Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 7

First Continental Congress and its Articles of Association
— TVH, thank you for outlining the important points. In terms of scope, we of course contribute the most coverage, per due weight, to Washington, Jefferson, Adams (both) and the like, but as you know there were also quite a number of other individuals involved in the overall founding process, which really got rolling in 1774. This is when a colonial congress was formed, for the first time, in response to the Intolerable Acts, where that response, challenge, took on a dynamic form with the Constitutional Association. All the signers of this landmark document were once listed in the article's chart, which actually serves as a navbox. There was little to no coverage for many of the signers, but they were listed for historical context, and to serve the serious student or researcher. There are a number of scholarly sources that cover its significance, outlined just above, and elsewhere. See also: Sources covering the Continental Congress, its Association and the founding

The main challenge for their inclusion in the article here was based on what the sources don't say, or if they didn't use the exact phrase of Founding Father in every individual instance. There was an RfC conducted which began on April 13, where a "rough consensus" ruled that those who only signed the Continental Association were somehow not founders, with no more basis to their position other than that most of the sources don't cover the Continental Association, or don't use the exact phrase of Founding Father, while ignoring sources that cover the significance of this topic well. There was not one source produced which even attempted to explain why the First Continental Congress and its Articles of Association were not significant and an important point in history in terms of the founding getting underway, where delegates threatened Parliament with their own independent government. The King and Parliament would not yield an inch and in little time sent four regiments of British troops to Boston, where, from there they marched on Concord.

IMO, we should return the chart to its original form before it was striped of names of signers of the Continental Association, and just as important, because they were all delegates to the First Continental Congress. We can still give most of the weight to major players like Washington and Jefferson, but there was really no solid reason, historical or academic, for keeping these delegates out of the article. To do this we will have to initiate a better worded RfC — one that pertains to the First Continental Congress as well as the Continental Association, but it would be best if the current RfC over the Articles of Confederation was settled first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article is Founding Fathers, not the significance of the First Continental Congress or the Continental Association. No doubt both were important steps that led to the founding, but the same can be said of what led to the Congress and its actions. For example, the impetus for the revolution - absolutely - was the Intolerable Acts, which were enacted in response to the Boston Tea Party. So by @Gwillhickers's reasoning shouldn't we also recognize all members of the Sons of Liberty as founders for staging the protest in Boston's harbor? And since the Fairfax Resolves and Suffolk Resolves led to the Continental Association, shouldn't we also recognize the delegates who adopted them? In short, everything had a precedent, and nothing stands as the one event that "got the process rolling".
 * Gwillhickers's argument that the First Congress was the key to everything, then, is not only arguable but incorrect. Hundreds of sources can be found that attest to the importance of everything I just mentioned, yet none recognizes those involved as founders solely on the basis of their roles at the time. Which leads Gwillhickers to this specious argument: that because sources don't say something, this doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. While we can grant that idea in a general sense, what we can't do is use it as Verification. To follow the line of reasoning he's suggesting would be Original Research: accepting a conclusion not stated by sources.
 * As for aiding serious students and researchers, delegates of the First Continental Congress and signers of the Continental Association are duly listed in their respective articles. So nobody in particular would benefit more if we listed those individuals here. In fact, some students and researchers could be mis-led if we did. Of even greater concern, we'd also be mis-leading tens if not hundreds of thousands of casual readers who are likely to assume anyone listed in the Founding Fathers article must be a founder. So besides WP:VER and WP:NOR, we also need to take WP:Relevance into account.
 * In conclusion, Gwillhickers believes a better worded RFC is needed to settle the issue. Have at it. I can't imagine a consensus of editors is going to accept something that cannot be verified by sources. That was the consensus of the original RFC, by a wide margin, and I'm certain the result will be exactly the same should we have to go through this exercise again. Allreet (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * — Allreet, thanks for responding to individual points, but at the same time there was no need to recite for us what this article is about, esp since almost everyone's opinion varies somewhat on that note.
 * The subject of the article is Founding Fathers, not the significance of the First Continental Congress or the Continental Association.
 * Yes, this is true to a degree, but then, from there we add context in summary form. If we're describing the Founding Fathers it would be incumbent on us to at least give summary explanations as to why they were Founding fathers. Claiming someone just signed a couple of documents doesn't really do this. There were a number of events that sort of primed the colonists for independence, i.e.Stamp Act, etc, but by 1774 that idea sort of took off with the advent of the Intolerable Acts and the series of events that followed, with which the First Continental Congress were right in the middle of. Their Continental Association was sort of the kick in the teeth that crossed the line into war, and this should be covered briefly, with links to the respective dedicated articles.


 * So by Gwillhickers reasoning shouldn't we also recognize all members of the Sons of Liberty as founders for staging the protest in Boston's harbor?
 * Okay, excuse me, but my "reasoning" is based on the idea that the names in question were involved in the First Continental Congress and present during the drafting and debates that ultimately shaped Congressional policies and their subsequent break with the Crown. No, most of the Son's of Liberty were not actual founders, so please don't assume facts not in evidence on my account.


 * Gwillhickers's argument that the First Congress was the key to everything, then, is not only arguable but incorrect. Hundreds of sources can be found that attest to the importance of everything I just mentioned, yet none recognizes those involved as founders solely on the basis of their roles at the time. Which leads Gwillhickers to this specious argument: that because sources don't say something, this doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.
 * I'm not the one who based arguments on what the sources don't say, but on what they do say, and they say much, as I've outlined numerous times on the Talk page. It was the First Continental Congress and their policies and ultimatums, who put the idea of independent representative government into actual motion, which ultimately provoked the war. e.g. See Alexander, 2002, pp. 145-146. No, the First Continental Congress wasn't the "key to everything". They didn't draft the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, but many of their ideas are were what shaped those documents, directly. You, otoh, are trying to write them off  as some insignificant group (which included Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Henry, Randolph, etc, btw) who did nothing more than organize a boycott.


 * As for aiding serious students and researchers, delegates of the First Continental Congress and signers of the Continental Association are duly listed in their respective articles. So nobody in particular would benefit more if we listed those individuals here. In fact, some students and researchers could be mis-led if we did.
 * There are already approximately 125 names in the chart, while other sections have even more names listed. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be "misled" if they know the simple backgrounds of the groups of founders in the article. The article already makes it clear that there are major founding fathers while others are less significant to one degree or another, and in that regard the historical account varies.


 * In conclusion, Gwillhickers believes a better worded RFC is needed to settle the issue. Have at it. I can't imagine a consensus of editors is going to accept something that cannot be verified by sources. That was the consensus of the original RFC, by a wide margin, and I'm certain the result will be exactly the same should we have to go through this exercise again.
 * The RfC over the Continental Association, as explained before, was based on the narrow idea that the names in question were not founders because they only signed one document, and ignores the ideas that they were members of the First Continental Congress and in many cases, members of the Second Continental Congress, and present during the debates that shaped documents and actions. Most of the No votes were cast based on the idea of what some sources don't say. e.g."This group of men are not widely described as founding fathers." Also, most of the votes were cast before many of the sources appeared on this Talk page with their accompanying discussions. I suspect that when you say these things "cannot be verified by sources" you're ignoring the sources (i.e. here and here), and the history, and are, once again, basing this claim on whether a given source uses the specific term, Founding Father, in every instance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The "criteria" for being considered a founding father is WP:VER, meaning sources that are clear and direct about the designation are required whether it be the "exact" term or an equivalent one. Obviously, if sources cannot be found regarding a particular individual or group of individuals, they don't qualify.
 * I'm certain that all those who voted No regarding the Continental Association would agree with that, even if they took into consideration everything you posted, because not one of your sources refers to the Continental Association's signers as founders, founding fathers, forefathers, or by any similar term. In fact, I've dutifully read most of the passages you've referenced, and then some, and if I would have found several that met the above criteria, I would have changed my vote, as I did with the Articles of Confederation. The fact is, you haven't come up with even one.
 * So please stop saying I'm "ignoring the sources and the history". It does absolutely nothing to advance your argument and it's counter to AGF. Allreet (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether Werther is really reliable? Plus Continental Congress continues...
I think Werther counts as a good peer-reviewed source for the CA's signers, although the more obvious route of determining foundership for the signers of the CA is the sourced recognition that all of the delegates of the First Continental Congress are Founding Fathers. After reading John Adams' notes of the opening days of the First Continental Congress there can be no doubt that these were the founders of America (or the Union, or whatever name comes up, but Adams' notes call it "America"). Lincoln's inaugural statement affirmed that the First Continental Congresses' core product and purpose from its formation - the writing and passing of the Continental Association - formed the Union. The delegates purposely took on the responsibility of creating a new formal union called "America", and began their meeting and deliberations with that in mind. It can't be true that historians have missed the mark so widely that none of them have yet trumpeted that fact - that the delegates of the First Continental Congress are Founding Fathers of America. Some of them must have, which among the sources qualifies the delegates? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * — A word about Werther: That the Journal of the American Revolution is recognized by the American Historical Association, Smithsonian,  Discovery Channel, History Channel, TIME, New York Times, PBS, Bloomberg, Slate, Huffington Post, History News Network, MSNBC, NPR, CNN, and many other outlets, more than qualifies it as a reliable source. Werther does not hold a degree in history, but in business, but is well trained at assimilating information and writing about it in narrative form in a professional capacity, and his well written and well sourced essays and other works confirms this. If he wasn't qualified as such he wouldn't have been accepted to write for the Journal. Werther has also published works about George Washington, the Loyalists during the revolution, and Small Pox inoculation during the Revolution. The fact that he writes for this journal establishes him as a historian, regardless if he doesn't hold a degree in this area. Further, not all reliable sources/historians have a Masters or PhD, degree in history, esp many of the older sources, but we use them as sources regardless, if the information is substantiated and well sourced.  Take for example David McCullough -- he holds a degree in English literature from Yale University, but is still regarded as a reliable source for history. Read the Writing career section. McCullough didn't come into writing about history until later in his life. Donald Dean Jackson holds a Bachelor of Science from Iowa State University with a degree in technical journalism, yet he has authored many books and journals on early American history and the Civil War, all reliable sources. Stacy Schiff holds a degree in French Literature. She attended Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and Phillips Academy (Andover) preparatory school. Though she doesn't hold a Master or Phd in history, she has nonetheless accomplished much in the realm of history, winning the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography, and the George Washington Book Prize. Among her noted works is a biography of Benjamin Franklin covering the years he was in France -- all reliable sources.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gwillhickers: McCullough majored in English at Yale and was hired by Sports Illustrated after graduation. While working at American Heritage, he began writing on his own. He published his first historical work "later in life" at the age of 35. Jackson and Schiff also have many books to their credit. Jackson is a history professor and Schiff, like McCullough, has a Pulitzer and other awards to her credit (McCullough has two Pulitzers). Richard Werther's "credits" are totally limited to his JAR articles, none of which have been cited by anybody except Wikipedia. Should he write a book or two someday, we can regard him as reliable, but the comparisons here are silly, given Werther's limited publishing background and the extensive experience of the others.
 * @Randy Kryn: Werther stands alone with his pronouncement that the Continental Association is a founding document. He cites no source, so apparently it's just his opinion. Having no credentials that qualify him for issuing a "ground-breaking" view and having no "peer" that agrees with him on the designation, we can only consider his opinion as an extremely fringe POV. Also, I along with several other editors do not believe his article clearly identifies the CA's signers as founders. But we can dispense with any argument about that because it would be Werther's unsourced view, one shared by nobody else, and again because he has no bona fides as a reliable source beyond his writings for the JAR. Allreet (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)



None of the names mentioned have a Masters or PhD in history, which was what you initially based your criticism of Werther on. When that argument has been addressed, you typically try raising the bar, trying to dismiss him because he hasn't written any books, that we know of, ignoring the other well sourced journal articles he has written. So once again, your argument is based on conjecture, and your opinion. If you're really that bent on blocking this source I would recommend getting a decision from the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which I would of course honor, and don't forget to ask them if there's a policy that says reliable sources in history must have a Masters or PhD in history. Otherwise, you can not insist that editors not use a well sourced peer reviewed article that appears in a widely recognized journal like the Journal, one that is recognized by the American Historical Society, and other such institutions.


 * Yes, there's no denying that Werther's experience is not nearly as extensive as the others, but then, so is the academic experience limited of an individual who writes a thesis, which are often used as reliable sources, so you'll need to give us more than a comparison to others.


 * "we can dispense with any argument about that because it would be Werther's unsourced view, one shared by nobody else."

You really need to be more accurate with this sort of thing. The view is indeed shared, regardless if they don't use the term Founding Father. Selected examples include:
 * "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774."
 * "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"
 * "In October of 1774 the First Continental Congress issued the Association, a set of regulations curtailing commerce with Great Britain. Although the Congressional Delegates called for a general boycott of trade with the mother country, they also set up a structure for an insurgent government to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of royal authority"
 * *"The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic Union among the colonies."
 * ...that qualify him for issuing a "ground-breaking" view and having no "peer" that agrees with him on the designation.


