Talk:Aaron Burr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality

Have the issues concerning neutrality been addressed? If so lets remove the flag.

I have placed this at the top since most of the succeeding sections are related, in some way, to neutrality. William (Bill) Bean 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the edit system works, but some mention should be made in Later Life of Burr's marriage to Eliza Jumel, reputed to be the richest woman in America at the time,and whose house still stands at 168th St. in New York City. They got divorced shortly after, after Burr (apparently) had spent too much of her money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.176.163 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Filibuster

A filibuster is a tactic such as a long irrelevant speech or several such speeches used to delay or prevent the passage of legislation not "an attempt to declare an illegal war against Spanish possessions in Mexico" as is stated in the article. (this unsigned contribution was added on 6 June 2007 by 150.176.79.10; the caption was inserted by NCdave)

The definition of the word filibuster has changed. The definition we know today was "political slang" less than 100 years ago; the original defnition has been largely forgotten. See, for example, Webster's 1913 dictionary, which defines filibuster as:

A lawless military adventurer, especially one in quest of plunder; a freebooter; -- originally applied to buccaneers infesting the Spanish American coasts, but introduced into common English to designate the followers of Lopez in his expedition to Cuba in 1851, and those of Walker in his expedition to Nicaragua, in 1855. ...

1. To act as a filibuster, or military freebooter. Bartlett.

2. To delay legislation, by dilatory motions or other artifices. [political cant or slang, U.S.] Bartlett.

I own a couple of old dictionaries, and I've verified this. My 1905 dictionary is entitiled, "The American Dictionary of the English Language," which was "compiled and edited under the immediate supervision of Professor Daniel Lyons," and published by Collier & Son. It says:

FILIBUSTER, FILLIBUSTER, fil'i-bus-ter, n. a lawless military or piratical adventurer, as in the W. Indies: a buccaneer. The adventurers who followed Lopez to Cuba in 1851, and those who with Walker occupied Nicaragua from 1855 to 1857, are the most notorious examples of filibusters in modern times. [Sp. filibuster, Sp. filibote, fibotte, a small, fast-sailing vessel, from E. flyboat.]

However, a careful reading of the above would seem to indicate that the article might nevertheless be slightly in error, since 100 years ago the term "filibuster" referred not to an "attempt" at lawless war, but to a person who made such an attempt. Or perhaps the definition shifted between Burr's time and 1905. NCdave 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

George Clinton

The article says that Burr was a supporter of George Clinton, yet it also says that Clinton opposed his bid for New York Governor. The article does not say why. So what was going on here.--129.94.6.30 06:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Burr and Clinton were close, but politics changed them. See the latest Bio., "Burr," by Milton Lomask, 1982. Most recent and (probably) accurate biography yet. (User: Bruno Monkus) 21 July 2006.

Misc

A previous version of the article was a copyright violation from Grolier Encyclopedia - AARON BURR. I have replaced that illegal version with our previous one. --mav

---

The present image has been reversed, to suit it to an upper-right position. Thus it's useless as a portrait. Wetman 08:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

"Category:VPs who have shot people"? Really? Unless we can find someone in history in the second position who has shot someone (or unless this gets to be a tradition) I think this is simply a political category. Nhprman 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One might also suggest an article on President's who have shot people - starting with George Washington and working our way up to JFK and George H. W. Bush. Rklawton 04:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Vice Presidents and guns

