Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 4

I'll try this
I've had a hard time trying to figure out what the exact content related question is, including at the DRN which seems to be mired down / fading out. But I'm starting to get an idea. Knowing that I'm sure that I won't get this fully right for either of the two main folks, to me it's looking like Allreet objects to language and headings which overly state that the entire larger earlier groups (e.g. the Continental Association) are founding fathers. IMO there is no clearly right or wrong answer because "Founding Fathers" or "founding fathers" is a mere term, and one with multiple  meanings. One is a mere functional description of the key people or created the USA as an entity from the standpoint of organization and key documents. Randy Kryn has been utilizing this meaning. The other is the most common meaning of the term "Founding Fathers", a term essentially invented during the 20th century. No reliable source is going to settle this by saying that one particular definition is the one and only definition.

It's possible that in all of the zillions of words that Randy Kryn has already agreed to something that would mostly resolve Allreet's concerns. I'm going to try to boldly edit the article towards that possible middle ground. This will take a series of edits over a few days. If somebody disagrees on any basis (including if you feel that my actions are out-of-process) please either object here and / or revert me and I will stop. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It was a simpler job than I thought because almost the entire article is content rather than labeling.  I got it mostly done, and Randy reverted one of my edits.   Since my final intended work was in that paragraph where the revert was and was related to it, I stopped at that point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @North8000, the content question in this article is the sentence you changed. Pardon my 270 words:
 * I believe your edits come close. My objection is to the idea that "the following are considered founders by some sources but as previously noted, others disagree" (I'm paraphrasing). The weight of disagreement is beyond 10-1 in terms of number, considerably more in terms of authority. Thus, the statement should be more emphatic than "he said, she said".
 * Continental Association: all major histories addressing founders (Morris, Ellis, McCullough, Isaacson, Bernstein, Brown, etc.) treat the embargo as a footnote.
 * Articles of Confederation: Padover aside, all other sources make clear the Articles were not just weak but failed to create a union or national government. Without either, there could be no enduring nation.
 * The Founding Fathers article has suffered from a serious flaw since the addition of the Continental Association and Articles lists in 2011-12. While the list section's title has changed almost year to year from "List of Founding Fathers" to "Signatories of Key Documents", the implication is that everyone listed must be a Founding Father because that's the title of the article.
 * So if accuracy, as measured by what sources have to say, is our purpose, we need to be very careful with how we define founding fatherhood early on and then how we "frame" and position these lists (which were nearer the bottom until last year's changes). That'll take more than editing a sentence or two, but it also shouldn't be too difficult in the hands of editors who appreciate what historians have to say.
 * As for reverts, dispensing with certain sources as unreliable should resolve that. Ping: @Casualdejekyll and @Randy Kryn Allreet (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No discussion outside of the DRN, thanks. Just a couple answering notes: North's changes are good as long as the lead is kept as is and for FF's maybe including some of the French and Union military leaders, and others in a second chart-list of other FF who didn't sign a founding document that Allreet suggested and was going to prepare. Allreet is ignoring many reputable sources, such as Werther, as well as Ferling including the CA and Tortora including the Articles, so please don't misrepresent the number of sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I'm not ignoring any reputable sources and don't appreciate being accused of doing so having just named the "best of the breed" and having previously dispensed with those of yours that don't measure up, including Werther. Unless after three months you still don't understand that it's not "clear and direct" to cite a title and then jump to the text. Anyway, a RfC is sure to clear that up with editors who understand WP:VER. I should also mention that it's good form to explain a revert in your edit summary and then discuss it on the talk page per WP:Reverting which is what we're doing. Allreet (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I invited anyone to revert me if they disagree from either a content or process standpoint, so I have no problem with a revert of my edit with no further explanation. My own opinion is that I was seeking a quick solution where it seems to be possible. IMO we're really really close to that. Possibly down to one sentence in one section, the one which Randy reverted me on. can I have your blessing to make another try at dialing back that sentence? Again, with an invitation to revert me if you do not agree? North8000 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Much thanks for improving the language. A main problem though is that the chart contains non-signers who are also considered by many or some as Founding Fathers (and it probably should expand to include French and American military names and others), so a second chart containing non-signers, which Allree previously proposed, seems needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @North8000, @Randy Kryn, @Casualdejekyll: The only thing that would "resolve my concerns" would be to remove any direct statement or implication that signers of the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation are considered founders. By any measure, an assertion with two or less sources of moderate prominence would represent a negligible minority view relative to all the books on the subject by leading historians, websites at institutions such as Harvard and U.S. Congress, and finally, the National Archives whose position represents the work of a team of scholars who have studied the papers of seven founding fathers. For assurance of the validity of that last point, visit the WP article Founders Online. I do appreciate the idea of a quick solution, but not any that would run contrary to the prevailing authoritative view. Allreet (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please discuss at the DRN, which you opened, and not here. So as to not confuse new readers of this discussion, the Werther paper in the Journal of the American Revolution was already found fine as a reputable source by three RfCs and multiple discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: Yes, we shouldn't confuse readers. The fact is, not one editor besides yourself had anything to say about Werther's paper until the DRN. Not one. You can easily prove me wrong by providing a quote from someone who has agreed with you about the legitimacy of this source regarding your claims.
 * Meanwhile, I see two significant problems with @North8000's suggested edit, now that I've had time to think about it. The first is that "some sources" should be replaced with "the overwhelming majority of sources" in terms of recognizing the Association and Articles as founding documents. The second is, there are no sources that say "signers of founding documents are founders" so the implication of this section given the context is extremely misleading. @Casualdejekyll Allreet (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You ask me to prove you wrong. Okay. Proving you wrong, from your first RfC: the full quote is "Yes, Agree with Kryn". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, Your "defense" is incomplete. One editor said "agree with Kryn". That's all he said. He never specified what he agreed with, which is important because you say so many things. For certain, nobody said Werther is a reliable source, other than you, and you apparently are unaware of his lack of qualifications. He's a retired CPA who's described as a "history enthusiast". Same with Stanfield, except he's a retired civil engineer. Neither has any relevant academic credentials. This is also true of founderoftheday's author, though at least he has a B.S. in History. We may be taking a look at this next. Ping: @North8000 & @Casualdejekyll Allreet (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll just try a few things. Anyone who disagrees, PLEASE revert me. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. A second FF chart is probably needed for non-signers (as suggested by Allreet) to add more FF names such as the major Revolutionary War military leaders ("Lafayette, we are [almost] here") and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to help on the main issue.  Others should also discuss or try edits. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Allreet and I can't until the DRN ends (per rules). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm thinking of something like the Manhattan phone directory (in response to suggestions about inclusionism). The point being that this is getting extremely far afield from Morris and his idea about a handful of greats. The more people you add, the less significant the title and the less understood the subject. That doesn't mean Lafayette and other significant contributors shouldn't be recognized. Of course the highly deserving should be honored. But to do anyone justice, especially readers, we need to stick by the sources which means heeding scholarly works far more than others. Allreet (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding your latest changes, I'm pretty much in accord. One concern I have is the continued implication of having a prominent list of signers in an article on Founding Fathers, but your lead-in does clarify the issue nicely. I also have a concern over the founding documents lede sentence. As it stands, the minority view is mentioned first and the "four are regarded as 'founding documents' by some historians and others" lead-in is a stretch. Specifically who are "some historians" and who are the others? It's not the sources listed because each relates to individual documents rather than four. That leaves Werther as a source and perhaps Lincoln. Get my point? Allreet (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm just now noticing the extended kerfuffle of the last three months, and I would like to point out that Werther does not support the idea that "signers" are the same as "founding fathers". Werther uses the term signers specifically to talk about the men who helped shape and then signed at least one of the four major founding documents. He uses the term "founding fathers" to refer to a smaller and more influential cohort; he chooses six of them to demonstrate a point. Werther does not define "founding fathers" and he does not name a number of them. I don't discount Werther because history is a hobby for him, he was after all published in a fine journal, which provides the credibility. Rather, I hold the position that Werther is not relevant to "founding fathers", because he does not actually define the topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet: Thank you for take the time to look into this. You've summed up Werther's article perfectly, which helps resolve a large part of "the kerfuffle". I'm taking the liberty of sharing your comments with the moderator of the DRN I'm currently engaged in. Not that it'll affect the outcome (the DRN has run its course), but resolving misconceptions about Werther's article could change the nature of or need for RfCs I'm considering. I'd appreciate any other feedback you may have. Allreet (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet, hello, and thanks for joining in. Some counter-points to your comment. You truncated Werther's use of the term 'Founding Father's', notice that he prefaces it with saying "The core group of the most prestigious Founding Fathers (I have chosen six)..." and only then names six of the 145 signers who he includes in the title. Please give Werther a re-read with the title of his peer-reviewed Journal academic paper in mind (titles of peer reviewed academic papers distinctly set a paper's premise, and they are almost always designed, and can be read, as the paper's first sentence) Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents. He thus includes all of the signers of the four great founding papers as founders, and focuses on specific signers only after using not one but two qualifiers: 'core group' of the 'most prestigious'. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll notice right up front that Werther does not include the word "Fathers" in his title. That's where you make a leap and assume he's talking about Founding Fathers. I don't agree that 145 men are classified by Werther as Founding Fathers; nowhere does he explicitly state this. And he doesn't say how many men are in the the core group of Founding Fathers. My reading of Werther says he considers "our most famous Founding Fathers" to be all of them; that is, the term "Founding Fathers" refers to the most widely known founders. In Werther's paper, the closest we come to equivalency between "signers" and "Founding Fathers" is when Werther quotes Saul K. Padover, who clearly sets up "Founding Fathers" as including the scores of otherwise unremarkable men who signed along with the "towering figures" we are all familiar with. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the good news is that maybe the most contentious content/wording question has been resolved. The bad news is that to go further, there are two relevant underlying questions which I don't see getting identified much less solved.  One is "what is the scope of this article?" and the other is: "What does the term "Founding fathers" which was invented during the 20th century mean?": North8000 (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @North8000, ask and ye shall receive. Regarding your second question. see the "roundup" below. As to the first, totally off the top of my head, the scope of the article should be to define the term, describe the "tranches" of fatherhood that fit the definition, identify those who qualify, and provide analyses of who they were and what they did. Much of this is done, and while some needs to be added, more important is what needs to be refined. IMHO. Ping: @Randy Kryn @Casualdejekyll Allreet (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No leap needed, in Werther's, or nearly everyone's context, 'Founders' and 'Founding Fathers' means exactly the same thing. You all may be solidifying around Werther's title not saying what It clearly says, far from the last word on the subject. In fact, in Allreet's incomplete section below, he uses the term 'founders' to mean Founding Fathers, as Werther did. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, you seem incapable of understanding what "clear and direct" and "synthesizing" mean. Neither allows picking a word or line from one part of an article and joining it with one from another. Your idea that you need to keep the title in mind as you read something else is nothing but that, in a word, synthesis. As is interpreting what an author says to reach a conclusion he does not state explicitly. And of course what I created below is incomplete, there being only so many hours in the day. As for Werther, as I pointed out before, he mentions "signers" 78 times, "founders" 3 times, and "founding fathers" 3 times. That's not counting his charts which use "signers" exclusively. He also gives no sources for "four founding documents", which is exceedingly odd. Allreet (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Defining "Founding Fathers" - summaries of key sources
Anyone who wants to add other works to these summaries is welcome. Just format as I have, but please try to be objective.


 * Richard B. Morris, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny (1973) defines the founders as those who "played central roles in determining the destiny of the new nation". He says this could include perhaps 20 men, but narrows the list to seven based on three tests: "charismatic leadership, staying power, and constructive statesmanship". His list: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Hamilton, and Madison.
 * Saul K. Padover, World of the Founding Fathers (1958), describes the founders as "the group of men who created the American Republic". He recognizes signers of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution as founders.
 * Joseph J. Ellis, Founding Brothers (2000), examines the same group as Morris through a series of stories, but includes Burr in place of Jay, to tell of his duel with Hamilton. Ellis never really defines the term, his interest being the relationships between the men. Pulitzer Prize.
 * R. B. Bernstein, The Founding Fathers Reconsidered (2009), defines the term as "those, who by word or deed, helped found the United States as a nation". Building on Morris's seven greats, he adds signers of the Declaration and Constitution, military leaders, and miscellaneous contributors, including "founding mothers".
 * Richard D. Brown, "The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787" (1976), identifies 99 men that he says "composed the uppermost layer of the Revolutionary leadership", focusing exclusively on signers of the Declaration and framers of the Constitution.
 * Heike Paul, The Myths That Made America (2013), includes a chapter that offers a jaundiced but pertinent view of the subject, declaring the "myth of the Founding Fathers constitutes an American master narrative which has enshrined a group of statesmen and politicians of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period as personifications of the origin of American nationhood, republicanism, and democratic culture". Paul says the term is a matter of scholarly debate that has been applied inconsistently. She then examines the greats and what she calls "foundational documents" (Declaration and Constitution).
 * National Archives recognizes the following as America's Founding Documents: Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The Archives' website Founders Online provides access to the complete papers of Morris's seven greats. Meanwhile, the Archives recognizes the following as founders: signers of the Declaration and framers of the Constitution. The positions adopted by the Archives represent the collective work of scholars specializing in the Revolutionary Era. Allreet (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: Author: Joseph J. Ellis Link "Founding Fathers, the most prominent statesmen of America’s Revolutionary generation, responsible for the successful war for colonial independence from Great Britain, the liberal ideas celebrated in the Declaration of Independence, and the republican form of government defined in the United States Constitution. While there are no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion, membership in this select group customarily requires conspicuous contributions at one or both of the foundings of the United States: during the American Revolution, when independence was won, or during the Constitutional Convention, when nationhood was achieved." Throughout the article, signers of the Declaration and framers of the Constitution are referred to as founders. The Continental Association is not mentioned. Articles of Confederation are mentioned once, but without reference to its signers. Allreet (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Curtis Putnam Nettels, "The Origins of the Union and of the States", Massachusetts Historical Society (1957): "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". Allreet (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional commentary
You know of other sources, including 14 in one Journal of the American Revolution article alone, so please be complete and not purposely selective, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for commentary but for works to be added. If you think something's applicable, by all means summarize and add it. I did my part, put in my hours to be helpful, and I resent your accusation that I was purposely selective. Everything here came off of my shelf except the last item. Allreet (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work but incomplete. The main reason I mentioned selective, and of course I realize you are a volunteer and don't have to write, list, or edit anything you don't want to, is that we just discussed the 14 individuals defining Founding Fathers in the 2015 Journal of the American Revolution article just a couple of days ago, so it was recently in your attention (you dismissed it by calling each of the 14 prominent and reputable interviewees 1/10th of a source). Werther's 2017 article also belongs in this listing even though you disagree, and joins many sources such as Abraham Lincoln and the Architect of the Capitol in listing the Continental Association as one of the four major founding documents. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't buy "good work" and see it as a cover for the insult. I know that's not "good faith" but I don't have 'o assume it when you immediately go on to provide a "main reason", a rationalization justifying your accusation about me being "purposely selective".
 * Speaking of accuracy, I only awarded 1/10 for two one-liners, a generous approximation of their weight compared with other sources. What's not accurate is your saying I did this for "each" of the 14. I only said this about the pair in question. However, I'm now withdrawing the 1/10th for one of them, the Continental Association, because Prof. Ferling says nothing about signers and I missed that point originally. Allreet (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I say "Good work" I mean "Good work", as much as I mean my other observations. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Such as "purposely selective"? Allreet (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

North's swan song summary
I think that the biggest issue (in-text labelling) has been mostly been resolved. To go farther I think that you're headed into a giant fuzzy complicated debate where IMO all of the possible results are wiki-fine, and I don't intend to participate in that. But I'd like to pull together and summarize the structural points that I've made. The underlying question that will affect everything else is "what is to be the scope of this article?". And, as background information, I'll note one other major omission from this article which is failure to acknowledge that "Founding Fathers" is a 20th century TERM and the term aspect needs to be covered. I think that failure to acknowledge the term aspect has sent the debate on a tangent, because all of your positions somewhat assume that who actually is / isn't a "founding father" is some fundamental reality of history (rather than a term) and that sources or debate will uncover and answer that fundamental reality. IMO they won't. So IMO there are three possibilities for the scope of the article (these presume addition of coverage of the term which I consider to be a no-brainer:


 * 1) The article is only about people who fall under the main meaning(s) of the 20th century term "founding fathers" and also coverage of the term "Founding Fathers" and who the common meaning of the term applies to.  From a look at sources, this is likely to include a (only) few dozen people involved in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
 * 2) The article is about all of the key people who authored or signed the bigger list of four founding documents, with NO strong emphasis on there being a smaller group and the 20th century term which means the smaller group.
 * 3) Combine #1 & #2 above.

The choice between the above 3 is a Wikipedia organization question, which sources can't answer. IMO once you answer it, your debate will be mostly resolved. Your remaining debate would be about who is included in the 20th century term definition and I gave my projection on where that would end up.

Number 1 is closest to Allreet's position, #2 is closest to Randy's. IMO #2 could never win, and if #1 wins you have a giant mess on your hands. You'd need to gut the article and create a whole second article with all of the removed material, and the second article would probably become a major one. And getting to either #1 or #2 would need weeks or months more debate. So IMO your best choice is #3. So then your debate is mostly over, and the article already is mostly done. You'd need to add coverage of "Founding Fathers" as a TERM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Signers of the Declaration and framers - signers plus non-signing drafters - of the Constitution number around 100, and another 50 or so patriots qualify based on their notable contributions. Also for clarity's sake, "founding father" is an enduringly appealing concept, not a 20th century creation except perhaps for the precise words and then how they're sometimes used politically. For example, at his second inaugural in 1805 Jefferson mentioned "forefathers" and Lincoln referenced "fathers" many times. Their essential meaning was the same as ours, no different from the compound FF, which pays homage to those who "gave birth" to the nation. And if I have to be slotted, I'm actually closer to camp #3, both a small and large grouper though emphatically not an inclusionist. In any case, this isn't a subjective matter but one that depends on the prevailing view of sources, as per WP:VER. Also in response to @North8000, the scope of the article is more or less its current state. The "less" is what needs to be improved. First and foremost would be a further refinement in the lede and list sections of the basic definition established in the lede sentence. Working that out collaboratively among level-headed, meaning reasonable, editors will not require rocket science or entail mortal combat. Ping @Casualdejekyll & @Randy Kryn Allreet (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In a combination solution, I would lean toward more of #1 brevity and less of #2 inclusivity. Certainly bring in the term as a 20th century (and beyond) construct. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Randy, in shorthand, the main difference in #3 compared to #2 is it covers the 20th century term Founding Fathers and inevitably that most of it's common meanings are mostly for a smaller group. Possibly this is both acceptable to you and possibly also assuages Allreet's concerns. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My question is, how did the DRN veer from "are XYZs considered founding fathers?" to discussions about the definition of fatherhood, the nature of founding documents, Abraham Lincoln's POV, and a raft of other superfluous issues. The question isn't whether we believe someone is a FF but whether sources consider someone to be a FF. That's not very difficult unless you get bogged down in Randy's view of a particular source or two. Beyond that, it's the same as anything else in terms of researching, sourcing and composing an edit. Does the source explicitly confirm this? Is the source reliable? How many sources say this or that? What is their authority relatively speaking? Instead, we're now concerned with the 20th century definition, when that's for scholars to figure out and let us know. As far as I can tell, nobody has really delved into that or at least nowhere near as far as I have. I'm not blowing my own horn. Just saying. Allreet (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is somewhat self-conflicting. Your main argument rests on whether or not sources apply that particular term (amongst many other functional equivalents such as founders, original organizers, creators, etc.) to whoever, but then lament the focus on defining that (20th century) term.   I mention this only because IMO these underlying questions need to be parsed out & recognized, and if that is done it will help much, and if it is not done, you have an unsolvable mess on your hands.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, to me all the terms are the same: fathers, founders, forefathers, founding fathers, etc. While we could "split hairs", no sources I've seen go out of their way to make a distinction regarding the particular term. On a similar note, I haven't seen any source use the phrase "20th century term", so I don't know where that's coming from and still don't know what it means.
 * My "main argument" (actually, position) is simply that anything we publish must be supported by sources. Simple enough. And what I dispute is the idea that sources of sufficient number, reliability, and authority "consider certain XYZs to be founders". That's it. It's irrelevant what you, I or anyone else thinks. It's irrelevant how the term FF is defined, and the same goes are any "underlying questions" whatever they may be. All I'm asking is for editors to reference books, websites, and so forth, look for concurrence and disagreement on who's recognized as founders, assess the sources' reliability and prominence, and then apply what WP:VER says.
 * To analogize, if the Des Moines Register and Houston Chronicle say the Rolling Stones are a mediocre bunch of has-beens, and No Depression, Slate, Rolling Stone, AllMusic, and most other "authoritative" sources say the Stones remain the greatest band on the planet despite its members' advanced age, the "prevailing view" is fairly obvious and the opinions of the two newspapers are too marginal to merit a mention. So if I do have an "argument", it's that most authoritative sources regard ABC as founders and not XYZ, and that those who do recognize XYZ are too few and not weighty enough to matter. Any other problems associated with the article aren't my concern, not at the moment. Allreet (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Journal of the American Revolution seems the recent defining journal concerning the era, and Werther's 2017 paper naming the Association's signers as founders (per peer reviewed criteria) seems definitive as a minority viewpoint from a major source. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Disputed source in terms of identifying founders. The article analyzes signers of "four major founding documents", two of which are not considered as such by National Archives and U.S. Congress but are recognized by Architect of the Capitol in its description of the statue of founder Roger Sherman. Allreet (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Journal of the American Revolution" is not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
"Journal of the American Revolution" is a popular magazine but does not meet the usual criteria of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Its articles are not included in standard guides such as the "Journal of American History", or "The American Historical Review," or "America History and Life". It is not included in Google Scholar. The editor Don N. Hagist is an independent researcher who writes about the material culture of the British Army during the Revolution. He seems to lack academic training and his full time job is as an engineering consultant. The magazine features popular articles by other amateurs--I have not spotted any scholars writing for it. There is no editorial board listed. There is no evidence that articles are peer reviewed by anyone. Its articles are entertaining and focus on very small details of interest to locals museums and tourist sites. But they are not part of the LARGE scholarly corpus or work on the Revolution. It's ok to cite them for specific small details, but let's not claim it represents the views of experts. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The Journal claims to be peer-reviewed, though I think you're correct and believe they apply this to articles they publish in book form, but can't find where I read that originally. Also, some of their writers are credentialed; John E. Ferling and Thomas Fleming are two prominent examples. Werther, he's not. And so, the descriptions offered on Werther's article and the Journal in terms of being definitive reputable academic major and so forth are nothing more than subjective puffery. Just the same, we should brush all that aside and instead closely examine his article. In it, you won't find a single explicit statement identifying signers as founders beyond some references to a few greats. Case closed. Allreet (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just learned from his WP bio that Fleming died in 2017. So I'll add someone younger, Daniel J. Tortora, an assistant professor at Colby College in Maine. The JAR is not bush league, but IMO and in concurrence with @Rjensen, it's not major league either. Allreet (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For what little it may be worth, I concur with Rjensen as above. -The Gnome (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , Werther aside, what is your own opinion of the Continental Association signers as Founding Fathers? Amateur historians sometimes get it right long before the pros join in (been there), but on this topic crediting Association signees as Founders seems logical. If not, then the entire First Continental Congress is taken off the table as Founders unless they went on to do additional founding deeds. Aside from commenting on Richard Werther and the Journal, do you personally agree on removing these signers from Founder ranks? Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Continental Association is important because tens of thousands of people signed up and thus the Patriot movement became a mass movement (and the Loyalists had their weak counterpart). So USA has thousands of founders. But the experts do NOT count the signatories as "founding fathers" so Wikipedia policy is to follow the experts. (I am not an expert on the Revolution). Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, love your analysis and language. I'm not an expert on the Revolution either, and greatly value knowledge gained during the past three months of discussions with Allreet and a few others. Werther's papers may not be referenced by professional historians or listed in professional schedules, but I think they would still be considered reputable sources if they have gone through an adequate peer-review by some professional historians tasked by the Journal of he American Revolution, arguably a reputable publication. I don't personally know if hey have. How is this incorrect per Wikipedia policy? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of scholarly studies and none of them call the Continental Association signers as "founders." Two brief mentions in the same popular journal suggest that they were but do not examine the question at length and do not cite support for this new viewpoint. Those two mentions are not cited by any scholars. Wikipedia should follow the unanimous approach of the many scholars who have worked over the field for 100+ years. Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A worthy point of view and shows that the professional academic field has an obvious hole in regards to this topic which I hope historians and writers work on and publish during the next 2 1/2 years leading up to the 250h anniversary of the Association. Please realize, I haven't seen a better concise summary of the CA than your words "I think the Continental Association is important because tens of thousands of people signed up and thus the Patriot movement became a mass movement (and the Loyalists had their weak counterpart). So USA has thousands of founders." Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Journal of the American Revolution is peer reviewed
It turns out that the Journal is peered reviewed.

