# Talk:John Hancock

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  The British had repealed all of the imposed taxes, except for tea and offered high quality East India tea at lower prices then the Dutch tea, apparently that is what Hancock smuggled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)
Theres some pretty blatant POV here: the comment "I suspect that the Hancock was a smuggler story is a myth popularized by 19th century advocates of free trade" says it all, really. I agree entirly with with Cmguy777, although the post is now 4 years old. The article is extremely defensive - just because he signed the declaration does not make him a 'great' man. you say he was not known as a smuggler in his own lifetime, but he was obviously considered so by the British. This is a very biased aricle.--Godwhale (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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 North Korea. 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)
WOW 2601:58A:8200:23B0:F9DC:8BB9:262:EC6A (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2024 (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)
That's a good source. I used it in a paragraph about the Harvard controversy. —Kevin Myers 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
LeadLooks good. I made a few minor changes, but otherwise satisfies meEarly 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 MassachusettsThe reference to "political gout": this term wasn't created because of him, was it?
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.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

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.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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.
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)

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)

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)
The date of birth ascribed to John Hancock as Jan 23, 1737 (N.S) or January 12, 1737 (O.S.) is impossible.
First the Braintree, Massachusetts town records indicates he was born on January 12, 1736/37. The informal method of double dating of the year 1736/1737 indicates that the scribe knew that Britain and its dominions dated events by the "Old Style" or Julian Calendar but that all of Continental Europe dated events by the "New Style" or the Gregorian Calendar.
A quick reading of Parliamentary "Calendar (New Style) Act of 1750" clears up the problem. To quote from just two sentences of the act:
1. Whereas the legal supputation of the year of our Lord in England, according to which the year beginneth on the twenty-fifth day of March, hath been found by experience to be attended with divers inconveniences....
2. The old supputation of the year not to be made use of after Dec. 1751. Year to commence for the future on 1 Jan. The days to be numbered as now until 2d Sept. 1752; and the day following to be accounted 14 Sept. omitting 11 days.
So, by the Old Style Calendar, March was the 1st month of the year and January and February were the 11th and 12th months of the year. Hancock was born on the 12th day of the 11th month also known as January 1736 by the Julian Calendar. By the Gregorian Calendar, the day was considered the 23rd day of the 1st month also known as January of the year 1737.
To realign the calendar to the solar year, the seasons and the equinoxes, 11 days were skipped on the calendar. Thus we get the 12th January +11 = 23rd day of the month. Since the New Style Calendar considered January the first month of the year, we need to change the year from 1736 to 1737.
Hancock was born on January 23, 1737 (N.S) or on January 12, 1736 (O.S.) Bob1743 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 

