Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 216

Fenugreek
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Edited the page on fenugreek to include a meta-analysis of its use as a galactagogue, which was reverted by a user who deemed the source poor and unreliable. I've had edits reverted by this user in the past (rouhgly 1 year ago), where they shot down an edit adding info on clinical use of Verbascum thapsus because it was primary and published in a low-quality journal; as evidence of this they cited that the journal's impact factor was <1 and it wasn't Medline-indexed.

We compromised, and I took their instructions to heart. When I found this paper in Phytotherapy Research and went to add it to the fenugreek page, I actually checked first to see if the journal was medline-indexed and had an impact factor >1. It passed both of those checks.

I was also skeptical of the article's original claim that fenugreek is not recommended by any governmental health agencies, so I checked the official pharmacopoeias of India and the PRC, and found that it's in both, so my edit deleted that claim. As I understand it, this is in line with the WP:MEDRS guidelines on "Biomedical v. general information".

We've reverted back and forth a couple of times, with them asserting that the study I cited is low quality and we should defer to drugs.com. A repeated point has been that, if fenugreek worked, it would be in wide clinical use...meanwhile, they totally dismiss its actual wide clinical use in Asia as "quackery". This—along with some comments about "chewing on dirt" in further discussion on my talk page—seems to reflect a bit of cultural bias on their part.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?





How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd just appreciate input from a few other people on this (especially from editors of Asian/Indian descent, but anyone's welcome). It feels a bit like there's a culture barrier here regarding what does vs. doesn't count as real medicine.

Summary of dispute by Zefr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Fenugreek discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - Notice by the filing editor should be posted at the bottom of the user talk page of another editor. Notice that is posted at the top of a user talk page may be ignored or removed.  If you do not know how to post to the bottom of a user talk page (although the tab to start a new section facilitates bottom-posting), ask for advice at the Teahouse.  (If you think that top-posting is a more effective way of getting the editor's attention, ask for advice at the Teahouse, because that is an error.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @WhichDoctor - please respond to the above casualdejekyll  13:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. Haven't done a lot of posting to people's talk pages, so I'm still learning the ropes. User appears to have gotten the message. WhichDoctor (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The Sool, Sanaag, and Cayn regions in Somalia are disputed regions. They are disputed by Somaliland, Puntland, Khaatumo, and Somalia. Consequently, the articles specific to these regions and the Cities, towns and villages that come under the regions have consistently been prone to fierce edit warring. Editors have attempted to reach consensus on how these pages should be structured and should be attributed to these in an unbiased format in the lede, info box and a territorial dispute section. However, after lengthy discuss there is an impasse - editors could not agree on a compromise. I belief a new format which takes account of the disputed circumstances of these regions should be adopted. The opposing editors do not agree with this, they hold that the articles should reflect Somaliland as the location of the regions, districts cities, towns, and villages concerned. I belief this will not resolve the as the constant edit warring will continue, thus a permanent and neutral format as utilised in articles concerning disputed localities should replicated on these articles. I suggest that the articles on Abyei (town), Abyei area in South Sudan/Sudan could be a guide in this endeavour.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shirshore#Consensus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Disputed_territory_between_Somaliland_and_Puntland

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

`Hopefully, in observing good faith editors will come to an agreement on the issue of contention.

Summary of dispute by Shirshore
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Freetrashbox
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by AmirahBreen
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Gebagebo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jacob300
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Natalie904
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Siirski
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Koodburr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note: This case was originally opened malformed and has been reformatted with a new title., you (the filing editor) have not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. I personally am not open to moderating this discussion but do believe someone else will be.  casualdejekyll  00:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I will promptly notify the other editors. I wasn't quite sure if the request was successful. Thanks, Shirshore (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

CryptoPunks
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Launched in 2017, CryptoPunks is one of the oldest NFT projects on the Ethereum blockchain and is credited with starting the NFT 10k Avatar craze in 2021. The Wikipedia page primarily contains recent negative press. In attempt to make the page less biased I wrote a detailed history section in neutral voice, giving better context with numerous citations. The entire section was deleted without discussion. I've requested discussion of sources and topics and one editor refuses to discuss and keeps deleting the whole section. Given the importance of the topic a history section is important to include. I'm trying to avoid an edit war however a single editor continues to wholesale delete everything.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I've requested that the other editor stop deleting the entire sections and discuss individual points which they refuse to do insisting they are all "nonsense" and "rubbish" and continually deleting everything. I've rewritten the text and changed sources and the other editor just comes back and deletes everything. 

