Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

One topic; use an Navibox for related others

- From a Gwillhickers-inspired project six-years ago this month:

History of Virginia on stamps

Patrick Henry
1955 issue

Printer and patriots
1973 issue

Thomas Jefferson
1861 issue

Declaration of Independence
1869 issue

Constitution signing 1787
1937 issue

Constitutional ratification 1788
1938 issue

Virginia ratification 1788
1988 issue

Washington's oath 1789
1939 issue

Bill of Rights 1791
1966 issue

Founders of the American Republic, today, extant, surviving

Extended content
{{{1}}}

Comment.

• My point about "navibox" is that the details on the founding are already covered under other articles and that the best we can do is offer a summary or overview of the 2-3 decades involved in the founding.

I agree that signers/non-signers of the Declaration and Constitution qualify as founders, not based on "these three criteria" but on the fact that sources consider them to be founders. I disagree, then, that we can apply the title to 40-50 or so "floor leaders" in the 13 original states - not without sources. Allreet (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you meant in posting my quotations and @Gwillhickers's quotation above. What Gwillhickers has suggested is that we (editors) can consider individuals founders if they meet the criteria in the FF article's lead sentence. I disagree and believe sources must apply the title or some close equivalent (e.g. "forefathers"). Otherwise, we as editors must interpret sources vis a vis the lead, which IMO amounts to Synthesis/Original Research. Allreet (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

:1. My point in citing your "navibox" observation/suggestion is to uphold your good idea. - It is good because it relieves any pressure on editors who might otherwise oppose your contributions here in an effort to somehow craft this article into the centerpiece-touchstone for the Revolution Era on WP. - I do (a) concur, (b) encourage, and (c) look forward to collaborating with you in your good idea for this article. 2. Since we are agreed to follow the LEAD SENTENCE of the article as the TOPIC sentence, "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 during the later decades of the 18th century", - then the FRAME OF THE REGIME in its (1) national INDEPENDENCE, (2) written CONSTITUTION with (3) first ten AMENDMENTS is the criteria we have agreed to, as sourced by reliable sources of scholarly peer reviewed publications, is to be the scope of the article. - that is to say, Signers (and not) of the Declaration, sourced prominent ratifiers (for and against), and the sourced prominent members of the First Congress who wrote in committee and floor-led passage of each of the 10 BILL of RIGHTS in the House and Senate. 3. Thank you for concurring to add the Ratifiers of the 'frame' as Founders. - for Virginia, I've got Pauline Maier sourced for YES vote Madison, John Marshal, and Edmund Randolph; NO vote Patrick Henry and George Mason. - Massachusetts and Pennsylvania to follow, the three together not only are the nation's largest in wealth, they also contributed the largest numbers of troops to Washington's Continental Army among the once Thirteen Colonies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Founders in the Schools

Extended content

:- From User:Robert McClenon @ 11:32 am, 27 May 2022, Friday (1 month, 10 days ago), “ Middle school and high school textbooks are exactly the reliable sources that Wikipedia should be reporting on for this purpose... In an article about the Founding Fathers of the United States, Wikipedia should be explaining, to readers in the British Commonwealth and to Anglophone readers in the European Union, who Americans consider to be the Founding Fathers of the United States... It is important who the academics have taught the American people are the Founding Fathers.” INFORMATIONAL REPLY: Virginia public school textbooks must convey the information found in the Virginia State Educational Standards of Learning. In Middle School, that includes “Virginia Social Studies” (VS). VS.5 (a) …the role of Virginia in the American Revolution, including the Declaration of Independence, George WASHINGTON, Thomas JEFFERSON, Patric HENRY, the Marquis de LAFAYETTE, and James LAFAYETTE… VS.6 …the role George WASHINGTON is called the “Father of our Country” and James MADISON is called the “Father of the Constitution”; (b) identifying the ideas of George MASON in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and Thomas JEFFERSON as expressed in the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom”… In High School, there are two courses that address the Founders as we are contemplating them, “Virginia and US History I” (USI) as juniors, and “Civics and Economics” (CE) as seniors. USI.6 (b) …DECLARATION, (c) George WASHINGTON, Benjamin FRANKLIN, Thomas JEFFERSON, Patrick HENRY, the Marquis de LAFAYETTE…USI.7 (a) …ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, “development of the US CONSTITUTION [i.e. Convention, Ratification, Amendment: Bill of Rights] …major accomplishments of the first five presidents of the United States. VUS Framework 5(c): …understand the development of the American political system [from] the ratification debates over the US Constitution. …the FEDERALISTS …the ANTI-FEDERALISTS. GOVT.2 …George MASON’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights”, Thomas JEFFERSON’s “Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom”, James MADISON leadership in BILL OF RIGHTS by the FIRST CONGRESS; GOVT.4 …the CONSTITUTION of the United States…. -30- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment #1

• I disagree with @Robert to the extent that the books being referred to are not textbooks per se and are not necessarily "taught". I believe they are supplementary reading materials that are available in school libraries. Some are written by credentialed writers; others, not. One of those in the latter instance would be Renee C. Rebman's Articles of Confederation. The book is short (under 50 pages), provides no information on the author other than to say she writes nonfiction for children, includes no bibliography or sources, and in short, is unimpressive as a source. Allreet (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

=> Further User:Allreet comment on the section above "relating to the statements above" are moved to the section above for a more orderly discussion in this thread and that, in my hope to tend towards a more coherent outcome during my contribution here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Moderator Reply #1 concerning the User:Robert McClenon post and User:Allreet response, I think his point is for editors here to have an eye on the reader of WP, the target audience includes international readers reading English as a second language, as well as middle and high schoolers.

- I'm not sure he is advocating using 'supplementary reading material'≥ written by amateurs as the basis of sourcing, that does not comport with the WP Foundation guidelines, and I cannot believe that he proposes that, based on 8-10 years of exchanges between us on these pages.

- RE SOURCING, please note: At American Revolutionary War, to which User: Gwillhickers and I spent nearly two calendar years upgrading a couple years back, NOW has a lead (as of yesterday's reading) an unsourced FANTASY asserting thirteen independent and sovereign states in combination (not nationally combined) overthrew the British Empire on the North American Continent to separately and severally attain independence.

- ARW LEDE SOURCES July 6, 2022:

- [1], an online TV contributor who publishes on hamburgers, frozen desserts and the world's most famous elephants, referencing a couple paragraphs surveying the world's republics to contextualize the US Independence Day celebration,

- [2], the misspelled name of a U. of Pittsburg professor who's publications run to medieval topics, and the citation does NOT lead to a publication, which may have been (charitably) intended to be a treatise on the Waves of Democracy internationally, RATHER THAN something from a peer reviewed scholarly publisher related to the American Revolutionary War.

- I invite interested editors to see to salvaging a once very well written article, according to Foundation sourcing standards (its occasional British English spellings notwithstanding). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not simply revert the erroneous, unsourced edits and/or reinstate the original sourced material? I see that an editor vandalized the lead on July 1 but that was reverted within hours. Is there something else that needs review/correction?

BTW, I did a very quick examination of the lead and would like to point out the following:

• The "round-up" of geographic locations in the first paragraph is somewhat misleading. "North America" makes it sound as if fighting took place all over the continent. Canada? Mexico? Is the current wording over-stating the case and thereby missing the focus of the conflict?
• The Petition to the King was approved on October 1, 1774, not on September 5, which is the day Congress convened.
• The passage on the Seven Years War mentions the British victory but should note over whom, that is, France, a relevant detail.
• The lead says the Congress "authorized George Washington to create a Continental Army". That's not exactly correct. The Second (should be noted) Continental Congress authorized the formation of the Continental Army and appointed George Washington its commander.
• The phrase "where John Adams nominated Washington as the commander-in-chief" is awkward, the thought should be re-worded. That is, if Adams's role, this detail, is important enough to mention at this point.
• I tend to agree with an earlier editor's point that Spain's role was "ancillary". I'd say tertiary at best and disagree with "to a lesser extent" as another detail that does not warrant mention in the first paragraph.

