Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 9

Restructuring issues


@Bk knwlg, I agree with many of the structural changes you've made, but reinstated some of the "original" setup based on issues you may not understand and then some other considerations.

For example:


 * "Signers and framers" covers two types of founders. All signers are also framers, but "Delegates" is a subset of framers at the Constitutional Convention who did not sign the document.
 * "Patriots" are not founders or at least do not have sufficient recogntion. This was a "grab bag" category that began many years ago of individuals who have some recogntion or come close to "founderhood". For example, Crispus Attucks is recognizd by Bernstein, but has no other source. The category could be dropped, but it accommodated editors and avoided edit warring if these were to be added to the main founders section.
 * "Social background and commonalities" was oddly named - so I applied "Demographics and other characteristics". But this should be a standalone section.

One of my main objections to the structure you created, a general one, is that it had far too many sub-sections, sub-sub-sections, etc., "defeating" the sense and access sections provide for readers. Also, at some point, 3rd, 4th and 5th levels become indistinguishable from each other.

I'd appreciate your response to this as well as feedback from other current editors: @Gwillhickers, @Randy Kryn, @TheVirginiaHistorian. Also, thanks for joining in - the more the merrier and in editing, as opposed to cooking, too many cooks tend to improve "the broth". Allreet (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * P.S. I didn't change the "level" of the Patriots section, nor did I touch "Women", though "Founding Mothers" seemed a better title. The women, it should be noted, do have sufficient sources for "founderhood".


 * Upon further reflection, I've reinstated the title "Additional founders" below Signers/Framers/Delegates, and made "Women" a subset of this category. Note that none of the Additional Founders are signers or delegates, hence this is a separate category.


 * Agreed, the more the merrier but no harm no foul, if you know you're right, you don’t need my (or anyone else's) permission to improve the page (which you've clearly done); for what it's worth, my edits are a random combination of both "knowing-I'm-right-edits" and "testing-if-I'm-right-edits", and objections are always welcome, whether via talking or editing, as (by extension) it inspires a higher level of collaborative progress. By the way, thanks for pitching in.
 * Bk knwlg (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ascendency to presidency: Revamping
I removed a significant portion of the text from this section that does not belong here and to some degree makes no sense. For example: Except for the first bullet above, none of this belongs here, but would fit more properly under subsections in the Demographics section, either existing or new (e.g. Ages and Occupations). For the "to do" list, but for now the deleted material belongs in the "Limbo" of the Edit History. Allreet (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Following the initial discussion and images of the first five presidents, the second paragraph again mentions the five as ascending to presidency. What for?
 * The third paragraph deals with the financial failures of eight founders (which I updated) and then the treasonous activities of two others. What does this have to do with Ascendency to the Presidency.
 * The fourth paragraph states that many founders were under the age of 40. So what? First, an equal number were over 40 - the average age of signers being around 43. Second, Franklin is mentioned as being 70 at the time of his signing of the Declaration - but there's no mention of him being 81 when signing the Constitution. Third, Hamilton is mentioned as being 21 when the Declaration was signed - but he didn't sign it.
 * — Yes, this all makes sense. Have at it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work here lately, from both of you, Bk knwig, and others. I'll get back to polishing some language at some point soon, dipping in and out while enjoying the progress. I've added a few good bits at United Colonies, which is a major topic but not many people know it (brought to Wikipedia by ). On the ages, I think it is important for people to realize how young some of these guys were, especially some of the major names under or close to 40. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Tangential section?
— It doesn't appear that the Spouses and children section adds much in the way of defining who the founders were, as founders, as it only contains generic family information. i.e.Some were married, some weren't, some had large families, some didn't, etc. Given that the section contains statements with strings of names which would be sort of an ordeal to cite e.g..one sentence with nine citations, it might be best if we simply omitted this small and rather simplistic section, as the strictly biographical information can be found in the individual biographical articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
— It might be best if we simply took a few of the basic ideas surrounding founder's families and incorporated them in simple terms elsewhere in the article.


 * This is how the existing section reads:


 * Instead we could simply say:

The Founding Fathers came from somewhat varied family backgrounds. While most of the founders were married, some of them married more than once, while there were only four who were lifelong bachelors. Some of their wives, like Abigail Adams, had significant influence on their husband's views and decisions. Most of the couples had marriages that brought children, while Washington had no biological children and had adopted two from his wife's previous marriage.

This paragraph could be appended to the end of the Demographics and other characteristics section, using the existing citations, and in terms of family would set the tone for the subsections that follow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good solution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seemed appropriate to mention a couple figures by name, with Washington and Abigail as definitive examples for founders and wives respectively. Will wait a bit longer for any other feedback before appending the passage to the section as mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Articles of Confederation
Should the signers of the Articles of Confederation be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States because of their action in signing the Articles of Confederation? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Please enter Yes or No with a brief explanation, or provide a brief statement that is some sort of other answer. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. The Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion.

Survey2

 * No, the prevailing view of scholars is that the Articles of Confederation were not a founding document, and consistent with this, its signers are not regarded as founders. In fact, the Articles were such a failure as a governing instrument that when representatives of 12 of the 13 states met in 1787 to amend them, they instead decided to adopt an entirely different form of government, the U.S. Constitution. In so doing, those delegates came to be recognized by most historians as founding fathers. Allreet (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes (corrected vote), three authoritative sources have been provided that describe signers of the Articles of Confederation as founders and/or founding fathers. The authors are John A. Altman, Anthony J. Bellia Jr. & Bradford R. Clark, and Saul K. Padover; the titles of their articles can be found by searching here on their last names; and there you'll find links for accessing the articles through JSTOR. Some questions remain regarding "prevailing view" and Original Research so I am reserving brief comment on these issues for the time being. I would also like to alert other editors who have weighed in to the fact that I have changed my vote (in order of voting): @North8000, @Binksternet, @The Gnome, @Atsme, @Pincrete, @Seggallion, and @Randy Kryn. Please see the following section for my reasons: New Sources, which also includes links to the sources. Thanks to all. Allreet (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO, there are sufficient sources to accept that signers of the Articles are "considered" founders. However, taking into account that just three articles could be found that express this view and only a handful of books, all written for secondary education students, I believe this represents a "minority" view. Not one major author or institution could be found that refers to these signers as founders and none that considers the Articles a "founding document". I also would like to add that much that is said below amounts to Original Research: conclusions are being asserted by editors and not by the sources that are being cited. Allreet (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many sources which list the Articles as a founding document, and textbooks usually have professional historian consultants. Yes, it is a minority view which nonetheless meets WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not many sources as a founding document: a few papers (Altman, Bellia/Clark, Padover) and several secondary school books. I agree the Articles deserves recognition but not of the weight afforded the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Allreet (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment  Say:   "The metaphor type term "Founding Fathers"  is usually applied to signers of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and occasionally applied to signers of the Articles of Confederation".  Please read my post precisely because it is only a recommendation in the general area of the question. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The AC signers were trying to get a degree of self-governance under the royal umbrella. They were not trying to start a revolution; rather, they wanted their own legislative body answering only to the British crown, sidelining Parliament in London. The AC signers include many loyal royalists who played no part in the founding of the USA. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC) }}
 * See Reply --


 * No categorically and irrespectively of my personal viewpoint on the subject. The insertion of persons into the group of "Founding Fathers" is unsupported by sources. Irrespective of the worthiness of the term "Founding Fathers" itself, the established historical paradigm praises the C.A.'s contributions and importance but does not include its members in the same group as the Founding Fathers. Wikipedia is not a historical journal yet here we are with Wikipedia "breaking new ground" in direct contravention of policy. This inappropriate state of affairs must be amended as soon as possible. -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes The idea of the Articles of Confederation contributing significantly to, or founding, the Constitition, is well established by the sources, and the recited claims about the "established historical paradigm" is obviously the product of ignorance on the subject. It only took me minutes to gather up some sources that support the idea of the AOC as a founding document. If anyone can address this other than to assert the superficial claim that a given source doesn't use the word founding, please do so. I'll continue in this effort so as to avert a few editors from attempting to rewrite American history here at WP: See new sources below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No - per the Gnome and others above. There is no officially declared number (consensus) of Founding Fathers; therefore, our article should include only the most prominent individuals as supported by RS, and it should also clarify why history only mentions the names of the most prominent individuals. To do otherwise gets us into NOR territory, possibly with a splash of SYNTH.  Atsme 💬 📧 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See Reply --


 * No - per the Gnome and Atsme. There is no officially declared number of Founding Fathers; therefore, our article should include only the most prominent individuals as supported by RS, and it should also clarify why history only mentions the names of the most prominent individuals.. Maybe many more people SHOULD be looked on as FFs, but the plain fact is that on the whole they aren't. This is a bit reminiscent of debates about who 'invented' the internet or the discovered the structure of DNA. Perhaps people have been unfairly forgotten, but it is not our business to 'correct' that if sources haven't. This seems like an attempt for WP to re-invent a more wholly inclusive, original definition of who is a FF based on SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See Reply --


 * No, the 1787 confederation was an oddity that did not last, people signing here aren't real founders.--Seggallion (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user
 * See Reply


 * Νο, categorically. There's a plethora of sources indicating that probably "the articles of confederation fed right into the drafting of the constitution", and that, in so many words, the articles were pretty pretty pretty important. Still, there is no adequate number of reliable sources claiming that the confederales were and equal to and belong in the same category as the founders, as the established historical paradigm defines the latter. Once more then, a supplication: pretty please, with sugar on top: Start the crusade to alter the paradigm elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a publisher of scientific papers. Your personal work, though possibly hard and thorough, does not matter. -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all true. See Reply --


 * Prelude. Please keep this open for at least another week if not longer, thanks. Just got back after my computer finally gave up the ghost a week ago, and even before that I hadn't read, on purpose, this long RfC. I will finally be able to read it and hopefully learn more about the AoC over the long weekend (hopefully all who've offered an opinion here are keeping up and joining in the ongoing what seems to be book-length discussion). I'll be looking to ascertain if one of the combatants, ah, I mean editors, has proven that the yes side has provided adequate sources to meet WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, which is really what this RfC is all about. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - See my explanation below. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Allreet, Robert McClenon (the two editors who started this RfC), and the magnificent Gwillhickers,. Gwillhickers and Allreet, through a long and fully productive point-counterpoint analysis and source research below and further into the page, proved that the signers of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union have enough reputable sources to meet WP:RS Founding Father status on Wikipedia (per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, to name just two). This RfC discussion and the related sections below it (which I would think count as extensions of the RfC as part of the same discussion but not sure about counting "legally") seem well worth the read. Allreet, originally dead set against including the AoC signers, eventually agreed with Gwillhickers research that yes, the sources now do support the signers of the AoC as Founding Fathers. So, per these valuable Wikipeda editors, I'm wikihonored to be in agreement with all of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Late Yes vote —  A new vote was just submitted, but in sort of an irregular way.  left a Yes vote and comment in the Request for closure section and in the edit history, under July 4. TVH, if you're reading this you may want to add your vote here, so it has your signature, and so it doesn't go unnoticed by the closer(s). Thanks for chiming in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keeping survey section clear: Moved current discussion from survey area to here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes as Allreet points out, there are very good academic sources that support it, and it is consistent with the listings already in the article. As an aside, some above, don't seem to know what the Articles of Confederation were: they were the first constitution of the United States, and they completely rejected any tie to the British; perhaps most importantly, the Articles created the "perpetual union".  This was key, almost a century later, when the Supreme Court of the United States reasoned in  Texas v. White that the "perpetual union" of the Articles was bolstered and strengthened in the following Constitution's "more perfect union".  Thus, the more perfect union is perpetual. Now, to address Atsme's argument for no listings (only identify, the few Prominants), that seems to be another RfC entirely.  The article already has a section listing signers of documents, so if we have that section, and as the academic sources support it, the Article's signers must be there too as a matter of completeness.  Run a new RfC to delete the listing section, entirely. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
The Articles of Confederation established such a weak central government that the states in effect functioned as sovereign nations. Under the Articles, the government had just one branch, the Confederated Congress, which lacked the following powers: Within a few years of the Articles' adoption, it become apparent to most political thinkers of the time that a stronger, more effective federal system was needed. Thus, the U.S. Constitution was adopted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, totally replacing the Articles. Allreet (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The power to tax.
 * The power to coin money.
 * The power to regulate foreign and interstate trade.
 * The power to enforce its laws.


 * You said it yourself — the Articles of Confederation established a central government. Though it had its weakness this doesn't change the fact that it was indeed a central government that lead to the Constitution itself. The founding of representative government, and ultimately the Constitution, occurred in steps, and political entities like the Continental Congress, its Association and the Articles, all attended by delegates from the several colonies, were giant steps in the founding of the nation. The first sentence in the lede of the Articles of Confederation article reads: "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first frame of government.". How did you arrive at the idea that the "prevailing view" of scholars does not regard the Articles of Confederation as a founding document -- simply because you cant find the word founding that often? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of debating the merits and demerits of the Articles of Confederation. I stated what I believe is the prevailing view of our first "constitution" based on what the sources say, including the list of its weaknesses. However, that's not the topic of the RFC. As with the previous RFC, the issue here is the need for reliable, authoritative sources that identify signers as founders. Allreet (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We now have another RfC in the works, before the completion of the existing one. You made a claim under the section entitled Discussion but now you don't want to debate it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can present your arguments and they should be able to stand on their own, as I intend mine to do. I'll also choose which issues I think should be addressed and responded to, exactly as you do. As for the two RFCs, WP's guidelines say multiple RFCs on the same page are perfectly acceptable.
 * The Perpetual Union issue isn't relevant, especially because it fails to make your point about the nation's founding. For example, Washington believed the Union was in danger under the Articles, referring to what he called "a half starved, limping Government, that appears to be always moving upon crutches, & tottering at every step". The quote comes from the Mount Vernon site, and is originally from a letter to Benjamin Harrison. (In another letter, Alexander Hamilton calls the Union "feeble and precarious".)
 * The most relevant argument is Federalism (Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Jay) vs. Anti-Federalism (Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and various lesser knowns), which pits the Constitution against the Articles. Since the differences between the two factions and documents are stark, I think it's ridiculous to claim the Articles "led to the Constitution" and that the two "share many of the same ideas", especially in terms of the form of government and type of nation that resulted. Allreet (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I am notifying the following editors who participated in the Continental Association RFC and who haven't responded yet to the new RFC: @Atsme, @The Gnome, @Orson12345, @Pincrete, @Randy Kryn, @Rjensen, and @Thucydides411.

