Talk:John Hancock

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

Smuggling issue

I have added for balance that joe Hancock had smuggled an estimated $15,000,000 worth of Molasses. It is good to put alternative points of view in the article in order to be balanced. The phrasing in the article tends to be defensive when it comes to suggesting Hancock smuggled goods. One sentence says that there are no records of Hancock smuggling. Why would Hancock keep records of smuggling in the first place? The British had repealed all of the imposed taxes, except for tea and offered high quality East India tea at lower prices then the Dutch tea, apparently that is what Hancock smuggled into the colonies. In essence the British were competing with Hancock's business, legitimate or illegitimate. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You've unwittingly demonstrated the perils of not using reliable sources. Your source (this article by economist Walter Williams) is an unreferenced opinion piece by a non-historian who, in a passing mention of Hancock, claims that he "smuggled an estimated 1.5 million gallons [of molasses] a year." You've misreported what he wrote as 1.5 million dollars, but it doesn't matter, since both figures are bogus.

What is Williams's source? Wikipedia! Everything that Williams wrote about Hancock comes from the version of this article that was current when his piece was published. The article was a bit of a mess back then. Among the many misstatements in that version of the article was the claim that "Hancock smuggled an estimated 1.5 million gallons of molasses per year." Williams repeated the claim nearly verbatim without checking the source. Alas, the Wikipedia editor had made a mistake: in the book cited, the 1.5 million gallons of molasses referred to the amount smuggled by the entire smuggling industry. How much of that was smuggled by Hancock, if indeed he smuggled any, is unknown. If we stick to the reliable sources, we can avoid perpetuating these kinds of errors. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for guidance.

P.S. I suspect that the "Hancock was a smuggler" story is a myth popularized by 19th century advocates of free trade. The moral of the story is that trade barriers and high taxes are bad if they drove even a great patriot like Hancock to smuggling. The Williams article is another polemic in this tradition. In reality, Hancock may have done some smuggling, but he may have been wealthy enough to not have to bother with it on a large scale. Although his fortune was based in part on smuggling done by his uncle, John Hancock did not, as far as I can tell, have the reputation of a smuggler in his own lifetime. —Kevin Myers 04:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I apoligize on the source or the mix up between "gallons" and "dollars". If Hancock was a smuggler, then it should be stated in the article without any POV. Growing up in the U.S. education system I have had a life time of learning that the Founding Father's were above reproach, without sin, or monetary contradictions. I am not out to destroy Hancock's or any other Founding Fathers reputation, however, I believe it is imperitive not to gloss over any issues that could be embarrasing or cause scandal. Mentioning that he could have smuggled is good though. Thanks for your input and concern. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvard University controversy

Historian James H. Stark contends the Hancock defaulted on money, 15,400 pounds, he owed to Harvard University while serving as its treasurer. Harvard "begged and entreated" Hancock to pay the money back to no avail. The matter was settled by his family in 1795 after his death in 1793. Should this be in the article?