Glancing over the rest of the article, I'm impressed. An amazing amount of "ground" is covered. You and @Gwillhickers are to be commended for this massive undertaking. Allreet (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

edit break

Extended content

::::1. Revert the erroneous edits in the articles I’ve authored or collaborated? No, family and other obligations take me away from a daily WP hobby… and so much just has to be let go… subsequent to my daily oversight at my medically early retirement, the hatchet job deleting destroyer role in the Bombardment of Cherbourg article, for instance . . . its failure to achieve Good Article status because there were not enough key strokes devoted to coverage of the infantry medal of honor winners in the naval bombardment article (the only reason posted for denying the GA status made by any reviewer at the time), etc., etc., so I’m only here at the invitation of Gwillhickers. 2. Re: your ARW lede critique. “North America” in the ARW intro is a useful shorthand for “fighting took place all over North American regions populated by European settlements in (a) Canada from Vincennes to Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, (b) by the Spanish between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River, principally along the western banks of the Mississippi River at St. Louis, and on the Gulf at Mobile and Pensacola (ending English funded Indian attacks on western Georgia and North Carolina)”; in addition, Spanish Governor Bernardo de Gálvez (Congressionally made an honorary US Citizen for his ARW contributions) drew down Spanish garrisons from the Yucatan in his assault on British-held Gulf Coast occupation to end raids on western GA and NC. - IN SHORT, the ARW conflict was not “focused” in any one theater; the WP American Revolutionary War article is not WP:OR, but the ARW article is DISTINQUISHED above most reading lists of even graduate level courses of study by incorporating both (a) MARITIME history from Gwillhickers AND (b) BRITISH sources from Canadian editor contributions. - Recall: French, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, and Austrian aid to the Continental Army did NOT come from breaking the English blockade across the entire Atlantic coast. It came through the Dutch entrepot Sint Eustatius in the easternmost Caribbean, then transported by the Spanish up the Mississippi River they had cleared of English garrisons, up the Ohio River that Virginia militia commander George Rogers Clark had cleared, to land at Pittsburgh for transport east to the Continental Army via Philadelphia, New York City and Alexandria, south. 3. I have not double checked, but my off-hand guess is that the date given for the formal transmission of the Petition to the King by Congress was in the source given; was the earlier date a committee report? I’d be happy so see another date from any reliable source that you provide. 4. British victory over the Kingdom of France, CONCURE and  Done, and then the link to the ARW contemporary Spanish Empire versus the modern Spain link before . . . you successfully roped me into another contribution elsewhere (rats, WP is a great hobby after all). 5. Not sure of the legislature jargon here, but it may be that Congress enacted a Continental Army, appropriated moneys for its operation, then authorized Washington as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army to be the agent of Congress to recruit, train, and deploy troops in service of United States independence. 6. On “A. nominated W. as the commander-in-chief”, that is just the descriptive American English of the nominator (subject), the deed (verb), the recipient (object), and the title awarded (adjectival phrase) as I understand it, but I am happy to defer on any style-only improvement forthcoming from any quarter. 7. Spain’s role in the ARW is “ancillary” only were the COUNTER-FACTUAL asserted, that the Continental Army did NOT need European supplies from the French, Spanish, Dutch, and the seven maritime nations in the First League of Armed Neutrality, notably Russia, Sweden, Austria, and Portugal among them.. Allreet, Thanks for your considered and collegial reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Completely understood regarding your personal situation. Wish you the best on all of that.

Our communiques "passed in the night". I just made some relatively minor edits to the ARW article to correct the errors I noted. I'm "up" on the history/sources involved so all it took was a quick pass. I didn't touch the North America or Spain issues. I did "fill in some gaps" for events in 1773-1774 but only to maintain a "flow". Nothing substantial was added. Hope all that is to your liking, and welcome any comments, as I noted on the ARW's Talk page.

I still don't see what you were referring to in terms of "fantasy". Does it still exist? Please let me know, and if needed, I'll take care of it. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Already taken care of by others. It seems I had just panicked early to avoid the rush. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment #2

• Yes, most textbooks have academic advisors in the editorial process. And are you suggesting that the Marquis de Lafayette, who is one of eight honorary U.S. citizens, be added? If so, I heartily agree, as should other military figures such as Nathanael Greene (for sure) and possibly John Barry, John Paul Jones, and Casimir Pulaski (Pulaski is another of the eight honorary citizens). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Moderator Reply #2 concerning the User:Randy Kryn post, these military service Founders who we agree are important figures in the Revolutionary Era should be located by the reader through a 'Navibox' as suggested by User:Allreet. I hope that they three of us can collaborate on this project together. - For instance, while making very important contributions on a continental scale militarily, both the Marquis de Lafayette and John Paul Jones never held civil office. - So their attainments related to the nation's founding, significant though they certainly are, lie outside the immediate scope of this article, which is limited to the new United States "frame of government" in the lede paragraph, which as I understand it, we are agree to use as the TOPIC sentence for this article given passages in posts from both User:Gwillhickers and User:Allreet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Top military leaders" are also included in the criteria and list if they are recognized as Founders by adequate sourcing. Henry Knox and Anthony Wayne are already on the Founders list, and Greene, Lafayette, etc. could be added. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree regarding other generals (that sounds funny), but Lafayette is a bit problematic. For one, he's not American, so in a sense he'd be a step-father. But more seriously, that's not for us to figure out - we need sources, and I haven't seen any that identify him as a founder. Allreet (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, he has been awarded an Honorary citizenship of the United States, so he's as American as apple pie. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head, so to speak. Most - nearly all - of what's being debated here at the moment lies outside the scope of this article. The "debate" has arisen because @Gwillhickers is intent on proving that all members of the First Continental Congress are founders. Honestly, I'm torn on the issue myself, but we as editors aren't here to "prove" things. Our role as editors is to report what others, presumably scholars, either contend or have proven. So even if members of the Congress single-handedly started and won the war, we can only refer to them as founders if the experts do. If that's unclear in any way, let me know, Allreet (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

edit break1

@TheVirginiaHistorian: — Allreet apparently is under the notion that the delegates in the First Continental Association, who worked in conjunction with Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, et al, in spite of their official challenge to the King and Parliament, and their threat of answering only to their own body of Congressional Representatives, an idea that forms the basis of the Constitution, are somehow not founders. This ignores the history and sources (listed below) that clearly support the idea that that First Congress are founders, which I believe is well within the scope of an article about Founding Fathers.
Allreet, if you are going to demand that a source has to refer to each and every individual by name as a "founding father", verbatim, then that same standard must apply to all the names currently listed in the article, and we will need to see a citation after every name. You were once insisting that we need multiple sources for this as well. Are you willing to provide at least three citations for each name currently listed? The article must use one sourcing standard for all names listed. You tried to rationalize this before, but it still skirts the idea that you are attempting to impose a double standard on the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• The Founding Fathers were the group of men who created the American Republic. They were active during the last quarter of the eighteenth and the first decade of the nineteenth century. For purposes of historic orientation one may date their epoch as, roughly, 1774 to 1809 - the former being the year of the First Continental Congress, and the latter the end of Jefferson's Presidency.
• The Union, as an enduring entity, originated on September 5, 1774, when delegates (the signers) of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies met in Philadelphia and formed the Continental Congress. ... During these twenty-two months the Union exercised extensive powers of government and became, for all practical purposes, a single agency for centralized action in the highest realms of statecraft and war.
• Yet their (the signers) true significance related to their contribution in the formation of a new system of local governance, one beyond royal control or authority that overcame potential crises of sovereignty.
• "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association [by the First Continental Congress] in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”"
• "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."
• "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."

See also: Sources covering the Continental Congress, its Association and the founding -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

@Gwillhickers:, I do not DISAGREE with anything of substance in your last post. HOWEVER, I would like to make an editorial distinction among the ever-enlarging "Founders of the United States" during the 'Revolutionary' and 'New Nation' Eras of that ongoing democratic-republican experiment. The scope of this article can be made more reader-friendly relative to page length and user load times in the for the foreseeable future, by incorporating several important strands of the ongoing conversation here. - (a) User:Robert McClenon's focus on the WP international reader and student researchers interested in the existing Constitutional regime as amended in effect today. - (b) User:Allreet's focus on Founding FRAMERS of the current constitutional order in operation within the jurisdiction of the United States today. - (c) User:Gwillhickers's focus on HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS underpinning the eventual intellectual, statute, administration and adjudication of the "new nation". - (d) User:Randy Kryn's focus on PROMINENT contributors to the United States establishment among Military Founders (Continental Army, Navy, State Militias and Navies), Merchant Founders, Diplomat Founders, Nation Founders among Presidents of Continental Congresses and Articles Congresses, to name a few. We can EXPAND the reader's access to important related material, not by expanding the scope of this article, but by using a Navibox to link this article of FRAMER-FOUNDERS to articles focused on MILITARY-FOUNDERS, NATIONAL LEGISLATURE-FRAMERS, and so on, - thus enhancing the reader's access to information by making each link to articles which are more focused and so less likely to lose the reader's interest and attention. Their research progresses based on their OWN choices made with each click, not the section and paragraph sequencing in a longer and longer article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments, including the POVs of other editors on topics related to the founding and in particular, the Navibox "solution". My main point of "contention" is in regards to the Continental Association as a founding document and its signers as founders. For more on this specific to your comments here, see my response below under "Nation-Founders v. Framer-Founders" (July 11). Thank you. Allreet (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Elements of the "New Nation" to choose FRAMERS Founders

(a) NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, secured among the "powers of the earth" at Paris by the British, and at Versailles by the French and Spanish.

(b) CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a Constitution drafted and unanimously forwarded by the Articles Congress to the States for ratification by the 3/4ths clause to end the Articles regime, resolved unanimously in the Articles Congress the day before the first day of the First Session of the First US Congress in the current constitutional regime of the United States.