 * Once again, this is based on your expectation that a source must use the exact phrase of Founding Father, while we are still waiting, though not expecting at this point, for you to provide a WP policy that substantiates this rather narrow claim. Meanwhile, many sources, using their own words, clearly support the view that Werther shares. The history all by itself should have told you that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Werther's credentials are lacking in nearly all respects, the exception being the publication of his articles by the Journal. Since this is not an academic journal but a general one and therefore its articles are published for a general audience, there's not too much to be concerned about regarding his lack of academic credentials. Of considerable concern is his designation of the Continental Association as a founding document. He has no authority to break new ground, and thus would need to provide sources on this, as he does for most of his pronouncements.
 * I don't need to be "more careful". You have posted dozens and dozens of sources to bolster your argument, yet you haven't provided a single source - or quote - that includes the word "founding" or "founder". As in Werther's case, you've drawn this conclusion without a source. Even the Articles of Confederation are suspect as a founding document but least they have a several sources to back them up. So far, you've come up with not one source that explicitly refers to the CA as a founding document or to its signers as founders.
 * I started to respond to your quotes, which you've posted many times before, but I see no point in repeating my previous responses. Allreet (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , if you're going to quote me, at least try to get it right. The quote was "more accurate", not "more careful", though it would help if you considered both.
 * So far, you've come up with not one source that explicitly refers to the CA as a founding document or to its signers as founders.
 * Once again, I've provided sources that clearly support that idea, including Lincoln. All along, all you've given us is the shallow arguing that the sources must say "founding document", while you stubbornly ignore the sources that clearly convey the idea using other terms. You've been asked time and again to present WP policy that supports the idea that we must use exact phrases, rather than "in our own words", as the sources do, in their own words. This is clearly ignoring the scholarship, seemingly just to get you through a debate, as you're not even acknowledging the history. Disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at how you described your sources - sources that clearly convey the idea - is not the same as sources that clearly and directly state something.
 * For anyone to get the "idea" that you see in your sources - that the Continental Association was a document as responsible for the nation's founding, creation, or birth as the Declaration or Constitution - they'd have to be told. Otherwise, few readers are likely to come to that specific thought on their own.
 * In terms of policy, quoting sources or using text paraphrasing what sources say wouldn't "convey" anything about founders or the founding, unless the sources referred to one or the other, not using "exact words" per se, but at least in some direct fashion (e.g., "creation", "birth", "establishment", "formation", etc.) On that note, how many times do I have to say this: WP:VER allows paraphrasing what a source says? However, WP:NOR does not allow us to "translate", "interpret", "extrapolate", or draw anything from a source that is not stated therein.
 * We can't use a combination of sources to "convey" an idea. We can reference multiple sources only if all of the sources say approximately the same thing. If they say different things, we can't combine their thoughts to make a point that isn't made directly.
 * As for Lincoln, we can cite his quote in terms of the Union, but not in regards to the founding. IOW, we can't interpret "forming the Union" to mean "founding the nation" without a source that says this is what Lincoln meant.
 * Finally, I've asked you to refrain from accusing me of "ignoring sources and the history". I'm doing my best to read through the sources you've referenced, plus others, and don't deserve your repeated accusations. Allreet (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at how you described your sources - "sources that clearly convey the idea" - is not the same as sources that clearly and directly state something. This is just another obvious attempt at your exact phrases arguing. If the sources clearly cover an idea then they have indeed made a statement, in their "own words". You claim you've read the sources, but you continue to regard them as these quasi-cryptic accounts that don't substantiate the issues in question. No one has "combined sources" in any way that advances an unlikely or unusual idea not covered by the sources, and you've yet to provide any actual example of this beyond the usual empty claims about exact phrase usage and that sort of thing. As for Lincoln, we can cite his quote in terms of the Union, but not in regards to the founding. IOW, we can't interpret "forming the Union" to mean "founding the nation" without a source that says this is what Lincoln meant. Lincoln's quote is straight forward. The Union and the Nation are the same thing, and was formed by the Continental Association, which is another way of saying founded. If you chose not to understand that, then fine. I'm confident the average reader will not find themselves all wrapped up in the sort of confusion you're claiming will result. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe what WP:NOR says in relation to this is perfectly clear. Thus, by interpreting "formed the Union" as "founded the Nation", you're engaging in Original Research. I am certain nearly all editors, 95% plus, would agree with me.
 * Allreet, please read John Adams' summary of the First Continental Congress which formed, according to Adams' notes of the discussion, 'America'. The union of 13 individual colonies into one entity, America, occurred within the framework of that Congress. Formally, the United Colonies and United States were named later, by the Lee Resolution, yet the pure concept and framework became settled, before going forward, by the gathering, accepted responsiblity for governing, and actions of the First Continental Congress (and again, as I read the discussion and write this response, it is almost unthinkable that scores of professional historians have not fully covered the ground that Abraham Lincoln, Richard Werther, and Wikipedia editors, , and have tread). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The formation of the Congress was the formation of the Union. It, not the Continental Association, bonded the colonies. If the Congress's adoption/vote on the Continental Congress was a formal agreement regarding a Union, so was its adoption of the Suffolk Resolves, Petition, and the entire Declaration. As I just said in another post, some of that is supported by sources and some is simply my opinion. But as we've acknowledged before, Nettles marks the start of the Union as September 5, 1774. That's debatable, but so too is the idea that it all began with the Congress's second last decision (the last being the decision to meet again).
 * You've made your last point several times, more or less: that professional historians will eventually come around. That's possible. Historical writings go through phases. In the earlier parts of the 1800s, the founders were regarded as gods. Later, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, "revisionists" began picking them and their works apart. The best example would be Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, "best" meaning this continues to be regarded as one of the most significant works ever written on the founding (Beard bases some of his analysis on Marx and Engels). I can cite others, however - @Gwillhickers recently removed one of them, Heike Paul - and I believe these contrary views would make an excellent addition to the article as a separate section.
 * My first response, though, to your hope that this recognition will someday come to pass is that it's an admission that scholars, past and present, do not regard the Continental Association as a founding document. My second is that this may never happen. And my third is that none of us know why "experts" have not identified the Association as such. Why does the National Archives with all of the scholars it has at its disposal limit the "Charters of Freedom" to three specific documents and not others? We don't know, and the only way we're likely to find out is by seeking scholarly opinion on the issue. I doubt we'll ever find a source that shines some light on this, so the only way there will be to reach out and ask.
 * BTW, I "asked" Werther to clarify his views in the Comments section below his article, but for whatever reason, he didn't publish my question or respond. But to show my tenaciousness, I did dig up his home address and have considered writing to him. However, I haven't because I believe it would be an imposition, especially because of how "public" our debate has been, and I'm fairly certain he would prefer to stay out of it.
 * P.S. I will read the Adams's summary as you suggested.Allreet (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, first, you are to be commended for your effort to make contact with Werther, and it was indeed considerate to hold on sending a letter to his home address, not that it would necessarily be an imposition, but it may well have been. Perhaps he has an office or other place where such a letter would be better received.

My first response, though, to your hope that this recognition will someday come to pass is that it's an admission that scholars, past and present, do not regard the Continental Association as a founding document.

Now this is what you call original research, an absolute conclusion based on the idea that the C.A. is not covered as much as e.g. the Constitution. Phillips, 2012, on pages 14 and 270, indeed holds that the Continental Association has been too little studied, esp by British historians, understandably, as the C.A. defied British authority, organized a body of representatives and effected a boycott with a good measure of financial impact against Britain that led to a war they ultimately lost. He doesn't even hint at the idea, however, that the C.A. is not a founding document. In fact, on p. 249 he asserts, "The Continental Association is one of the most important documents of American colonial history. By authorizing the establishment of local committees to enforce the embargo of trade, it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution."

The formation of the Congress was the formation of the Union. It, not the Continental Association, bonded the colonies.

Actually this is only partially true. There was no actual bond until there was a document to officiate that bond, and that document was the Continental Association, binding the colonies in a common cause, for the first time, in an actual working capacity, against British authority. That was the bond and the basis of the union so formed. A gathering of delegates by itself didn't bind the colonies together. Common interest is one of the essential components of any union, and documents to that effect are needed. Once you get past the notion that the C.A. was only a boycott and appreciate the common ideas and structure of representation it proposed for the colonies it should become clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Interpreting Lincoln: original research?
— Thus, by interpreting "formed the Union" as "founded the Nation", you're engaging in Original Research. This is the same ol' take on your 'exact phrases' arguing. Once again, the terms, formed, established, created, founded, are saying the same thing in terms of the Union, or Nation - and what is a nation but a union of its peoples? This very idea composes the First sentence in the Preamble of the Constitution. — "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." — If we substituted found for form, and nation for union in the Preamble it would be saying the same thing. Lincoln, a lawyer who naturally studied Constitutional law, and a president, rightly asserted that the Union began with the Continental Association. The continued haggling over nation and Union with the unfounded assumption that they are entirely different concepts, is not only ridiculous, it's original research, even worse, you're not even spinning that one off from any of the sources. All you've assumed is that the two terms are somehow different, with not even an explanation, with the habitual claim of "original research" in the hopes that it'll give the empty claim the appearance of legitimacy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding "exact phrases", here you're correct about what I'm arguing, except there is no argument to the contrary.
 * Primary sources can only be quoted explicitly. Any meaning beyond their exact words requires a secondary source. That's true of interpreting the Declaration, Constitution, or any primary source. We can directly quote a primary source but we cannot in any way, shape or form say what it means. Translating "union" as "nation" in the case of either Lincoln or the Declaration, then, is original research. You can call this "haggling" all you want, but what I'm saying conforms precisely with what's stated in the only source of relevance: WP:NOR.
 * Allreet (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * He was referring to the union of the states, not the nation.
 * Nonsense. The nation is a union of the states. Again, you fail to explain any difference and just assume O.R.
 * Once again, Lincoln's account of the formation of the Union isn't considered a primary source because he wasn't alive at the time, and even if it was a primary source, the statement is very straight forward and explicit. We've already been through this. The continued reaching attempts to assign some ambiguous and bizzar idea to simple statements so you can hang an O.R. tag on them simply doesn't wash. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Use your interpretation of Lincoln's speech in an article without a secondary source. I'm certain a RFC would determine this to be original research. A less contentious route would be to run it by the Help Desk, but it seems to me you'd rather concoct preposterous arguments such as Lincoln's account isn't a primary source because he wasn't alive during the periods he described.
 * No wonder you don't understand OR. You don't even know what constitutes a primary source. You really do need to bone up on WP:NOR: primary sources include "original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches". I hope that last item helps straighten out at least this point. Allreet (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read the lede to Primary source. In particular: "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary.  If Lincoln had written a book about the founding fathers, or the revolution, it would not be a primary source because he was not directly involved -- wasn't even alive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

As for your take on original research, there would not be any O.R. involved if we simply added Lincoln's quote. e.g. Referring to the Union Lincoln in a speech once said.. 'the quote'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Being alive" or involved has nothing to do with what determines a primary source. A primary source is an original work, as opposed to a secondary source which builds on original works. So we cannot build upon - interpret or add thoughts to - a primary source. For example, a Sunday sermon about the Creation is a primary source. Obviously, the minister could not have been there. The minister can interpret the Creation and anything else he wants from the Bible, and we can quote what he says. But we cannot interpret his sermon, say what it means, any more than we can interpret the Bible itself.
 * So most definitely yes, there would not be OR involved if we quoted Lincoln's words, and we can paraphrase to the extent that we can say, for example, "Lincoln believed the Union was formed by the Continental Association", because that's explicitly what he said. Be we cannot say anything about what Lincoln meant, for example, that "he believed this marked the beginning of the United States".
 * I understand your confusion because to some degree the one sentence you cited about secondary sources isn't perfectly clear. Generally speaking, most things are "written after the fact", for example, arrest records, newspaper reports, and tax returns, all of which are primary sources. But what the policy is saying very clearly is that all original works, including speeches, letters, and diaries are primary sources, and anything written about them afterwards is a secondary source. Allreet (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ""Being alive" or involved has nothing to do with what determines a primary source."


 * WP:PRIMARY Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.  (emphasis added)


 * Now please explain for us why you feel Lincoln was somehow directly involved in the founding. Moreover, please quote the policy that would explain how Lincoln's statement, written long after the overall founding, is a primary source.


 * Lincoln's statement is not an original work or document involving the revolution and the founding, and your attempt to interpret what a primary source here is really the only "confusion" being promoted.  Again, if Lincoln had written a book about the revolution it would not be a primary source, because he wasn't even alive at the time. i.e.Not directly involved. Most sources are "original works", but what determines them to be Primary sources is whether the writer was directly involved with the event in question. I have no intention of saying Lincoln was trying to say anything other than what he said in plain English. This is not O.R., so you really should stop debasing the meaning of that idea, as it only pertains to times when someone is trying to advance an unusual idea. This has been explained for you many times. Try to come to terms, because you can't continually fall back on this idea every time your arguing fails.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

First Continental Congress and Articles, continued...
Agree with Randy in regard to the Continental Association. Lincoln, a lawyer, well versed in U.S. law, history and government, and a President who presided over the U.S. government, has got to be one of the best sources on this topic. Yes, as the First Continental Congress were clearly a body of founding fathers, it naturally goes that the document they advanced, with the premier idea of representatives and prospect of individual colonial authority, is clearly a founding document, which many sources clearly articulate, regardless if they don't use a specific term of "founding document".


 * The "criteria" for being considered a founding father is WP:VER, meaning sources that are clear and direct about the designation are required whether it be the "exact" term or an equivalent one. Obviously, if sources cannot be found regarding a particular individual or group of individuals, they don't qualify.

Allreet, yes an "exact" term or an equivalent one", yet in the same breath you're still haggling over wording anyways. The sources clearly support the idea that the First Continental Congress and its Continental Association, were all part of the initial founding of the Union, even when they don't use your preferred set of words. Wasn't it you who said, "using our own words"? Using their own words, every one of the below sources/statements clearly indicates that the First Continental Congress and its Association are what formed, or founded, or established the Union. They don't need to use the term "founding document" for anyone with basic reading comprehension skills to convey this idea, and doesn't require a panel of investigative scholars to establish. If you are still dismissing all of this with your particular view on word usage then it would seem you are indeed ignoring the sources, and the obvious history involved.