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like other editors to look at the article and the section, if there's a question about a detail in the article and the source being referenced I'd like that discussion to happen on the talk page so that the article can be improved. I would like other editors to address that repeatedly deleting entire sections without discussion is not productive.

Summary of dispute by David_Gerard
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wikipedia policy on WP:V specifies the use of reliable sources. This is especially important in areas such as cryptocurrency, where a firehose of spam and badly-sourced promotional nonsense cited to crypto blogs means that editors have tended to restrict sourcing to clear WP:RSes, WP:NEWSORGs and so on. The area is in fact under general sanctions due to the firehose of spam.

Past WP:RSN discussion of crypto sites is that they're not trade press but promotional boosterism; no crypto site restricts its writers from owning assets they are promoting, unlike real financial press; a majority of crypto sites operate pay-for-play; and so on. So you need clear RSes on crypto articles. The acknowledged best of the crypto blogs, CoinDesk, has expressly been deemed "generally unreliable" per WP:RSP;

In the present case, the editor is insisting on putting into Wikipedia a claimed dispute that is cited only to (a) crypto blogs (b) primary sources posted by the participants. This is not up to Wikipedia standards of sourcing by policy, so I removed the material cited only to such unreliable sources.

I asked repeatedly that the editor show any sourcing to RSes. They have since provided one cite to Business Insider India. Per WP:RSP, this is a yellow-rated questionable source, not a solid RS; but I let it stand, hoping for actual RS coverage.

The editor has found sourcing for the incident; but he now appears to be pushing for more use of questionable sourcing specifically because of an absence of good sources. I'm pretty sure that isn't how we do sourcing here - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

