Talk:Thomas Hodgkin

Kangaroo info
@Billenben I've removed the Kangaroo info because it is all original research and therefore violates WP:NOR. Have it published elsewhere in a reliable source then it can be cited. In addition it is a very small part of Hodgkin's life therefore a small mention and a pointer to another article on it should be sufficient in this article. If I'm wrong, please explain here. Erp (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the narrative that surrounds the Kangaroo Office under W J Taylor i think in all fairness all that material should be taken down as well. Talk about hear say and I only drink beer because my father drank beer; if you don't follow that later reference then that is OK.
 * I do not follow how citing numerous contemporary records from the time to come to a fact based conclusion constitutes original research.
 * Do you have someone from numismatics in your ear trying to protect the current false narrative on the Kangaroo Office?
 * To be blunt i have had the Smithsonian make some adjustment to their Kangaroo Office pieces page, I have the British Museum make changes to theirs, the Museum of Victoria is going to make changes.
 * Why am i struggling with Wikipedia? Why am i even bothering?
 * I have made comment in a coin forum that Wikipedia (Erp) took down the (first) piece because Erp doesn't think it is the same Hodgkin's even though it is the same signature on the Wiki Hodgkin page as is on the Indenture I cite. To even have suggested it is not the same person is laughable. To have removed the original material on that premise is embarrassing for you and for Wiki. I have no trust your judgement.
 * I feel you are looking for reasons not to have it up because now you have new reasons.
 * "It is only a small part of Hodgkin's life ..."
 * So too are the other "interests" on his page yet they are still there and more poorly referenced than my piece.
 * I will have you note the Kangaroo Office is considered anything but a small part of Australian numismatics.
 * As far as I am concerned Wikipedia's stock has crashed; I hope you follow that reference.
 * The current narrative on the Kangaroo Office is not correct and references in my piece show that.
 * It is not Taylor driving the bus so to speak, it is Hodgkin. Numerous key institutions are now accepting the narrative like that currently found on Wikipedia (W J Taylor page) is not correct. What is most likely is what my piece states, evidenced by the citations, that Hodgkin is the principal of the Hodgkin Tindall Taylor trio. I expect you will remove my edit of the Taylor page now.
 * Who was the principal of the Kangaroo Office venture makes a huge difference to how the world views the Kangaroo Office pieces which were propelled to legend status on the back of a false narrative from W S W Vaux in 1864. From there a Kangaroo Office story developed that has no basis, it seems to be people repeating other people with the source still unknown.
 * What one finds on Wikipedia about the Kangaroo Office is a false narrative that has no basis.
 * Love your work.
 * Show me where any of my piece is wrong.
 * Show me where there is a reliable published source that cite material that shows the Taylor narrative is accurate
 * Most of Wiki does not meet the NOR policy.
 * At some point everything is Original Research.
 * And just for a laugh i will say Wiki would never have got a High Distinction grade in psychology at Uni of Queensland because in a lot of subjects to get that grade required original material.
 * ".... it is all original research ....." - nonsense. Only the conclusion based on mostly 160 year old material is original.
 * You are not entitled to your opinions; you are entitled to what you can successfully argue.
 * Your original argument that it is likely another Hodgkin was highly erroneous. Your current argument NOR is also erroneous.
 * How full of errors is the pedia?
 * Take a look at this page
 * Daniel Rorke
 * Are you kidding me. How is this even on the pedia when it makes numerous assertions with no citations or foundation.
 * Like i said. Wiki's stock has crashed with me. Billenben (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see three issues with the information you want to add. The first was whether it was the right Thomas Hodgkin (it seems likely it is though it doesn't seem to be stated in any good secondary source), the second that it is original research (Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original research), and third whether the space it takes up is out of proportion to its importance for this entry.  Taking the last issue, as far as I can see, Thomas Hodgkin was at most a financial backer (and not the only one) to his stepson's venture in the Kangaroo; for that matter he might have been investing his wife's money in her son's venture (this was prior to the Married Women's Property Act 1882 so he would have had to act for her) but that is speculation.  At this time the most it deserves is one line in this article and only if you have a good secondary source drawing the connection.   You might have something for a separate Wikipedia article on the topic of the Kangaroo Office and the debate about whether it was a mint or a  press for tokens.
 * For others some secondary sources are [A] [B]   The best tertiary source may be https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/articles/2173 (no mention of Hodgkin though, only his stepson) Erp (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am at the point where i couldn't care less because I do not need Wikipedia to get to where i am going with this and eventually Wikipedia can be the standout for inaccuracy on this matter.
