Talk:Burr–Hamilton duel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Election of 1800

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)

Bias

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)

Cheney

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)

how do you justify that? are you expecting it all to be revealed as a hoax? that has to be the only situation that can make the connection between the hamilton-burr duel and the cheney accident irrelevant. since cheney is the only vice president to have shot someone while in office since burr, i can't see how it's not relevant. supine 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Cheney's accident had no impact on Burr's duel, it doesn't belong here. Likewise, Burr's duel also had no impact on Cheney's accident. Even so, all the information you might want to document regarding the accident has a place in Cheney's article. Personally, I'm wondering why this topic isn't relegated to Wikinews. It hardly seems encyclopedic. If you want to study murderous VPs, then you'll be keen to research the traitor who joined the confederacy and fought many battles against the U.S. Spending time trying to related Cheney and Burr puts you at risk of falling into the "trival things for trivial minds" trap. More important issues are afoot these days. Have you noticed what the MSM has stopped covering lately? Rklawton 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to the previous comments (and to clarify my initial note), I simply believe it will be difficult to assess the Cheney situation with respect to the Hamilton-Burr duel until there's been time to reflect on its historical significance. That is, as the details are revealed, and the Cheney accident moves beyond the headlines and into history, we should be able to get a better grasp of the relationship of that situation with the Hamilton-Burr entry. Ucsbalan 03:43, 16 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)

Removed Cheney reference per reasoning at the Burr article. Community consensus, as well as common sense, is clearly against it. It confuses the issue and isn't relevant. --DanielCD 05:14, 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)

You make many good points. The easiest way to handle this would be to go with a category. This would allow easy to follow cross-links between a variety of articles. However, when you look at the RCD voting record for the VP Shooting categories, it is clear that the majority of voters don't agree, with some expressing very strong feelings against the idea. Rklawton 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to verify this

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.

If you can source this then put it back in. Cheers, savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please

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)

As the creator of this article, I'd appreciate if you at least assumed good faith and stop making personal attacks by calling other editors "adolescent" (leaving aside the fact that younger editors frequently make quality contributions). In any case, the current events related vandalism has stopped entirely. I added a much popular culture section to the article and I feel that is the appropriate place for a link to the Dick Cheney hunting incident. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack? Who is the specific individual who was attacked? Adolescent doesnt imply anything about younger editors. What are you talking about? --DanielCD 16:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Cheney thing was hashed out months ago. Most editors agreed not to screw up articles on historical people with contemporary matters. I suggest you review the talk page comments from this period. Rklawton 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see you were part of the original discussion. So why the one-sided change? That's rather unsporting. This an historical article about an historical event. Please don't screw it up with trivia that had nothing to do with the event. Rklawton 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be a historical imperialist. This is clearly notable. The duel is one of the most recognizable events in popular culture and this is a perfect example of this. The category is obviously not necessary for only two entires. One of the main features of Wikipedia is the ability to link between articles. One of the things that many people (me included) love is that you can start out reading about one thing and end up somewhere else. What I added is notable and sourced. And it comes with a nice image. It's not "screwing up" an article to add information about its current relevance. I suppose it would be screwing up the article on Isaac Newton to note that Stephen Hawking holds the same professorship that he did—what trivia! The consensus that you refer to was not clear cut at all and most editors were referring to vandalism by Dick Cheney hunting incident enthusiasts, not my edition. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good example. There is no reference to Hawking in Newton's article. There exists a reference to the Lucasian Professorship in the Newton article, but Newton actually held that chair, so it makes sense. Hawking holds that chair now, so it's appropriate that both men should appear in the Lucasian professorship article. The article in question here is the Hamilton/Burr duel. Following the Newton/Hawking logic you brought up, there is no need to mention Cheney in the Hamilton/Burr's duel article. Cheney wasn't there. Cheney wasn't dueling. Cheney and Hamilton were both Vice Presidents, so it seems appropriate that both Hamilton and Cheney should appear in the U.S. VP article - and I assume they do. Rklawton 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't check that article before posting. It comes and goes in both of those articles. My point is simply that the plural of trivia of history. There are many history articles with "popular culture" sections, several of which are featured. I don't think that anyone supporting the addition claims that Cheney was president...perhaps another example: Pope Pius XII was the first Cardinal Secretary of State to become pope since Pope Clement IX (this time I actually know its included!). The daily show is just one example. A lot of media coverage equated the two events. I think that this can be done tastefully without degrading the quality of the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's another great example and reason for omitting the Cheney material from this article. Pius XII does not appear in the Clement IX article except in a box listing all Popes. Clearly Hamilton and Cheney belong in a box together listing all VPs - and that's pretty much it. Trivia equals non-notable - and we really don't need to junk up perfectly good articles. Rklawton 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing non-notable about the fact that two and only two vice presidents have shot people while in office. What's more, this is not just about the facts currently in the article but about the larger issue of the depictions of the duel in popular culture. From your comments here, it seems like you want to omit all of that, which I feel is a big mistake. That having been said, I will not stop you if you remove it. It was not my intention to get into a lengthy dispute over this issue and I feel that I can do a lot that is uncontroversial to improve the article instead. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:22, 23 June 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)

