Biography: Politics and Government Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Nancy Hanks is supposed to be a relative of mine, yet this article states that not much is known about her childhood! Now I must do some serious research to understand why there isn't much known about her childhood!

Nancy Hanks, b 25 Mar 1780, d 5 Oct 1818 , m 12 Jun 1806 to Thomas Lincoln.

Nancy lived with her grandmother, “Nannie”, until she went back to Virginia to live with her “aunt “ [quite possibly her real mother] Lucy Hanks Sparrow, m 1790 to Henry Sparrow. She lived with Lucy until 1795 when her aunt Elizabeth married Henry’s brother, Thomas Sparrow, then she lived with Elizabeth and Thomas until she was married to Thomas Lincoln in 1806. [Footnote1: The Lincoln Family, History of Lee County, Virginia, Anne Wyche.]

It is not known whether Nancy was the daughter of Joseph Hanks (in wedlock) or his sister Lucy Hanks (out of wedlock)

Gary Boyd Roberts identifies several candidates for Nancy Hanks’ parents: putative fathers include James Hanks of North Carolina, Abraham Hanks of Fauquier, Prince William and Campbell Cos., Va., Thomas Hanks of Ross & Washington Cos., Ohios, and _____ Hanks of Virginia; another possibility is a gentleman planter of Richmond co., possibly Elisha Lingan Hall. Possible mothers include Lucy Shipley, Sarah Harper, Merry Berry, ____ Berry, and Lucy Hanks

{One author has proposed that Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of Nancy Hanks and Abraham Enloe.}^[1] -Nunh-huh 03:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--The Broad Run Baptist Church (Fauquier County Virginia) has the Church records with Nancy Hanks baptism recorded. Local gossip says that she was father by a wealthy planter who simply spurned her once she became pregnant - hence Lincoln's hatred of southern aristocrats.

Nancy Hanks birth place is on the list of National Historic Places and is in Mineral County, WV. That information is correct. --71Demon 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have consulted numerous sources about the birthplace and there is substantial disagreement and numerous claims. The problem apparently originates with the widespread use of "Nancy" for Hanks' females. Deardoff 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth could Tom Hanks be a descendant of Nancy Hanks Lincoln? A distant relative, maybe, but Hanks would have had to be a Lincoln, and all of Lincoln's descendants are dead.--Idols of Mud (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No trivia please. :)

7h3 3L173 (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large portions of the article have been changed this morning and really should have been discussed first and/or consensus reached. I have reverted the majority of the changes back to the original version - let's take it slowly, okay? Thank you. Lhb1239 (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, since this appeared to be little more than a stub of an article, I added standard bio headers and tried to make content consistent with other bios. I did not think those would be considered major changes, as I made few substantive changes. WP discourages trivia, and incidental mentions of Hanks Lincoln in music or books are not in the same category of "Honors" as songs written specifically as tribute to her, or memorials or legislative recognition. I think these are classified more accurately as "Honors" rather than "Legacy". Parkwells (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Items:

• It seemed unnecessary to devote more space in the section on Nancy Hanks' early life to the history of Mineral County, West Virginia than to her life, as the county has its own article. Its organizational history seemed to have little bearing on the events of her early life, which would have been the only reason to note it in such detail.
• Although she was born Nancy Hanks, by the time she moved with her husband and children to Indiana, she was known as Nancy Hanks Lincoln. It seemed appropriate to say "the Lincoln family" moved...
• Milk sickness is not a "disease" (defined by the dictionary as caused by infectious microorganisms or genetic causes), but an illness caused by drinking or eating products of cows that had eaten the white snakeroot plant, which contains the poison tremetol. I have corrected the milk sickness article so that it reflects this. We don't have to perpetuate errors in WP.
• If Nancy Hanks Lincoln was "living in Little Pigeon Creek at the time of her death," it seemed reasonable to say earlier in the content that the Lincoln family had settled in Little Pigeon Creek. Then the section on her death is limited to that and the milk sickness, and its other victims.
• Using the dab/wikilink is customary for people- I was trying to give each of her children their names at birth and while they lived in the Lincoln family (the surname does not need to be repeated three times), but also to mention Sarah's marriage to Grigsby. Using this kind of link directs people properly to the article on Sarah Lincoln Grigsby, but it does not seem appropriate to list her as a child that way.
• Material in the Lead is supposed to summarize the main content of the article, so Abraham Lincoln as president has to be mentioned below as well as in the Lead. She was first married before she was his mother, even thought that is why she is notable, so that's why I gave her the marriage first and mother of Sarah and Abe second; also kept the children in birth order.Parkwells (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification so we're all on the same page: "discussion" occurs when more than one person is talking and ideas are exchanged. It's not just one person talking and giving a monologue on their thoughts.

