Archive 1

To answer my own question, Governor Gage was already seeking his arrest (along with Samuel Adams) because of an inflammatory speech he made after the Boston Massacre. After the Battle of Lexington, "Governor Gage issued his proclamation, offering a general pardon to all who should manifest a proper penitence for their opposition to the royal authority, excepting the above two gentlemen, whose guilt placed them beyond the reach of the royal clemency." (source) "

And as the article states, the notion that Hancock wrote his signature particularly large on the Declaration is disputed. Whether the quote often attributed to him on this is also apocryphal remains an open question for now (he might actually have claimed to be writing for the benefit of the king to fend off accusations of selfishly making his signature more prominent than those of the others, knowing full well that his signature was unusually large). JRM 21:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Major rewrite of the original merged with the contributions of 68.192.114.0, the latter kindly weeded for us by Prog. The article is once again a respectable member of the community, and has, IMO, gained in depth and style. Thanks to all involved. JRM 21:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Everyone is advised to read the relevant section in the Manual of Style first.

Before an edit by 207.171.180.101, the article stated Hancock's date of birth was January 12, 1737. Afterwards, it was January 12, 1737. Encarta gives his birthday as January 23, 1737 [1], the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress gives January 12, 1737 [2].

This is the difference between the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar, with one important caveat: Encarta does not adjust the year for Gregorian; the correct date in Gregorian would be January 23, 1738 if the Julian date is January 12, 1737.

Under the tacit assumption that the Biographical Directory is correct and Encarta has just forgotten to adjust the year for Gregorian, I've added the calendar qualifications to the article. However, if anyone has reliable sources that say otherwise, do chip in. JRM 22:24, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

I have read elsewhere that John Hancock opposed the ratification of our Constitution - on the grounds that he thought that it gave too much authority to the Federal Government, and took too much away from the States. There is nothing about this important topic in this whole article: important because John Hancock was such a prominent man, and because his opinion carried some weight - and also important because so many prominent people supported it: Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, James Madison, and so forth. There are three possibilities:

A) Hancock opposed the ratification of the Constitution. B) Hancock was neutral on the subject. C) Hancock supported the ratification.

Something ought to be said, one way or another.

To say merely that Hancock was the 1st Governor of Massachusetts and/or the 3rd Governor is quite unclear without further qualification, for the following reasons:

A) Massachusetts had had Colonial Governors for hundreds of years, I would presume, since it was an old colony. From this point-of-view, he might have been the 10th, 20th, or whatever Governor. In most colonies, the Colonial Governor was an important position, for he governed directly under the authority of the King, and also because for long periods of times, England and the Colonies more or less ignored each other, and the colonies had effective self-rule. B) Was he the first Governor after the Declaration of Independence? C) Was he the first Governor after the winning of independence in 1781, or after the formal Treaty of Paris, which established it in 1783, or after the establishment of the Articles of Confederation? D) This last one might be the most importatant one: The first Governor after our present form of government was established with the ratification of our Federal Constitution? This is obviously not true in this case, because Hancock served as the Governor of Massachusetts well-earlier than 1789, when the Constitution got the requisite nine ratifications.

The word "Adams" is written in a possessive usage, but without any modification. The proper possessive of Adams is Adams's. Like it or lump it: respected style manuals say is the preferred form or the possessive, and it is also more logical.

When I saw DanteAlighieri add "some categories", I was sure they had already been in the article. I was right. 206.223.207.102 has removed a great deal of material without explanation, including the references. I've reverted it and incorporated the things added since then, but let's be careful out there.