(c) RATIFICATION by the American people STATE BY STATE, a Constitution ratified admitting amendments (unanimously in 3 years awaiting Rhode Island, versus the Articles 7 years awaiting Maryland),

(d) AS AMENDED by the one national People in each of their States, a Constitution amended by the BILL of RIGHTS, sent to the state legislatures in the First Session of the First Congress met under the auspices of the New Nation's Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln's view of the founding

• The article mentions that Lincoln used the term founders in the article, but it doesn't mention in reference to what.
  In his assertion that “the Union is much older than the Constitution,” Lincoln again silently invokes that document as authority. “It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” <Conant, 2015, p. 42>

@Gwillhickers: What, pray tell, does this mean? I'm pretty sure Lincoln never used the term "founder", though he used "fathers" several times in his Cooper Union speech in a direct reference to the Constitution's "39 signers". And, of course, he also mentioned "fathers" in his Gettysburg Address having "brought forth...a new nation", so it's fair to say he referenced "founders" multiple times. Allreet (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This is just another example of a reliable source, per Lincoln, using terms, i.e."formed", other than founded, or founding father in reference to the Articles of Association. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

My wikitake on it is that Lincoln's inaugural address is a valid source for listing the four major founding documents (if we can quote any Tom, Dick, or Ebert in a film article then certainly quoting Lincoln about the four major founding documents seems valid as a significant source) but does not source Lincoln naming "founding fathers". His intent, of course, can be outside-wikiuse surmised that that would have been his view of CA signers, particularly taking into account his use of 'fathers' when referring to creators of the nation and to another of his group of four formative documents - its constitution - within the 1860 and 1863 speeches. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretations require secondary sources. Lincoln doesn't call the documents "founding documents" nor does he equate "forming the Union" with founding the nation (in 1774?). You're asserting more than is stated. With a primary source we don't get a "wikitake" - we can't "surmise" anything, for example, what Lincoln's "intent" was. His other speeches have nothing to do with this, and if we drag them in, then we're using more one source to reach a conclusion (see WP:NOR). As for quoting Roger, the same applies. We can paraphrase his words, but not ascribe/discern/ascertain/elucidate their meaning. Which brings to mind a song - only loosely related: "Roger Ebert". Allreet (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, Lincoln clearly referred to the "Union" by saying — "It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” — Again, there's no abstract or unusual idea being put forth that needs to be dissected by a team of scholars to understand what was said. Are you also suggesting that if a president writes a book about the government that we can't use that either? It would be a primary source if the such a work was about the president's term in office, but if he was writing about the founding and the revolution, many years before, and was not involved, that work would not be a primary source, and would be among the most reliable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And per "We choose to go to the Moon", John F. Kennedy's speech which has 862 links. I'm not saying above to equate anything in Wikipedia's official voice. That would not be needed, as the speech itself is obviously a good source and the main source for the start of the four-document sorting of major founding documents. And of course Lincoln states within it that he recognizes the Continental Association as the formation document of the Union - the words are right there in his speech. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn: No question Lincoln referred to the Union and connected its formation with the Association. That's not what Gwillhickers claimed above: "Lincoln's reference to the founders was straight forward". Lincoln said nothing about the founders or the nation's founding. Similarly, Randy, "forming the Union" and "founding the nation" aren't the same. If so, then we have Lincoln asserting the nation was founded in 1774. The rest of Gwillhickers's argument is double-talk, because no matter what, Lincoln's speech is a primary source.

What I gather from all these "conversations" is you both need to have someone explain WP:NOR because neither of you understand it. Allreet (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)\

Where did I say the Continental Association formed a nation? It formed the Union which then became a nation in 1776. As Lincoln explained in briefer words, a union of the colonies first had to be present for it to mature into being able to declare independence. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You've asserted at least four times that Lincoln's quote establishes these as "founding documents", despite the fact that Lincoln only said "formed" and only referred to "the Union". So what I said was "if" you're equating forming with founding - which is what you've been doing since January - then the 1774 dating follows. All I'm doing with that is highlighting the absurdity of the "logic" here. Allreet (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me that Lincoln, in saying the Association formed the union, remains a source for saying that the Continental Association is a founding document. He named four, and offered his usual saying-a-lot-in-a-few-words talent to initially establish those four as the major national foundational documents. This was later affirmed by several good sources. Yes, the Union was formed in 1774 with the CA, and Britain was shown the power of the now firmly unified colonies, enough so that war soon followed. Then, when a group of men met and the nation declared itself in 1776, there had to be something already in existence to call "independent". Not only that, it could not be something which would greatly surprise the colonists who, now undergoing a war, had to be in support of declaring independence or it would not have been feasible. So the foundational groundwork was laid by the Continental Association which, again as Rjensen said, became a movement, and a unifying movement had to precede both the war and the independence declaration to make them stick. Lincoln, in his brief wording, seems to have known all of that, and accurately included the CA as the first document in his historical listing of four. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, such speculation is original research. How things "seem" to you, however obvious, is not citable. Allreet (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, where on the page have I cited my personal thoughts and viewpoints? Much of this talk page centers on speculation and interpretation of words and initial and clarifying meanings of words. Lincoln, on the other hand, clearly says without equivalation that the CA formed the union, and so it did. Lincoln's analysis and assertions in his inaugural address are citable, and should be on this page and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Your opening sentence is a personal opinion, since there's no source to confirm your conclusion. Yes, absolutely, Lincoln said the Continental Association formed the Union, so his quote is citable in terms of supporting this assertion. But it's just your opinion that Lincoln considered it a founding document. You're reading meaning into the quote, and since the quote is a primary source, that's original research. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" -- WP:NOR.

So you can't use the quote to address the founding, only the Union of the colonies. And as far as that goes, I can cite reliable sources "proving" that the Union began before the Continental Association was adopted. How much any of this "belongs" here is also debatable considering another policy: WP:Relevance, though that depends on what exactly you have in mind. Allreet (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As was said several times, the Articles of Association marks the first time the colonies united under their own representative government, and that idea carried them through the Articles of Confederation, The declaration of Independence and to the Constitution, and Lincoln explicitly confirms that idea when he said in his First Inaugural Address:

Lincoln's quote

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association [by the First Continental Congress] in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”"

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

So, how exactly do you propose using this? To assert that Lincoln regarded the four as "founding documents"? Or to confirm that he recognized their signers as founders? I've responded more than enough times to the "substance" and see no point repeating what I've already said. Allreet (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, your entire take on O.R. still hinges on the failed argument that a source must use the exact same phrase or wording, while you have yet to quote any WP policy that explicitly explains that in no uncertain terms. What you don't understand about O.R., or what you apparently refuse to accept, is that an idea can be accurately expressed with different phrases and wording. Language is like that you know. Lincoln clearly said the Articles of Association "formed" the basis of the Articles of Confederation, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The idea of representative colonial government, per the Continental Congress, and independence, are themes that carried all the way to the Constitution. The history involved, covered by many reliable sources, support this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

My "take" on OR is what it says in no uncertain terms. But let's not mix the previous issues regarding the need to be true to what sources say explicitly (which means you can re-word but not add anything, such as a conclusion that might "logically" follow) and to not synthesize conclusions from multiple sources with what's being discussed now: primary sources.

So, I'll repeat, how exactly do you propose using Lincoln's quote? He didn't say anything about "founders" - which you said he did in a "straight forward" way. He didn't say anything about founding documents, not in any way. And you're again talking about "independent representative government" which has nothing at all do do with Lincoln's quote. Allreet (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And I'll repeat - There are no uncertain terms in WP policy that require us to employ sources that use the same exact phrases and figures of speech, esp where they concern an unofficial title that is not used by many of the sources.
"..."independent representative government" which has nothing at all do do with Lincoln's quote."
Lincoln referred to the Union, and the four documents, which were and are made up of representatives and a Congress i.e.a governing body of representatives, so let's not fall back on the tired argument that we must always use exact phrases, all over again. "Representative government" is what constitutes the Union and has everything to do with Lincoln's quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. We are not required to quote sources verbatim. I never said anything of the kind. In fact, at least four times I told you we can paraphrase what a source says. What we cannot do is ascribe any meaning to a primary source or draw conclusions from secondary sources that are not explicitly expressed by those sources. This does not mean we have to state their conclusions verbatim, but it does mean we cannot add A+B to come up with conclusion C on our own; IOW, we cannot use our logic to draw a conclusion. We also cannot draw from different parts of a single source or from multiple sources to make an assertion or offer a conclusion.