Looks like we should talk about this one a bit. Personally, I don't see how the Cheney thing has much to do with Aaron Burr, but not enough to revert it. But I can see why one would. Why is it relevant here, could someone explain? John (Jwy) 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with Jwy. There's really no reason to stick the Cheney thing in here. Isopropyl 07:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to include Cheney here, then we need to include all the other VPs who have shot people. The list is rather long, but for the sake of NPOV, should be included. Rklawton 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good addition! I'm sure someone may note, or separate "military" and "civilian" shootings, however. And if Mr. Whittington dies, this will need to be changed. Nhprman 04:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on it. Frankly, I don't see why we need a history of VP-related shootings on Mr. Burr's page. Each VP already has this information referenced in their own articles, but someone keeps reverting back to Cheney here, so... Rklawton 04:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not here. Elsewhere. Nhprman 05:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I STILL don't understand why ANY of the information about other Vice-Presidents shooting people is in here. In my opinion, it is irrelevant to the subject of this article and is available elsewhere for those interested. Can someone please explain this to me? John (Jwy) 17:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's there because some folks keep adding it back every time it's removed. Personally, I agree with you. Rklawton 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'shooting' item, as currently written; misses the essential point: that both the Burr and Cheney shootings took place in completely non-military, non-wartime contexts. Obviously many Presidents and Vice-Presidents served in the military. Indeed, I would guess more than the "eight" Veeps mentioned in the article as currently amended discharged firearms in battle. The point is what is unique about the Burr and Cheney shootings; specifically the civilian context of both. If that is not made clear, then the entire addition makes no sense and should be deleted. dukdukgoose 18:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The "clear" part is that these incidents are entirely unrelated. They are coincidental only in that they involve a weapon, a victim, and a sitting vice president. These coincidental facts have no historical merit with regard to Burr or Burr-Hamilton. Therefore, they should be omitted entirely from Burr's articles. Burr had no role in or influence over Cheney's incident, therefore, it's entirely inappropriate to muddy up the Burr articles. Including Cheney in the Burr article makes about as much sense as including Neil Armstrong in Burr's article on the grounds that they are both male, U.S. citizens, and were elected officials in the U.S. government. Rklawton 19:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

I see your point, but my feeling was lumping a partial list of ex-Veep military records in with the Burr and Cheney shootings and treating them all as if they were the same was less "clear" still. You wouldn't write an item equating Audie Murphy (decorated war hero) with Phil Spector (reputed accidental shooter of Lana Clarkson); why put Richard Mentor Johnson on parallel footing with Burr or Cheney? I agree with you & the consensus that the item is better off removed altogether. dukdukgoose 00:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps we could resolve this amicably by creating a category: U.S. Vice Presidents who have shot (or shot at) people. Rklawton 19:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My question is why is even the Cheney part in the article? Even if it is just the civilian context, (my opinion) it makes no sense and should be deleted. John (Jwy) 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here's the (appropriately) removed section: Rklawton 21:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Since Burr's duel with Hamilton, there have been only eight additional sitting or former Vice Presidents who have shot another person. The more well known of these include Richard Mentor Johnson (credited with killing the Shawnee leader Tecumseh), John C. Breckinridge (who joined the Confederate States of America where he fought in many battles, was wounded twice, and led the famous charge of the VMI cadets at the Battle of New Market), Theodore Roosevelt (who received the Medal of Honor leading the Rough Riders), George H. W. Bush (a decorated WWII naval aviator), and Dick Cheney, who reportedly wounded Harry Whittington during a February, 2006 Texas hunting trip.

Cheney was second sitting Vice-President to shoot someone while in office. Other references to future VPs are in the article about the Dick Cheney hunting incident. Just keep the short reference in the Burr article.

The whole Cheney thing adds absolutely nothing of interest to the Aaron Burr article. If Cheney where involved in a duel than by all means add it, but this was a hunting accident peopl,e and someone got sprayed, not the sitting veep taking aim at someone and shooting to kill. To place it in here demeans the Burr article and blows the Cheney thing way out of proportins.--Kalsermar 20:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The circumstances are different, Cheney himself mentioned Burr, but the fact is that Cheney was the second Vice-President to shoot a person while serving as Vice-President. So the reference stays. Yes, future VPs have shot at people when they served in the military, for example. So I'm receptive to Rklawton's suggestion.

Assuming Cheney mentioned Burr, then the reference should go on Cheney's page, not Burr's and that's the whole point of my objection. I don't like to see articles about historical figures muddied up by events upon which they had no impact. It simply isn't fair to Burr. Think about the impact this policy would have on so many articles! For example, I buy "W" ketchup. The "W" stands for George Washington. Should the fact that this ketchup uses his image and initial go in George Washington's article? Of course not. Good or bad, the ketchup isn't Washington's fault. Rklawton 21:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The current concensus on this page is actually that it should be removed.