Its editorial board is rather impressive:

Editorial Board:


 * Associate Editor: Ray Raphael -- Raphael’s latest book, coauthored with Marie Raphael and published by New Press, is The Spirit of ’74: How the American Revolution Began. He has written eighteen previous books on the American Revolution
 * Associate Editor: Jim Piecuch -- Earned his BA and MA degrees in history at the University of New Hampshire and his PhD at the College of William and Mary. He is an associate professor of history at Kennesaw State University and has published several articles on colonial and Revolutionary history. He is also the author of six books on the American Revolution.
 * Managing Editor: Don N. Hagist -- managing editor of Journal of the American Revolution, is an independent researcher specializing in the demographics and material culture of the British Army in the American Revolution. He maintains a blog about British common soldiers (http://redcoat76.blogspot.com) and has published a number of articles in academic journals.
 * Social Media Manager: Katie Turner Getty -- Boston lawyer, writer, and independent researcher. She earned her J.D. at night from New England Law Boston, cum laude, holds a B.A. from Wellesley College with a focus on revolutionary America.
 * Associate Editor: J. L. Bell -- Author of The Road to Concord: How Four Stolen Cannon Ignited the Revolutionary War (Westholme, 2016). He maintains the Boston1775.net website, dedicated to history, analysis, and unabashed gossip about the start of the American Revolution in New England. His other historical writing includes Gen. George Washington's Home and Headquarters—Cambridge, Massachusetts,
 * Founding Editor: Todd Andrlik -- Founding editor of Journal of the American Revolution, as well as author/editor of Reporting the Revolutionary War: Before It Was History, It Was News (Sourcebooks, 2012), named one of the Best Books of 2012 by Barnes & Noble and Best American Revolution Book of the Year by the New York American Revolution Round Table.
 * Publisher: Bruce H. Franklin -- WESTHOLME, founded in 2003, is an independent publisherand is noted for its distinguished and award-winning titles in a variety of subject areas, including American and world history, military history, ancient and medieval studies.

Moreover, their articles are featured in the American Historical Association, Smithsonian, PBS, CNN, Discovery Channel, History Channel, TIME, New York Times, Bloomberg, Slate, Huffington Post, History News Network, MSNBC, NPR, and many other outlets.

Any article they publish would have to meet all standards that the above editors and media forums ascribe to. Their publications are indeed peered reviewed, and the attempts to blow this source off as less than academically reliable seem to overlook many things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I have now proven that Richard Werther's 2017 paper indeed calls the signers of the CA Founders, and the Journal was peer reviewed, this RfC should be withdrawn per WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRALITY. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose the attempt to close down the ongoing RfC, especially when such a proposal comes from editors who are trying to change the accepted, historical paradigm and do so beginning at Wikipedia. Nothing of their claims has been proven, and the wording proposed in the RfC is nowhere in sources. Fork alert. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fork alert"? — Aren't you the one who is trying to 'fork' away from the issue of this section, i.e.the reliability of the journal, with your accusatory and rather exasperated manner, while ignoring the credentials of that journal, and all the notable forums that publish their articles? "trying to change the accepted, historical paradigm "? — On the contrary we have upheld the scholarship by repeatedly pointing out how multiple sources cover the Continental Congress and its Association, how it initiated, or founded, the first colonial governmental body independent of the Crown, which do so very well without always using a particular figure of speech, i.e.founding father? Please review the Other reliable sources section, and stop carrying on as if we're trying to introduce the square wheel. Thanks again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud, Gwillhickers. How can you seriously claim that the Journal is "peered reviewed" (sic) when it describes itself as offering "a business casual approach to scholarship"? I have never encountered a publication aspiring to the minimum of academic standards that would describe itself as anything like that.
 * It's indicative of the dearth of reliable sources that support your conentio. You resort to invoking a "business casual" publication and you want Wikipedia to state as fact something that goes against the overwhelmingly prevailing paradigm and equate the continentals with the founders on the basis of such weak verifiability. This is just too much. -The Gnome (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh put your hat back on. You are reading way too much into "casual approach to scholarship", i.e. scholarship, and have conveniently ignored everything else, including the editorial board and all the notable forums that publish this journal's articles, including the American Historical Association, and the Smithsonian. I have not made my case about reliable sources based on this one journal either, and have articulated well how reliable sources cover the Continental Congress as an entity that initiated a government framework independent of the Crown, for the first time in colonial history. Thanks for your objective opinion just the same.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Scholarship is scholarship. There is nothing "casual" about scholarship, sorry - and I'll wear wear my hat whenever I please. You cannot make the question go away by waving: Are there enough reliable sources out there that state verbatim what the RfC proposes? I.e. that "the signers of the Continental Association be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States"? No, there are not. Enough of this time-wasting crusade. -The Gnome (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your quote is from the Journals 2013 founding and you left out part of the sentence: "an online magazine featuring historical content'". Is there a WP:Omission (should be)? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a quotation and a self-description that has not been withdrawn. No omission whatsoevere - and please do not go there. The term "business casual" is more than enough. Imagine Nature or Scientific American presenting themselves like this. -The Gnome (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean it's more than enough for you, which tells us you make sweeping conclusions based on one simple comment about Scholarship. Most secondary sources are written in a casual tone, i.e.readability, and for the average reader anyway. That, by itself, doesn't make them less than scholarly works. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know about you but I'd be weary about the scientific & academic worth of a "casual" publication. Scholarship is scholarship and no "conclusions" can affect that, "sweeping" or not. But to each their own. You're welcome. -The Gnome (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Iow, you're "weary" of most secondary sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive Call to Close Down RFC
The above call by User:Randy Kryn to close down the RFC on whether the signers of the Continental Association should be considered Founding Fathers is disruptive noise. You appear to have established that one source that calls them Founding Fathers is a reliable source. The question is what reliable sources say, not one source that you have cherry-picked. The issue is indeed one of balance and due weight, which isn't decided by one source if there are multiple sources. I don't know whether User:Randy Kryn doesn't understand neutral point of view, or does understand, but is trying to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Seems straightforward, and supports the present well-worded and fair article language. Combined with WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE the signers of the CA meet Wikipedia criteria per sources, making the RfC mute and answered in the affirmative. A jury saying "no" would need to ignore all three and count noses (noses who, on average, probably haven' read any of the long discussion), hence my suggestion to shut it down now as "yes". Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of @Randy Kryn's reply - from "seems straight forward" through "answered in the affirmative" - makes no sense. The only thing clear is the ending where he tries to dismiss the vote that's running heavily against his position.
 * Neither Randy nor @Gwillhickers can provide a reliable source that explicitly identifies Continental Association signers as founders. Unable to find one, Gwillhickers insists sources do not need to use the term "founding fathers" or "founders", which is astounding considering this is the subject of both the article and the RFC. Instead, he claims more than enough sources support the idea that members of the First Continental Congress (signers of the Continental Association) united the colonies, were revolutionaries, built a frame of government, etc., and therefore satisfy the definition of founder. He fails to understand that cobbling together facts to reach conclusions sources don't themselves express violates WP:NOR. No editor has been able to get this through to either him or Randy, though several of us have tried.
 * To verify what I just said you'd have to wade through the convoluted discussions, so I've created a subsection below with a sampling of Gwillhicker's verbatim statements that a) demonstrate his use of OR and b) document his attempts to dismiss the need for sources that use the phrase "founding fathers" (or similar terms). Allreet (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — No one is trying to advance the idea that one source should be enough to 'Ace' the debate. The issue with the Journal of the American Revolutionary War was whether it was a reliable source, which, imo, it obviously is. It has an an impressive editorial board of scholars and authors who review and edit any article before it's published. Journal articles that are republished by the American Historical Society, Smithsonian, Discovery Channel, History Channel. etc, etc, are also reviewed before they decide to publish them, making any given Journal article well peered reviewed. The Journal has been frequently used as a RS here at WP for years, and this is the first time I've ever seen it assailed in such a questionable and opinionated manner. Other sources ( 1,2 ) have been introduced that well support the idea that the Continental Congress, and hence its Articles, were composed of founders, even if a source doesn't use the particular term of "founding". This has been the central demand from the individuals who want to chop up the article here, which has been with us for many years,  and remove all the names of Congress members who only signed the Continental Association. No one has produced one source that clearly explains how the Continental Congress and its Association were not part of the founding process leading to the U.S. government. What we get overall is criticism that some of the sources don't say "founding", even though this idea is well explained regardless. Citing the sources that clearly explain the events and entities that led to, formed, or established the US government is not at all OR. We had the same arguments, along with accusations that we just make things up, thrown at us multiple times, as you've just witnessed, and each time they have been addressed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Gwillhickers - If no one is trying to advance the idea that one source will 'ace' the debate, then why is User:Randy Kryn trying to shut down the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is going like some AFD debates, where a proponent demonstrates that a single source is a reliable source, when the issue is whether multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage. The question here is not whether there is a single reliable source, but what is stated by multiple reliable sources.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — Well, I believe at this point almost everyone's patience has pretty much run out, esp since we have provided sources that more than substantiate that the Continental Congress was a founding entity, or if you prefer, one that took the first major steps in establishing a representative government in America. On top of the existing sources I've added a number of others just recently that continue to support this advent, several of which use the term "founders" and "foundation". Hopefully this will satisfy all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first half of @Gwillhickers's statement is a red herring: the JAR's reliability is not in question - Richard Werther's is and so is the use of his article regarding the question of founders. Gwillhickers then goes on to insist that sources be provided that say members of the Continental Association are not founders, when what's required is the opposite, sources that say they are founders. Finally, neither he nor @Randy Kryn has satisfied what other editors have "thrown" at them: the need for reliable sources that explicitly support their claims. Randy has had four months to do so in support of the edits he made last year. By now, you'd think he'd have at least two or three, when the fact is he doesn't have any. Allreet (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (I apparently have to post this again, on May 5. It was initially copied from the Henry Laurens talk page, April 26, when nobody responded to the ping. As for a quote from the Werther paper showing that he meant what he said in the title "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" please read (boldface mine):
 * "What this illustrates is how many others were involved besides the most famous involved in the founding. It was a wide array of men who brought differing skills to bear. In a piece entitled “The World of the Founding Fathers,” historian and political scientist Saul K. Padover, writing in the journal Social Research in 1958, amplified this point in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents), stating:
 * The answer [as to whether the framers were geniuses] is not to be found in any extremes. A few of the Founding Fathers, to be sure, were towering figures to whom the term genius has been applied [Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington]…Others were persons of uncommon talents as thinkers, writers, or orators [among them were John and Samuel Adams, Dickinson, Hamilton, Henry, Madison, and Mason]…
 * But the great majority, possibly four-fifths or more, were not particularly outstanding men. They were, rather, persons of generally average ability and character…In general, the Founding Fathers were what one may call solid citizens, respected by their neighbors, usually of good family and well-to-do.”[18]
 * To repeat: "in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents)"., somehow both of us overlooked this sentence and its following quoted-descriptor during our discussion. It seems very clear and direct in naming the signers of the four documents as founders, exactly as he says in the title. How would you describe it (it doesn't read as if it can be explained away)? Will ping and  as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The JAR has been routinely criticized for not being peer reviewed, beginning with the very title of the section. Any article, including Werther's, is reviewed by the editorial board. I've clearly outlined this idea. If you're now claiming that this isn't the case and that the JAR is a reliable source, fine. Or are you saying the JAR is reliable, but Werther, whose article is published by this reliable source, and reviewed by the editorial board, is not reliable, in spite of the sources cited and its reviews. Which is it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Only its article by Richard Werther is in question. Werther has no credentials to qualify him as an expert (he's a retired civil engineer and self-described history enthusiast), plus his article does not specifically identify signers of any particular document as founders. It doesn't matter, then, what you've clearly outlined. Stop changing the subject. Allreet (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Richard Werther is capable of compiling statistics on 145 signers, doing the math, and reporting objective findings about the results (7% of the signers were physicians). However, he begins his article claiming there are "four founding documents". He does not have the credentials to state this on his own, and he provides no source for it. As a matter of fact, there is none, yet Wikipedia has been including this assertion for three years plus two days with Werther's article as its only source. Meanwhile, the National Archives, U.S. Congress.gov, and several notable sources that have ample credentials identify a different set of documents. Werther's view, then, is both unreliable and in an extreme minority. Under WP:VER we not only can but should ignore his assertion entirely. Thus we have no source for the idea that the Continental Association is a founding document. Done, finé, no mas. Allreet (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon: See how this "balloons"? We're now debating the Journal of the American Revolution. Next it will be some other issue that has little or nothing to do with the RFC's question. I once described this "discussion" as akin to whack-a-mole. You respond to one thing specifically, and the other editor ignores what you said and raises a different issue. So I'm done replying to "the other side" and will gladly answer any questions you or any other editor may have. Otherwise, I'm content to wait for what the "closer" has to say. Allreet (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - I prefer the whack-a-mole analogy to the "balloon" analogy. Some of my experience on the Internet is in reporting spam, and the spammer is whacked and moves to another corner.  However, the "balloon" analogy may be that we are trying to retrieve a loose balloon that is floating around on a nine-foot-high ceiling in a wind generated by a fan.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 10-4. Your mentioning the larger internet reminds me of another impression: how much of this devolves into what occurs in social media. I've seen only glimpses of it here in Wikipedia, whereas you seem to have made it your calling, but this is the first I've experienced it at the level of, let's say, Facebook. That topic itself is worthy of study (elsewhere), but I'm curious because I've gotten sucked into the fan, too, though that shouldn't surprise me because like most other "enthusiasts", I'm more emotional than rational.
 * As for the balloon, that could also have something to do with an analogy based on Parkinson's Law that "work, like a gas, tends to expand to fill the space it occupies". But don't get me started or I'll prove it. Thanks for the reply. Allreet (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"Who cares"?? Unbelievable that you missed that one. I'm assuming the editor who started this section cares. (!) Show us the policy that says a RS has to have a Masters or Phd in history to be deemed reliable. Please review reliable sources (history) If you're going to dismiss Werther it should be on the grounds that his work is factually in error, and that the sources he uses are of no consequence. Werther's well sourced article has passed review and was chosen by the Journal for publication. Since you don't have any issue with the Journal being a peer reviewed publication, evidently, it would seem the basis of your argument once again is purely academic and typically falls short of undermining the actual article in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Randy, you pinged me. My reading of Padover is that he is acknowledging that a large number of men are typically not included in the cultural term "Founding Fathers" despite the fact that they helped make it happen. Padover is standing on the foundation of the consensus assumption that "Founding Fathers" is a smaller group of the most prominent men, the very active organizers, authors and "geniuses" of the American Revolution. Padover is reminding the reader that more men were actually involved, not just a dozen or so. But he doesn't call these other men "Founding Fathers." Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree with the sentiments and the viewpoint expressed by the originator of this section Robert McClenon, as above. And that is all I will add to a discussion that has began to truly disgust me: A few editors are attempting to actually change the prevailing historical paradigm and want to start off that change in Wikipedia of all places. It's incredible. The mere fact that administrators have not yet put an end to this farce is incredible. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — The "historical paradigm" has always been that the Continental Congress, in all its functions, initiated and were central to the founding process. Please do your homework before accusing others of trying to change what the sources say, as if that's actually possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is precisely because I have done the necessary homework (not always at home, to be honest) that I'm here to stop this blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. (Your cue for mentioning perhaps my hat again.) Reality check, then: This is an RfC. I suggest you check back about the RfC process. This RfC asks a clear and simple question: Should the signers of the Continental Association be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States?
 * Well, such an explicit inclusion does not exist in the historical, academic, reliable sourcing. Open up the history books and check. See if you find the continentals listed as founders. You'll fail. So, party up as much as you please with the Werthers and the "business casual" amateur sourcing; the fact remains that there is no listing in the respectable History texts of the continentals in the same category/breath/listing/grouping/team as the founders. RfC fact, then: The suggested listing is not found in sources. We find may things about the continentals (how important they were, and the like), but we do not have any basis to list them in Wikipedia in the same article and in their biographies as "Founding Fathers." End of story. (I wish. ) -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Abraham Lincoln said the Continental Association formed the Union and he provided the four great founding document template. Several good sources explicitly agree with that template, and the importance of verifying Werther's two papers as peer-reviewed and a reputable source is that in calling the signers of all four documents 'Founders' he only further codified Lincoln's obvious point-of-fact founder criteria: those who first formed the union are founders. Gwillhickers has done diligent sourced research verifying this. The article already contains neutral language and points out that acceptance of CA signers as Founding Fathers is limited, and the biographical pages should, as previously discussed, contain "some sources....as a Founding Father" language. The importance of maintaining WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, when met, seems a major consideration in assessing new, accumulating, and inclusionary sources and analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued Useless Discussion
Continued argument about whether the signers of the Continental Association were Founding Fathers of the United States appears to be becoming agitated, especially on the part of User:Randy Kryn, who seems to continue to want to shut down the RFC by stating that he has already established that beyond the need for discussion. I don't know what he or User:Gwillhickers expect to accomplish by continuing to argue. I have six possible theories:
 * 1. To persuade future participants in the RFC to !vote Yes.
 * 2. To persuade participants who have already !voted No to change their !votes.
 * 3. To persuade the closer, on or after 13 May, that they have made a conclusive case for Yes.
 * 4. To persuade a wandering administrator to close the RFC, and maybe conclude that they have made a case for Yes.
 * 5. To support a formal Closure Request asking an administrator to close the RFC and declare that they have made their case for Yes.
 * 6. To justify deleting the RFC or otherwise actually closing it down.

One of these actions, 6, would be disruption of the RFC, and could lead to sanctions, so I assume that that is not the objective. Actions 1 through 3 are mistaking length of argument for strength of argument, and will probably have no effect. Actions 4 and 5 will probably be ignored or denied, and so will probably have no effect. At the same time, I don't see that counter-argument is accomplishing anything either.

My advice to them, as the least unlikely way to get what they want, which is to define the signers of the Continental Association as founders, is to present a case to the closer saying that, because they, the supporters of the CA connection, have identified more sources while the RFC has been running, the RFC should be closed as No Consensus so that it can then be restarted, to ensure that the participants are aware of the sources. (Alternatively, the RFC could be Relisted, with a request to the previous !voters to review their !votes, which would have the same effect. I am aware that RFCs, unlike AFDs, are very seldom Relisted.)  That is what they should do if they actually are trying to make their case reasonably. That doesn't mean that the closer will take such an action, but such a request wouldn't be hopeless.