Perhaps, although it may be much ado about nothing and therefore too minor for an encyclopedia article. Many decades after Stark, historian Donald Proctor argued that previous historians had misunderstood the situation. According to Proctor, Hancock, who as treasurer kept Harvard's cash, returned the money (plus interest) to Harvard in 1777. The real dispute, says Proctor, was a personal squabble between Hancock and Samuel Langdon, the unpopular president of Harvard. Langdon wanted the money while Hancock was in Philadelphia serving in Congress, and became irritated that he didn't get the money until Hancock's return to Boston in 1777. Hancock's dispute was with Langdon, not Harvard; everything was okay after Langdon left Harvard in 1780. I thought about putting this into the article, but I figured people would read it and think "So what?" —Kevin Myers 20:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting how two different sources say different things on Hancock returning money to Harvard. I believe the issue is signifigant. Why did Hancock take the money in the first place? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly remember, but perhaps he kept the money with him while British troops were occupying Boston—rich men like Hancock served as private bankers in the days before modern commercial banking—and took it with him when he fled to Philadelphia. I'll look into it again. —Kevin Myers 01:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgot about this, by the way. I'm still waiting for a book to come in from the library. It's more than a month overdue; hopefully the other person will return it soon. —Kevin Myers 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This controversy was also part of Hancock's long-running feuds with James Bowdoin (link), something that is not mentioned here. The battles between the two men were a major item in Massachusetts, and were not just political. Magic♪piano 20:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Hancock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: upstateNYer 03:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I should have the review complete in less than a week's time (probably a few days at most). Review will start tomorrow; I'll skim through it tonight. upstateNYer 03:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, look forward to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead
   Looks good. I made a few minor changes, but otherwise satisfies me
   Early life
   "He and Lydia lived in Hancock Manor on Beacon Hill, an imposing estate with several servants and slaves." I think you mean to say "he lived in Hancock Manor with several servants and slaves. Currently it sounds like the "imposing estate" comes with the servants and slaves. Would suggest rewording somehow.
   Townshend Acts crisis
   "Hancock was involved in two lawsuits stemming from the Liberty incident:..." I would suggest rewording of this. Both times that I read it, my mind immediately went to 'he sued someone', as opposed to the actual meaning, which was 'someone sued him'. It leads to confusion when you get to the part where it says a lawsuit was against himself.
   Return to Massachusetts
   The reference to "political gout": this term wasn't created because of him, was it?
   

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I threw a couple {{fact}}s in the article. While they aren't really necessary to get a GA, you'll need them if you want to go to FAC.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All opinions are those of the respective source authors. Nice job with the points/counter points views of the various historians.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I enjoy a well-illustrated article, and this met my standards.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is extremely well done. The writing quality is superb and the flow kept me interested throughout the whole thing. Having known little about Hancock previously, it was interesting to know how extravagantly he lived, but also how he made it seem like he played both sides for so long. Seeing into the disappointments and his want to be a soldier brought a lot of humanity to the article. I see that you have alts for all the images, so I presume you're bringing this to FAC, which is what I was just about to suggest.

I do have one final comment in addition to the ones above. Hancock's signature on the Declaration is most likely not his every day signature. I'll compare it to Walt Disney, who's real signature is not the one you see at the beginning of all of his movies. While the Declaration signature should of course be included here, I feel as if his 'real' signature should be located in the infobox. The Declaration signature is very stylized, and I would argue is probably almost drawn; i.e. it is not something that a practical businessman would put on an everyday receipt. Have you seen any evidence of a different version around in your research? upstateNYer 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I'll fix the prose and source issues tonight. I'll also keep an eye out for any signature I can find for Hancock that's not that stylish one. Hopefully after these are fixed, it'll be ready for FAC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Review now completed, with a couple footnotes: It looks like the "political gout" statement is one that was occasionally used centuries ago, but it's not commonly used, and Hancock was not the originator of it; that being said, the fact that he did have gout and seemed to use it at opportune times was probably why it was used. I'm keeping it as is for now, but if you want it reworded I can certainly do that. I wish I could find more on the idea though, it'd make for an interesting article. I cited everything except for the Articles of Confed. ratification, because I think that it's ratification in 1781 is common enough knowledge to not require a source; simple middle school history. Third, I re-read a couple things, as well as the snopes article on the Declaration, and while that may not be his everyday signature, his extravagance does make it seem like his signature would have been something similar to it; he would certainly be the type of guy to do something like that. I think that answers everything, if you have further issues let me know. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Passed. upstateNYer 22:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: the signature on the Declaration is Hancock's "real" signature. It's not too different from his earliest known signature, from a private letter before 1760. Other things that he signed as president of Congress, and later letters, seem to have the identical signature that is on the Declaration. —Kevin Myers 03:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the evidence I was looking for. Thanks for digging those up. upstateNYer 05:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Hancock makes me want to practice my penmanship. —Kevin Myers 05:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, no kidding, but who has time to sit down and do that every time they sign something? upstateNYer 05:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Austin Carter

Memorial stone image

The engraving on the memorial stone (Final years section) reads "...erected AD MDCCCXCV..." This Roman Numeral is 1895. The caption for the image, however, says "erected in 1896." Is this a small oversight?