 * "The Continental Association is one of the most important documents of American colonial history. By authorizing the establishment of local committees to enforce the embargo of trade, it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution. By providing for nonimportation and nonexportation as a means of forcing Great Britain to redress colonial grievances, it convinced Parliament that war was inevitable and thus led directly to the engagement at Lexington and Concord."
 * "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic Union among the colonies."
 * The Union, as an enduring entity, originated on September 5, 1774, when delegates (the signers) of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies met in Philadelphia and formed the Continental Congress. ... During these twenty-two months the Union exercised extensive powers of government and became, for all practical purposes, a single agency for centralized action in the highest realms of statecraft and war.
 * "The Association of the First Continental Congress, Philadelphia, October 20, 1774 In October of 1774 the First Continental Congress issued the Association, a set of regulations curtailing commerce with Great Britain. Although the Congressional Delegates called for a general boycott of trade with the mother country, they also set up a structure for an insurgent government to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of royal authority.
 * "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.

Aside from all this, that the Continental Association was what introduced the idea of independent Congressional representative government, and officially established this idea, which followed into the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, all by itself should tell you that both the First Continental Congress and its articles initiated the founding, or establishment of the Union, which resulted in Britain declaring war in short order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur, in every respect with your post above, and its citations, to this editorial effect : the NATION-Founders establishing the perpetual Union of former British North American colonies put their shoulder to the wheel of Enlightenment self-government much before the FRAMERS-Founders, who were grounded in the 1776 DECLARATION milestone for national independence of that "one people", then writing, ratifying, and ordaining, starting the CONSTITUTION from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention through the end of the 1789 First Session of the First Congress for the BILL OF RIGHTS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And while I don't disagree with most of the sources, I definitely do not concur on your conclusions. Just for one example, that the Continental Association led to the idea of independent Congressional representative government. What "led" to the Association was the Continental Congress, which was "independent Congressional representative government". It's absurd to say what you just said, and it's a perfect example of how you form conclusions not supported by the sources you cite. Allreet (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * — My conclusions are no different than the sources I've cited. The First Continental Congress was what introduced the idea of independent Congressional representative government, simply because it was made up of representatives, who declared themselves independent of British authority, and they put that idea into actual operation with the Articles of Association. This idea, independent representatives, carried over into the Articles of Confederation, or do you think this idea just popped into their heads out of nowhere? As pointed out, per Adams' notes, that most of the delegates had the idea of independence as an objective from the start, knowing that the King and Parliament were never going to yield an inch. Nothing "absurd" about that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense, given what I said. In fact, do you even have a source for the "Congressional" part of this? And now you're vacillating. What you said was:
 * "the Continental Association was what introduced the idea of independent Congressional representative government, and officially established this idea, which followed into the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution"
 * So which is it? Did the Continental Association introduce this form of government or did the Continental Congress? Of course, we know the answer. I also know from this as well as our disagreement over the British viewing us as an "independent country" that you're having trouble keeping your conclusions straight. Plenty is absurd about that.
 * As for "most of the delegates had the idea of independence as an objective", I didn't read what Adams said in his notes, but I do know from many other sources that this was not the case. Most delegates up through the Olive Branch Petition were hoping reconciliation was possible. Adams, of course, would not have been one of them. Allreet (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks like another reading comprehension issue. So which is it? Did the Continental Association introduce this form of government or did the Continental Congress?.  I never maintained that the Continental Congress introduced representative government. What I did say was that the idea of independent representative government took on an official capacity with the C.A., and that this idea "followed into the Articles of Confederation". You need to slow down and try calming yourself before you go taking off like this. As for what "most delegates" thought, again, at first many were hoping for reconciliation, but still sympathetic to the idea of independence, but again, when it became apparent that there was no chance for that many of them began supporting independence, along with the many founders who were already on that page. "With a rather human predilection for finality historians have generally accepted the view that the American Revolution was inevitable since the members of the First Continental Congress were committed to revolt from the outset."

Comment
The main point of contention - and the only one of relevance at the moment- is whether signers of the Continental Association are considered founders or founding fathers (among other specific terms). @Gwillhickers, to his credit, has dug up extensive sources on the significance of the Continental Association that support all of your statements about the Committees of Correspondence and Safety, state constitutions, and so forth. Yet for all the references he's provided, not one explicitly refers to the Continental Association as a founding document and none refers to its signers as founders. Given the sources cited by Gwillhickers, I have no doubt that the Continental Association "led" to the founding of the United States, but that's not equivalent to actually founding the nation, which happens to be the case with the Declaration which declared us independent and the Constitution which not only framed our current form of government but secured the union, neither of which can be said of either the Continental Association or for that matter, the Articles of Confederation. Allreet (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer provided by the RFC is that there is a consensus of editors that these signers are not founders.
 * The "consensus" of sources is the basis for the views of most these editors. That is, no reliable sources have been found before or since the RFC that apply the designation of founder or anything like it to members of the First Continental Congress on the basis of their signing this document, not in any direct way.
 * By contrast, references to terms such as founding and founder abound in sources for the Declaration and Constitution, while a few are available for the Articles of Confederation.


 * - True that, which is the rationale for my distinction between FRAMER-Founders of this article, focusing on the Declaration Signers, Constitution Signers, the few [three ?] dozen notables as cited by scholars in Ratification Conventions (a) advocating ratification as written, (b) accepting the Constitution with amendments, and (c) supporting the Articles until amended unanimously, including prominent AoC signers identified by scholars, such as Elbridge Gerry MA. The 1789 First Constitutional Government: (a) Officers of the First Congress and its select committees crafting the Bill of Rights, (b) First Executive & Cabinet, (c) First Supreme Court. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @TheVirginiaHistorian, I understand the "split" you're suggesting, but don't really see the need. For sure it has nothing to do with settling the ongoing "dispute" over the Continental Association. And secondly, the structure of the current article seems adequate, at least to me. That includes acceptance of signers of the Articles of Confederation, which btw is a minority view in terms of sources (relative to acceptance of signers of the Declaration and Constitution). In any case, I see no "organic" reason for two major sections or two separate articles. But if I'm missing something in this, please do tell. Allreet (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Continental Association started the process

 * — Allreet — There are of course distinctions between the documents in question, but the one primary idea than can't be ignored is that the Constitutional Association, officially, set up a body of Congressional representatives and proclaimed itself independent of British authority, and went so far as to make demands of that authority. It did more than "led to" the founding, it formed the basis to that founding, and presented this idea as a working and obtainable actuality. That's when the King slammed the door shut on the colonies and prepared for war, indeed treating them as an independent country. If we employ your reasoning we could also claim that the Declaration of Independence merely "led to" the Constitution, and therefore is not really part of the foundation, made up of laws and articles, which of course is ridiculous, as the founding was an ongoing process that occurred in gradual steps over many years.  The Continental Association started the process – the Constitution finalized that process. i.e.All part of the founding process. It would be negligent to leave this definitive chapter out of a narrative about the founders and the founding, esp since men like Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Henry, Randolph, Jay, Lee, etc, are a part of that chapter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * will forgive me if I do not accept your characterization of my proposal for two articles, one on [1774-1789] "NATION-Founders" including the 1776 Declaration, and one on "FRAMER-Founders" [1776, 1787-1789].
 * My good friend, you suppose a possibility that I have never considered and a position that I have never assumed, as though to WP:STRAWMAN the distinction I am trying to draw:.
 * But I do no such thing in this thread, and FURTHER I have proposed that ALL of these enumerated here from your post above are to be included in BOTH proposed articles as sourced, NATION-Founders and FRAMER-Founders. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * — My comments were directed at Allreet's position. I should have made that more clear. Apologies for any misunderstanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers: Double talk. "Led to the founding" and "formed the basis for the founding" are pretty much the same thing. In any case, if the Continental Association was a founding document, it would have founded independence, the nation, or its government. "Creating an embargo" and "forming a revolutionary government" would be steps in the right direction but a far cry from what the Declaration, Articles of Confederation and Constitution did: actually and directly proclaimed independence, established the nation, and determined its government.
 * As for the "process", everything began with either the Boston Tea Party or in reaction to the Intolerable Acts, which precipitated events throughout the colonies, individually and with the formation of the Continental Congress, collectively. In fact, Massachusetts was where the rebellion began, first with the formation of illegal assemblies, one of which had a profound effect on the directions taken by the Congress. The Suffolk Resolves, adopted as the Congress's first action, not only introduced the idea of an embargo but it called for the ouster of British officials in the Bay Colony and the formation of militia throughout the colonies. By comparison, the Continental Association's swipe at Parliament's authority was an exercise in moderation.
 * Meanwhile, I agree that the mechanisms of "revolutionary government" set up under the Continental Association proved valuable once the revolution began, but that was not the intent of those who voted for the Association any more than it was their desire to start the revolution. Indeed, while some sources "play up" the importance of the Association, many others support everything I just said.
 * IMO, you're also tinkering with the chronology and terminology to advance your POV. The King "slammed the door" with his "dye is cast" pronouncement on September 11. 1774 - as you well know - was not in response to the adoption of the Association some five weeks later. George's mind was made up based on what was occurring in New England, and at this point, concerns about Philadelphia were months away. Regarding the use of military force, it was aimed at England's possessions, the colonies, not at an "independent country", a decidedly disingenuous use of the term. According to sources, the British were responding to events in the colonies in the same way they had dealt with unrest in Ireland and Scotland years earlier, by sending in the troops.
 * Finally, and yet again, nobody is suggesting "leaving this chapter out of the narrative". Work it in, but most of what can be published belongs elsewhere. The article, as I've said before, is about the founders, while the story of the founding belongs in other articles including the American Revolution, Boston Tea Party, Intolerable Acts, and Continental Association, to name a few. Allreet (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Declaration's 'Founders' earlier involvements
— How does one go about covering the founders without covering their founding involvements? What do you propose we do, just mention which state they came from and the documents they signed?

Double talk. "Led to the founding" and "formed the basis for the founding" are pretty much the same thing. In any case, if the Continental Association was a founding document, it would have founded independence, the nation, or its government. "Led to" and "formed the basis" are saying the same thing when used in context with the founding of national government, so it's not "double talk", where someone says one thing and does the opposite, or uses ambiguous and nonsensical words, usually in the form of snappy rhetoric, to avoid a point, typically.

IMO, you're also tinkering with the chronology and terminology to advance your POV. Your opinion has no actual basis in honest reasoning. I've not been "tinkering" with anything, thank you, as my edits are generally confined to the talk page. All that's being proposed is to get the full story into the article, in summary form, as explained by a number of sources, where the coverage would link to the appropriate dedicated articles. This has been explained for you at least twice before now.

Regarding the use of military force, it was aimed at England's possessions, the colonies, not at an "independent country", a decidedly disingenuous use of the term. According to sources, the British were responding to events in the colonies in the same way they had dealt with unrest in Ireland and Scotland years earlier, by sending in the troops. Yes, the British "were responding to events", and the actions of the First Continental Congress were at the center of those events. Of course the colonies were not yet officially independent at the onset of the war. They obviously went to war to be independent. This really shouldn't have to be recited at this point. As has been clearly covered by numerous sources, the King and Parliament opted for war for reasons that should be obvious to you by now. i.e.They did not want to lose their colonies, and when the idea of independent representative government was put squarely on the table, in an organized, working and operational form -- that was the last straw.

Finally, and yet again, nobody is suggesting "leaving this chapter out of the narrative". Work it in, but most of what can be published belongs elsewhere. Actually, you been suggesting leaving that chapter out all along, with you routine objections over the First Continental Congress as founders, and their Articles of Association. In any event, this is an article, and though it contains a chart and other sections with their own lists, it is not an overall list, devoid of context. Like a biography about an individual, that individual's life and involvements are covered. Same with the individual founders -- we don't discuss them all of course, but we do cover the founding involvements of the major figures, and there are a fair number of them besides Washington, Franklin and company. Again, we do this in summary form, and link to dedicated articles. I fail to see why you've been all aghast over something like this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Tinkering" means taking subjective liberties with the dating and terminology. Your sources have made similar errors in the chronology - the King's "dye is cast" comment is one example - but we've been over that so you know better. As for "independent country", that's as I said disingenuous because on that count, you know better as well and worked it in to make some other point. Saying "of course the colonies were not yet officially independent" is yet another subterfuge after asserting the opposite. Again you're taking liberties, playing games instead of being forthright.
 * Thanks for the compliment about my "snappy" rhetoric, but I seldom indulge in being clever and strive to be straightforward. All I've suggested "leaving out" is the assertion that signers of the Continental Association are founders, consistently, for over six months. And during that time, I've never been "aghast". Persistent, dedicated to certain values, but never taken aback. Allreet (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The King's quote was added in the same order that Charlton, 2011, p. 25 used it, and it was acknowledged that it could lead one to assume it was written before the C.A. was adopted, but that it was made after public talk of a boycott was long in the works, and that the letter was indeed written before they embarked on war, as you don't want to remember, so you can prop up your sweeping "tinkering" claim. The "sources", are not in error. As for your account of "subterfuge"; I never said the colonies were independent in the months leading up to the war, but that the colonies "threatened independence" and formed a Congress that was acting independent of British authority. If you feel otherwise please provide the quote in question. And "snappy rhetoric" wasn't a compliment, it's a feeble minded digression and could be used as a form of double talk, and apparently you swallowed it as such, which explains the phony 'smile'. Now if you're more concerned about getting the article up to speed than you are about this transparent  attempt at damage control – you did mention not leaving out an important chapter and that I should "work it in". Some constructive suggestions along those lines would be welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Overview section for Continental Association et al

