan (talk) (e@) 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the best account of the event was catalogued in the writings of a local stable-boy, Jake Simons, who secretly watched the event from afar. His journal was later published, although his writings and record of his business are now lost. citation needed
If you can source this then put it back in. Cheers, savidan (talk) (e@) 04:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys... we're grown people here. This Cheney thing is just downright adolescent. I wish people would just get a clue about what does and doesn't have real importance (and I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, please...). Just step back and take a look. --
DanielCD 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the edits in question above, I think you've made some really nice improvements to the article. The disputed edits revolve around adding an incident that occurred 200 years after the duel to the duel article. The fact that the two examples you provided make excellent illustrations against your case should convince you that the edit in question should be removed. Your unwillingness to discuss the matter and your threat to undo any changes is entirely inappropriate in this media. As an experienced editor, you know this. I suggest you sleep on this and reconsider. Rklawton 00:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well clearly, good sirs, this calls for a gentlemens duel. The winner shall be entitled to either insert or ban the said remarks as it relates in our present time to the aforementioned fiasco of our good Vice President, Mr. cheney. Tis' truly the only way to solve said argument, ahrun ahrum! Good day
67.171.17.174 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've passed the GA nomination for this article. A few comments toward future FA consideration: the introduction is much too short. It ought to summarize the context and significance of this duel, which is arguably the most significant in United States history. A good introduction for this article would be three to four times longer than the present introduction. I also doubt the "contemporary" illustration really is contemporary since the clothing depicted in the sketch is more in the style of the 1780s than the early nineteenth century. That looks like the kind of mistake an illustrator from several generations later would make. Finally the citations to online sources ought to include an access date so that readers can view the appropriate material on the Internet Wayback machine in case the referenced site changes. Other than that, good work and best wishes toward future FA status. Durova 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a good deal of information off some excellent primary sources I ran across. If anyone else wants to check them out and help get this article to FA status, please read them and add in relevant facts. Here they are: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/burr/burr_duel.cfm
Also something that needs to be added is the role of women into this purely male occurance. Such as Hamilton's wife not even knowing of the duel taking place until after his death. I'll look for sources on that later.
A few edits on my part to correct what I feel is a pro-Hamilton bias and give this article a more neutral tone.
btswanfury 17:47, 25 January 2007 (EST)
In the Aftermath section I changed that Hamilton was nominally an Episcopalian, to that he was an Episcopalian. Short of evidence that his religous beliefs were in name only, (and none is supplied), it should be assumed his belief was sincere. It can be argued either way, but without evidence, his own letters and esp. his asking for a confessor as he lay dying should preclude the 'nominal Episcopalian' phrase. jbarntt 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
In the Aftermath section I changed that G. Morris secretly founded a fund to support Hamilton's widow and kids to that Morris privately did so. "Secretly" implies something disreputable, or underhanded. Morris sought funds from friends of Hamilton, nothing more. It was only "secret" in that he did not advertise in newspapers for the general public. jbarntt 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt ( talk ⢠contribs)
The founder of the above society wrote several works regarding this matter, for fairly obvious reasons, I think. The organization's web site is [: http://www.aaronburrassociation.org/]. There is just cause for speculating, as I remember reading earlier, that Hamilton may have intentionally provoked the duel as a way to effectively commit suicide after he suffered serious financial reverses. I did myself have to write a theme in my first year at college on the subject, and as I recall the reconstruction of events could easily support that hypothesis. Don't actually know of any sources which make that point, though, but some might be found at the website above or by contacting the association. Badbilltucker 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to play sides, but most academic sources (books, articles, monographs, historic signs, television documentaries) refer to Burr first in titling the duel. Typically duels are named challenger-challengee. Google is about even...785 for B-H, 782 for H-B, but many of the sites have both names, so it's largely a case of inconsistency. Should it be moved? â ExplorerCDT 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I intend to get my hands messy on fixing up this article so possibly it could be an featured article. â ExplorerCDT 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Burr-Hamilton is correct as it is most common in my experiences. 75.23.137.30 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a source confirming that Hamilton was involved with 10 duels prior? I can't find anything else on this, especially since I was informed that Hamilton was apposed to them. Thanks.
I've heard that he was in 22 "honor disputes" prior. I want to say that this came from the Freedman Article dueeling as politics. As I understand it an honor dispute leads to a duel. change it? Gpepe13 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Since The New Yorker published a book review [2] siting the duel's date as June 11, 1804, the article has been changed to this, then reverted to July 11, 1804 and then reverted to June, where it now stands. I believe the June date is wrong (see any number of examples, such as [3], [4], [5], [6] or [7]. The New Yorker is, I believe, in error. I am new to editing Wikipedia pages, so I am unsure how to proceed. Rather than engage in a battle to correct this, I am leaving this note here. Cutfromthetop 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Every article i've read has said July. Gpepe13 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I like seeing illustrations with Wikipedia articles, but found this picture unsatisfying in several respects. The style is blatantly not "contemporary" with the event discussed, so I looked for the source reference, and was disappointed to find:
"Alexander Hamilton dueling with Aaron Burr. From http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/0/6/4/10644/10644-h/Illus0368.jpg, a Gutenberg file of a 1902 book."
