User talk:Randy Kryn/sandboxmlk

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/

https://foundingfatherquotes.mikekieffer.com/index.php

Copied:

Second statement by moderator, Founding Fathers of the United States
There's an alternate universe where I'd be opening this statement by saying "Is Abraham Lincoln a reliable source?". Thankfully, this is not that universe. As far as I'm concerned today, it doesn't appear like what Lincoln did or did not say is very important. Judging by your responses, it appears that there is consensus that signing a founding document makes you a founding father, but rough consensus that the Continental Association is not a founding document.

So, a tally of opinions suggests to remove the Continental Association signers from the list of Founding Fathers (unless other, non Continental Association related reasons apply - for example, it'd be ridiculous to argue that George Washington was not a founding father just because he signed the Continental Association. Don't think I needed to spell that out for you all, but I did anyway just to make sure.) Obviously a tally of opinions isn't the perfect solution (if it was, 3O would have ended it), but it is suggestive of a forward path.

We could probably discuss forever about the definition of a founding document without getting anywhere useful. I'm going to do something a little odd and phrase my next questions in the form of sentences, which I want you to state whether or not you Agree strongly, Agree, are Unsure, Disagree, or Disagree strongly. (Think of it like a 1-5 scale, because that's essentially what it is.)

Just to make sure we all understand what I'm asking for, let's say for example -

0. "Robert McClenon is amazing and his work at DRN is invaluable to the Wikipedia project."

For this statement, I personally would say I Agree strongly, because I agree strongly. I would then follow this up by explaining why I believe this, for example: "He has been resolving disputes between editors for many years now and has been mediating a large proportion of DRN cases."

Here are the actual statements:


 * 1) "Signers of the Continental Association were undoubtedly pro-independence."
 * 2) "Most reliable sources agree that the Continental Association was a founding document of the United States."
 * 3) "Abraham Lincoln claimed that the Continental Association was important in the founding of the United States of America."
 * 4) "The Continental Association was written from a Loyalist perspective."
 * 5) "Signing a founding document is the usual definition of who are the Founding Fathers of the United States and represents what reliable sources have written."
 * 6) "Signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers of the United States."
 * 7) "Signing the Continental Association does not mean one supported the Union."

Some of these statements are contradictory. Some of these statements are repetitive. That is intentional. You may be as concise or as long-winded as you want while explaining your answers, but keep in mind that shorter answers are typically easier to comprehend.

Some last notes from me before I sign - The previous RfCs, despite not being proper, do show a greater headcount supporting omitting the Continental Association founders. I put little weight in this but do note it.

Additionally, I would like your opinions on whether it is necessary to open a new RFC. casualdejekyll 00:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ________________________________________

Second statement by Randy Kryn
First: '''Do we need a new RfC? Certainly not on the question of the Continental Association, its sources, or its founding document status'''. I will explain why.

To undertsand the real scope of our daily two month discussion, and why other editors were given every opportunity to join in, allow me to draw your attention to the sections of the talk page of Founding Fathers of the United States devoted to it, which includes 13 long discussions plus one RfC:

Contents
 * 2 List of Founding Fathers disputed
 * 3 Officially WP:3O
 * 4 Request for comment on use of sources
 * 5 Key
 * 8 Erroneous Origin of Term "Founding Father"
 * 9 Lack of sources for Continental Association signers being considered Founding Fathers
 * 10 The "Myth" of the Founding Fathers
 * 11 Deleted wordhistoryedu.com citation - source is unreliable/unnotable
 * 12 Should Lincoln also be credited with early usage on the page?
 * 13 Fathers
 * 14 Replaced paragraph in lead...other suggestions
 * 15 Revised List of Founding Fathers section
 * 16 Prior Political Experience section
 * 18 Changed title of list section

...and to the sections of the Continental Association talk page devoted to it, which includes five detailed discussions plus two RfCs:

Contents
 * 5 Not a "detailed system"
 * 6 Inline dispute regarding Founding Fathers and Continental Association
 * 7 What the Journal of the American Revolution has to say about the Continental Association
 * 8 Request for comment regarding WP:VER and the use of sources
 * 9 Request for Comment: Are Continental Association signers Founding Fathers?
 * 10 "Union" of the colonies
 * 11 New source, CA and AofC Founding Document discussion

Please note that in every one of those sections, and in many more on literally dozens of other talk pages, not only was no consensus reached but few editors even joined in even though the discussions were well viewed (Founding Fathers of the United States 90-day talk page views and Continental Association 90-day talk page views). Arguably, everyone who did not comment agreed, by their non-response, that the page and sources were fine, and at a minimum opportunities for comment and/or criticism by the community were freely available and not taken.