As for your string of assertions - from "Lincoln referred" through "Lincoln's quote" - you need sources not just for each assertion but sources that tie the assertions together, directly. Lincoln only referred to the Union and the four documents. To tie him with, "representative government", you need a source that puts Abe and that idea in the "same room". That means you can't string A+B+C+D, etc. together, each with its own source, to reach X, a conclusion of some kind. Allreet (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: -- Allreet, regarding this... "Lincoln only said "formed" and only referred to "the Union". — "Only"? — Again different words can refer to the same thing when used in a given sentence. If we substituted founded for formed, the statement would still say the same thing. This grade school lesson in grammar usage really shouldn't have to be recited for you. Lincoln went beyond the idea of Union and referred to the C.A., D.O.I., A.O.C and the Constitution. How do we propose using this? Well, we have a consensus not to regard the Articles of Association as a founding document, but that was merely based on the idea that some members of the Congress had only "signed" that one document, as if they just popped in, signed and disappeared, having nothing to do with bringing the colonies together under one Congress and putting forth a document that, while respecting the king, for all intents and purposes, told the Parliament they were no longer answerable to them – where war immediately followed. Ho hum? This in spite of the fact that their other colleagues are still regarded as founders, which again, is a glaring inconsistency in this article, and which still leaves out an important defining chapter in our narrative. So we're still dealing with something of a train wreck here before we can proceed any further. Thanks at least for asking though. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Allreet, a good discussion. Must comment here in that it was said there was a consensus that the Continental Association was not a founding document, and there was no such consensus. The consensus was that the signers of the CA could not be listed on this page as Founding Fathers, but the RfC had nothing to down with downgrading the Wikipedia status of the founding document itself, which has plenty of sources. Just can't use it on this page pertaining to Founding Fathers, which will be overturned itself at some point as the 250th anniversary nears. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn: The CA/RFC closers did not rule on "founding document". Their ruling was "Editors attained a rough consensus against categorizing signers of the Continental Association as per se Founding Fathers". That doesn't mean the CA is not a founding document - they didn't rule on that. "Plenty of sources", Randy? As far as I know, the only reliable source is Architect of the Capitol. Who else are you referring to? Werther? Allreet (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Using "founding" here as a synonym would be misleading, given the article's topic. It would not "say the same thing" by implication and you know it, especially considering the on-going effort to establish the CA as a founding document with Lincoln as a source.

That you would assert that "Lincoln went beyond the idea of Union" is yet another example of OR in terms of your "use" of this primary source. Where does he go beyond? You do with half of what you just said, but using Lincoln's quote to get there is blatant OR since he doesn't make any such connections and his only concern/topic was the Union.

Of course, none of this is "grade school grammar" - that's just your way of being insulting.

As for "merely based" regarding consensus, that's your take, but if you want the community's feedback spelled out more clearly, go ahead: initiate another RFC.

And finally, if you want "glaring inconsistencies" corrected, be specific, but start a new section or it'll get lost in this one. I'll do my best to correct them or respond if I disagree. Allreet (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

On my last point, I see that you consider it inconsistent to recognize signers of the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution, but not those who signed a boycott agreement.

The key is that the three formed the nation and established its government. I know that you believe "independent representative government" was established by the Continental Association, but what remnant of that so-called government was left when we finally had a nation and adopted our current government?

The Association was actually communistic and coercive, not at all democratic. You couldn't even wear fancy clothes. How Stalinistic. Of course, it sprang from a representative body, but the differences between how the Continental Congress functioned and what the Constitution established are, thankfully, fairly stark. Allreet (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You're misconstruing what I said in that Lincoln went beyond the Union. He clearly did, by his reference to the Articles, DOI, A.O.C. and the Constitution. That you're not willing to acknowledge this simple idea makes me wonder. And again, your idea of "blatant OR" hinges on the same argument you've been trying to float, regarding exact phrases and such. Lincoln clearly indicated that the Union, in it's entirety, started with the theme put forth in the Articles of Association, i.e.colonial representation. The terms formed, founded, established, created - all mean the same thing when used in a simple statement such as Lincoln's. This doesn't require any profound 'math' or interpretation from a panel of scholars, and your attempt to pass it off as such, based on exact phrases, doesn't wash and isn't helping matters move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not misconstruing. Lincoln only referred to the forming of the Union through this succession of documents. He said nothing beyond that about the documents themselves. It was the Union that started with the Association, matured at with the next two documents, and morphed into a "more perfect Union" with the Constitution. Not word or meaning at play here other than "Union". Allreet (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As for the string of synonyms, you're playing with fire so to speak in trying to paraphrase Lincoln's quote. Even "created" creates some problems in terms of nuance - why bother rephrasing what was said perfectly well? Applying "founding" is putting a match to gasoline (another figure of speech) because it's our responsibility to exercise care in what readers may come to believe from our work. "Founding the Union" is dangerously close to "Founding the United States", though that's what you seem to think Lincoln said, which of course he didn't. Allreet (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Continued...

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian: --

Lincoln only referred to the forming of the Union through this succession of documents. He said nothing beyond that about the documents themselves.  "Only"? Lincoln specifically referred to the Continental Association, and from there he expanded on the idea i.e."It was further matured.."

Applying "founding" is putting a match to gasoline (another figure of speech) because it's our responsibility to exercise care in what readers may come to believe from our work.  Another recital, at our expense. Lincoln used the term formed in reference to 1774 when the union of colonies began to take on tangible proportions in a working capacity. Who's "applying" anything? In any event, either term used in the context of Lincoln's overall statement would convey the same idea, while no one is going to swap words here. Again, your attempt to turn a simple statement into some unusual idea that can't be used in the article isn't really going anywhere.

"Founding the Union" is dangerously close to "Founding the United States", though that's what you seem to think Lincoln said, which of course he didn't.  The United States is often referred to as the Union, so there's no danger of anything. If you can't give us anything more than fuzzy opinion then all we have is that. Sorry.
Is it your intention to keep Lincoln's quote out of the article entirely? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You left out the last part of my quote: "that's what you seem to think Lincoln said, which of course he didn't".

Lincoln's quote has no place in the Founding Fathers article that I can imagine. It definitely belongs in the Continental Association and Perpetual Union articles. That's my opinion based on the subjects involved and WP's policies (VER, NOR, NOT, Relevance).

As for your personal characterizations, they have no place on this Talk page or for that matter anywhere else in Wikipedia. Allreet (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln's statement is not a primary source -- even if it was, it still could be added as long as we're not trying to promote any unusual idea. It is entirely relevant because it is a statement about the founding of the Union. As for characterizations, you have made more than your fair share, so please don't act as if you're above it all with these continued recitals that only assumes your take on policy is all that matters, and which only serves to talk down to other editors. Also, OR VER and NOT have nothing to do with the statement being added, while constantly throwing these out into the discussion to prop up failed arguing has become something of a blur. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you can't understand something this simple or clear, I don't see the point discussing anything else with you. And I've had it with your personal attacks as well. Bye bye. Allreet (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln, continued ...

On top of "blatant OR" now I'm "playing with fire", all based on your exact phrase notion regarding simple language usage, with no quote from WP policy to back it up, still, at this late date. Saying founded, formed or established in reference to an institution is saying the same thing. Once again, Lincoln referred to the Union, and qualified it with his references to the other documents, that the theme inherent in the Articles of Association, i.e.Colonial Unity and Colonial Representation, independent of the Parliament, were "matured and continued" in the other documents. No, he didn't say "document", but he did refer to the Union and the documents in question, by name. Why don't you just tell us what you think he was trying to say, and I'll sit back and snipe at your word usage. Please. Lincoln's speech isn't written in hieroglyphics. You've offered plenty of opinion about what Lincoln wasn't saying, now tell us what Lincoln was saying. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not an "exact phrase notion" We must remain true to the source. Putting "founding" in Lincoln's mouth is not being true. "Forming" something from multiple parts (the colonies) is not exactly the same as "founding", particularly with the additional problem of implication. It's a matter, then, of precision.

"Language usage" is rarely simple. For example, @Gwillhickers actually meant "word usage", a term he mentions later. Which just happens to make this point: some words more precisely describe certain things than others. Often times word choice may not make an appreciable difference, but if a particular word poses a problem - implication being the issue here - it's better to use an alternative of equivalent meaning that does not pose the problem. Thus, "founding the Union" would be a terrible choice in an article about "founding the nation", especially since suitable synonyms are available.

As for what I think Lincoln said, I'll quote myself from above: "It was the Union that started with the Association, matured with the next two documents, and morphed into a 'more perfect Union' with the Constitution". My opinion regarding what Lincoln didn't say? The long answer would be an infinite number of things, minus what's in his quote. Allreet (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As I suspected, you give us lots of talk about what Lincoln wasn't saying, with nothing about what he did say to compare it to -- on a Talk page where we're supposed to hammer out differing ideas before we put pen to paper in the actual article. Thanks. Founded, formed, created and established, would say the same thing and would not change the meaning of Lincoln's quote if any one of these was used therein. Lincoln mentioned the formation of the Union and qualified it by how that Union " matured and continued" with his references to the documents in question, and did so without saying "founding documents". All you've made clear is that you refuse to accept anything but exact phrases. i.e.Lincoln did say "founding document", never mind that he mentions them by name. The Union, composed of representatives from the several colonies, was formed in 1774, and presented itself as an independent entity aside from British authority, and that concept of colonial unity slowly matured, as Lincoln pointed out, and ultimately resulted in a Constitution. Until you can show us A WP policy that says we must use exact phrases in this instance all we have is unending obfuscating and arguing over simple grammar usage while an important chapter in history continues to be ignored in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I gave you 15 words to indicate what Lincoln didn't say. I'll also give you four words regarding my refusal "to accept anything but exact phrases": I never said that. Allreet (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC for Continental Association revisited

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: Re this statement from Randy:

Gwillhickers, Allreet, a good discussion. Must comment here in that it was said there was a consensus that the Continental Association was not a founding document, and there was no such consensus. The consensus was that the signers of the CA could not be listed on this page as Founding Fathers, but the RfC had nothing to down with downgrading the Wikipedia status of the founding document itself, which has plenty of sources.