The alternative is that they can continue pushing pixels into hyperspace, and that they should be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There was a concern that there were not enough sources that cover the Continental Congress, its Association and its founding functions. Yesterday and today I have added a good number of supporting statements and sources in the hopes that such concerns would be addressed. No one seems to be addressing this. All I'm seeing is some rather exasperated accusations about attempts to "change the prevailing historical paradigm", and before that "making things up" from the usual two other editors, who seem to be contributing to the disruption with these sorts of accusations more than most. If anything, starting a new RfC might be in order, per your suggestion, but as I've demonstrated, there are plenty of RS that support the founding process started by the Continental Congress and the Association, so if everyone can put ill feelings aside, I'm hoping there won't be any further problems. We've come this far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers: You've said many things about the history throughout that are absolutely untrue. Dozens of substantial assertions. If you want, I'll go back and underscore them for you. Some are absolutely preposterous. For example, your claim that the Constitution wasn't that significant since its foundation had already been laid. When the Constitutional Convention met, it was charged with amending the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the delegates came to the realization, then and there, that this was impossible so they created an entirely different document. Since such statements could not have been informed by any sources, "making things up" was an accurate description, not a disruption. The same is true about assertions like "changing the historical paradigm" or if we remove signers of the CA and AOC, we're going gut the entire article. Nope, only claims that don't have a RS to back them.
 * Similarly, while the sources you've provided are reliable on the history, they fall well short of what we've been calling for: sources that identify the CA's signers as founders. For example, one of your sources (Mortenson-Bagley), doesn't mention the First Continental Congress (you continually equate the two as one), CA or even the year 1774 in its text. How is this article relevant? Meanwhile, you've gleaned quotes from each of your sources and only one includes the word "founder" and not one mentions the CA. How are we to connect the things you've bolded with the RFC's question? Synthesis and OR would be the only way given that nary a source clearly states the conclusions you've reached. BTW, none of this is about the importance of the First Congress or for that matter the CA (which has no source as a founding document other than Werther). The issue is signers = founders. Anything else is a red herring. Allreet (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Blur... We've been through this. The Continental Congress was a central founding entity, and that you've doubted this only tells me you're apart from some of the very basics here. We can't remove from the list select individuals from the Continental Congress simply on the basis that they only signed the CA, which was drafted, adopted and signed by members of that Congress. There are plenty of sources that cover how the Continental Congress was a founding entity, one that established and developed representative government, and without referring to it or any of the members as founders. How is it that the Continental Congress is a founding entity, but some of its members weren't? You've never even explained that one, much less provide one RS on that note. Unless you can provide a WP policy that dictates that we must use the exact same figure of speech, it would be best if you didn't continued to fill up the Talk page with these rehashed and failed arguments. Regrettably, actual WP policy about requiring the use of the same terms or phrases will be the only thing I'll recognize coming from you at this point, as you've been given every chance to explain matters comprehensively and in terms of the actual history involved. And I've never said the Constitution wasn't that significant. Yes, kindly quote that alleged statement for us, now please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert, please realize that your comments may say a lot more about you than they do me. Unlike yourself (reread what you've written about me and your wording and tone throughout) I'm not agitated, am doing nothing more than saying I think that an RfC "yes" number of sources have now been achieved to fulfill WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, that most RfC participants will not know that, which combine to make the RfC question quite stale by this point and that it should be closed as "yes". You seem to have an itch about me that you can't scratch, or is acting like this your standard methodology? The signers of the CA are already defined as Founding Fathers, and should remain so, with added due weight language such as "some sources..." Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The signers of the CA are already defined as Founding Fathers" and "due weight language such as some sources..." In your dreams, @Randy Kryn. My only question, about the second statement since the RFC should settle the first, is of @Robert McClenon: How does a favorable outcome for the "No" voters prevent ongoing disruption from the two "Yes" voters? Does the RFC adequately settle the side arguments or will we then have to seek an ANI or some other official action to prevent ongoing edit wars? I'm not asking for anything definitive (an open and shut ruling), just a glimpse of the possibilities. Allreet (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - You asked what appears to be a question about procedures. For the next seven days, Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers can post all that they want to, and it may or may not affect any !votes.  They can request an early close with a result of "Yes", and they won't get it, so I assume that they won't request the useless.  In seven days, someone will request formal closure.  Formal closure will then take place, maybe in about a week after the RFC expires.  What happens then depends on what the closure is.
 * If the closure is some form of "No", then they have the choice of complying with the consensus, appealing the close at WP:AN, or ignoring the consensus and editing against consensus. They will have the right to argue at WP:AN that the closer should have disregarded the survey and should have supervoted, and they will probably lose.  If they ignore the close and edit against consensus, you or someone else can go to WP:ANI and request a topic-ban or other sanction.
 * If the closure is No Consensus, then either you or they can appeal the close to WP:AN.
 * If the closure is some form of "Yes", then you have the choice of complying with the close, or appealing the close at WP:AN, or ignoring the close.
 * Does that answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfectly clear. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The signers of the CA are already defined as Founding Fathers" in no way that can be seriously considered as satisfying the verifiability policy. But we can continue to have encores last for a longer time than the concert itself. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As requested:
 * "The only thing these men [CA's signers] don't have in common with the other founders is that they didn't sign the DOI or Constitution, but the foundation for independence was already laid before those documents emerged on the scene". - Gwillhickers, April 25
 * "When the D.O.I. was drafted and signed the Continental Congress and its Association, were already in place and are what led to, established, founded, representative government in America. All the D.O.I. did was declare this advent to Britain." - Gwillhickers, April 29
 * Both statements afford equal if not greater importance to the CA than the DOI and Constitution. To get there, @Gwillhickers equates the First Congress with the Second, and he violates WP:NOR by offering conclusions not explicitly expressed by any sources. Since he's also asked for WP policy on this latter issue, I'll kill some time by adding a new section below (at the end of the Talk, after his list of sources). Allreet (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

— You fail to realize that the sources have always ascribed different measures of importance between the documents in question, so your take on my account is typically only more of your ambivalence. I've only echoed what several sources have said: There is no OR here, and your chronic and ill inspired accusations have really gone on long enough. All you've given us, once again, is a rehashed version asking for sources that all use the specific term of "founding father", while you have yet to back this up with any policy over using exact phrases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "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.
 * "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."
 * "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.

Wording
User:Allreet and others, what changes in wording in the FF page would you suggest in case a panel closes this as "no"? A few words would seem to cover it. Bios of some but not all single-document CA signers elsewhere would just require a brief removal. Readers should be made aware there is much new information in sections below these two long disruptive sections oddly placed in the middle of RfC discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself and at this point don't know specifically how certain things should be worded. As I have for months, I believe CA and AOC "single signers" who don't have RS identifying them individually should be removed as founders wherever it's stated. As for "new information", that's a distorted POV in terms of the issue, FF (see my brief analysis above). These sources could be relevant in a background section that discusses the First Continental Congress and other early efforts that led to the founding, but they offer nothing in terms of directly identifying FF. In short, I would object to any attempts to suggest the conclusions being promoted by you and @Gwillhickers. Allreet (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — Allreet, how many times must you be lead around the same block? The Continental Congress was a founding entity that established representative government in America, starting with the Articles of Association, which sent representatives to the several colonies who in turn elected committees to enforce and report back on matters to the Congress. There are plenty of sources that cover this obvious advent. Any members of that Congress, delegates, esp signers, were indeed part of the founding process. Once again, if you are demanding that each and every one of these men be backed up with a source that refers to them as "founding fathers", verbatim, then we must apply the same standard to all the men listed in the article, in which case, we would be chopping down the article significantly. Once again, the founding process is often covered with sources that convey this basic idea without using the specific phrase of founding father. This robotic and selective approach is destructive, not necessary, and would only deplete the article while ignoring the history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Original Research and attempts to avoid the term "founding fathers"
Following are examples of @Gwillhickers's use of OR and his insistence that sources don't need to include "founding fathers" or similar terms. I have pared this down to less than a quarter of its original length (!) to reduce the repetition, though that's unavoidable when someone keeps saying the same things over and over. I've provided the dates to show this has been his position from the beginning. Should he claim I'm quoting him out of context, anybody can easily go back to reference the sections where he made these statements.

Allreet (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * However, and regrettably, if there is only one RS that supports this idea in terms of founding father, that would raise doubts, and if that's really the case then we should avoid that term. - from Gwillhickers's "Yes" vote, April 23
 * Since Founding Father is not an official term...and since the men in question played a first hand role in challenging the Crown, via Parliament, and in so doing established the idea of colonial unity, which fed right into the idea of colonial independence, we should be a little more flexible when it comes to ascribing a simple title for them... - Gwillhickers, April 25
 * Ammerman and Phillips doesn't (sic) use the term founding in reference to the document, the signers, and the U.S. government, but it's rather obvious that they convey this basic idea. - Gwillhickers, April 26 (Note: This is one of the rare instances where a source is mentioned.)
 * When it comes to covering individuals, we can refer to them as founders if they were members of the Continental Congress, and/or prominent leaders leading up to and during the Revolution...These things can be verified by the sources, as I've been saying all along. Verifiability doesn't require that we have to use the exact same figure of speech. - Gwillhickers, April 27
 * Editors are allowed to use their own words so long as they're not advancing a weird or otherwise unusual idea not supported by the sources. There is nothing unusual about referring to an individual member of the Continental Congress, a founding establishment, as one of the founders. - Gwillhickers, April 28
 * Though there are presently more 'No' votes than 'Yes', most of the 'No' votes are based on the assumption that the sources don't cover the idea that the Continental Congress, or that its Articles of Association, were not a fundamental entity that led to the founding of a representative government, or that they don't employ the particular figure of speech of "founding" enough. - Gwillhickers, May 1
 * More than enough sources already cover the Continental Congress and how it initiated the first colonial governmental body that was independent of the Crown. Since the Continental Congress was a fundamental founding element in American government, leading up to the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately the Constitution, its first official act, the Articles of Association of 1774, drafted and signed by members of that Congress, was indeed a founding document, and its signatories were founders, which include Washington. - Gwillhickers, May 4

Finding sources that don't use the term "founding father" is not automatically OR
— Thank you for compiling my statements in one easy to read list. However, you seem to think that posting such a list all by itself is somehow going to make your case, as I've noticed you didn't address any of them, understandably, because all the criticisms, e.g. of not using one figure of speech, have been addressed more times than I care to count at this point. No on has "cobbled" together anything and advanced an unusual idea here. The Continental Congress was a body of founders, and hence, its members are part of that founding process. A given source doesn't have to use that particular term "founding" to make this simple point. The crux of your entire debate has been hanging by this one thread. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say your failure to find explicit sources regarding "founding fathers" is OR. That's a separate issue or "thread", the need for reliable sources on the question this RFC is about. In lieu of producing such sources, you engage in OR by taking what sources say, applying the definition of founding fathers from the FF article, and then reaching a conclusion that can't be found in the sources: that these particular delegates are founders. I believe you even have the first part of this "triad" wrong (that members of the First Continental Congress favored independence), but that doesn't matter. You can't stitch together various thoughts from one or more sources to assert something those sources don't actually say, for example, that "The Continental Congress was a body of founders..." Please add the word "First" to the Congress, and then provide a source that says it was "a body of founders". Allreet (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you're demanding yet another particular phrase, verbatim, and trying to tell us that the Continental Congress was not part of the founding process, and in the face of multiple quotes from sources introduced to this Talk page. Did not the Continental Congress adopt a representative body with its Association, and the Articles of Confederation, for openers? Unbelievable. It seems you're just being impossible, dragging your feet at every turn, so there's really no point discussing this any further with you. Enjoy your view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not "demand yet another particular phrase, verbatim". I asked you to provide a source for your statement that "The Continental Congress was a body of founders..." Because the actions of the Second Congress are not disputed, you need to be specific in referencing the actions of the First Congress. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Original research and misrepresenting the sources
, and other participants

Re this statement: " But the experts do NOT count the (Continental Association) signatories as "founding fathers". —Rjensen 19:20, 14 April 2022

It seems some have embarked on original research to support such an assertion: Just recently I've encountered several articles of CA signers only. Some of them make the same basic statement in the lede, added by one editor. One such article asserted:
 * "However, prominent sources, such as the National Archives and U.S. Congress, do not regard the Continental Association as a founding document. As a result, few sources recognize Biddle as a founder."

There were three sources used to cite this claim, the first two were generic and non specific. None of them maintain that they "do not regard" the CA, or its signers, as founders, or with any words to that effect. One of the sources used, (3) the Library of Congress, however, actually supported the idea.:

Library of Congress, Primary Documents in American History:


 * Declaration of Independence
 * U.S. Constitution
 * The Bill of Rights
 * The Federalist Papers
 * Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789  (emphasis added)
 * Guide to American Historical Documents Online
 * Charters of Freedom from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

The Continental Association, was drafted and adopted by the Continental Congress, in 1774, and was indeed a Primary Document. While the LOC here doesn't actually say a "founding" document, it is included as a "primary document" of the Continental Congress.

If a source doesn't happen to mention that the C.A. is a "Founding Document", it would be Original Research to make the assertion that they "do not regard" it simply on the basis that they don't mention it. We need more than one Reliable Source that explicitly says in no uncertain terms that the CA or its signers were not part of the founding. Not one source has been presented that says this. Meanwhile we have some that do. When it comes to the individual signers, the sources indeed support the idea that they were founders, even if they don't use that phrase, simply because they were prominent leaders, and members of the Continental Congress, which again drafted and adopted the first document that brought the colonies together under a common cause, thus laying the foundation for colonial unity and independence, regardless if independence was a remote idea in the minds of some at the time. By 1774, rebellion and independence was more than just a passing idea, thanks to the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, Intolerable Acts, British attempts to silence colonial provincial courts and newspapers, not to mention the Boston Massacre. Nearly all went on to ultimately support independence anyway.

At this point it would seem that if no one can give us anything more than Origninal Research assertions, and inconclusive conjecture about the reliability of some of the sources, this RfC, which has been swamped with never ending debate, is long overdue for closure. After much consideration I changed my vote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "original research" == well no. The Wiki policy WP:ORIGINAL regarding use of primary sources states: "A primary source MAY BE USED on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. "   To state "primary source XYZ does not call this a founding document" is a straight-forward, unambiguous descriptive statement of fact that anyone can verify. Rjensen (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers: Your post adds "Primary Documents" to the mix, via the Library of Congress. The LOC's listing is hardly news, nor is it very helpful. Literally every document of the Revolutionary Era is included under this umbrella. Read the first paragraph under About This Collection: "Contains 277 documents relating to the work of Congress..." How significant is the Continental Association in such an all-inclusive grab bag and how does any of this help identify founders?
 * Meanwhile, you say the two reliable sources that were cited regarding "founding documents", National Archives and Congress.gov, are "generic and non-specific". The Archives uses the headline "America's Founding Documents" and Congress, "U.S. Founding Documents". Both go on to specifically list four documents, briefly describe them, and then provide links to various pages on the documents. True, neither source explicitly excludes the Continental Association, Articles of Confederation, or for that matter, the Magna Carta, but clearly the scholars at both sites are restricting the possibilities to the documents listed - to the exclusion of all others.
 * As for the sentence you're aghast about, no doubt it's horribly worded, added in haste when @Randy Kryn was heralding all document signers as founders without a reliable source to stand on. But I truly do not understand your lengthy huff about this. You claim that the sentence in question was added to "some" of the biographies Randy changed. At most, it would be "two", a pittance in light of the 50 pages where he added the title founding father - without any source. Does your "Yes" support that approach to adding content? In any case, my inept sentence is hardly a travesty that calls into question everything editors have said in this RFC.
 * The crux of the matter is that no reliable source identifies the family of signers of the Continental Association as founders. Not one. And you say it's OR to reject these signers because nobody explicitly says they shouldn't be regarded as founders. Man, is that convoluted. Nobody should be regarded as anything until a reliable source says they are - not everything is a given until someone says otherwise.
 * That's my long response. The short one is much simpler and remains the first and last word on the subject: Only reliable sources can identify founders. Allreet (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, my contention was over making a conclusive statement, e.g."does not regard" simply based on the idea that the term "founding" can't be found in a particular source. We can't say the LOC, or any source, "does not regard" the CA as a founding document simply because we can't find that particular phrase everwhere. Assertions of this sort have been made several times now, which is OR and SYNTH, which can occur by misrepresenting secondary sources, as well as primary. Once again, if we're going to make the statement that the CA, or its signers, are not founding, and go so far as to remove names from the article here, then we will need a source that spells this out clearly. No such source has been put on the table yet. As can be demonstrated, the names in question were members of the Continental Congress, important leaders and so forth, and we don't have to have a particular figure of speech to show that they established, or founded, the government of the U.S. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alltreet, first, please tone down the personal snipes. You used three sources that didn't support your claim in the Biddle and other such articles and are attempting to do the same here. None of them supported your contention that they "do not regard" anyone, or anything, as founders, or founding, simply because they don't use that particular phrase. That is OR and SYNTH. Biddle was a member of the First Continental Congress, which drafted the Articles of the Continental Association, which he then signed, and in that overall process founded, or established, our present day Congress and government, making him and others like him a founder. Your used the LOC as one of your sources. When it was pointed out that the LOC regarded the 1774 documents from the Continental Congress as primary documents, you fall back on the rather narrow idea that it doesn't use the exact term of "founding". The idea of founding can be established in many ways and the sources have done this. Not finding that particular phrase often enough has been the only basis to your argument, which is purely academic and ignores the actual history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The challenge is stated once again: Anyone who wants to change Wikipedia and have the Continental Association listed in this article as Founding Fathers of the United States is challenged to submit three or more reliable sources that state that - but verbatim. No quotey, no changey. -The Gnome (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * More than enough sources already cover the Continental Congress and how it initiated the first colonial governmental body that was independent of the Crown. Since the Continental Congress was a fundamental founding element in American government, leading up to the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately the Constitution, its first official act, the Articles of Association of 1774, drafted and signed by members of that Congress, was indeed a founding document, and its signatories were founders, which include Washington. This advent is not part of the founding? We don't have to use a source that says "founding", so long as it outlines how matters were established, or formed, or initiated, and there is no WP policy that says we must use the same exact phraseology, or figure of speech, to that effect without any "changey" in the essential meaning. This will be at least the fifth time this has been addressed. That you seem to think this is all something fantastic or impossible suggests that you're not very familiar with the Continental Congress in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, you wrote: "We don't have to use a source that says 'founding'". Oh, yes, you do. Otherwise, we'd be engaging in blatant personal, historical interpretation. We are not here for personal input; we're here to relay what sources say. I may have great sourcing that shows number of deaths and other disasters that occured during, for example, the Thirty Years' War, but on the basis of that I am not (repeat not) empowered to claim that the Thirty Years' War was equal in brutality, or worse, or whatever, than the Crimean War or any other war - not unless this is stated verbatim in sources. Conclusions and  intepretations are not ours to make. What you are doing is you're trying to derail Wikipedia rules to force through a personally favorite interpretation of History. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks toning down your discussion with me. Your analogy about the Thirty Years War involves adding a new idea, i.e."equal in brutality", to a general statement. That has not occurred here, as the Continental Congress, a body of Representatives – delegates from the several colonies, is what initiated the idea of Representative government. We don't have to use a particular figure of speech, esp when it involves a general idea, to write the narrative. If a source says Mr. Smith "founded" a newspaper, we can say he "established" or "started" that newspaper, without any change made to that basic idea. I've asked this before, i.e.what guideline or policy says that we must use the exact same term or phrase that a source may use? There is no issue involved unless someone is trying to promote an unusual idea. There is nothing unusual about maintaining that the Continental Congress, i.e.which is composed of individual representatives, was a founding entity that initiated and developed the idea of representative government in America. This is not adding a new idea and doesn't amount to WP:OR or any "personal input" – it's what the sources say, in a number of different ways, and in varying amounts of detail, and I like to think I've produced many of them at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The title "Founding Fathers" has been bestowed to specific individuals. The relevant terminology has been established unequivocally a long time ago. Wikipedia cannot but reproduce the canon. At best, it can mention the continentals as having contributed whatever our sources show they have. The articles about the Continental Association and the biographies of its members cannot start listing them as "founding fathers" unless this is, yes, explicitly and verbatim stated as such in sources. The issue of the Founding Fathers is quite important in the field of American History, so, yes, we look for the exact same term or phrase; we're not umpires in this field. Yes, the equation you're seeking is an "unusual" notion; it adopts an "unusual" term, a historically heretical term. In the context of Wikipedia terms, you claim that your position is deduced from History - but it's not our place to do that and to do it here: Wikipedia is not a historical journal. No matter how many documents you proffer that show the importance of the continentals' contribution, we cannot jump to the level of equating them with the Founders here in Wikipedia without an overdose of synthesis. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued...
— The Gnome, is every individual listed in our article, even under signers of the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of independence and the Constitution, backed up with a cite/source that refers to them as a "founding father"? No. Far from it. The term Founding Father is a general figure of speech that came into popular usage sometime during the 1940s, but the backgrounds of the individuals in question are covered to the extent which places them as members of the Continental Congress, prominent leaders, and their involvements in initiating an independent and binding representative government over the colonies. It's understood that we can't list every military leader or statesman as a founder, so we confine ourselves to those who played definite and important roles, which is all that this article has done. To dismiss various members of the Continental Congress as founders for no other reason than they only signed the Continental Association ignores the idea that they were indeed members of that Congress and participated in initiating the first form of representative government that was binding on the several colonies. There is no O.R. or SYTH involved by using terms like established rather than founding. The idea of founding has been repeatedly articulated by sources who cover the involvements of the men in question, and often without referring to them as "founding father". If you are not going to compromise on that point then we must insist that you show us the WP policy that dictates that we must always us the same exact figure of speech. Otherwise you are just advancing an opinion with nothing else to support it except for the unsubstantiated and opinionated claims about O.R. and SYTH. We have been more than fair in providing sources that cover the idea of founding. You are needlessly demanding something that is not applied to every single individual in the list of founding fathers here. (Add:) The Continental Congress acted as the first independent central representative government in colonial America. It created the Continental Army and elected George Washington as its commander. It authorized the issuance of colonial currency. The Continental Congress adopted Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. It continued to function in this capacity until 1781 when it drafted and adopted the Articles of Confederation. It is not OR to say this representative entity of individuals was central to the founding of US government. We can't single out individuals in that Congress as non-founders simply on the basis they they only signed the Articles of Association., or because the sources may have not referred to each and every one of these individuals as founders. The Continental Congress, made up of individual members, was a founding entity, or one that established the idea of representative government. It's understood that this would include its members. Without its members, there would be no Congress. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The title "Founding Fathers" has been bestowed to specific individuals."
 * Where is this official list of founders?
 * "The relevant terminology has been established unequivocally a long time ago."
 * By whom? What reliable source(s) have made such a specific establishment?

Discussion of possible improvements
Overall, the article looks fine. The lede could use a re-write, probably a total overhaul (except the first paragraph), though I don't know enough to know exactly what that means. Elsewhere, the biggest issue is the Articles, which don't warrant "some historians" as a statement and thus face the same fate as the Continental Association.

In terms of founders, that eliminates 56 signers at most (some of these qualify based on other contributions), which leaves the greatest, greats, and many near greats, including signers of the Declaration and Constitution. Unless I'm missing something, eliminating the Association and Articles as a source of founderhood wouldn't appreciably affect other sections, only the lede and list sections. After thinking through the value of the full chart and ways for toning down the section's implications, I suggest moving the section to the middle of the article, where it had been until July 2021 when Continental and Articles signers were "promoted" and the chart became the article's centerpiece. Its introduction needs a re-write to clarify the chart's significance. It would also help to have a title that didn't mention "founding", such as "Signers of historic documents" which had been used for many years.