Maybe I'm missing it above, but could someone complete the sentence: "Information about the recent Cheney hunting accident belongs on the Aaron Burr page because. . ." Yes, the Cheney hunting accident belongs in Wikipedia. Yes, discussion of that incident might include mention of the Burr Duel, but it will be a rare person who comes to the Aaron Burr page for information about Aaron Burr that will expect or gain insight into Mr. Burr by the inclusion of the reference to the accident. Its an interesting tid-bit. I appreciated the Daily Show treatment of it (including Burr), but this isn't an article on Cheney, Hunting Accidents or even Vice Presidents Who Have Shot People. John (Jwy) 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Rklawton and Jwy on this. And I object to the statement: So the reference stays. That is something that will be decided by consensus, not by you (if you would please sign your edits on this and other talk pages with four tildes in future we'd know who we are talking to--Kalsermar 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)).

Now that we've got a category assigned to this article, the redundant Cheney information found within the Duel description can be removed. Rklawton 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the category assigned to the Aaron Burr article? It's not there so the short Cheney reference will be restored.

Unneeded article clutter

The Cheney reference is asinine. It adds nothing to this article. It makes Wikipedia look like a poor piece of trivia and nonsense. There's no reason to go find every last thing people have in common and point it out. I'm removing it on the grounds that it is irrelevant, uninformative, and adds nothing to the article.

We're here to tell the man's story in encyclopedic form. Clogging up the pipes with nonsensical trivia is pointless and strains a reader's patience. People are looking for information, not how many warts Burr had compared to Lincoln, Einstein or Cheney. --DanielCD 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A reference to Cheney is not appropriate in Burr article. It doesn't make sense to put future, totally unrelated events into his article. He had no part in making it happen. It has no relationship to his life. FloNight ^talk 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Only two sitting Vice Presidents have shot a person. Because only two VPs in American history are involved, it is appropriate to include a short reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steelbeard1 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that Dick Cheney should be included in Burr's article for the completely illogical reason that I think Cheney is a reincarnation of Aaron Burr-- just look at that malevolent sneer in a couple of the portraits of Burr...I think you guys are getting a little overacademic here, but I guess someone has to do it. Is the general consensus that Burr was a real creep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.91.188 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall reaching a consensus on that. --DanielCD 04:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, don't revert it again until you can refute what's been said here. Technically, under the 3rr I could block you now. --DanielCD 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Steelbeard's personal Cheney section

Refute it. - DanielCD

Daniel CD, I have already refuted it. I'm still waiting for a consenses to emerge. We can't seem to be coming up with one. All I ask for is a minimal reference with the appropriate links. The pro-Cheney right-wingers want to remove even the most minimum of references to Cheney's hunting accident.

It's not about politics for me. For me it's about keeping the Burr/Hamilton articles focused on the subject at hand and not cluttered with trivia these men had nothing to do with. Rklawton 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. No that it matters, I'm a blue man myself. John (Jwy) 17:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. This isn't political. If I were that rabid, there would be much richer fields to plow than this anyway. --DanielCD 18:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Steelbeard, you can wait for a consensus to blow your way, but as it stands it's clearly against. You need to to some major case-making if you feel it's so important to merit addition. But please, I ask that you not replace it before then. If you choose to be blind to current events, that's your problem, and others shouldn't have to continually address an issue that's so clearly decided.

I'll go ahead and make a section for you above this comment to voice it all you like. Please contain future comments regarding the Cheney material to this area, and keep in mind no one is obliged to respond. --DanielCD 17:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to address one of the issues raised on another talk page. I'm not sure where. It has to do with a reference to Burr in Cheney's article vs. a reference to Cheney in Burr's article. There is a big differnce because Burr is a historical figure that can't comment on Cheney. Burr's encyclopedia article needs to be focused on what happeded in his life back then, not current events. It can be more appropriate to include references to past historical characters in articles about contemporary people. People are comparing Cheney to Burr, not the otherway around. I hope this explanation helps. regards, FloNight ^talk 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Steelbeard's comments:

From DanielCD's talk page: Who was involved in making the consensus and was anyone who favored the most minimum of Cheney references involved in creating the consensus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steelbeard1 (talk • contribs) .

Answer: read the talk page.

