Talk:Ron Chernow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

I reverted to the stub before the article became a copyvio of Chernow's speaker-bureau CV [1] ; it is a possibly useful source, although the actual facts not in the article are limited.

I would appreciate it if any rewrite did not praise Chernow's writing beyond its merits. I quote from page 10 of Alexander Hamilton:

Had he [Johann Lavien] presented himself as a Jew, the snobbish Mary Faucette would certainly have squelched the match in a world that frowned on religious no less than interracial marriage.

This is illiteracy and conjecture:

• It is news to me that the early eighteenth century frowned on religious marriage. A competent writer would have recast.
• The evidence given for Mrs. Faucette's character consists the fact she appealed to the chancellor of the Leeward Islands for her separation decree. Who else, pray? Septentrionalis 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He also employs special pleading to an unusual degree, even for a Hamilton biographer. Septentrionalis 16:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puff piece

Casey Abell chooses to revert this article to include the following irresponsible inclusions. They are sourced to the speaker's bureau which represents Chernow - not a reliable source, and not to be used for controversial claims. See WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources.

According to the New York Times Book Review, "As a portrait of finance, politics and the world of avarice and ambition on Wall Street, the book has the movement and tension of an epic novel. It is, quite simply, a tour de force."

Ascrbing this to the Times, as though it were an editorial opinion, would be dishonest even in Chernow's flacks.

Biographer and historian David McCullough wrote: "Ron Chernow's Hamilton could not be more welcome. This is grand-scale biography at its best – thorough, insightful, consistently fair, and superbly written. It clears away more than a few shop-worn misconceptions about Hamilton, and is both clear-eyed and understanding about its very human subject." An interesting related note is Chernow's attempt, though DNA research, to establish the exact truth about Hamilton's ancestry.

In addition to everything else, Wikipedia has no buisness saying what is interesting; and Chernow's reasearch on the subject has been questioned.

And on what conceivable interpretation of WP:NPOV is it proper to include only favorable reviews? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Casey Abell

I am reverting the unjustified exclusion of David McCullough's critical evaluation of Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton. If PMAnderson believes that criticism written by a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner like McCullough is incorrect, he is welcome to include comments from other reviewers of such stature. The evaluation by McCullough is properly sourced and accurately quoted. I am also including directly sourced comments from the New York Times Book Review, generally considered a reliable source for informed (though of course not infallible) criticism. Again, PMAnderson is welcome to add other criticism, if he wishes, from reliable sources. Finally, I am restoring the sourced and accurate note about DNA research into Hamilton's ancestry. Why this should be deleted is beyond me. I will remove the adjective "interesting", which seems to bother PMAnderson for some reason - even though such research is interesting, as shown by the great interest in similar research into the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. Again, if PMAnderson wants to add criticism of such research, based on reliable sources, he is welcome.

I am not one of Chernow's "flacks". I don't know Chernow, have never met him, and have no financial or personal interest of any kind in his career.

PMAnderson's interpretation of WP:NPOV is interesting (dread word). Apparently, under his interpretation, we're not allowed to include criticism from leading book review publications or Pulitzer Prize winning historians. Again, if PMAnderson wants to include other critical evaluations of Chernow's work from such reliable sources, he is more than welcome. What he is not welcome to do is to remove critical evaluations from sources that would be considered reliable under the strictest application of Wikipedia policy. Casey Abell 13:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One more comment: the use of language like "irresponsible" and "dishonest even in Chernow's flacks" is not helpful. I usually laugh off such talk, remembering my old days on the alt newsgroups. But other editors can be upset by such incivility, as shown in PMAnderson's two failed RfA's. [2] [3] PMAnderson also has an unfortunate history of blocks for edit warring. [4]

I definitely don't want this article to become such a battleground. I have attempted to compromise by removing "interesting" and directly sourcing a quote from the New York Times Book Review, though the indirect source through Chernow's biography appeared non-controversial and accurate. As far as I can judge, PMAnderson's objections to this article stem from an ideological dislike of Alexander Hamilton, which has carried over to Chernow, Hamilton's latest biographer. The way to resolve this matter is, as I have suggested, to add other quotes from reliable sources that address PMAnderson's concerns – not to remove sourced and accurate quotes already in the article. It's true that Chernow has generally had favorable reviews, a number of honors, and good sales. But negative criticism must exist somewhere in reliable sources, and PMAnderson is welcome to add a reasonable amount to the article, as long as it is properly sourced and accurately quoted. Casey Abell 16:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate Casey Abell on the diligent research behind his personal attack. For the record, I do not dislike Alexander Hamilton; I dislike Chernow's hagiography (see quote from another editor); I equally dislike Abell's hagiography of Chernow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that PMAnderson will not compromise in any way. So I'll give in and agree to the elimination of the quotes from a Pulitzer Prize winning historian and one of the nation's leading book review publications. It's unfortunate that such authorities are not allowed to be quoted because of PMAnderson's personal dislikes, but I've reviewed his contribution history and I will not be drawn into the conflicts that have marked his record on Wikipedia. However, the sourced, accurate and factual information about DNA research and the prize awarded to Alexander Hamilton will be restored. There is no possible justification for their removal. Casey Abell 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The prize was an accident; thank you for catching it. The DNA belongs on Alexander Hamilton, if anywhere; and there the criticism of the result as conjectural should be noted. But that is a relatively minor point, not worth a tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)