Next, and maybe even more importantly regarding the need for a new RfC on the Continental Association or its sources, it has been stated-as-fact in this process several times that Allreet's RfC wordings were "not proper". That is just not true. Let's take a look.

Allreet's first RfC title is understandable, and actually quite direct (he then presented his concerns well in the first comment). "Request for comment on use of sources: Are the sources being used sufficient for declaring signers of a particular document 'Founding Fathers'?"

The second RfC wording technically described the concern, and seems accurately worded (then Allreet adequately presented his case in the first comment). "Request for comment regarding WP:VER and the use of sources: Regarding WP:VER, does 'clear and direct' mean relying solely on the text of a source, as opposed to allowing verification of an assertion with a combination of the source's title and text?"

But the third RfC has gold-standard wording. Could not be more direct. Why has this been described as inadequate or improperly wording? RfC title: "Request for Comment: Are Continental Association signers Founding Fathers?" RfC question: "Are the 53 signers of the Continental Association agreement Founding Fathers of the United States?"

These three RfCs join dozens of other discussions in not gaining outside response. Many editors followed all or parts of the dialogue, but did not choose to join in.

There is no need, or has a need been shown, for yet another RfC on the stable and well-discussed existing wording concerning founding document status regarding the Continental Association.

Now, to answer the moderaor's other questions:

(parts two and three to come)
 * 1) "Signers of the Continental Association were undoubtedly pro-independence."
 * 2) "Most reliable sources agree that the Continental Association was a founding document of the United States."
 * 3) "Abraham Lincoln claimed that the Continental Association was important in the founding of the United States of America."
 * 4) "The Continental Association was written from a Loyalist perspective."
 * 5) "Signing a founding document is the usual definition of who are the Founding Fathers of the United States and represents what reliable sources have written."
 * 6) "Signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers of the United States."
 * 7) "Signing the Continental Association does not mean one supported the Union."

Remember my opening statement? I joined his process in regards to Allreet's "ICANTHEARYOU response to the talk page discussions and the three RfCs. That's a large part of the dispute here, how to stop his edit war with someone (me) who doesn't take things to admin discussion and incident pages. I don' know why the moderator is solely focused on the founding document status of the ConAssoc, which has been decided already, has been stable on Wikipedia for 12 years, and now has been affirmed on a daily basis for two straight months through dozens of discussions and three RfCs.

1) "Signers of the Continental Association were undoubtedly pro-independence."
 * Agree strongly. The Adams boys, Washington, and many if not most of the others, of course they were. These people were not blubbering idiots, they knew exactly what they were stepping into. But the Colonies had to first unite and try to either make their rulers see the sense in backing down from their oppressive actions or they were going to go toe-to-toe with England - it was going to turn one way or the other. The Continental Association was not pulled out of a hat for the wonderment of children. It was the initial giant step towards war and independence.

2) "Most reliable sources agree that the Continental Association was a founding document of the United States."
 * Disagree strongly. Not at present...yet more than enough sources do to give due weight to the Continental Association not only as a mere dime-a-dozen founding document but as a major founding document. One of the "Fab Four" as it were (always wanted to use "as it were" in a sentence).


 * WP:VER tells us when "reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Allreet did just that with his carefully crafted neutral language, an inspired job well done and consistent with Wikipedia's stable-since-2010 four-document presentation. Then, with neutrality and due weight in place, he inexplicably started an edit war.

3) "Abraham Lincoln claimed that the Continental Association was important in the founding of the United States of America."
 * Agree strongly. Please note the criteria for FF status as directly spelled out in the stable opening sentence of Founding Fathers of the United States (emphasis mine): "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...". The Continental Association united the Colonies. It was designed to do that. There is no possible argument refuting it. Abraham Lincoln correctly said that the Continental Association formed the union. It was revolutionary in nature and devastating in practice, and so recognized by Lincoln.