I disagree that the word eponym should be substituted for synonym. It could be substituted but it shouldn't be. Fewer people know what an eponym is than what a synonym is. An eponym is a person, a place, or a thing after whom or which someone or something is named after. Signatures are called John Hancocks because of the distinctive features of the signature of the man. The term 'a John Hancock' is synonymous with 'a signature'. The terms are equivalents, can be interchanged (except in intentional contexts -- such as "the word 'signature' begins with an s") and have the same meaning. Bob1743 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It is specious to label John Hancock just as a President of the Continental Congress.  Although you have changed my edits of John Hancock back to just a Continental Congress President, perhaps you can leave this post on the talk page to help your readers discern which listing - President of the Continental Congress OR President of the Continental Congress and President of the United States in Congress Assembled is correct.  A brief case that the Continental Congress expired with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and the offices had significant differences is as follows: 
Although the Articles of Confederation was passed by the U.S. Continental Congress on November 15th, 1777, this Constitution of 1777 required the unanimous  ratification by all the 13 states.   Maryland was the last state to adopt the Articles of Confederation, completing its ratification on February 2, 1781. On February 22, 1781, it was unanimously resolved by Congress that:
The delegates of Maryland having taken their seats in Congress with powers to sign the Articles of Confederation: "Ordered, That Thursday next [March 1, 1781] be assigned for compleating the Confederation; and that a committee of three be appointed, to consider and report a mode for announcing the same to the public: the members, [Mr. George] Walton, Mr. [James] Madison, Mr. [John] Mathews."
The March 1st, 1781, enacted Constitution of 1777 provided for a unicameral governing body called the United States in Congress Assembled (USCA) to govern the United States of America.  The USCA was charged " .. to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years." 
On March 2nd, 1781, the Delegates, who were duly elected after each State had ratified the Articles of Confederation, convened in Philadelphia as the United States in Congress Assembled with Samuel Huntington presiding as the first USCA President.  Additionally, George Washington continued to serve as General and Commander-in-Chief of the United States Continental Army. 
The Constitution of 1777 Presidency, although similar to its predecessor, was a different and weaker office then that of the U.S. Continental Congress Presidency.
For instance, the Continental Congress Presidents, who served from September 5, 1774 to February 28, 1781, presided over a government that could enact legislation binding all 13 States with only a seven state quorum as opposed to the nine state minimum required by the Constitution of 1777. Additionally, Continental Congress Presidents, who decided what legislation came before Congress, often found themselves as the sole vote for their state,  giving them a 1/7th to 1/13th vote over crucial legislation, appointments, judicial decisions, and even military orders enacted during the Revolutionary War.  After March 1, 1781, the Constitution of 1777 mandated that two or more delegates must be present from each state for that delegation to be marked present and be eligible to vote in the new USCA government.   Therefore, on March 2nd, 1781, the first act of the USCA was to disqualify both New Hampshire and Rhode Island from voting in the new assembly because they each had only one delegate present.
On May 4, 1781, to further weaken presidential powers, Congress passed the "Rules for conducting business in the United States in Congress assembled." that stripped the President of his power to control the congressional agenda which, was a tactic that the presiding officers (especially Henry Laurens) had expertly wielded as Continental Congress Presidents. These new USCA rules even went so far as to eliminate the President's prerogative to continue the debate, before a second to the motion was brought to the floor.
"Rule 10. When a motion is made and seconded it shall be repeated by the President or If he or any other member desire being in writing it shall be delivered to the President in writing and read aloud at the table before it, shall be debated."
There are numerous other examples on the differences between the two offices that range from the USCA's Committee of the States experiment to govern the USA by a "Board of Directors" without the USCA President at its head to John Hanson's success in championing the congressional resolution that moved the bulk of his presidential correspondence duties to USCA Secretary Charles Thomson. Moreover, USCA Foreign Secretaries Robert R. Livingston and John Jay took over most of the U.S. Presidential duties of entertaining foreign diplomats and dignitaries under the Articles of Confederation government.
John Hancock was elected as both the President of the Continental Congress and the United states in Congress Assembled and not just as President of the Continental Congress.  To view the primary sources supporting this fact go to http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c_Pu5PAiP_g/UOX0C4AiqhI/AAAAAAAADe0/tvVawnkqk5M/s1600/AA+AC.jpg and for documents issued by the USCA with John Hancock as President of the United States in Congress Assembled please go here -- www.johnhancock.org. --  Stas.klos (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading this wonderful well researched text:  John Paul Jones: A Sailor's Biography  by Samuel Eliot Morrison, (1964) [1959].  The book is listed as a reference on the John Paul Jones page.   The book mentions John Paul Jones's dealings in with John Hancock.  I looked up this Wiki article to see if it mentions the kind of unsavory behavior of Hancock mentioned in the book, which the article indeed does (Bravo!), but not this particular incident.  We could include some of it in the main text if desired to make an improvement to the article--it makes no difference to me, but it was surprising when I read it!  Here is direct quote from the book [items in square brackets are my commentary]:

Congress on 25 March [1777] voted that their agents were to purchase and convert three ships, one of which to be given "to Captain John Paul Jones, until better provisions be made for him."  John Hancock Hancock was lavish in his compliments, promised to rectify the rank list of 10 October 1776†, and asked for Jones's captain's commission of 8 August to be returned in order to make out a new one dated 10 May (when Hopkins [commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy ] appointed him to sloop Providence); then pretended to have lost the 8 August document and issued him a new Captain's commission with the final date of 10 October, and with the Number 18 and the old sloop as ball-and-chain.  At least that is what Jones wrote three years later, and the story is so consistent with Hancock's way of doing business that it is probably true. (99)
†The books explains that Jones lost seniority due to the ranking method used by the Congress on 10 October 1776 (on advice from the Marine Committee).  Because Jones had turned down a Captain position early on and took a 1st Lieutenant position instead, and because his appointment to sloop Providence was made on 10 May but not signed until 10 October, he was ranked lower than others who were less qualified and who had performed far more poorly in war to that point.  This unreasonably low seniority ranking, combined with his reassignment to sloop Providence, one of the smaller combat ships of the Navy, "drove Jones to fury, and continued to anger him as long as he lived." (87)  David Tornheim (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I added John Hancock was a member of the St. Andrews Lodge of Freemasonry in Boston that owned and met in the first floor of the Green Dragon Tavern. He eventually became the Grand Master of the Lodge<ref]citation needed</ref]. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Joseph Warren was the Grand Master of Massachusetts. Upon his death at Bunker Hill, John Hancock became Grand Master. Benjamin Franklin was Grand Master of Pennsylvania and George Washington was Grand Master of Virginia and the Continental Army. 73.85.206.169 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This material was recently added by 50.194.79.161.  I support the revert by CatcherStorm.  I was about to revert it as well.  I would be okay with a single sentence about this video game *if* WP:RS can be provided for it showing this use of John Hancock was significant or notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Seeing how Fallout 4 is one of the few significant mentions of John Hancock in recent memory (especially considering that the character is wearing Hancock's extant clothing from the Old State House museum in Boston), I'd wholly recommend including it.  I don't think there's any need to call out the character's achievements (the militia, mayor of Goodneighbor, etc), but it's worth mentioning that the character is named after/inspired by John Hancock. Shoom'lah (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Purely non-notable cruft with no clear connection. I wholeheartedly support its removal, and have done so in the past. Scr★pIronIV 11:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A strong argument can be made that John Hancock was the only representative of Congress that signed the fair copy of the Declaration on 7/4 with Secretary of Congress Charles Thomson attesting it, thus explaining why these two names appear on the bottom of the 200 Dunlap broadsides. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Slightsmile: I notice you reverted the edits by 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69. Regarding each of the changes:
"July 4" -> "7/4".   This was not a good edit.
"a copy" -> "the fair copy".  I have not reviewed the RS and do not know if this is correct or not.
"the printer" -> "the printer John Dunlap".  This looks like a good edit and provides more information to the reader by linking in another of our articles.
"The printer" -> "Dunlap".  This also looks good.
added "as 'Attested by' implying that Hancock had signed the fair copy." I have not reviewed the RS and do not know if this is correct or not.
Can you please comment on each of the changes, and why you reverted all of them, and specifically if any of them can or should not be restored. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I found this edit in Recent Changes. Changing July 4 to 7/4 looked funny. I didn't know "John Dunlap" was a make of printer in the 1700's and so reasonably assumed it was a joke. Based on those points and that there was no explanation of the edit I assumed it was a vandalism. "Each of the changes", there was only one revert. Thanks for showing me my mistake. I am obviously not familiar with the topic and David Tornheim, I would appreciate it if you could put the article back the way it's supposed to be. All the best. SlightSmile 20:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation.  I am not expert on Hancock either.  I will restore all but the July 4 part, noting that I am not sure about edits regarding the attestation and "fair copy". --David Tornheim (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop editing over and over again mine says last edited 21 hours ago. Tyler Shaver 16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utv82803 (talk • contribs)  

