Talk:Philip Hamilton

Merge with Burr–Hamilton duel or delete

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. The article has been significantly expanded since the tag was applied, there has been no response to the attempt to discuss the matter, and no post at all for four months. Meters (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Philip Hamilton, who died at age 19, is not notable on his own (except for being the son of Alexander Hamilton and for the way he died--in a duel). He is mentioned in his father's Wikipedia article already, and also at the Burr–Hamilton duel Wikipedia article. The user who created this article, @Erindumm:, apparently did so after seeing the musical called Hamilton about Philip's father. (In the musical, there is a character that portrays Philip.) 64.134.64.190 (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So what are the notability factors you feel we should be considering? I know, WP:Notability, but let's make a list so this isn't subjective. Because Google N-Grams--Mrcolj (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After closing this discussion I discovered that it had never been properly opened since notice of the proposed merge was never posted to the propose merge target, Burr–Hamilton duel. If anyone wants to suggest the merge again please do so properly per WP:MERGEPROP. Meters (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Problems with the Picture

That Picture is not of Philip Hamilton, but of his brother William S. Hamilton, and it is also incorrectly captioned. How could that be him at 20 if he was 19 when he died? 207.237.144.42 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the caption, but the picture is from a published book by a family member and is very clearly labeled in the text as Philip. Do you have a citation that says otherwise? —Luis (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Following up: the image appears in William S. Hamilton, and there is some discussion on the talk page there. I'm still inclined to treat this citation as more reliable (since it comes from a family member) but open to further discussion. —Luis (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And final 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 that claims it is William. So unless someone comes up with a better cite I'm going to leave it in and undo any changes. —Luis (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wisconsin Historical Society has identified the photo as one of William S. Hamilton. 32.218.41.15 (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The photograph, your link says, was taken in 1880 (and presumably labeled or identified at that time) — long after William and Philip were dead. The linked site goes on to state that it was a photo of an original painting in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. — which happened to be the home of Allan McLane Hamilton's father, Philip Hamilton (the second). Dr. Hamilton identified the painting as his uncle Philip Hamilton, not his uncle William S. Hamilton, in his 1910 book. I am more inclined to believe that Alexander Hamilton's grandson knew his own uncles and his own family history, and knew the provenance of that painting in Poughkeepsie, rather than to believe that the Wisconsin Historical Society is more reliable than Dr. Hamilton. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC) (rev. 08:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC))

I agree with Lwarrenwiki. A consensus has already been long reached on this issue, I hope we can consider the case solved once and for all unless new contemporary evidence is found. Isananni (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I just made post about this same thing, its funny how a simple mistake can convinvce so many people. LesWif (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@LesWif:There's nothing funny about disruption over an issue where consensus had been reached to leave the picture as referenced evidence is move convincing than an anonymous's word. Please refrain from disrupting this article again. Isananni (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A.K. Fielding author of Rough Diamond: The Life of William Stephen Hamilton published 2021 by Indiana University Press, cites the Wisconsin Historical Society has in their collection a letter dated 1880 from Philip Hamilton II identifying the image as a photo of a miniature portrait of his older brother William. Another source identifying the image as William was published in 1903 titled The Black Hawk War by Frank E. Stevens. BrucHM (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@BrucHM: I was sure that the image was Philip, but the weight of this new evidence has caused me to change my opinion. This 2021 book takes a firm position that it's an image of William, and that opinion is backed up with a document signed by Philip Hamilton II that has more indicia of reliability than the previously known evidence. The book's author took this disputed question very seriously, did a thorough investigation, and obtained evidence from the Wisconsin Historical Society that they had not previously made available to the public.

Anyone with an interest in this question can read the relevant pages online. The three pages are available from Google Books here: 1, 2, 3.

The author is described as an "independent historian and an artist", but her scholarship was evidently good enough to get her book accepted and published by a major university press. To my surprise, I've been turned around on this matter.