CryptoPunks discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer question -- you have not correctly notified the other party of this case request. Please use DRN-notice on their talk page to do so. Additionally is this dispute about validity of source use within the Cryptopunks article or how to cover controversy and history of Cryptopunks in said article? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, thought I was supposed to notify on the article talk page. I've added the notice. Regarding the question about the dispute, that's something I'd like to understand as well honestly. I've asked the other editor to discuss the content and sources and they refuse and just delete everything calling it "crypto blogs" and "promotional nonsense" neither of which are true. I think it would be great to discuss how to cover the history (the controversy section doesn't seem to be a problem) of CryptoPunks so that we can talk about the validity of any of the sources, but in order to do that the other editor needs to stop deleting the entire history section. There's no question that this project was launched in 2017, so it doesn't seem contentious that there would be history involving it and I'm trying to help with that. Seanbonner (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey! I found this Dispute through my talk page. Days ago I requested a CryptoPunks page protection due to the repeated vandalism and insert of promotional content/fake news (this is unrelated to this dispute and to users Seanbonner and David Gerard).
 * As an uninvolved member of the dispute, but as an article interested member, both users User:Seanbonner and User:David Gerard have been providing great knowledge and insight to the CryptoPunks page. It's in our best interest to keep Wikipedia as reliable as possible, and I too believe crypto articles need strong WP:RS, given the high amount of fake news and paid articles. The topic being not as mainstream sometimes makes it hard to find mainstream coverage, but I believe the expertise and dedication to the topic is what makes the difference. Seeing hours of work getting undo-ed simply because one reference is not as strong can be tough: waiting a couple of days to see if the same news get covered by a WP:RS website can be a solution. Always AGF. JohnnyCoal (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With the addition of User:David Gerard's statement above I think it would be worth your time User:A. C. Santacruz to look at the article history as well as the talk page which should illustrate that User:David Gerard repeatedly removed content without discussing it, and when asked to please discuss before deleting he refused and deleted again. As User:JohnnyCoal mentions this article has been subject to vandalism in the past, however the history section is clearly not vandalism. I don't think the history section is making any claims, it's stating easily confirmable facts such as release dates or legal filings with multiple sources confirming them. I also don't think there's any disputes that are in question so I'm not clear what User:David Gerard believes is unreliable. If the company issued a statement apologizing for something, I think it's safe to say it happened and I don't think pointing to that statement is "self promotion" or "promotional nonsense." As User:JohnnyCoal notes this is not a mainstream topic, especially as it's not even about Cryptocurrency, rather about an art project that is on the blockchain, it's especially niche. I believe all the sources I've included in the section meet RS standards, when considering WP:SELFSOURCE and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix:_Reliability_in_the_context both of which I pointed out on the article's talk page prior to the most recent deletion. Again, I'd be happy to discuss any particular point and the sources around it but User:David Gerard has instead just repeatedly deleted the entire section. I would welcome User:David Gerard to make contributions to the page in the form of contributing text or sources, as currently their involvement has only to be remove text. Other articles edited by User:David Gerard show a similar pattern of deletions over sources. As noted the "Cryptocurrency" topic does attract a lot of spam and vandalism but I think it's clear that isn't what is happening here. Seanbonner (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer question --, this is not the proper noticeboard for conduct disputes nor is there benefit to the article to engage in such a discussion now. I will not volunteer myself to moderate this dispute as I consider this comment to make me involved in the discussion. I personally do not believe that what David Gerard is asking for (better sources) is unwarranted or unreasonable. Cryptopunks is probably one of the most notable NFT products and I feel like a bit of diligence and acceptance that crypto-native sites are generally unreliable would help you add the historical context you feel the article needs. (related investment disclosure by Lucas Matney for the TechCrunch article) are all useful articles you could use for the history section. If you are unable to access the paywalled articles I am happy to provide them for you by mail. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, yellow-rated sources at RSP may be useful. I judged WP:TECHCRUNCH to be useful here for verifiability purposes per its RSP entry and judged the investment disclosure by Matney completely in line with expectations for a crypto/tech journalist. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think asking for better sources is unreasonable either, I think deleting an entire section with numerous citations because of a questionable source is unreasonable, and I think doing that after a request for discussion on the talk page is also unreasonable. Many of the details in the History section are referenced in other non-crypto specific publications cited elsewhere on the page already, so again I'd ask that the history section be restored and a discussion about individual points & sources happen on the talk page and editor consensus be respected rather than mass deletions without discussion. Seanbonner (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * it's not even about Cryptocurrency, rather about an art project that is on the blockchain which means it is 100% covered by the general sanctions, because it suffers the same problems. I think deleting an entire section with numerous bad citations 100% of which were absolutely not up to Wikipedia standards is completely how things are done here. You are showing WP:OWN in your defence of this text you are very keen to include. It is not "your" article or text.
 * Yet again, I ask you to just stick to absolutely solid WP:RSes - preferably solidly-green-rated WP:NEWSORGs, which have since 2017 covered crypto, blockchain, NFTs and so on in considerable depth - and not crypto blogs. If you can't find a crypto-related fact or event covered in the solidly-green-rated WP:NEWSORGs, then it's a reasonable call that it's absolutely not worth covering in Wikipedia, whether or not there are a pile of blog posts and tweets about it.
 * If you want to claim these crypto blogs should be considered solidly-green RSes, may I suggest WP:RSN, which is literally the board for that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - - Do you want me to open moderated discussion?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a sourcing issue, the editor is making actually-wrong points about Wikipedia sourcing, what the general sanctions cover, ownership of articles etc, so it's not clear how productive that would be - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Question - User:David Gerard - Do you want me to close this discussion request, and to refer the other editor to the reliable source noticeboard for sourcing issues? If so, I will also advise them that they should read the boomerang essay before raising conduct issues, but that the place for any conduct issues is either WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Surya Das
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This article has a "abuse allegations" section which may be inviolation of 'biography of living persons' policy. I am unable to edit it because of my account status. I have created a Talk page but it has not had any response - therefore this seems like the next step in the process.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surya_Das#abuse_allegations_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide guidance as to whether this section is in violation of wikipedia policies and if so have this section removed or hidden