At my request, @Robert McClenon has opened a new RFC on whether the signers of the Articles of Confederation are considered founding fathers. The issue is the same as in the previous RFC: the need for reliable sources identifying the document's signers as founders. A lack of sources has existed since 2011 when the Articles' signers were added to the Founding Fathers article. The need escalated in October 2021, when the term "Founding Father" was added to the biography articles of signers who were not previously recognized as founders (approximately 28 of 48 signers).

Few reliable sources exist identifying the Articles as a founding document and its signers as founders - by my count, just one. I believe it is misleading, then, to include these signers in the Founding Fathers article and identify them as founders in other articles if they have no additional support for these claims. I hope that you will weigh in on the RFC with a vote and that beforehand you will at least read the lead paragraphs of WP's Articles of Confederation article which provide a decent overview of the document. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that User:Binksternet is mistaken about the Articles of Confederation, and that what he is saying it is true of the Continental Association. The Articles of Confederation established a weak national government, having no connection to King George or the North Parliament.  The Declaration of Independence asserted that the thirteen colonies were free and independent states.  One year later, they confederated to form a union, but a weak union.
 * I have started this RFC, and have not !voted yet, because I am waiting for the other editors to summarize what reliable sources say about the AOC. My own opinion is that the AOC are a founding document, creating a nation out of thirteen short-lived nations.  We should follow what reliable sources say.
 * By the way, the Declaration, the AOC, and the Constitution show the evolution of what is now the more common usage of the word 'state'. In 1776, it meant only a nation-state or etat.  It still has this meaning in international law.  Since 1789, it more often means a self-governing component of a federated nation-state.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are correct. My mistake. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources that clearly outline the idea that the drafting and adoption of the Articles of confederation fed right into the drafting of the Constitution, both documents sharing many of the same ideas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The connections between the AOC and Constitution are debatable. But if the two were the same, that would still not prove anything regarding who is recognized as a founder and who isn't. That's the question of the RFC, not the myriad issues about the AOC that @Gwillhickers seems to think prove his point. Whatever point that is, it's not the subject of the RFC. Allreet (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Randy Kryn wrote: Please keep this open for at least another week if not longer, thanks.  Duh.  This is an RFC.  An RFC runs for 30 days.  But maybe you and User:Allreet have some other concept that isn't based on the policies and guidelines.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The poster, the person who initiated a RFC, has the right to close it. And the participants can agree to close one. There are other possibilities. AGF doesn't include the word "duh". Allreet (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Narrow scope
The premise of this RfC is very narrow, asking should the men in question be listed for having only signed the Articles of Confederation. The men in question should be listed because, as signers, they were involved in the drafting and debates involving the Articles, not just because they were signers. They just didn't happen along, pop in, and sign a document they had nothing to do with. This is why we must consider the sources, and not just base our decision on the idea that they merely signed a piece of paper. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Given @Gwillhickers's plaints, I believe several points need to be made:
 * First, I vehemently object to adding new sections above the RFC Discussion. Should I play the same game and insert another section above this one? Where's that going to get us? @Robert McClenon, please, some feedback on the "rules of engagement".
 * Second, tough beans regarding the scope or premise of the RFC. Some of those who signed the Articles of Confederation may qualify on other grounds, but precedent has been set by highly authoritative sources in recognizing signers of certain documents as founders, even if their other contributions were relatively marginal. I, for one, am not going to argue with the National Archives, Harvard University, Bernstein, or any of the other reliable sources that explicitly recognize signers of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution as founders.
 * Third, there's an assumption Robert McClenon made about the Articles that others are prone to make. Since the AOC was undeniably significant and came right on the heels of the Declaration, wouldn't that inherently point to its being a "founding document"? Honestly, I've felt that myself. But then I think, why would the National Archives, the nation's leading institution of scholarship on the Founding Era and the central access point for the papers of the leading founders, intentionally leave out the AOC from its listing of founding documents and instead identify the Federalist Papers and Bill of Rights along with the Declaration and Constitution? My only guess is that they know a hell of a lot more than I do. And since no other source of the past 50 years disagrees with them, who is there to challenge their judgement?
 * Fourth, Gwillhickers says we should "consider the sources". On that I agree. The sources, however, should be reliable, which is not the case with many of those he's provided (see point Seven). Of equal concern is our "use of sources". In this regard, he's found conclusions in his sources that their authors do not directly state and did not intend. Most of them are writing generally about events associated with the founding. Almost none indicated who actually did the "founding", meaning that about this they're not too specific. This is not case with sources that explicitly identify signers of the Declaration and Constitution as founders.
 * Fifth, the AOC is regarded as a "founding document" by just one source. That source, an article form 1958, also refers to its signers as founders. Excellent. Since hundreds of papers, articles, and books have been written about the issue since, it should be easy to find a couple other sources that agree.
 * Sixth, also regarding sources, Gwillhickers has cherry picked, misquoted, and otherwise used statements from sources out of context repeatedly. In fact, he's loaded up the RFC Discussion with quotes that are either irrelevant regarding the identification of founders or that distort the issues they address.
 * Seventh, several of the sources Gwillhickers has offered us are books for junior high school students. Five of them, as a matter of fact. What is going on here?
 * Finally, I want to thank Gwillhickers for creating a section where I can set the context for much of what is about to follow and summarize the issues I've raised throughout. Despite that, I hope this section will be moved down to the bottom of the Discussion where it belongs. Allreet (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — The section in question has been moved below the discussion section. Also, you're once again basing your argument with the same old hat, with the claim that sources don't refer to the A.O.C. as a "founding" document, despite the fact that they still cover this idea quite well, esp in regards to the idea that many of the provisions of the A.O.C. are contained in the Constitution, which indeed makes the A.O.C. a founding document -- all by itself, all the while you still seem to be ignoring that the some of the sources provided employ the term Founding Father, or Founding or Framing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my "old hat" arguments above addressing the reliability and use of sources, the original research required to identify the AOC as a founding document (they "cover this idea quite well" is an example), the irrelevance of issues such as the connection between the AOC and the Constitution, and the lack of sources that identify the AOC's signers as founders. Now, everyone else, hold onto your hats for the 10,000 words that are about to follow. Allreet (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not the bottom of the Discussion section. But I don't care because it tends to highlight my summary. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see – all the sudden you're not particular about where the section goes if you feel it helps your case, such that it is, or tries to be. Thanks for that rather revealing insight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You do need to learn how to read exactly what I say. I just said this above in my initial statement, how it was fortuitous being handed a prominent forum. So if I was overjoyed then, why wouldn't I be now? Allreet (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not really impressed with your attempt at damage control here. On the one hand you had issues about placement of the section, now you don't, which you spelled out in plain English. I read very well, thank you, now you can read this: Once again, since many of the provisions of the A.O.C. are found in the Constitution no one can deny that it was an important part of its founding. The years of debates over it, leading to the drafting of the Constitution, alone, should have told you that. Yes, I welcome more of your "summary", not that you're going to give us anything you haven't repeated before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open another RFC regarding your point about the AOC and Constitution, but this and other such issues have done nothing here except overload the Discussion with irrelevancies. Stick to the point. Are signers of the AOC considered founders? The answer is fairly simple: only if sources explicitly state that they are. Or am I just repeating myself? Allreet (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're just repeating failed arguments, apparently under the notion that if you repeat things often enough they will all be true. And please don't stand there and complain about overloading the discussion - you of all people, with your continued obfuscation and evasiveness, ready to ignore eight years of history and the A.O.C. in your ongoing denial about the A.O.C., that many of its provisions are contained in the Constitution, and that the signers of the A.O.C. were involved in the years of debates that led up to the Constitution. Not founders? Do you actually believe that? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * And I still want some direction from @Robert McClenon regarding "the rules". I'll be very honest about my concerns. We have yet to hear from a certain editor, so I suspect he's waiting for the last minute to flood this discussion with whatever in hopes of giving nobody a chance to respond. My fear is based on what happened at the end of the last RFC when several comments were added after the discussion was closed, but the RFC was still accessible. So, fine, if someone want to load up the back end. But what's within the realm of "fair comment" and criticism regarding the addition of new sections throughout? Allreet (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh please, I made a point about the scope of the RfC, and here you are, ducking that issue, waiting for this un-named editor to "to flood this discussion with whatever in hopes of giving nobody a chance to respond." which is exactly what you've done here with your usual long winded account about the sources. "Tough beans" was your comment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You know exactly what I'm talking about. Allreet (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were very clear about your expectation of some un-named editor coming in and doing what you're doing here, all the while you continue to avoid the point. i.e.The signers did more than just sign, they were involved in the years of debate over the A.O.C., with many of its provisions contributing to the Constitution. They just didn't stop in and sign a document they had nothing to do with. The opening statement of the RfC doesn't even reflect that. All it asks is if those who only signed the A.O.C. be included in an article about the Founding Fathers, as if their contributions didn't amount to much for having only signed one document, which tends to ignore the sources and the history of which these signers were a part of. I know Robert meant well, but this was indeed a shortcoming in the (very) brief wording in the opening statement, and not much of a basis for their exclusion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Rules
User:Allreet - It seems that you are asking me a question about "the rules". What rules? If you mean the guidelines for how RFCs are handled, please ask a specific question, but I am not in charge of an RFC simply because I posted it. If you have a question about the RFC process, you can ask it at Village Pump or the Help Desk. If you are concerned that someone will engage in some sort of misconduct, I would call your attention to the policy to assume good faith. We have stubborn strong-willed editors here, not disruptive editors. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC) The infrared output exceeds the visible output. If you want that restated, just ask me to restate it in unscientific terms. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, can we enter new sections wherever we wish? I thought I was very clear about this in my first bullet point. Since then, @Gwillhickers moved his new section (this one), not to the bottom of the actual discussion but to where he felt like placing it.
 * That was my initial "plaint". But then I asked what's acceptable in terms of an editor waltzing in at the last minute and either peppering the discussions, creating new sections, or overwhelming the dialogue with comments, thereby leaving no chance for others to respond? That's not far-fetched since something similar though less egregious occurred just before the last RFC closed, even though everyone else had voluntarily stopped commenting.
 * BTW, for a second I took your question "what rules?" the way it was used in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: "what rules...this is knife fight". Anyway, I thought you might know what was acceptable or within certain bounds does anything go? Allreet (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - See Talk Page Guidelines for the rules about what is permitted on an article talk page, including with respect to an RFC on an article talk page. I have not been paying detailed attention to most of the discussion here, most of which is unproductive.  Are you saying that another editor moved a section of a discussion, or only that another editor inserted a section into the middle of a discussion?  Moving a section of a discussion seems disruptive and confusing.  Inserting a discussion in the middle may be reasonable if it is a reply to something that was said in the middle.  If you think that the discussion has been refactored in an improper manner, and you want to know whether other editors agree, you can ask at Village Pump or the Help Desk.  If you do ask a question about the talk page guidelines in another forum, Do Not ask it in the form of a hypothetical question.  It isn't a hypothetical question, and some editors know that asking a "hypothetical question" about a real dispute is a form of wikilawyering.  So what is the question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that another editor tried to disrupt the previous RFC immediately before it closed, then I am not sure what the issue is. Didn't it get closed the way you wanted it closed?  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that you think that another editor is about to disrupt this RFC, or will disrupt it before it closes, then that sounds like you are not assuming good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the conduct of other editors, do you know where WP:ANI is, and do you know where the boomerang essay is that you should read first?
 * If you don't have a question, then what is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - You asked me 48 hours ago about "the rules", and I don't yet know what the question is. Either state that there has been a violation of talk page guidelines, or don't state that there has been a violation of talk page guidelines.  In the meantime, I would rather hear about high school textbooks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest or even think there was a violation of talk page guidelines. I was curious about (wondered if there were) guidelines on certain behaviors. In many ways, it appears anything does go, incivility being one clear exception. Other than that anyone can say anything they want, in which case, other rules, such as WP:VER and NOR, need to be adjudicated in some other way. Hopefully, the RFC closers will be able to provide some thoughts on that. Allreet (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply to voting rationales