 * My "constructive suggestion" was offered long ago: specifically, that the overview/background section needs to be re-written in its entirety. I've said to you several times, and again just now, to go ahead and take a stab at it. I'm not "haggling" over wording but expressing concerns about original research. So "go ahead", publish your conclusion that the Continental Association "formed the union" and with that "founded the nation", and I'll express my concern more formally.
 * No source says that the British were treating the colonies as an "independent nation", and now you're back-tracking with "never said the colonies were independent", as if I claimed you did. IMO you worked in the phrase "independent nation" to make it sound as if independence and therefore the founding had already occurred vis a vis the Congress's actions. No doubt - meaning I don't need to dig up a citation to prove what we both know and agree on - the Congress was an extralegal body - Chorlton says this - but to describe that as "acting independent of British authority" is yet another attempt to work in the same word, one Chorlton doesn't use. As I said, you're playing with words, specifically "independence".
 * BTW, I also disagree that in general the Continental Association "introduced independent representative government". The committees set up throughout the colonies were representative of a radical minority (one-third, according to John Adams) who used them as vehicles to assert their will on their communities. If the mechanisms set up by the Association had been put to a vote of the people, I am certain they would have lost. What was effected by the Association, IMO, was more communistic than democratic or broadly representative. I also believe the mechanisms were necessary and effective, especially after the war broke out. To be clear, some of this I can support with sources, and some is just my opinion based on a synthesis of sources. Allreet (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * — The Articles of Associations wouldn't have stood a chance of being enforced over the entire colonial population, by a group of committee members, if the idea of an Association was not by and large well received by the colonists. At first, a good number of delegates had reservations about making the break with Britain, but it soon became quite clear that the King all along had his own designs and didn't care much at all about the colonists, and wasn't going to even compromise, one bit. That idea doesn't even have to be synthesized. The colonies were not a first being treated like an "independent nation", until war broke out. I never claimed that they were before such time, so all I can ask is that when you speak on my behalf, you need to tread a little more slowly, as this is not the first time you've gone off with such notions. Also, I'm not going to make any edit to the effect that Continental Association "formed the union" until we work it out here first, so I don't really appreciate the veiled threat that you'll resort to 'formal' measures if that happens. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You introduced "independent country" in reference to the King slamming the door, the Congress's initial actions, and even said this was the case as the British "prepared for war". Look, I understand that errors of fact can be made in writing these responses on the fly, in the heat of the moment, but that does not apply with "I never claimed that they were before such time". Assuming good faith, I'll assume you failed to read what you wrote more carefully and leave it go at that. Allreet (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * — Thanks, but this is my entire quote. "That's when the King slammed the door shut on the colonies and prepared for war, indeed treating them as an independent country. This is exactly what the King meant when he said "Now blows must decide whether they are subject to this Country or independent. "We must either master them," the king pronounced, "or totally leave them to themselves and treat them as Aliens." This is exactly what the King effected when he declared war and sent General Gage and four regiments to Boston to move on Concord. Your assumption of good faith, resting on another assumption that I failed to read something rather straight forward, correctly, while you only quote out of context snippets of my entire sentences, isn't doing my faith much good, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not quote you out of context. You and you alone - no source, no King - conjured the thought about treating the colonies as an "independent country".
 * In fact, the King never treated or even considered the colonies an independent nation. Your interpretation of what the King "meant" is the exact opposite of what he said: "We must master them or totally leave them to themselves and treat them as Aliens". If he had left the colonies alone, only then he would have considered and treated them as an independent country. His alternative was to not recognize the colonies as independent but "master them", which is what he attempted.
 * I assumed good faith based on the only thing I could think of that would explain your mis-statement. I'll continue with the assumption simply based on faith, then, whether you maintain your own faith or not. Allreet (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More word games. Treating them as "aliens" and declaring war on them is like treating them as an independent nation, even though the king of course didn't actually recognize any independence, because the war was just getting started, and independence was yet to be settled. Clear now? Perhaps I should have said, treated them as a separate country, which is what "aliens" was referring to. Try to grasp the overall statements rather than gutter-sniping at phrases and trying to turn the meaning into something else, on someone else's behalf, and perhaps exercise a little good faith of your own. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, "colonials", as "aliens" in the GEORGE III formulation, UNLIKE the British North American CHARTERS of the 1600s which ensured all subsequent generations born there in [Virginia and elsewhere] would be "Englishmen", that is, English subjects of the soil , "as though they were in England" with all the Rights of Englishmen,
 * - and (a) NOT as in SCOTLAND, prior to the 1707 United Kingdom which brought Scots representative membership in the Westminster Parliament siting in London a century later, or even in the lesser cases of British colonial representation ,
 * - (b) as in 1776 IRELAND with its Parliament independent of London, or in an even MORE SUBSERVIENT condition, (c) Benjamin Franklin's proposal to the British Parliament as a lobbyist in London coffeehouses, TO ADD ONE sitting Member of Parliament for all the British North American colonies (continent and Caribbean). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Timelines for 2 "Capstone" Topics

 * Dividing the Founding Fathers article into two sections or articles? Or am I misunderstanding something? The chronology you've outlined relates to the founding, not the founders. It's pertinent, then, to the American Revolution article but only peripheral to the Founders article, which has more than enough to address in focusing on 100+ "contributors". So while it may be feasible to expand the background section ("Period of significance"), IMO the details of the founding should be left to other articles.
 * Interestingly, your two-part chronology more or less reflects Ellis's view in Founding Brothers that there were two foundings: the first leading up to independence and the second to the Constitution.
 * Also, here's a more extensive chronology from Bernstein's The Founding Fathers Reconsidered. Allreet (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)}}
 * — The details of the founding can be added in summary form, incorporating many of the above links to dedicated articles that TVH has provided. Any well written article about the founders should cover how the founding was actually effected over the time period in question. We were talking about "Period of significance" before. I would change that to Period s  of significance, with a short paragraph for any given important time period, which would include passage of the Intolerable Acts, Forming of the First Continental Congress, and their Articles of Association, and how it ultimately led to war, the declaration of war and the Second Continental Congress, formation of the Articles of Confederation, and so forth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd still be concerned about relevance and with that, length. The current section has three moderately long paragraphs but could be expanded - and I think, should be. So what would be reasonable: doubling or tripling this? Of course, if it's broken down into subsections, the section could be even longer. But then the founding would tend to either overwhelm material on the founders or take readers on a side trip away from the main topic.
 * This reasoning leaves me with the same position. Since we have a main article on the subject, American Revolution, and numerous articles that flesh out the details on each aspect of the period, Founding Fathers included, what would be the point of covering the same ground? Or of including a "blurb" on every period of the Founding Era (a better title, btw)?
 * I have another and probably more important concern. In reviewing most of the articles related to the founding, I've come across many differences in how the same things are covered, as well as discrepancies regarding "facts", including disagreements between sources and out-and-out errors. With numerous articles, hundreds of editors involved, and "piecemeal" development, that's unavoidable, though more care, meaning oversight or coordination, is called for. So are we going to provide a summary that's not supported by related articles and their sources?
 * My suggestion, then, is that if you want to add material based on "many of the above links", start with the related articles before tackling the overviews. Allreet (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, and adding short summaries of so-far unmentioned key periods and events, such as the Virginia Association, the various resolves, and of course more on the all-important First Continental Congress seem both reasonable and encyclopedic informative. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the information is not mentioned elsewhere, the place to begin mentioning them is not here, but in the articles where the information is directly relevant. Allreet (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * — We should remember that many articles have an area of contextual overlap with other articles, and that of course the focus varies depending on the main subject of the article. A reasonable amount of overlap is good, as it leads a reader into an other article, already somewhat familiar with the topic because of the short summary, with its link(s) in the article that brought them to another given article. As concerns the links in question, above, a short summary, or perhaps just a statement, tying the idea to the founders would be in order, and would give this article a measure of greater depth, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Overlap is natural since all of these events are inter-related, so on that I agree. My point is that this article is not the place to begin with adding new material. The main article on a topic is the place to begin. Summarizing what's relevant to the Founding Fathers topic should come later.
 * Besides the reasons I offered above, I believe that most of what @Gwillhickers has covered with his citations does not belong in a summary here but in the specific topics these findings relate to. First, the assertions covered are far too detailed for an overview/summary in another topic. For example, "independent representative government" or Lincoln's point about forming the Union are appropriate to other articles but peripheral to this one. Second, on a similar note, summaries provide the "tips of the iceberg", the broadest and most notable events, not the fine details about them. Third, many (by no means "all") of these assertions are "stand-alone" opinions, meaning they're not shared by other sources. While they might deserve mention in a subject's main article, "minority" views have no place in the summary of another topic.
 * In an attempt to see what might fit in, I began a re-write of the "Period of significance" (an awful title) section, and in four paragraphs I was able to summarize up to April 19, 1775, the outbreak of war. This is about equal to the length of the current section. At this "pace", what I've written and the other "episodes" that need to be addressed - Second Continental Congress, Independence, Articles of Confederation, the War, and Constitution - would require 12-16 paragraphs, 3-4 times the length of the current summary, making it the longest narrative section in the entire article.
 * My suggestion is that Gwillhickers should begin incorporating his research into topics of direct relevance: First Continental Congress, Continental Association, Perpetual Union, and so forth. The next step would be to update the American Revolution topic so that it's consistent with the "sub-topics". And then, we should assess what might be of use in the summary of the Founding Fathers article.
 * For anyone interested in my "draft", I've posted it to a secondary sandbox: Founding Era Draft. Note that I wrote this off the top of my head based on my readings these past few months. While I have not yet added citations, I'm certain everything can be adequately supported by multiple reliable sources. I'm also certain that much can be improved, always the case with a first draft. But you gotta start somewhere, and the discussion here on the Talk page, IMO, has pretty much run its course. In short, I see no point in continuing this dialogue, debate, discussion, diatribe, discourse, dalliance, deliberation, dispute, digression or however else you might choose to describe it. Allreet (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding links
If we can fit some, (not necessarily all) the above links into the narrative in a summary capacity, tying them to the founders, per sources, there's no real or pressing reason why editors shouldn't do this. has my blessing and support if he so chooses to do this, and his time and effort has been, and will be, appreciated. I'll see what I can do in a constructive capacity to help him with that effort if he decides to go ahead. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a good place to begin adding some of these links would be with Committees of correspondence, which is not mentioned once in the article. This was one of the working arms of many of the founders, set up by Samuel Adams, and by means of correspondence between the colonies was instrumental in organizing the First Continental Congress. As you must know, many prominent founders were part of this organization, and at least a statement to this effect would do well in an article about the founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Framer-Founders

 * FRAMER-FOUNDERS of the Constitutional democratic-republic to today’s United States of America, of primary interest to modern international readers interested in the regime established by the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, as amended including the Bill of Rights as chosen and upheld by the National Archives. These are certainly to be found among:
 * - (a) “ Signers of the Declaration of Independence ” as discussed above.
 * - (b) “ Signers of the Constitution ” in Convention, and non-signers who then participated in the state Ratification Conventions.
 * Pauline Maier, Ratification: the People debate the Constitution, 1789-1788, paper 2010.
 * - (c) “ Ratification Convention Delegates ” in each state of scholarly note and Delegates later serving in the new Constitutional regime as elected officials, such as George Clinton (vice president) NY. REFERENCE
 * - - Pennsylvania : 46-23. YES leaders: James Wilson, Thomas McKean, Benjamin Rush ; NO leaders: Robert Whitehill, William Findley, John Smilie. (p.106)
 * - - Delaware : unanimous in four days. (p.122)
 * - - New Jersey : 38-0 unanimous in one day. (p.122)
 * - - Georgia : 26-0 unanimous ih one day. (p.123)
 * - - Connecticut : 120-40. YES leaders: Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, William Samuel Johnson, Gov. Samuel Huntington, Lt. Gov. Oliver Wolcott. NO leaders: Gen. James Wadsworth. (p.192)
 * MASSACHUSETTS is the first Convention with significant opposition to ratification . Fifty-one (51) out-of-state papers published part or all accounts of the debates. The MA Convention made its official journal available to any publisher on request.(p.166) Supporters to adopt the Constitution agreed with Washington's correspondence, the PA Convention steam roller had been a mistake, a democratic government required "cordiality" before the people would accept the Constitution peacefully.(p.158)
 * - - Massachusetts : 187-168. YES leaders: Rufus King, Nathaniel Gorham, Caleb Strong, Theophilus Parsons, Tristram Dalton, sitting Governor John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames, former Gov. James Bowdoin, former opponent CHARLES TURNER -- of the seminal/signal sermon in 1773 -- voted ‘yes’ at Federalist reconciling instructions to MA First Congress delegation to pursue and vote for a Bill of Rights amendments (p.205). NO, but unlike Pennsylvania post-Convention, publicly agreed to abide with the Constitution if it were adopted nationally, Gen. Samuel Thompson, Dr. John Taylor, Gilbert Dench, Eldridge Gerry (ex-officio) (p.171-2, 192, 195-7), William Widgery, Abraham White, General Josiah Whitney (p.202,209).
 * - - Remaining six state summaries … to follow …
 * - (d) “Leaders ordaining the Constitution in 1789” (i) the First Continental Congress, (ii) First President & Cabinet, (iii) First Supreme Court (John Jay, Chief Justice), (iv) Select Committee for the Bill of Rights reported July 21, 1789. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment
 * Great research and layout, thanks. On the same topic, today I read John Adams' description of the opening sessions and discussions of the First Continental Congress and there seems no doubt, from his viewpoint and what he chose to focus on, that this Congress assumed it was creating a government for the union of states (no longer 13 individual colonies but one entity) with discussions about if little colonies would have the same voting power as larger colonies in their new Congress, and even talk about writing a constitution. No matter what was said in addressing themselves to the king of England, these men were unmistakenly taking the path to independence, and this is reflected in Adams' inside-baseball renditions of the Congress. Leaves little doubt that these delegates were Founding Fathers, purposely pursuing the goal of national unification in its most time-honored form. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @TheVirginiaHistorian and @Randy Kryn: Please refer to my last comment (immediately above). Allreet (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * With the addition of more comments, "above" is no longer clear. The comment I'm referring to begins with a ping to Gwillhickers followed by "Double talk". Allreet (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Actions of First Continental Congress led to war