 * The Indenture Deed is what makes it clear it is Dr Thomas Hodgkin. It is his signature.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stamping_press_sales_document_1853
 * Feel free to compare the Indenture signature with the one from the Hodgkin Wiki page.
 * That the source of the Indenture Doc is wikimedia shouldn't really be an issue because all it is is the image of a 1853 document.
 * All Sharples does is write it out in print, that should not qualify as a source, not when one can have an image of the original document.
 * Anyway take a look for yourself and put to bed doubts over if it is Hodgkin or another Hodgkin.
 * His wife as far as i can tell was formerly the maid who Hogdkin married years after the death of his first wife.
 * It is not his step sons venture but i argue Hodgkin is involved, amongst other things, for the benefit of his step son.
 * Based on who Hodgkin was one needs to wonder why he is even involved in such a project and it seems his son in law and wife are the best answer to that question. Arguably not as speculative as the idea the trio are in it to take advantage of a gold price differential that actually does not exist as claimed.
 * The link you give to the Victoria Museum is interesting because it claims Scaife's wife and child are onboard. He has no child at that point in time so you ask me to use a dubious source. I have an email from the Museum saying they are going to be making changes to that narrative. I don't seem to have had any trouble getting the British Museum, the Victoria Museum and the Smithsonian to make changes but Wikipedia is a nightmare.
 * It is not original research, it is an original conclusion that has a factual basis unlike the wallop found on the W J Taylor page.
 * There is so much on Wikipedia that does not meet the standard I am being asked to produce.
 * On Wiki William Joseph Taylor it says:
 * The Kangaroo Office was intended to be Australia's first privately run mint. Taylor had realised that gold could be purchased from the Ballarat goldfields at reduced prices and potentially used to mint gold coins and release them for their higher value in London. These coins looked more like weights, so they could bypass currency laws and restrictions; their dies were dated 1853. In order to raise the money for the venture, Taylor formed a partnership with colleagues Hodgkin and Tyndall - together they raised £13,000 to cover costs and initial outlay. They chartered a vessel, called The Kangaroo, to transport the press, the dies and two employees, Reginald Scaife and William Brown to Australia. They arrived at Hobsons Bay on 25 October 1853, unfortunately the press was too heavy to move and Scaife and Brown had to dismantle it in order to transport it to the site of the new mint. The office began minting gold coins in May 1854.
 * Actually.
 * The Kangaroo Office was intended to be a store with the stamping as an aside as per the Indenture.
 * “In order to raise the money for the venture, Taylor formed a partnership with colleagues Hodgkin and Tyndal”
 * Taylor doesn’t need to raise money for the venture because it is around 60s per ton to ship things to Melbourne. If he wants to do this then it is cheaper to just do it without the others. For £13,000 the trio bought a boat, sent a prefabricated store and goods for the store. Taylor could have sent the press and equipment for less than a hundred pound; instead we are to believe he forms a syndicate, personally invests something in the order of £4,000 and signs away 7/9ths of the profit from the press to another party (Scaife).
 * The claim about releasing the gold coin in London is rubbish as is shown in the Deed.
 * The Hodgkin is Dr Hodgkin as seen on the Deed.
 * They did not charter The Kangaroo, they owned it.
 * They arrived in Hobson Bay on the 25th, this is in fact one of the few places that has that date right.
 * The press weight story is rubbish.
 * https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/729171
 * The only people who purport the press weight issue story are those who have not seen the press.
 * The Office did not begin minting in the gold coins in May 1854.
 * Mid June possibly July they made some token releases and the first advertisement for the gold does not show up in the media until about September.
 * The referencing in the Taylor piece is rubbish because the references often do not go to the claims.
 * The article might as well be citing Vaux’s 1864 introduction of the pieces and claiming among anther things that Melbourne is in South Australia based on that source.
 * How much of Wikipedia is rubbish; probably a lot more than i ever thought. Billenben (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And all of the above is original research. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not publish original research (though some creeps in). Instead it depends on good secondary and tertiary sources.  Write up  what you've discovered, have it published in a respected numismatics journal, then it can be used in Wikipedia articles. BTW the biography of Thomas Hodgkin:   seems to have some info on Thomas Hodgkin, Reginald Scaife, and Kangaroo (at least by the bits visible in a google book search). Erp (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)