 * "No. The AC signers were trying to get a degree of self-governance under the royal umbrella. They were not trying to start a revolution; rather, they wanted their own legislative body answering only to the British crown, sidelining Parliament in London. The AC signers include many loyal royalists who played no part in the founding of the USA." - Binksternet
 * The AOC was created with the express idea of winning American independence, not becoming buddy-buddy with the king. See statements/sources below, esp Bernstein, 2009 and Padover, 1958. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bernstein does not recognize signers of the Articles of Confederation as founders. @Gwillhickers selectively quotes Bernstein (among many sources) to try to establish the AOC as a founding document. Allreet (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No - per the Gnome and others above. There is no officially declared number (consensus) of Founding Fathers; therefore, our article should include only the most prominent individuals as supported by RS, and it should also clarify why history only mentions the names of the most prominent individuals. To do otherwise gets us into NOR territory, possibly with a splash of SYNTH. - Atsme
 * Yet you wanted to include Abigail Adams as one of the founders -- someone who was not one of "the most prominent individuals", was not a member of the Continental Congress, or a famous revolutionary leader, and was not involved in the debates and signing of any document. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * *No - per the Gnome and Atsme. There is no officially declared number of Founding Fathers; therefore, our article should include only the most prominent individuals as supported by RS, and it should also clarify why history only mentions the names of the most prominent individuals.. Maybe many more people SHOULD be looked on as FFs, but the plain fact is that on the whole they aren't. This is a bit reminiscent of debates about who 'invented' the internet or the discovered the structure of DNA. Perhaps people have been unfairly forgotten, but it is not our business to 'correct' that if sources haven't. This seems like an attempt for WP to re-invent a more wholly inclusive, original definition of who is a FF based on SYNTH. - Pincrete
 * The premise of the last two No votes is gravely in error. History texts do mention the founders who were not as famous as Washington, Jefferson, etc. Though they may not do so as much, this is no basis to exclude such members in a list of founders -- individuals who represented their states, drafted, adopted and signed the A.O.C. It doesn't matter if there is "no officially declared number" of founders. All we need do is support the idea that they were present during the debates and signed the A.O.C., which is well established as a founding document, drafted, debated and signed by founders. Many people besides Washington and company were involved in the founding process and are notable enough to have their own articles here on WP and are listed in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gwillhickers is trying to negate No votes with arguments that are beside the point. Abigail Adams? Then he concocts this bit of OR: "All we need do is support the idea that they were present during the debates and signed the A.O.C., which is well established as a founding document, drafted, debated and signed by founders". His "well established" reference links to dozens or so of sources he's provided that have lots to say but very little that's relevant. Allreet (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No, the 1787 confederation was an oddity that did not last, people signing here aren't real founders. - Seggallion
 * , thanks for chiming in. The Articles of Confederation, were more than just an oddity, they were the framework of the U.S. Constitution, which improved on and strengthened the Articles. The signers were founders, and include men like John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, author of the Lee Resolution, Henry Laurens, one of the presidents of the Second Continental Congress, Francis Lightfoot Lee, a delegate to the Continental Congress, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, while all the signers participated into the debates which led to the drafting of the u.S. constitution itself. There are many sources that cover the importance of the Articles of Confederation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Utter fiction. The Constitution improved on the Articles in the same way day improves on night. Delegates who adopted the Constitution were originally directed by their states to merely amend the Articles. Instead, they came to the immediate conclusion this was impossible, so they drafted an entirely different form of government. The contrasts between Constitution vs. Articles? Strong vs, weak central government. Solid union of states vs. loose confederation of sovereign nations. Three branches of government vs. one. Ability to print money, raise taxes and regulate commerce vs. none of these powers. What the Articles' framers created was a form of government that didn't work and that no longer exists. So what exactly did they found? Allreet (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * &  — Allreet, You've alluded to the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, no one said otherwise, but continue to ignore the fact, not "utter fiction" that the Articles of Confederation, with their short comings, are still what lead into and formed the basis to the articles in the Constitution. They didn't discard the Articles of Confederation, they improved on it. "Merely amend"? Amend means to take an original document, like the Articles of Confederation, and make improvements. Yet you carry on as if the two documents are entirely unrelated, not having a thing to do with the other. Both documents are based on representative government and the idea of natural rights. Both documents were ratified by representative delegates in the Continental Congress.
 * — Article 1 in the Articles of Confederation established the official name for the country: "'The Stile of this Confederacy shall be The United States of America''"
 * — Article V states: "Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress".  — for openers.
 * "So what exactly did they found?" Unbelievable. I have added sources that mention that Founding Fathers were behind the Articles of Confederation. Some sources refer to the articles as the first Constitution of the United States. You never square off with the actual quotes/sources but only make erroneous and obtuse statements that fail to address matters entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
 * Actually, you're distorting the history. For example, "Founding Fathers were behind the Articles of Confederation" is blatantly false... "Founders on the Defects of the Articles of Confederation". If Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al were "behind it", why would they have dumped them? Yes, it was "the first constitution", one that lasted all of six years (1781-1787). All beside the point. You keep complaining that I'm asking for sources that say "signers of the Articles are founders". Yes, I am, since that's the question posed by this RFC. Allreet (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — Actually I'm highlighting the history. The Continental Congress, founding fathers, were largely the ones who drafted, debated and signed the A.O.L, so it is not "blantantly false" that they were behind it, since they were the ones who drafted and adopted it. Sorry, there are plenty of sources that support the idea that the A.O.L. was an important step in the founding, and indeed it was the young nation's first Constitution. Not part of the founding process? Yes it lasted six years, and they didn't "dump it" as it was sort of a trial run, tested by the revolutionary years, and served to demonstrate what else was needed in a Constitution. A very important founding step. Once again, your entire argument hangs by the same thread where you keep demanding one figure of speech, even though some of the sources indeed use it. And please don't write an exact sentence and tell us to find a source that uses those exact words. Once again, plenty of sources cover the founding process without using a particular figure of speech. This has been explained for you numerous times now, and as usual, you refuse to get it while you repeatedly try to embellish your attempt at argument with weasel phrases. Btw, the first word in the title you linked to is "Founders". That the A.O.L. had its "defects" and oversights, and was largely criticized, esp during the war, doesn't change the fact that it was written and adapted by the founders, and again, served to demonstrate what a Constitution needed. The founding process took a good number of years, before, during and after the war, yet here you are trying to tear out a six year chapter in that story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You just distorted the "Founders on the Defects of the Articles of Confederation" article. The Founding Fathers in question - Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Morris, Knox - were criticizing the Articles - from 1780 before adoption through 1787 when the Constitutional Convention met - whereas you're claiming they framed them. Members of Congress who adopted the Articles were more interested in protecting the sovereignty of their states than in forming "a more perfect union." Thus they created the wrong thing. That's the history according to the period's leading scholars, from those at the National Archives and Harvard through Bernstein and Ellis, none of whom recognizes the Articles as a founding document or its signers as founders. Allreet (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

— Regarding the misinformed statements: "There's a plethora of sources indicating that probably "the articles of confederation fed right into the drafting of the constitution" Thank you, indeed there is, though to be honest, I suspect you meant to say There's no plethora of sources...'''
 * No, I meant what I wrote. You just missed the implicit irrelevance of that fact, even if indeed it's a fact. But I won't try again to argue the obvious. -The Gnome (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"Still, there is no adequate number of reliable sources claiming that the confederales were and equal to and belong in the same category as the founders, as the established historical paradigm defines the latter." The "established historical paradigm" defines the founders as those involved in a number of documents, not just the Constitution itself. "confederales"? The Constitution was not created in a vacuum and was the result of many years of debates and events before, during and after the Revolution. The founding of representative government took years and occurred in steps. Each step, led to the next, and your attempt to dismiss one of these as 'not equal' has no bearing on the fact that the A.O.C. was a representative government, drafted, debated and signed by the Continental Congress, as was the constitution, with many of it's articles and provisions occurring in the Constitution. Yet you carry on as if the two are entirely unrelated. For someone who bandies the phrase historical paradigm around so much it's a little odd that you seem to be aloof to these ideas, covered by many sources. Please review these sources before you flounder the term historical paradigm around again. Thanks.
 * "Most scholars identify as founding fathers the politicians during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet another gross distortion. The "Confederation period" spanned 1777 through the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, so lots happened during that time. Bolding this word and founding fathers is an attempt to make it appear Bernstein is somehow connecting the AOC with founding fathers, when all he's doing is alluding to the10-year period when the AOC was in effect. @Gwillhickers is doing this with many if not most of the quotes he's cherry picked. But it shouldn't happen with any of them. Allreet (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * — Yes, lots happened during this time, including the drafting and adoption of the Articles of Confederation. All you're giving us is rhetoric about what Bernstein didn't mean to say, as if the Confederation period had nothing to do with the Articles of Confederation. Notice he mentions the founding fathers in reference to the American Revolution, the Confederation period and the early republic, which wasn't established until the Constitution was ratified. But as far as you're concerned the founders had nothing to do with the A.O.C. Unbelievable. Sorry, but yours is the only "gross distortion" being shoveled around here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You've distorted Bernstein's quote by bolding disconnected thoughts in an attempt to connect them. And your interpretation is equally skewed: "Notice how he mentions..." The fact is Bernstein doesn't recognize the Articles' signers as founders. Look up his Appendix where he goes on to name the founders. So are you saying Bernstein believed one thing in one part of the book and something else in another? So either he's confused or you are. Allreet (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

, the Appendix to which you refer clearly reads: Appendix: The founding Fathers, A Partial List,  See p. 177. "Partial List" means there were others. You've been carrying on as if the list was all encompassing, and then embarking on O.R. with the claim that if they are not listed here, they are not founding fathers, while in the same breath you accuse me of distorting Bernstein. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, you got me there. I think Bernstein intends to complete his list someday with signers of the Continental Association, Articles of Confederation and among other documents, the Mayflower Compact. Or, just maybe, he's referring to his third list, the one following signers of the Declaration and Constitution, which includes a number of individuals who deserve recognition but didn't sign anything. But if you think my assertion is OR, that would go a long way toward proving my POV that you have no idea what the term really means. Allreet (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — My reference to O.R. has always been over the idea of trying to draw a conclusion merely on the basis of what a source didn't happen to mention, which you've attempted to do in various articles, and here in Talk on several occasions. In any case, yes Bernstein's list is indeed a partial listing, as he doesn't even mention David Brearley, one of the signatories of the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Brearly is the first name under New Jersey, p. 179 Allreet (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I'm certain Bernstein is a reliable soul, I counted names anyway: 56 signers for the Declaration and 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, with asterisks identifying 39 signers. All three counts, spot on.
 * Regarding "Partial List" in the Appendix's title, his opening sentence provides some clue as to its meaning: "Nobody can agree on the complete list of the founding fathers". Since his two lists of document signers/framers are complete, that leaves his list of Other Founding Fathers (and Mothers) open for additions. As to what those possibilities might be, your guess is as good as mine. Allreet (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply to voting rationales, continued...

 * You've run this by us before. You can't jump to conclusions about Bernstein about what he didn't list in his appendix in reference to the Constitution only. And you're still trying to push the idea that the sources must use the exact phrase of "founding father", regardless if they cover in detail the founding process without using that specific phrase. Sorry, but the word game and the empty conjecture has long since gotten a bit stale and only indicates that you've simply become too angry to acknowledge much of anything, even when its spelled for of you in dozens of cases.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't take A and B from sources and conclude C on our own. A - Ben Franklin signed the Declaration (Morris, p.1), B - The Declaration is a founding document (Ellis, p.2), C - Ben Franklin is a founder. C needs a source. For one, are signers of founding documents automatically founders? Is involvement in the founding process a Pass Go card for founderhood? Maybe the answer is "yes", but that affirmation can only be made by sources. We also can't use Morris and Ellis as the source/basis for C, because that's using multiple sources to make an assertion. For confirmation of these statements, refer to WP:NOR. The first paragraph covers some of these thoughts, while the Synthesis section addresses the A+B=C. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".
 * As for angry? Not at all. With AGF in mind, I'll assume you don't understand you're spending more words on me than on content. Allreet (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The above quote from Bernstein is consistent with this one. "The efforts to create these documents of political foundation, whether the state constitutions, or the Articles of Confederation, r the Constitution of the United States, often divided Americans." Your attempt to write off Bernstein as someone who doesn't regard the A.O.C. as something written by the founders ignores much of the history and has no basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, you left out the last three words of the quote: "The efforts to create these documents of political foundation, whether the state constitutions, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution of the United States, often divided Americans, including founding fathers.." This gives the sentence a different meaning, the fact that the founders were divided on all such documents. The meaning you hope to construe is that the Articles = founding document. If that's Bernstein's meaning, the same would be true of state constitutions. But of course he meant nothing of the kind. It's OR to take "documents of political foundation" and translate it into "founding document" because that was not the author's intent. Allreet (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — You're obviously reaching for something to ace the debate at this juncture. Leaving out the last three words doesn't change anything, esp since I've acknowledged that there was much debate among the founders over the A.O.C. time and again. Thanks for acknowledging that the source mentioned founding fathers. Was there anything else? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not "reaching". Just darn curious regarding what conscious choice would lead you to drop "founding fathers" in a discussion about founding fathers. Allreet (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The historical paradigm runs directly head-on bulls-eye smack against the claim you espouse, promote, and attempt to establish as fact. Yes, the work has been done; I speak not of what I do not know and I know what I speak of. Seems you believe that the majority of editors in these discussions are blind, ignorant, or have some centuries-old axe to grind against the confederales. Ah, well. -The Gnome (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — All you're giving us are empty claims, with nothing but more claims to support them, and some notion about me having an axe to grind. Many sources have been provided, which run contrary to your repeated and unsupported claim about the "historical paradigm". I have "espoused" no claims of my own and have only cited dozens of sources that support the idea that the Articles of Confederation were an important stage in the founding process. All you have done is ignore them categorically with empty rhetoric about my person. The fact that many of the articles in the A.O.C. are found in the Constitution itself should have given you something of a clue to its importance. Both documents were composed and signed by representatives, both written by the Continental Congress, both served as a central government to the states, facts which you've chosen to ignore. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, your mis-use of quotes and sources indicates your bias, that is, your "axe to grind". And you have "espoused claims of your own" by taking sources and finding meanings within them that the sources do not express. So it's a good thing we're ignoring what you say because either your points are irrelevant (e.g., the connection between the AOC and Constitution) or a less than accurate representation of the sources being cited. Allreet (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * — More empty claims and accusations. I quote the sources as I see them and bold key points. If this is a "distortion" for you, then behold. You've dumped on every source that's been presented with this sort of talk, --every one-- even sources you've introduced, so at this point its really sort of difficult to take someone who incessantly cries wolf at every turn very seriously. The Articles of Confederation were in place about eight years, and were routinely debated and criticized, just as the Constitution was and is, and which carries many of the same provisions found in the A.O.C. – yet you're still trying to tell us that this eight year period, had nothing to do with the founding process that led up to that Constitution.
 * "Many of the proposed powers of government set out in the Articles were to be repeated, some in haec verba, in the later Constitution."
 * "Congress was given broad powers, and the language of the Articles often foreshadows the language of the Constitution drafted by the Convention of 1787. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I quote sources as I see them and bold key points" - in truth, what you do is cherry pick quotes, present them out of context, and bold things to give them meaning the authors did not intend. Your bolding, as in the two bullet points above, usually points to issues that are irrelevant - in this case, the connection between the Articles and Constitution. The end result of this is you've ballooned the discussion beyond all reasonable bounds. That's why I initially said I wasn't going to discuss the merits of the AOC, only the question raised by the RFC. Unfortunately (to some degree like a fool), I got sucked into another game of whack a mole. Hey look, a squirrel! The necessary part, however, is that you've distorted what sources say and provided a slew of references of zero importance, for example, the works of five children's authors. Did you miss this or did you think nobody would notice? Allreet (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be "cherry picking" if I was intentionally leaving out key points, none of which you have ever brought to the table in regard to any historian I've quoted. Typically, all you make are accusations and empty claims with nothing to substantiate them. And bolding doesn't "distort" anything if the quote is accurate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You did exactly that with the quote from Bernstein. You left out "including founding fathers". So, yes, I have brought such issues to the table. Of course, you never respond to them, for example, your use of children's books as sources or providing quotes and bolding certain words to create implications. Now tell me, you don't give consideration to tactics like this? You're just like an umpire in a baseball game "calling 'em as you see 'em". Yeah, sure. Allreet (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the same 'talk' you made above. See my reply there. You have not brought anything to the table that would undermine any quotes from any given historian I've presented, which at this point are numerous. "Yeah sure"? Please refrain from this sort of repetitious talk which you've been resorting to all along, it's clogging up the talk page, which at this point appears to be your intention. i.e.Can't refute the points so let's just muddy the waters. Easily discerned from a mile away. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion continued

