Talk:Edward Bancroft

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military 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 articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern / American Revolution This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) American Revolutionary War task force Espionage Low‑importance Edward Bancroft is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's a shame this article is a stub. I'll fix it up when I get the chance.

Scholarus 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is the rest of the article not displaying after long quote? Hmains 21:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not sure; trying to fix that now

Scholarus 22:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plus I made some small changes - and added the cats - before I realised that this was a work in progress. Sorry - didn't mean to barge in.HeartofaDog 01:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's alright; change whatever you want. i had it almost all done, but my computer messed up before i could save it.

Scholarus 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to fix the "order" text in the table? Scholarus 21:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my book, After the Fact-The Art of Historical Detection (fifth edition), it says that Bancroft not only acted as a secretary for Silas Deane, but that he also joined Deane in speculating the London insurance markets. The book also states that Bancroft's pension from Parliament was raised from £200 to £1,000 after the war, and that the papers that he had hidden in the tree at Tuileries were signed "B. Edwards", not "Edward Edward". I don't know if any of it merits any attention, but I figured I'd just put it out there. 216.49.220.11 05:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some debate about whether Bancroft can be characterized as a double agent/spy. Specifically, the question is whether Bancroft was engaging in espionage for the Americans from July 1776 to March 1777 when he was in London. During this time period Bancroft sent mostly copies of newspapers, pamphlets, and kept the American diplomats updated on developments in Britain and what the British public heard about developments during the war in North America. He also warned Deane, Franklin and the other diplomats to be wary of spies and even provided a list of possible British spies. Bancroft had started spying for the British in August 1776. Apparently historians have debated whether Bancroft's actions in London can be described as espionage for the American side and thus make him a double agent. The debate is talked about in pages 70-76 of Thomas Schaeper's book. There's a link to the Google Books version in the article sources, although some pages may be missing. Schaeper, by the way, comes to the conclusion that Bancroft was indeed a double agent. After reading those pages of the Schaeper book, I've changed my opinion and feel that he could be characterized as a double-agent. But I feel maybe the article should go more in depth about his espionage activities to give more clarity to readers about why he is called a double-agent. Any thoughts? Also I just changed a section title because after reading Schaeper because I found out that Franklin arrived in Paris after Bancroft arrived in London, although he sent information to both Deane and Franklin.

I think it would be fine to go into more depth. An 18th-century double agent could afford to be far more casual in his relationships than say, a double agent in World War II or the Cold War. Feel free to write up the section, and we can always talk about it if that's necessary.--John Foxe (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include mention of the accusations some historians have made since the 1950's regarding the possibility of Bancroft murdering Silas Deane? I think the evidence is strongly against the theory, but it should at least be mentioned with the evidence for and against it. I also think the article should mention Bancroft's correspondence with Thomas Jefferson during the Foulloy affair.

You're certainly right about Julian Boyd's murder thesis because it's prominently (and in my opinion, deceitfully) used in the oft-adopted college text, After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection.--John Foxe (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article about Benjamin Franklin's attempted reconciliation with his son. Should the article no longer contrast Franklin's relationship with his son to his relationship with Bancroft in regards to possible knowledge of Bancroft's espionage?

I think what's here for Bancroft is fine. But the article about William Franklin should mention the new finding.--John Foxe (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]