Very true, there was only a consensus to remove names of those who only signed the Continental Association. There was nothing said in that RfC about removing the entire C.A. listing. Now there is nothing to show which other founders signed the C.A., which included George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, Richard Henry Lee, Samuel Adams and many other founders. What's even more inconsistent about the article now is that all these individuals are considered founders, yet the first important document they signed is assumed, by some individuals, as not a founding document, while they continue to ignore that it brought the colonies together, with representatives who presented themselves as an independent entity no longer answerable to Parliament -- a unique founding concept that continued through all the way to the Constitution. Also, it was never established as to how that those who only signed the C.A. were not founders. By what sources was this conclusion made? This was just an assumption, based on the idea of what some sources didn't say. Meanwhile several sources have been produced, here and here, that support the idea that the C.A. was integral in initiating the founding movement, which resulted in war immediately thereafter. Again, that RfC was drafted in good faith, but there was never any real basis for it. It was just assumed, concluded, that those who only signed the C.A. were somehow not founders, with no sources to substantiate and explain why, which amounts to original research. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on what you've been saying over and over for months, you clearly do not understand what original research is.

It's "concluded" that those who signed the Continental Association are not founders because nobody says they are. What we conclude or otherwise believe, however, has nothing to do with anything. The absolute "truth" is we can only call them founders if sources say they are. And sources must say it not "in so many words" but directly.

The list of people you just mentioned, all of them signers of the Continental Association, are considered founders based on other things they did. Those who signed and are not regarded as founders didn't do other things or at least not of similar significance, so historians have not referred to them as founders.

If you disagree with what I just said - and you do - then perhaps you can settle it by filing another RFC. I would if I felt as fervently about something. I'll add, though, that I consider it extremely unlikely that you'll be successful. Allreet (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• You've told us what you feel O.R. is over and again, but you should try to come to terms with the fact that the same idea can be explained using different phrases and figures of speech. O.R. is only that when someone is trying to advance an unusual or bazzar claim, and this has not even come close to happening. Also, making conclusions based on what a source doesn't say, is O.R. but you had no comments about that. All you've done thus far is try to make issues over exact phrases i.e.founding v established, or formed, etc. Once again, unless you can provided a WP policy regarding exact phrases that substantiates your notion, your claim will only amount to that -- a claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've said exact phrases are not required at least a half dozen times. It would be impossible to be more clear. I just said so again: "I neve said that". Which of those four words do you not understand? Better yet, cite a sentence or passage where I said exact phrases are required.

  And as for what I've said "OR is", I'm quoting WP:NOR at every turn. You on the other hand are assigning meanings to - interpreting - WP:NOR such as malarkey about "unusual or bazzar (bizarre) claims". It doesn't matter how "down to earth" your conclusions are. You're drawing them based on multiple sources, not only the conclusion of any single source. That's OR. Read WP:NOR. It gives several explanations defining this as original research. Allreet (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: — Yes, you never said "exact phrases", but you certainly are insisting when you ask for sources that specifically say founding father, and when you haggle over words like nation and union as to mean two different ideas. And regardless if you have referred to NOR multiple times, no where does it assert that we must employ the same words or phrases, so let's not go through that again. If we are conveying the same basic idea, "using our own words", we are not advancing a bizzar idea, and therefore there is no original research involved, as we are not arriving at our own "conclusions". Your assumption that we are when we don't use an exact word or phrase is reading your own original research into WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Two important issues, just above, were ignored: First, there was no basis, per reliable sources, to assume the lone signers of the C.A. were not founders. That was based merely on the idea over what some sources didn't happen to mention. Second, there was only a consensus to remove the names of the lone signers in the listing for the C.A. -- nothing was said about removing the entire listing for the Continental Association, so the list needs to be brought back to the article. There was no consensus to remove the entire C.A. listing, and its removal is invoking ownership issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  If no reliable source considers the Association's signers to be founders, then we cannot regard them as founders in Wikipedia. And if the Continental Association's signers are not founders, on what basis should they be included in a listing side by side with individuals who are considered founders? To satisfy your view that the Continental Association is a founding document? I'm sure you'll come up with some other rationale, but all that you've written, tens of thousands of words, clearly indicates your desire to have the Continental Association regarded as a founding document, even though no reliable source supports this assertion.

  The fact is, we misled millions of readers for ten years about the status of these signers, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, depending on the headers/subheads and lead-in text, but no matter how we "package" the table, it's extremely difficult considering its prominence to not give readers the impression these additional signers must be founders, too. If you believe there's value in providing a comparison of signers of all four documents, then create an article on Signers of Historic American Documents, but IMO the relevance of the fourth document in this article is nil, and I believe the ruling of the RFC and the majority of editors who voted are in accordance with this view. Allreet (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, the sources do consider the signers of the Continental Association as founders, for the simple fact that they were members of the First Continental Association and were part of the debate, drafting and signing of that document.

• The Founding Fathers were the group of men who created the American Republic. They were active during the last quarter of the eighteenth and the first decade of the nineteenth century. For purposes of historic orientation one may date their epoch as, roughly, 1774 to 1809 - the former being the year of the First Continental Congress, and the latter the end of Jefferson's Presidency.
• The Union, as an enduring entity, originated on September 5, 1774, when delegates (the signers) of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies met in Philadelphia and formed the Continental Congress. ... During these twenty-two months the Union exercised extensive powers of government and became, for all practical purposes, a single agency for centralized action in the highest realms of statecraft and war.
• Yet their (the signers) true significance related to their contribution in the formation of a new system of local governance, one beyond royal control or authority that overcame potential crises of sovereignty.

Also, the idea that "...the ruling of the RFC and the majority of editors who voted are in accordance with this view" doesn't really wash for the simple fact that that view was, again, not based on what the sources say, only on what some of them didn't say. Meanwhile there are plenty of sources that clearly support the idea that the Continental Association was conceived and signed by members of the First Continental Congress, which the sources consider as founders -- esp Padover who refers to the First Continental Congress as "Founding Fathers", verbatim. Again, the "view" to which you refer is the product of original research.
The article had it right for ten years, and that long standing consensus shouldn't be ignored. Now the article is missing the beginning chapter of the founding process, a chapter that includes Washington, Adams, Henry, Sherman, Randolph, etc, and whose defining theme, an independent representative Congress, carries into the ones covering the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Independent representative government is at the foundation of today's Constitution and it all started with the First Continental Congress, the signers, who put that idea into actual motion with Congressional delegates in the Continental Association. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is that the founding began the day the nation was founded. You can take that to mean July 2 or 4. You can also add the days the Articles of Confederation and Constitution took effect, but what happened on October 20, 1774 was not a founding and nobody who voted for the document considered it to be.

That some of the Continental Association's signers are considered founders has no relevance regarding those signers who are not regarded as founders. And "independent representative government" is also a misconception since IRG is not equivalent to the USA.

Meanwhile, the list with all four documents would be perfectly appropriate for the article on the Continental Congress. Here it's misleading; there it would not be (as long as the term "founding document" is not used).

As for the list of CA signers being accepted by consensus since 2012, I say it was by oversight, given that no reliable source was ever provided recognizing the Continental Association as a founding document or its signers as founders. Based on WP:VER, the article and those who accepted it had the issue wrong for ten years.

I'm also not too pleased with the "Other Patriots" list. These individuals are not founders and if they belong anywhere it would be in an article on Patriots. Their listing here muddies the water - confuses the issue - and lends little if anything to the article. For one, there's no end to the list of potential "Patriots"; for example, everyone who served in a colonial assembly would qualify as long as they had not declared themselves loyalists. Allreet (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not just an opinion, its about actual events and people substantiated by reliable sources. We can't edit the article based on opinion and what you think we should say, based on what the sources don't say. That's original research and is what the "rough consensus" is based on. Let's not keep trying to skirt that fact. Also, there may have been a citation needed issue over the C.A., but the article still had it dead right for ten years, and we have the sources now to verify this -- not to mention the history which was always there. Representative government, i.e.an independent Congress, began with the First Continental Congress via the Continental Association. Again, Padover refers to the First Continental Congress as founding fathers:

• The Founding Fathers were the group of men who created the American Republic. They were active during the last quarter of the eighteenth and the first decade of the nineteenth century. For purposes of historic orientation one may date their epoch as, roughly, 1774 to 1809 - the former being the year of the First Continental Congress, and the latter the end of Jefferson's Presidency.

...while other sources say the same thing with their own clear language.

• "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.
• "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic Union among the colonies."

