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)

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)