As for other sections, all things can be improved, always, so opportunities for refinement abound. Offhand, though, I don't see anything that concerns me too much. In a quick sweep, I noticed only a couple sections that needed serious work - Prior Political Experience is vacuous, its first sentence laughable, its list pointless; Post-Constitution Life needs research to better summarize the afterlives; and Scholarship on the Founders is incomplete in that many prominent authors are not mentioned.

Another task: All "other notables" need to be vetted. Sources on some could be thin, and related to that, I'm not sure how to handle the crop of founders whose only source is a sole "forgotten founding father" article. Allreet (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @North8000, for the sake of transparency, I want to alert other editors to the background I posted on your Talk page regarding how this dispute started. The link for anyone interested: Founding Fathers - the "back story". Pinging @Randy Kryn Allreet (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, the section listing Continental Association signers was added in 2012 by without reference. It's a fine thing to list signers, but to label them as "Founding Fathers" requires an explicit step in that direction from the literature. If I were improving this article alone, I would split out the various signers into one or more list articles, removing the sortable table of names. I would remove the useless graph of death ages, showing nothing remarkable in the bell curve. I would remove the "notable patriots" section and the sections "Prior political experience" and "Institutions formed by Founders". I would reduce the Continental Association in importance to match the WP:WEIGHT of the literature—the CA is not normally counted as a document which produced Founding Fathers.
 * This article will improve 10× if we greatly prune the excesses and limit the text to discussing the dozen or so main Founding Fathers, mentioning that there are about 150 men who signed one or more founding documents. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet: Thanks for the feedback. A 10x improvement is a desirable goal and your suggestions help fill in list of things to do. I've come around on salvaging the chart. Even though signing the Association or Articles is not in itself a qualifier, the comparison of signers is of interest in showing the longevity and prominence of certain guys. The idea of breaking this out as a separate list article would be an excellent alternative. Other "trimmings" you mention are also apt. Allreet (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What? Ten years ago, the article already discussed the Continental Association which was the first collective act of the Colonies against Britain and indeed included broader definitions based on, R. B. Bernstein, The Founding Fathers Reconsidered (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), and the list was transferred from the CA article.
 * It seems highly unlikely that a made-up (more than a century later) and amorphous concept, which is what "Founding Fathers" is, would not have various definitions/listings -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Britannica's FF article, by Joseph Ellis, is excellent in addressing your points which I believe also relate to @North8000's. Allreet (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsurprising, as Ellis notes there are all kinds of thoughts about it. And he lists almost no-one, its comes down to, 'did this (adult) person (in the Thirteen Colonies) in the late 1700's have something to do with this or these sets of concepts'.  Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, dusting off my dusty memory, as I seem to vaguely recall, the CA signers act stand-ins for active members of the "Continents" First Congress, which was a watershed event. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker: Ellis studiously avoids identifying founders except in Founding Brothers. Bernstein identifies Declaration signers and Constitution framers/signers as founders. He and most other authors have very little to say about the Continental Association. A decade ago, when you added the list of Association signers, WP'S FF article had one sentence on the Association while its Continental Association article was silent on founders/founding. No doubt the boycott was significant; the First Congress that adopted it, even more so. But without sources explicitly identifying founders, individually or as a group, we cannot confer the title. Allreet (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That they are founders is patent, if one can accept nothing else, they founded the Continental Association, there was not going to be this revolution without just such a compact making and appeal to reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Founders Online is a product of the National Archives which does not consider the Association a founding document. The Archives recognizes the seven greats and then as I said the figures associated with the Declaration/Constitution. In any case, the Association did not result in the revolution or independence; it simply preceded those events. Allreet (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply? It is nonsense to imagine history simple. The Association is collective action against Britain, collective action against Britain is the way of the revolution. The Association is constructed by the Continental Congress, the revolutionary government, there is no independence without the creation and practiced collective action of the Congress. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly the topic is not simple. Historians are not in full agreement as to the scope of the term "Founding Fathers", as may be seen in the cited source "How do you define 'Founding Fathers'?" The historians looking at that question gave answers as small as six men and as large as the entire 13 colonies. But most historians acknowledge the framers and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as "Founding Fathers". Those two are shoo-ins. Fewer historians recognize the Articles of Confederation as automatically producing Founding Fathers in its list of signers. And only a very few historians count the Continental Association. So with the consideration of WP:WEIGHT, we should not expand the list to include those parts that are not always included. We should emphasize the consensus of historians, as weak as it is. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker: "Simply", a poor choice of words. More appropriate: chronology and causality are not the same. To make any connections, we need sources, and none I've seen equate either the actions or existence of the First Congress with the start of war. Even that's beside the point. What's needed at the moment are sources that directly identify Association signers as founders. As for @Binksternet's points, we agree on most issues except "few historians": none exist regarding the Association and only one, the author of a 1958 paper, regarding the Articles. Allreet (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As shown, "Founding Fathers" is an elastic concept. It can be broad and it can be narrow, to encyclopedically account for the concept it must be broad as well as narrow.  Moreover, various critiques of the concept must also be explicated.  Nor do the sources suggest the Declaration nor the Constitution happened in a vacuum, they happened in a context. Even looking at it narrowly, it would be odd to contend that George Washington was not a founder except in 1787, if you look just at the "key" founders, 4 out of 7 did not sign the Declaration.  And someone like Patrick Henry signed neither the Declaration, nor the Constitution  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you picked up on the larger context of this discussion, Alan, but it was catalyzed by Randy Kryn adding a lot more stuff about Founding Fathers to various parts of Wikipedia, based on his interpretation of the Werther piece—a novel interpretation that widened the scope considerably. He added "Founding Father" to a bunch of biographies which didn't have explicit support for that label, for instance this addition to Thomas Lynch Jr who was a dutiful man in his 20s picking up the reins from his father, Thomas Lynch the revered statesman. When his father took ill, the son attended meetings in his stead, and signed the Declaration. The son didn't do any kind of nation-creating work other than act as an agent of his father. There isn't a single history book that explicitly labels Lynch Junior a Founding Father. In the same vein, Randy Kryn added a new section titled "Other notable patriots of the period", the title a sure sign of WP:Synthesis on its face. Because of additions such as these, it was past time for corrective action. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, one thing it is "past time for corrective action" on is for you to stop misinforming editors, maybe consider apologizing, and definitely use the strike function. I did not add "Other notable patriots of the period", I wish I had but what I did is add descriptors and moved it higher on the page. It is a fine section (in fact you edited the page with it included). And you have a couple more entire sentences above to strike, as I added Founding Father status to pages from the list of people explicitly labeled 'List of Founding Fathers'. By the way, Thomas Lynch Jr. signed the Declaration, of course he is a Founding Father (everyone who signed it is, you aren't aware of that?). It is very nice to see Alanscowalker join in, a voice of reason and common sense in analyzing the great Continental Association, its gigantic influence on American history (which RJensen summarized well above), and on the other founding events which are under the musket here. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging and his Wales-given ability to strike misinformation about another editor (and ) just in case either missed the post just above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a fine section; it's a hot mess of WP:SYNTH, just like the majority of your biography additions. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again? I'll explain in different words. I checked the pages listed in a list on the Founding Fathers page. The list was titled "List of Founding Fathers". Many of those bio pages didn't include the term. So I added and linked it. Over two months later Allreet became unhappy because he read that a Loyalist, Joseph Galloway, was called a Founding Father. He didn't know how that could be possible, Galloway being both a Founder and a Loyalist. It seemed to confuse him. He opened and closed three failed RfCs on the same topic, sources calling the signers of the first great document of the Union, the Continental Association, founders. He didn't get his way in any of those three, and eventually a fourth RfC, the one above, was opened after long discussion. Are RfCs designed to continue until they get a different result? This RfC has two parts, Survey and Discussion. I hope a good closer will take both into equal consideration. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are describing is a process where you used Wikipedia as your reference, which is a violation of WP:USERG. You failed to use WP:SECONDARY sources as we all should be doing as regular practice. I'm not the only one here who is horrified at the extended violation, spreading over many articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then where were you and the other WikiHorrified during this three-month discussion and three past RfCs, mostly a back and forth between Allreet and myself about if the title of Werther's paper could be described as its premise and then used or not used as a page reference. A straightforward well-viewed yes-or-no disagreement which went on and on while both of us assumed that Werther was a reputable source. Could have used your input earlier (mid-January would have been swell). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Tightening inclusion criteria – explicit naming of the person in the source
I propose that we begin to implement something in the neighborhood of the #1 suggestion made by User:North8000. We should treat the term "Founding Fathers" as a cultural concept rather than an implied fact. What that means practically is that we should emphasize the people who have been named explicitly as a Founding Father in multiple sources, and we should stop making the implication that someone is automatically a founding personage if they attended this or that meeting, or signed this or that document. Let the sources give us the names one by one, each named explicitly.

Of course we should tell the reader about all the various interpretations of the cultural concept known as "Founding Fathers", from the smallest group of six men named as "consensus" by Thomas Fleming to the largest group of the whole Thirteen Colonies with their 2.5 million people, as described Wayne Lynch. These assessments should be described in brief rather than any one of them adopted as a template for inclusion.

In the proposed article architecture, there would be no automatic equating of a founding document signer with the label "Founding Father". Certainly we would tell the reader that many historians apply such an automatic inclusion criteria, with many listing the Declaration of Indepence and the Constitution signers, but since the opinions of historians differ so radically beyond this, Wikipedia should not try to figure out which one is right, or where the center is. Rather, we can pore through the sources and see which names are explicitly labeled. Names that have at least two reliable sources labeling them explicitly as Founding Fathers will be the basis for this article.

The existing big lists of signers should be removed; split out into list articles. In their place we can have a shorter list of the major names, the people who did the most work to create the USA, the ones named explicitly in multiple sources. In the manner of the excellent Britannica article about Founding Fathers, we should also name the few women who can be considered founders, who would be listed if the cultural term was not inherently sexist. One benefit of a shorter list with tighter inclusion criteria would be that we are not forced into a sterile sortable table layout, and we can describe in prose why each person is considered a Founding Father: what they did, where they were, what they signed, etc. It would be more informative, less a problem with WP:SYNTH, and easier for the reader to comprehend. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP page neutrality and due weight (WP:NPOV and WP:DUE) this is not functional (Britannica and other encyclopedias do not have such important policies). For example, many sources list all signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as Founders, their inclusion seems obvious and inarguable. Just because an RM is questioning the inclusion of CA signers doesn't mean Wikipedia is intent on lining up to defound scores of other founders. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with nearly all of @Binksternet's points, though we may be rushing things a bit. First, this RFC must be settled to relegate the Continental Association to its proper place. Second, another RFC may be needed to deal with the Articles of Confederation. Neither has the support of sources to elevate them above the marginal, but we need consensus to proceed without disruption.
 * Once those issues are dealt with, all of what Binksternet, @North8000, and others see as possibilities can be worked out together and in due time. The good news, or at least hopeful news, is that after much neglect, more editors seem interested in bringing the topic up to speed. A million people visit the page each year, so it's important we get it right. Of course, that's work, nowhere near as stimulating as arguing amongst ourselves, so I hope interest doesn't wane once the votes are tallied.
 * I also should forewarn about getting "too cerebral". People who come here don't care two hoots about academic theory and analysis. Most want useful knowledge and to be entertained. I suggest we seek to satisfy those interests as well. Allreet (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "to relegate the Continental Association to its proper place"? The RfC is about signers not the founding document, the signers of the CA who are among the bravest and most influential Americans of their era. They include the great Thomas Lynch (Jr.'s dad), who would lose his Founding Father status if a closer ends the ongoing RfC, as it presently exists, by judging it by its Survey and not the Discussion where my important first question sits oddly unresolved and woefully under-discussed. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally, after three months you recognize the issue is founders, not founding documents. Look back at how many times you've pivoted from the former to the latter. Now the reverse is true because it suits you at the moment. So to clarify, I meant what I said in both regards, about signers and the document. Exactly what that means, sources will tell when the time comes.
 * As for your question: "Why should Wikipedia change focus and ignore and dismiss the First Continental Congress as a group of revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies?" To use the argument you just posed, this RFC is about signers, not unity or members of the Continental Congress. I believe the question is another diversion, but be that as it may, as above, sources will help us determine the answer.
 * For now, I will address the first part, about "changing focus". You made fundamental changes to 50 articles in Wikipedia about six months ago by anointing their subjects founding fathers. You had no reliable source for your changes nor did you bother to cite any source except in the few cases where you were forced to. Rather than own up to the obvious at numerous points, you've raised one specious argument after another. For exactly 100 days, since January 9. That tactic could not survive forever, so it appears we're now about to "change focus" by correcting the record, something we as editors do everyday. Allreet (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ? I said the present RfC is about founders, not the documents, which it is. Correcting what record? Almost the entire discussion you and I have had was centered on if Werther's title was the paper's premise, not if it was a reliable source. Your accusations and insults above seem an odd viewpoint to me. You, or anyone else for that matter, have not yet given an adequate response to my opening question in the Discussion section of the above RfC, and am noticing a lot of mud being tossed into the water to avoid it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we've said all there is to say to each other. Let's leave it at that. Allreet (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR - the policy requiring that sources must be explicit
An editor, @Gwillhickers, has challenged me to cite a WP policy that, in his words, "dictates that we must use the exact same figure of speech" in citing sources. Because Gwillhickers doesn't understand the policy that does apply, he's asking the wrong question.

The policy is WP:No Original Research and I've cited it to him at least six times - April 27-28-29, May 1-4-9. These guidelines require that the material we add to Wikipedia "must be explicitly supported by sources". In explaining this, I've also pointed out that being explicit doesn't mean the exact term "founding father" must be used but something very much like it is required: "founder", "forefather", "he founded the nation" or some other similar approximation.

In one final attempt to try to clear up the confusion, I'll cite the relevant passages of WP:NOR. But first, a definition to help us understand the key word in these provisions:

"Explicit — stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt". WP:VER - Verifiability says the same thing though slightly differently: "Sources must support the material clearly and directly".

Now the passages:

WP:NOR - Using Sources


 * The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly.


 * Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source.

WP:NOR - Synthesis


 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.


 * Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

Instead of following these dictates, Gwillhickers thinks it's okay to provide sources that support the importance of the Continental Association to prove it's a founding document - even though his sources don't say so directly. As for the signers, he draws another conclusion: because they formulated and signed a document that led to the founding, they must be founders. None of this, from "founding document" through "founders" can be found in any of the sources Gwillhickers has provided.*

I'll close with one more quote from WP:NOR, from the Reliable Sources subsection of WP:NOR - Using Sources:

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research."

* The one exception is Richard Werther's article in the Journal of the American Revolution, which is not a reliable source on the issue of "founding documents" since he has no academic credentials or other qualifications for breaking new ground in historical research. This paper has been in dispute since January 9 and has been rejected as a source by several editors as well as in a current WP:DNI related to the above RFC.


 * Certainly NOR is a high concern in this discussion, along with WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Every fact should be verifiable in published sources, not assembled from assumptions. And how much weight is there for a few dozen Founding Fathers versus a hundred or so? Looking around at all the sources, there is quite a lot of weight in the literature for figures on the smaller side. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , you're repeating the same thing all over again. Someone's role in the founding process can be explicitly established by covering the role played in initiating, or establishing, representative government. Once again you are reading your own narrow opinion into to what constitutes explicitly, and once again such coverage is not confined to simply using the same figure of speech. You can bold the word explictly all you like, it changes nothing. The only reason this has been explained for you, "at least six times", is because you refuse to get that. Demanding that we use the same exact figure of speech for every individual, in all categories, not just under C.A., would require us to ignore much of the history, and to follow through with such a blind approach would result in this article being reduced to a dozen or so people. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be kind, very kind I doubt, but it's difficult given your inability to understand the most basic of things. Regarding explicit:
 * For the n th time, explicit does not mean using "the same exact figure of speech". It's a little more difficult to be "synonymous" with a phrase as unique as founding fathers, but variations using other words are perfectly acceptable.
 * A good example are the two definitions I provided. They share a few of the same words, and while the rest are different, both definitions say and mean exactly the same thing. Nobody could understand them differently.
 * Explicit, however, does not mean what you're doing: using some broad set of words to construe a similar meaning that's clear only to you.n. All of the statements you've extracted could be taken to mean several things, in which case, you're being inconsistent with your sources, not one of whom is writing about founding fathers.
 * I'm sure I'm wasting my time trying to get through to you. So I'll leave it at this: So far just short of eight editors disagree with you, and should this go further - in another forum regarding your misunderstanding of the word - my guess is 95% or so of the community would disagree with you there as well. And now I won't be kind because I'm very concerned. If 5% of the community agrees with you, Wikipedia is in trouble. As with @Randy Kryn's edits of October 2021, millions of readers would be getting the wrong story on significant points made by a significant number of edits. To be even more clear and direct, I sincerely hope this is not your approach to sourcing in your other work here at WP. Allreet (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers, as for "a dozen or so people", where do you get that idea? Find one set of my words, explicit or implicit, indicating that the changes that would result from the RFC would eliminate the signers of the Declaration, signers of the Constitution (plus framers would be added), and then dozens of men and women who didn't sign anything but are widely recognized for their contributions to the nation's founding. Sources abound for upwards of 150 individuals, starting with the aforementioned signers and framers. Those sources are explicit and reliable. FYI, most use the "exact figure of speech" while others use words and phrases that are similar.
 * That's my POV, which is to say I can't speak for what a team of editors might agree upon as a "standard" moving forward. However, I would fight tooth and nail (meaning forcefully) for conferring the title on the bulk of the people I just referred to where the support of sources is clear and direct. Allreet (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

— Allreet, most of the votes were made before most of the sources were introduced to this forum, and before the last group of discussions were made. The idea of the Continental Congress being central to the founding, or establishment, of representative government is explicitly covered by numerous sources. It is only your opinion that this shouldn't include members of that Congress simply because they are not always referred to as founding fathers. All ideas are covered with a "broad set of words", and explicitly, regardless if the phrase founding father is used. What are your hopes for this article — to remove all names, in all categories, that don't have multiple sources that claim, verbatim, that they were founding fathers? You've been insisting on that single criteria from the start. If the RfC is closed in support of the NO votes will you be attempting to remove all such names from this article?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your use of these sources is flawed beyond the pale. It's doubtful anyone would change their vote if they read our exchanges since most editors understand WP:NOR. But, hey, go ahead invite 'em back in. Frankly, I believe that you couldn't get away with what you're doing with your sources in a high school research paper, and I'm confident most seasoned editors would agree with me. Allreet (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you misunderstand what all this about. @Randy Kryn "anointed" around 50 people founding fathers on the basis of a source that wasn't saying what Randy claimed. So all that will happen is that they'll be removed from the list - except for those who have explicit support as founders from other sources for whatever reason. Based on your reasoning, all members of the Continental Congress qualify, yet we know there were many loyalists along the way plus a couple traitors. However, if they signed the Declaration or signed/framed the Constitution, they qualify because sources say they were founders. And as for a "broad set of words", the point is you're interpreting those words to mean something specific. You have no right to do that. Only sources can state and interpret, and all we can do is report explicitly what they explicitly say. Allreet (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion: Why don't you ask the WP:Help desk what they think of your use of sources? Simply explain what your sources say and then what you would publish based on that. There's a way for you to prove your point in a heartbeat. Allreet (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody will be removed from the founding document list "Signers and authors of founding documents​", which has nothing to do with the RfC. If a three-panel closing team would decide sources say, ignoring Werther, Lincoln, and others, that CA signers are not founders (which would be ridiculous given the sources now provided) that may change language in some bio articles and slight language on the FF page, that's it. Articles of Confederation signers would be unchanged. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: Anyone lacking sufficient sources sources will most likely be removed from the article, depending on the RFC's ruling and community consensus. You have no sources describing signers of the Continental Association as founders or founding fathers. Not one, yet you have had four months (January 9-May 11) to find some. Your claim about "Lincoln, Werther, and other sources" appears to be tied to Original Research, since none of these sources explicitly supports your claims.
 * Not only should the Continental Association's signers be removed from the article, but I believe the "Signers of founding documents" section should be removed as well, because it's not directly relevant to the topic, given that half of those listed (signers of the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation) lack sufficient sources in terms of being considered founders. Most likely, meaning I can't speak for other editors, the section should be replaced by listings of individuals whose status as founders can be verified by sufficient sources - reliable, explicit, and multiple - as required under WP:VER, WP:NOR, and other relevant guidelines.
 * I intend to request input from the RFC's Closers on this matter, and I will also be asking other editors who have participated in the RFC to provide feedback. Both requests will be included in a new subsection that I will be adding to the RFC's Discussion section. To locate this subsection, search for "Input requested". Allreet (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Allreet, my use of sources are clear and direct and support the idea that the Continental Congress and its Association are what introduced and implemented the idea of representative government. And kindly not speak for "most editors" as if they agree with your narrow take on OR. You've based your idea on OR as if this occurs simply because we would use sources that say established or initiated representative government, rather than founding. Have you not? Saying someone established representative government, or instituted it, is just as explicit as saying they founded it.
 * That you continue to carry on as if the sources presented have nothing do with matters is consistent with the idea that you are simply stonewalling matters as if someone was trying to introduce the square wheel. If you are so adamant about the sources why don't you take your own advice and go to the help desk, or is this just more of your talk in your own going effort to fill up the Talk page with endless repetition and failed arguments?
 * As for the article being reduced to a dozen or so people – if we follow your expectations to the letter this would indeed occur. You've insisted all along that we can't list a CA signer as a founding father unless there are multiple sources that use this exact term, all the while you've been trying to add your narrow take on the meaning of explicit, while you continue to ignore the idea that something can be explained differently without using the same exact phrases.
 * One of the major flaws with the theme of this RfC is that it only targets signers of the C.A., and no one else. Why aren't you willing to follow your own advice and demand that all the individuals listed in the article be referred to as founding father by multiple sources? Problem? Obviously. Such an expectation would likely be used as an excuse for deleting many other names not listed under C.A. As for removing Randy Kryn's 50 "anointed" people, if they were members of the Continental Congress, then they were indeed founding fathers, as is supported by multiple sources, including those Randy introduced. All members of the Continental Congress signed the Continental Association and were involved in the debates before they adopted it. It doesn't matter if some where loyalists at the time, or if the membership changed somewhat by the time the Second Congress met in 1775, they were still central to the introduction and development of representative government in America.
 * "For the n th time, explicit does not mean using "the same exact figure of speech". It's a little more difficult to be "synonymous" with a phrase as unique as founding fathers, but variations using other words are perfectly acceptable." Thank you. This is what I've been saying all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your sources are anything but clear and direct, so I hardly think I'm "carrying on", "stonewalling", "introducing a square wheel" and so forth with what I'm saying. Using ad hominem arguments is what people resort to when the substance behind their arguments is lacking. Also weak is attacking the legitimacy of the RFC. Without question it should be focusing on claims about the Continental Association because of how flawed those claims are.
 * Regarding the substance I have to offer in terms of other documents, I would have no problem going to the Help Desk because I have multiple reliable sources that explicitly and directly state that signers of the Declaration and signers/framers of the Constitution are "Founding Fathers":
 * Bernstein, R.B., The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, Appendix: The Founding Fathers: A Partial List, 2009
 * Brown, Richard D., "The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787: A Collective View", William and Mary Quarterly, 1976
 * National Archives, Signers of the Declaration and Meet the Framers of the Constitution
 * You, on the other hand, have a far longer row to hoe between your sources and conclusions regarding members of the First Continental Congress and signers of the Continental Association. But if you wish, we can settle all this here and now by going to the Help Desk together. Ready to go? Allreet (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued ....
More rhetorical nonsense. The sources covers the role of the Continental Congress and its Association:

Yes, you're not even acknowledging any sort of connection, and hence you're just stonewalling. Btw, the three links you posted above, with typically no references to quotes or page numbers, don't begin to make the conclusion you wish to make, just as you attempted to do in multiple other articles claiming, based on three sources, that they  "do not regard" them as founding fathers. The multiple OR attempts, ongoing denial of sources, your repetitious and twisted interpretations of policy and non -responsiveness really need to stop.
 * Ammerman 1974 says, the C.A. was the most important document in that it "... provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution."
 * Phillips, 2012, says in regards to section 11 of the C.A. "Thus were the elected foundations of the new revolutionary government put in place."
 * Warford-Johnston, 2016, says that "representatives of the Continental Congress established American unity, and exchanged visions of the future that would become the foundation of our nation."
 * Friedenwald, 1895 says, "The Continental Congress... Suddenly brought together to meet a pressing emergency. Few of them, if any, conceived that events would so happen that they would be called upon to adopt a policy which must inevitably lead to establishing a new power among the nations."
 * Mortenson & Bagley, 2001 says, "The Continental Congress, which set the most salient national precedents, delegated legislative authority by the bucketload."
 * There are several others.