References

Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice to have this image on the correct page on this site. How does that get done? I have corrected it on Wiketree. BrucHM (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

change the category "1804 deaths" to "1801 deaths" because he died in 1801

64.110.221.202 (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Using first vs last name only in this specific article

While the MOS:SURNAME policy is valid, the editors (not me) who originally chose to use "Philip" (which is itself NOT a surname) rather than "Hamilton" in this specific article did so to avoid confusion 1) because "Hamilton" normally refers to Alexander Hamilton the founding father 2) Alexander Hamilton died in almost exactly the same way as his first born Philip 3) Alexander Hamilton had a son also named Alexander 4) Alexander Hamilton had a further son he named Philip in honor of his deceased first born. Etc. In this situation if using first names is not considered good policy, using at least both first AND last names is a necessity since "Hamilton" after some of the latest edits is used in the article to refer to both father and son and given the similarities in their deaths the circumstances are not enough to avoid confusion, on the contrary they contribute to increase it. I'll welcome the opinion of fellow editors. Isananni (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly there's no reason to repeatedly use the full names for George Eacker and Richard Price. Particularly, in the same paragraph. And as there is no possible confusion about whom is being referenced. It's also awkward and still violates MOS:SURNAME, to use the full names for Alexander and Philip throughout the article. Where possible, pronouns and adjectives delineating which Hamilton is being referenced are also possible. Those need to be used. I've attempted a compromise, which attempts to adhere to the style guide as much as possible; and still addresses the challenges of this particular article. I'll continue to weigh-in on other editors' efforts as well. X4n6 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ on what can be confusing for an expert editor who might have thorough knowledge of the topic on one side and for the inexperienced occasional visitor of the page on the other side + all MOS policies, including the MOS:SURNAME policy you mention allow for exceptions depending on circumstances. At any rate, I find a reasonable compromise has been reached with the latest edits. Have a nice day. Isananni (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you disagreed with, as I incorporated those concerns in my compromise. But, as you're comfortable with the effort, I'm pleased that we can move on. Happy editing! X4n6 (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

Change "lodged in his right arm" to "lodged in his left arm". One source is page 653 of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow which says: "Eacker then shot Philip above the right hip, the bullet slashing through his body and lodging in his left arm". Duelists preferred to stand sideways and present a slim silhouette. 2605:E000:C482:5900:55A0:5468:707C:91CD (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Isananni (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop Adding That picture

So this isnt really a discussion but I want to mention that the picture many people put on the wikipedia page of "Philip " is actually a picture of his brother "William S. Hamilton" LesWif (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's a posthumous likeness of Philip Hamilton first son of Alexander Hamilton and Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton as published by his grandnephew Allan McLane Hamilton in his book Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton. The family agreed the picture took after Philip very faithfully. Isananni (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

For editors wishing to add to this discussion, please also see the other topic on this page "Problems with the Picture" where consensus had been reached to leave the picture as referenced evidence linking this picture to Philip Hamilton was more convincing than other objections. Isananni (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@LesWif: Isananni is correct. This issue has been discussed before, and consensus was reached among active editors. If you wish to reopen that discussion on the talk page and present sources and evidence, that would be a proper way to make your case for removal of the picture. In the absence of a new consensus, removal of the image is vandalism, and will be treated as such. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

place of death

The place of death must be Manhattan (and not Weehawken), --Hannes 24 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• You're right, he was taken back to New York City and died at his aunt's house. Isananni (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The bracketed letter in "[h]e" (within a quote)

@Isananni, Bruce1ee, and Random Cat Girl: This adds some context to Isananni's edit comment here, where she wrote, "Not a typo, the original text did not have the “h”, the [h] means it was added for the modern reader":

In the original text, the "h" was capitalized because it was the first letter of a sentence. In this quote, it's altered to lowercase, because this quote was edited to combine two sentences into one sentence, using an ellipsis for the omitted words between them. The brackets indicate that there has been an alteration to the original – for the Wikipedia policy on this, see the very last example in MOS:CONFORM. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede change?

Is it necessary to include Alexander Hamilton's information in the lede? It doesn't directly pertain to the life of Philip Hamilton. ChunyangD (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done You're right. Revised to provide a brief summary of the article instead. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Lwarrenwiki!