 * "You're overestimating sentiments favoring war prior to Lexington-Concord. And I believe you're "post dating" the beginning to late 1774 to try to portray the Continental Association as the cause of the war. You just attempted to publish this idea a few days ago based on a source you misread. Which means you don't actually have a source for this "is what largely led to war". Allreet (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)




 * You continue to underestimate the sentiments that led to war in some attempt to pass off the Continental Association as this inconsequential boycott, with no threat of independent government, that did not at all factor into the war, and as if events surrounding Lexington and Concord were the only cause of war, which, again, ignores (very) much of the history. And I really didn't misread or base any idea on one source after all, because the prospect of and debates over the boycott were known by all the public, British officials, loyalists and observers as well, months before it was adopted, with plenty of time for this news to get back to the King, long before he wrote his letter. You tried to gloss that over by saying the King's letter couldn't have been referring to the boycott because it was adopted after he wrote his letter, ignoring, or perhaps ignorant of, the idea that the boycott was in the works long before the letter was written. We been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ammerman says a lot of things. Regarding the beginning: "The Boston Tea Party initiated a series of events which led directly to the American Revolution" (p. 200) The Congress did all it could to avoid war: "Fearing that Massachusetts Bay - which was widely regarded as more radical than any other colony - might initiate conflict with the troops stationed in Boston, Congress sought to avoid that possibility. The delegates asked Massachusetts to avoid taking aggressive measures and promised that if the Bay Colony was attacked it would be supported by the other colonies acting in concert" (p. 200).
 * And I have not made an "attempt to pass off the Continental Association as this inconsequential boycott, with no threat of independent government". That's just your irritation with the fact that I don't agree everything that happened in the 1770s can be traced to this one action of the Congress, as you and a few of your sources do. Allreet (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The King's letter was in response to actions of the First Continental Congress in their effort to challenge Parliament's right to legislate taxes for the colonies. The Continental Association was the working arm to that challenge.


 * Here's a source that has the chronology wrong. As we've discussed, the King wrote to North just as the Congress was beginning. His comment had nothing to do with its "intransigence". Allreet (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The idea that the actions of the First Continental Congress are what directly led to war is articulated quite well, in the below passage also.






 * The first Continental Congress was formed on September 5 in response to the Coercive Acts. George III refused to listen to demands of the F.C.C. to repeal them or face a boycott, and even snubbed suggestions from his peers to do so to avoid war.








 * King George III was constantly informed of events and tensions that were mounting in 1774. He was misinformed, however, by former governor Hutchinson who claimed that most of the colonists were loyal, and that it would only take a small force to subdue the rebellion, further encouraging the King to resort to war.














 * The following passage is being included as it sheds direct light on the British mindset that ignored all proposals made by the colonies, which led directly to war.


 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of which significantly predates the Continental Congress. The unrest began not long after the Tea Act, May 1773, and boiled over with the Boston Tea Party, December 1773. The Intolerable Acts were passed in response, March-May 1774, and Virginia's Fairfax Resolves, predecessor to the Continental Association, were adopted shortly thereafter, July 1774. Then, as Congress was just getting underway, the Suffolk Resolves were passed in Massachusetts. Indeed, the King was correct about the die being cast, though at the time he had no knowledge of the Congress - his reference was to preceding events. Thus, your claim that the "The King's letter was in response to actions of the First Continental Congress" is a falsehood, and the passages you've cited don't do a thing to improve on it. Allreet (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Allreet, The passages were mostly cited to support the idea that the actions of the First continental Congress were what led to war, not the letter. Notice the title of this section. Many of the events were what brought the First Continental Congress together. The king's letter was written on September 11, 1774. Before that the movement to form the Congress had long since been in the works, as I've already mentioned. There was no official Continental Congress established at the time the letter was written, but it was referring to the public and official actions of the individuals who were organizing and would come together as that Congress, and many of the statements in this section clearly lends itself to that idea, among other things. "Throughout the summer of 1774, in response to the Intolerable Acts, the movement for a Congress of delegates from all the colonies gained momentum, and each colony chose delegates to send to Philadelphia." You seem to be assuming that King Geoge III didn't have any idea of what was going on, in spite of the fact that he was routinely being informed by a number of sources all along.  The important thing is that the article be clear about the collective actions of the First Continental Congress, esp in regard to Samuel Adams' role, outlined in this section, which led directly to war, which is the theme of this section title. This can be accomplished with or without the quote, but it should be included in the proper context to reflect the King's state of mind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And many sources offer divergent points of view - on most issues. For example, as I mentioned above, Ammmerman believes, as I do, that events began with the Boston Tea Party. I also don't disagree with the significance of the Continental Congress and its adoption of the Continental Association. I do disagree that this significance is of the scale affored two other documents that are recognized by most sources as "founding documents". Nearly all regard the Declaration and Constitution. As for a third document, relatively few, but enough worth mentioning, believe the same of the Articles of Confederation. This cannot be said of the Continental Association.
 * As for "the important thing is that the article be clear about the collective actions of the First Continental Congress", of course. But given all that would have to be covered here as "background", that means a summary of a paragraph or two at most. Greater detail, then, must be left to other articles. Allreet (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * — Opinions among historians regarding which documents are the most significance vary. It's understood that most regard the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the most significant in terms of present day government, but few will deny that the early years of the revolutionary era are what formed the basis to all the debates and documents that emerged during this time. No doubt the ideas of revolution and independence began with over-taxation without representation, leading to the Boston Tea party and the subsequent Intolerable Acts, which in turn prompted the formation of the First Continental Congress, which included George Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Randolph, et al., who drafted and adopted the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress and then the Continental Association. These are the documents that first put the ideas of independent representation, moreover, complete independence, squarely on the table -- so squarely that Britain declared war in short order. These events are what gave birth to the founding, and we can't just brush this off by referring to sources that don't mention the Continental Association as much as the Constitution. The Constitution was sort of the 'grand finally' and is the document which governs the United States today, so of course it is covered and studied the most by historians and law students, but that does not diminish the importance of the events that gave birth to the revolution and the founding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)




 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done, this section once again presents a full researched premise and academic level discussion which argues well that sources and a narrative do exist to show that delegates to the First Continental Congress were pioneering founders with a direct effect on creating the nation. Many of the Congressional delegates knew full well that their actions would result in a war, and that the king would take, and had to take, such a firm and logical stand (from his nation's viewpoint) and end up declaring "rebellion" on Congress. They prepared for this consequential choice. , because of your comments above I added the Fairfax Resolves to the Continental Association portion of the Historical American Documents navbox, where it should have been all along. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. King George was always kept abreast of affairs from the moment the colonists began challenging British authority and the many taxes and acts they had imposed. By 1774, even though efforts for reconciliation were still attempted, most of the colonists knew that war was inevitable, and began stockpiling munitions in Concord where Samuel Adams and others began electing new militia officers and organized the Minute men in preparation for this inevitable event. The unrest over the Intolerable Acts, resulting in the formation of the First continental Congress with its Declaration and Resolves and the Continental Association, further confirmed for the King and Parliament that the colonists had no intention of complying with British authority, which is why Gage was sent to Concord with orders to seize military supplies and to arrest Adams and Hancock.
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. King George was always kept abreast of affairs from the moment the colonists began challenging British authority and the many taxes and acts they had imposed. By 1774, even though efforts for reconciliation were still attempted, most of the colonists knew that war was inevitable, and began stockpiling munitions in Concord where Samuel Adams and others began electing new militia officers and organized the Minute men in preparation for this inevitable event. The unrest over the Intolerable Acts, resulting in the formation of the First continental Congress with its Declaration and Resolves and the Continental Association, further confirmed for the King and Parliament that the colonists had no intention of complying with British authority, which is why Gage was sent to Concord with orders to seize military supplies and to arrest Adams and Hancock.
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)












 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Dates for the beginning of the Revolution abound. They range from 1763 with the end of the French-Indian War to 1773 and the Boston Tea Party to April 19, 1775 with the outbreak of hostilities. Allreet (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In 1763 the idea of revolution was at best an abstract idea that was entertained by only a few people. Even Samuel Adams at this time was not pushing that idea. The idea of independence wasn't seriously considered in significant measure until Britain closed down Boston Harbor, among other things, with its Intolerable Acts, and even then, general acceptance to the idea of complete independence came slowly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC ruling
Editors are always allowed to discuss the subject, especially when new sources come to light, and there have been many. The ruling of the RfC in questions clearly states:


 * "The ongoing discussions on this page evidence that this close will not end all disputes regarding who to include as Founding Fathers. As always, consensus can change, and long-standing text can later be challenged and removed if editors decide it is no longer due for inclusion."

This latest development seems to be an attempt to divert attention away from the sources and as a means to disrupt the latest discussions.

There has indeed been some talk about another RfC from time to time, while no one has made any edits to the article in violation of the RfC ruling. Since that ruling many news sources have come to light and it's only fair that they be taken into consideration in an objective manner. These sources clearly support the idea that the First Continental Congress, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress and the Continental Association were very important elements involved in the founding. These sources can be viewed here and here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An important statement in the RfC close all but asks that the discussion and research on the status of the delegates of the First Continental Congress to continue. The quote (italics included in original): "editors achieved a rough consensus that the article should not list the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers on that basis alone." The RfC close does not say that the signers of the CA are not founders but that before they are formally recognized with the title on Wikipedia the determination needs more basis and foundation. Hence the continued research and discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The closers recognized only that the ruling "will not end all disputes regarding who to include as Founding Fathers". Their statement reflects a belief that they've settled only this dispute, as opposed to all others. In any case, they definitely did not rule, as you've said, that the question "needs more basis and foundation". Allreet (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes one ruling over one issue. i.e. Signers who only signed the C.A., which again ignores their overall involvements concerning the founding process. They acknowledged that the RfC ruling "will not end all disputes", and it hasn't, and editors have every right to debate various points, so long as no one goes into the actual article and begins making edits against that ruling, and no one has. Yet look at some editors running around with their hair on fire.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Jessie Kratz, Historian of the National Archives
Since I haven't memorized all of the sources that editors have found I don't know if this blog article from the Historian of the National Archives has been mentioned. Came across it when I was trying to find an internet source for the Journals of the Continental Congress (which are probably quite the thing, has anyone here read them?). As a bonus the article explains when the original Continental Association was publicly exhibited at the Archives (2015).

The author of the article [Edit: is Alley Marie Jordan, graduate research intern in the National Archives History Office in Washington, D.C., on Jessie Kratz's blog and introduced by Kratz] from an Archives link: "Jessie Kratz, Historian of the National Archives is managing editor of Pieces of History. She manages the National Archives History Office and runs the agency’s oral history program. Jessie has been with the National Archives since 1999. She loves American History, especially anything related to Alexander Hamilton. Jessie has a B.A. from St. Ambrose University and M.A. from the George Washington University."

Kratz's [Edit: blog with Alley Marie Jordan's] article: "The Articles of Association: Liberty through Economic Independence"

From Kratz's [Edit: blog, Jordan's] article: :Thanks again for your criticism and concern. No, neither or myself planned to disregard consensus about returning the signers of the Continental Association as founders as, the RfC close said, "on that basis alone". Reading comprehension may come into play here (I call myself out on that too, as it's important to use provable facts in such a discussion, especially when major accustational actions take place such as the good faith but utterly mistaken reasoning of the recent ANI trip). As for the number of Founders, it is finite, and as an encyclopedia the page should include that set of individuals and list them in some form. This page has taken several forms, each one would pass WP:NPOV and WP:DUE (there have been concerns mentioned about some of the entries, which should be discussed individually). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"The writers of the Articles of Association viewed Great Britain’s authority as tyrannical and understood that they needed to control and use their own resources to survive without Great Britain.

"Furthermore, America’s economic independence would then lead to its political independence.

"The Articles of Association, which later inspired the 1776 Declaration of Independence, is a significant document because it established the colonies’ recognition of their own economic disenfranchisement under the authority of England.

"Moreover, the Articles established the colonists’ want and need for economic independence. Even before the Declaration of Independence, the Americans were preparing themselves for a break with Great Britain."

Good stuff. Then, for our discussion, the money shot:

"The early Americans’ sense of liberty and loyalty to economic freedom became manifest in this document.

"For early Americans, as for contemporary ones, economic freedom and personal liberty were one in the same. The freedom to own one’s property and to use it in the best way one sees fit was an essential tenet of the Founders’ philosophy. For the Founders, the inability to control one’s economy and economic status led to the inability to control one’s political life.

"The rarely viewed Articles of Association will be on display in the East Rotunda Gallery of the National Archives in Washington, DC, from June 4 through July 29, 2015."