 * @Gwillhickers is proposing criteria that suits his purpose: "All we need do is support the idea that they were present, etc." What we do need to do is find sources that identify founding fathers directly, not by a "rule of thumb" of some editor's invention.
 * This means sources that say things like "the following individuals founded the USA through their roles in the Continental Congress", followed by a list or their names. Or "signers of the XYZ document are regarded as founding fathers". Or "because they served in top military positions during the Revolution, the following are viewed by most historians as founders". Or "Thomas Linden is regarded as a founding father for having written..." In short, references by historians to founders that clearly identify them as such, not a formula that has us determining who qualifies. Allreet (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

— This is merely yet another attempt at the same failed argument. "Gwillhickers is proposing criteria that suits his purpose:" My "purposes" are to keep the article from being chopped up on the basis that the term Founding Father doesn't occur as often as you like, for your purposes, while the sources clearly put the representative delegates in the middle of the drafting, debating and signing of the Articles of Confederation, and do so without always using the term founding father. However, I've provided several sources that mention Founding Fathers which you once again are ignoring.
 * "The Articles of Confederation also helps create a personal connection with the Founding Fathers who wrote it so long ago".
 * "The Framers of the Articles of Confederation created a government based on the sovereignty of thirteen separate states."
 * "There were three major spheres of action in which the Founding Fathers participated. First, there was the American Revolution and the events preceding and following it. This involved participation in the Continental Congresses, which, particularly the Articles of Confederation, waged the War of the Revolution and gave the thirteen colonies the only cohesion they had at the time. This phase began in 1774..." See other such sources:

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the misuse of these references:
 * Bernstein's Founding Fathers Reconsidered, one of the three most important books on the founders, is being cherry-picked and then distorted by @Gwillhickers. His use of the quotes on p. 6 and p. 57 go beyond the author's intent. I've addressed these issues in more detail in their locations above.
 * Sonneborn, who has no historical credentials, has published a series of non-fiction books for juveniles. Her 48-page book on the Articles is intended for the 7th grade reading level.
 * Callahan is one source I don't have access to. His quote, however, could just as well be used to prove the opposite of Gwillhickers's intent. A "government based on the sovereignty of thirteen separate states" would not describe the government established by the Constitution. IOW, the Articles "founded" something other than the US as we know it.
 * Padover's paper remains the one reliable source on the connection between the Articles and the nation's founding. The "grains of salt" with Padover are that he's an outlier among historians in offering this view, and second, he wrote his paper in 1958, before the extensive scholarship that led up to the Bicentennial in 1976. Historians who came after him (in particular, Morris, Ellis, and Bernstein) had greater access to the papers of the founders, which were voluminous as well as crucial to our understanding of the founding period. Allreet (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since posting the above, I've found that Callahan's book is also aimed at a juvenile audience. However, I couldn't find any biographical information on the author. Allreet (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement/sources supporting the AOC as a founding document

 * "The Articles of Confederation also helps create a personal connection with the Founding Fathers who wrote it so long ago".
 * "The Framers of the Articles of Confederation created a government based on the sovereignty of thirteen separate states."
 * "Our First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation".
 * "At the time they were adopted, the Articles created the strongest confederation in history. They vested the federal government in Congress."
 * "The Articles of Confederation—their great purpose being to unite the Colonies more firmly and efficiently in the effort for liberty—but imperfectly defined and established the functions of government
 * "The efforts to create these documents of political foundation, whether the state constitutions, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution of the United States, often divided Americans.
 * "The Articles functioned as the first national constitution of the United States and, as such, reflected American political theory as it emerged during the Revolution. Equally important, a textual analysis reveals the extent to which the 1787 Constitution was a logical extension of the Articles of Confederation."
 * "...authorizing Congress to send diplomatic representatives to European nations to secure alliances and win recognition of American independence and the other authorizing the framing of “articles of confederation and perpetual union”' to bind the thirteen states together into an American Union.
 * "There were three major spheres of action in which the Founding Fathers participated. First, there was the American Revolution and the events preceding and following it. This involved participation in the Continental Congresses, which, particularly the Articles of Confederation, waged the War of the Revolution and gave the thirteen colonies the only cohesion they had at the time. This phase began in 1774..."
 * "The drafters of the Articles of Confederation doubtless anticipated forming an adequate national government".
 * "The First Founding’s conception of democratic sovereignty and collective identity as embodied in the Articles of Confederation."
 * "The engrossed Articles of Confederation holds an important place in U.S. history. It was signed by men who stepped forward to declare that the United States was an independent country with its own government. When we see the document and the signatures, written by the founding fathers' with quills on parchment."
 * "The Articles of Confederation : the first constitution of the United States": The Articles of Confederation passed from history, but its contributions to the Constitution and the new national government endured. The first five presidents and four of the first five vice presidents had been delegates to Congress under the Articles.
 * " The Founding Fathers intended to build a new nation, with the Articles of Confederation as its foundation. -- "The Founding Fathers began using the Articles of Confederation to guide the new nation..." -- " The founders had established a new nation with the Articles of Confederation as its foundation."
 * "The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777."
 * "The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777. This document served as the United States' first constitution.
 * "Articles of Confederation, first U.S. constitution (1781–89), which served as a bridgee between the initial government by the Continental Congress of the Revolutionary period and the federal government provided under the U.S. Constitution of 1787.
 * "The Articles of Confederation served as the written document that established the functions of the national government of the United States after it declared independence from Great Britain."
 * "Congress was given broad powers, and the language of the Articles often foreshadows the language of the Constitution drafted by the Convention of 1787.
 * "Many of the proposed powers of government set out in the Articles were to be repeated, some in haec verba, in the later Constitution."
 * "Most scholars identify as founding fathers the politicians during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic."
 * "Indeed, there is a conceptual sense in which our very identification of the Founding as a Founding presupposes that the Philadelphia Convention acted without legal warrant under the preexisting Articles. If this were not the case, the real Founders of our Republic were the folks who wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation; the Philadelphia Convention simply gained the ratification of some sweeping "amendments" to the Founding document."
 * This quote leaves out Ackerman's conclusion: ""Since modern lawyers do not trace the origin of the Republic to the Articles of Confederation but to the Constitution of 1787, the discovery of some Founding illegalities confirms, rather than denies, their sense of the overall shape of our constitutional past." Allreet (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This quote leaves out Ackerman's conclusion: ""Since modern lawyers do not trace the origin of the Republic to the Articles of Confederation but to the Constitution of 1787, the discovery of some Founding illegalities confirms, rather than denies, their sense of the overall shape of our constitutional past." Allreet (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Distorted use of sources
@Gwillhickers seems to think if he can load up the RFC with every book and paper on the subject and then selectively quote them, nobody will be able to track down the truth. In almost every case, he's mis-represented what these sources say in regards to the actual founding (almost nothing). Of course, a work on the Articles is going to have positive things to mention, yet all of his cherry-picked passages fall short of saying anything about the founding or for that matter, founders. Some typical examples: The most egregious cases of distortion: Gwillhickers goes on to list all of these sources again a few paragraphs later. Yet only one of these sources (Padover) refers to the Articles as a founding document and none of the others refers to its signers as founders or founding fathers. Allreet (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Callahan - "created a government based on sovereignty" actually points out that the Articles created the wrong form of government. The Articles at best created a precarious union and at worst an all but unworkable government,.
 * Young - "created the greatest confederation" makes the same point, that the Articles created something other than the United States.
 * Price - "the Articles holds an important place in history" is something nobody denies but says nothing in terms of founding the nation.
 * Smith - "drafters anticipated forming an adequate national government". Yet we know for sure they failed to do so. Is this the best the source has to say?
 * Library of Congress - everyone recognizes the Articles as the "first constitution". Yet after four months only one source can be found that recognizes it as a founding document.
 * Bernstein - rejects the Articles as a founding document and instead devotes most of his book to the Declaration and Constitution. Gwillhickers cites Bernstein's highly authoritative book (one of the five most important on the Founding Fathers) several times as if it supports his premise when it's diametrically opposed to this POV.
 * National Archives - the leading authority on the nation's founding (sponsors Founders Online, a consortium of major universities and publishers) ignores the Articles as a founding document and instead recognizes the Declaration, Federalist Papers, Constitution, and Bill of Rights (see my link). Gwillhickers's link to the Archives website provides the full document but without any reference to the nation's founding. The link's use in this context is highly misleading, as if the Archives ascribes special importance to the document.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica's thorough Founding Fathers article makes no mention whatsoever of the Articles. Britannica's founders article, by Joseph Ellis (Pulitzer Prize for Founding Brothers, another leading work on the subject), instead highlights "the liberal ideas celebrated in the Declaration of Independence, and the republican form of government defined in the United States Constitution" in its lead sentence.

The sources speak for themselves

 * User:Allreet once again tries to distort what the sources say. He claims Berstein "rejects" the idea of the A.O.C. as a founding document simply on the basis that Bernstein doesn't mention it, even though Bernstein refers to it in relation to the Constitution several times. Allreet tries to advance this idea with every source he's listed above, that if they don't mention the A.O.C. as a founding document, they therefore "reject" it, or "don not regard" it as being part of the founding process, with no regard that the A.O.C. was the first Constitution of the U.S. He then tries to advance the idea that since the A.O.C had defects it was therefore (leap!) not part of the founding process, which is yet another one of his attempts at original research. He rejects the idea that since the A.O.C. was eventually replaced by the Constitution it was not an important step in its drafting and ratification, even though the A.O.C. and the Constitution share many of the same basic ideas. The shortcomings of the A.O.C. was what inspired the improvements found in the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If sources don't say AOC = founding document or AOC signers = founders, what's an editor to do? Figure it out on his own? Piece together different historical observations and reach a conclusion?
 * Bernstein "simply doesn't mention it" because he and other leading experts recognize other documents and their signers. Not much else you or I believe really matters. Things like the founding process, what the AOC and Constitution share, the AOC's shortcomings and most other arguments you raise prove nothing and mean nothing in terms of whether signers of the AOC are considered founders. Allreet (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The First Founding’s conception of democratic sovereignty and collective identity as embodied in the Articles of Confederation."
 * "The drafters of the Articles of Confederation doubtless anticipated forming an adequate national government".
 * "There were three major spheres of action in which the Founding Fathers participated. First, there was the American Revolution and the events preceding and following it. This involved participation in the Continental Congresses, which, particularly the Articles of Confederation, waged the War of the Revolution and gave the thirteen colonies the only cohesion they had at the time. This phase began in 1774..."
 * "The Articles of Confederation : the first constitution of the United States": The Articles of Confederation passed from history, but its contributions to the Constitution and the new national government endured. The first five presidents and four of the first five vice presidents had been delegates to Congress under the Articles.


 * Is there a founder in our future? Allreet (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Bernstein, in Founding Fathers Reconsidered, a 227-book, includes passing references to the Articles of Confederation on all of 13 pages. Meanwhile, his Appendix, pages 177-180, lists all the signers/framers of the Declaration and Constitution, plus other founders with no mention whatsoever of the Articles. As for original research, here's a doozy: "AOC's shortcomings inspired improvements in the Constitution", That would true in the same way car wrecks  improve our driving. It should be noted @Gwillhickers has nothing to say about his misuse of other references. Allreet (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Relationship between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution
You're typically rehashing the same failed argument. i.e.Brunstein only lists the signers, but not those of the A.O.C. The A.O.C. was a political entity of representatives, just as the Constitution was and is, and that the A.O.C.'s shortcomings are what prompted the improvements made in that Constitution. Improvements aren't made unless there is a need for them, and the A.O.C. was central to that process, which is covered by many sources. Bernstein, which you hold up as "highly authoritative", covers this process, that while reviewing and debating the Articles of Confederation, it was determined that simply amending this document would not be sufficient. "At first, the delegates had to decide whether they would act as a constitutional convention or not. About half the states had chosen delegates to the convention on the understanding that the delegates would propose only amendments to the Articles of Confederation, rather than replacing the Articles with a new constitution. Only after the delegates decided that revising the Articles would not solve the problems facing the United States did the meeting become a true constitutional convention." On page 57, Berstein refers to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution as "documents of political foundation". "The efforts to create these documents of political foundation, whether the state constitutions, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution of the United States, often divided Americans." (Emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You left out the end of this quote, the words "including founding fathers". Of course if you had left that in, it might imply what I've been stating: that the founding fathers were disgusted with the Articles of Confederation. The interesting truth is the Articles created the "Perpetual Union" and because of the Articles the Union almost completely fell apart, in which case, there would have been no United States of America. Allreet (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The idea that the Articles of Confederation fed right into the Constitution is easily found covered in the sources: "Congress was given broad powers, and the language of the Articles often foreshadows the language of the Constitution drafted by the Convention of 1787.