Slept on it. Let me first clarify that I meant no threats. I intend to improve this article to featured article quality no matter how this small matter is decided. I think it should be included, but it is so low on my priorities compared to the imcompleteness of the events of the duel that I am willing to overlook it for the forseeable future. To be honest: I thought only hard-core Republicans would oppose linkages between the two articles. Having found out that its not the case, I have decided to fight my battles elsewhere. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you inplying, sir, that you would have acted differently depending on who would oppose the edits in question? If it were only "hardcore Republicans" who opposed it you would have continued inserting it more vigorously than now? Please clarify.--Kalsermar 16:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. Wouldn't you reevaluate adding something to an article if a disinterested party opposed it? Being as I allowed it to be removed, I don't think its fair for you to characterize my insertion of it as "vigorous". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Savidan. Ideally, the source of a good idea isn't relevant to the idea. However, we don't live in an ideal world, and I would hold an idea suspect if I knew its source had strong biases. In short, it's hard to assume good faith from a strongly biased editor. Past performance is a good predictor of future behavior in humans, and it certainly justifies an idea's closer scrutiny. I don't think this means Savidan would have blindly opposed the edits had he thought they came from a biased source. I do think it means that he would have gone to greater efforts to ensure that the edits were appropriate. I also think this is fully appropriate.

I also think neutral (well, all) editors should be able to answer a challenge to their ideas. Occasional concession is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of learning. It is also the mark of a trustworthy peer. If I know an editor will concede a point when he or she has seen it in some new light, I am likewise willing to trust that the arguments they make are dedicated to learning and not to obstinacy or ego, though academia sadly runs rampant with both. Rklawton 17:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would evaluate an edit, no matter who made it, based on its merits. My point is that an opposition to including something should be based on arguments made, not by whom made the arguments.--Kalsermar 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree with you on that point. The difference is the degree of trust. Rklawton 20:43, 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)

Good article

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)

Tried to work on the intro. Hopefully I added the significance into that somehow. Still new to it all. Sabar 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

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.

Sabar

• Perhaps, too, a discussion of whether Hamilton actually alleged that Burr slept with his daughter Theodosia (H called B' Savius a vague Roman reference to that point).—ExplorerCDT 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A few edits on my part to correct what I feel is a pro-Hamilton bias and give this article a more neutral tone.