I hope nobody thinks badly of me for reinstating the original disambig header while I'm at it, instead of the bland and imprecise {{otheruses}}. I'm probably firing a blank at the Consistency Brigade with this (who are having long and pointless discussions over the most apt wording and style for a one-size-fits-all disambig header), but at least I want to have fired it. JRM · Talk 23:42, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Nice catch. I feel sort of stupid for not having realized that someone else must have probably thought of giving JH categories before. ;) I should've checked the history. Oh well. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if you hadn't added those categories, who knows how many edits we would have had to remerge... Collaborative editing at work. :-) JRM · Talk 21:13, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Recently one of my co-workers took a tour and now we are trying to confirm the names of John and Dorothy Hancock's children. The most I've managed to find is that the couple had two children Lydia Hancock, who died at only 10 months old, and John George Washington Hancock who died at only 8 years old. --Brons 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a section on his children until it was deleted by User:Imacg3; I have restored it. (It seems semiprotection is not enough to preserve this article from continuous vandalism.) --Ziusudra 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, was the former Miss Quincy connected to others such as John Quincy Adams and Colonel John Quincy? Ubermonkey 13:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dolly was a cousin of the Presidential Quincy family. Her father was Judge Edmond Quincy. I don't have the full family tree on hand but I think she was John Quincy's 2nd cousin, maybe 3rd. --Brons 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why removing the "Children" section would be considered vandalism. In a short article like this, I don't see the point of including children who did not survive. It certainly adds nothing to Hancock's place in American history. So... I delete the section.MarkinBoston 15:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The children section is quite important in any case, and especially in the light of the fact that Hancock named his son "John George Washington Hancock". That in itself indicates the immense respect and admitation that John Hancock had for Washington.

Also, listing the children and their ages of death indicated how dangerous and risky that life was back in the 18th Century in America, and also the great sorrow that many parents suffered through. As another example, John and Abigail Adams had about 10-12 children, and only 2-3 lived through to adulthood. They were burying their children on a fairly-regular basis, which must have been a great sadness and a strong influence on their lives (unless they simply got used to is). It was also remarkable for a woman to live through so many childbirths w/o dying herself. Also, there were no forms of birth control, so married women were getting pregnant all the time. Also, people might not know it, but Thomas Jefferson was a widower who had lost his wife due to the health dangers back then, and he remained a widower for many decades, never remarrying. He was a widower when he was the President. On the other hand, many prominent men had 2-3 wives - mostly due to the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. It is misleading not to give some indication of the dangers of life back then - especially now, after so many diseases (dangerous childbirth, smallpox, etc.) have been conquered. It is wrong to take these things for granted!

A cursory search on Google failed to show me any information about a Hobag, Massachusetts. Does/did this place really exist, or is it an unfortunately subtle vandalism? Of course, I acknowledge that the Google search was cluttered with other, ahem, creative uses of the word 'hobag.' But even in a search for some Quincy history sites, I failed to find the name. Anyone have more info?  :: Salvo (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of the folks who watch this article would agree that it is a magnet for vandals (for obvious reasons). Significant energy is expended in continually reverting the vandalism. And even so, we don't catch all of it. I just replaced an entire section that was deleted by a vandal over three months ago, which no one had noticed. I fixed another minor nonsensical defacement that had been in place unnoticed some seven weeks. A sort of slow erosion?

I suppose one could regard this article as a sort of honey pot, where we always know where to find vandals. But, has anyone ever thought of asking for the article to be semi-protected? After all, the late respected gentleman deserves a little dignity. --Ziusudra 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While my son was researching John Hancock for a school paper he came upon the following descrepancy. Per A&D Biographies, Founding Fathers, by Stuart A. Kallen, ABDO Publishing Co., his business was a mercantile (shipping) not shipbuilding (pg 10 ref). Does anyone know if which is correct or did he do both?MmkN 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)MmkN

There should be some information on Hancock's early years, does anyone have anything to contribute?

The article has no indication that it is protected, not even a small padlock icon, and the article does not clearly say what type of protection it is. 76.183.213.20 03:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I didn't know it was protected either. However I signed out, and couldn't edit it as an anonymous user, so I would assume its semi-protected. No idea why indication of this isn't given though. BH (T|C) 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was formally known as IP address: “76.183.213.20”. I think this article is semi-protected based on the discussion above.  Tcrow777  talk 05:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of the discussion is "Vandal magnet".  Tcrow777  talk 05:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot edit semi-protected articles until my user account is 4 days old.  Tcrow777  talk 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the list and the article is semi-protected.  Tcrow777  talk 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article asserts that Hancock received a "business degree" from Harvard. I very much doubt that Harvard conferred degrees in business in 1752. As I understand it, his uncle wanted him to have a Harvard education to facilitate his success in business. But that's not the same as getting a "business degree." This should be fixed.