"Many of the proposed powers of government set out in the Articles were to be repeated, some in haec verba, in the later Constitution." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your quotes prove what? That Bernstein is aware the AOC existed and had some significance? Apparently not enough because as with the National Archives, Encyclopedia Britannica, Brown, Congress.gov, and other sources, he recognizes the Declaration and Constitution as founding documents, and not the AOC. Allreet (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You cherry pick quotes from Bernstein that have favorable things to say but leave out others, for example:
 * On p. 56: Under the Articles, "Congress had created a 'firm league of friendship' that fell short of being a consolidated Union or a true government for the United States".
 * Also on p. 56: "the problems facing the Confederation raised the question whether Americans could preserve the great principles animating the American Revolution and its greatest achievements - independence, liberty, and Union".
 * On p, 68: "In the years following the war's end, state governments tended to ignore the Articles of Confederation, leaving it all but powerless".


 * There's no point quoting passages on the Articles' weaknesses, but overall, Bernstein has little to say about the AOC and instead focuses on the Declaration and Constitution. A source for you he's not. Allreet (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Still trying to leap to conclusions for Berstein on the basis of what he didn't say, while avoiding the fact that he referred to the A.O.C as a founding document, and that it was reviewed and debated before it was decided that a Constitution needed to be drafted, while it was also pointed out just above, and elsewhere, that the A.O.C. contained many of the provisions found in the Articles, and while you carry on as if the two documents, both drafted by the Continental Congress, were from different planets. You've denied everything. Sad. This last bunch of quotes you just cherry picked, while you ignore the others, only verifies what I been saying, that the A.O.C. had its shortcomings and is what brought on the demand for a stronger Constitution. Thanks for expanding on that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, you're putting words in your sources' mouths. "He referred to the AOC as a founding document". That's not what his text says. You're translating a general statement about all documents that laid "political foundations" to mean something different. Otherwise, based on his statement,  all  documents adopted by state legislatures and the national Congress are to be regarded as "founding documents". So I suppose everyone who served in state and national offices and voted for political documents circa 1760s-1790s is to be considered a founder? As you've done throughout our conversation, you've again ventured into the realm of Original Research with your approach to sources. Allreet (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's yet another source that clearly supports the idea the the A.O.C. played an important role in the founding of the Constitution.
 * "Certain provisions of the Articles were either incorporated intact in the Constitution or established precedents expanded upon by the Convention. Many of the prohibitions on state action imposed by the Articles were retained in the Constitution." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That quote proves what in terms of identifying founding fathers? If that's A in a proposition, you need a B and probably a C to reach D about founders as a conclusion. The fact is, nobody in all that's been written about the AOC has referred to its signers as founders, except for one source. Allreet (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a better quote from Rakove, from his paper The Legacy of the Articles of Confederation: "the Articles...led the framers of the Constitution to conclude, with remarkably few reservations, that only a fundamental revision of the federal structure could preserve the union". Rakove makes no reference in his 23-page paper to the founding or founders. Allreet (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The quotes outline the process and what occurred leading up to the framing, founding or establishment of the Constitution, and once again, you are trying to write everything off on the basis that some of the sources don't use the word "founding", even though some of the signers were indeed referred to as founders, including. Yes, you introduced Padover who indeed used your pet word, but so have the others. Not one? Sorry, but your above attempt at algebra doesn't refute the history. You were the one who said, "As for original research, here's a doozy: "AOC's shortcomings inspired improvements in the Constitution". That you thought all this was "extraordinary" and the product of original research only tells us you're not debating the history, ignorant about the A.O.C. and the Constitution itself and are, once again, digressing to your same old word game. One phrase.


 * "The fact is, nobody in all that's been written about the AOC has referred to its signers as founders, except for one source. "


 * "There were three major spheres of action in which the Founding Fathers participated. First, there was the American Revolution and the events preceding and following it. This involved participation in the Continental Congresses, which, particularly the Articles of Confederation, waged the War of the Revolution and gave the thirteen colonies the only cohesion they had at the time. This phase began in 1774..."


 * "The engrossed Articles of Confederation holds an important place in U.S. history. It was signed by men who stepped forward to declare that the United States was an independent country with its own government. When we see the document and the signatures, written by the founding fathers' with quills on parchment."


 * "The Articles of Confederation also helps create a personal connection with the Founding Fathers who wrote it so long ago".


 * "The Founding Fathers intended to build a new nation, with the Articles of Confederation as its foundation.


 * "The Founding Fathers began using the Articles of Confederation to guide the new nation..."


 * "The founders had established a new nation with the Articles of Confederation as its foundation."


 * "Most scholars identify as founding fathers the politicians during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic."


 * "...except for one source"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Three of these sources are children's books: Price, Sonneborn and Rebman. And again, you're misquoting Bernstein. You still have one source, Padover. Allreet (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To be clear about the last quote, from R.B. Bernstein's The Founding Fathers Reconsidered: I just "called out" @Gwillhickers on this in another post. He's bolded "founding fathers" and "Confederation" as if the two are connected. First of all, "the Confederation period" covers 10 years or so, 1777-1787. Gwillhickers apparently is trying to imply that Bernstein means the "Articles of Confederation" when he's doing nothing more than referring to a period of time. What makes this all the more misleading is that Bernstein's book is about the signers of the Declaration and Constitution as founders, plus a few other patriotic souls, the signers of the Articles not being among them. Allreet (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "The first five presidents and four of the first five presidents had been delegates to Congress under the Articles" is either a distortion or a non sequitur. The five presidents in question - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe - all served in the Congress after the AOC was adopted, and all had a role in replacing the Articles with the Constitution. For the most part, the same can be said of the vice presidents - they had nothing to do with the adoption of the Articles. The one exception is Elbridge Gerry who voted for and signed the both the Declaration and AOC. So either this statement is irrelevant or @Gwillhickers is attempting to give the impression these founders supported the Articles of Confederation. Allreet (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says "the first five presidents had been delegates to Congress under the articles". Now you're objecting to any historical context as yet another "distortion"? You were smart enough to see the distinction, written in plain English, please assume a little good faith and assume the rest of us will. Apparently you're going to make such claims in every instance about each source with the hope that they will be lost in the wash, and when it comes time to close the RfC, the closer(s) will just look at the miles of talk (blur) overlook the sources and just count the votes and be done with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the relevance of the statement. What's your point about five presidents serving in the Congress of Confederation? That's not a "historical context", but a pointed reference. So your actual point is...?
 * As for the ability of "closers" to wade through our reams of material, I apologize for whatever I've done to contribute to their ordeal. Just the same, I'm certain they'll be able to discern wheat from chaff. IOW, not much is likely to be "lost in the wash". Allreet (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Quotations/sources fail to identify founders (one exception)
 * I have access to all the sources except the first. Here's an assessment, then, of @Gwillhickers's use of sources:
 * Only one of the excerpts mentions founding fathers, but, none offers anything in the way of identifying specific founders.
 * Five of the first six sources, the 2nd through the 6th, are papers from JSTOR that I've cited before. None of them identifies anyone as founders.
 * Bernstein is cited twice, yet he recognizes signers of the Declaration and Constitution, not those who signed the Articles. Also, the two quotes from his book mispresent his overall views of the Articles.
 * Padover's paper is a reliable source, but an outlier and somewhat dated. However, I wouldn't quibble if he were cited along with other similarly reliable and explicit sources. Allreet (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote the above, @Gwillhickers has added several sources that prove nothing. National Archives, for example, has a link to the Articles that says nothing about their significance. The link to Encyclopedia Britannica's AOC article says nothing about its signers being founders. The US Department of State link provides more about the AOC's weaknesses than its virtues. Gwillhickers apparently believes that if he cites everything that's ever been written about the AOC, someone is bound to be impressed. The fact is Britannica's Founding Fathers article says nothing about the significance of the AOC. The National Archives does not recognize it as a founding document and assigns far more importance in terms of the founding to the Declaration, Constitution, Federalist Papers and Bill of Rights. Allreet (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources clearly identify those involved in the founding
You're attempting to use the same failed arguments all over again, demanding that the word "founding" be used in every instance, making unsupported claims about Bernstein, and now quibbling about a source, which you provided, as being "dated", esp since Padover clearly referred to the Continental Congress and the AOC as being composed of Founding Fathers. Bersterin is "cited twice" for two different statements, btw. Meanwhile you ignore terms like "created" ... "established" ...  "framing", while you also ignore the idea that "The Articles functioned as the first national constitution of the United States". But as far as you're concerned none of this had anything to do with the founding. This is clearly more of your continued stonewalling, while you continue to ignore the history. Once again, all that is required to support the idea of anyone as a founder is to provide sources that cover the founding process, per the Continental Congress, AOC, DOI and Constitution. If anyone was a member of any of these entities, and/or a signatory of any of the documents, then it goes that they were present, involved in the debates, adopted the document in question, and hence part of the founding process. Now here you are making the claim that the AOC had nothing to do with the Constitution. Or are you assuming that the various members were not involved in any of the debates, didn't oversee the adoption and just signed a document completely ignorant about matters? That's what you argument boils down to -- blind assumptions and original research. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If all that you said is true - it's not - we still couldn't confer the title on anyone. Only sources can. With that, I'm not ignoring anything, other than your attempts to do what historians do. You seem to have scoured the literature fairly well, and yet you haven't found one reference on your own (I provided Padover) that says the AOC's signer are founders. What mystifies me is that you think we can reach such specific conclusions on our own independent of sources. Thankfully, that privilege is not ours because of the responsibility associated with it. Allreet (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've provided plenty of sources that cover the founders and the founding process, and you've been trying to avoid all this history with your continued insistence that a source must use the exact term Founding Father, nothing else matters to you, while you still have yet to back this up with actual WP policy that supports your opinion in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You've provided no sources on your own, other than the works of children's authors, that address signers = founders. And I just re-posted what WP:VER and WP:NOR have to say on the use of sources. You're violating those policies by drawing conclusions your sources don't state. Yes, generally, perhaps, maybe the Articles of Confederation "established", "created" or otherwise caused the United States of America to be, but we can't say that someone who signed this docuent is a "founder" or "founding father" unless a source actually says he is. Yet with the hundreds of papers, articles, and books that have been written on the subject, the best you can do is some books for junior high students? So to say "plenty of sources" is yet another distortion, a misrepresentation of the truth. Allreet (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Founding is not the issue — founders are
Failed in what respect? By living up to WP:VER and related guidelines? What I'm "demanding" are sources that identify founders. So I provided one to help show you the level of verification required. Padover is direct and explicit in identifying those he believes to be founders, which is true of all the sources I posted. What you're doing instead is presenting sources that "prove" things related to the founding and then connecting...I really don't know whom since you haven't offered any sources that identify founders. Allreet (talk)