• The original section on the press statement claims that both Van Ness and Pendleton agreed that Hamilton fired first. This is simply not true, as original statement shows. The seconds DO agree that the shots were fired "within seconds of each other" (presumably instantaneously) than that Hamilton fell.
• I moved the section about Burr's regrets about the duel away from the "aftermath" section into the "Burr's Intentions" section, as that section was previously entirely negative and concluded with one of Burr's acquaintances labeling Burr a "murderer."
• In the "Hamilton's Intentions" section, I added in the detail that Hamilton chose a pair of dueling pistols which had very nearly killed Burr 5 years earlier in a duel with Hamilton's brother-in-law, and added in the fact that Hamilton specifically put on a pair of spectacles before the duel, and practiced sighting down his weapon.
• I still need to add in a section about Burr inquiring about Hamilton's health upon returning home from the duel.

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

Aaron Burr Association

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)

• Several authors have hinted that Hamilton's poor health was a reason he wanted out of this transitory existence. —ExplorerCDT 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Name: Should it be Hamilton-Burr? Burr-Hamilton?

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? —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. —ExplorerCDT 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. Personally, I also heard of it as the Burr-Hamilton duel, maybe because Burr survived? But, with the redirect already in place, I don't think that this should be one of the issues you should worry about. Badbilltucker 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there is a policy about more common names. If Hamilton-Burr is not the more common name, it should be changed. Redirect or no redirect. —ExplorerCDT 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Burr-Hamilton" is the more common name in my experience, which is admittedly much less than comprehensive. Whether it's the more common overall is another matter entirely. I do note however that Burr-Hamilton Duel seems to be the way it is referred to by libraries, given this entry in the St. Louis Public Library online catalog [1]. Badbilltucker 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to find a source comparing the two (Hamilton-Burr vs. Burr-Hamilton) before moving this. I seem to recall reading a few articles which have at least had footnotes comparing them. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the move, and am astonished. I've always seen it referred to with Hamilton first-named, following the natural tendency to emphasize the more famous person. Of course, the usage, "Hamilton's duel with Aaron Burr" is probably the most common formulation in books, but I am certain that the 200th Anniversary re-enactment and the historical sign in Weehawken both use "Hamilton-Burr". I had to miss the anniversary, so I will check with someone who may still have the program. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disapprove of the move as well, at least before clear consensus is established. I've always heard it Hamilton first, but I think such anecdotal concerns are irrelevant. The generic pattern of referring to the challenger first need not dictate Wikipedia's conventions, especially for famous duels. I'd ask ExplorerCDT to provide us with some more sources than St. Louis Public Library to vouch for the claim that Burr-Hamilton predominates in scholarly literature. When I get a chance I'll look over the Weehawken Historical Commission documents again, as I'm sure one of them addressed this issue. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:15, 27 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)

10 Shot-less Duels Prior?

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.

It's in one of the Weehawken Historical Commission articles. When I originally added this I think the reference was nearby, but I haven't followed it as others have juggled the text around (when I added that over the summer I didn't know how to use "ref name"). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

June vs. July

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)

1902 illustration "contemporary"?

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)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

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:

1. Expand the lead to better summarize the article. It should mention a little bit about each heading within the article. The current two sentences isn't sufficient in describing the article. For guidelines, see WP:LEAD. The first paragraph in the background sections reads like part of the lead, consider rewording part of it and merging it into the current lead.
2. "Many subsequent historians have considered the causes of the duel to be flimsy and have thus either characterized Hamilton as "suicidal", Burr as "malicious and murderous," or both." Single sentence shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Go through the rest of the article and fix any other occurrences.
3. "When the original pistol was examined, the concealed hair trigger was discovered. (Reference: "Pistols shed light on famed duel," Smithsonian magazine, November 1976)" This reference should be converted to an inline citation.
4. This is not required, but consider converting the url inline citations to the templates used at WP:CITET.