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And with this, you propose to do what? Declare the Continental Association a founding document? Ordain its signers founders? Allreet (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — "Declare"? "Ordain"? You make it sound like we would be spinning off some fairy tale. What is so unusual about the idea of the First Continental Congress organizing a representative body of delegates, via the Articles of Association? The idea of an independent representative Congress, going into action with the C.A., was so insulting and threatening to British authority they were in America within months to settle the score. There are plenty of sources that substantiate this event. The article already says there are differing opinions about who and what are founders and founding documents. We should at least mention the First Continental Congress and the Association without calling it a founding document. After all, Washington, Adams, Henry, Sherman, Randolph and that lot were part of this affair. I would be content with listing the C.A. in the chart, minus the names of sole signatories, so we can at least see that people like Washington and Adams signed the C.A..  Remember, the RfC was only about removing the names of those who only signed the C.A., not the entire listing. You'll notice other than to do clean up and manage cites and sources, I've kept my hand out of the editing process given the not so friendly nature of our discussions sometimes – and given the sources, there's plenty I could have said and cited. If you're of a mind, it would be nice if you and Randy managed this. The article should tell the whole story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The verbs I used were appropriate. They emphasize that you would not be reporting, but ascribing qualities to the document and its signers on your own. As for your sources, they aren't identifying or talking about founders but recounting events that either led up to or led to the founding. The article is about the the founders; the latter applies to other articles, such as American Revolution (which is where Founding of the United States redirects), Continental Congress, Continental Association, Perpetual Union, and so forth.

I removed the listing of Continental Association signers not just because of the RFC, though that settled a significant part of the argument. Another part is Relevance. If these individuals are not founders, then why would we continue to list them in an article on founders? I feel the same way about the Other Patriots section. Why are we listing them here? As runners up (which happens to be the case)? Furthermore, there's no reasonable end to such a list. Most delegates of colonial/state assemblies would qualify as would most military officers. The number of patriots could easily run into the hundreds, and that's just for these two categories. How about all non-Loyalist members of the Continental Congress, given its crucial role?

I do appreciate your restraint. It's kept things civil and limited our disagreements to this page, as opposed to the more "public" article. And on a similarly friendly note, seriously, much of what you've found is valuable and would be helpful, but more so in articles other than this one. Allreet (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn: Let me know if you think this works. I've added the full table - signers of all four documents - to the Continental Association article. Allreet (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess silence is assent. @Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn, you have no objections or thoughts on including this chart in the Continental Association article? Allreet (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to blow a gasket over its inclusion. It would at least add more scope to the aftermath that followed the Continental Association, which is part of the reason why it should be included, in its entirety, in this article, like it was before that original research RfC had an important section of it removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the relevance in terms of identifying founders? As I've said a few times, if the document's signers are not founders, on what grounds should their names be listed in an article on founders? The issue here is not that someone might "blow a gasket". It's whether the material we include is notable relative to the topic, which happens to be Founding Fathers. Allreet (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC for Continental Association revisited, continued...

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, actually, you're making a few unsubstantiated calls here.

• "As for your sources, they aren't identifying or talking about founders but recounting events..."

Padover, 1958, refers to the Founding Fathers in reference to the First Continental Congress. Minty, 2017 makes reference to individuals, not documents: "Their main duty was to enforce the Association’s nonimportation, nonexportation, and nonconsumption agreements on a community level. Yet their true significance related to their contribution in the formation of a new system of local governance." And then there is Werther, whose well sourced article is peered review and published in a journal recognized by the American Historical Society and others. Also, you're once again putting this wall of sorts in between the Continental Association and the individuals who made up that association and documented that association on paper. They are all part of the same functioning entity.

• " At best, it's (the C.A.) a precursor, which is far from being the real deal."

"Far from"? The Continental Association introduced the idea and formed an actual representative Congress, composed of people, separate from British authority. It wasn't "far from" an independent representative Congress, it was one, and there are several sources that ascribe to its real significance.

• Ammerman, 1978 maintains, "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
• Burnnett, 1974 asserts, "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic Union among the colonies."
• Phillips, 2012 says, "Thus were the elected foundations of the new revolutionary government put in place."

Calling the C.A. a "precursor" is a misleading understatement as it introduced the essence and founding principles behind independence government and the revolution. The C.A. was much more than a declaration, it was a founding idea that materialized in an actual independent Congress who put their authority, via, the C.A., into actual motion.

Once again, the RfC for the C.A was about removing only the names of those who only signed the C.A..  Removing the entire listing of your own accord, based on your own assumptions, noted above, esp at a time when many issues were and are still being hacked out, was going beyond the dictates of that RfC. Now that we have sources that identify the Association and its members as founders, not to mention the history involved, that part of the chart should be restored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Padover is one of the few sources who mention and identify founders - individuals who signed the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution (he says nothing about the CA). I've recognized this for six months. None of your sources makes the connections he does. They rarely refer to founding and founders, nor do they reach the conclusions you draw from them. For example, they may say the CA established "independent representative government" but they don't say "those you signed the document are therefore founders". Not anything remotely close.

Yes, IMO, the CA is a precursor to what are regarded as founding documents. Since no reliable source refers to it as a founding document and it preceded the documents that are recognized as such, "precursor" seems apt to me, though I'd never express this in an article without a source that says so directly.

Meanwhile, it doesn't matter how important the CA was (Ammerman) or that the CA was a step toward creating the Union (Burnett) or that it established "revolutionary government" (Phillips). Not one of these statements can be taken to mean the CA was a founding document or that its signers were founders. Those are your conclusions, ones that are not stated by your sources.

And as I said, I removed the list of signers based partly on the RFC's ruling - that the CA's signers are not considered founders - and then on what this means in terms of Relevancy. My motivation is to remain consistent with the article's topic and with that, to avoid being misleading, my concern since initiating this dispute in early January. Both you and @Randy Kryn have other concerns, namely to prove the CA is a founding document and to recognize its signers as founders. As for working in some of your points about the "history", have a go at it, but as I've also said, most of the details you've mentioned would be far more relevant in other articles. Allreet (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I missed your reference to Werther. He's not a reliable source. He has no academic credentials, none that would qualify him to state what no historian has stated: that the Continental Association is a founding document. As a non-historian, he would need a source of some kind, and like you, he has none to support this view. And is Werther, an extreme outlier, the best you can do? Allreet (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, it doesn't matter how important the CA was (Ammerman) or that the CA was a step toward creating the Union (Burnett) or that it established "revolutionary government" (Phillips). Not one of these statements can be taken to mean the CA was a founding document or that its signers were founders. Those are your conclusions, ones that are not stated by your sources."

Padover refers to the First Continental Congress as founding fathers, those who authored the C.A.  Ammerman maintains "it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution." This clearly means it was a founding document, even if he doesn't say "founding document". Phillips says it "established revolutionary government", clearly indicating that it was a founding document, even if he doesn't use that exact phrase. Burnnett says "a step toward creating the Union". A document that led to the creation of the Union is obviously a founding document, even if he doesn't use that exact phrase. All these sources clearly satisfies WP:VER, which says nothing about using exact phrases.  Again, these sort of objections are superficial and completely academic, ignores the history, and the sources. It's like you're saying we can't refer to a women who gives birth to a child as a mother, because a source doesn't use that noun. Referring to the woman as a "mother" is not advancing an unusual idea, therefore the idea of original research is rather meaningless and can only be made on the basis that the source didn't use your particular phrase. i.e.An argumentative assertion with no real basis -- anything can be argued, as you continue to demonstrate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

All examples of original research:

• Misquoting a source. Padover said the founders were active from 1774, the time of the First Continental Congress, through 1809, the end of Jefferson's presidency. He at no point says all members of the First Continental Congress were founders.
• Interpreting Ammerman's and Phillips's quotes to mean the Continental Association "was a founding document". While the "government of Revolution" may have aided the cause, it's not in any way the same as founding the United States or determining its form of government.
• Same with Burnett. The Declaration, Articles and Constitution were much more that "a step". And for certain, creating a Union is not the same as creating a nation. You previously misconstrued Lincoln's quote and now you're doing the same with Burnett's.

None of these interpretations passes the sniff test as far as verifiability is concerned. It's not about "exact phrases", nor does it have anything to do with things that are self-evident (such as mothers and blue skies). You're drawing conclusions about things that are not self-evident and with that you're putting words into sources' mouths. Allreet (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, actually the emergence of independent representative government and how this idea carried through to the Constitution is glaringly self evident.

"Misquoting a source. Padover said the founders were active from 1774, the time of the First Continental Congress, through 1809, the end of Jefferson's presidency. He at no point says all members of the First Continental Congress were founders.

You say it's not about exact phrases and turn around and give us this. Padover didn't have to say the members were founders, he said the First Continental Congress were founders. The Congress was composed of people, i.e. members. And no one is "misquoting" the source, those are his exact words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"Interpreting Ammerman's and Phillips's quotes to mean the Continental Association "was a founding document". While the "government of Revolution" may have aided the cause, it's not in any way the same as founding the United States or determining its form of government."

The United States didn't emerge as an official entity until 1789, so are you now saying the Articles of Confederation was not the first Constitution and had nothing to do with the founding also? The founding occurred in steps over a fifteen year period, and that first step was the formation of the First Continental Congress who came together as delegates from the several colonies/states, declaring itself via the Continental Association as no longer answerable to the Parliament, and was central to the founding process because it marked the first time independent representative government emerged -- and that idea carried all the way to the Constitution. We've been through this.

Same with Burnett. The Declaration, Articles and Constitution were much more that "a step". And for certain, creating a Union is not the same as creating a nation. You previously misconstrued Lincoln's quote and now you're doing the same with Burnett's.