There was no such thing as a business degree, or an engineering degree, or an education degree, or an agriculture degree back then in the 18th Century. Almost all degrees were liberal arts degrees. Education in fields like law, medicine, and architecture were earned mostly on an apprenticeship basis. It is wrong to take it for granted that education, and human knowledge, has made LOTs of progress since the 18th Century, and not to realize that things were lots simpler in people's lives back then. For example, people like Hancock, Washington, and Franklin:

1) Never rode on a train or a steamship. 2) Never sent a telegram or used a telephone. 4) Never used a calculating machine, much less a computer. 5) Never used a tractor on their farms or plantations. 6) Never used anesthesia or antibiotics for surgery or dental work. 7) Never used a sewing machine or an electric motor. 8) Never used any dynamite, as useful as that might have been on their plantations. 9) Never called the "county agent" for help in running their farms or plantations efficiently.

As for something like a car, a truck, a radio, or an airplane - just forget it.

whoever put the children section back in - please give a citation. I've never heard of the claim. MarkinBoston 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) I agree that this should be fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.136.114.220 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think that we should put in John Hancock's famous signature in at the bottom of his infobox. Almost, if not all of the presidents have them, and this dude's sig is arguably the most famous in the world, with the phrase "put your John Hancock on it" being widely used. Couldn't we move it up into the infobox? Ben 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did upload an SVG form of his signature. :)! Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hancock was not born in Quincy, Massachusetts, because no such municipality yet existed at the time he was born. Neither was he born in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, nor yet even in the United States. That was then, this is now. Read the reference in the intro. Or the sentence following that.

--Ziusudra (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is quite true. He was born in Braintree,Massachusetts. Braintree has the birth records. Quincy was not formed until nearly the 19th century. Before that it was just a prominent family name.

The other signers of the Decleration did not all sign on August 2. Most did, but a few didn't sign until much later. The last signer didn't sign until sometime in 1777. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.249.83 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All that I have read has his birthdate being on the 12 of January

upon further research I have found his birthday listed on both the 12 and the 23 of January, where to turn to for accurate information? while looking up "Jan 12" and "Jan 23" he was listed on both pages under births, I originally edited it off of the "Jan 23" page but now am not sure what to do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.117.143 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Both dates are correct, depending on the calendar used; see Old Style and New Style dates. This is fully explained in this article; see particularly the first footnote. —Kevin Myers 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm putting his birthday back on the "Jan 23" page. Toxic madness (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Could you please add this line under the external references please

• Fictional obituary of John Hancock: "what if" George Washington had refused the Presidency?

Thank you
Sincerely Steve

That's an interesting essay, but according to our guidelines we don't link to those sort of blog entries. —Kevin Myers 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Can someone who has authority on this page consider a correction: improper use of a colon.

Under the "Growing imperial tensions" section, paragraph one, last sentence:

"Hancock was not yet a political activist, however: he criticized the tax for economic, rather than constitutional, reasons."

It's actually a mess, as you can see. Please consider:

"Hancock was not yet a political activist; however, he criticized the tax for economic rather than constitutional reasons."

Thanks, j5robert

Thank you for your input. I believe you are mistaken about the colon, however, and that your change would obliterate the point that the two joined sentences are attempting to make. This is not a major issue—we could (and probably will) simply rewrite to avoid any doubts—but it is interesting point for encyclopedia editors to consider.

First of all, about colon usage. According to Rule 4 of this guide: "Use a colon instead of a semicolon between two sentences when the second sentence explains or illustrates the first sentence and no coordinating conjunction is being used to connect the sentences." That's what we have here: the second sentence ("he criticized the tax...") illustrates the first sentence {"Hancock was not yet a political activist..."). The point is that Hancock's criticism of the tax for economic reasons illustrates that he was not yet a political activist, since a political activist would have emphasized the constitutional objections.

The potentially confusing issue is the part of Rule 4 that says we should use a colon when "no coordinating conjunction is being used to connect the sentences". Your punctuation change is premised on the idea that "however" is a conjunction joining the two sentences. It is not, however: it is used to modify only the first sentence. (Did you see what I did there?) Putting a colon or semicolon before the however would make the "however" meaningless. To avoid confusion, we could eliminate the however, or, pace Strunk & White, put it at the beginning of the sentence: "However, Hancock was not yet a political activist: he criticized...."

Your elimination of the commas in the second half is probably fine. I prefer an old-fashioned, liberal use of commas to set off certain clauses, but the modern preference is to eliminate them wherever possible. —Kevin Myers 18:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)