Talk:John Hanson

message: Can somebody tell me why Dick Gregory at http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/14_washington.html claims that John Hanson was black?
Of course, it also says he was the first President of the United States, which isn't true.  He wasn't even the first President of the United States in Congress assembled.  -- Zoe
:About a third of the referenced column repeats inaccurate or fabulistic history, and it contains almost half of the Hanson errors or myths that are floating around. It also contains one that was new to me, that Hanson was partially black. The Hanson family of his time was mainly English, with some French Heugenots. I think the myth comes from the fact that his grandfater (also John) came to Maryland as an indentured servent. When he arrived he owed six years service to pay for his passage. There is a court record of the sale of his indenture. Lou I 07:26, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC
::There was a John Hanson who was a senator in Liberia, and that may also be a source of misconception that the John Hanson who presided over congress was black. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanson_%28politician%29. -- Matt Battison
The Hanson in the main article looks mixed to me!  People may not know this, but Europe was blacks so calling someone something other than a Germanic tribe name DOES NOT mean they were white, simply because they come from Europe, as Europe is not the white man's homeland!  Blacks still ruled parts of Europe during Hanson's time, but were largely figureheads (in mulatto form) as whites consolidated power in Power.  Just check out Queen Charlotte to see this mulatto mix, then her mostly white offspring.  This is usurping via mixing.  This is the REAL story of Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.201.227 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Afrocentric nonsense. 71.206.140.2 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Was he really black?

message: There was A Hanson (no relation) involved in Swedish colonial ventures in Delaware, whose son returned to fight with Gustavus Adolphus. The rest of the story, and the relation to this Hanson family were invented in the 1820s. It got picked up and repeated then expanded in other literature, and even engraved on walls. No truth to the story.Lou I 07:26, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon editor, 213.216.199.10, has added back in the information about the sweedish origin. I have left a message on users talk page about this and offered links backing this up, but today the user has gone back and re-added the myth to the article and also to the article on Hakkapeliitta.  Viper Daimao 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but the origins were from Finland, not from sweden unlike it's normally supposed. The Hanson family first moved from Finland to Sweden and then into the States.194.157.18.210 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: please focus on WP:RS versus personal reflection TEDickey (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Was he really Swedish?

message: Because of this, some of his descendants, along with some amateur historians, claimed that he was the first President of the United States.
The use of "amateur" is unnecassary to establish the evidence as questionable.  Opinionated adjectives such as this should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTRHStudios (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are professional historians, there are amateur historians. Those are not opinions, but descriptions. Professional historians tend to have advanced degrees in history, and have writings that have been cited or reviewed by their peers (see WP:Sources). With amateur historians, the opposite. In this article, it is important for readers to understand that the "Hanson was the first president" claim does not come from the ranks of professional historians. If there's a better way to express this succinctly in the lead without using the word "amateur", let's hear it. —Kevin Myers 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: "Professional" is probably not the best word here. We're talking about the distinction between scholarly research and popular pseudo-research. Scholarly research recognizes the historical John Hanson, a white guy who held a title that involved the word "president" but did not hold the office of "President of the United States" in any way comparable to the institution laid out in the Constitution. Pseudo-research -- for various reasons -- present him as the True First President, perhaps as the descendent of black slaves. These are WP:FRINGE claims. If we present them at all, it should be in the context of what reliable sources have to say about the claims. We have the same non-issue issue at National Monument to the Forefathers: Scholarly research sees it as a monument built by 19th century Masons to honor 17th century Brownist refugees having no direct connection to the "Founding Fathers" (18th century, wealthy land owners, with many Deists and agnostics in the mix). Kirk Cameron, a high school educated actor, wants it to be the "key to transforming our nation and securing our children's future" -- the key (spoiler alert!) is the Bible. A colleague of mine steadfastly ignores what he calls "slop" as "not even wrong". As a result, we don't have academics bothering with Cameron, much as we don't have many responses to some of the more absurd claims about Hanson. You won't find a peer-reviewed journal article addressing whether or not Hanson was the "First President of the United States" for exactly this reason. You'd sooner see Neil deGrasse Tyson discussing whether or not the Moon is made of green cheese.  - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested Neutrality 

message: I had to remove the following. It contains bad links to expired source sites, so its now an opinion.
"This idea is sometimes paired with the claim that Hanson was actually a black man, using a photograph of Senator John Hanson of Liberia to support the claim.Audrey Peterson, "Black History Urban Legends", American Legacy, March 6, 2009. Accessed February 6, 2011."
---Jf (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you can't find a source live online doesn't mean it's invalid. In this case, we'd want to link to an archived copy of the page via WP:WAYBACK. —Kevin Myers 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken links and resulting now unsourced statement removed 