4) "The Continental Association was written from a Loyalist perspective."
 * Disagree strongly. The first few sentences were, loyal subjects asking nicely for a favor. Then, the worm turns, and the "Loyalists" threaten England with a total export-import economic boycott such as the world had never seen. True-blue Loyalists do not dare such a thing, so before very long and by the time they could sing a rallying song or two for the dear old, Loyalists became few and far between, many fled, and the Adams's and associates got their war.

5) "Signing a founding document is the usual definition of who are the Founding Fathers of the United States and represents what reliable sources have written."
 * Agree, yes, in part, but certainly not limited to just signers (see George Mason, one of foundliest of the founders).

6) "Signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers of the United States."
 * Agree strongly. All sources agree on the Declaration and Constitution being founding documents. Then enough sources add the Association and Articles of Confederation (the nation's first constitution and governmental blueprint) to make the Four-document presentation a significant alternate view worthy of triggering Wikipedia's article neutrality and due weight directives. Several sources stand out:
 * Abraham Lincoln. Yes, we live in a universe where Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address is a reputable source which examines the pathway Americans took to create their nation (formed, Lincoln explained, by the Continental Association: "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774"). Lincoln pioneered, within this section of the speech, the Four-document approach used by Wikipedia and others.
 * The Journal of the American Revolution, a scholarly academic journal devoted to the era, provides two major 2017 reputable sources:
 * "Roger Sherman: The Only Man Who Signed All Four Founding Documents" and complete with detailed charts and quotes such as "...all four of the documents (The Continental Association, The Articles of Confederation, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution) that transformed thirteen English colonies into these United States" and "Writing about Roger Sherman, the only man to "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", sign our four most important founding documents – the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution..."
 * Popular websites such as Founder of the Day, with articles including "Signers of the Continental Association" which describes the Association as "the first major document of the American Revolution", and a stable 2010 navbox from another popular (although unsourceable) website, Hisorical American Documents.
 * And, last but not least, the Architect of the Capitol who writ large the following assessment: "Sherman was the only member of the Continental Congress who signed all four of the great state papers: the Association of 1774, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution."

7) "Signing the Continental Association does not mean one supported the Union."
 * Disagree strongly (trick question?) because the Association created the union of Colonies. The signers knew what they were doing and where their deeds could lead. Joseph Galloway, John Dickinson, and a handful of others tried valiantly to stop what they experienced as a runaway team of horses barreling towards war and independence, but they had to reluctantly clear Liberty's road when they realized its size, spirit, and direction.

Allreet's response to #6 copied
Five sources are mentioned for the claim that signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers. Yet not one reliable source supports this. While they all call the Continental Association a founding document, we cannot jump to the conclusion that signers of founding documents are founders on our own. I contend multiple sources are required for an assertion of this magnitude. If the claim is "true", it should be easy to find sources stating this clearly and directly as WP:VER requires. Allreet (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lincoln says where the Union began, but never mentions founders.
 * The JAR's Roger Sherman article discusses only Sherman.
 * Richard Werther's JAR article does not include a single sentence or group of sentences verifying this.
 * Founderoftheday assigns the title to Continental Association signers, but it's not a reliable source. This is a commercial website. The only credential of its sole author is that he's an "enthusiast". Fine, except he offers no sources for his writings and bestows the title on dozens of figures who aren't recognized by anyone.
 * Architect of the Capitol, as with the first three sources, confirms the Continental Association is a founding document, but the only signer it mentions is Sherman.

Thank you for agreeing that the Continental Association is a founding document. That alone should end this dispute. Wikipedia has recognized signers of four founding documents as, well, founders, since time immemorial (2010) and lays out the criteria in the first sentence of Founding Fathers of the United States: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...."

Specifically, Abraham Lincoln, as an inarguably reputable source in a historically major speech, agrees on the four founding documents. In doing so, Honest Abe actually created the standard (honestly, he did, please read the link).