Meanwhile you typically avoided several points, i.e. holding all listed individuals to the same citation standards, per multiple sources. This RfC only lends itself to CA signers. The help desk is your idea. You're better off going to a noticeboard where you can attempt to ignore everything presented here and rehash your take on OR, and your bit about using exact phrases, which you've flip-flopped over just recently.

My analogy was made with the idea that it's okay to refer to champion swimmers as champion athletes even if the sources don't use the exact term of athlete. Got it this time? CA signers were founders because the sources say so, sometimes without using the term founders, as outlined again, just above. Yes, athletes is a given, and the Continental Congress as founders is also a given, as multiple sources outline this in a number of ways, per your recent quote, explicit does not mean using "the same exact figure of speech" and "...but variations using other words are perfectly acceptable". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You've seem to run out of fresh substantive arguments and are now framing everything as personal attacks and insults. "Got it?" I do, so I think it'd be best if we'd end things where they stand: at a standoff. Nothing wrong with that, on my part or yours. Allreet (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — The Continental Congress was a body of colonial representatives, the first form of independent colonial government in America, independent of the Parliament, and proceeded as such beginning with the Continental Association. Thus they laid the foundation of representative government in America, an idea that is well supported by many sources, some of which use the term foundation. Your continued refusal to acknowledge such a straight forward idea in the face of multiple sources is hardly a stand off. Sorry if my tone has been less than friendly, but you've been completely impossible with every single source and idea brought to your attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was being nice despite your incivility. Lots of luck, then, with your Original Research. Allreet (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No luck required, no OR either, esp when some of the sources explicitly say founding and/or clearly show the Continental Congress, a body of representatives, as the first representative form of government that indeed founded, established or initiated that form of government in America. So "nice" of you to accuse me of OR, for probably the 10th time,, esp since you've never been able to quote the passage from OR that nails the idea. Meanwhile try to learn the difference between being "explicit" and using the exact same figures of speech, then review your latest comment, outlined in green directly above.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

18th-19th century views: Forefathers' Day
See Correction section below

In his 1805 inaugural address, Jefferson paid homage to the "Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life".

The reference here, of course, is to those who first crossed the Atlantic to settle in the New World. While he wasn't more specific, Lincoln in his Gettysburg address and other speeches probably referenced them as well, though by then the "list" probably had been expanded to include those of Jefferson's day.

This would constitute part of the 18th-19th century views of the founding fathers, and by the 20th, memories of the Mayflower-Jamestown generation had been eclipsed by the recognition of events in the Revolutionary Era. But not entirely. Forefathers' Day celebrations, which began in 1769, are still held in Plymouth today. (There is some good-natured dispute between the Old Colony Club and Mayflower Society, over the date, December 21st vs. 22nd respectively, because of a mistake when the Gregorian Calendar was introduced.) However, Lincoln's designation of Thanksgiving as the last Thursday in November supplanted Forefathers' Day as a national observance.

The subject deserves further research and some attention because of the light it sheds on the general concept and the development of the terms we use. Interestingly, the major historians - Morris, Ellis, Bernstein - make no mention of these earlier views, at least as far as I've been able to find. Everything seems to begin with Franklin's birth or Harding's speeches. Allreet (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This perspective would make an interesting addition in the article. Obviously there have been different reasons over the years over whom to consider as founders, and apparently such consideration is sometimes only based on fame as compared to Washington, etc. If we subscribed to that criteria this article would be reduced to a dozen or so individuals. As was :said, individuals throughout the entire list, not just those listed under the CA, are not nearly as notable as Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et al, but notable enough to have WP articles. Sources are explicit as to the role the Continental Congress played in uniting the colonies and founding, establishing or instituting representative government. As members of the Continental Congress they played an important role in the founding, and to exclude them on the basis that they only signed the C.A. would be OR. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

continued1

 * It would be like saying it's okay to list champion swimmers in a list of Award winning athletes, but only if there are multiple sources for each and every one of them that explicitly refers to them as champion athletes, regardless if these sources cover their roles as champions swimmers without using the word athlete. This rigid approach for inclusion in such a list would be strictly mathematical, robotic, and would ignore their accomplishments as champions.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If I may suggest again, you need to be more specific when referring to the Continental Congress. Its "radicalization", meaning support for revolution and independence, took nearly a year to muster. So many of those who served in the First Congress were gone by the time of the Second. Those who stayed but continued to disagree dropped out gradually until the adoption of the DOI, at which point the few remaining loyalists were forced to resign. As I think I mentioned before, I live near the home of one of those who was appointed to take the place of a "hold out", so his sole claim to fatherhood was as a signer. On the other hand, his contributions to the Revolution were significant. He ran an iron foundry and supplied cannonballs and shot to Washington's army. Because of the AOC, which could not impose taxes, he was never paid and lost a fortune. I doubt he would garner any sources for his sacrifice in terms of being recognized as a founding father so the "coincidence" is "just desserts". Allreet (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, your analogy is severely flawed. Champion Swimmers = Athletes is of course a given, provided you have sources proving the swimmers are champions. The argument you're making about CA Signers = Founders is a longer, more torturous one, more like A + B = C and not at all A = B. Each of your factors requires a clear and direct source, but the big problem is that C, the Conclusion, would not be a given and would require its own sources as well. Allreet (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Longer and more "torturous"? Since the Continental Congress was a body of representatives, independent of Parliament, that began to assert policies, as governments do, over the colonies,  for the first time, it's a given that they founded the idea of representative government in America. The term Congress, all by itself, would substantiate that idea. Or are we to assume that the Continental Congress, with representatives and a President, had noting to do with functioning as a representative government over the colonies, and hence nothing to do with establishing representative government in America? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction
Misconception regarding the meaning of the term "forefather": forefather - a member of the past generations of one's family or people; an ancestor. Also a precursor of a particular movement. While founders were forefathers, not all ancestors were founders, for example, the passengers on the Mayflower. The OED just saved me some needless research. Allreet (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "not all ancestors were founders, for example, the passengers on the Mayflower." The term forefather or founding father as it's used in American history is not a reference to ancestry, but to those who established our form of government which we all enjoy, or take for granted, today. The term can be used by any American who came along thereafter, regardless of their race or ancestry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed
User:Gwillhickers appears to be complaining that User:Allreet is demanding three separate sources for each founder. I don't see that claim, and don't see how it flow from anything that has been said. It appears to be being used as a bogeyman to frighten unwary children. Maybe so is the claim that User:Allreet is trying to deplete the article, which appears to have very carefully worded so as to just fall short of being a personal attack, while focusing on discussing an editor rather than their edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I will remind all of the parties that length of arguments is not the same as strength of arguments, and sometimes length of an argument is an unsuccessful attempt to hide the lack of strength. What each of you should be trying to do is to present a concise cogent case to the participants in the RFC, not to bludgeon the RFC, and not to bludgeon the discussion in general, and not to dominate the discussion simply by persistence.

The reference to IAR - Ignore All Rules, was particularly unsettling in view of the previous demand by User:Randy Kryn that the RFC should be closed with a conclusion of "Yes" based on one or more sources. Certain editors are using language that can be read as implying that they do not intend to honor a consensus. If that implication is unintended, then maybe they should review their posts, see why they have been misinterpreted, and explain. If that implication is intended, then it speaks for itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers - I haven't researched your sources and other arguments in detail, and I think it is probable that your sources are highly reliable and that they support your arguments. However, your posts are distracting from any strength of your argument, because you appear to be at least as concerned with disparaging other editors as with advancing your case. This sort of civil POV pushing, that is only marginally civil, is sometimes an effective way to "win" a content dispute in Wikipedia, by exhausting other editors, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a sport or game with winners and losers, but an encyclopedia, and repeated negative commentary about editors who disagree with you does not serve the mission of improving the encyclopedia, only of "winning" the content dispute. Some editors infer that an editor who treats other editors with disrespect (as you do) is an editor who has a weak case or no case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * All of @Gwillhickers's sources are reliable. Not one of them states what he claims about the AOC being a founding document, members of the Continental Congress being founders, and so forth. He gets to these conclusions by drawing inferences from sources, which is not allowed under WP:VER and WP:NOR. Allreet (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Drawing inferences" is a gross distortion. We may not find the exact phrase of "founding document" but we will find this:


 * "The Articles of Confederation also helps create a personal connection with the Founding Fathers who wrote it so long ago".
 * "The Framers of the Articles of Confederation created a government based on the sovreignty of thirteen separate states."
 * "There were three major spheres of action in which the Founding Fathers participated. First, there was the American Revolution and the events preceding and following it. This involved participation in the Continental Congresses, which, particularly the Articles of Confederation, waged the War of the Revolution and gave the thirteen colonies the only cohesion they had at the time. This phase began in 1774..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * - Robert, several times it was asserted that we need "multiple sources" that specifically refers to every individual by name as a Founding Father, in order to refer to them as such, even in a list, and that if we can't do so here we're expected to remove the names in question from the listing, regardless if we can place these individuals as members of the Continental Congress, which is well established by the sources to be a central founding entity. Please review the entire talk page and see how often this expectation has been asserted. By "multiple" this would mean three or more -- certainly two is not multiple. This would involve adding at least three citations for every individual in the list, in every category the name occurs. Regrettably the tone has become less than friendly because, along with the sources, the points are routinely ignored, while the sometimes contentious talk has occurred by others besides myself, as I think you're aware. The only thing I'm concerned about "winning"  is preventing someone from gutting the article of dozens of names, even though the names in question can be placed in the Continental Congress and/or involved in the drafting and debates surrounding the Continental Association and A.O.C. If the outcome of the RfC is determined by a simple vote only, then it would seem this will give the green light to begin chopping down much of the article. I can only hope that all the issues are considered. As for invoking WP:IAR, on retrospect, this will only confound matters, and therefore I will not be resorting to that measure after all, even though WP gives us that opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no excuse for incivility. And you're doing it again by saying things that aren't true and imply others are acting improperly. What is true is that we're going to have to live by what WP preaches in its guidelines. If that would mean having to decapitate an article, well, so be it, but nothing like it is going to happen here. The only thing "lost" would be 50 or so names that should have never been added in the first place since they don't have sources to back them up. And, no, membership in the Continental Congress or its successor is not a qualification for founderhood, not without a source that offers a direct statement resembling this. Allreet (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't fill up the talk page with lengthy lectures, as if you haven't had your moments of incivility, to which you even apologized for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please quote one word from me in this RFC that you consider to be uncivil. I've learned from our past exchanges to avoid this, and at that, I think I've done quite well. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of us has resorted to vulgarities, threats, name calling or anything like that, so, yes, let's move on if we can. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, let's not move on. Go back and look at your posts and how you accuse others and mischaracterize what they say. You just pointed the finger at me a moment ago without any evidence and mischaracterized my one sentence about civility as a "lengthy lecture". Both are uncivil. Vulgarities, threats and name calling will get you thrown out of here so at least you're careful about that. But the level of discourse gets cut down a few notches when one of 3-4 sentences includes a dig about what the other person is doing rather than addressing what they're saying. Allreet (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To not ignore your first point: according to WP:VER, multiple sources are needed for extraordinary claims. And it would be extraordinary to claim signers of the CA and AOC are founders, since this is far from the "prevailing view". And according to WP:NOR, "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia", which means multiple sources would be needed to prove something is not in "an extremely small minority". And this just in (never before quoted here), from Jimmy Wales in the WP:NOR article, "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history". Allreet (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is nothing "extraordinary" about referring to a member of the Continental Congress as a founder, since this has been well established by multiple sources. This is not some bizzar view held by an "extremely small minority". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim is extraordinary because it cannot be found in the "literature", except for the one source I've pointed to. Since only one source out of thousands and thousands holds this view, I'd say that's an extreme minority. And it's an extreme falsehood it's "well established by multiple sources" that members of the Continental Congress are founders, considering you can't quote one source that says anything resembling this. Allreet (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you fall back on the idea that a source must say founding father, while I've provided many sources that place the Continental Congress in the drafting, debates and signing of documents like the Continental Association, and the Articles of Confederation, which was largely the basis i.e. a government composed of elected representatives, of the Constitution. It is nothing "extraordinary" that the Continental Congress was central to the founding of representative government, and I think we can assume you think so, knowing the history involved, even if the term founding fathers doesn't occur as often as you think it should. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the article about? Founding Fathers. I suppose I shouldn't get too literal about the subject. We should anoint everyone a founder who served in the Congress. Maybe all the members of all the colonial/state legislatures (minus the loyalists). Maybe every officer and soldier who fought in the war. Perhaps everyone who helped make ammunition, sew uniforms, etc. I believe they all deserve credit, and it so happens that many sources generously document their contributions. But I'm also convinced that not one of these "candidates" can be considered a founder unless a reliable source actually says so. That's not a matter of what I think. It's what WP's guidelines require for everything we add. Allreet (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it seems you trying to exasperate the issue. No, we don't necessarily include any and all members of the Continental Congress, simply because they were members. We refer to them as founders, but only to those who drafted, debated and signed documents like the Continental Association and the Articles of Confederation, which is what introduced independent representative government in America, an idea you keep trying to avert. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And your source for this? A source that says because these 48 men drafted, debated and signed the Articles of Confederation, they established independent government, and therefore founded the U.S. and therefore are founders. The latter two of these are conclusions you draw from the first and take a long walk to get there, meaning this is anything but clear and direct.
 * And I'm not trying to exasperate, avoid, or anything of the kind. Keep your characterizations to yourself. They lend nothing other than to make this a hostile environment. Under AGF, all you can assume is I'm trying to do my best. Which happens to be the case. Allreet (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The founding involved drafting, debating, signing, etc, nothing bizzar or "extraordinary", and if you're requiring a source that spells this out in an A-B-C fashion then you are indeed ignoring the history, even though many sources are plain on that point. When you pile on long lectures about my choice of words you are indeed exasperating the issue and seem to be more concerned with personal issues. I suggested we move on, but no, you had to keep on talking and making still more accusations. Claiming that a source is not being represented correctly, is just an academic criticism. Claiming you're exasperating the issues is just a criticism about ignoring things and repeating and rehashing the same arguments over and again. Part of being civil is not categorically ignoring everything that's presented to you as if no one but yourself is making valid points, so please keep the lecture about good faith under your hat. If you're unable to cope with any of this there's really nothing else I can tell you. I tried to offer a perspective on both our behalf and to move on. You prefer to fill up the talk page with long winded lectures. Okay, here you are. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Italian Political Parties Dispute
Some of you were following the dispute over the list of Italian political parties, and some of you were not. I am thinking of a principle that the ArbCom has occasionally adopted, known as "At Wit's End":   The community took draconian measures in the Italian political parties dispute. I will say that if I were acting as a moderator, portions of this article talk page would have been collapsed. I have my own opinion on what draconian measures would be appropriate in this dispute, and am keeping them to myself for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The dispute resolution process, which you purposely broke by filing an AOC RfC, was a reasonable attempt which was working well until then. This isn't about Italian political parties but is about past and ongoing attempts to remove Founding Father status from scores of U.S. founders, which on its face should and has elicited strong opinions, including from yourself (so please look in the mirror when casting aspersions and issuing veiled threats like this). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing was "broke". Multiple RFCs are allowed. DRNs can be put on hold at any point. Meanwhile, @Robert McClenon said nothing about you. Why not offer some substance instead of accusations? The status you refer to about Founding Fathers was conferred by you without reliable sources - 50 or so edits without a citation. And regarding the lists in the main FF article, we need to provide sources for everything that's included, and if sources can't be found to support certain assertions, then those assertions gotta go. Otherwise, people might be misled, as you were in assuming signers of the CA and AOC were founders. Allreet (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Evolution of the Founding Fathers article and the current dispute
Following is a timeline of the Founding Fathers of the United States article. The lack of sources for the article's "founding fathers" lists is what then led to the dispute that began on January 9, 2022.

March 2004: The Founding Fathers of the United States article was started with a "List of Founding Fathers" section that included three subsections: Signers of the Constitution, Signers of the Declaration, and Others (a short list of other patriots). No sources were provided for any of the lists.

November 2005: The list subsections were revised as follows: 56 Signers of the Declaration, 39 Signers of the Constitution, 16 Delegates to Constitutional Convention That Did Not Sign, Others. No sources.

May 2012: The list subsections were revised as follows: Signers of the Continental Association, Signers of the Declaration, Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Signers of the Constitution, Delegates Who Left Without Signing, Convention Delegates Who Refused to Sign, Signers of the Articles of Confederation, Other Founders. No sources.

November 2015: New sortable table added to the List of Founding Fathers section with four lists of signers: Continental Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution. No sources.

July 2016: Section title changed to Lists with sub-subsections titled Signatories to Key Historic Documents and Other Founders. No sources.

March 2017: Section title changed to Founding Fathers and sub-subsections titled Signatories to Key Historical Documents and Other Founders. No sources.

April 2017: Section titled changed to Charters of Freedom and Historical Documents of the United States, derived from an official descriptor used by the National Archives. The introduction mentioned that the Archives defined America's "Founding Documents or Charters of Freedom as the Declaration of Independence (1776), Constitution (1787) and Bill of Rights (1791)". This omitted a fourth document recognized by the Archives, The Federalist Paper. The text goes on to mention that the Library of Congress further identifies the Articles of Confederation as a "primary U.S. document". This is misleading in that the LoC lists 277 "primary documents", a term meaning "primary sources" not "founding documents". Sources provided for Archives and LoC statements but not individual lists.

May 2019: Sub-subsection title changed to Signatories to Founding Documents and introduction on National Archives changed to "Among the state documents promulgated between 1774 and 1789 by the Continental Congress, for are parammounts: Continental Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederaiton and Constitution". A Journal of the American Revolution article (author: Richard Werther) was used as a source for this. No sources for individual lists.

July 2021: Section moved to near the top of the article with title changed to List of Founding Fathers. A sentence was added as an introduction to the lists: "The following persons are considered Founding Fathers of the United States of America, even though some may not have actually signed these formative documents". No sources provided for the sentence or the lists.

October 2021: Based primarily on the main article's list section, the title "Founding Father" was added to 50 biographies of signers of the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation without any sources.

January 2022: In researching a founder, I came across the biography of one of his associates, Joseph Galloway, and was surprised to see he was labeled a "Founding Father" because I knew he had been convicted of treason in absentia during the Revolution. (Galloway, who had served as speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly, had fled to England.) Through Galloway's Talk page, I contacted the editor who had added the titles to the biographies. @Randy Kryn, and was told "Yes, having signed the Continental Association forever qualifies him. See Founding Fathers of the United States List of Founding Fathers section".

At first I thought that the editor seemed so certain this must be the case. But as I looked into it I realized no sources had been provided over the article's 18-year history for any of its lists of document signers and that even the idea of "four founding documents" was questionable. Thus began a dispute that has continued for nearly five months. As part of this, I added Citation Needed templates to the biographies in question, initiated a Third Opinion process that received an opinion rejected by the other editor, started two RFCs that received scant responses, and initiated a DRN.

In the DRN, a compromise was proposed that I was willing to go along with until I realized this meant giving up my "demand" for reliable sources for the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation. I subsequently changed my mind and proposed a RFC on the source that was being used to support the claim of "four founding documents". Instead, another editor proposed a better RFC on whether signers of the Continental Association were to be considered founders.