Surya Das discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Linux kernel
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Hello,

I edited the Linux kernel page and added several citations to support the claims under the "Linux is partly proprietary" section of the talk page. After this, I added several contributions which were discussed under the "GNU additions" section of the talk page. However, an editor named Quetstar reverted *all* of these changes because he/she specifically disagreed with the latter GNU-related additions. I asked him/her on his/her talk page to please only revert the information he/she specifically had an issue with, so it would be clear about which information we are discussing, but he/she refused and once again reverted *all* of the changes I and other editors made. He/she then recommended I use this process to resolve the issue.

Thank you.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Linux_kernel Talk:Linux_kernel User_Talk:Quetstar

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please restore the revision of the Linux kernel page before it was reverted by Quetstar (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_kernel&oldid=1077581505) and then ask Quetstar to list on the talk page only the specific information he/she has an issue with, instead of reverting massive amounts of contributions which are irrelevant to the "GNU additions" discussion on the talk page.

Summary of dispute by Quetstar
OK, I would like to say that this IP address made edits that one user (Fabio Maria De Francesco) described as disruptive. Furthermore, this user has been uncompromising in the talk page, regularly doubling down on their claims despite them being disputed by other editors. I reverted the edits due to them being tainted by an edit war the IP got into and their disruptive nature. That's all i have to say for now.


 * Mr. Francesco and I have mostly resolved our differences and are working towards a construvtive solution. Feel free to ask him to confirm.
 * Regardless, this is irrelevant to the GNU additions, and as I stated previously, Quetstar keeps reverting irrelevant contributions that were neither tainted by the edit war (which really amounted to myself reverting edits made by Questar which reverted my contributions because he/she said he/she "disagreed with" them, even though I had provided multiple citations/references in the article), nor related to the GNU additions.
 * 185.217.158.63 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * For the first claim, that's not true since he lamented on the edits in the talk page. As for the GNU additions, I will say this: Linux is not GNU's official kernel. Yes, GNU is mostly paired with Linux, but it is not GNU. The official kernel of GNU is the Hurd, which has been in development since forever. There is also Linux-libre, which is a modified version of Linux with binary blobs removed. Therefore, your additions should go into either the Hurd or Linux-libre articles, but not that of mainline Linux. Quetstar (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again, none of this excuses you from reverting irrelevant contributions.
 * As I mentioned previously, you are free to ask Mr. F to confirm.
 * As for the GNU additions:
 * 1. you have not defined which edits we are discussing exactly since you continue to refuse to do what I requested, ie. revert the page to the revision I specified and then list the edits you have a problem with on the talk page, and
 * As for the GNU additions:
 * 1. you have not defined which edits we are discussing exactly since you continue to refuse to do what I requested, ie. revert the page to the revision I specified and then list the edits you have a problem with on the talk page, and


 * 2. to guess which edits you really mean, some are for disambiguation, and some are correct descriptions of history, both of which are proper and appropriate. Whilst it is true that Linux is not GNU's official kernel, GNU is most often used with Linux, and vice-versa, so it is proper and appropriate to mention one when discussing the other.
 * 185.217.158.63 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Linux kernel discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There are other editors who were in the discussion at the article talk page. Please list and notify them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not relevant to this dispute; I wouldn't want to drag them into it.
 * 185.217.158.63 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Linux)
Discussion at this noticeboard is voluntary. It isn't clear from the previous statements whether User:Questar and the unregistered editor want to discuss article content or editor conduct or to decline to participate in discussion. If I do not get answers, which are voluntary, I will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth responses by editors
The problem is about the article content, but i personally think that dispute resolution is unecessary at this stage since the IP editor won't back down. Quetstar (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Chelsey Glasson
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is about Chelsey Glasson's contributions to the Udacity course The Design of Everyday Things.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsey_Glasson

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think having another neutral pair of eyes on this and weighing in will quickly dissolve this minor dispute. User:SquareInARoundHole asked User:GorillaWarfare to take a look, but given they collaborate on many articles together and appear to speak positively about each other's work, I'm concerned feedback won't be neutral. Thank you in advance for taking a look.