 * Alerts for: ...
 * — Your attempt to hold the ideas of "founding" and "founders" as entities from two different planets comes off as stonewalling. For purposes of a list of founders, all we need do is show that they were members of the given different political founding entities. There are over 130 names in the list, among 4 different categories; Are you expecting that we provided multiple sources/citations for each and every individual in the list, under every category they are listed as signatories, that specifically says e.g.'Congressman Smith' was a "founding father". ? Are you really prepared to do that? The sources clearly show the AOC was involved in the founding, was "the first national constitution of the United States", and its various short comings are what prompted the improvements which fed right into the drafting and ultimate ratification of the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On a subject of this importance, if all you can find is one source that explicitly supports a premise, you have a POV that's in an extreme minority, especially considering the "prevailing view" (Declaration and Constitution as founding documents) is supported by at least six sources, including the most authoritative on the subject. Allreet (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of what we're dealing with also is that a book isn't going to be published unless it is expected to make a profit for the publisher. This is why we're not going to see a dedicated biography for signatories like Abraham Baldwin, David Brearley, etc. While you're willing to keep signers of the Constitution in the list of founders, can you provided multiple sources for e.g. Jacob Broom and Pierce Butler, both of whom only signed the Constitution? There are 23 names of men who only signed the Constitution, most of them with names hardly anyone is familiar with. Can you provided "multiple sources" which say that all of these men were "founding fathers", in those exact words? If you are not willing to provided "multiple sources" that say individuals like Broom or Butler were "Founding Fathers", along with all the others, then you can not expect anyone to do so for the other signers. If we follow your method we will be removing many signatories of both the Constitution and the Declaration from the article also.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a ton of material available on Abraham Baldwin, who was not only a US founder (for signing the Constitution) but the founding father of public education in the US. The Georgia Historical Society tells his full story with links to five essays and as source materials lists two books and two papers. Biographies abound on other founders, including David Brearley, not always books but enough to recount their lives here in Wikipedia. Allreet (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of the literature, not a correction of same. If the literature does not talk about Broom or Butler in depth, then we don't have anything to summarize. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It was asserted, on several occasions, that we were supposed to provide "multiple sources" that say Founding Father in regards to individual signers of the Continental Association, and now, for the Articles of Confederation – political entities that are represented by the "summary of literature" as being part of the "founding", or" establishing", or "framing" of representative government in America. Again, if multiple sources that employ the term Founding Father are expected to be used for signers of the AOC, then we must employ the same method for all signers, in every instance, including men who only signed the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I alone were wrestling with this topic, trying to get a handle on the complexity, trying to summarize it properly for our readers, I would ditch any automatic assignation of FF status based on the signing of documents, and instead move to an inclusion criteria based on in-depth discussion in the published sources. Of course I would tell the reader that different historians define the topic differently, comparing them. But I would limit the featured names to only those who were strongly represented in significant detail in sources. So Broom and Butler would certainly fall by the wayside, along with many more. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Automatic designation" would be a violation of WP:NOR because the reference would not be explicit - but implicit. However, if a source says all signers of a document are founders and then lists the individual signers, this would be clear and direct. It also means we couldn't drop Broom and Butler, not if they're specifically listed by historians such as Bernstein and Brown and institutions such the National Archives and Harvard. I should also add that they're both recognized by other reliable sources and then by many that are not so reliable, but together, this wide recognition would represent the prevailing view.
 * In response to @Gwillhickers, yes, we need multiple, high-quality sources to identify individuals as founding fathers. As for signers of the Declaration and Constitution, I've provided five sources, in the section below, each of which identifies them by name and explicitly states they are founders or founding fathers. I believe a similarly rigorous level of verification should be required for identifying other founders in either the Founding Fathers article or individual biographies. Allreet (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Allreet — It is not merely 'implied' that the given members were founders, because the Continental Congress was composed of those very members. i.e.The members were the Congress. There is nothing 'implied' here when we mention one of its members by name as a founder. Bear in mind that many of the people Bernstein mentions as founders also signed the C.A. and the A.O.C., so are we going to keep their names listed under those categories and remove some of the others, simply because you can't find the term "Founding Father" used in reference to the given names in question, even if their collective roles of the founding or framing are covered. We'll be giving the readers a half baked listing on that account because these documents were signed by every member of Congress during the time in question. The entire group of members and signers of the various documents were founders, or framers, or those who established representative government, and to pluck out various individuals from this group because you can't find a source that refers to a given individual as a Founding Father, verbatim, is really a little silly, given all the sources that cover the founding process. If we're going to adapt this needless and rigidly academic approach to citing the article then we will have to cite each and every individual name with multiple i.e.at least three, citations, each one specifically referring to a given individual as a Founding Father. This is what you have been calling for throughout the discussions for the last couple of months, so we would have to hold you to that if the RfC's are approved on that rigid basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A round-up of dictates from WP:VER and WP:NOR: All assertions and conclusions must be expressed clearly and directly by the sources themselves. They cannot be drawn from various statements found in a single source or multiple sources. Editors must remain true to what sources say, which does not mean quoting verbatim but restating accurately. In paraphrasing, we cannot take what a source says generally and then craft something specific that is not explicitly stated by the source. Multiple reliable sources are required for extraordinary claims. If any of these dictates are not understood, I'm willing to provide examples to clarify their meaning. Allreet (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim that a given individual was a founder because he was a delegate or member of the of the Continental Congress, a central founding entity, is nothing extraordinary. It's rather obvious – about as extraordinary as referring to a champion swimmer as an 'athlete'. We've been through this. Again, we will have to provide at least three citations for every name, in every category, in we follow your self defeating, article depleting, idea,  which hinges on your own narrow interpretation of "explicit", and now, "extraordinary". i.e.Hundreds of added citations -- to a list. If you insist on subscribing to a measure, esp one which is wrongly interpreted, that is going to compromise and needlessly deplete the article, we will be forced to invoke WP:IAR.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon Such a threat means? Allreet (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - I am not sure why you are asking me what Such a threat means? . I don't read a threat in we will be forced to invoke WP:IAR.  I am not sure how to interpret it, but it is not a threat.  I do interpret it as a cry of frustration by one of the two "sides" in a debate that has been going on too long.  I also see frustration by User:Allreet, who is on the other "side".  I also see civil POV-pushing that sometimes becomes less than civil.  I would say that some sort of dispute resolution is needed, except that two dispute resolution processes are already in use, a DRN thread and Requests for Comments.  I would suggest that you ask the DRN moderator, User:Casualdejekyll, to either take active control of the discussion or to fail the moderation.  (I have tried to ask the community at Village Pump how to deal with long-running content disputes.  As you may have seen, I haven't gotten an answer because the community is not much wiser than I am.)  I would ask you to ask User:Gwillhickers what they mean, but I know that you and they are not communicating.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that my moderation was about signers of the Continental Association, which I was under the impression was a soon to be solved matter (the RfC looks like it is conclusive although I can not tell if it is closed or not). casualdejekyll  17:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, the "threat" I perceive is that no matter how the RFCs turn out or what our guidelines say, @Gwillhickers is indicating he intends to ignore all rules and do what he wants. Not knowing WP:IAR from Adam, I don't know what that means.
 * Regarding frustration, that would describe my first three months of this. The past five weeks are a different matter since there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel in terms of settling the issues I've been raising - over the most basic of rules, the need for RS. In fact, I believe that this RFC and the previous one are all the dispute resolution that's needed. From there, if @Gwillhickers wants to ignore their outcomes (presuming the RFCs go against him), I suppose that's his choice though I suggest he read your response to my previous question (on 7 May 2022) regarding the options available to everyone.
 * BTW, I understand you're trying to be even handed with what you say, but your non-specific comment regarding "civility" implies that incivility has been occurring on both sides in the current RFC. That's absolutely not the case on my part so I think the inference is unfair. Allreet (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the rules where it concerns sourcing the idea that the Continental Association and the AOL are founding documents. What I would ignore, however, is your interpretation of the rules and your narrow take on "explicitly" and such where you are now expecting us to add hundreds of citations for each and every name, in a list, while you ignore the idea that the A.O.C. is well sourced as a founding document, drafted and debated by representative delegates, who were obviously part of the founding. But still, you need multiple sources that specifically refers to each individual by name as a founding father, knowing full well that many of the names seldomly occur in most history texts, much less in multiple sources that use a specific figure of speech. Now here you complaining to Robert about civility, even though you have had more than your fair share of it. And I must remember, your idea of incivility includes an assertive term like 'got it'. Last, when the policy makers gave us WP:IAR they obviously had the foresight to realize that there would always be individuals who would interpret a rule to compromise and deplete an article, needlessly. Or are you going to assume, also, that they gave us that option but didn't intend for anyone to ever use it? Just for the record, in all my years of editing I never had any cause to invoke IAR, until now. Thanks so much for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have never said that you're ignoring the rules, except for just now when I referred to your intention to invoke WP:Ignore All Rules. What I have said previously is that you misunderstand "the rules", including the meanings of specific words they include, such as clear, direct, and explicit. As for incivility, you have sprinkled many of your responses with personal characterizations, as well as misrepresentations of what I'm saying. You just did the latter regarding my reference to "ignoring" and the former with "crying on Robert's shoulder". As for your last personal comment, one indication that things are getting very strange is when someone blames you for their behavior. Allreet (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the rules well, thank you. However, I disagree with your continued attempt to narrowly define the idea of being "explicit", by demanding that all sources must employ an exact phrase, ignoring the idea that a given idea can be explicitly expressed by using different phrases and such. The A.O.L. was founded, established, framed, instituted, by representative delegates, who were involved in the drafting, debating and signing, and as such, its signatories are all founders - not simply because they signed, but because they were present during the drafting and debating, which took more than a year before they all concurred and signed. We shouldn't be expected to ascribe multiple sources, for every individual, in each category, in reference to "founding father", anymore than we need a source to establish the idea that a swimmer "became wet" while swimming. The idea is obvious and doesn't require a source to spell this out verbatim. The signatories of the A.O.C. were involved in the founding process, and all we need do is provide sources that cover this idea well. We are not trying to advance some unusual or bizzar idea here, so this really should not have been an issue in the first place. Yet here you are, ready to take an axe to the article over this because the sources most often don't specifically mention the lesser names, much less refer to them with a specific figure of speech, and I think we can assume that you're well aware of that, and are willing to gut the article anyways, irrespective of the idea that the A.O.L. and its drafters were integral to the founding of representative government in America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you understand how absurd it is to criticize someone for being "explicit" about the word "explicit"? And if you do understand the rules, you should understand what's stated in WP:NOR about the need for sources that are explicit. I've offered you an option for settling this, an easy one in terms of dispute resolution: Take your POV to the Help Desk for some feedback. If you can get a favorable ruling there - or anywhere - that's going to help your case much more than analogies about swimmers getting wet. Allreet (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I swam today for exercise and got wet, and dried myself off. What does that have to do with anything?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Founders, continued...
— Okay, you can belabor the analogy, but it was just used to make a simple point. If we were writing an account about a swimmer, based on e.g. a biography, and mentioned that this swimmer emerged from the pool wet, even though the source didn't use that phrase, I like to think any reasonable and intelligent reader would not contest that point. Members of the Continental Congress were involved in the founding at every stage, similarly do we really need a source that mentions each and every member as a founder, knowing the Continental Congress was the major founding entity during the revolutionary era? Allreet, you can repeat the same line and bold the word "explicit" all you like, but you still have not made the case. One can explicitly define someone as a founding father simply by mentioning he was a member of the Continental Congress, where many sources refer to it as central to the founding, framing, etc, and without having to brand each and every member on their forehead as a founding father, verbatim. I'll ask again, as you keep avoiding the question: If you are insisting that we use multiple sources that refer to each individual as a Founding Father, would you follow your own contention and accordingly cite each and every name in the listing, with multiple sources? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You can be sure I'll keep repeating these guidelines and definitions - but only as long as Wikipedia continues to repeat them. Accordingly, WP:NOR and WP:VER do a very good job "making my case".
 * Please quote the passage where it says we must use the exact same figures of speech, phrases, etc, in order to establish the idea that someone was a founding father. Otherwise, your particular contention, that we can only use sources that say Founding Father, verbatim, remains in the realm of opinion, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bob Dylan wrote a line that fits these arguments perfectly: "How many times must we go through all things twice?" No, for the nth time, paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable but it gets very hard to do when we're talking about very specific things. Planets in the Solar System. There are some synonyms that fit but not many. However, paraphrasing is not what you're doing, which is distilling statements and drawing conclusions. That's what WP:NOR warns about under Using Sources: "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source". It's also less than explicit and at its worst, classic OR, though I know these things are impossible for you to see, so I'm sure we're going have to go through them again several more times before we're through. Allreet (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To which I'll add: The article happens to be about a particular figure of speech. It begins by expressing this idea several ways: "Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders". While other synonyms are theoretically acceptable, you won't find any of them in the article, nor any long explanations about why or how someone qualifies. As a matter of fact, all of the individuals included in the article outside the list section have sources that use at least one of the figures of speech suggested in the lead. Whenever such sources could not be found for an individual who was added to the article, that individual's name was removed. Dozens of editors have abided by this practice for many years. Except in the list section which has never had any sources for signers of the four documents. I don't think much of a case needs to be made for requiring sources that specifically identify these individuals as founders, since that's what we've done for everybody else without exception. Allreet (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're speaking in very general tones. "I don't think much of a case needs to be made for requiring sources that specifically identify these individuals as founders, since that's what we've done for everybody else without exception." "Everybody"? There are more than 150 names in the list, even if we exclude those who only signed the C.A., there are still scores of names -- with no citations, names which you seem to have no issue with keeping regardless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please. Read what I write more carefully. I specifically said that everyone except those in the list section has sources that refer to them as founders or founding fathers. We've done this without exception. I also specifically said this is not the case with those who are listed in the table of signers, that these individuals have never had sources. And I've indicated previously that I have sources that identify signers of the Declaration and Constitution as founders, but can find only one that recognizes AOC signers as founders. Is all that clear? Allreet (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The word "created" more than substantiates the idea of "founding". To 'found' something you must create it, so all you're doing is haggling over exact phrases, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Framers of the Articles of Confederation created a government based on the sovereignty of thirteen separate states."
 * "At the time they were adopted, the Articles created the strongest confederation in history. They vested the federal government in Congress."


 * Both bullet points disprove your point. Is our current form of government a "government of 13 sovereign states"? Is the United States a "confederation"? Of course not is the answer to both. The Constitution founded the United States as we know it. The Articles of Confederation created something completely different. Allreet (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong once again. The founding process was something that occurred before, during and after the American Revolution, and there are plenty of sources that support the idea, while you can not provide one source that says the drafting and ratification of the Constitution was the only advent involved in creating and developing representative government in America. Even if you could, it would run contrary to what many other sources affirm. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not a quote that describes signers as founders. Lots of words, lots of meanings, but none that satisfies the question raised by this RFC. Allreet (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still resting your entire argument on the usage of one phrase, while you continue to ignore the history, and the sources provided that do indeed use that term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * " The Founding Fathers intended to build a new nation, with the Articles of Confederation as its foundation "The Founding Fathers began using the Articles of Confederation to guide the new nation..." " The founders had established a new nation with the Articles of Confederation as its foundation."
 * These quotes are from a children's author and therefore, are not reliable. Would you please try to be more careful with whom you cite and what you quote so that we can rely on you. Allreet (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Requiring the terms "Founders" and "Founding Fathers"
@Gwillhickers has complained repeatedly I'm "demanding" that the term "Founders" or "Founding Fathers" be used by sources. I'm not sure how he expects us to identify the subject of the article "Founding Fathers of the United States". If we were writing on astronauts, flowers, swimmers, or any other topic, wouldn't we want to verify subjects' identities with sources that make at least one reference to the specific term in question?

Instead of direct references, Gwillhickers seems to believe we can glean articles for phrases and sentences that on their own or together indicate but don't actually state someone or some group of individuals qualifies for the title. The first approach fails WP:VER because the identification is neither direct nor clear. The second fails WP:NOR because it requires a synthesis of ideas and then a conclusion on the part of editors.

Meanwhile, we have two lists of signers - of the Declaration and Constitution - who are explicitly identified by multiple sources as founders. So if a reader wants to verify these lists of founders, they can reference sources where the the phrase "founders" or "founding fathers" pops off the page. But for signers of the Articles of Confederation, a reader would have to wade through paragraph after paragraph in a source and never find the term. In this approach, the reader would have to come up with the conclusion only Gwillhickers has reached: that these individuals must be founders because of this, that, and something else, that is, using criteria he has devised.