Needs inline citations:

1. "The most famous duel in American history..." If this is going to be stated a citation needs to be included.
2. "...partook in "hooliganish" behavior in..." If "hooliganish" is in quotation marks, then it needs to have a source directly after the sentence.
3. "There, after much debate and tight gridlocking, the influence of Alexander Hamilton, a very respected Federalist persuaded Federalists that Jefferson was the lesser of two evils."
4. "It claimed to describe "a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr" at a political dinner."
5. "In a letter delivered by William P. Van Ness, Burr demanded "a prompt and unqualified acknowledgement or denial of the use of any expression which would warrant the assertion of Dr. Cooper"."
6. "The bullet ricocheted off Hamilton's second or third false rib—fracturing it—and caused considerable damage to his internal organs, particularly his liver and diaphragm before becoming lodged in his first or second lumbar vertebra."
7. "...“Pendleton knows I did not mean to fire at Col. Burr the first time”."
8. "In addition, Hamilton had been reported as having severe mood swings, characteristic of a manic-depressive starting as early as 1800. If Hamilton was indeed manic-depressive, his intentions for dueling with Burr may have been psychologically delusional."
9. "the same pair which had once shot a button off of Aaron Burr's coat some five years earlier during a duel with Hamilton's brother-in-law"
10. "The guns are on display in the Executive Conference center of 277 Park Avenue in Manhattan."

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)

GA delisted

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)

A road and a railroad being built through the Burr Hamilton duel site

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)

I took pictures along that line in that general location. There are places where rocks appear to have been blasted or shorn off, which may have constituted the duel site. The general area is now faced on the water side by townhouses rather than water, and there is a highway and the Line. The cliff is covered with trees, and the duel monument is atop the cliff, and the scenery is evidently good enough on top that at least one wedding has used it as a backdrop, which I observed. There is also one location where a building appears to stand within a quarried niche, rather like the one at Petra does, only much more modern, industrial, and ugly. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The drawing is not historically accurate

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.185.130 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Time of year

Question: Why does the illustration depict an autumn scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.62.101 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that the illustrator took some artistic license and ignored some facts. See the other conversations above - that isn't the only thing wrong with the picture. – jaksmata 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

shot-less duels

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodeored (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Pop Culture section

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'm not opposed to including information that shows how people view the duel, but I don't like "Pop Culture" sections in general. They tend to attract lists of info that isn't really popular culture.

From WP:POPCULTURE, I think we should follow this standard: "Passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." In other words, any mention of a subject is not automatically pop culture, even if the medium for the mention is notable or has become pop culture itself.

So, if either the SNL sketch or the Got Milk commercial has truly entered pop culture, there should be mentions of such in secondary sources. The sources currently in the article aren't exactly reliable (a blog and a preview paragraph from a pay-to-view website). I'd like to see better sources, but I won't delete the Got Milk stuff. I am going to change the section name, though. If the commercial really is significant to the understanding of the duel, why shouldn't it be able to stand on its own, without other pop culture mentions?

As for the SNL skit, I doubt it is really pop culture. – jaksmata 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I found an article that claims it has entered the pop culture here, but I actually prefer not using pop culture in the article as well. Also a NY Times article, I'll add it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Current location of the pistols?

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)

Questions on details of the duel

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)

The biography Aaron Burr: Portrait of an Ambitious Man (Parmet & Hecht) disagrees with Ellis' conclusions that are quoted in the article. The book also states that:

• The duellists were separated by ten paces
• Pendleton reported that Burr fired first and hit Hamilton. "As the ball struck, Hamilton raised himself involuntarily on his toes and turned a little to the left, at which moment his pistol went off, and he fell on his face."
• Pendleton stated that the limb of the cedar tree (struck by the ball) was 12 1/2 feet above the ground, and 13 to 14 feet from where Hamilton stood. [No mention of "4 feet to the side")

WCCasey (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Verification of Washington

"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)

Your point is well taken. I've attempted to improve the neutrality of that 'Background' section by re-writing the last couple of sentences. Also, I replaced Washington with Adams in the sentence about Federalist leadership. I disagree, however, with your assertion that Hamilton was the leader of the Federalists. He was one leader, along with Adams and others. The splintering into factions, each with its own leader, was what doomed the Federalists. WCCasey (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

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)

"Factually Inaccurate" Flag?

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)