• Party A: DanielCD, Kalsermar, FloNight, John (Jwy), Isopropyl, Rklawton
• Party B: Steelbeard1

Get the picture? --DanielCD 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a careful explanation of my position:

First, Cheney made note of Burr during a post-shooting interview, so a reference on Cheney's article to Burr may be appropriate.

Second, since Burr did not serve as a role-model or other influence over Cheney's accident, and since Cheney's incident is nothing more than a mere (and weak) coincidence, it doesn't belong in the Burr and Hamilton-Burr articles.

Here are a couple of tests to apply:

1) If we applied the weak-coincidence rule to all Wikipedia articles, what would result?

2) Does the Cheney incident teach us anything about Aaron Burr or the Hamilton-Burr Duel? No. Since the Cheney incident teaches us nothing about Burr, it really doesn't belong in the Burr article.

This second point isn't true in every case regarding historical figures. Here's a counter-example. What does Elvis Presley teach us about Robert Johnson? The answer is quite different. Robert Johnson's innovations (and others) significantly influenced Elvis’ early compositions, and Elvis said as much. Indeed, we can hear some of Johnson's rhythms in a lot of early rock. As a result, it's fully appropriate to mention this in Johnson's article because it illustrates the impact Johnson had on modern music. This teaches us something about Johnson’s talents. The same can't be said about Burr's impact on Cheney.

Lastly, one might consider adding a note to the Burr article to the affect that since the Hamilton-Burr duel, no other sitting executive has participated in a gentlemen's duel. I wouldn’t recommend it, though, unless we mean to infer that this duel may have had an impact on the perception of acceptable behavior in the executive branch. This would not be an acceptable inference for Wikipedia, though, unless we could find some historical support for the point. Rklawton 17:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Like the Presley article - which could plausibly mention Johnson as an influence - and the Johnson article - which could plausibily mention later influencing Presley - the Cheney article should surely mention he was only the second sitting vice president to shoot another person, and the Burr article can certainly mention he was "one of only two sitting Vice presidents to shoot a person. The second was Vice President Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot a person during a 2006 hunting trip." That's it. Period. End of entry. No further analogies work, or are warranted, since this wasn't a duel and, as Rklawton says, we learn nothing from further elaboration. Anyone who wants to re-hash the fact that Cheney might have been drunk or having an affair HERE, in THIS article on Burr, is POV-pushing, and such entries should be reverted immediately. Nhprman 18:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

Remember that milk commercial with the guy who had his mouth full of peanut butter and he got the call asking the "Arron Burr" question but he couldn't say it because he couldn't pour the milk fast enough so he lost the money? He'll always be "that Arron Burr guy" in my mind. Too bad it's not relevant enough to mention here. --DanielCD 17:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You just did! (at least on the talk page!) I think that commercial's hilarious. For those who haven't seen it, it's a guy who gets called by a radio station to answer a trivia question in a contest, but despite having ALL of the Burr/Hamiliton memorobilia in his house (including one item labeled "The Bullet" in a special glass case!) he can't answer "Aaron Burr" shot Hamilton because his mouth's full of peanut butter. He says "Aaawa Bwaa." Classic. Nhprman 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He showed up in that Twister movie. He played the role of the Arron Burr guy. --DanielCD 18:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[1] there he is! Sean Whalen is just his stage name. His real name is Aron Bhurrghie. --DanielCD 18:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See trivia section --> [[2]].

Hey we got a reference, let's write an article on it...not. Lol. --DanielCD 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, we now have more information on this guy than MANY stub-like articles on Wikipedia, so that's not out of the question, entirely. Oh, and here's the video of that commercial, just to clinch make it OFFICIAL that we now have too much information about this: [3] Made on behalf of the California Milk Processors Board, the 1993 commercial was one of the Top 10 Commercials of All Time as chosen by visitors to the USAToday.com Website. Nhprman 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Above concern

The article has "In 1782, he passed his bar exam in New York", which to ordinary reading suggests the city. How can this be, given that he would have been arrested by the British authorities then in possession? Should it read "...in New York State"? Or is the date wrong? Or what? PML.