Mls1984 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're very observant. The old biographies say that the money was appropriated for the memorial in 1894 and that the dedication service was held on September 10, 1896. Perhaps, when the stone was inscribed, they anticipated that the dedication service would be held in 1895. Maybe it was "erected" in 1895 and "dedicated" in 1896. I'll change the caption to "dedicated in 1896", which appears to be true and less directly contradicts the inscription. —Kevin Myers 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Birth date

The birth dates are January 1737 (and a different day in January 1736 O.S.). I have found sources stating 1736 and 1737 and thought it would be a good idea to cite something, or add a clarification why the years are different. I am not very well schooled in the old style birth date conventions, so I am writing on the talk page instead of the article. -Ich (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing the article, I see an html comment stating that the year started in March, not January. I am taking the initiative to make a short comment in the footnote to the mention in the body text. -Ich (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

eponym

He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term "John Hancock" has become, in the United States, a synonym for signature.

Should substitute eponym for synonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.51.118 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

Hancock's ancestry is nowhere to be found on this page. I am just wondering as that of all the other founding fathers is given mention, why is his not? Is it not available or has it just yet to be added by some sort of coincidence? I believe he was of English descent but I'd like the specifics. Does anybody know or care to add it?Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a generally accepted genealogy of the Governor that takes him back to the immigrant Nathaniel Hancock, who died in Cambridge, MA in 1652 and was presumably born in Padiham, Lancashire, England. Earlier generations in England are more sketchy and disputed. It would be a challenge to dig out primary sources for all of this.

It would also be risky to introduce much of this detail into a "Good Article", particularly given its strong political emphasis, without jeopardizing the flow and organization. But it would probably look something like this:

1. John HANCOCK (*1506? Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England; †?)
   sp: UNKNOWN
  2. Richard HANCOCK (*1527 Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England; †?)
     sp: Isabell *1536;  (∞1555)
    3. Richard HANCOCK (*19 Dec 1564 Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England; †?)
       sp: UNKNOWN
      4. Nathaniel HANCOCK (*3 Oct 1596 Padiham, Lancashire, England; 
        †1652 Cambridge, MA)
         sp: Joanna WRIGHT (*1609?; †1664?)
        5. Nathaniel HANCOCK (*18 Dec 1638 Cambridge, MA; 
          †12 Apr 1719 Cambridge, MA)
           sp: Mary PRENTICE (*25 Sep 1644; ∞8 Mar 1662/3; †20 Sep 1699)
          6. John HANCOCK (*1671; †1752)
             sp: Elizabeth CLARK (*1674; ∞1700; †1760)
            7. John HANCOCK (*1702; †1744)
               sp: Mary HAWKE (*1711; ∞1733; †aft.1783)
              8. (Gov.) John HANCOCK (*12 Jan 1736/7; †8 Oct 1793)
                 sp: Dorothy QUINCY (*1747; ∞1775; †1830)

—Ziusudra (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

This article has the wrong birthday listed for John Hancock. According to biography.com (http://www.biography.com/people/john-hancock-9327271) as well as several other sites John Hancock's date of birth is January 12th 1737.

170.135.112.12 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't read carefully enough. Both the old-style (Jan 12) and new-style (Jan 23) birth dates are right there at the top of the article. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Already done - current information appears to be correct. Mato (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

his b-day is January 12, 1737 69.161.126.89 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, read the first line, "John Hancock (January 23, 1737 [O.S. January 12, 1736] – October 8, 1793)", or the first line of the first section, "John Hancock was born on January 23, 1737; according to the Old Style calendar then in use, the date was January 12, 1736."--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)