After the Continental Association RFC was settled (ruling against its signers), I requested the current RFC on signers of the Articles of Confederation, which is where things currently stand. Allreet (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If we remove the names of those who only signed the Continental Association and the Articles if Confederation we will be removing 24 names from the list. We should remember that this is just a reference list, which by itself doesn't get into the founding process, and that the entire basis of the RfC was about that list, nothing else. The men in question were involved in the drafting and debates, and sat along side the others who are considered founders, yet they are not considered so simply on the basis of having signed only one of the documents in question. It was never established that these individual were not founders, and we can't make that determination with the claim that they only signed one those documents. That by itself doesn't refute the idea they were part of the founding process. Take for example John Banister (lawyer), who sat along side people who are considered founders and helped draft and took part in the debates over the A.O.C. before he signed. How is he not a founder? All we've been told is that he's not because he only signed the A.O.C. with many of its articles and provisions found in the Constitution. There was no basis ever presented for excluding such individuals from the list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by a "reference list".
 * Under WP:VER, nobody is to be considered a founder or anything else unless sources specifically recognize them as such. Signing by itself is not the determinant. The determining factor is recognition by sources, regardless of their reasons. If sources state that all signers of a document are founders, we have no choice but to accept that. If sources identify individuals for other contributions, the same applies. Our role as editors is to accurately report what reliable, authoritative sources say clearly and directly. It's not our job to "divine" from the evidence whether someone qualifies.
 * You mention John Banister as an example. Have you searched on his name? If so, were you able to find references to him as a founder? I looked and the best I could find - in a very quick search...I'll dig more later - was that he is widely regarded as a patriot, commanded a militia unit in the war, and served as a member of the Continental Congress in 1777-1778, during which he signed the Articles of Confederation. But his own website, Colonel John Banister, doesn't identify him as a founder, even though it describes the Articles as "the first step toward the founding of the United States".
 * The question is not whether someone is a founder based on this, that or something else. It's simply whether sources consider him a founder. Allreet (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just found a reference to Banister as a founder: John Banister - One of America's Founding Fathers. Now the question is, how reliable is the website theconstitutional.com? That's a serious question, and it's probably the most difficult decision-making responsibility we have in such matters. Here we have to "divine" from whatever sources we can whether a source is acceptable.
 * The thing about Wikipedia that's both a joy and a curse, I think, is that "the truth" doesn't matter. What does matter is "the verifiable truth", which may or may not be true. If reliable sources say the moon is made of green cheese, we can only report what they verify whether it's true or not. The joy, so to speak, is that the burden of deciding what's true is not ours. The curse is that if the sources are wrong, our job as editors is painful since we may know better. Yet we have no choice, any more than a reporter for the Washington Post has when he knows a politician he is covering is lying but has no source to refute what's being said. Allreet (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lists are used for a quick reference. They are not a comprehensive outline. In any case, it's easily determined that men like Banister were right in the middle of the founding, as the A.O.C. was earnestly criticized, debated and fed right into the Constitution, with many of its articles and provisions contained therein. That is the verifiable truth. So you found a website that refers to Banister as a founding father -- now we have to consider if the source is reliable. Since there doesn't seem to be any names, i.e.historians, or at least a curator or an editor associated with this site, I suppose the answer would be no, its not exactly a reliable site in terms of reliable sources here at WP. Oh well, thanks for trying Allreet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Opps, spoke too soon. Under Credits it says: The Constitutional Walking Tour of Philadelphia was conceived by Leslie and Jonathan Bari of Philadelphia. Additionally, special thanks go to several individuals including Scott Elkins, Steve Foxman, Esq., Mitch Gerstein, Nidhi Krishen, and Michael Shannon. Bari is a business consultant and a patent attorney -- nothing of much value there. Can't find anything about the others. I still stand by the idea that the founding process is well covered by sources that don't necessarily say "Founding Fathers". Since the term Founding Father only came into popular usage in the mid 1900s, we are not going to find that phrase in many otherwise valuable historical texts, esp those that came out in the first half of the 20th century. Do we ignore the lot of them on such a superficial basis? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The "walking tour", then, is a commercial venture. All the individuals are probably moderate Philly notables. Elkins is a business owner, Foxman an attorney, Gerstein a tax advisor, Krishen a manager for the city, Shannon interior design firm owner - but nobody too special nor with any historical bona fides.
 * Most "historical texts", I've found, are not as valuable as more recent ones because scholarship improves and builds on itself. One early 19th century historian I came across complained the founders' papers were voluminous but hadn't been indexed. Today, you and I can access them online. Allreet (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Evolution, continued

 * Generally things are easier to access, but that does not undermine the validity of the older texts. Often times, modern day stigmas and peer pressure in various academic circles can get into and distort the historical narrative, so each source must be judged on a per source basis, not on whether it happens to be new or old. While there is always a new letter or document that makes the scene, I've never seen any new finding as something that has ever re-invented the historical wheel or had any bearing on the overwhelming majority of established facts, so let's not hold up a modern account as something that automatically trumps the older ones -- that would be blind methodological folly. Yes, the source you've found cannot be considered a reliable source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We may be going too far afield getting into criticism about scholarship. "Per source" on our part shouldn't be necessary since we're not in the peer review business. Anyway, let's let that all go for now. As for this source, yeah, not so good. Allreet (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also done a fair amount of writing/research on local history. There I've had to rely on mid-1800s/early 1900s works, which are a real mixed bag. Some stuff is made up, other stuff up to snuff. Allreet (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * According to this site Daniel Carroll of Philadelphia, listed here at WP as having only signed the A.O.C., helped to write the United States Constitution as a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He was also a Congressman while Philadelphia was the Capital of the United States. Yet according to the yard stick proposed by the current RfC, he is not a founder. The methodology being used here is only serving to shoot ourselves in the historical foot, as it's forcing us to ignore all the history that is not referred to by Founding Father in spite of the fact that the history is well covered in many other sources. (Add:) For example, David Brearley, one of the signatories of the Constitution, is not referred to as a Founding Father in the Dictionary of American Biography.<Vol. III, p. 1> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only way to "shoot ourselves in the foot" is to go either astray or ahead of the scholarship. If historians don't bestow titles and other recognition, what are we going to do - improve on their work? The "yardstick" is two-fold: the record created by historians who have digested the details and then Wikipedia's "rules" on verification. You say we'd be "ignoring history". A far greater sin is to change it in anyway in terms of the specific words historians pass on to us. Or do what we did for 10 years: publish information in a widely-read article (1 million annual visitors) without a source for backing. Allreet (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Biographical directories tend to be very strict in terms of objectivity, so they don't use more subjective terms such as "founding father". Another example is The Biographical Directory of the US Congress. Only the facts, ma'am. Allreet (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sgt. Friday couldn't have said it better. (I think we're dating ourselves here.) We should be able to use such objective sources, esp when they place an individual in among the various delegates, Continental Congress and signatories of documents like, yes, the A.O.C., esp since it has been referred to by numerous sources as something that was hotly reviewed for years, where it subsequently evolved into the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Forgotten
Unrelated to this article, I was reminded about a book on forgotten founding fathers. Searching now, I find: Ten forgotten founding fathers of the united states. It seems that there are many such books and articles. I didn't try comparing the list to ones in this article. It seems that some well known FF's get a lot of articles and books. Then, others write about forgotten ones. People write books and articles that they believe will sell. That would leave all those in between, not so famous, but also not yet forgotten, with no books or articles. Gah4 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * — I had similar thoughts. (See: this section, 4th paragraph.) Most revolutionary history texts rightly focus on Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and that lot, while the other founders may or may not be mentioned in those works. While there are exceptions, we are not usually going to find dedicated biographies, or a substantial chapter, on many of these Founding Fathers, delegates and/or members of the Continental Congress mostly, because their role in the founding process was often short lived, and other than that, there is not much else to write about, at least in terms of the revolution and founding – and they do have some tough acts to follow. As you noted, publishers aren't usually going to print a work that will only sell to a small percentage of the readership. So finding reliable sources for these individuals, moreover, ones that say "founding father", is sort of a long shot, if not impossible. All we can do in many cases is consider their role in revolutionary history and make our own determination as to whether they were a founder. Btw, there is an RfC still in progress here you may want to chime in on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and from what I've seen Wikipedia probably has the world's best collection of articles on the founders and founding. Mainly because of the advertising overload (jeez, Wikipedia really did a number on them), I haven't checked Britanica to see if they compare (their 1911 edition may have a really good collection). With the 250th anniversaries coming up this seems a good time to polish and add information coming from such articles on Roger Sherman and the others from 's find. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe all of these founders in this article are far from forgotten. "Forgotten founders" articles show up frequently in searches, and sometimes the individuals in question should be forgotten - if no other articles or books recognizing them can be found. As for a collection of works, the Liberty Fund's Online Library may be the best there is in terms of primary source documents. The exception would be Founders Online. One thing that's cool about the Liberty Fund library is that most of the documents, complete books, can be downloaded as pdf's. Allreet (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All of them are noted on the FF page, what I meant was that there may be a new fact or two in these type of "forgotten" articles which can be cited and used as a source on individual pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For some excellent background on the Articles of Confederation and the adoption of the Constitution, I recommend the Editors Introduction to the Federalist Papers. A couple notes:
 * The Continental (Confederation) Congress did not authorize the Constitutional Convention, and its only role (it had no part in the framing) was to approve the Convention's draft report for submission to the states.
 * The Articles' provision for unanimity in amending the AOC was discarded by the Convention in favor of nine-state ratification. The Convention did this entirely on its own.
 * According to the Editors: "The document that ultimately emerged from the Federal Convention resembled the State constitutions more than it did the Articles of Confederation, although a few provisions involving such matters as interstate relations were carried over to the new system". Allreet (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

"The Continental (Confederation) Congress did not authorize the Constitutional Convention, and its only role (it had no part in the framing) was to approve the Convention's draft report for submission to the states." — "no part in the framing"? — Below is a list of signatories to the Constitution who were members of the first and/or second Continental Congress. A few were also signers of the Articles of Confederation and/or the Continental Association.


 * James Wilson (Founding Father)
 * Richard Dobbs Spaight
 * Roger Sherman
 * John Rutledge
 * George Read (American politician, born 1733)
 * Robert Morris (financier)
 * Gouverneur Morris
 * Thomas Mifflin
 * James Madison
 * William Livingston
 * Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer
 * Nathaniel Gorham
 * Thomas Fitzsimons
 * William Few
 * John Dickinson
 * Jonathan Dayton
 * George Clymer
 * Daniel Carroll
 * Pierce Butler
 * William Blount
 * John Blair Jr.
 * Gunning Bedford Jr.
 * Abraham Baldwin
 * Alexander Hamilton, while not an actual member of the Continental Congress he published many opinion pieces supporting it.

Since many of the provisions of the Articles of Confederation were retained in the Constitution, and given the number of members of the Continental Congress who signed the Constitution, it goes that members of the Continental Congress played a significant if not a central role in the drafting of that Constitution. The Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation were active and existed during the drafting of the Constitution, during the Philadelphia Convention, which took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, and were not dissolved until March 4, 1789. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a supposed mathematical proof that there is no least interesting number. If there was a least interesting number, it would be very interesting for its status. Seems to me that forgotten founding fathers are interesting, and get books, because many people aren't interested in them. The ones in between, though, not forgotten but also not most remembered, don't get books. In any case, the article can explain the forgottenness of those forgotten ones. Gah4 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, argue with the Editors of the Federalist Papers. But first read their introduction. Now read this: the Confederated Congress had no official role in framing the Constitution. The fact that 23 of the Constitutional Convention's delegates were members of the Congress doesn't change that fact. The Congress itself had nothing to say about what went into the draft. Really, though, what do you care? Allreet (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Continental Congress had no official role, but the drafting of the Constitution was effected by many of its members, while that Continental Congress was still in place. And as you said they did "approve the Convention's draft report for submission to the states", so to say, that they "played no role" is very misleading, to say the least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What I stated is expressed by the Editors, including the quote @Gwillhickers repeated. If I wanted to be misleading, I would have omitted their mention of Congress's role. Their most important point, however, is related to the first one I noted which Gwillhickers also repeats: that the Congress "did not authorize" the Convention. What I didn't mention was why. According to the Editors, the Congress faced the uncomfortable proposition of potentially legislating itself out of business and instituting its replacement. For more, read what the Editors of the papers have to say, and take it for what it's worth. Allreet (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What I stated is expressed by the Editors, including the quote @Gwillhickers repeated. If I wanted to be misleading, I would have omitted their mention of Congress's role. Their most important point, however, is related to the first one I noted which Gwillhickers also repeats: that the Congress "did not authorize" the Convention. What I didn't mention was why. According to the Editors, the Congress faced the uncomfortable proposition of potentially legislating itself out of business and instituting its replacement. For more, read what the Editors of the papers have to say, and take it for what it's worth. Allreet (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Secondary Textbooks
User:Randy Kryn, User:Gwillhickers, User:Allreet - Much of this discussion is overly long and repetitive but completely misses the point.

Most of the argument about the Articles of Confederation seems to be about the importance and interpretation of various academic writings. I am not going to wade through the excessive volume of discussion, but will note that at least one author was dismissed as writing for children, in particular writing a middle-school textbook. Middle school and high school textbooks are exactly the reliable sources that Wikipedia should be reporting on for this purpose, because the instruction of adolescents is precisely how a national mythology, in the sense of defining the shared ideas of a nation, is established. 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 isn't important who academics consider to be the Founding Fathers. It is important who the academics have taught the American people are the Founding Fathers.

If we focus on academic sources written for other academics or for adults who are already college-educated, we are missing the point. If we ignore textbooks written for middle-schoolers or high-schoolers by academics writing secondary textbooks, we are missing the point, which is that the Founding Fathers of the United States are a concept of American national culture that is taught in secondary schools. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't pay much attention to the use of this term in your header and text: These books are not "textbooks". They apparently are intended for school libraries as supplementary reading material, but not as part of school curricula in the sense that textbooks are required and "taught". They also do not fit the definition (from Wikipedia): "A textbook is a book containing a comprehensive compilation of content in a branch of study with the intention of explaining it". They all focus on the Articles of Confederation, which would only be part of a branch of study. The questions of "weight" and reliability also remain, as do other uncertainties in terms of clearness and directness in identifying founders. In short, at this point, I'm unconvinced. Allreet (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. It should be noted that the only sources other than Saul Padover that associate the Articles with the "founding fathers" (and related synonyms) are five texts written for juvenile audiences. All other quotes provided by @Gwillhickers are indirect references at best.
 * My remaining objections would be:
 * The credentials of the books' authors. As best as I've been able to determine, none of the authors in question are "academics". That is, the authors I have "vetted" hold no specialized degrees or academic positions. For example, this would mean assigning the opinion of Barbara Feinberg, described by her publisher as a "freelance" writer, the same weight as Joseph Ellis or the National Archives.
 * The sources on which these authors base their opinions. Not having the books in question, I don't know what their sources are. Allreet (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, papers are obviously aimed at academic audiences. This is not the case with works such as Bernstein's Founding Fathers Reconsidered or web sources such as the ones provided by the National Archives or Congress.gov, which are aimed at general audiences. Allreet (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What I Meant by Mythology
Obviously I didn't explain clearly what I meant about a national mythology. I was trying to use the word 'mythology' to mean something positive, not something negative. I didn't mean that anyone was trying to promote an idea that isn't true. I meant that secondary school textbooks are the basis for how the girls and boys of a nation, who become the women and men of a nation, think about their nation. The concept of Founding Fathers of the United States is part of the concept of who and what Americans think that the United States of America is and should be. So my point is precisely that the "juvenile" works are, if anything, more important as reliable sources than academic scholarship that is read by other academics. I am aware that I am arguing that this is a special case of defining what are the reliable sources; it is the high school textbooks that determine who most Americans think were their Founding Fathers.

In other words, maybe we should ignore the scholarship if it doesn't filter down into American education. It makes less difference who historians say were the Founding Fathers of the United States than who Americans are taught were the Founding Fathers of the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So a writer with a degree in Art History who's written one book on the subject is more reliable than the National Archives or a Pulitzer Prize winner (Ellis)? Another bizarre idea is to suggest ignoring the scholarship. Hopefully our Art History major did not ignore the scholarship. Hopefully teachers are not teaching outside of the scholarship. And for certain, Wikipedia should not be publishing outside of it. Allreet (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

States
I am aware that the term 'state', that is, etat, was a term of art in the law of nations, and is still a term of art in the law of nations, and the Signers of the Declaration of Independence used it precisely to declare that the thirteen colonies were thirteen sovereign republics, as noted in reference 2. I am also aware that the Framers of the Constitution, by granting the international sovereign powers of states to the Congress, were redefining the word 'state'. It has had two meanings, one in international law and one in national law, since 1789. The Articles of Confederation sort of fudged the question of where sovereignty was. This doesn't affect whether the signers of the AOC were Founders. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeoning the RFC with irrelevancies and inaccuracies
This is the third time or so @Gwillhickers is repeating this set of quotes and sources, or at least most of them. The irrelevances are quotes that establish "facts" or observations about the Articles of Confederation that do not directly relate to founders, for example, the connections between the Articles and Constitution. The inaccuracies are quotes either used out of context or with key words bolded, that give impressions not intended by the authors. As for the "myth", the term Founding Father is a myth in the sense that it's both "made up" and a matter of personal opinion, unlike, let's say, inventor or surgeon. On the more objective side, those who use the term apply it as a descriptor that identifies the roles and contributions of certain historic figures, similar to general terms such as "patriot" or "revolutionary". BTW, to acknowledge the mythology is not to negate the term but recognize its nature. Allreet (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is at least the third time Allreet is trying to write off the scholarship that well covers the founding process and instead is obfuscating the issue by resorting to weasel accusations about "bludgeoning" the RfC. The idea of some "myth" being advanced around here was presented here in Talk, and that idea has been squarely addressed. i.e.The articles were written by the founders, and many of those articles are contained in the Constitution. This is clearly supported by the scholarship, and is nothing of a "myth". This incessant and indignant denial of this obvious advent only serves to highlight Allreet's attempts at bludgeoning those he can't carry an argument with. Now Allreet is haggling about the phrase founding father, which he has demanded we find in the sources. Now listen to him when such sources are presented, in some desperate attempt to instruct the readers how to interpret what they can clearly read for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * " The irrelevances are quotes that establish "facts" or observations about the Articles of Confederation that do not directly relate to founders, for example, the connections between the Articles and Constitution." There is nothing "irrelevant" about the statements presented, and your notion that the Articles do not relate to the founders, the very ones who drafted and adopted them, is rather ridiculous. What's also obvious is that you never address the actual statements and sources -- all you do is make obtuse accusations at a few of them, while you typically ignore the majority. Please address the actual statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to improve your communication skills. In your first bullet point, you spent more time battering me than addressing the issues. Second, the lengths of your paragraphs often approach the pain threshold. After writing something, try cutting out as much as you can and also consider breaking lengthy passages into smaller bites. I'm offering these observations to be helpful, not in retaliation. Now hang onto your hat for a pleasant surprise. Allreet (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet appears to understand what I was saying about a mythology, better than User:Gwillhickers. Sometimes a mythology, especially an origin mythology, is literally and historically true, which doesn't interfere with it being an origin mythology.  There is also a symbolic truth to the myth that the United States was founded, mostly in Philadelphia, by a wise heroic group of Founding Fathers of the United States, and it would be symbolically true even if scholars debunked some of what was said, which they have not done.  Just because it is true doesn't mean it isn't a myth.  Each of the 145 or how ever many of them were real historical people, but there is an origin mythology about them.  It would have (symbolic) truth even if it didn't have (historical) truth, which it does.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, let's get back to referring to those as Founding Fathers from the way it's generally understood by most. i.e.Those delegates and leaders who came together and forged a Representative government, uniting the colonies/states. That process involved years of Congressional and public debates, with a war that factored into matters greatly. There are always elements of history that are embellished or exaggerated, for better or worse, but that's not what we're dealing with here. Our concern is to whom are we going to refer to as such, and if not, on what basis would we exclude them from that reference. Because they only signed the Articles of Confederation -- a document and form of government that after eight years of intense debate gave rise to the Constitution? We all know the signers, delegates, did more than just drop in and merely 'sign' something they were not involved with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Attempts at ignoring the scholarship
This is really getting a bit sappy. You need to better your reading comprehension skills, square off with the actual statements, and not be so consumed about personal and petty things about how much time I'm spending and other evasive nonsense. Any thoughts about how the founders drafted articles in the A.O.C. that are also found in the Constitution, or how criticisms over some of its provisions gave rise to improvements in that Constitution? This is well covered by the scholarship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A word about the Founders
, et al. — A source, entitled Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny, by Richard B. Morris, 1973, which was introduced in the above section on April 14, the day after the RfC was initiated, says that the founders include those who ""played central roles in determining the destiny of the new nation". The comments following the Morris entry says that...
 * "He says this could include perhaps 20 men, but narrows the list to seven based on three tests: "charismatic leadership, staying power, and constructive statesmanship". His list: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Hamilton, and Madison."