Sorry, Lincoln's words were quite clear -- the founding began with the Continental Association. Also, several sources refer to the First Continental Congress and the Association as a very important first step for the simple reason that it, once again, brought the colonies together under an independent Congress which "matured" over the years as Lincoln pointed out. All your objections continue to misconstrue the sources and hinge on the idea the we must use exact phrases, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said what you're saying they said. That's okay if that's what you want to believe, just don't apply it to any articles on the founding. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, many sources have said what I'm saying, though not with the exact phrase you seem to be stuck on, and I see you're unable to take that ball any further and haven't responded to a number of counter-points, and in light of the sources. Since you are making this grand stand that the C.A. has nothing to do with the founding you should be able to do more than argue exact phrases and come up with a source that explains in no uncertain terms that the Continental Congress and its Association have in no way anything to do with the founding. Can you even explain it? At this late date, you've never done any of this. Your entire position has always rested on the use of exact phrases and what the sources don't say in that regard. Meanwhile, I've produced an array of sources that clearly explains the idea in a number of different ways. Also you need to stop giving orders again. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any point in explaining anything else. Use your sources as you see fit, and we'll see what satisfies Wikipedia's policies and what doesn't. That's bound to be more productive than going around in circles over the same issues. Allreet (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We've discussed the policies, and you keep coming back, around in a circle indeed, to your demand for exact phrases, regardless if the sources clearly covers the matter, as does Padover, Ammerman, Lincoln, et al. When asked for an explanation on a discussion page you folded. It would seem that if you had a source and an explanation as to why the First Continental Congress, who introduced an idea that carried all the way to the ratification of the Constitution, i.e.independent representation, were somehow not founders, you would have hit me over the head with it by now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources to consider

The chapter covering the events that predicated the Revolutionary War in terms of the founders are not being covered in this article. The founding process began before the war. The idea of independent government just didn't pop up after the war had started -- it was an idea that started the war.

• The Founding Fathers were the group of men who created the American Republic. They were active during the last quarter of the eighteenth and the first decade of the nineteenth century. For purposes of historic orientation one may date their epoch as, roughly, 1774 to 1809 - the former being the year of the First Continental Congress, and the latter the end of Jefferson's Presidency.

• The Union, as an enduring entity, originated on September 5, 1774, when delegates of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies met in Philadelphia and formed the Continental Congress. ... During these twenty-two months the Union exercised extensive powers of government and became, for all practical purposes, a single agency for centralized action in the highest realms of statecraft and war.

• After October, 1774, the Union possessed powers that could be exercised coercively against individuals and even against the governments of the colonies or States. Such a coercive power was implicit in the Continental Association, in the pledge to support Washington, in his commission as commander in chief, and in the Continental Articles.

• By spring 1775, at least seven thousand men were serving, and they played a leading role in the transition of political authority from British to American institutions. Their main duty was to enforce the Association’s nonimportation, nonexportation, and nonconsumption agreements on a community level. Yet their true significance related to their contribution in the formation of a new system of local governance, one beyond royal control or authority that overcame potential crises of sovereignty. As one scholar has remarked,“They were the beginning of a new structure of local political authority.” More important, their organization marked “the beginning of the Revolution".

• 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."

• "Section eleven of the resolution specified that enforcement would lie with committees. Thus were the elected foundations of the new revolutionary government put in place."

• "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic Union among the colonies."

• The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.

New sources

---

• Nettels, Curtis Putnam (October 1957). "The Origins of the Union and of the States". Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 72. Massachusetts Historical Society: 68–83. JSTOR 25080515.

• Minty, Christopher F. (Winter 2017). "Of One Hart and One Mind: Local Institutions and Allegiance during the American Revolution". Early American Studies. 15 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 99–132. JSTOR 90000337.

Misuse of sources

You can read whatever you want into all of this, as you've just done with your selective bolding, but it's not going to get you anywhere. A good example: Nettles, what you call a "new" source. I've been using his paper for months to prove that the Union did not begin with the Continental Association in October 1774 but with the convening of the First Continental Congress the month before, on September 5 (see the last paragraph in the lead of Continental Association). So you quote this very same passage and what do you bold: 1774. What do you not bold? September 5.
Please stop bolding what you want us to read and conclude. I know you mean well - nobody can blame you for wanting to make your point - but your selectivity is annoying because what you're emphasizing often tends to misconstrue the quotations, plus we can comprehend things quite well on our own. Allreet (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If you could comprehend things "quite well" then you'd have no worries about anything being "misconstrued" over something like bolded words. 1774 was bolded as this is when Nettels maintains the Union was formed. The Union didn't actually materialize until the Continental Association started the ball rolling -- in 1774. The C.A. was the voice of the Continental Congress, so trying to build this wall between the two isn't saying anything that undermines the idea that the C.A. was a founding document. The Continental Congress were founders, therefore it goes, the document that they put forth, calling the colonies to stand apart from the Parliament is a founding document. The history and sources support this even if the term founding document isn't used. Then we have all the other sources, you're apparently ignoring. e.g."The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic Union among the colonies." We're not advancing this idea on one source but many, and we're not trying to make some conclusion based on what some sources don't say, as was done with the first RfC over the Continental Association signers. Again, the claim that the lone signers of the C.A. were not founders was never established by the sources. That "rough consensus" was based on original research. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, some of you're bolding is misleading. You set out to prove this: The Union didn't actually materialize until the Continental Association started the ball rolling -- in 1774. You attempted to do that by bolding "1774" but skipped the part in the quote that disproves your assertion. Oh, I should not pay attention to your bolding? Then why do you bother?

As for the "rough consensus" being based on original research, that's what you're practicing. For example, you conclude that the Continental Association is a founding document, because it called for the colonies to "stand apart from Parliament", but what source says standing apart from Parliament marked the founding of the United States? The agreement may have led to the founding, but it did not effect the founding, as can be said of the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution. And for certain it was not the intent of those who voted for the Continental Association to "found the United States", even if they desired to "stand apart from Parliament". It would be another 20 months or so before such a resolution to stand apart entirely from the motherland would come before the Congress. Yet you're already there with your conclusion based on many parts. Not having a source to piece the parts together is OR. Allreet (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

You're typically attempting to make it seem that I've gathered all these sources and have concocted some weird story from them, which is, once again, based on your notion that they must employ the exact phrase of founding document, or founding father, while at this late date you have yet to produce the WP policy that says we must employ such exact phrases while covering what should be a rather simple story that doesn't require an intimate understanding of 'astro-physics' to articulate. The sources all lend clear support to the idea that the Continental Congress, and its working arm, the Continental Association, were the beginning of the process that introduced representative government, the foundation of US government, and brought the colonies together under one representative body independent of the Parliament. For example, Minty, 2017,says "formation of a new system of local governance;   Ammerman, 1974 said, "it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution.;   Burnnett, 1974, said, "creation of an organic Union among the colonies",   and of course Lincoln said, "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774." ...not to mention all the others. Again, you're ignoring the history and trying to block a defining chapter in the founding, one which Washington, Adams and other such figures were a part of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Believe what you want. You keep repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum and ad nauseum. All this and a nickel will get you what? Allreet (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

A Jefferson nickel no doubt. Allreet, since you are getting personal again (I find no nonsense in Gwillhickers analysis) I will say again that, luckily, you've been wrong since the first post in these entire discussions: Richard Werther and the Journal of the American Revolution directly say that the signers of the four major documents are Founders and Gwillhickers has shown above that the Journal is peer-reviewed by a distinquished panel of reviewers. I say you've been luckily wrong (there appears a reading comprehension problem at times but your viewpoint has much merit) because you have kept up your assertion, and since you have done so there have been hundreds of good edits and additions throughout many articles. This monster of a discussion has come about at a very good time, as its benefits precede by just a couple of years the start of the 250th anniversaries of these events - the first being the first of the great founding documents - the Continental Association. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hardly personal. Nothing that is being said has any use or great value to the article. The repetition of irrelevancies is constant, all of it aimed at promoting the idea that the Continental Association is a founding document. Since there's no reliable source to support this, it's nonsense.

And now you're promoting Werther again. I wasn't wrong about him, not in the least. He has no credentials as a historian, and besides, not only does his article fail to call signers of the Continental Association founders, but he provides no source for his assertion that it's a founding document. So either that's just his opinion - he made it up yet has no bona fides that qualify him to do so - or he got the idea from Wikipedia, which is entirely possible.