Moved this from above. Was this concern ever looked into? Not sure how old it is. --DanielCD 17:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about WHERE he took the bar, but his congressional biography [4] says he was "admitted to the bar in 1782 and practiced in Albany, N.Y.; moved to New York City in 1783." A 1911 encyclopedia online also states that he was "admitted to the bar at Albany in 1782, and began to practise in New York city after its evacuation by the British in the following year," but maybe they were simply covering for him. Without evidence to the contrary, I would have to defer to what these two sources suggest was the case. Nhprman 18:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Business Competition between Burr and Hamilton

Shouldn't there be something in this article about the economic competition between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton? Also, Burr was involved in a number of financial dealings, some of which were opposed to Hamilton, others of which were entirely for his own gain, unrelated to Hamilton. There should be some information about this since much of Burr's prominence was as a businessman - successful or not. Stevenmitchell 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering..

Did really Hamilton have 21 duels before his vs. Burr duel? That's a nice record then. Kinda strange he missed..

Yep, tis be true. I wonder about that too.

He always intended not to shoot and he didn't. Burr, of course, did not know what would happen. --Morsefan 02:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Alexander Hamelton deloped (shot in the air), whereupon Burr shot him dead!

Anyone stupid enough to provoke a duel, who then fires into the air, deserves whatever he gets. Of course that "fired into the air" story came from Hamilton's seconds. Try "he aimed too high" as an alternative explanation. B00P (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

status of article

What happened to the article? Could someone with knowledge please look over the last slew of edits that were placed within -{{- and fix the article. I'd do it myself but don't really have the time for it right now.--Kalsermar 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Major cleanup

As it stands, the page is littered with bad formatting, including broken wikilinks and templates with errors. What happened? Isopropyl 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

hmmmmmmm. I just did a lot of formatting cleanup, but I don't know how to handle a 'Source' sitting in middle of the article. I did not check the facts against any prior version, I just removed all the extraneous brackets and braces. Thanks Hmains 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Start-Class

Almost entirely unreferenced. —Cuiviénen 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are almost no references except to say that it was lifted from another encyclopedia. there are a lot of things that need some specific primary or secondary source references. i think the whole article should be tagged. today i tagged a "sodomy-sex scandal" which evidentally was spam based on the user's other edits. Vargob 03:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologia?

First of all, I seriously wonder if there might not be some copyright violations in here. Large sections of it read like they were pulled from a single biography. But that's just a suspicion, I have no evidence.

However, I must say, this article is sorely in need of balance. At every turn we are confronted with St. Aaron the Misunderstood. Look this guy may have gotten an unfair shake from history, I don't doubt that. But this article could have been written by his mother. The answer, I think, will be documentation. I don't mind Burr's defenders saying their piece, but there are two sides to this man's story. Unschool 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• As much of a Burr fan I am, and as much as I think he's been fucked over by history, I have to agree with Unschool's critique. Also, this article is badly constructed (and written), sorely unreferenced, and in need of a rewrite. I'd like to see this included at WP:FA eventually. —ExplorerCDT 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph is a hundred times better than what was there. It's almost perfect, except for possibly one thing, which is hard for me, a Hamilphile, to judge. Would you really say that Burr is "beloved" by his supporters? Reviled by his enemies, yes, but I would think his supporters would merely defend his honor almost begrudgingly. I don't know, like I said, given my leanings, I'm perhaps not able to judge.

Using words like "beloved" or "reviled" are "weasel words" designed to convey a feeling or attitude; in other words, characterization words. Simply leaving them off does much to remove any stigma of bias. William (Bill) Bean 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, you've got some typos in there. I'll stay away for a week or two, and then come back and look how you've done. But you've already improved it significantly with that opening paragraph. Unschool 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Stick around, chime in with your thoughts...or at least fix my glaring typos. —ExplorerCDT 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Seeing that there is something of a debate going on, I won't presume to do any editing. I have some comments though.

The assertion, "Burr continues to be misunderstood and disgraced to the present day," should be removed. Not only is it questionable English - (Burr, being long dead, does not continue to do anything) - but it is sneaky. Passive verbs are weasel words. Exactly who continues to misunderstand, and what is it that they believe which is not true? Presumably whoever wrote the sentence thinks he understands, and that Burr's purported disgrace is undeserved. In other words, it sounds like a cheap shot at a straw man.