If this has been linked here before, thanks for doing so, I haven't kept up with everything. If not, WP:BLOG would come down to one question: Is she a subject matter expert? If so, CA signers as Founders source worthy? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a good source, meaning it has good things to say in terms of understanding the nature of the Continental/Articles of Association. I should note that while this is Jessie Kratz's blog, the article was written by an intern. Nonetheless, it obviously has her endorsement. Whether it's sufficient for recognizing signers of the CA as founders is another question. Entire books are written about the founding - for example, Ellis's American Creation and Founding Brothers or Bernstein's Founding Fathers Reconsidered - with only passing references to the CA. So would I accept this source in conjunction with articles that say next to nothing about founders and much about the CA? Most likely not.
 * Regarding the Journals, here's an Internet Archive link to Volume 19, which I believe covers 1781. At the bottom of the page, you'll find links to other volumes. And no, I haven't read them, but I will. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My reaction to the article, after a closer read, is that the author's interpretations go afield of what both the document and other sources say. So it's not just a matter of the fact that most major historians give the CA little attention. It's a case of the writer offering opinions that aren't expressed anywhere, including the Articles itself. As one example, the passage from Article 11 says foes of "the rights of British-America (are) enemies of American liberty". This is not an appeal for freedom from Great Britain, but for recognition of their rights as British subjects. Thus, anyone violating the Articles would be a considered an enemy of their liberties. The objective of this provision was to ensure adherence to the boycott. Where she finds a connection between this and economic freedom or the idea that they were seeking independence from England is beyond me. Allreet (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Economic freedom for colonies in those days was constricted by mercantilism. A boycott eviscerates the rationale of mercantilism entirely, practically making colonies of no use to the central power and instead making colonies impractical and a huge drain. But I really do wish a blog of the NA, would have at least a short bibliography (msg to research associate: that's how you show research) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood regarding mercantilism, except the aim of the economic pressure was not total freedom from the motherland. The radicals, of course, favored separation, but the majority in Congress was composed of moderates and conservatives who were to hold out until the following June. The CA, then, while defiant was in no way intended as a declaration of independence, even if John and Sam Adams saw it that way. And, yes, references of some sort would have clarified matters and with that, the essay's value. Allreet (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that the author of the blog essay wasn't Kratz herself, an example of a blip in my reading comprehension. I've edited my first post here to reflect accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okie doke. On that note, I'd like to retract a lot of things I've said on the fly, but there are only so many hours in a day, so I'll just have to take my lumps. :) Allreet (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to for  locating the Alley Marie Jordan essay about the Continental Association. First, it should be said that the intentions of the majority of Congress is not what determines whether something was being founded. The major concern is that they indeed introduced the idea of independence, as Jordan puts it,
 * "to free themselves economically from Great Britain"
 * the key word here being "free", and,
 * "The writers of the Articles of Association viewed Great Britain’s authority as tyrannical and understood that they needed to control and use their own resources to survive without Great Britain.
 * Yes, to survive "without" Great Britain. The idea of independence is again asserted with,
 * The 11th Article asserted that “all such foes to the rights of British-America may be publicly known, and universally condemned as the enemies of American liberty; and thenceforth we respectively will break off all dealings with him or her.”
 * The phrase "enemies of American liberty" again asserts America as an entity separate from Britain. Jordan also affirms the idea that the Continental Association was a document written by the founders:
 * The freedom to own one’s property and to use it in the best way one sees fit was an essential tenet of the Founders’ philosophy. For the Founders, the inability to control one’s economy and economic status led to the inability to control one’s political life.
 * The Americans clearly wanted to control their own political and economic destiny. It's rather apparent that the principles set forth in this document constituted the beginning of the founding of colonial union and ultimately an independent American government. We don't have to refer to this as a "founding document" but our article should cover how the founders set the colonies clearly on the road to independence with their own government, and that the key players in the First Continental Congress, i.e.Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Randolph should be mentioned in this regard. As most if not all of us know, this is not the only source that establishes these ideas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The Journals of the Continental Congress are located and available for download at archive.org. Volume I lends itself to the First Continental Congress and is located here where the Articles of Association are mentioned repeatedly. Reference to King George III famous quote can be found in Volume II, p. 62 The pdf files are searchable, online or off. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank, I haven't looked at them as yet, and would expect some gems in there as well as on the National Archives website (which was where I found the blog essay discussed in this section). I would say that Alley Marie Jordan's blog essay, seemingly endorsed by the Historian of the National Archives, gives outline, language, and analysis to the importance of the Continental Association and its place in the rolling-thunder expansion from colonies to country in such a way that it rivals Werther in eventually providing one of the sources for including its signers as Founders (depending on future RfC approval and aside from sources which include all delegates of the First Continental Congress). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Joseph Warren: a founder perhaps as significant as Adams
Who was Dr. Joseph Warren? As you'll find from WP's article, he was a Harvard graduate, an associate of Sam Adams and John Hancock, and the guy who dispatched Paul Revere and William Dawes on their midnight rides. The next day he coordinated militia troops in the Battles of Lexington and Concord. At the time, he was president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, the most revolutionary government body in the colonies, which named him a major general the same day the Continental Army was founded, June 14, 1775. And it's conceivable Warren may have gone on to become one of the nation's first presidents.

So why don't we know about him? Three days after being commissioned a general, Warren chose to fight as a private at the Battle of Bunker Hill, where he died in combat. Afterwards, his body was mutilated and then beheaded - the British knew who he was. John Adams among others was devastated by Warren's death, but with all that was soon to follow, the 34-year-old physician's part in the start of the Revolution was all but forgotten.

Of course, Warren's legacy is not completely lost to history. Fourteen counties in the U.S. are named for him, as are 10 towns, 30 townships, and many streets. Numerous sources also document his contributions, recognizing Warren with the title Founding Father, as I just did in our article. Citations to follow. Allreet (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No question, Warren's involvements and contributions indeed places him among the founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources to consider:
 * Monument to Joseph Warren, its origin, history and dedication, 1898-1904, p. 82


 * Founding Martyr: Di Spigna (2018) The Life and Death of Dr. Joseph Warren, the American Revolution's Lost Hero

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dr. Joseph Warren: Architect of the Revolution


 * So pick one and post it. IMO, the book would be best. Allreet (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was listening to a song this morning from Mandolin Orange's 2016 CD Blindfaller. The opening lyric made me do a double take listening wise:
 * Brave men fall with a battlecry
 * Tears fill the eyes of their loved ones and their brothers in arms
 * And so it went for Joseph Warren
 * It should have been different, it could have been easy
 * His rank could've saved him but a country unborn needs bravery
 * And it spread like wildfire.
 * Allreet (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI closure: warnings
@Robert McClenon, I see that you closed the ANI filed by @The Gnome, and I agree with your analysis. Thank you. I also want to thank The Gnome for initiating this action. I purposely chose to stay out of the discussion, because I felt other editors would settle things, and in any case, I wasn't in favor of banning anyone, particularly @TheVirginiaHistorian.

However, it isn't clear to me exactly where you've left this. You said @Randy Kryn and @Gwillhickers should be warned about their tenldentious behavior, but you didn't specifically say what that warning is or means and what would result should it be ignored. Would you mind clarifying?

I would like to proceed with some needed revisions and additions to the article that I've been holding off on for weeks, because of the general behavior you pointed to, which by the way has included some minor edit warring that was disruptive enough that it made the thought of more significant changes uninviting. I also believe that both editors have had a tendency toward incivility that has turned the Talk page into something of a hostile environment. Part of this is a combination of ridicule and more direct abuse, and part is their resolute refusal to accept what WP's policies - VER, NOR, RS, Relevance - clearly state. Allreet (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, tell us what you really think. Please note that Robert did not close the ANI, another editor did, and there were no warnings given (Robert's comment about warnings was his own comment, not a close, so a touch of the ultimately productive reading comprehension bits I first noticed with your non-understanding of the Werther article). There was a constructive closer suggestion to proceed with a series of narrowly-focused RfCs to clarify discussion points and analysis. If you'd like please give a summary of the changes you've been wanting to do for weeks. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've told you what I think for months, and with that, I'm done in terms of debating, especially basic issues related to WP's policies. You can review the changes as I make them and offer feedback or edit as you see fit. If you need to know anything beforehand, you can review what I've said previously regarding the summary/background section. I also plan to make changes to the "analysis" section, which I outlined before though I suspect those parts of the Talk page have been archived. Much of what I plan to add should satisfy you, though I intend to adhere to the consensus and ruling of the Continental Association RFC, whether that's to your liking or not.
 * All other editors are, of course, welcome to join in, but I will not be dragged into another pointless back and forth where you and @Gwillhickers steadfastly refuse to acknowledge basic policies that are perfectly clear to other editors regarding original research, reliable sources, relevance, and so forth.
 * If the ANI has in fact not resolved anything and either of you insist on continuing with your disruptive behaviors, I will take action accordingly to ensure that WP's policies are followed, including those that relate to civility. I have no intention to negotiate any of the above and consider all this part of my prerogative as an editor, so keep that in mind if you intend to argue with what I just said. Allreet (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I see @Randy Kryn is correct that little of substance was accomplished by the ANI. That's okay, I say "of substance" because your feedback and the input of other editors has made clear a general path for ending the tenldentiousness that has prolonged this dispute beyond all reason. I would appreciate any other feedback you may have. Allreet (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I closed the ANI report, and I am NOT going to get involved in the discussion or content here, but I really think you need to get back to the basics, even if they've been agreed to previously, and set some definition, some criteria to be "unquestionably a founding father", "sometimes called a founding father", "questionable they are a founding father" and "erroneously called a founding father", or really, I have no idea what groups it would be, but you do. But break it down a bit, then you can discuss who belongs where, and everyone live with the resulting consensus, even if you don't like it.  But I think you need a little structure to how you group these, and keep a shortened version pinned to top of this page once you ALL arrive to a conclusion.  Let's be honest, the phrase "founding father" is a bit nebulous.  It's not not like saying "Bob was a lawyer", which can easily be shown by a degree and practice.  "Founding Father" is often in the eye of the beholder, so lets stop poking each others eyes out and find a basic structure to group these with first.  Please understand if I don't follow or reply.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for chiming in. Yes, the term Founding Father is sometimes an ambiguous idea and there is of course some differences of opinion in the scholarship, but most do agree they involve the major military leaders, the Continental Congress, which first stood up against British authority and introduced basic founding principles, along with the framers of the Articles of Confederation and of course the Constitution. Most of the debates are over how the sources are interpreted. Your help trying to resolve matters along with a voice of moderation is greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * — Allreet, I was all set to commend you for your restraint and not participating in the ANI and for going the distance with us while never resorting to the underhanded measure the Gnome stooped to – then I read your latest post here. Instead of moving on you're now using this Talk page to vent and lay blame on others for the on going debates, with which you were and continue to be a major participant, while ignoring your own "tenldentious" behavior, which is one of the major reasons these debates have dragged on, along with the chronic accusations of synth, or O.R. at every turn. And now here you are, trying to intimidate editors from discussing matters further, which is clearly tenldentious. There are many sources to consider, and editors have every right to discuss questionable matters on Talk pages, and apparently what's got you so resentful  is that we are doing this rather effectively, with the scholarship. The Gnome's attempt to ban three long time contributors of revolution era articles from 'all' such articles was clearly an act of overkill and malicious and vindictive behavior, and you seem to share that same mindset.  So be my guest and file another ANI, and we can have a repeat of the same nonsense the Gnome tried to get away with - we will not be intimidated in this manner. We have violated no policies whatsoever, thank you. While we're at it, a measure of synth is perfectly acceptable, so you might do well and refer to this page, esp items 6, 15, 20 and 25. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, 's response surprised me as well, and I expected him to come by the ANI and point out that it was an obvious good faith mistake on 's part to think that three fellow editors were breaking consensus. Instead his response to Robert here (this section), seemingly happily thinking that Robert had closed the ANI and has lowered the boom on myself and which gave him the backing to add his long-hoped for edits (many or all of which may be quite good), then topping it off by thanking The Gnome for putting up what was obvious to editors here an inaccurately portrayed ANI, gives a sense of not wanting collaboration. If someone tried to mistakenly ANI Allreet for his edits here I'm sure we'd all show up to support him and not thank someone for the good faith attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Three editors were intent on breaking the RFC's consensus. In fact, one of them, @TheVirginiaHistorian, admitted this in reversing his opinion. Another, @Gwillhickers, also suggested violating the ruling by promoting the idea of reinstating signers to the Chart of Founders who had been rejected in the RFC. And, of course, you have lobbied against the RFC's ruling for months. As for tendentious behavior, anyone who wants to "sue" me for standing up for WP's policies is welcome to try. Persistence in support of universally accepted values is a virtue, whereas a persistent disregard for policy has no chance of success. Allreet (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I accepted the RfC and took its advice that it did not end the question and that the delegates who signed the CA shouldn't be listed on that alone but would need more proof of Founding Father status, proof that has worked on and continues to provide in many forms which, at some point, will result in another RfC as suggested in the ANI close. Would be nice if you could turn the mirror on yourself and realize that your language and occasional misunderstanding has caused much of the derision here. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Apaugasma, please see the above comment. I have nothing to say to @Gwillhickers based on my past experience. I have quoted and explained original research and related issues to him a dozen times or more, and I can see here he's still not willing to accept what the vast majority of editors regard as "gospel" in terms of WP:NOR. However, as part of the brief ANI, I noticed that you were able to communicate with him on this subject. If you don't mind, would you reiterate in summary form what you told him? It's my view that he finally agreed with you after a series of exchanges, and he now seems to have reneged on the understanding the two of you reached. Allreet (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The vast majority of editors" have never resorted to such reaching ideas to bolster their otherwise failed arguing over what is "original research". It is not O.R. to refer to an individual of the Continental Congress as a founder, when sources define that Congress as founding fathers or among the framers. It is neither O.R. to use terms like formed, or established in place of founded.  Nor is it O.R. to use the term Union in place of Nation in the context of e.g. Lincoln's statement. This sort of thing is all that was ever put on the table in the repeated attempts to write off all the sources and discussions of other editors as something that amounts to "original research", and here we are again while Allreet repeats himself and complains about "tenldentious" behavior and dragged out debates. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Confusion About the AN Close
I have a few more comments at this point. (I will not say that they will be brief. I have learned that my comments often are not brief, but I hope that they will be to the point.)  The controversy about this article and related articles clearly has gotten so complicated that editors are becoming confused. First, User:The Gnome was mistaken as to the subjects of the RFCs in filing the WP:AN report. Second, User:Allreet was mistaken in reading the close of the report, in thinking that I had closed it with a warning. I made a comment and said that User:Randy Kryn and User:Gwillhickers should be given a warning for tendentiousness. User:Dennis Brown then closed it as not requiring administrative action (which was consistent with my comment), but provided an admonition.

