Talk:Winfield Scott Hancock

older entries

He's always known as Winfield Scott Hancock, I don't think I've ever seen him called Winfield S. Hancock. He was named for Winfield Scott, and used the full name in recognition of that. -- Zoe

Yeah, although Winfield S. Hancock is used in many military works, because historians are like that. ugen64 01:57, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

expanded article on August 19

I have added a variety of improvements to the article, but wanted to explain one here. Although the recent addition of footnotes by another editor was a good thing, I think it is a better thing to use published secondary references in book form over online references, so I have replaced most of them. It was a little odd to see an article written from specific references footnoted from different sources, so now it is consistent. Hal Jespersen 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Overnight, I realized that I had inadvertently thrown away some of the Web links that were in the previous footnotes, so I have placed those into the External References. Hal Jespersen 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom Passed

Very nice work! Congratuations! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Armistead connection

I have reverted a few edits by an anonymous user on May 2 that claims the traditional story of the friendship of Hancock and Armistead was not true. You will need to provide some compelling secondary source citations to accompany this action. This is an assertion that is maintained not only in fiction, but in most prominent histories of the battle. Most histories I consulted credit the account of Bingham (about statements Armistead made as he was dying) as being credible (although they were quite controversial to Lost Cause of the Confederacy advocates). They also cite as a fact that the two men served together in Southern California before the war. I can add specific footnotes on all of the original statements if necessary. Hal Jespersen 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Closest popular vote?

I think the fact that the absolute difference in popular votes between the two leading candidates was close was close doesn't deserve the attention it receives here. In several other elections the ultimately triumphant candidate had fewer popular votes than another candidate. Thus the relevant measurement would seem to include a magnitude -- number of votes -- and a sense of greater than or less than the second highest receiving candidate OR the field of all other candidates. E.g., More notable from an electoral point of view would be (in 2000) Gore > Bush by 500,000, as well as (in 1824) Jackson > Quincy Adams but less than Quincy Adams + Clay + Crawford. Ryanluck (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not given that much attention, really, just a mention in the lead paragrpah and again in the section on the 1880 election. And it's true, too. Coemgenus 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The current paragraph gives a number of less than 2000 votes separating the candidates, but the graphic has a number closer to 10,000.... which one is accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

serving officer while campaigning?

The sequence of events described in the article makes it sound like Hancock was serving as a general in the US army while running for president -- he is described as having "carried on as commander of the Division of the Atlantic" after his defeat. Can this be so? I thought that having serving military officers running for office was a huge no-no in the US. --Jfruh (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a no-no today, but not at the time. Winfield Scott, George B. McClellan, Ulysses S. Grant, and Winfield Scott Hancock all ran for president as active military officers. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it just a coincidence this is Featured today when he was also discussed this morning on Morning Edition? I heard it on my way to work today and then check out wikipedia tonight and poof! there he is again on the front page! Neat!71.63.15.156 (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I also heard that. NPR has been featuring areas maintained by the National Park Service and talked to a ranger at the Gettysburg National Military Park and she related the story described in the last paragraph at Lewis Addison Armistead#Early life when Hancock was parting ways with his colleges after the start of the Civil War.—Zaui (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

guerilla marketing

how much money did jimmy wales get for making this the featured article on wikipedia the day before the movie hancock comes out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.40.164 (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AD. Oh, and WP:FRINGE. Don't make conspiracy theories. :P Cheers, 205.200.18.71 (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean WP:ADS? --81.150.229.68 (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. I suggested that this article run today because this is the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, in which Hancock played an important role. As far as I know, Jimbo has never even read this article, which does not even reference the Will Smith movie. Coemgenus 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

hancock the movie

does will smith play winfield scott hancock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.241.102 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Paul Giamatti plays Frederick Douglass. 76.106.123.223 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Chalfant citation

The following sentence in the article has a citation without a page number reference:

There was also considerable friction between Hancock and one of his subordinates, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer, over harsh punitive measures by Custer against deserters, which resulted in Custer's conviction by court-martial for being absent without leave.

It is not appropriate for the reader to have to read an entire book to verify that claim. Please provide a page number or I will remove the reference. Thank you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hal: I agree. The citation that was there before was more precise. Coemgenus 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Custer court martial belongs in the Custer article. Hancock just did the paperwork (other people brought the charges and comprised the court). In all, Jordan gives the whole episode only one short paragraph. It gets too much weight here because Custer is so famous. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

..."constitutional principles" in the lede

I pulled this line, as I was confused what it meant and couldn't find a reference below. Coemgenus correctly pointed out that it's referring to his pro-states rights position and General Order #40. I'd like to change the phrasing, since I find the current wording a bit vague as a way of conveying that point. The line in the text about how he was a rare figure who combined impeccable unionist credentials with states rights politics captures his political strength nicely, and I think could make the lede clearer. Thoughts? --Robth^Talk 17:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hancock did follow the Democratic party line but was notoriously uninformed about political issues--famously he did not know what the tariff was. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to imply anything about his level of political knowledge--just that he was in a politically powerful position as a state's rights unionist. My concern about "conservative constitutional principles" is that at that it could refer to quite a range of things, while the article suggests that his appeal was specifically a mix of having fought for the Union and views on states rights that were amenable to the white southern Democratic bloc. I'd prefer to be more specific, as well as to speak in terms readers are likelier to understand. --Robth^Talk 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that I'm mostly familiar with Hancock as a figure in the reconstruction narrative, so it may be that there's something else about his politics that I'm missing. What the body of the article is saying makes sense for the period, though. --Robth^Talk 17:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The way you phrased it in your first comment is probably a better description than what's there now. --Coemgenus 19:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Took a crack at it. --Robth^Talk 22:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Coemgenus 23:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to closest election in American History

After reviewing the source at which the subject claim was made, I found that the relatively amateur website may have been somewhat inaccurate and that my given source (The American Pageant Thirteenth Advanced Placement Edition) may be more reputable. The new figures from this textbook put the difference between Garfield and Hancock's popular vote at 39,213, as stated in the newly revised article. I also took the liberty of removing the graphic from this section because of the inconsistencies it would deliver with my figures. Further justifications for removal was that it even contradicted the previous claims. 68.60.41.76 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that a high school textbook or something? Does it cite a source? I'd like to investigate this further. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Coemgenus for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Although he was well enough to lead his regiment at Molino del Rey"

This reference under the Mexican-American war should probably say "rejoin his regiment". Surely he wouldn't have led the regiment as a brevet first lieutenant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Gillett (talk • contribs) 06:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winfield Scott 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/20090605014434/http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/wpclasses.html to http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/wpclasses.html

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) 23:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede

The lede contains three quotations in praise of Hancock, that are not referenced in the article. They should be transferred to their appropriate place in the text. Valetude (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Normally said about Southerners

Armistead and the other southerners left to join the Confederate States Army, while Hancock remained in the service of the United States.

Why is this notable? Hancock was a Pennsylvanian. Valetude (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winfield Scott 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/20141022014655/http://www.rocemabra.com/~roger/tagg/generals/ to http://www.rocemabra.com/~roger/tagg/generals/

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) 17:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)