I have been reading Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis. The book won the Pulitzer Prize. I have not studied either the book or this article deeply, but it seems to me that the two are frequently at odds. Given that footnotes in the book cite many references while this article cites very few, I am inclined to believe the book is probably more authoritative.

There has been an enormous amount written about the duel over the centuries. A neutral POV survey with references seems in order. Jive Dadson 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Of course you are correct that passive verbs can be used as weasel words. You are also correct that Burr does not "do" anything today, due to his assumption of ground temperature. But I believe, genrally speaking, in such a case, that passive words may be wholly appropriate, and that in this case, may be the best way to state things. To say that Burr (regarding whom I count myself amongst the detractor crowd) is "misunderstood" seems to be perfectly acceptable usage. If you want documentation, then fine, that's a reasonable request (and a doable request, at that), but I disagree that passive verbs are out of place. The issue of weasel words seems to be a much more significant problems with debates of contemporary issues, where people are trying to create gray-shaded "truths". Unschool 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Passive verbs make for better writing. Most academic writing is in passive tense. They are not "weasel words." The emphasis by people like Strunk and White on verbs that denote action is to dumb writing down for the illiterate and other lowest common denominator types. If you want that, try the Simple English wikipedia. —ExplorerCDT 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. I'm hoping to bring this article up to snuff after seeing in what shambles it was previously in. To date, I've rewritten the entire introduction. I would like to get this ready for an eventual Featured Article candidacy. Would you, perhaps, like to join the effort? —ExplorerCDT 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Passive verbs are currently "out of style" in present day writing, as they typically make for a weak statement. I'd also like to point out that action verbs have their proper uses, as everything else does. Good writing possesses both, and neither is used by only the "illiterate". MissMeticulous (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did Hamilton die?

In the section on the duel here, it says "he lay in the house of a friend", but in the main article on the duel, it says "Burr shot and wounded Hamilton, who died the following day from his wounds at his home, The Grange, in northern Manhattan." Did he die at his friend's home or his own home? The article at Alexander Hamilton doesn't seem to specify, but I only skimmed that article. Matt Deres 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Withdrawn by proposer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Move Aaron Burr to Aaron Burr Jr. and redirect the former to the latter - thus being technically correct (this is based on the first sentence of the article). I'm not saying that I'm for or against this - I just think it should be brought up.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) Support Support - It's his name - and a simple redirect would solve any problem.danielfolsom 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Opposed opposed - He's best known as Aaron Burr, his father isn't known that well. GoodDay 23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Martin Luther King Jr. is better known as Marting Luther King (MLK) - but the fact is his name is his name - we shouldn't be able to say - no, this is your name.danielfolsom 23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and put a deadline on this - if nothing big is brought up in 24 hours, I'll make the move, but frankly it seems that the precedent has been set with Martin Luther King, which, again, redirects to Martin Luther King Jr.danielfolsom 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC) opposed - Use the most common name - see WP:COMMONNAME. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Ahhh - I was not aware of that guideline - in that case I withdraw the proposal.danielfolsom 04:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral

Comments, on the above discussion

Currently it's tied (1-Support & 1-oppose), you should move your comments out of the 'Opposed' section (it's confusing). Furthermore, MLK ,Jr is knowm by that name, where's Aaron Burr isn't known as Aaron Burr ,Jr. Examples: Al Gore, Gerald R Ford, Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler ,etc. It's what they're better known as, that counts, please reconsider. GoodDay 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh - I actually hadn't seen most of those before - however I have no idea why two (maybe three) of them are up there - I think Andrew Jackson and James madison are not jrs. (and mlk is usually not known as mlk jr., think about most of his nicknames (i.e. "Dr. King" "MLK"))- either way though, the idea of Wikipedia is to immitate an encyclopedia - how can we do so if you don't even have the right names in the title? And just because other pages might be wrong, doesn't mean this should be either.danielfolsom 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We generally only use "Jr." for disambiguation purposes. For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s father, Martin Luther King, Sr., was a major figure. Burr's father, on the other hand, was not notable. I concur with GoodDay. The title of the article is not mean to be "the right name", but the most commonly used name. Otherwise we wouldn't have, say, Bill Clinton or Tony Blair. john k 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Burr's father is fairly notable; see his article. But modern writing does not use Aaron Burr, Jr., in large part because he usually did not; he was an orphan at the age of two. 72.76.251.172 04:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I attempted to follow the instructions/suggestions regarding the inelegant structure of the article - ie too much repeition in a very long instriduction. My edits have been removed - however, I think if you read the revised text, you will find I only removed one para which was completely redundant in that it duplicated the text in the body of the article. The rest of the information in the introduction was distributed in accordance with the headings and attention to the chronological information contained in the article itself.

