Talk:Hamilton–Reynolds affair

Suggested merge from Maria Reynolds
I suggest Maria Reynolds be merged into this article. The two articles contain basically the same content. There is very little information about Maria Reynolds aside from her involvement in the affair. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, she isn't notable enough to have her own article if there's no information available outside of the affair (which I don't think there is, as far as I know). Do we need an official vote? LeftAire (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So this proposed merge has apparently been hanging in midair for 8 or 9 months. I just encountered it myself, and it's clear that the Maria Reynolds article has no content besides the sex scandal that bears her name, so they should obviously be merged. I've never done a merge myself, so I don't know how to use the tools or how to finagle the formatting. Hopefully someone else would be willing to take the lead here? (PublicolaMinor) (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. I believe, although there is not much information on Maria Reynolds, there is no legitimate reason to merge these two pages. I think it would be best to leave it as it is, there is no problem with how it is right now.
 * There was little to merge. I just redirected the Maria Reynolds article. NW ( Talk ) 04:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Duration of the affair
Thanks for your correction. That statement was in the narrative before I began making edits. I'll have to dig through the sources again, but I remember reading that the related issues lasted into Adams' presidency. Even so, the point about the effects of the affair lasting into Adams' presidency doesn't belong in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Tilar Mazzeo's book
Per reviews on Amazon, Tilar Mazzeo's book is not a serious work of history. It is written in a 'historical fiction' style that invents reactions and emotions rather than sticking to what is known. While a degree in history isn't necessarily a prerequisite for doing worthwhile historical research (as Ron Chernow demonstrates), the fact Mazzeo is a professor of English seems relevant given that her book on Eliza Hamilton apparently reads more like fiction than objective research. It also contains numerous errors of basic fact, makes questionable decisions about what sources to trust or doubt, and ignores evidence that could disprove her claims. 76.180.183.120 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Having read the book myself, I too found it to be riddled with errors and questionable judgement in regards to sources. The book is officially classified as a biography, so we could potentially put it in the 'Further reading' section and let readers make their own judgement about it, or we could remove all mention of it. Thoughts? Eleanor of Castile (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Introduction
"In 1797, Hamilton was forced to publicly admit to the affair after James Reynolds threatened to implicate him in Reynolds' own scheme involving unpaid back wages intended for Revolutionary War veterans."

This seems a bit off to me. Hamilton admitted the affair to the public in 1797, yes, but Reynolds' threat to implicate Hamilton in Reynolds' schemes involving the veterans' back wages happened in late 1792. It was this threat that forced Hamilton to admit the truth of the affair to Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable when they came investigating Reynolds' claims about Hamilton. The knowledge of the affair was known to political insiders for years after that, but it did not reach the public conscious until 1797, when Hamilton wrote the Reynolds Pamphlet in response to Callender's articles that accused Hamilton of corruption and using the story of an affair as a cover-up. Perhaps we should adjust that to make it a bit more clear? Eleanor of Castile (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)