Summary of dispute by User:SquareInARoundHole
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by User:24.19.196.247
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Chelsey Glasson discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note: this seems like it may be a better fit for third opinion. casualdejekyll  13:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United States
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have thoroughly discussed content in this article with another editor regarding the lack of adequate sources, specifically in terms of an assertion made on July 30, 2021 by a different editor claiming 145 historical figures are founding fathers. After we were unable to reach a resolution, I opened a 3O. The editor who responded seemed to agree with me, but was refuted by the other editor. I then opened a series of RfCs, none of which received an adequate response; only four editors replied, three of whom agreed with me. Unable to resolve anything through these avenues, I made substantial changes to the article to clarify the lack of consensus among historians regarding who is a founding father and who is not. All of those changes were based on reliable sources and none has been reverted or disputed. Only yesterday did I change the edits made last year. My latest changes were reverted today in what may be a violation of WP:3R. Also in dispute are 50 or so articles where the subjects were deemed founding fathers, most without any sources. Please note that the disputes in question also relate to another article, Continental Association. Additional discussion can be found on that article's talk page.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide feedback, and hopefully a resolution, on the need for reliable sources regarding the content in this article and changes made to many others.

Summary of dispute by Randy Kryn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I know you are but what am I? Randy Kryn (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @user:casualdejekyll: I am asking you as moderator what this means? The personal attacks have finally been removed, for that I'm thankful. But frankly, this strikes me as mockery of the DRN process. Allreet (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. From someone who has a little sister who says this way too much... yeah, this is Randy being strangely combative casualdejekyll  17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What? No, this was "said" lightly, and had been used several times between Allreet and myself. If I was mocking the process it would be shorter. It is actually something light in place of my earlier assessment, which had been criticized and I'd been asked to change, and wording that I assumed Allreet would recognize as a friendly summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no humor in what you said before. More appropriate would have been an apology. Allreet (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An apology for saying that you are now forum shopping here after you've posted scores of discussions, some very long, and opened and closed three RfCs, with every discussion and RfC ending with results you didn't like? I, at least, need a sense of humor to continue this journey (because it's true, canceling 57 or so Founding Fathers is no laughing matter). As to the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation not being founding documents when the former non-famously formally formed the first and foremost union of the colonies and the latter literally created (in other words, founded) America's first constitution and first government (the Confederation Congress), it's either smile awhile or drink heavily (and I seldom use, alcohol at least). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:casualdejekyll, I am respectfully requesting feedback from the moderator on @User:Randy Kryn's reinstatement of his personal attack. My opinion is this and other comments he has made throughout potentially falls under Behavior that disrupts dispute resolution, though of that I know nothing. Allreet (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A major problem here is that you are disregarding "Edit only in your own section" and have filled my brief summary with requests for apologies and questions and respectful requests for feedback, thus not allowing another editor to just have their say. I'm not editing in your summary section, although I could say a thing or two, but I wouldn't even think of actually doing such a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your "brief summary" was a playground taunt, Randy. Collapsing section. casualdejekyll  22:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Founding Fathers of the United States discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Question - Is this a dispute about article content, or about the reliability of a particular source? It is difficult to determine, from the length of the discussion on the article talk page, exactly what the issue is, other than that it is clear that there is an issue.  Please be concise.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (repeated from above) Well, there is no dispute. Months have come and gone, and so have three open and closed failed RfCs by Allreet (and many page discussions where he also didn't get his way). If three failed RfCs haven't gotten the message across to him I know why he may be calling it a dispute - forum shopping. Please ask him to stop what has possibly become, after not prevailing at three RfCs, slow-motion and ongoing vandalism ICANtHEARYOU edits of the page (although he has done many good edits as well). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a dispute over content regarding the need for reliable sources. For just short of a year, actually much longer, the Founding Fathers article has had no sources to support the assertion that signers of the Continental Association are "considered founders". This specific claim was made in July 2021. The "implied" claim is about seven years old. The same may be true of the Articles of Confederation though at least some authors recognize its signers. However, the National Archives, USCongress.gov and "serious" historians do not. Allreet (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - please remember that participation in DRN is voluntary. @Randy Kryn - If you truly believe that having this discussion would not be valuable and that there is no dispute, you do not have to participate. However, calling his (presumed to be good faith) actions vandalism may constitute a personal attack. So, don't do that, please. casualdejekyll  17:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck, thanks. Could be valuable if mediators would read every word at scores of discussion pages (not only the Founding Fathers talk page but at least the talk pages of Continental Association and Articles of Confederation, then I could leave it as is. So will wait to see what occurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you do want to have a DRN discussion? (I'm planning on opening pending you actually wish to participate.) casualdejekyll  19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagging @Randy Kryn for response because I forgot to the first time. Whoops casualdejekyll 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I'll join in, and hopefully be as brief as possible as tens of thousands of words already exist, but can you do me a big favor? Please don't open a discussion for a couple of days. I've been going at this almost daily for two months, and breaks from it are valuable and I'd be dragging if this occurred immediately. It should take you at least a couple of days anyway to read the discussions, RfCs, and the sources, and create a mental map of the vital American history being discussed, how Wikipedia has accepted and stood behind much of the definition and terminology being discussed since 2010, and the discussions themselves. If you're willing to do all of that then the least I can do is join in, but after some time away if you don't mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would welcome whatever it takes to resolve this. And per Randy's request, I'm willing to wait until next week or whenever it suits Randy or whoever else is involved. Allreet (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, next week, a few days actually away from all of this with things left as they are I assume, would be great, thanks (and it may take the mediator a few late nights and some strong coffee to put enough time in to really study the entire structure, and what's nice is they will learn a lot of American history by taking on your request). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - there is no expectation or need for the moderator to be or become an expert in the topic area of a dispute to properly moderate it. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am no expert on the subject either. The issue is not American history, but the need for reliable sources. What Wikipedia has "accepted" for however many years does not qualify as a source. Nor does an article that cannot be quoted, that is not clear and direct, regarding what is being claimed. @Randy Kryn) Allreet (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did let Randy know on his talk page, though I may not have followed whatever guideline applies. Allreet (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - I see that a volunteer has agreed to moderate the discussion of this dispute, so I will offer a few comments. I may choose to list myself as a participating editor, but am not doing that yet.  First, I advise the moderator not to try to read the lengthy  prior discussion in detail.  Taking a look at its volume will be desirable, but it is neither necessary nor useful for the moderator to try to study the details.  The participants should be able to present their arguments concisely without repeating what has already been said repeatedly.  Any argument that cannot be summarized concisely may not be adequately presented.  Any argument that has not been summarized concisely is one that needs summarizing.  Second, the principal editors both refer to three RFCs.  One of them was at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States.  The other two were at Talk:Continental Association.  But none of the three RFCs were open for 30 days, and none of them were formally closed.  The statement by one editor that the other editor "lost" three RFCs is incorrect; the RFCs were withdrawn.  In my opinion, two of the RFCs were poorly worded.  There has not, in my opinion, been an effective attempt to use an RFC, so much as playing around with RFCs.  I would suggest that the moderator and the editors conduct the moderated discussion with a recognition that a good neutrally worded RFC might be the best resolution of this dispute.  That will not require that the moderator review the excessive interchange between the two participants.  I might have a third comment later.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note I am currently formulating a first statement. At the request of Randy Kryn, I will not formally open the moderated discussion until.. well, you seemed to agree on next week, so I'm going to take that to mean Sunday the 13th Monday the 14th, please correct me if that is wrong. I request that both editors involved refrain from commenting on this thread further until that date (unless agreeing on a different one), and make an attempt to comment as little on this topic on other places as possible. Further comments will be taken as an invitation to open early, since I see no reason for any more pre-discussion discussion. Putting this on hold, then. casualdejekyll  23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you make it Monday, lots of Sunday and weekend stuff to do. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Monday the 14th it is! Since there is no deadline, I'm willing to moderate whenever you two have the time to start the discussion casualdejekyll  00:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll tune in as early as I can. Thanks to all. Allreet (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator, Founding Fathers of the United States
I am opening this thread for moderated discussion. Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth.