I will follow up on User:Dennis Brown's admonition by saying that, in my opinion, User:Randy Kryn and User:Gwillhickers are trying to oversimplify a complex and subtle historical issue by trying to find formulaic ways for labeling large groups of people as Founding Fathers. That is the wrong approach, in my opinion. As long as they continue to try to find more sources to blanket-categorize groups of people as Founding Fathers of the United States, the issue will continue to radiate in the infrared rather than the visible. If you keep on trying to find more sources to justify blanket categorization, the controversy will continue, and the next time that there is an WP:ANI report, you won't get off with an admonition.

It isn't a matter of finding the right perfect sources to conclude the issue. It also isn't a matter of silencing or topic-banning anyone. It is a matter of slowing down and being reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding admonitions, @Gwillhickers is engaging in several forms of behavior that I believe are unacceptable:
 * He steadfastly refuses to recognize what our policies say. During the brief ANI,


 * — First let me say I received no "admonition" from Dennis Brown. What he in fact said was "The behavior isn't such that a topic ban is warranted, even if it is frustrating to some. The problem seems to be a lack of definition of something that can't easily be defined because the term didn't come into being until the men were all long gone. (emphasis added) — Dennis accurately define the situation. Also, I don't appreciate the veiled threat that the "next time" I won't "get off" because I've done nothing that any of the other editors hasn't done, except get wrapped up in ongoing debates over what the sources mean, and most importantly, have violated no policies. If anyone's behavior needs to be reviewed it would be the editor who filed such an outlandish and vindictive ANI, trying to topic ban three long time contributors to Revolution articles from all Revolution era articles.


 * Also, regarding any attempt to "blanket-categorize groups", the only group we are concerned about are those who were removed from the chart under the assumption that they were not founders simply because they only signed the Continental Association, which again, ignores the idea that they were delegates of the First Continental Congress, many of whom went on as members in the Second Continental Congress, who introduced independent colonial representation, and who openly defied British authority. Such a narrow approach also entertains the assumption that an individual had to of sign something to be a founder, while there are plenty of names of individuals in the article who signed no founding document, including Thomas Paine and Abigail Adams.


 * In the same manner that many of the existing names are listed as founders because they signed the Constitution we should apply the same standard to members of both Continental Congresses, with no need to cite each and every individual name. There are no individual citations for all the Constitution signatories because it is understood they were founders for their involvement in the debates and ratification of the Constitution, and so it easily could be asserted that they have been blanket-categorized. Until they receive individual citations they remain blanket categorized, which there's really nothing wrong with considering their involvements are covered by the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My thoughts in no particular order: 1) Dennis was less than right that there is no definition (we have one at the top of the article), there maybe more than one definition, but it is not a case that there is no definition, and yes, the up-top definition is pretty broad. 2) As Robert suggests, The Gnome's complaint made little sense, perhaps because they seemed confused between the Continental Association and the Articles of Confederation and what RfC was about what. 3) Randy Kryn would do everyone a favor by knowing by now the sources, and talking about sources, as would some others (for example, multiple times on this page the Bernstein book has been brought up as listing all the DOI signers in his Founding Fathers book, so the next time someone asks him where is a signer listed as a founding father he should by now be able to point to it like second nature) 4) I don't know what the issues between Allreet and Gwillhickers are, so I will leave Robert to sort that out. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to save @Robert McClenon, a few keystrokes, the issue between both @Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn and me is the lack of sources recognizing the Continental Association as a founding document and its signers as founders. Since no sources can be found that state either, @Gwillhickers has Bludgeoned this Talk page with sources on the mistaken belief if he can carpet together multiple sources that view the Continental Association as an important step in the nation's founding, he can offer the conclusion that it must be a founding document.
 * I am sure Gwillhickers will tell you a different story, but that's the issue in a nutshell. I should also point out that while Robert and Dennis Brown have described this as a very complicated issue, it's really not. As with any assertions we make as editors, if sources say something is so, it's so. If they don't say so, we can't. It was easy then to identify signers of the Declaration and Constitution as founders, quite a bit more difficult in terms of finding sources for the Articles of Confederation, and a total no-go for the Continental Association. Allreet (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet another weaseled and skewed account of my efforts and the sources, and evidently Allreet has not really 'read' what the sources are saying, including Lincoln's statement where he acknowledges that the Union was first formed by the Continental Association. Once again, I've gathered many scholarly sources, partially in the effort for the erroneous assumption that there were few sources that cover these things, while they are routinely dismissed on the rather shallow idea that e.g. these sources don't use terms like "founding document", or "founding father". Anyone new to the discussion who may be interested in what sources have been routinely ignored, including Lincoln's statement, can view them here and here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[[

Absolutely unacceptable behavior
During the recent ANI, @Robert McClenon pointed to two editors - @Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn - as engaging in tendentious behavior. For those who don't know, this means "a manner of editing that, when taken as a whole, is partisan, biased, or skewed. It does not conform to neutral point of view...(and) tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." Frankly, I believe this accurately describes what both are doing. However, what is occurring in Gwillhickers's case goes beyond this: I was recently surveyed - three times as a matter of fact - about my experience in editing in Wikipedia. The question was along the lines of "do I feel safe here?". The answer I gave each time was "no". I believe Gwillhickers's consistently uncivil behavior borders on menacing and has turned this page into a hostile environment. Allreet (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Many, actually most, of his responses to me on this Talk page contain insults and personal attacks. See his last comment above that begins "Yet another weaseled and skewed account..." He then continues with one accusation after another, all without basis in fact. For example, I read not just the passages he quotes, but significant portions of the sources they're taken from. The upside is I've learned a lot. The downside is the unfairness of his accusations. Rather than endure more of this, I have stopped responding to his posts.
 * Gwillhickers has consistently refused to acknowledge guidelines related to Original Research. During the ANI, another editor pinned him down and finally got him to recognize that what he was doing with his "slew of sources" was "classic SYNTH". To no avail. He's back touting views that are wholly his own, meaning not one source can be found that expresses his conclusions.
 * He has deluged these pages with tens of thousands of words over the past several months. Yet he's made only two edits of any note in all this time. In the first, he misquoted King George III and was forced to remove his assertion. In the second, he changed a phrase I had used in the lede rendering it nonsensical. I reverted his change, and when he reverted my revert, I re-worded the passage to end his pointless objection.
 * There is a part of the definition you left out by using ellipses, the part in boldface: "It does not conform to neutral point of view, and it fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." As far as I know there have been "no repetitive attempts to insert or delete content" or a frustration of editorial processes and discussion by either Gwillhickers or myself regarding the inclusion of the delegates to the First Continental Congress as founders. Gwillhickers has worked hard and dug deep to provide more sources and more analysis for that position every time you asked for them. Hopefully all of this back and forth will provide you a safer place here, and we all should apologize for sometimes going overboard in language and finger pointing. But since, as Patrick Henry said, the First Continental Congress was about creating America, something Abraham Lincoln later publicly recognized, I don't think it's surprising or unwarranted to discuss its importance at length. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My omission of "neutral point of view" was solely to focus on immediate relevance. But as a matter of fact, the thought gets to the heart of what's wrong with what both of you are doing. You have both started with a forgone conclusion, and all of the research that has been done and comments offered have been aimed at proving that conclusion. That's far from a neutral approach to research or discussion.
 * It should also be noted that the "tendentious" essay is primarily about editing, very little of which has been done, so you could say "no harm, no foul", except that this is where bias has "frustrated certain editorial processes and discussions". And I'll add that this frustration has led to the incivility on all fronts. I believe, then, that for the sake of civility and the community, the discussion on the Talk page should end immediately. By all means, continue to do all the research you want, but unless/until there's some breakthrough or an RFC is initiated there's no point sharing more of the same.
 * "Stifle discourse?" Yes, if someone has been told by multiple editors that what they are doing is Original Research and they acknowledged the view of the last of these editors, continuing to do more of the same is a level of tendentiousness that would warrant some form of sanction. If you want, I'll post the dialogue in question, though you can look it up yourself by revisiting the ANI discussion. Allreet (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Allow me to share two observations about Wikipedia editors. The first concerns the attribute that you, Allreet, are bringing into relief, civility. It has been my experience that veteran editors who have put in many hours of work into the project and have performed excellently in the encyclopaedic aspect of Wikipedia but who have also been consistently or quite often uncivil, tend to get themselves out. I've seen it many times. I witness an editor's work and it's admirable, yet at the same time I see episodes of boorishness and bullying. Then, I check back some months or years later and they have either absconded on their own, been put on several editing restrictions, or even been banned from posting altogether. (An unhappy case that comes to mind is that of Jytdog.)
 * The second observation is more general. And, in my mind, quite ominous for the future of the project, unless significant steps are taken to nullify the trend. As time passes, we have an increase in (a) contributions by paid editors, whose work concerns mainly vanity efforts and constitutes a burden e.g. to the AfD process, and (b) the morphing of congregations of editors who share certain strong beliefs about a specific subject, be it political, historical, ideological, or anything else. We know from history that small yet organized and disciplined groups can outfight groups of greater numerical strength who act individually and disorganized. And I foresee this happening here. (No, I won't go into any specifics since that would derail the conversation towards specifics and this is a general observation. If contributors do not or cannot see what I'm reporting here, then examples won't help.) I consider Wikipedia an achievement of truly historic proportions - and not only because of the quality & quantity of information it imparts, but, more than that, because of the way the whole project functions; a truly people's work, a proof that people can work together in a non-hierarchical, non-antagonistic environment. That project is now in danger. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually like your comments, and things need to cool down on this page in order for all interested editors to work together (although I have not seen anyone here act or write in anything but good faith, even your ANI was good faith based if not factually based, if that can be taken as a compliment). Appreciating your words about Wikipedia and your concern for its future (although not in regard to this page, which seems to be shaping up into a better article - how'd you like them apples Britannica), and there are entire ranges of highly prominent articles I don't edit because the groups who "own" them have already skewed those pages into a hopelessly biased unfactual condition. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Settle it and focus on specific content
The back and forth is getting nowhere, it appears Gwilhickers has a preferred listing, and wants to change the current chart to add back with CA signers. He should know by now, the only way that is going to happen is in a new RfC, and that it is going to be a very hard hill to climb. (And this is coming from someone who had sympathy for the idea that the CA signers were stand-in the First Congress). He should also know by now what his arguments/sources are, and should have an idea whether they will actually persuade. Otherwise, drop it.

Other than starting an RFC about the list, focus now on specific content proposals elsewhere, no more of these detached from content arguments (at least for now).