The Gutenberg in-line link is broken, as it violates their policies on in-line linking. The artist "J. Mund" does not appear on Artnet, and despite a good-faith effort, a 30-minute search did not uncover for me the title of the work nor biographical data regarding the artist.
I would be grateful if the original poster would cite the source for the illustration in some standard format, and if the art is a romantic 1902 version of an event that occurred nearly a century earlier, I'd suggest the word "contemporary" be removed from the caption as misleading.
Perhaps photographs of the site, weapons, or portraits of the men themselves would better suit the article.
Euphronius 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made multiple corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and if progress is being made then the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Here are the points that need to be addressed:
Needs inline citations:
I'll leave messages on the talk pages of the contributors of this article (using WikiDashBoard) along with any related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. The above issues shouldn't take too long to fix and if you have any questions about them let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
After leaving the article on hold for over a week and no corrections were made, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the above corrections are made, the article can be renominated at WP:GAR. I would also recommend giving the article a good copyedit as well. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good aritcle reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
When I notice the position on your map, and I notice the location of the present day monument, and when I notice the roads and railroads that have been built through the location at the bottom of the cliff, I have come to suspect that the northern branch of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail now runs through or very close to the duel site, alongside the road next to the system, and that Port Imperial is probably the nearest stop. Trouble is, this is WP:OR, and so I have put this on the talk page rather than the main. Hmmm. 68.36.214.143 ( talk) 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The "contemporary" drawing of the Burr-Hamilton duel is not historically accurate.
For starters, it shows six persons in addition to the duelists: two "seconds," three other by-standers, and someone by the coach. In fact, only the two seconds were that close to the scene. A doctor, named Hosack, was waiting below the ledge on which the duel was fought and came to the scene only after Hamilton was shot.
As far as the coach, the duelists and the seconds arrived by row boat from Manhattan, and the ledge on which the duel was fought was inaccessible by coach.
Additionally, the scene appears to take place on a winter day, given the leafless trees and the clothing of the participants, but the duel was fought on a sunny July morning.
Since the day the duel was fought, there have been many myths and inaccuracies surrounding it. 38.115.185.130 ( talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Friend of Colonel Burr âPreceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.185.130 ( talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Why does the illustration depict an autumn scene? âPreceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.62.101 ( talk) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked up shot-less duels on google and there is exactly 1 page with that expression- this page. I don't what it means. A duel where they pointed fingers at each other? Everyone chickened out? A little explanation would be nice. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Rodeored ( talk ⢠contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit included two bits on the duel in Pop culture, one being an SNL skit and the other being the 'Got Milk" commercial. From the viewpoint of someone who grew up during that commercials popularity and who wasn't a history buff (still am not...) that was actually my first exposure to the duel, no thanks to school or even the fact that I live not just in the state but less than 10 minutes from it!. My point is that I could imagine the inclusion of the commercial, properly referenced of course, in this article and was anticipating finding it in here and was surprised it wasn't (although I bet there have been some who have tried unsuccessfully) It is mentioned and referenced in both the Got Milk article and the Aaron Burr article, and on a side note, there is a Facebook group claiming the only way they knew about the duel was through the commercial (I know this is not a great support tool as there are FB groups for practically everything). I am not trying to start a revert war or anything, but I am going to make an addition unless there are great outcries in the opposition (still might :)) - Theornamentalist ( talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a request for citation after "The guns are on display on the first floor lobby of 353 Madison Avenue in Manhattan". The ground floor at this address is now part of a J Crew retail store, and it seems an unlikely place for historical display. WCCasey ( talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere is mentioned the distance at which combatants stood. Certainly this would assist in helping to determine Hamilton's intentions. Mr. Pendleton's statement that the limb of the cedar tree (struck by the ball)was 12 1/2 feet above a point on the ground 4 feet to the side of Burr's centerline, and 13 to 14 feet from the mark where Hamilton stood, makes no sense. Since the tree was (unspecified distance)behind Burr, this would put the combatants 10 feet or less apart, or else the branch overhang extending 10 or so feet over Burr towards Hamilton to create a respectble distance. In either case the angle of fire would be so extreme as to indicate an intentional throw away.
99.34.226.231 ( talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
WCCasey ( talk) 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Further, Hamilton's death fatally weakened the fledgling remnants of the Federalist Party which, following the death of George Washington five years earlier in 1799, was left without a strong leader." This quote in the beginning of the first paragraph seems to contradict the fact that Washington had no allegiance to a specific party, and so could not be the leader of the leader of the federalist party. Furthermore, Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist party, and so, because of Hamilton's death, the party itself came to a halt. http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington Na217253 ( talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Please insure consistency in quotes in the article. The article should not quote "Pendleton knows that I did not intend to fire at him" and then "Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at Col. Burr the first time" a few paragraphs later. Some guy ( talk) 10:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I see where someone flagged the article as factually inaccurate. I reviewed at least the past six months of discussion but nothing is said about that. In my estimation the article has errors but is of a general quality not to warrant such a bold flag. If you are among those who feel the flag is warranted, please renew or state your objections. DanielM ( talk) 16:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)