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219162141/http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hancock.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hancock.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Adolphus Edward John Pontwether Hancock ?
64.175.40.229 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth year should be 1737 for BOTH old school (O.S.) and modern (Gregorian) calendar dates. The difference in dates should be about 11 days. Currently, the page shows 1 year and 11 days difference between the two dates, which is incorrect. Cogliano (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The start of the year was March 25 (Lady Day) in the old calendar. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It says he was the fourth president of the Continental Congress and that Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was his predecessor. However, on Henry’s page it states he is the fourth. Now there are 3 presidents that preceded Lee so I am inclined to believe that John Hancock was the 5th president. Also the pages are not consistent with the positions. As it says Richard henry lee, on his page, was president of the confederation congress. The two were the same body, but operated under different circumstances. It would be better if someone cleaned it up so that it was consistent with the connected pages.  Steakismeat (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add the category "Category:People who died in office" to the end of the article. 2601:241:301:4360:6935:6480:76BC:C632 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done: see Special:Diff/923793539. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This article has an inaccurate statement that there is no evidence that John Hancock ever purchased or sold enslaved people, citing William Fowler's 1980 biography, but this is untrue. The Quincy-Wendell Holmes-Upham family papers held by the Massachusetts Historical Society includes a deed of sale dated 8 February 1776 from Edmund Quincy to John Hancock (making JH the purchaser) for an enslaved boy named John.
SUS

Be nice to start an article about Hancock's house on Beacon Street.
Pending that, be nice to state when that defunct house was built.
Jimlue (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any WP:RS covering enough material to merit its own article separate from this one? EliteArcher88 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hancock's one time in England between 1760-61 is dismissed in a single bland sentence (so I feel). It would be interesting if light could be shed on where in England he was living (of interest to British readers). I recall (1970s) that Ripley's 'Believe it or Not' mentions he was the only signer of the DOI to have attended the coronation of King George III (though in what capacity - as a representative, invited guest, or member of the public - it did not mention), which took place in Westminster Abbey on 22 September 1761, so it seems likely he was based in London. This might be best answered by users in London. Is he subject of any Blue Plaques? Did he leave any recollections of the coronation?Cloptonson (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the Fowler biography, Hancock left England before the coronation. He had hoped to be there for it, but the coronation was delayed by the search for a wife for George III. Given the delay, Thomas Hancock "asked John to forgo the coronation and come home was quickly as possible" (p. 45), and John sailed for Boston in mid-July, two months before the coronation. Hancock was not one for putting personal reflections on paper, so we don't know much about what he did in London, other than stay at the house of merchant Jonathan Barnard when Hancock fell ill. According to the Sears biography, Hancock attended George II's funeral, but there is "an absence of any written record of what young Hancock saw beyond the king and the court." Kevin1776 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Speakers will frequently err with saying "sign with my John Henry", when they mean their "John Hancock". Would be useful and appropriate to make note of the common error. Suggested place to add the note in the article's 1st paragraph: "He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term John Hancock or Hancock has become a nickname in the United States for one's signature." 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:A906:E9EA:D4E1:9083 (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ADD Brooke Barbier's new biography to the Further Reading section. 
Barbier, Brooke, King Hancock: The Radical Influence of a Moderate Founding Father, Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2023. ISBN: 9780674271777. HBMDCO (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 00:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)