In any case, just based on simple logic, the Continental Association is not a founding document because it didn't found anything, unlike the three documents that do qualify for the distinction. At best, it's a precursor, which is far from being the real deal. Allreet (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, Gwillhickers, will reply to most of the above here. Yes, Werther's two papers (and by connection the Journal of the American Revolution) seconded the four founding document thesis and yes, Werther did call them founders in the title of his second 2017 paper as well as in that sentence which we all missed until much later. His papers count as reputable sources. With the other sources you both have come up with, and reading their language, I'd personally say there is enough to reestablish the CA on the page and bring back the full chart (maybe the chart at the CA page could just list the CA signers and the documents that they signed, although I don't think anyone has objected to the full chart being there as an interesting visual list of signers of the four), but the RfC gets in the way of that unless there are wikirules about overriding an RfC if more evidence has been found. Could the closers be alerted to these new finds and asked to reconsider their ruling? Rather than saying the CA didn't found anything, which is original research and opinion, the CA actually founded the union (sourced) as well as solidified the citizens to support that union and "obey" the CA's enactment of a full economic boycott of imports from England (a thousands-fold increase of the direct-action concept set forth by the Boston Tea Party). The union it formed thus became the literal "thing" that was declared independent, an independence which was then well accepted and acted upon by the citizens who had been already stirred to action by the CA and the start of the war. The CA is not small potatoes in the 1774-1791 timeline of things-founded, but rather the key first-out-of-the-ground potato. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You're rehashing the CA/RFC. The issue is not the importance of the Continental Association. It's the lack of reliable sources regarding the claim that its signers are founders. Richard Werther's Roger Sherman and Analyzing Founding Fathers articles make no direct statement in that regard. These are also the only sources that refer to the CA as a "founding document". And even if you're correct about "the sentence we missed" - which you're not and I'm certain most editors would agree with me - you'd still be left with Werther as your only source. On what basis, then, should these signers be included in an article with founders? Because you find the comparison interesting? I find it irrelevant and consider your desire to list these signers in the Founding Fathers article an attempt to circumvent the RFC's ruling. The same cannot be said in making the comparison in the Continental Association article.

And what "new finds" are you referring to? None of the sources @Gwillhickers has cited refer to the CA as a founding document or to its signers as founders, though they have lots of other valid things to say about the document's importance. Also, it's my opinion the CA didn't found anything - which I can say here and not venture into OR territory; however, my opinion is based on the fact that there's no source that says it secured the nation's independence (as with the Declaration), established our form of government (Articles and Constitution), or defined the rights we enjoy (Bill of Rights). References regarding "independent representative government", "set things in motion", and the like don't make the case you and Gwillhickers think they do. Allreet (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that those who only signed the Continental Association are somehow not founders was based on the idea regarding what some of the sources didn't say, which is original research -- research that ignores the history and all the other sources. It's also a little odd that a document, signed by Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Henry, Sherman, Lee, and all the others who are considered as founders, is somehow not a founding document, which is another assumption, not to mention more original research. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If a source cannot be found to directly support an assertion, the assertion cannot be made. That's not original research. That's WP:VER. However, it would be OR to say that because some founders signed a document, all signers of that document must be founders. What's "odd", meaning unusual, is that you fail to understand that.

And nobody is "ignoring history". Much if not most of what you've cited qualifies as history, but what doesn't qualify are the conclusions you reach. I'll repeat what I just said above: references to "independent representative government", "set things in motion", and the like don't make the case you think they do.

That "case" - conclusions about the nation's founding - must be made directly by sources. You reach those conclusions based on your interpretations of what sources say, not on what the sources themselves say. That's what you just did with Washington, Adams, et al: "Sources say they're founders and that they signed a document, therefore all signers of that document must be founders". Similarly, "The CA established independent representative government, independent representative government led to the nation's founding, therefore the CA's signers must be founders". Both statements are OR, absolutely. Allreet (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Referring to a champion swimmer as an "accomplished athlete", even if a source doesn't say "athlete", is not original research. Referring to a women who gave birth to a child as a "mother" is not original research, even if a source didn't say that. That is the gist of your objection -- totally argumentative with no basis other than the issue you keep trying to float regarding exact phrases. Once again, original research is only an issue when an unusual idea is being advanced, and that's not at all the case here. If the document was a founding document, its authors were founders. Similarly, if the founders drafted a document outlining the formation of a representative Congress and this idea carried over to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, then that document is obviously a founding document, even if a source doesn't use that exact phrase. Again, your objections are merely based on what some of the sources don't say, in terms of exact phrases, while ignoring those that clearly make the case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not in anyway related to self-evident, widely accepted ideas, such as the sky is blue, the Earth is not flat, or competitive swimmers are athletes. Identifying something specific such as a founding document is not a "given", and if a source states a document was highly important, a step toward independence or created an independent representative government, it's original research to jump from that statement to the conclusion that the source considers it a founding document. But I'll tell you how we can settle our endless argument. Add material to any related article calling the Continental Association a founding document with citations pointing to these sources, and then we'll put your assertion to the test. Allreet (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — The argument should be settled here, before we go off to other articles, inviting another compound debate as has already occurred here. The idea of independent representative government, per the First Continental Congress, was "self evident" because a Congress -is- a body of representatives. This idea obviously carried all the way up and into the ratification of the Constitution. If this idea is somehow far-fetched or abstract for you, then unfortunately there's little anyone else can tell you. Padover, Ammerman, Lincoln and all the other sources could see this plainly. Referring to the First Continental Association and its Articles, which initiated and was part of the founding process, is no more O.R. than calling that champion swimmer an accomplished athlete. Your argument rests on the premise that representative government was not part of the Continental Congress and therefore had nothing to do with the founding of the Constitution, which is ridiculous, because again, a Congress is a body of representatives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no point continuing to argue in the abstract. We're clearly at an impasse. So apply your sources as you see fit and then we'll see what we have to talk about. Allreet (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Inconsistency"

The article is about founders - directly. Indirectly (secondarily), it's about the founding. Thus, the article "touches" on some of the events and concepts @Gwillhickers points to, but it focuses on individuals who are recognized by sources as founders or founding fathers. More detailed specifics about these matters and information about the other individuals involved may be better suited either for a new article, such as Founding the United States of America, or for existing articles, such as the American Revolutionary War and First Continental Congress.
If Gwillhickers wants to make additional points about the history within the article Founding Fathers of the United States, nobody is stopping him - not as long as what he adds is notable and relevant, meaning sufficiently important and directly pertinent to those who are considered founders. But if others are not so inclined, it's unfair and inaccurate to characterize our work as "inconsistent" when the vast majority of what we've included is notable and relevant. Allreet (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Check out the Charters of Freedom page, where the major formational document status of the Continental Association would seem settled. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The source - a bad link but I found what looks like a more current one - does not support the statement. It makes no mention of the Continental Association, only the Constitution, The "best source" would be the National Archives, though nothing here supports the text. I believe the documents listed may have been part of a past exhibit, the permanent installation being the Charters themselves. The only relevant reference I could find was a link to Founders Online, which provides the text, list of delegates, and not much else. So what is it that seems settled? Allreet (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is about founders - directly. Indirectly (secondarily), it's about the founding.
The founding is what made the founders to be regarded as founders. If we're going to write about the founders it only goes that we cover their involvements in the actual founding in significant measure. Also, let's not focus on what one source doesn't say in an effort to make a conclusion they do not explicitly make. That would be original research. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The WP articles related to the founding are voluminous. Links to the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, Continental Association, Continental Congress, the War, Declaration, Articles, Constitution, etc., should suffice for those interested. A navibox would be all that's needed, as opposed to trying to summarize such a vast subject here. Regarding the roles of the founders in the founding, that's a bit different. Still, their bios should tell the tale, plus given the number of individuals, how deep can we get with anyone in terms of specifics? As I noted below, real estate is a consideration. Navigation is one aspect of that. Another is overloading a subject for no great purpose when the information can easily be accessed elsewhere.

More later on your last comment. Father's Day calls. Allreet (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about "focusing on what one source doesn't say", but if you mean the source in the Charters of Freedom page, you're off base because this source doesn't support what's being said. A better source is needed, but if one can't be found then the citation and text should be removed. Doing so has nothing to do with OR.

That said, I checked the article's history and found that the intended source was a book published by the National Archives: The Formation of the Union (1970). This was added when the article was expanded from a stub on December 29, 2011. The book is still available and would probably support the text. However, the text is not particularly releveant to the Charters of Freedom. This was a temporary exhibit, apparently around 1970 but possibly as early as 1952 (from additional research). The documents themselves are not referred to in the text as "charters", and based on that, I doubt the book refers to them as such either, since the Archives is very explicit and limited in the documents it recognizes as charters.

Which leaves me with the question I asked above: "What is it that seems to be settled"? Allreet (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The National Archives is explicit as to what it regards as "Charters of Freedom": Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights. As the Archives says on its America's Founding Documents page, "These three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freedom, have secured the rights of the American people for more than two and a quarter centuries and are considered instrumental to the founding and philosophy of the United States".

• National Archives, Press Release, 1999: Fun Facts About the Charters of Freedom
• National Archives Museum (current): Founding Documents in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom
• Prologue Magazine, National Archives, Winter 2002: Travels of the Charters of Freedom
• Prologue Magazine, National Archives, Fall 2003: A New Era Begins for the Charters of Freedom

By contrast, the Archives refers to the Articles of Confederation as one of "America's Historical Documents" and makes no reference (that I could find) on its website to the Continental Association. Allreet (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To anyone who's interested, the subject of the founding is covered extensively in WP's American Revolution article. Further details on the founding are likewise covered, as I mentioned, under many related articles such as Continental Association, Intolerable Acts, Declaration of Independence, and so forth, as well as under American Revolutionary War. Hence my POV that the Founding Fathers article does not need to delve too deeply into the broader topic of the founding. Its focus in terms of details, per WP:Relevance, should be on the founders and not the founding. Allreet (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)