Talk:Ron Chernow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

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)
I see that Casy Abell is continuing a revert war for this trivium. I don't see why this should be here, rather than Alexander Hamilton, where it may conceivably have some interest. Since he is unwilling to explain, I have moved it there. (Since he has included no details, they will have to wait until I have picked up Chernow's doorstop.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Anybody who glances at the article's history will see that User:Pmanderson was the one who picked up the edit war after this article had reached complete stability for two full months after April 3, 2007. The item on Chernow's DNA research is, of course, absolutely relevant to his career as a historian and should be in the article. However, I have no intention of participating in this edit war, or any other edit war. Casey Abell 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Since what Chernow actually says on p. 735 is that two prominent geneticists told him DNA testing (on Hamilton's negro ancestry) would be inconclusive, and he did it anyway, it seems an utter trivium. How it is more relevant to Chernow's career than any other piece of research remains utterly unclear to me. (He also says that he has no results yet; if a second edition of his doorstop changes this, feel free to add them to Alexander Hamilton.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
On p.735 Chernow then goes on to say that he found another researcher, a retired professor at Pennsylvania State University, who was already conducting extensive DNA research into the ancestry of all members of the Hamilton family. So Chernow offered to pay for additional testing, and the results are pending. Again, why this interesting item should be omitted from the biography is beyond me. But I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over the issue. Casey Abell 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Because it's utterly unimportant? Chernow did do several pieces of actual research for this book, the only reason it's worth even a smidgen more than, say, Vandenburg's; this one is both incomplete and doomed to be inconclusive. Why mention it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
PMAnderson, of course, has no idea whether such research is "doomed to be inconclusive." Equally of course, what he assumes will be the inconclusiveness of the research is irrelevant to its notability. It's significant that a historian of Chernow's stature is conducting DNA research at all, and this has occasioned much discussion. See here and here for interesting accounts of the progress of the research, which was even mentioned in the New York Times here. I'm honestly at a loss to understand why PMAnderson opposes the inclusion of even the briefest mention of this important and fascinating subject. Again, I will not be drawn into an edit war over the issue. But at least some sources are here on the talk page for an interested reader to follow. Related Google searches produce additional material. Casey Abell 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have Chernow's own words: "two of the world's top geneticists, Dr. Victor McKusick of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Sir Alec J. Jeffreys of the University of Leicester...persuaded me that genetic testing wouldn't furnish conclusive answers".
  • On the narrower point of reconstructing Hamilton's Y-chromosome from his descendents, which is what the first two links are about (neither have anything to do with Hamilton's hair), neither shows any conclusive answers either; they suggest what everyone but Chernow has always believed, that James Hamilton was Alexander's father.
  • Janet Maslin's piece of Schwaermerei shows merely that she has failed to read what Chernow actually said, on this as on other matters. I am disappointed; I had thought better of her. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have referred to the rest of Chernow's statement, which PMAnderson omits, about how he is now working with the Hamilton Family DNA project to locate and test various Hamilton descendants. The project has already developed a great deal of information and may well settle the facts about Alexander Hamilton's paternity. Fortunately, good sources for that research are now available on the talk page for the interested reader, even if PMAnderson forbids them in the article. PMAnderson's opinion of Janet Maslin is, of course, irrelevant. What matters is that Chernow's DNA research was notable enough for the New York Times (among other media sources) to discuss. Casey Abell 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)