The inarguably reputable Journal of the American Revolution agrees with Lincoln, and its inarguably reputable defining article "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" provides all the clarification needed in its title. Allreet, you argued for a month or so that the title of this major academic paper was maybe placed there not by the academic paper's author but by a rogue typesetter or some other vandal (I kid you not, read the book-length discussion). The paper sets out the criteria (Signers=Founders) and then discusses these signers in its text and interesting charts.

The two inarguably reputable sources which focus on Roger Sherman as a Founder who signed all four founding documents (the Architect of the Capitol calls them the four great state papers) of course extend to the other signers of the same great papers, per consistency and common sense. Sherman, the Journal, and the Architect, bless their souls, leave no man behind (nor does the "Founder of the day", a very popular and, more importantly, carefully crafted website by an "enthusiast", bless his soul).
 * Randy Kryn (talk)

Third statement by Randy Kryn (still in formation)
1) "some sources call him" would end this discussion and I urge the moderator to boldly accept it per WP:NPOV "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and WP:RELIABLE "...making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". The reliable minority gold standard sources (Journal of the American Revolution, especially its defining article "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents"; Abraham Lincoln first Inaugural Address, the Architect of the Capitol) and several minority silver-standard sources meet:
 * Wikipedia's long-time stable criteria for being called a Founder in the article's first sentence: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America..."
 * The 1774 Continental Association literally "united the Thirteen Colonies". That is what it was designed to do and that is what it did. As clear as can be.
 * The Articles of Confederation literally "built a frame of government". It was the nation's first constitution which built the nation's first government, the Confederation Congress. As clear as can be.

2) No new RfC needed, as Allreet's very well viewed and clearly worded Request for Comment: Are Continental Association signers Founding Fathers? RfC already provided an adequate request and ample opportunity for comment and topic clarification. Interestingly, of the hundreds of readers viewing the RfC the only editor besides myself to respond said:
 * "There are multiple definitions of "Founding Fathers" and they certainly meet at least one of those definitions, and would be excluded under at least one of those definitions...What arises from my post is that any statement would need calibration like "sometimes considered to be founding fathers".
 * So, yes, "sometimes considered to be founding fathers" or "some sources call him" meetsWP:NPOV for the Continental Association.
 * As for an RfC on the Articles of Confederation, please, can we deep six that one? The Articles of Confederation created both a national constitution and the nation's first government. How much more founding-centric can you get?



[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Talk:Continental_Association alkpage CA

A light from the middle at the end of the tunnel?
A pleasing solution has been there all this time. Quite awhile after this discussion began a third RfC was held. It consisted of Allreet and I continuing our back-and-forting (not misspelled) except for one lone editor who wandered in. Let's call him North8000. After commenting on the value of both poins of view, and after giving it some thought, North8000 came back and proposed a simple and fair solution: "What arises from my post is that any statement would need calibration like 'sometimes considered to be founding fathers'".

I suggest we accept North000's wise counsel, retroactively agree that he provided a consensus, and then work on simple wording. Articles of individuals who signed only the Con.Assoc. or Ar.ofConf. (although some could easily argue that such wording belongs on all founder articles except for the "Big 7" Superstars) would contain a qualifier such as "Because he signed the Aricles of Confederation, some consider xxxxx a Founding Father of the United States" and appear not in the first lead paragraph but later or much later in the lead.

With North8000 being the sole editor, aside from the two of us, who replied to the well worded and well-viewed RfC, accepting his solution reads out as symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing, making it, in some schools of thought, the correct one.

wpver; reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

WP:SOURCEDEF "we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors" "The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)"

"'he Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America..."