The lead sentence of the Founding Fathers article defines the terms that apply: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders" (the article's emphasis, not mine). Since Gwillhickers doesn't believe sources are needed that explicitly state this, he's asking us as editors to assign the term based on our interpretations of sources. Allreet (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the same distortion Allreet has been trying to advance, about me, for some time now. I fully support the idea that the Founding fathers should be explicitly covered by reliable sources, which doesn't always require that a source employ the exact phrase of "founding father". Some sources use the word "established", "framed" or "created", rather than "founded" or "founding". I have provided an array of sources that do this, some of them which indeed use the term "founding" and "founded", while others employ the term "created", "framed", etc. I am confident that readers with average comprehension skills will have no trouble understanding what is being said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "about you" but rather your novel use of sources. Is this how you documented papers in high school and college? You found things and then re-worded them to fit your premises, as opposed to actually quoting your sources? Do you draw conclusions from sources and then use them to support your articles here in Wikipedia? Your "array of sources" happens to include no mention of terms such as "founding fathers", "founders", "founding documents" and so forth and, therefore, are worthless in an article about Founding Fathers. As for understanding what's being said, if anything, having this many sources that don't ever refer to signers as founders should tell you something. Allreet (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the exact phrase of "founding founders" or simply "founders", has been made several times by the sources, and I've spelled this out for you as many, yet you keep ignoring them. Even when they don't employ that exact phrase, they still cover the founding or framing process quite well, so you need to put the sophomoric word game to rest. It's not going to fly for the impartial and objective reader with average comprehension ability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The more I think about, the more I'm convinced the answer is "Yes". If we're going to call somebody by a specific term, we have to have a source that uses the term or one of its acceptable synonyms. For certain, we can't do what your suggesting, that is, distill what sources say and then translate that into something they don't say clearly and directly. As for "the sources", so far I've seen only one authoritative source - the others you've posted either are not reliable or do not say what you claim they say.
 * Thanks for your opinion, but as long as you can't support this with a policy that says we must always used exact phrases, all we have is your opinion here. As was pointed out, the term Founding Father didn't come into popular usage until the 1940's, so we are not going to find that phrase in many of the history books, esp before that time. Regardless, if they explicitly cover the history involved this should suffice for rationale people with average intelligence. Once again, sources have been provided which employ the term Founding Father, or Founding, yet you're still ignoring them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat, then, what I've said before. "A round-up of dictates from WP:VER and 'WP:NOR: All assertions and conclusions must be expressed clearly and directly by the sources themselves. They cannot be drawn from various statements found in a single source or multiple sources. Editors must remain true to what sources say, which does not mean quoting verbatim but restating accurately. In paraphrasing, we cannot take what a source says generally and then craft something specific that is not explicitly stated by the source".
 * As for people of average intelligence, most would understand what I just said, but that leaves out a certain number of the same group who would not. And once again, the sources you've provided are less than reliable. You've distorted many if not most of them, including citing and quoting at least five children's authors (Callahan, Feinberg, Price, Rebman, and Sonneborn} as if they were authoritative. Allreet (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hi, @Robert, sorry to bother you but I just noticed that significant amounts of material have disappeared from the RFC discussion. Based on the edit history, it looks like I removed the material in question, but I know I didn't so I'm probably not reading this correctly. In any case, several back-and-forths are missing as well as an entire section. Here's the link to the edits in question. What makes no sense to me is that on this "history" page, it looks like @Gwillhickers added material I added in several separate postings, not "one fell swoop". So apparently I'm not reading these edits correctly. In any case, would it be possible for you to restore the deleted material? And if in fact I was the one who removed it (though I can't imagine how I could have), I apologize. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A few days ago I collapsed a section which contained a lot of contentious talk between Allreet and myself, as it was suggested that this be done not very long ago. I was trying to condense the Talk because as we all know it has gotten very long, thanks to Allreet and myself mostly. If anyone feels this stuff needs to be un-collapsed feel free to revert. Apologies for any inconvenience this, or any of my other edits, may have caused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted. Where exactly is the "collapsed" section? The only one I can find is the one Robert created. In any case, please leave this "function" to the moderator. I spent nearly an hour looking for something I had posted before and could no longer be found. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — Since this sub section, one of many sub sections, and sub-sub sections, occurs under the RfC main section, which I overlooked, yes, I should have left it as is. The collapsed box is under a section entitled Collapsed, as listed in the T.O.C. The section and box is located about 1 — 2 browser pages just above this message. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

— Allreet: On 08:11, 24 May 2022 you removed a section and a lot of discussion with these two edits. I restored them. See edit history with that time/date. I'm assuming a massive deletion like this was simply an error. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have no idea how that could have happened, but it appears the comments I was looking for are back. Equally assuring is that my "read" of the edit history was correct. And not a case of "everything you know is wrong". I do appreciate your efforts in restoring the missing material. Allreet (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet, User:Gwillhickers - Okay, I will ignore those pings as being about a fire that has been deoxygenated. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Allreet (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments on Articles of Confederation
I will explain briefly what my reasoning is about the Articles of Confederation. As noted above, I think that the signers of the Articles of Confederation are Founding Fathers of the United States for two types of reasons (that do not extend back to the Continental Association).

First, in my opinion, the Articles were a necessary historical bridge between the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Second, enough reliable sources agree with me that I am willing to say that reliable sources agree that the Articles of Confederation were a key to the founding of the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A Defense and Counter-Attack
For some reason, User:Randy Kryn said that I broke the dispute resolution on Founding Fathers of the United States. I see no basis for that allegation that is consistent both with good faith on the part of User:Randy Kryn and with his willingness to let the community resolve a content dispute. Since the assumption of good faith is a core value of the community, my conclusion is that he was not willing to let the community resolve the content dispute, and was instead trying to "win" the content dispute, possibly by filibustering or by filibustering or by cherry-picking sources. We already saw that he tried to "win" the content dispute over the Continental Association by cherry-picking of sources, and by demanding that the RFC be closed as "won".

The allegation by User:Randy Kryn that the filing of a Request for Comments, which is an established method for the resolution of content disputes, "broke" the dispute resolution is bizarre, and is very hard to reconcile with the assumption of good faith. Did he think that he had a right to have the dispute resolved in some other way, such as by edict? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe change the combative title please or, if not, maybe at least put it in Wikipedia style sentence case? Misdefining someone should not be done in the real world, and it seems obvious why I said that you and Allreet broke the Dispute resolution: there was never a participant wide-agreement to have an RfC on the Articles of Confederation and you two just went ahead and did one. Sure, of course it's your right to do it. But I wasn't consulted for either a go-ahead or for language, nor was the moderator. So that ended the dispute resolution discussion, at least for me. And of course I assume good faith that you thought it was okay to go ahead, to me good faith means to realize that the other person has a viewpoint that they are acting from and they, if asked, will usually provide an explanation and description of that viewpoint. Make sense? So to be fair I'll ask you. Why did you put up an RfC on the Articles of Confederation without at least giving all the participants a chance to join it or comment on it? Maybe you did and I missed it, there are tens of thousands of words in these almost five month discussions. Have you actually read them from the start? And who was correct in their assessment of the one question which occupied the discussion for months: did Werther's text match his paper's name. That was all we were discussing for a long time, and turns out I was right from my first post. You came in in the middle, so there's that to consider in your overall viewpoint. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — Robert, I can't speak for Randy, but I had similar feelings when you initiated a second RfC while the first one was still in progress. In any case, things seem to be working out, so let's not focus on personal issues. And just for the record, I'm no saint in that regard either - at one point I thought I was being stonewalled, but as it turns out, that was my over estimation. Time to move on and give the readers the whole picture. With all the media and various academic BS, (not all academics, btw)  that's hit the fan over the last couple of decades, i.e.half truths and outright distortions, the young and naive, our major readership,  have been spun. Our number one priority should be setting the record straight, with multiple reliable sources, new and old. Thanks, very much, for all your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I call dibs on the first round when we all meet up at one of the conventions (I've mentioned in several places that the next major one should be WikiVegas 2023). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the Spirit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything that went down was "by the book". Nobody "broke" anything or even bent the rules. No consensus is needed for starting a RFC, since an individual editor can initiate one. BTW, Robert was the "poster" for both of the recent RFCs; I requested the second one, but that's not an "official" role. RFCs can be started while a DRN is in progress. In this case, the DRN seemed to have run its course, since neither of the two editors were willing to compromise; however, obviously a DRN can be interrupted and then closed as this one was. Multiple simultaneous RFCs are allowed on a talk page, though they shouldn't overlap too much in terms of content. There's more but that should cover the main points raised. Read up on WP:RFC and WP:DRN if you still have concerns. Allreet (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No need for anyone to be reciting the rules for us. Speaking for myself, again, I wasn't contesting whether an RfC can be initiated while one is still in progress, only that the timing of such wasn't received as well as it may have otherwise, as many things were still unsettled in the first RfC when the second one was launched, which brought on a whole set of other contested issues. It doesn't surprise me that four voters in the first RfC, even after being pinged, haven't bothered to vote in the second. No one's fault of course, that's just the way things work sometimes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "No need to cite rules" - then don't point fingers as if others had done something wrong. Allreet (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I had comments about the timing of a second RfC while the first one was still up in the air. That's a reasonable consideration - no need for the hostile tone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In good faith, I cited the rules. You responded with sarcasm and then continued with allegations about "timing", including baseless speculation that somehow this discouraged editors from participating. My reply to your allegations was direct. I simply said "don't point fingers as if others had done something wrong". I'm not exactly sure how "tone" has anything to do with anything. Allreet (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The rules were never contested in the first place. We don't need anyone to recite the alphabet for us. In good faith I submitted a comment about the timing of a second RfC while the first was in a belabored and ongoing ordeal. That is a reasonable concern, thank you. Any accusations of "sarcasm" seems like more of the same ol digressions that are typically resorted to when one lacks the capacity to deal with honest criticism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye aye aye. Maybe we should get that round of drinks (or something) now. See what comes from a combative section titling, seems Robert left this in a hurry (so maybe the section should be collapsed). Ok, carry on. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is it with blame games? Move on to something productive. Allreet (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , yikes, my mistake, my "Aye aye aye" was meant as a saying and not as an affirmative "yes". Maybe an unfamiliar saying, so apologies if misunderstood. You two seem to be doing some venting that a very long-term discussion can bring out in editors, I vented quite a bit during our initial talks and some of the dispute res. Let's clean-slate all of this sometime soon, you've all done a great job on founders and founding pages and none of that could be tarnished by any of the main editors here. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In good faith, you submitted a concern. In good faith, I cited relevant rules, which have nothing to say about your complaint, "timing". My "digressions" as you call them are straightforward replies to your personal attacks. Your last sentence being a prime example. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your last example of a "personal attack" was the accusation about sarcasm, and "baseless speculation". On top of that it was your lack of faith with the assumption that you needed to recite the rules for us, when none were broken or called into question. The concern was over the timing - a concern which you apparently don't share with us at all. Again, four editors haven't bothered with the second RfC, even after being pinged. That is not a personal attack, it's a reasonable concern, which, the last time I checked, we are allowed to express. I had similar feelings about not participating initially, as did Randy, as the first RfC was still all over the map. Not exactly "baseless", thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At your suggestion to move on to something productive and Randy's suggestion to collapse the section, I have done so. Feel free to revert if you want this section back in everyone's face. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Apparently, @Gwillhickers failed to read the final words from the closers in the RFC above on signers of the Continental Association: In ongoing and future discussions, editors are reminded to maintain civility, to focus on content during content disputes, and to seek resolution of conduct disputes at appropriate venues. So while Gwillhickers believes he does not need to have the rules "recited" to him, I beg to differ and believe a remedial reminder of the opening paragraph of WP:No personal attacks is in order:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans.

A review of the "dialogue" in the current RFC shows a general if not complete disregard of this directive by the editor in question, who I have reminded repeatedly only to be subjected to additional abuse each time. Allreet (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In case it is not clear what the latest attack is, I quote, "Any accusations of 'sarcasm' seems like more of the same ol digressions that are typically resorted to when one lacks the capacity to deal with honest criticism". Allreet (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The rules I was referring to concerned whether it was appropriate to open a second RfC while the first was in progress, which were never in question, it was about the practicality of the timing, which was pointed out for you twice. Now here you are reciting another set of rules. All over the map and can't take your own advice to move on. Your revert of the collapse box and your third person preaching about me is anything but civil and is consistent with many editors not bothering to sort through this nonsense which you seem bent on perpetuating. You speak of "personal attacks" all the while you accuse me of "sarcasm", "baseless accusations" and in the past have accused me of "Bludgeoning the RFC with irrelevancies and inaccuracies" to which you devoted an entire section with that exact phrase -- and now here you are again, with yet another such lengthy and belabored section. All you're doing is trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline, all because concerns about an RfC's timing were expressed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Our conversation isn't anything about article improvement, which is the purpose of this Talk page. If you still have a personal score to settle, please take it yours or my Talk page. I tried to get this mess tucked away in a collapsed box, but you prefer to shine spotlights on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Timing is a subjective but impersonal issue that can civilly be discussed and disagreed upon. Accusing someone of "lacking the capacity to deal with honest criticism" when they do disagree is personal. Accusing someone of "trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline" when a rule is cited is more of the same if not an evasion. As for "improvement", my concern is for the "next guy", whether in this page or another. Re-read the rule and let me know if you think adhering to it would improve things. See if you can respond without accusing me of something else. Allreet (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Timing is a subjective but impersonal issue that can civilly be discussed and disagreed upon." Discussing it civilly is what I initially tried to do, where I closed with, "No one's fault of course, that's just the way things work sometimes."  Regardless, you followed with  "then don't point fingers as if others had done something wrong." You followed again with accusations of "sarcasm" and "baseless speculation". That was a digression. I too stepped over the line with a comment about lacking the capacity, but that followed after repeated accusations and dodging the issue. Neither of us started this section with the very contentious subject heading, which was initiated some  ten days after  the first RfC had closed. My initial comments were critical about the timing of a second RfC and the likely result of four editors not bothering anymore, again, with a closing comment about that's the way things work sometimes. This is where you jumped in and accused me of pointing fingers, rather than acknowledging that point, as if expressing what I felt was a legitimate concern was somehow wrong, and from that point on things snowballed to where we are now. So let's keep the chronology straight. I did not initiate the accusations or the hostile tone here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * C'mon you guys, call me a name so I can say it. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm ready for a break. Think I'll go visit this page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I entered this with an objective reading of the rules. You responded with derision. Nobody forced you to make a personal attack a couple posts later. Meanwhile, thanks to your diligence, the current RFC worked out to your liking...and mine as well. You should enjoy your beer, not fret for no reason. Allreet (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking to see if this section remains open, and good, so I can leave an essay I've just run across for the first time that should explain everything to everyone: Assume the assumption of good faith. It's one fine essay, and maybe Robert can have it tattooed on his arm. My compliments to the chef. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure
@Robert McClenon, sufficient time seems to have passed on the Articles of Confederation RFC, and little new has been added of late. I'm, therefore, requesting that the RFC be closed and that closers be "called in" to offer a ruling. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - I am a little puzzled. Are you aware that there is a specific period of time for RFCs to run?  An RFC runs for 30 days, and this RFC was published about six weeks ago, and the bot deactivated it about two weeks ago.  It is true that it is time to request closure, not because nothing has been added recently, but because there has been enough time.  Do you mean that you want me to request formal closure?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't aware of any of that - the details that go along with wrapping up things. So in answer to your question, yes, a request for "formal closure". And thanks for shepherding this. Allreet (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved from the survey section:

 * Comment - User:Gwillhickers, User:Allreet, User:Randy Kryn - I didn't know we were still here. It appears that this thing needs closure.  I thought that a few weeks ago I had asked if you wanted me to request closure, and that I didn't get an answer.  I see a reference to something called a Request for closure, but is that also on this article talk page?  Well, it is a good-faith error to think that you can request closure of an RFC in the RFC.  You request closure of an RFC at Requests for Closure.  Do you want me to request closure of this thing?:  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * — Robert, Sorry for not responding, but the Talk page here is something of a jungle and I missed it. Yes, its time for closure, as the voting came to a stop weeks ago with the exception of this latest vote from the on July 4th. Currently we have 5 yes votes, and 5 no votes. Given the sources supporting the idea that the Articles of Confederation are indeed a founding document I'm hoping reason will prevail. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * After this RfC has evolved into a "grand" discussion and research project, I think a close could be done by Robert, who started the RfC. If a full formal close is required then that should go ahead as well (the same three closers as above or someone else?). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Randy Kryn, User:Gwillhickers, User:Allreet - Here is what I think should be done at this point. As I tried to say, more than once, an RFC is not closed because the voting comes to a stop, but after 30 days.  I can't close the RFC, because I voted in it.  The proper closure at this point should be No Consensus.  That doesn't prevent us from having a new RFC.  If you want me to ask at Village Pump what the best way is to request a No Consensus closure, I can do that, or I can just request a closure at Requests for Closure and assume that the closer will say No Consensus, which allows another RFC.  I stopped following this thing a few weeks ago also.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , et al. Robert -You may want to consider options two and/or six for RfC closure, and just be done with this, esp since the sources clearly support the A.O.C. as a founding document and a lengthy part of the founding process. After the clousure of this RfC, with its 'no consensus', taking this to the Village pump, where they likely are not familiar with the history, or opening another RfC, would just be another effort at rehashing all the things we've gone through for many weeks and likely would end in yet another 'no consensus'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem a No consensus decision but a 'Yes' when taking all of the discussions into account (including the important comments and questions from Gwillhickers to most if not all of the 'No' rationales). "No consensus" would keep the status quo in place as much as a "Yes" decision, and then a new post no-consensus RfC on the same topic would just, as mentioned above, rehash the same points and provide the same adequate sources which those who have been following the discussions seem to already agree on. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC Closure
— The RfC for the Articles of Confederation was initiated more than three and a half months ago (May 14) with the last vote chiming in more than a month ago (July 18). Apparently there will be no more votes forthcoming so it would seem it's time for closure on the issue. — See: WP:RFCCLOSE -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Gwillhickers? Has anything changed since June 14?  Requests for Closure hasn't moved.  The RFC was deactivated by the bot ten weeks ago.  Oh.  Maybe you just noticed that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Deactivated by a bot? No, I hadn't noticed. Under what circumstances does that happen, and moreover, why did it happen here? What are we to assume now? There are six yes votes, and five no votes, so I would assume the A.O.C. has been deemed a founding document by us humble editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bots rule (lucky they weren't around in 1774...or were they?!). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An RFC is deactivated by the bot thirty days after the RFC is activated. The bot removes the text that states that the RFC is active, and also removes the RFC from a master list of open RFCs.  It happened here because it is the normal procedure for RFCs.  I think that I had earlier asked if I should request formal closure of the RFC, and that I might not have gotten an answer.  Should I request formal closure of the RFC?  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the consensus seems clear that the question was passed with a "Yes" due to initial comments and their subsequent detailed discussions and newly added information, the RfC can probably be closed by a participant. So a formal close or a participatory close, either way seems applicable. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no formal close by a non-participant in the next couple of days then we should go ahead and do a participatory close. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ (participatory close) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"Archiving"?
On August 19, came along and removed the closed RfC for the Continental Association, but it is not listed in any of the archives. Does this user/bot actually archive sections, or does it just make automatic deletions and simply refers to it as "archiving" in edit history? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When returned maybe it should be in its own numbered archive in chronological order. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Our bot friend doesn't seem to be too concerned, so I archived the RfC for the Continental Association into the newly created Archive 5. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Gwillhickers - Did you look in Archive 3? The RFC for the CA seems to have been in Archive 3 since 20 August 2022, just as I would have expected.  Did you expect something else?  I think that the bot is working as requested.  What is the problem?  Archives 4 and 5 are human archiving, and may be invisible to the bot, but the bot seems to be archiving to Archive 3 as directed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed that, given the date of removal, the RfC would have been placed in archive 4, or a new archive 5. Invisible to the bot? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidently the bot refers to its own log, or edit history, and simply picks up where it left off for any given talk page. None of the editors who were pinged brought this up when there was an agreement to delete and archive a lot of dated sections into Archive 4 back in early July, as the bot wasn't archiving them, i.e. ("as directed"?). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected edit request
please change to Morris' (Key founders, second paragraph, first sentence) 75.61.98.98 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Correct as is, see MOS:'S. – Recoil (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2022
Please change: to  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.76.218.85 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --N8wilson 🔔 21:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Adams' quote
-- Randy, I'm not clear on as to why you omitted Adams' quote. It says much of Adams who made specific reference to founder and father, in that he ought not to be referred to as such. Recommend restoring this rather telling quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . I agree that some of it is valuable in some form, although the language I removed seemed to me a bit long with too many ellipses. I'll add the removed portions here so you can see if I'm misreading the problem and if maybe a few small edits or a bit more brevity can smooth it out (such as "said" for "rejoined", or maybe just keep the final sentence?, and a date and place of the quotes, which led off the section, would place one or both of them in context. Losing just some of the first quote might work as well, thoughts?), thanks.


 * Sentences removed: "John Adams, in response to praise for his generation, rejoined, "I ought not to object to your reverence for your fathers, meaning those concerned with the direction of public affairs, but to tell you a very great secret ... I have no reason to believe we were better than you are." He also wrote, "Don't call me, ... Father ... [or] Founder ... These titles belong to no man, but to the American people in general." Randy Kryn (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by 'ellipses'. Overall, this is, again, a definitive quote by Adams, a primary founding father, reflecting his humility as a learned yet, deep down, apparently, a humble man, imo. Let's keep it. Aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The section this quote led off summarizes the history of the term, and Adams' thoughts are important. Does the quote have a year (which would place it chronologically in the early use of the terms), and is it one quote from the same source or a combination? It should probably be perfectly presented and polished, and seems to need just a couple or three small tweeks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , maybe I've got it. Was just looking at the page, and noticing that such a long quote is unusual for that section, so, if Adams' quotes weren't the first mention of the terms how about putting it in one of those quote boxes to put right at the top of the section on the right? But still edited a bit (the ellipses on the second quote still seem mysterious, what's in between them?). It could be a nice presentation and would get Adams' ideas across as an introduction to the section. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * — The passage, not just the quote, seems like a good opening for the section, which is about Terminology, in that while Adams, and no doubt Washington, Franklin and Jefferson, especially, preferred not to be referred to as such, these terms were used in speeches regardless, not to mention in biographies. The passage was not that long, imo. How about this example, with some of the quote struck out, and with a reference to historical works, in bold, added at the end (sources permitting)?

Quote

 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Nice. I knew there was a briefer entry within there that would work. Probably should be its own introductory paragraph. I don't have access to the linked text, does it say what year he said these thing? Much like Mohandas Gandhi never wanted to be called 'Mahatma' and discouraged its use when referring to him (and you know how that worked out, Mahatma now being his common name). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't beat me to it, I'll look to some Adams biographies for a date and anything else of interest, and if that doesn't pan out I'll do a google search of the quote, and at archive.org. Right now I have other things on the grill. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

— The Adams quote in question was written to Josiah Quincy, on February 9, 1811, when Quincy was a Congressman from Massachusetts (1805-1813), Adams' home state. In that letter, Adams also wrote, preceding the quote referring to "fathers", etc,

It's unclear to me at this point as to what, exactly, prompted Adams' insistance for such reservation, but it may be safe to assume that Quincy, either in a letter or in person, showered Adams with much praise, either genrally, or becase of some specific effort on Adams' part. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good research . With the prequote does this still seem relevant or more tangential to the topic? The key quote, to myself, seems to be the undated "Don't call me, ... Father ... [or] Founder ... These titles belong to no man, but to the American people in general.", but those ellipses still bother as to exactly what he was referring in context. Jefferson's quote from 1805 also seems tangential to the criteria for Founding Fathers when he refers to forefathers as the early settlers (please reread it, as it would expand the definition of this page to all those who came from Europe as settlers). If Jefferson's is also tangential to this page that would leave either Adams' "Don't call me..." undated quote or John Quincy Adams 1825 public mention as the first direct use of 'Father' or 'Founder' when referring to those who are now considered Founding Fathers. Make sense or do you think I'm downplaying the first Adams' quote and Jefferson's settlers quote too much as to the page topic? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good research . With the prequote does this still seem relevant or more tangential to the topic? The key quote, to myself, seems to be the undated "Don't call me, ... Father ... [or] Founder ... These titles belong to no man, but to the American people in general.", but those ellipses still bother as to exactly what he was referring in context. Jefferson's quote from 1805 also seems tangential to the criteria for Founding Fathers when he refers to forefathers as the early settlers (please reread it, as it would expand the definition of this page to all those who came from Europe as settlers). If Jefferson's is also tangential to this page that would leave either Adams' "Don't call me..." undated quote or John Quincy Adams 1825 public mention as the first direct use of 'Father' or 'Founder' when referring to those who are now considered Founding Fathers. Make sense or do you think I'm downplaying the first Adams' quote and Jefferson's settlers quote too much as to the page topic? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It would seem we should do more than just cover the bare terminology, and how the term was used by some in later years. The other quote was added simply to give a bit more context to Adams' 'don't call me father' quote. With brief mention of some of the key founders in this respect we put a face and a story to the idea of the term 'founding father', or 'father'. I would simply add the revised and shortened quote and add the date, with no mention of Josiah Quincy. With reference to Adams, and a few of the other key founders, we're also letting the readers know that this is not a title they bestowed on one another, and that Adams, Washington, Franklin and Jefferson in particular were men of humility in this regard, always shunning the idea of entitlement over something like birth, as was the case with British royalty. If we can convey this idea in context with the idea of the title, 'father', or 'founding father', all the better. The Terminology section is the first one after the lead, and it's not near as large as the Demographics, Slavery and some other sections. We also might want to change the section name from Terminology, which sounds a little empty, to Title of Founding Father. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Before the Adams account we should make more of a general and opening statement for the section, in that the Founding Fathers were not given to special recognition, praise or entitlement, and follow up with examples like Adams, Franklin, who wore a fur cap when he negotiated the Treaty of Paris, and Jefferson, who rode alone on horseback to his inauguration and stabled his own horse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adams's quote is worthy of inclusion, for sure. I don't think it should set the editorial tone for the section by leading the way, since we should be concerned with more contemporary views, but that said, the quote is notable, interesting, and insightful. My impression is that most of the founders recognized the historic significance of their roles. With that, many were aware that future citizens would hold them in reverence. But Adams's humility also typifies the general sense of selflessness that prevailed. While the founders vigorously advocated for their POV's, nothing I've seen suggests that anyone was intent on seeking power or glory. Allreet (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally agree, except for the idea that we should be more concerned with contemporary views. Views of the founders are most important. Opinions come second. By including simple quotes, readers can judge matters for themselves without someone trying to influence their thinking. This is not to say we ignore historical opinion, but I've seen cases where opinion completely overshadows and even distorts the facts, esp where controversial issues are concerned. In any case, what are your thoughts about renaming the section? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Waiting to see if anyone else chimes in, and where the conversation goes. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, please add what you wish of course, and maybe I'll tweek it a bit. Just wanted to assure that the first paragraph of that importantly placed early section be understandable in context (who and when did the terms originate when referring to the founders) and not bog readers down at all. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We can add the revised quote, as outlined above in green. Before that we need a general opening statement about the term "Founding Father". Perhaps Bernstein, 2009 will be of some help here. I'll get on it shortly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * — Actually, we already had a good opening paragraph, but it was the last paragraph in the Terminology section, cited by Bernstein and a couple of other sources. It was simply moved to the beginning of the section, after which, Adams' quote was added. The section name was also changed to "Founding Father as a title", as Terminology was rather narrow in its scope. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)