Certainly Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, et al, did not found the US Government all by themselves, and required the participation of many others. Its understood by most, hopefully, that there were varying degrees of involvement among the Founding Fathers. If we were to outline the inner circle of the Founders this would of course include the likes of Washington, Jefferson, et al, but there was indeed an outer circle of founders which would include men prominent and notable who are so listed in this article. One editor expressed the concern that only a handful of men should be listed as Founding Fathers, the rest are "dross", in support of the proposal that signers of the Continental Association only be omitted from the listing of founders. However, even if we removed all the signatories of the C.A. only, that would still leave more than 100 men in the listing of founders. The question remains, are these individuals supported by sources which refers to each and every one of them as Founding Fathers, as asked for the lone C.A. signers? In light of this inconsistency, it would appear that the primary basis for this RfC is without much merit, as it overlooks much, and only singles out lone signers of the C.A., but does not hold the 100+ others listed to the same standard, such that it is. As such this RfC is promoting a double standard, while the debate has been going around in circles since January. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I said this before: Brown specifically refers to Declaration signers and Constitutional Convention members as founding fathers throughout, and Bernstein, in Founding Fathers Reconsidered, includes an addendum specifically listing them, a total of 99 founders. National Archives lists Morris's greats through Founders Online and on its main website publishes the DOI's signers and Constitution's framers/signers. Both are on pages titled "America's Founding Documents" and in the second case, the introduction refers to the framers/signers as founding fathers.
 * Most major histories on the period make only passing reference to the CA and give little regard to the Articles of Confederation because it left the states/former colonies as "sovereign nations". That the states agreed to concede significant power made all the difference.
 * I suggest re-reading Morris for his rationale in identifying the seven greats: "charismatic leadership, staying power [longevity] and constructive statesmanship". Of course they didn't do it all themselves, but none of the other dozen or so candidates (Sam Adams, George Mason, Patrick Henry, John Livingston, etc.) meets this criteria. As for the source, Morris led the scholarship on the founding for the better part of 50 years.
 * In answer to an earlier question, the lists of signers in the FF article have never had sources until this year. The DOI and Constitution were included when the FF article was started in 2004, and the CA and AOC were added 10 years ago. When the table was introduced in 2015, framers who didn't sign were no longer listed. They should be. Allreet (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding never, for a brief period in 2017 a few sources were provided to identify founding documents in the FF section. This was later revised completely, and in 2019 Werther was added for founding documents but not in reference to the lists of specific signers. Allreet (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All very interesting. Regardless of how the coverage varies, or how often covered among (any of the) historians, the Continental Congress was in the middle of initiating and promoting representative government, starting with the Continental Association, and those members who signed this document should not be ignored simply because they didn't sign the D.O.I. or Constitution as well. Yes, RS for the entire list is indeed inconsistent, so we should not be requiring, in a list, that a select group of men be held to any different standard than used for the entire list of founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Founding status of Wisner, E. Randolph, and Ellsworth (and Rogers)
(also discussed at Talk:Henry Wisner)

Should we add Henry Wisner, who voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence, and Oliver Ellsworth and Edmund Randolph who played major roles in the writing of the Constitution and then served on the five-man Committee of Detail which drafted it, to the list (in Wisner's case leave him on the list)? Randolph didn't sign the Constitution because he objected to some portions, but quickly changed his mind and helped ratify it, and Ellsworth left the Convention before the Constitution, which he had helped both frame and draft, was signed. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Declaration of Independence? Constitution?  Perhaps a question more to the point would be: Why  aren't  these men listed, given their involvements? If there are reliable sources that cover this you don't need a consensus to add them to the article. If the edit is challenged, then a consensus would be called for. Having said that, since the article has been contested in several areas, I can appreciate your moving slowly and calling for other opinion, though again, this is not required to make well sourced edits initially. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer is no different from the one sought in recognizing signers of the AOC: If reliable sources recognize individuals as founders, they should be listed. If historians happened to overlook them, we can't correct their omissions, regardless of what somebody did. BTW, Ellsworth and Randolph may qualify since some sources recognize Constitutional Convention delegates whether they signed or not (e.g., National Archives and Bernstein). Allreet (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. And should add John Rogers (Continental Congress) into the mix as well (same situation as Wisner) and point out that Robert R. Livingston is on the FF list, probably for serving on the Committee of Five which drafted the Declaration, but left Philadelphia (before the vote or before its signing?). By the way, Rogers' page says he was the only one to vote for the Declaration and not sign it while Wisner's page says he voted for it as well, so one of them is incorrect, probably Rogers', Wisner seems to have the stronger sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence says eight delegates "out of about 50" who were "thought to have been present" for the voting did not sign. The count of signers is 39, so something's amiss there. I do know a couple who refused to sign were Quakers; as pacifists, they couldn't sign because independence meant war. Most of this, though, should be fairly easy to track down and document. The actual signing date, however, remains controversial, as the WP article indicates. I caution, however, regarding FFF - Founding Father Fever. Let's let sources lead the way, not our enthusiasm. Allreet (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe a good time to get these outliers straightened out, when quite a few editors have some attention on the page. No hurry though (FFF, good one!). Some pings could help to get others opinions at some point. 56 men officially signed the declaration, but only "about 50" voted including those eight? Will read more, thanks for good comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're correct...56 not 39. In haste I missed the third column, though by now I should know the number (39 is signers of the Constitution). The "about 50" is the oddity given the article's list. Going beyond 56 to include those who didn't sign is problematic since all major sources seem to limit it to that. There's also an aspect of signing that our FF article doesn't currently address but should. "Signers" were referred to by that title during their lifetimes, with great reverence. I haven't looked into its "evolution", but I have come across the term in passing over the years. Something similar is true of the term "forefathers". Initially, it referred to the Pilgrims at Plymouth and the settlers at Jamestown, so it's not synonymous with founding father, but still deserves mention, if for no other reason than to make the distinction. Allreet (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Lists of Founders: Removed Continental Association signers, replaced text
Recent edits to the "Founding Fathers List" section have not helped clarify the issue of who is considered a founder and who isn't. Given the outcome of the recent RFC on the Continental Association, the Association's signers are not regarded as founders, and therefore, they are irrelevant in terms of the subject of the Founding Fathers article.

The closest the section's new text comes to justifying the Association's continued inclusion in the Founding Fathers article is that "records of their signatures are recorded here for context". I can't imagine what that context might be; for example, how does a comparison of non-founders with widely recognized founders help anyone's understanding of the subject?

I also believe sources are being misused to justify the Association's relevance, in particular, the Library of Congress, which recognizes the Association as one of 277 primary documents. This amounts to "sleight of hand"; that is, the general classificiation of "primary document" (which applies to 276 other documents) is being used to skirt what was discussed by the closers of the RFC regarding the fact that the Continental Association is not a "founding document".

Accordingly, I have replaced the text with a basic lead-in to the table of signers who are considered founders. I have also removed signers of the Continental Association from the table since it's misleading to continue to list their names. Similarly, I have removed the names of several individuals from the list who didn't sign any documents. I fully expect other text will be added, but at this point, the section is an incoherent succession of statements; for example, the misleading material about the Continental Association and the analysis of "145 signers", many of whom are not considered founders. Allreet (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have also restored the List section toward the top: 1) identifying the bulk of founders is of high importance, and 2) much of the subsequent discussion refers to many of these individuals. It's odd to provide the list after these various references. Allreet (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You've removed Patrick Henry, John Jay, and Peyton Randolph as Founders in the list and erased the Continental Association as one of the four major founding documents. None of this had been decided by the RfC, which had nothing to do with the CA's role as a major founding document. Appreciate your list of 'other' signers, and that should be added back in some form, possibly adding Henry, Jay, and Randolph if the CA's other signers are removed from what has until now been a comprehensive list of signers of the four major founding papers. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: The Continental Association is not one of "four major founding documents". The individuals you mentioned can be recognized based on other accomplishments. I am restoring my edits and will be seeking administrative assistance should you persist on ignoring the results of the recent RFC. Allreet (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly we may need administration review at some point., you have inexplicably removed John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph from Founder status on our "official" Founders list and removed all mention of the four founding documents and the Continental Association. All of this is unacceptable and uncalled for anywhere. You seem to be basing these extreme edits on somehow believing that the closers comments on an RfC removed (or even could remove) founding document status from the Continental Association - a clear misreading and reading comprehension failure of the close. Please stop making vast changes because now we need some vast reverts (you made one good edit, catching an incorrect date for the Articles of Confederation going into effect, something I actually caught at another article a few days ago). Recent prolific page editors and , what should we do about this surge of ownership attitude from Allreet, both initially (I'd revert again now but he'd probably just revert like an edit warrior and we'd be in this exact same place) and longer term. Maybe a way to solve this would be to have a separate page for America's great founding documents, which might work well and put some good focus on the four major documents as well as a few others. Allreet, would that be something you'd support? At the very least, when the dust clears, John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph, and likely others such as Henry Wisner majorly involved with the Declaration, need to be added back to the list in some form, maybe a new section just above or edited within the new and productive founder's section that Allreet has provided. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with . These massive changes, even to the extent where Patrick Henry, John Jay and Peyton Randolph have been removed, are highly questionable. Some founders took no part in the signing of any document but played founding roles nonetheless. Peyton Randolph, for example, was the president of Virginia Conventions, and the first and third president of the Continental Congress, all central to the Articles of Confederation. How he is not considered a founding father? The C.A. RfC, did not clearly say that the list be edited to exclude CA signers and only mentioned a "rough consensus". Let's be reminded that some sources consider the Continental Association as a founding document, and explain why, as it was authored by the Continental Congress and united the colonies against British imports and exports, and sent representatives to the colonies to implement its enforcement. This was the first form of independent colonial representative government in America, an idea that did not go away, and which led directly to war. i.e.A compelling argument to say the least. Otoh, arguments for exclusion are only based on the idea that many of the sources simply do not mention the Continental Association, while not one of them actually explain why the C.A. was not a founding document, which is essentially what all the No votes are based on. i.e.All we have is the citing of sources that simply do not mention the C.A.. That's a rather weak basis for exclusion of C.A. signers. We need clarification on that point, and we should summon the closers, to make clear what the article should include in the chart/list. Meanwhile, let the article ride, per 's last edits, so as to avoid an edit war.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn: The ruling of the recent RFC clearly determined that the signers of the Continental Association are not founders. What, then, is the rationale for listing this group of non-founders in an article on Founding Fathers? I believe the attempt that was made was an end-run to ignore the RFC's ruling. As for the argument Gwillhickers raises, it's the same one that failed in the RFC. But if you want to run it by the closers again, be my guest. Allreet (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You claim that the closers decreed that the Continental Association is not one of the great founding documents when they did no such thing. To remove any mention of the CA from this page, as you have done, and to remove John Jay (? nonsense, why would you do that, he's one of the "Morris Seven" featured in the lead and qualifies from The Federalist Papers alone, not to mention the 1781 Paris Treaty which is pictured in the lead), Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph from a list of recognized Founding Fathers alludes to a bit of ignorance of who or who isn't considered a founder. Have added back at least mention of the Continental Association as one of four major founding documents, per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, and now I'm more inclined to start up the America's great founding documents page which I've had in mind for awhile. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: And I reverted the change. Two of the sources - National Archives and Lincoln - do not regard the Continental Association as founding documents. The Sherman cite is not enough to justify this, plus it's irrelevant regarding the article and the section. If you restore it, I will be filing an ANI. Allreet (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , don't want you to miss this., I'm debating to hold off my comments to boomerang you (I've never been taken to ANI before, and as I said on my talk page only yesterday, I've been practicing on my local boomerang field), so yes, I've reverted your with an adequate explanation in the edit summary. I'll link that here at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. actually now looking forward to your ANI. I've never been pinged to go there before, except yesterday (check my talk page, you may want to read up on the interesting going-ons over at the United States page) and that one isn't about me, somebody just mentioned me so I guess you have to "summon" editors when their names are used. I'll be summoning quite a few. Do we meet before an ANI and shake hands, like gentlemen or people checking for brass knuckles, or do we come out roaring like demolition derbyists? I have no idea, not knowing the rules. It may be fun. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Jay is already listed via Morris, what's the complaint? We should recognize him again as a signer of the Continental Association? The context is the problem with keeping the CA's signers in a list with signers who are considered founders. As for Patrick Henry, he easily qualified so I added him to the list of others. Peyton Randolph is a bit more problematic since he died before more momentous events took place, but still if he's a deserving candidate, finding sources shouldn't be too taxing.
 * As for your idea, hey, I have no problem with a "great founding documents" article, though I think you're going to be either "pumping air" into the subject or biting off more than you can chew, since there are dozens of significant documents to sort through and then a huge body of sources to navigate. Allreet (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The page has a list of Founding Fathers, so all Founders should be on that list. Jay, Henry, and Randolph, are not presently listed. That is, in your wording, "my complaint". Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. A "bit of ignorance"? Nice. What I did was remove an irrelevant listing of dozens of non-founders that was intended to give impressions that the RFC most definitely ruled against. Allreet (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - Allreet, the RfC acknowledged arguments on both sides of the fence, a "rough consensus", and did not say anything about determining who was actually a founder or not. They did not make that determination, only the nay votes have, and again, all based merely on what some of the sources didn't say. By rigidly following that shallow methodology you have removed Patrick Henry, of all people, John Jay, the first Chief Justice, a member of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress where he served as the latter's president, and Peyton Randolph, the 1st and 3rd president of the Continental Congress. Clearly we can not discount someone as a founder simply on the basis of what documents they did not sign. This is exactly what has happened here. With all due respect to Robert's good faith attempt to resolve an issue, the wording of that RfC had very little basis, where the no votes had to resort to O.R., i.e.simply on the basis of what some of the sources didn't say, while ignoring the other sources, and all the history surrounding the individuals in question.  When the current RfC (over the Articles of Confederation) closes, I strongly recommend a second RfC over this issue, and not simply based on what documents these men didn't sign, or on what some sources don't mention. It should be based on the history and what the reliable sources actually do say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to stop you from finding sources and adding Peyton Randolph as a founding father in another section. He was removed from this section because the signers of the Continental Association are not regarded as founders. Jay is already acknowledged in the lead, and I added Patrick Henry in the "Others" section, though I didn't have to. Allreet (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, you need to re-read the closers' statement, starting with what's bolded, which is their ruling. The same ruling, with additional detail, appears near the end of their statement. So your "read" of this is that signers of the Continental Association can still be listed as founders? Allreet (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers: No response? I find it helps to improve things and move ahead if I "fess up" when I have things not quite right. No harm, lots of benefits. So, in this case, are we going to mutually acknowledge what the closers said or should we drag this out for no particular reason? Maybe I have it wrong, and if so, I'd like to know how or in what way. Allreet (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What? No. Not all of them, only the ones recognized as founders from other deeds (Jay, Henry, and P. Randolph, who have been sourced, they need to fit into the 'Founding Fathers' section somewhere, probably in a sub-section like you made for the non-signing Constitution founders). Those in the "Others" section are not considered founders but are other patriots who added greatly to the cause. You stuck Founding Father Patrick Henry in there. I've totally abided by the ruling of the RfC closers and actually was the editor who finally removed the Continental Association from the lead, changed the language of the list section, and went around and removed Founding Father status from 20-something individual pages. Where did you get any of this? (never mind, the reading comprehension thing). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Others" section is actually a mixed bag of founders and "patriots" - meaning not quite founders but as the intro says, they "advanced the new nation". The founders listed include Egbert Benson, George Clinton, Patrick Henry and James Monroe. I just removed a few founders who are now listed as framers but not signers of the Constitution (Davie, Ellsworth, Mason). All the other founders should be moved to the list section for the start of an "Additional founders" list. I'll get that started now, and I'll add Jay, Randolph and maybe some others. Feel free to add as well, though "we" should have a conversation about sourcing sometime soon. Allreet (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a sub-section of "others". I believe these should be "one-liners" as they were in the "other patriots" list. The point is, their significance should briefly be mentioned (as is true for the "groupings" lists). If I copy over/edit these, I can retain the citations. For "new" listings, I'll try to track down sources as time allows; nobody should be included in any list without a citation. I've also added states to the "delegates" list to further identify these individuals for readers (their names alone have little meaning). Other suggestions/ideas welcomed. Allreet (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Allreet — The added sections and inclusion of Patrick Henry, Peyton Randolph and John Jay, are a step in the right direction. However, even though the poorly worded RfC for the Continental Association had a "rough consensus", it still must be observed that the only basis for that consensus was over the idea that some sources fail to mention it. That is what the "rough consensus" is based on. Other sources, including Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84, Phillips, 2012, p. 269, George Washington's Mount Vernon: First Continental Congress, and Werther's peer reviewed essay, clearly recognize it as an important founding document, as it was the first form of independent representative government in the colonies. There was not one source presented that would undermine or refute that idea. Again, concluding that the C.A. is not a founding document merely based on what some sources don't say, while ignoring the other sources, is O.R. -- That's what you need to  "fess up" to.  When the current RfC over the Articles of Confederation closes, a properly worded RfC for the Continental Association needs to be initiated again, and not simply on the basis of what the sources don't say, or over what documents weren't signed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not re-debating a closed RFC, other than to say it was about the status of signers, not the importance of the Continental Association. As for the RFC, tell @Robert McClenon his wasn't worded properly. Allreet (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * —— Allreet, the "status" of the signers is based on the importance of the Continental Association, the first time the colonies came together under a representative government independent of British authority, an idea that led to war, and an idea (independent representative government) which was replicated and expanded on in the Articles of Confederation and ultimately the Constitution. i.e.Representative Government began with the Continental Congress and its Articles of Association which put that idea into actual motion. Sources say it was an important founding document. None have been provided that even suggests otherwise. All that was done in an attempt to refute that idea was the referral to some sources that simply didn't mention the Continental Association, while the other sources were ignored. Imo, the RfC over the Continental Association was decided on the basis of O.R. A conclusion was asserted in this article that was not explicitly substantiated by the sources. Not even close. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not understand OR. Your first sentence is OR, as is the rest. Not one of your statements even mentions founders, nor do any of the sources you refer to. They could all say the CA was the most important document ever written, but that in itself would not support this statement: "its signers are considered founders". The document is considered important, but that says nothing about those who signed it. You're violating this provision of WP:NOR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Allreet (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Continental Association was just that - the Continental Congress formed an "association" of the colonies to act as one, and then decreed and ordered a boycott of the goods of its ruling nation. That was an act of independence, an act of war and, as Lincoln said, it formed the Union and, as said, it created a movement. I have no doubt the CA's signers will be deemed Founding Fathers by a number of historians at some point before its 250th anniversary (RJensen, sooner than later? Please get out your pen and do it yourself, or contact the current crop of historians you know and ask them to look into this, I can contact one who may be able to take it on or pass it on. Related: who is the leading expert on the Continental Association - is it an individual known for that fact (or is it maybe fast becoming a group of Wikipedia editors)? Is there an individual determinative book on the Association (or any book)? This forgotten great founding document may just now be coming into its own. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This was not the first. The Stamp Act Congress preceded it, with nine colonies represented. The First Continental Congress garnered the participation of 12 colonies, still one short of unanimity. That said, the Congress itself was far more important than the documents it created, since none had a lasting effect. Far more important was their decision to meet six months later. That "movement" was the one that made all the differences. As for scholars catching up with your view of history, given the attention all these events have garnered, the likelihood isn't even slim. Allreet (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The First Continental Congress was the first colonist organization to have such a major impact - the Continental Association. The act of ordering the colonists to boycott British goods, and tens of thousands of them acting in unison on this (as Richard Jensen said, creating a movement), it formed the Union (per Abraham Lincoln). One or several major historians calling the signers of the CA Founding Fathers is likely 100% assured once some of them understand exactly what occurred and what the resulting unfolding events owed to this decree and movement. Abraham Lincoln called the Declaration the maturing of the union, preceded by its actual formation, the CA. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of which is your opinion, but it's not the "prevailing" opinion of historians and not even a minority view. What assured the union, despite what you believe, was the dumping of tea in the harbor, and then the reaction of the British. With or without the CA, all three would have occurred, the third event being the union. However, you nicely admit there are no major historians that share your POV. Given that this is Wikipedia and sources are paramount, what are we talking about? Something that may or may not be recognized down the road? Allreet (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

More Stupid Stuff
User:Gwillhickers, User:Randy Kryn, User:Allreet – I would advise against going to WP:ANI, because a trip there will either have no effect, result in one or more warnings, or result in one or more topic-bans. I don't know whether the mentions of ANI are intended as idle threats or intended as real threats, and am not sure that it matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I would take someone to ANI? I never have before. Allreet promised to take me, and I'm all packed and waiting, but he hasn't shown up yet. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Randy Kryn - I acknowledge that I am not always trying to remember exactly who said what as much what was said, because too much is being said over and over again, and it becomes tiresome. I see that he mentioned it first.  Go back to the playground, and don't ask me who said what first or who hit whom first with what object.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, I didn't "promise" - I threatened, and not idly. However, after carefully reading the ANI articles, I came to the conclusion @Robert McClenon points to in advising against one. That doesn't mean I won't go there if necessary, but I believe other avenues should be exhausted first. Allreet (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the answer. Maybe best to find out who said what before writing about it in a public space. Just sayin'., you said that if I reverted again you'd take me to ANI. I reverted. That sure sounds like a promise, and so I packed my boomerang and was all set to go and take selfies and stuff. Then, crickets. ANI, I hardly knew ye. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever. But it sounds to me like you're picking a schoolyard fight. What I learned from examining it more closely is that none of this stuff plays well in the court of ANI, and as a matter of fact, if you look back through the discussions here, you'll find nobody's hands are completely clean. The best advice, in any case, is what @Minard38 refers to below: that a "pacific disposition should prevail among all wikipedians!" Allreet (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you are but what am I? (had to use it one more time). Of course I too have had my moments of grrrrr, it's been quite a ride. I like the term "pacific disposition" although I don't know what it exactly means but feels right, and have been search-enginering it since reading it, and came up with a youtube music video. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Pacific", as you must know, means peaceful, in more specific terms, amicable or friendly. That's the real point of AGF. Just because I don't agree with you, for example, doesn't make me the enemy. We're all "brothers in arms" doing the best we can. And, yes, it's easy to lose sight of that. Allreet (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * —— Robert, first, it would help to keep issues at a low boil if you didn't resort to such derogatory section titles. In any case, I never expressed any desire to go to a noticeboard. In spite of some of our differences and moments of not so friendly talk, we've managed to take care of some issues and have come this far. Allreet is doing good work, and has added some good sections and other content. Of course there still is the issue of the Continental Association, which was the working arm of the Continental Congress, and marked the time when the colonists first officially broke with the parliament and started down the road to independent representative government. This is where the founding process took the first giant step in the direction of independent government, much more than just a boycott, and it amazes me still how some don't considered this as part of the founding process. There's no arguing that there are not as many sources covering this event as there are, e.g. the Constitution, but there are some, which I've listed, and the history involved certainly supports the idea that this was indeed the beginning of the founding process, even though they may not say so in those exact words. As for a better worded RfC, in spite of your good faith efforts, I feel it could have been more inclusive in the wording. As it was it just focused on the 'signing', and worded as such suggested that the signers were not involved much and glossed over the idea that they were among the first members of the Continental Congress. If we embark on another RfC it would be nice if we had a wording that we could all agree on. For now, I'm just going to watch the page for awhile, and perhaps throw in my valuable 'two cents' from time to time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Another RFC on the Continental Association?
User:Gwillhickers, User:Randy Kryn – Exactly how do you propose to word another RFC on the Continental Association differently? Exactly how are you saying that the wording was wrong? I know that you want the result to be different. You tried to argue, before closure, that you had proved the case for the Continental Association, and that the RFC should be closed as Yes immediately. You then asked for a panel close, rather than a close by a single experienced editor, and you got a panel close, and the result reflected the rough consensus of the community rather than the result that you wanted. If you had thought that the original question was worded poorly, you could have raised an issue about the wording within a few days after I started the RFC, and I might have been willing to withdraw and reword it. But no, you asked for a panel close, and you got a panel close, and so now you want a differently worded RFC.