The Articles of Confederation is considered one of the United States' four major founding documents, along with the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Lincoln

Arch.ofcapiol

Sherman by We'er 2017

signers as FF

Werher on Sherman: "...to sign all four of the documents (The Continental Association, The Articles of Confederation, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution) that transformed thirteen English colonies into these United States." and "Writing about Roger Sherman, the only man to sign our four most important founding documents – the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution..." Founder of the Day article entitled "Signers of the Continental Association"

When Abraham Lincoln, contemplating the coming war he had accepted the burden to lead, addressed four founding documents in his 1861 inaugural address, he said that the Continental Association literally formed the Union: "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774". Lincoln thus deemed the CA forever and historically a founding document by providing a reputable source for the ages. Many others have since adequately seconded Lincoln's motion, including the Journal of the American Revolution, the Architect of the Capitol who includes the Continental Association among "all four of the great state papers", and Wikipedia which, although it cannot be credited here as a source, has been stable since 2010 in recognizing the CA as one of four major founding documents. They join Lincoln's reasoned, historically presented, and accurate common sense acknowledgment of the first agreed upon and signed document to unify the Colonies.


 * As a preface, to quote Abraham Lincoln once again, "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774".
 * 1) All of these pages should be feature articles, especially with the upcoming 250th anniversaries. The Continental Association will be first up among the documents, and should be featured near or on the date of its creation by the First Continental Congress, in late October, 2024. Hopefully many editors will join in on your plan.
 * 2) Since everyone here agrees on the four founding documents, on the signers of the Articles being Founding Fathers, and that the biographical pages of the Articles sole signers needs a brief qualifier, can we please return to the initial and ongoing disagreement on the signers of the Continental Association. The signers of the Association and Articles being founders are both minority viewpoints (other editors could claim there are plentiful sources for only seven men to qualify as real Founders, and they would list all other founding-document signers as alternate minority viewpoints which would need qualifers) that have enough sources to be included per neutrality, as Wikipedia has stably done since 2012. Wikipedia has stably aligned with the four-document format since 2010, so a main question is one of consistency - if the signers of three of the four are listed as founders, which Wikipedia has done for a decade, how can the signers of the fourth now be excluded, especially when they can be backed up by sources as well as being explicitly and concisely defined by the criteria for founders in the first sentence of the Founding Fathers article.
 * 3) Academic papers are a realm to themselves, and in that realm "Titles of articles can in fact not be representative of the actual article" is incorrect, and actually just the opposite. The title sets the premise and then the paper explores the premise. Werher's entire aricle is about America's founders signing the four major founding documents. It doesn't separate founders and non-founders by document signed. It includes informative charts of which founders signed which founding document, and a sorting tag that includes the word 'Founders'.
 * 4) I again propose that we accept {{u|North8000 's compromise of including a brief qualifier on pages of the signers of the Association as set forward by the only "non-combatant" of Allreet's defining and well-worded third RfC (pinging them as a non-participant reader so they realize the influence that they've already had in this discussion). It seems the only fair and neutral resolution to our "dispute". Everyone here must realize that we cannot unilaterally change the criteria for a founding father, or remove the signers of the CA as Founding Fathers, on the FF page from a discussion on this non-public page, even if we wanted to. The best we are able to do, and arguably probably the best we can do here, is accept North8000's consensus of adding qualifiers on biographical pages of many of the sole signers of the CA (I would think that qualifiers shouldn't be needed on some of the biographical page of prominent sole CA signers such as John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph).
 * 5) A handshake? Ha. No matter what evolves, when I meet you in person at the next North American WikiConference (hopefully in Vegas) expect a hug as a worthy adversary and, more importantly, as recognition to someone involved in improving and safeguarding Wikipedia's Union and U.S. founding pages (many of which already include very good edits by both of us because of these long discussions).

Should the signers of the Continental Association be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States because of their action in signing the Continental Association?

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


 * Yes, per Abraham Lincoln, who said, in his first Inaugural Address no less, that the Continental Association formed the Union. Lincoln named the CA as one of the four major founding documents (which has been echoed by Wikipedia since 2010) because he knew that first a "Union" had to be formed in order for the more famous Declaration of Independence to have something to actually declare independent. A Union formed by...(fife and drum roll)...the Continental Association.


 * And Yes per the stable first sentence, the inclusion criteria for the page: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...". Well, "united the Thirteen Colonies" fits the definition of the CA like a glove. Its signers were the ones who did just that. United the colonies. It is why they've been included on this page since 2012. And it is why the navbox {{tl|Historical American Documents}} has followed Lincoln's four major founding document timeline since 2010.


 * So, yes, Wikipedia's long-term page inclusion criteria for this article fits the Continental Association to a t.