I will take the comments above point by point:

• "Material in the lead..." -- Material in the lead is supposed to summarize, but it is also supposed to make note of what the article subject is known for. Hanks is known in history as being the mother of President Abraham Lincoln, not the wife of Thomas Lincoln.
• Living in Little Pigeon Creek..." -- Fine.
• "Milk Sickness" -- Yes, you are correct that it is not a disease, but it is a "condition". This should be noted rather than "disease".
• "The Lincoln family moved..." -- Fine.
• "Mineral County" -- Fine.

My issue wasn't so much with the content of what you changed, but what was being completely removed rather than reworked. It seemed abrupt and out of the blue to me. I'm just trying to maintain the integrity of the article - from what I have seen in the page's history, you hadn't edited it before, so such quick, big and not-so-subtle changes seemed a little to aggressive to me. Still, talking about big changes in the talk section is a better approach and promotes cooperative editing. Let's keep the discussion going. Lhb1239 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors working together to improve an article is a good thing. I know that sometimes I'll come across an article that just looks kind of stubby to me and I'll decide it needs some editing and boldly change it...article changes aren't always incremental. I think the article has now been greatly Wikified by all of us and is also now much better sourced. Also, a tiny little point...Parkwell's first edits to this article were back in 2009. Shearonink (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but, quick clarification, I wanted to get down the points while I remembered them, rather than having to go back and forth to the article for one at a time.Parkwells (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You or someone else had that she was the wife of TL; I just reordered it in terms of timing.Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to insert comments in the middle of another editor's already established comments. Doing so breaks up what the other editor already wrote, leaves out their sig from the comment, and generally causes confusion to those reading what's been written. What's more, doing so is basically editing what another editor has written and is not considered good Wikipedia practice. Please see the WP article on refactoring talk pages. I have re-placed the comments made by Parkwells just above these comments where they should have been left originally. Lhb1239 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Layout:replying guidelines, threaded comments with indentations denoting replies within a specific discussion is not usually considered to be against Wikipedia guidelines but, anyway, knowing Parkwell's longstanding Wikipedia experience I am sure that was not their intent. Since talkpages are supposed to be for discussing the article and how to improve it, thought I'd mention at this point that I've just added information and another reference about the multiple graves in the Pioneer Cemetery/Nancy Hanks Lincoln Cemetery at the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial. --Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this could be regarded as trivia but a lot of people have erroneous ideas about how Tom Hanks is related to Nancy Hanks Lincoln, the question does come up and they will do some research on the Internet and in Wikipedia. Tom seems to be Nancy's third cousin, four times removed Geneaology.Com paragraph and Geneaology.Com Family Tree. A 1999 Tom Hanks biography by David Gardner says that "Tom's line in the family dates back to the youngest son, John, born in 1690, a genealogical journey which took eight generations to get to the movie star." I think the information (reliably sourced of course) should be added to the article but I can't quite figure out how/where. Any ideas? Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why putting the Tom Hanks item back in would be harmful to the article - we should probably leave the reference to Toy Story out, though. That would certainly make it non-trivial and just factual. Some feel that adding relative info about celebrities in historical (and other) aritcles is trivia just because of their popular celebrity status. I don't agree. As long as the info is properly referenced and written encyclopedically, that is. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section "Notable relatives" (have to change the first title as Hanks is not a descendant.) This makes me somewhat uneasy, as it could easily turn into a trivia section in numerous articles for distant cousins. Third cousin, four times removed seems rather meaningless. If there is no better source than a blurb on Ancestry.com, it should be left out.Parkwells (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that making a specific section for the Tom Hanks reference will possibly attract trivia - but I could be wrong about this. Time will tell if the page is watched closely for this kind of thing. As far as the third cousin 4x removed thing.....it's not trivial to genealogists. Aside from genealogists, however, if his last name weren't the same as Lincoln's mother, I would be more inclined to keep it out. Then again, there are numerous biography articles (BLPs included), that list celebrity and historical figure genealogical connections throughout Wikipedia - so precedent is set. All this considered, I don't think there's anything off or inappropriate about including the Tom Hanks info in the least. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is Hanks not a descendant? He's not in the direct line of Nancy Hanks, but as far as genealogists are concerned, he most certainly is a descendant of hers. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I will have to differ with your statement. Tom Hanks is not a descendant of Nancy Hanks Lincoln, directly or otherwise, he is a relative/cousin of hers. They have a ancestor in common from the 1600/1700s, but any claims/assertions about their relatedness should be scrupulously sourced since Mr. Hanks is a living person and biographies of living persons parameters would apply in this case. --Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being fairly knowledgeable about this particular subject, I will also disagree with you (respectfully, of course). Tom Hanks is a descendant of the Hanks line, ergo, he is a descendant of Nancy Hanks through their common ancestor, John Hanks (b. 1728). Again, one not need be a direct-line descendant to be considered a descendant. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would say a commonly-accepted definition of "descendant" is that one would have to in direct bloodline descendant to be considered such a person. Mr Hanks would indeed be a descendant of the Hanks family line but Nancy Hanks herself is not a direct ancestor of his. In any case, before adding any statements to the article about relatedness they would have to be scrupulously sourced and explained (whatever terms are used) owing to BLP concerns. Shearonink (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having done much genealogical research, I agree with Shearonink, and we need to use a widely understood meaning here. Tom Hanks is not a descendant of Nancy Hanks, but a collateral relative. Only direct descendants are descendants. They may both be descendants of John Hanks, but that does not make Tom Hanks a descendant of Nancy. Ancestry.com does not claim that he is, or whatever the website was. Also, there is material in BLP articles that is not well sourced, and that is not a precedent we want to follow or encourage. This is not supposed to read like a fan magazine.Parkwells (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not supposed to read like a fan magazine." Wow - now THAT is certainly an odd turn of phrase and strange use of "logic" on this subject. Who here has suggested or implied (either in direct word or editing action) anything of the sort? Lhb1239 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many BLP articles for celebrities have a fan magazine quality to them, in my opinion, and often quote extensively from them. That is what I'm referring to.Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit... The Cemetery is referred to as the "Nancy Hanks Lincoln Cemetery" by the National Park Service per present Ref#6/here. Not sure that Graveyards.com is a reliable source... yes, I can see in the Graveyard.Com photo that there is a sign stating "Pioneer Cemetery" but that doesn't mean that this is actually the Cemetery's known name, officially or otherwise. --Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various sources online, the cemetery is, indeed, called "Pioneer Cemetery". This would make sense, especially since there are Little Pigeon Creek pioneers buried there (my ancestors among them, BTW ;-). The NPS may call it "Nancy Hanks Lincoln Cemetery" for publicity and tourism purposes, but from everything I've seen, it's official name is Pioneer Cemetery. but...I'll look into this further. (and don't forget verifiability over truth - I suppose in this case, that verifiability may go both ways) Lhb1239 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder but I do think that I already know the Wikipedia guideline of verifiability not truth. Source the name/names as necessary/required, it might be appropriate to refer to it as "Pioneer Cemetery/Nancy Hanks Lincoln Cemetery" since it is referred to in printed reliable sources by both names. It might be known as "Pioneer Cemetery" within the local area and there are at least 30 known graves at this location (only a few of which are associated with the Lincoln family) but I would think that most readers will come to the name through the Lincoln connection. Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to "hear" increased snippiness in the tone of your replies - and, frankly, in the interest of AGF, I just don't see the need for it. If you want to discuss, fine - discuss. But please, in the interest of cooperative editing, let's leave the "attitude" out. Okay? As far as the definition of what a genealogical descendant is, sorry, but you're incorrect. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm incorrect, ok, I am fine with that. In the other section I was only trying to give the commonly-accepted understanding of what a "direct descendant' is. I did do some research on the geneaological term and what I found at this Geneaological Dictionary stated that a descendant is "A person who is an offspring, however remote, of a certain ancestor or family", I took that to mean a bloodline descendant of a person or in a direct family-line. Like I said, if I'm wrong about the term, that's fine. --Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lhb, it would be useful for you to find a sourced definition for your assertion, as it's not one I've seen in 15 years of genealogical research. The 2004 American Heritage College Dictionary first definition of "descendant" is: "A person, an animal, or a plant whose descent can be traced to a particular individual or group." Nancy Hanks and Tom Hanks are both descendants of John Hanks; they are both descendants of the "Hanks line," but Tom Hanks is not a descendant of Nancy Hanks, as he cannot be traced back directly to her. He is descended from a different ancestor in the John Hanks line.Parkwells (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information I added on Lucy and Nancy Hanks and the Sparrows is a placeholder, as I'm uneasy about the website as an RS. Am looking for other reliable sources on her life.Parkwells (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally WP policy is to put citations at the end of sentences, rather than in the middle, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't think anything in this article is so controversial as to require cites for phrases.Parkwells (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way in which I see it being neccessary is if a specific fact/statement needs a reference. The are instances when references given aren't clear-cut and immediately obvious as relating to article text. So.....do we write Wikipedia text to fit the reference or provide a reference that fits the text perfectly? Or do we provide a reference inline so that a reader checking the reference isn't confused? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for readers, is it not? Lhb1239 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that "inline cite" includes those put at the end of the sentence. I believe it refers to having the source information there with the sentence in the edit mode, rather than having just a footnote number, with all source information in another location when in edit mode. If you feel the cite was critical to a particular phrase, you're welcome to put it back.Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]