message: The amount of misinformation in this Hanson biography is mind boggling. I have found a dozen serious fallacious that stem, primarily, from wiki authors quoting 19th Century biographies (including the Biographical Directory of Congress) over and over again rather than going to the primary source.  Unfortunately, this Wikipedia site pops up first on a John Hanson search so it is essential that we work together to rebuild some credibility to this posting. To keep it simple, lets start with a statement that is undeniably specious and appears in the opening paragraph: "In November 1781, he was the first person to be elected as the presiding officer..."  There were actually two elections under the Articles of Confederation before John Hanson and after Samuel Huntington resigned his Presidency.  On July 9th, 1781, the Delegates in Congress elected Samuel Johnston as President under the Articles of Confederation. It was not until the following day, July 10th, 1781, that Johnston declined the office with the Journals stating: “On July 10th, 1781:  Mr. Johnston having declined to accept the office of president, and offered such reasons as were satisfactory, the house proceeded to another election and the ballots being taken, the Honorable Thomas McKean was elected.”  Here is an image of the actual 1781 Journals, open to the proper day, that were exhibited  at the November 26-28th, 2012 Continental Congress Festival   This "first person to be elected" entry, as anyone can see by the link to the actual 1781 Journal,  is a fallacy that needs to be removed.  To maintain the sentence structure one might correctly state:  "...he was the first person elected under the Articles of Confederation to serve a full one year term as the presiding officer ..." because neither McKean or Johnston served a full year. So What do you think?  Can this change be made as a first step to reestablish some credibility to this Wikipedia entry?  If so, I will offer another.  Stas.klos (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the wording on that was bad, thanks for pointing it out. We cannot use the blogs you cited as sources, however, but we can get what we need by citing Stiverson and Levering. I've also removed various other unreliable oddities that have accumulated in the article in recent years. —Kevin Myers 23:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Research Citings 

message: It is specious to label John Hanson as a President of the Continental Congress.  Although you have changed my edits of John Hanson back to 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 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 Hanson served as the President of the United states in Congress Assembled and not 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 signed by John Hanson as President of the United States in Congress Assembled please go here -- www.johnhanson.net. --  Stas.klos (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of the United States in Congress Assembled 

message: As above, we need reliable published sources for these dates. (Be sure, of course, that we aren't merely arguing about new style/old style dates too.)
If a family Bible, commemorative plaque placed by persons unknown or whatever give a date, we really have no use for it. This goes to verifiability (which we are here to report), rather than truth (which may or may not agree with what can be verified). - SummerPhD (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth/death dates 

message: I found the pejorative description of "amateur" historians to be rather judgmental and qualifying for WikiVoice.  It seems to poison the well with regard to the opinion.  I don't find the .ps of "[A]ll biographies of Hanson have been written a) by writers who were not professional historians, and b) to describe the life and times of the 'first President of the United States." to be sufficient justification.  Perhaps better wording can be used that avoids editor opinions regarding the experience or seriousness of the publication authors.  Morphh  (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see by the revision history, I'm not the only one to disapprove of this.  I can say that I have no bias on the matter, it's just not appropriate and violates NPOV WP:IMPARTIAL and uses terms in WP: AVOID.  It's fine to say this is a minor opinion and to describe who holds that opinion, but it is not correct to characterize the holders of that opinion in a derogatory way as to bias the opinion.  Morphh  (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I reworded it to make it clear the historical majority opinion and removed the opinionated terms regarding the amateur historians.  They may be amateur historians, but we can't say that opinion in WikiVoice.  We can say as fact that Ralph Levering stated they were amateurs.  Avoid stating opinions as facts. WP:YESPOV  Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Morphh  (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text: You're still stating an opinion as fact in Wikivoice, as amateur is a subjective term and primarily used as a pejorative.  It needs to be rewritten.  I agree that the theory is fringe, but even in an article about a fringe theory, you still describe the adherents in a neutral and balanced way per policy.  You don't take one side's characterization of the adherents and state it as fact; you state it as the opinion of those who hold it - attribution.  It violates WP:NPOV and using the term "claim" violates WP:AVOID.  Don't revert it - improve it.  I'll try to add some additional language that tries to avoid the mischaracterization you describe. Morphh  (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So "fringe" is objective and neutral but "amateur" is subjective and pejorative? I find that to be a very odd argument.  —Kevin Myers 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it myself and would prefer to remove the word fringe, but I was using the example from the Shakespeare article you linked.  However, I do think there is a difference between labeling the authors and labeling the argument. Morphh  (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reply. A followup: Which policy or guideline says that we can label an argument but not the author of that argument? —Kevin Myers 06:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can label a person, it's just a lot harder and requires attribution.  You fall into areas of WP:BLP, which requires stronger evidence when describing / criticizing a person.  For example, it is perfectly acceptable to say in the "Death and legacy" section "historian Ralph Levering stated "They're not biographies by professional historians;".  We're attributing the opinion.  This is a lot different than saying in WikiVoice as fact - these authors are amateur historians.  Labeling the viewpoint as fringe is easier because it's simple to identified as a non-mainstream fringe argument.  Saying it is non-mainstream or a tiny minority view is pretty much a statement of fact.  I think the term fringe could be seen as a pejorative and subjective though, which is why I don't care for it.  But I rather have a pejorative statement of fact about a subject, then a pejorative statement of opinion (presented as fact) on a person.  Even our WP:NPA describes this idea: Comment on content, not on the contributor.  I'm fine with removing the term "fringe" or replacing it with something else.  I'll try to rewrite it again. Morphh  (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First President of US 

message: @User:Randy Kryn: John Hanson is considered a Founding Father by whom? Since you didn't add a citation, we have no way of telling. So please apply one so we can discuss what your source is and then what other sources have to say. Allreet (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute title Founding Father