First, please read the rules carefully. Then read them again, just to be sure. If you have questions on the rules, ask before assuming. The rules may be different from any previous cases you have participated in. Any uncivil comments will be collapsed. (I reserve the right to move to stricter rules if the discussion gets nasty, but so far, so good.)

Each editor is asked for up to one-paragraph statements on each of the following questions. (Remember, being concise makes your points more clear.)

1. Does signing a founding document of the United States make one a Founding Father?

2. Is the Continental Association a founding document of the United States?

Please make arguments based on policy and sources. Also, as Robert McClenon said, a proper RFC hasn't really been done on this yet, and it may be the best solution. casualdejekyll 23:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Allreet, @Randy Kryn for reminders. (No hurry, just wanted to make sure you knew.) casualdejekyll  18:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Robert McClenon
Since I have listed myself as a participant, I will make my statement:
 * 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.
 * The Continental Association is not one of the founding documents of the United States, because most reliable sources do not consider it to be one, and because its signers did not necessarily think that they were founding a country.

The other participating editors, who have been pinged, should respond within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've updated my First statement to make it clear that I am perfectly okay with this style of response despite my original statement implying I wouldn't be. casualdejekyll  01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Randy Kryn

 * As a wise man once wrote, "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."


 * 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", popular websites such as Founder of the Day, 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, undeniably historically presented, and accurate common sense assessment and acknowledgment of the first agreed upon and signed document to unify the Colonies. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

First statement by Allreet
The Continental Association is considered a founding document by a few sources - e.g. Werther, Architects of the Capitol - but not by most - e.g. National Archives, U.S. Congress, Pandover, Stanfield, etc. As best as I could determine from a search of numerous indexes, few histories of the Revolutionary era pay much attention to the 1774 trade embargo.


 * While Lincoln may have cited the document in his first inaugural address, his purpose was to build a legal argument against secession, one that rested primarily on the Constitution. He had nothing to say of the Continental Association's signers nor did he say the document actually founded the nation. That act, which occurred in 1776, owed everything to the outbreak of war in 1775, little to the First Continental Congress.


 * As for the logic that founding documents + signers = founders, not one person who signed the Continental Association did so with independence in mind. In fact, the document begins with a lengthy pledge of loyalty to King George III. In 1774, nearly everyone was a "loyalist".

In sum, sources are lacking in substance and number, particularly regarding the extraordinary claim that the Continental Association's 53 signers are "considered founders". The policy that applies is WP:VER, which states "exceptional claims require exceptional (multiple high-quality) sources". The sources offered so far don't come close to satisfying that.

1a Statement by Allreet This is neither here nor there, so I put it here. After looking up annual page views for Founding Fathers, I thought I'd do the same for some related pages. The number I find most interesting is for the Articles of Confederation. Really, that many people still care? The stats are for 2021. The number of most importance, I think, is for Founding Fathers - that it's in the ballpark with far more relevant and contemporary topics.
 * United States - 16,838,160
 * U.S. Senate - 2,696,726
 * U.S. House - 2,502,161
 * Declaration of Independence - 1,663,157
 * U.S. Constitution - 1,441,282
 * U.S. Congress - 1,378,966
 * Founding Fathers - 1,092,453
 * Articles of Confederation - 454,226
 * Continental Association - 27,309