Is there a reason, other than certainty and knowledge of your own rightness, why you are being so insistent about this document? If the issue is really about some of its signers, then argue about them instead of trying to use the CA to hammer them in. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, reading comprehension. Where do you find it written or said that I am in favor of another RfC on the Continental Association? Maybe, unlike a couple of other times in this long discussion, you can answer when I refute your odd charges (like that combatively-titled section way above someplace, where you tore me a new one and then, when I gave a reasonable answer to your charges, you ignored it - at least as far as I know, I'll check to see if you answered since I last looked [edit: Nope, but never mind, I offered to buy the first round after that was posted so I'll call it blah until we meet for that drink, or whatever the round will be, Vegas you know, and give you all sincere hugs for being so into editing and perfecting Wikipedia's founder and founding documents collection]). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Randy Kryn - I was asking either you or User:Gwillhickers about the second RFC, about which Gwill wrote:   I might have been sloppy in not addressing my question only to him, but I did comprehend exactly what was written.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, addressing it only to him may have worked, but your comment seemed to address me directly (for example, I didn't know Gwillhickers also asked for a close by a panel). If Gwillhickers runs a fifth RfC on the same question I'll once again comment, as I have in the four recent RfC's that have concerned the sources and the Continental Association. He makes some good points. Yet, unlike, I'm fairly certain that a historian or three, a reputable source reporter or five, or a combination of the above, will be as amazed as I am that nobody except Richard Werther (an amateur historian) and a couple of educational websites have gone on record calling the authors and signers of such an amazing document and revolutionary act Founding Fathers. Still wondering who the current recognized expert on the Continental Association is, and which book on its reach and scope academia considers definitive. Abraham Lincoln correctly said that the Continental Association formed the Union, so you'd think it seems worthy of a deep study by someone. A serious question, and , maybe you know, thanks (I love that you discussed its tens of thousands of participants and called it a movement. Has anyone else used those words or are you the first, even if within a cantankerous Wikipedia discussion). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See my reply above . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Omission of Names
Maybe the omission of Patrick Henry and John Jay illustrates that the signing of documents is not the only way that founders have the status of founders. They clearly should be listed, not because of what they signed, but because of what they did. Just put them in. (Or have a stupid RFC on whether to list them as founding fathers, but we know what the answer to that will be.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe we've found the solution to the "Henrys and Jays": Additional Founders. (Note that Jay is already covered under Key Founding Fathers.) As for another RFC, I agree it's outcome couldn't be any different. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work by (I like the term 'the "Henrys and Jays"). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Randy. @Minard38 deserves credit as well. We've been "going back and forth" with edits, and that process of give-and-take without contention is one of the joys of editing here. Allreet (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all wikipedians! Minard38 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks to as well, who has been doing good work on the page for quite awhile. A name I'd add would be John Rogers (Continental Congress), who, like Wisner, voted for the Declaration but, in his case, fell sick before he could sign it. That discrepancy on their two pages - Rogers' page said he was the only one who voted for the Declaration but didn't sign it - should be smoothed out, as Wisner and Rogers both seem to be yesvoter-nonsigners. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "challenge" is to find sources that concur with what appears obvious to us. If no historian is in the forest to hear the tree fall, so to speak, the tree didn't fall and may not even exist. More tangibly, I've been looking high and low for sources on some "obvious" founders, and I'm stuck on "promoting" a few candidates. Without sources, complain as we might, we can't publish something just because it makes sense to us. As for oversights where sources are available, it's our job to find the sources and fill in the gaps. Allreet (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think it was you (may be wrong, novel length discussions) who listed Henry Knox somewhere above as being included in a founders list. Founderworthy? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see Knox and other outliers mentioned in the 'Terminology' section. Anthony Wayne, John Paul Jones, etc. Do they all qualify for the list (I don't know who added the long sentence in the section). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I searched the Talk text and my only reference to Henry Knox was in regards to his criticism of the Articles. The mention under Terminology was as one of James M. Beck's list of founders (1902). That's probably a sound enough endorsement for inclusion. Regrettably, few of the Revolutionary War's military leaders are recognized as founders. The big question is what generals and admirals should be? BTW, @Minard38 added the material on Beck, an excellent addition since he's an early source of high reliability. Allreet (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: As a footnote to the above, Knox as you probably know is the namesake of the fort robbed by Goldfinger in the James Bond film. :) Allreet (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the military leaders it would make sense to add-to-the-list Greene, Knox, Jones, and Wayne, per Beck and others if a couple more founders sources exist, and then others if good sources mention them. For instance, Washington and Hamilton would have made the list even if they hadn't moved into the governmental end of the revolution, which, of course, wouldn't even exist as a successful founders grouping if the military had failed. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Improvement needed: Social background and commonalities section
First, the lead-in paragraph is simply not true...based on the first two sources, Brown and Werther (I don't have the 3rd, Martin):

''The Founding Fathers represented a cross-section of the 18th-century U.S. population. Some were leaders in their communities; several were also prominent in national affairs. At least 29 members of the Constitutional Convention had served in the Continental Army, some in positions of command.''


 * The founders were representative of the "elite" of the period in terms of wealth, education, and other factors. Yes, we get a cross-section, but "low achievers" (common folk) are an extreme minority. The founders, as a rule, tended to be high achievers, the best of the best.
 * "Some were leaders in their communities" - obviously, nearly all of them were.
 * "Several were prominent in national affairs" - nearly everyone had to be to qualify as founders, if only as delegates representing their states. This would be the most accurate of the three points in the sense that a lower percentage - but far more than "several" (dozens) - functioned at the highest levels.

Second, some significant difficulties arise in all of the sections that follow because different analyses have been done over the years for different sets of founders. Padover, for example, covers signers of the DI, AC, and USC. Brown covers only the DI and USC, but adds delegate non-signers to the mix. Werther adds the CA but does not include non-signer delegates. The point is, because various groups are being analyzed by different sources, general statements cannot easily be made. I'm not saying it can't be done, but these points need to be kept in mind while citing specific names/percentages/numbers. Allreet (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. To get a sense of how much needs to be done, look at any section and consider all the founders that have been added and the fact that the Continental Association is no longer part of the analysis. This will also be an on-going problem as other names are added, but that'll be easier than the major cleanup that's needed first.


 * I've reviewed the "Social Background" section carefully and found that Continental Association signers were not included, most likely because the section predates the assertion that these signers were founders. That means we don't have to review the backgrounds of all signers regarding each of the categories addressed here.


 * Unfortunately, there is a serious "flaw" in this section. The assumption of any reader would be that the analysis in the subsections (education, occupations, finances, religion, etc.) applies to all founders. However, I found that whoever wrote it arbitrarily limited the analysis to the time of the Constitutional Convention. This means that founders predating 1787 are not accounted for. The section, then, is extremely misleading in that readers are not going to catch nuances spelled out in "fine print", meaning a sentence here or there in the text. This isn't OR per se, but it is a "device" on the part of editors intended to give them license to do something out of the ordinary.


 * Where's the harm? For one, every category is incomplete in terms of the scope of the article, which covers the full span of the "founding era", 1770 or so through the 1790s. So we really don't know what colleges all the founders went to, their range of occupations, and so forth. Second and most important, most readers are going to take the incomplete information as "gospel". IOW, what they believe after reading this section will not be the case. You could say that's their fault for not reading the text more carefully. To that I say it's our responsibility as editors once we realize such potentials exist. Allreet (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Lede way too short
The lede, in my opinion, is now ridiculously short for an article of this size and scope. There was a paragraph at the end of the former lede which had overview content in it that was moved to another section and really should be put back were it was and has been for some time. This is the paragraph:



This paragraph was moved to the Key founding fathers section, and contains overall information -aside- from the idea of Key founding fathers. I haven't combed through edit history to see who wrote this, but it's a great well sourced summary and should be back in the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the entire article, and presently it doesn't accomplish this. It doesn't even mention Washington or the Constitution, among other such topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Many if not most people read only the lead, and especially in such a major article the information highlighted in the lead should be the most important and useful. Probably could just put it back, as it was a major undiscussed move, but thanks for bringing it to the talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Yes, that was sort of a major move, to an inappropriate section, that was undiscussed. The paragraph in question is lede material. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Article is becoming inconsistent
— While the new sections and content are a welcomed addition, the article is getting a bit inconsistent as to whom we are now including as Founding Fathers. We removed a number of names on the basis that they only signed the Continental Association. — This is the wording of the RfC in question (emphasis added)
 * Should the signers of the Continental Association be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States because of their action in signing the Continental Association?

Yet we have a section entitled Additional founders whose opening statement reads:
 * ... the following are regarded as founders based on their contributions to the birth and early development of the new nation:

Richard Bland, was removed on the basis that he 'only' signed the Continental Association, which ignores the idea that made other contributions. He was a delegate from Virginia and a member of the first and second Continental Congress. He was a strong colonial rights advocate going as far back as the Stamp Act controversy, and is often credited for coining the term "no taxation without representation". In 1766, he wrote An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies, which was published in Williamsburg and reprinted in England. He was an outspoken critic of slavery. He served on the committee which drafted Virginia's first Constitution in 1776, which had great influence in the drafting of the Constitution.

Matthew Tilghman, removed also on the basis that he 'only' signed the C.A. Tilghman was the chairman of the  Committee of Safety, president of the revolutionary assembly known as the Annapolis Convention, and the head of the Maryland delegation to the Continental Congress. While in the Congress, Tilghman debated and supported the Declaration of Independence.

Henry Wisner, removed also, was a member of the Continental Congress and later a delegate to the state convention called to ratify the U.S. Constitution. While he opposed ratification over concerns of state and individual rights, such voices were taken into consideration during the drafting of the Constitution.

The above three mentioned of course helped draft, debate and sign the Continental Association.

Meanwhile we have listed in the Continental Association section John Marshall, who was the fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, from 1801 to 1835 – long after the Constitution had been adopted – yet is considered a Founding Father on that basis alone. Should we include the second and third chief justices? This section also mentions Charles Thomson because he was the secretary and member of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress. It would seem the "contributions" of the above three mentioned overall are more than enough for them to be listed in the Additional founders section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wisner voted for the Declaration but didn't get to sign, thus he was considered. However, at this point we don't have a source, so I'm "hiding" him temporarily until I can do a search to see if sources can be found. As for Bland and Tilghman, does anyone have a source recognizing either as a Founding Father? BTW, the infobox dates on Bland's page for his terms in Congress need to be corrected.
 * As for Marshall, we have two solid sources that recognize him as a Founding Father: James Beck and R.B. Bernstein. (I'm removing the Library of Congress as not a valid source - an error on my part - and replacing it with Beck.) Other sources, I'm sure can be found because Marshall was without question the most significant chief justice in the court's history. He served the longest (34 years) under our 3rd through the 6th presidents, but more important, he "established the power and prestige of the judiciary department, so that it could claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers" and he "interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government". That's according to his alma mater, William & Mary Law School. They're partial, I know, but you'll find what they say is consistent with the view that Marshall made this part of the Constitution, the judiciary, a success. And he wasn't a generation behind, only a decade or so, but if you look at his Wikipedia article you'll find he's described as "among the last remaining Founding Fathers". Allreet (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The first four chief justices are all regarded as founders, including John Jay, John Rutledge, Oliver Ellsworth, and Marshall. Allreet (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Henry Wisner is already listed in that additional section, a good entry. John Marshall, I know he's been called a Founder but I don't think he belongs on a list with the 1770s-1780s founders, his accomplishments came a generation later. My current missing favorite is John Rogers (Continental Congress), who voted for the Declaration but became sick before he could sign it. And then there are the military people mentioned on the page itself, John Paul Jones, Anthony Wayne, etc. With some additional entries the page may be getting close to listing all of them (but John Marshall? Yes, a major figure in American history, but not in founding history), which is what should be the goal. As I've said, I'm not worried about the Continental Association signers as they will be added sooner or later, and that should go a long way to completing the list. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. my mistake in not educating myself about Marshall's role in the passing of the Constitution. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wisner is listed, but there is no mention of his "contributions", per the opening statement for the Additional founders section, involving his efforts and signing of the Continental Association -- a "contribution" most certainly. The article includes an image of Peyton Randolph, whose caption reads that he "presided over creation of the Continental Association." Great. But it seems we're more than suggesting that he was a founder on that basis. Again, the . article is passing off inconsistent ideas as to whom qualifies as a Founding Father, and unfortunately, is ignoring much of the history in the process. The idea and plausibility of independent representative government began with the Continental Congress and its Constitutional Association, again, a prototype and a giant step towards independent representative government, so much so, that war followed very soon after. Still can't accept the fact that this unique and landmark historical event is currently being ignored in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
 * @Gwillhickers, you keep repeating the term "independent representative government" as if everything began with the Continental Congress. This is "not knowing what the history is". The Continental Congress was initiated in response to the Intolerable Acts, one of which suspended the independent government that had existed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for decades. To quote the lead of the Wikipedia article, "The acts took away self-governance and rights that Massachusetts had enjoyed since its founding, triggering outrage and indignation in the Thirteen Colonies". Also, the colonies had convened the Stamp Act Congress and formulated a boycott nine years before so the ideas here were nothing new. That's not the real problem with your assertions. Even if the Continental Congress of 1774 had adopted the Constitution, that still wouldn't make its delegates founding fathers - not unless there was a source around to say so. What you're doing in connecting "independent representative government" with delegates to "declare" them founders is Original Research. Allreet (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers, while it may "seem" that someone is a founder based on their contributions, that's not a judgement we as editors get to make. Verification of such things is based on sources. If we want to call a swimmer a champion, a mountain the tallest or a patriot a founder, we need a source that says so first. Directly. As for Wisner, he may have voted for the Declaration of Independence, which would be his number one qualification for the title, but without a source, we can't say he's a founder. This doesn't mean we're "ignoring history". It means we're living by the rules that govern how history is reported in Wikipedia. Allreet (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , has hidden Wisner. Henry, we hardly knew ye. If professional historians have missed naming Wisner and Rogers as Founding Fathers then where is the astute Richard Werther when we need him. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look for sources on Henry later today. I don't want to remove him but... Allreet (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But you were right, and thanks again for holding editors feet to the fire on needed sources. Liking and knowing doesn't equal sourcing, the essence of Wikipedia. If no sources exist for Wisner he should be added to the other patriots list, which is a valuable part of this page as it includes the "almost there" and "let's make a case" individuals. What should we do about Abagail Adams, for example, I would think sources exist for her, rightly or wrongly, as a Founder. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * — It seems we're having the same discussion all over again, where you are demanding that an idea be explained using some exact phrase or figure of speech. The same idea can be expressed, explicitly, using different phrases and statements. Referring to a champion swimmer as an accomplished athlete is not original research if a given source doesn't happen to use that latter phrase. Once again, the term Founding Father is not an official designation, it's a figure of speech not used by many historians, so we can't be dismissing the lot of them on such a superficial basis. Other terms are often used like, established, or created. We've been through this. As for the Continental Congress, the key word in that term is Congress, a governing body of representatives with a president and secretary. Yes, it was formed in response to the Intolerable Acts, but what difference does that make? Its function, a governing body, remains the same, even if it was created in response to lousy English cuisine. Though it didn't make the official break with Britain at first, it was still the governing body that was the prototype of representative government that united the colonies, independent of the Parliament and which became the "first national government of the United States". How is that not part of the founding? This is the opening paragraph of the lede in the Continental Congress article, with emphasis added:
 * Btw, the Library of Congress is a valuable source which has been used throughout Wikipedia for years, so let's not be trying to create special rules for this article where sources are concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers: Exactly. The same discussion. If we want to call someone a founding father, we need a source. We can't connect dots on our own. It's a very specific title, though "founder" will do. But if someone attended the Constitutional Convention and the convention created the Constitution, we'd still need a source that translates this into a "founder of the USA" for an individual attendee, even if what that attendee did was help "create" the nation.
 * A good example would be Thomas Paine. Sources have referred to him as "Father of the American Revolution" because his writings helped inspire the revolt. But even if he started, fought and won the war all on his own, we couldn't apply such a colorful, specific title without a source. We'd be making it up, which of course we can't do.
 * As for the Intolerable Acts, sorry my point was lost on you. Just stop repeating how "independent representative government" began with the Continental Association. It didn't. Allreet (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Library of Congress, I recently used the LOC as a source for Dolley Madison and John Marshall. Then I realized the page they were listed on was not identifying founders but was providing links to the papers of the founders, and her letters and Marshall's are amongst them. That was the mistake I was referring to. Otherwise, of course, the LOC is a top notch source. Allreet (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Library of Congress, I recently used the LOC as a source for Dolley Madison and John Marshall. Then I realized the page they were listed on was not identifying founders but was providing links to the papers of the founders, and her letters and Marshall's are amongst them. That was the mistake I was referring to. Otherwise, of course, the LOC is a top notch source. Allreet (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency continued...
Well, okay Allreet, it appeared, to me, that you were trying to trash the LOC in its entirety. In any case, I still feel you're being too rigid in demanding that a source say e.g. accomplished athlete in reference to a champion swimmer, or in other such matters where things are not ambiguous or otherwise hard to figure. The Continental Congress and its Association functioned like a representative government, and it certainly doesn't require any stretch of the imagination to realize that this idea continued on all the way through the Articles of Confederation and into the Constitution. Independent representative government, apart from British oversight, was born of necessity, and that necessity presented itself with the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts and Britain's routine refusal to compromise with colonial grievances, giving birth to the first Continental Congress. The sources cover this ongoing advent quite well, without using the term founding, so it's sort of self defeating that we should ignore all this. But apparently you have consensus on your side on that note, so we will consequently continue to leave out a couple of defining chapters in our Founding Fathers narrative here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and well put. I recall reading somewhere above, I don't know where (at some point a team of graduate students should do an index of these now five-month old associated discussions, would give them something to do), about the connection of the Continental Association and the Boston Tea Party. Of course they have to be compared, but at a thousands-fold increase in participation and resulting economic disruption (not to mention, a war). This wasn't a ship full of British tea. The CA affirmed a newly formed union of countrymen who solidified their commitment to said union. Of course the CA is one of the four major American founding documents, and the only one whose signers have not been recognized as Founding Fathers by professional academia. Probably until now. I believe that this discussion will somehow get the ball rolling (, please consider spreading the word), because finding out that the Association's signers have not been recognized in academic circles as Founding Fathers will likely find one or more professional historians willing to take that leap (a question: who has academia recognized as the go-to expert on the CA?). Another connection between the Boston Tea Party and the much larger unifying Continental Association: Samuel Adams. He had a lot to do with putting the Association together and into motion (would be nice to easedrop on his talks with Charles Thomson, known as the "Samuel Adams of Philadelphia"). Our article, interestingly, does not say who actually wrote the language of the Association, and traces its original genesis to...fife and drum roll...George Washington. Are the CA signers founders? Of course they are, they fit the opening sentence of this article perfectly. But they amazingly have either run afoul in academia or...the Continental Association somehow became a forgotten fall-through-the-cracks type of historical event, one that has to be seen up close to even begin to appreciate its deeper and pivotal role in American history. It happens. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers: "Rigid" is what we must be. Editing is a discipline, and it - not me - demands being as exact as we can. There are no liberties beyond the flexibility allowed in our use of language, but that flexibility enables us to be precise in recounting what sources say. To be precise about that, "what sources say" does not mean "what sources mean". That's where you venture into original research territory. A prime example is the phrase you just used: "it doesn't take much imagination". Recounting history, as far as our role as editors goes, allows for no imagination whatsoever. We can't go a word or idea beyond what sources say, even if what "follows" appears obvious.


 * In accordance with sources, I don't at all disagree that the Continental Congress functioned as a representative government. What I disagree with is the assertion that this form of government began in late 1774 - the Continental Congress being the product of the colonial assemblies as well as the successor of the Stamp Act Congress. g. Of course, it was a step, but most of what occurred would have anyway. Allreet (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The points of the CA being essential are many. For example, as said, it created a movement of thousands of people, and that movement led right into the war and the Declaration of Independence (what was being declared independent if not the union established by the Continental Association?). Abraham Lincoln called the CA the forming of the union, and for good reasons. The CA was what broke the colonies bonds with England and, similar to the economic boycott established by the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1954 led to the Civil Rights Movement (which has been called the Second American Revolution), it unified the participants into a joint force and dedicated goal. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: Rjensen is not a source. And Lincoln's speech is a primary source so we don't know exactly what he meant; that is, other sources are needed for interpretation/validation of his meaning. As such, we can't go a word beyond his, which is what you're doing in drawing conclusions. As for the Civil Rights Movement, I understand its appeal to you but it has no relevance here. Allreet (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Allreet — Lincoln's reference to the founders was straight forward. There's no cryptic meaning or mysterious wording to try to "interpret". Also, editors decide which sources are reliable, and how they are used, within reason of course, and there's nothing unreasonable being proposed here. Many primary sources are reliable and are routinely used here at WP, so long as no one tries to spin off some unusual meaning not supported by the sources -- and the history. This has not occurred with Lincoln's simple reference. The C.A., the first organized body of colonial representatives, made up of Continental Congress delegates, had such an impact on Britain, war soon followed only a few months after it had been put into effect, and in those days that's almost immediately, as word and ships traveled slowly, each way across the Atlantic. Again, this idea did not go away. It became the lasting and founding principle behind the movement for independence that took the founders all the way to the Constitution, and the sources cover this advent, and do so without always referring to it as a "founding document". "I also take exception with the claim that the Continental Association was essential to the founding. Of course, it was a step, but most of what occurred would have anyway."  Thanks for at least acknowledging that it was a step. That was the first definite step forward on the road to independence. Yes, something like the C.A. would have happened, sooner or later, and in this case, it happened sooner, and understandably. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are the first two provisions of WP:Primary Sources:
 * Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
 * Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
 * In defending @Randy Kryn's use of Lincoln's quote, @Gwillhickers begins with this: "Lincoln's reference to the founders was straight forward". That's not just "unreasonable". It's  a misuse of the source, and it's original research since there's no mention of founders or fathers in regards to the Union in Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. Allreet (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)