Talk:John Hancock

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That's a good source. I used it in a paragraph about the Harvard controversy. —Kevin Myers 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard University controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Memorial stone image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  eponym 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: his b-day is January 12, 1737
69.161.126.89 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 23 January 2012 

message: 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)
thread_title:  President of the United States in Congress Assembled 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dealings with [[John Paul Jones]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  John Hancock was a Grand Master Mason 

message: This material was recently added by .  I support the revert by .  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture -- Fallout 4 video game 

message: Stop editing over and over again mine says last edited 21 hours ago. Tyler Shaver 16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake facts 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: The start of the year was March 25 (Lady Day) in the old calendar. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit Request: Error on his government positions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done: see Special:Diff/923793539. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: House

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: John Hancock in England

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frequent misreferenced signature as my "John Henry" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 00:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023