As it currently stands, the introduction does the article no favours and detracts from the style.Fidelia 04:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

By and large I think that the Aaron Burr article is considerably better than I expected. Improvements can be made of course and there are a number of good suggestions. The issue of attribution should be addressed as noted. A new book, titled "Fallen Founder, The Life of Aaron Burr"[5] by Nancy Isenberg, (Viking, 2007) is an excellent source. Biographers always tend to have considerable admiration for their subjects (or they wouldn't be writing about that particular person) but Isenberg meticulously documents her work. Anyone who wants to edit this entry would be well advised to read this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowlturner (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just come into possession of a copy of the book and it is certainly the best (most neutral) biography of the very controversial man ever produced. To be honest, before Isenberg wrote it I think Gore Vidal's novel was the closest anyone came to doing the guy any sort of justice. Moonlit Knight 23:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course that Vidal's Burr is a work of fiction should be considered before any would-be historian elects to consider it a principle source. Quissett (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just finishing Isenberg's biography and plan in the next couple of weeks to add some citations from it in this article based on it and some other sources; I'm doing some research on Burr anyway and might as well do some work here, since further documentation certainly seems to be in order. AngelaVietto (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Burr's religion

I have changed the info-box alongside the article to reflect Burr's lifetime religious persuasion. He was not, in fact, an atheist, whether he may have viewed the divine in a variety of lights throughout his age. I note that there is a trend in recent sources to claim atheism where they see irreligious attitudes at times. Very similar notions purvey assessments of President Jefferson of late as well.

Source cited: Adherents: Aaron Burr Accessed: Wed., April 23, 2008.

There are further sources available regarding his being numbered among the Presbyterian flock literally from cradle unto death. The ministry, it seems, was ever present. Quissett (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Burr was most certainly an atheist.

Burr made it clear that he would have nothing to do with the church when he refused to see Rev. Van Pelt on many different occasions. Gore Vidal discusses at length Aaron Burr`s rejection of his grandfather`s "Edwardian Brimstone". Aaron Burr`s final words were, "On that subject I am coy."His last words were a response to the efforts of Reverend P.J. Van Pelt, to get Burr to state that there was a God.

Burr's purported atheism originates with a novel by an atheist political activist

Gore Vidal's Burr novel (i.e. a work of fiction) mischaracterizes Burr as an atheist. While Burr may not have been the most outspokenly godly man (mostly attributable to his rebellion from the religious zeal of his ancestors), he was a lifelong man of faith as both his personal writings and the dearth of academic literature on the matter bear out. Specifically, he was a Calvinist and a Presbyterian (at times also attending the church of his step-father who was a similarly Calvinist protestant of the Reformed Church). The source for the claim of atheism leveled against Burr have their origins in the aggressive political pamphlets of Alexander Hamilton that similarly impugned Thomas Jefferson, both attacks crafted for the gain of Hamilton's Federalist faction. In short, this notion of atheism and other characteristics of Burr in the Vidal book are more akin to the beliefs of Gore Vidal than they are to the subject of this article. I am providing sources to published works of both Aaron Burr and his biographers. Quissett (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources cited:

• Burr, Aaron. Memoirs of Aaron Burr: With Miscellaneous Selections from His Correspondence; Matthew L. Davis, Ed.. Harper and Brothers, New York; 1837. pp. 34-36, Burr rejects idolatry and atheism outright while also rejecting an author's notion that idolatry emerged from atheism; further favorable references to God repeatedly permeate his correspondence, e.g., p. 361 ["I thank God," "I would earnestly pray God..."], p. 367 ["God grant that it may restore your health..."], p. 401 ["God bless and aid thee."], p. 429 ["Has the God of nature..."], etc..