Suggested areas, is there enough information on achievements/failures? (I think Ellis describes 4 achievements, 2 failures, and a blindspot). Is there enough on criticism of the term? etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker, I agree wholeheartedly. As I said to @Randy Kryn above: "I believe, then, that for the sake of civility and the community, the discussion on the Talk page should end immediately. By all means, continue to do all the research you want, but unless/until there's some breakthrough or an RFC is initiated there's no point sharing more of the same". Allreet (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by the 4-2-and blindspot. Thanks. I think we all know that that the CA signers won't be added as, per the RfC, "on that basis alone", until either a couple more good sources are found besides Werther or someone finally publishes another reputable article addressing the question (, I'm still counting on ya), yet posting sources and analysis about the founding status of delegates of the First Continental Congress as a group falls well within the RfC and needs very little more to edge over the line. I'd planned on adding a section here on John Adams' notes at the First Continental Congress, which clearly show that Patrick Henry and probably many others were talking of it as the founding of America. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, your proposal is to add a list of members of the First Congress, you should know by now, the only way that is going to happen is an RfC. (you should also know by now, primary notes by Adams, are going to be pretty unpersuasive, compared to secondary analysis and use by historians.) I think your continuing to discuss it without the specific edit proposal has led to these "tendentious" arguments and it has obviously gotten really bad.  You all need to STOP and change course ASAP. For Ellis, it is in his book, American Creation.
 * On another matter, has anyone worked to clean-up (cite check) that "social" section? More than a decade ago, it began by discussing a demographic study of only the Framers. I wonder whether it has maintained fidelity to sources or just become a mish, mash of half thought out overbroad stuff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The "social background" section is a mish-mash. It's possible it may have always been one. I believe there's no single source that analyzes the demographics and related characteristics of either the current list of signers or "full set" of founders. The closest would be Richard Werther's article in the Journal of the American Revolution, which analyzes signers of the Continental Association, Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. An excellent article - except for his declaring the Continental Association a "founding document" without any source, a large bone of contention in our current "debate".
 * To write his article, Werther built a database of demographic characteristics: births, education, occupations, religions, etc. However, Werther's article was published five years ago, well after the background section had taken shape so his analysis hasn't been used to any extent. As a matter of fact, I believe the current analysis focuses on what was the section's title for many years: "Collective biography of framers of the Constitution". So to update it, a new analysis would have to be done that accounts for the signers/framers currently listed as well as additional founders. This would be a prodigious undertaking, something of an "original research" project because of the vast number of sources required. Allreet (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the talk page is for article improvement, it is not a gossip circle or a place for someone to get up on a soap box and preach about editing trends, esp from individuals who themselves have resorted to vindictive over reactions, diminishing any future desire for coooperation. In any case, if Adams in his notes says the First Continental Congress was contemplating complete independence then we can and should make simple statements to that effect. There are also plenty of sources that cover how the First Continental Congress was an entity that put the colonists on the road to independence, starting with their Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress and the Continental Association, documents that, among other things, introduced a colonial bill of rights, natural law and independent representation, all basic founding principles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider Werther's essay a good well sourced work, but in an effort to get back on the road to cooperation, I can concede that it not be used. Plenty of other sources are out there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a side note: Crispus Attucks, is listed as a founder because he was killed in the Boston massacre, while the source-citation for this individual (Encyclopedia Britannica) doesn't refer to him as a founding father, or says anything to that effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The source, Founding Fathers, devotes its introduction and first two chapters to describing everyone in the book as founding fathers. Almost none of the individual biographies, including Jefferson's and Franklin's, use this term or a parallel synonym. However, to avoid arguing the point, I added one of several other reliable sources that identify Attucks as a founder. I am leaving the Britannica cite stand. Allreet (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, the book Founding Fathers is the title and general theme of the book, and the group of individuals covered therein can be considered founders, even though Attucks' short encyclopedia article doesn't refer to him as, or even explains why he is a founding father. He was only an innocent bystander at Boston. Attucks' capacity as a supposed founder is, btw, not at all in accord with the opening paragraph in the lede to this article.
 * Evidently we can include someone as a founder, even if they were e.g. a cook for Washington, so long as a source indirectly refers to him or her as a founder. I find that a little reaching. That is the downside of accepting one source at face value, with no explanation about why the individual was a founder. Is this the only source that considers him a founder? In view of the well reasoned lede to this article it would seem that some editorial discretion is called for here. Also, do we really need the additional source, written by someone with a degree in English who is an associate producer at a radio station? Shaffer doesn't refer to Attucks as a founder but in his closing statement only asks if we should consider him as such. Sounds a little politically correct and appeasing. Using the same expectations demanded of Werther, it should be asked, does Shaffer have a degree in history,  how many books on history has he written, and are any of his writings peer reviewed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To characterize the inclusion of Crispus Attucks as equivalent to recognizing George Washington's cook as a founder is more combative than constructive. The source Founding Fathers, in its introduction and first two chapters, clearly identifies everyone in the book as a founder. Attucks, who is considered a hero for being the first person to die in the Revolution, receives a full biography on this basis and is also singled out on the book's front flap. Nothing about this is indirect or "reaching".
 * So again I'm appealing to everyone's better nature: discussions of this sort must stop. Instead, we should proceed with editing. If some editors want to include certain material and use sources other editors find questionable, there are ways of settling such issues, for example, by posting dispute templates and then discussing the particulars. Or if that doesn't work, by filing RFCs. Allreet (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My message was an appeal. There was no comparison between Washington and Attucks, so I'm not understanding that, esp the part of being combative. It was only asked if, as a hypothetical, a cook, chef, for Washington be considered a founder if the person is listed in a book called Founding Fathers, with nothing to qualify the individual as a founder. I realize Attucks was killed at the Boston Massacre, a brave hero for standing up to the British, and likely he was one of the most visible antagonists that provoked the deadly British over reaction, but I think you know this by itself isn't something that makes one a founder, i.e. a revolutionary military or political leader, a delegate, drafter and signer of documents, etc, per our lede statement. All that is asked is for some common sense discretion, and I'll press it no further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Combative" refers to a suggestion about a cook that seems absurd in the context of recognizing someone who's regarded as a hero. Or to suggest that a respected source would profile someone for nothing more than fulfilling dietary needs. Frankly, there's probably more that's legendary about Attucks than factual, but that's not for us to divine either unless a source's assertion defies gravity, so to speak. Finally, as a personal note, I appreciate both your opening sentence and closing words. Allreet (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That was not my intention or the point, that being, can anyone be considered a real founder, per our lede statement, simply because they are listed in a book with the general title of Founding Father. Again, Attucks was brave and paid for it with his life, but how does this make him a founder? I am only recommending removal of his name but am not demanding because we indeed have a reliable source, but still would like to bring attention as to how this one source, with no explanation to the idea, has listed Attucks as a Founding Father. We would be within our rights to ignore this particular entry, as Attucks was clearly not involved with the founding. Since you added his name, this would be your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood completely, especially considering our past discussions on sources. Your points, then, deserve a response:
 * Few sources are as ironclad as this one. The lead scholar on Britannica's founders articles as well as this work is Joseph Ellis. The rest of the book's editorial team is not nearly as well known, but is eminently credentialed.
 * Our lede paragraph is far from the end-all definition. The lede's additional paragraphs flesh out other criteria, and this incident comfortably falls under "key events that preceded the war".
 * As for what any of this has to do with the founding, WP"s article states: "The Boston Massacre is considered one of the most significant events that turned colonial sentiment against King George III and British Parliamentary authority". How significant was it really? At the time, very. According to one source, about half of Boston's population turned out for the joint funeral for Attucks and the massacre's other victims.
 * In any case, Attucks is probably more a symbolic icon of the roles played by ordinary men in the founding. His mixed ethnicity also probably has something to do with the recognition bestowed on him. But however deserving, Attucks has been recognized over the course of time as the Revolution's first victim. That in itself is remarkable considering founder John Adams described him and his compatriots as "a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and molattoes".
 * BTW, I realize the only criteria here that really counts is the first bullet point, but I had more fun with the rest. I hope you don't mind. Allreet (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with Ellis, but I still feel his inclusion of Attacks, poor soul, was conciliatory. Yes, the Boston Massacre was one of the incidents that inspired the idea of colonial independence, more than most. Okay Allreet, Attucks' death, among the others, was a major inspiration to the founding, and in that sense, he was a Founder, and on retrospect, deserves a mention in that regard in our highly debated article. Fair enough. Isn't it odd, that a former "slave", was fighting on the American side against the British? Have to wonder why he squared off with armed British troops, he wasn't blind, and put his life on the line. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reports indicate the rioters attacked the soldiers with "sticks and clubs", unruly but nothing too deadly. Attucks apparently was leaning on a stick when the British shot into the crowd, so he probably wasn't a specific target. The "riot" was part of a series of incidents that occurred over a few days' time, so the soldiers presence was understandable, their actions not. Brings to mind more recent incidents in the wake of George Floyd or earlier, Kent State. In any case, thanks for your thoughtful considerations. Allreet (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Next to the entry for Attucks, we might want to note that the deaths involved were among the major factors involved in getting the colonists ripe for independence. If we can find a source that names Attucks specifically in that regard, all the better. In any case, it shouldn't be difficult to find a source for adding this (in bold) e.g. ...the first to die in the American Revolution, the deaths of which convinced many colonists that the time for independence had arrived. This would better tie him into the founding theme of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Next to the entry for Attucks, we might want to note that the deaths involved were among the major factors involved in getting the colonists ripe for independence. If we can find a source that names Attucks specifically in that regard, all the better. In any case, it shouldn't be difficult to find a source for adding this (in bold) e.g. ...the first to die in the American Revolution, the deaths of which convinced many colonists that the time for independence had arrived. This would better tie him into the founding theme of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Food for thought: In Boston Common a memorial to those slain during the Boston Massacre was erected. In raised bronze letters is inscribed the words, "On that night the foundations of American independence was laid. -- John Adams". This quote can be found in a number of sources, including:"
 * Celebration of the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1925, p. 34
 * Lukes, 1998, The Boston massacre, p. 98


 * Of the Boston massacre Adams also wrote: " Not the battle of Lexington or Bunker Hill, not the surrender of Burgoyne or Cornwallis were more important events in American history than the battle of King street on the 5th of March, 1770. The death of four or five persons, the most obscure and inconsiderable that could have been found upon the continent, has never yet been forgiven by any part of America." Kidder, 1870, History of the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770, p. 3 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Adams' quote was added to the Attucks entry, with citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , are we sure that Attucks was the "first" one killed at the Boston massacre? Going by the illustrations it would seem that the British fired a volley all at the same time, killing and wounding the victims at the same moment. You mentioned that Attucks was only leaning on a stick or pole, so it would seem there are indeed detailed accounts of the event. In any case, if there are no reliable sources that support such details I would recommend that we simply say that Attucks was 'among' those who were the first to die during the war, so as to avoid giving him any special distinction over the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says Attucks was the first to fall but isn't clear about being the first to die. i.e."thus becoming one of the first to men to lose his life." He could have been one of the mortally wounded, and died shortly thereafter. In any case, I not going to press it. So much history. Wonder if the other victims have received any coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , Attucks and two others were felled in the first volley. All three died almost immediately. Attucks, who had been standing within 15 feet of the soldiers, took two musket balls to the chest. Some additional notes: Attucks was 6'2" and was the leader and oldest of a group of sailors who were set to sail to North Carolina. Over 10,000 turned out for the funeral of four of the victims, remarkable considering Boston had just 16,000 or so residents. Allreet (talk)

One More Set of Remarks
I will again point out that I have not been following the discussion here in detail. My own opinion is that if one or more of the editors in a long-running controversy say that it is important to read a long previous discussion, it probably is useful to avoid reading it, because it is probably repetitious, and the editor who says that it is important to read it conflates strength of argument and length of argument.

It appears that the objective of User:Randy Kryn and of User:Gwillhickers is to expand the list of Founding Fathers of the United States as much as possible, and so to establish blanket tests for inclusion. They may say that it isn't, and that they just want to say what the sources say; but they appear to be searching for sources that will support an expansive list of founders. User:Dennis Brown closed the WP:AN case, saying that the question of who should be listed as founding fathers is complex and subtle. User:Allreet then said that it wasn't complex:

Now Allreet is the one who is oversimplifying, in almost the way that Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers have been doing. Different sources say different things, and getting a consensus of sources is not always straightforward.

As Allreet said about Absolutely unacceptable behavior, there has been a lack of civility here, or maybe a crabbed definition of civility thinking it only consists of the avoidance of dirty words.

If Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers were not planning to disregard consensus in order to include the signers of the Continental Association, then I was not the only editor who thought that they were saying that.

Maybe trying to make a binary identification of a long list of individuals as Founding Fathers of the United States is a mistake, rather than letting the biography of a dead person explain what the role of each person.

User:Alanscottwalker is right that the back-and-forth is going nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your criticism and concern. No, neither or myself planned to disregard consensus about returning the signers of the Continental Association as founders as, the RfC close said, "on that basis alone" (although with just a few more good sources that may change dependent on future RfC response). Reading comprehension may come into play here (I call myself out on that too, as it seems traditionally important to use provable facts in such a discussion, especially when major accusatational actions take place such as the good faith but utterly mistaken reasoning of the recent ANI trip). As for the number of Founders, it is finite, and as an encyclopedia the page should include that set of individuals and list them in some way. The page includes several forms, each one would pass WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, although there have been concerns mentioned about some entries which should be discussed individually and a full discussion on military entrants has yet to take place. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the effort to deluge the Talk page is subsiding and that a detente of sorts is in the making. I also believe my complaint about incivility seems to have been taken to heart. @Randy Kryn, @Gwillhickers, and I are beginning to communicate more amicably, as we should. If there happens to be disagreement over a Crispus Attucks or "Mad Anthony" Wayne, I'm pretty sure we can work out those issues without too much trouble.
 * Regarding complexities, most such issues are of little relevance and interest to the vast majority of readers and aren't taught at the secondary school level. The latest example was the effect of embargos on mercantilism, somewhat past my "pay grade". Our quest, or at least how I see it, is closer to the level of what is taught in schools: that signers of key documents are widely recognized as founders and the rest are clearly identified by sources for additional contributions. That's all I meant.
 * The main problem I have with the dead people biographies approach is that most 250-year-olds are buried in the vast cosmos of Wikipedia. I just updated Peyton Randolph's article, for example. Nobody is likely to trip over his bio, but we do know a million or so readers visit this page each year looking for founders. So if we link the founders article to Randolph's, some folks are going to be in for some pleasant surprises, for example, that his family's political dynasty included Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee. That's neither complex nor taught in schools, yet the connections are well worth knowing. Allreet (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidently Robert seems to want to re-live matters already discussed at length, here and in the ANI, so let me reiterate, that the only "expansion" to the article would be to return the long standing names that were removed on the basis that they were not founders for only signing the Continental Association, per the narrowly worded RfC. What makes anyone a founder does not rest alone on any document(s) signed, but rather their overall contributions, ideas, drafting, debates and in this case, as members of the First Continental Congress, representatives speaking for entire colony/states who participated with individuals like Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Randolph, Henry, Lee, etc. Many of the names removed were men who also served in the Second Continental Congress.


 * Yes, there is legitimate objection as to their founding status on the basis that more specific sources are needed, which is why there has been no edits, or edit warring, to that end, at all. Evidently this doesn't seem to factor into the narrow focus of some individuals. No edits were made to the article that disregarded RfC consensus. There has only been discussion of the scholarship, and there is much, which is allowed on Talk pages. As for "civility", the ANI clearly stated that "The behavior isn't such that a topic ban is warranted, even if it is frustrating to some.", which sort of puts the accusations over civility in their proper perspective, while the ANI promptly closed down that malicious discussion in less than a day. Yes, we've moved on, until such time where more specific sources can be found, and/or a new consensus is established. If this happens it will all be above board and legitimate. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)