ChunyangD (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Photo

In the photo that is not Philip. It's his younger brother William. Please do actual research if you edit a page and not just believe some poop you read on Tumblr. At the bottom of the photo (not that photo on the page) you can read the name. It's William S. Hamilton. Like William Stephen Hamilton. It's nowhere Philip Hamilton. I don't care wath Chernow said because he isn't God and he made mistakes. And Lin-Manuel Miranda isn't God either. Hamilton is so inaccurate if you believe anything from it well you are not that smart. So please do research and after you did research edit the page because like I said before, it's William, not Philip. Queenofthecontinent (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• See discussion above, under the headings #Problems with the Picture and #Stop Adding That picture. There is consensus that better evidence indicates this was a painting of Philip. Many years after the portrait of Philip was painted, someone took a photograph of the painting, and the photo ended up being misidentified as William. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  If you will kindly review the citations discussed further you may find consensus has changed. The Wisconsin Historical Society has a hand-written letter that matches the handwriting on the photo dated 1880 from Philip Hamilton II that identifies the image as his brother William. It was clearly Allan Hamilton who misidentified the portrait in 1910 perpetuating 113 years of misidentification. The popularity of the musical has spread the image of this young man even further and it may disappoint many fans who have associated the image with Philip Hamilton's tragic story for so long. However Billy Hamilton's story is a compelling one as well. His tragedy is that he was the son who most resembled his famous father and may have sought adventure in the western frontier to escape his father's shadow only to have is image usurped by popular culture hundreds of years after his death. BrucHM (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

please remove the image misidentified as Philip Hamilton and the following text.

Misidentified Portrait

A portrait of William S. Hamilton is commonly misidentified in books, publications, and on the internet as that of his older brother Philip Hamilton who was killed in a duel in 1801. More research by A.K. Fielding author of Rough Diamond: The Life of William Stephen Hamilton published 2021 by Indiana University Press, cites the Wisconsin Historical Society has in their collection a letter dated 1880 from Philip Hamilton II identifying the image as a photo of a miniature portrait of his older brother William. Another source identifying the image as William was published in 1903 titled The Black Hawk War by Frank E. Stevens. Further support of the portrait's misidentification can be found in a closer study of the clothing of the man in the portrait who is dressed in a style more indicative of the 1820s which would more align with William's age than Philip's. A.K. Fielding states in her book "Further research with the help of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation revealed that the clothing worn by the young man in the photograph indeed reflected nineteenth-century fashion." William's nephew Allan McLane Hamilton first published the portrait in his 1910 book and has been the only citation in its widespread use and misidentification. BrucHM (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see previous conversations on talk page from editors with substantial contributions to this article. Xan747 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Finally got it sorted out! Xan747 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If you would indeed review the talk on this subject, you will see substantial new citations have been put forward which predate the one and only original citation for this mis-identification and one of the contributors has agreed with me. The very reputable Wisconsin Historical Society has in it's collection a hand-written letter from Philip Hamilton II that identifies the image as a photo of a miniature portrait on ivory of his brother William Stephan Hamilton. Handwriting on the photo "Col Wm S. Hamilton" matches that of the letter. Alan McLane Hamilton never met either of his uncles and published his book with the image in 1910. It is quite possible that an unmarked portrait was mis-identified with no other family member still alive who could have identified it from first-hand knowledge. In the interest of accuracy I would hope that at the very least you could add a some text to the article with the above citations about the possibility of this misidentification even if you do not remove the portrait. BrucHM (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@BrucHM, well that's a trout for me, I deeply apologize--must've gotten confused and flipped the !votes. I did also review the evidence and was myself convinced that the handwriting on the photo indicated it is William, not Philip. My slight doubt was the fact that the nephew Allen would know his family history better, but multiple RS do appear to agree Allen was wrong. The bind I'm now in is that the photo is used on several other pages, including wikis in other languages, and the editor that uploaded the photo is @Lwarrenwiki--the one person on this talkpage who is absolutely convinced everyone else in the discussion is wrong. So I'm still going to hold off editing until they've had one more chance to respond to the issue. Xan747 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: You may have missed that I retracted my objection a few weeks ago, somewhere above. It was buried as a reply in one of the discussions, and easy to miss. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Here it is. A thorough retraction. Right here, dated April 6:

@BrucHM: I was sure that the image was Philip, but the weight of this new evidence has caused me to change my opinion. This 2021 book takes a firm position that it's an image of William, and that opinion is backed up with a document signed by Philip Hamilton II that has more indicia of reliability than the previously known evidence. The book's author took this disputed question very seriously, did a thorough investigation, and obtained evidence from the Wisconsin Historical Society that they had not previously made available to the public.

Anyone with an interest in this question can read the relevant pages online. The three pages are available from Google Books here: 1, 2, 3.

The author is described as an "independent historian and an artist", but her scholarship was evidently good enough to get her book accepted and published by a major university press. To my surprise, I've been turned around on this matter.

Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC), rev. 23:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki I should not rush so much! Glad we got it cleared up. I have deleted the photo and removed the book from the citation list. Xan747 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet the photo keeps reappearing. BrucHM (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References