• Jenkinson, Isaac. Aaron Burr: His Personal and Political Relations with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. M. Cullaton and Co. Book and Job, Richmond, Ind.; 1902. pp. 361-362 ["And when I asked (Aaron Burr) as to his views of the holy scriptures, he responded 'They are the most perfect system of truth the world has ever seen.' So that, judging from his own declaration, and behavior to me, as his spiritual adviser, he was not an atheist nor a deist."].

• Parton, James. The Life and Times of Aaron Burr. Riverside, Cambridge, Mass.; ed. 1892. p. 329, Parton cites the same statement as Jenkinson of Burr's religious character.

• Cote, R. N.. Theodosia Burr Alston: Portrait of a Prodigy. Corinthian, Mt. Pleasant, S.C.; 2003. p. 22, Cote considers Aaron Burr's faith in his biography of Theodosia, Aaron Burr's daughter ["(Aaron) Burr had unequivocally rejected the gospel... as preached by his father and grandfather. Yet, he had not jumped headlong into the atheists' camp. What he rejected was the 'fear-inspiring, revengeful God' of his hellfire-and-brimstone preaching Puritan grandfather"], the last referring to Jonathan Edwards, the preeminent early American religious figure.

• Isenberg, Nancy. Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr. Viking, New York; 2007. p. 201-203, Isenberg, the author of the lauded and enormously comprehensive new biography of Burr, includes the language of Alexander Hamilton's pamphlets written in opposition to the Jefferson-Burr Republican faction, p. 232, Isenberg explains Hamilton's designs against Jefferson, who he specifically called an atheist --and which posterity has by our time rejected in favor of labeling Jefferson a deist-- and Burr a deviant, intending a hedonistic polygamous sexuality, i.e., coupling with numerous different women ["The author of these charges was intending to mock Burr's pretensions to leadership: having taken a sacred oath of office, the lusty Burr had been unable to restrain himself from preying on the female population of the nation's capital as well. Jefferson had been critiqued (by Hamilton) as a dangerous atheist, and now his second-in-command (Aaron Burr) was being labeled a deviant..."], p. 280 ["he (Aaron Burr) thanked God"]. Of particular note, this most recent lengthy Burr biography gives no credence (nor even scant reference) to Gore Vidal's branding of Burr as an atheist in his 40-year old fictitious account.

Quissett (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

awkward footnote

The makeshift footnote in the nav-link on the bottom is very awkward. Is there some way that could be cleaned up using ref-tags? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

nickname?

I briefly tried to find if he really was known as the "Burr-meister" because I find it highly doubtful. I'll leave it to someone here who knows for sure to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.103 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence/redundancy

The sentence "Burr and Hamilton were the key organizers for their respective parties in Republican slate of assemblymen for New York City elected, gaining control of the legislature...." in "Legal and early political career" seems to have been garbled at some point. Also, the paragraph in which that sentence is contained, as well as the preceding paragraph, are somewhat redundant with the first two paragraphs of the "Vice Presidency" section. 68.221.252.99 (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound right

Article currently states that Burr helped get Jefferson elected President.

I was under the impression that Burr also ran for president AGAINST Jefferson in that election, that the electoral votes tied and that the final decision for Jefferson as president was decided by Congress.

The comment re Jefferson deciding to drop Burr from his ticket as Vice president may also be wrong. I'm not sure when using "tickets" started. Originally the person running with the second largest number of electoral votes became vise president.4.156.78.30 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson and Burr originally agreed to run so that Jefferson would be President and Burr VP. However, when they ended up with the same number of votes, Burr decided to run against Jefferson instead of being VP. Several of their opponents preferred Jefferson to Burr, so Jefferson picked up enough votes from his former opponents to become President over Burr. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Debilitating Bowel Movement?

The article says that Burr died following a debilitating bowel movement. Is this the result of clever vandalism? If not, could someone who knows put in the name of actual medical condition (there is no Debilitating bowel movement page)? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)