By coincidence, I came across a column in last Sunday's New York Times on James Madison and suspected the interest in the Articles is based on Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism. I have no fish to fry over the politics therein but suspected the interest in the Articles is related to libertarianism. So I looked into it by googling "Cato Institute Articles of Confederation". Sure enough the 245-year debate rages on, though nobody has much to say about founders beyond an occasional reference. Allreet (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * Pinging @Allreet, @Randy Kryn. Would ping McClenon but we all already know he watches this page like a hawk  casualdejekyll  00:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Allreet
1. Disagree strongly: independence wasn't on anyone's mind 2. Disagree strongly: most agree on Declaration and Constitution, few on Continental and Articles 3. Agree strongly: no question, but Lincoln only mentioned it once; he referenced the Constitution 28 times 4. Agree strongly: everyone was a loyalist, to be otherwise was treasonous 5. Disagree: it's used as a definition sometimes but usually only regarding the Declaration and Constitution 6. Disagree strongly: some are regarded as founders, far from all 7. Unsure: actually the "union" began with the Congress's opening, not just the Continental Association

I have no objection whatsoever to another RfC. My concerns, however, go well beyond this one issue. Everything said here also applies to the Articles of Confederation; it has more support than the Continental Association but not enough to satisfy WP:VER in regards to anointing 28 signers who signed nothing else founders. National Archives and U.S. Congress, for example, do not consider it a "founding document" because it was a failure.

For ten years, the Founding Fathers article has "implied" and at times explicitly stated that the signers of all four documents are founding fathers. The two additional documents were added in 2012 without any sources, and since then assertions about the four "founding documents" have been emphatically presented as "fact". Yet this characterization, like the term founder itself, is purely subjective. In fact, most respected historians eschew both terms, and the few who do use them on occasion, primarily Morris and Ellis, limit their choice of founders to a select few.

I've tried to reflect this state of affairs with the changes I've made recently. Since the issue is unsettled, I left most of what was here intact, that is, until removing the unsourced statement that "the following (146 signers) are considered founding fathers". Clearly, more work is needed to straighten this out, not just here but in the 50 or so other articles affected. Allreet (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Robert McClenon on Founding Fathers
First, a proper RFC is in order on the Continental Association, and probably on the Articles of Confederation. Second, I will respond to the seven statements:
 * 1. Disagree.  As noted, there wasn't an independence movement in 1774.
 * 2. Disagree.  The importance of the Continental Association is a matter of disagreement, and it is not even well known.
 * 3. Agree.  He did say that.
 * 4. Agree.
 * 5. Strongly agree that the Founding Fathers were the signers of the founding documents.
 * 6. Disagree.  Some are, because they also signed another document.  However, this is the question that calls for an RFC.
 * 7. What Union?

Third, using the DRN talk page to discuss this dispute on the side is inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your third point and just wasn't sure how to bring it back over here (see how I pinged Allreet "for transparency".) I realize now that I should have been upfront with saying that the discussion must move back to the main page here. casualdejekyll  00:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I initially thought your comment, Robert, related to my "side discussion" (additional comments) above. I now understand you were referring to the talk page. However, in my uncertainty I thought it appropriate to "hide" my comments to avoid interfering with the process. Not sure what to say about my action being reverted. In any case, I have no problem with what I said so if all else is okay, I'll leave the revert stand. Please clarify "how far we can go" with our responses. Allreet (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert indicated I should direct my questions to you. I'm open to submitting this for a RfC should not respond. What do you recommend?. Also  Thanks to all. Allreet (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping Randy had the intention of responding. If they don't respond soon then an RfC is in order for sure. casualdejekyll  22:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you recommend regarding a RfC should there be no response? Allreet (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, nobody gave a time limit, and when I get pinged I see this back and forth with two of you going off in new directions, talking among yourselves, which all further clutters what needs to be responded to. These things take time, this topic is not one that should be handled lightly or quickly. Many thoughts to organize into words for my response, now a few more, so I'll focus on posting it on Monday if not before. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 19 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 understand 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 all those sections, and on literally dozens more on 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 many 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, several times it has been stated-as-fact in this process that Allreet's RfC wordings were "not proper". That is just not true. Let's take a look.

RfC #1. Allreet's RfC title and question are understandable and quite direct (plus 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'?"

RfC #2. The title and question technically described the concern and seemed accurately worded (Allreet then 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?"

RfC #3. The third RfC has gold-standard wording. Could not be more direct. Why has this been described as inadequate or improperly worded? 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, and Allreet closed all of them accordingly.

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

Now, to answer the moderator's other questions:

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 "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", 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 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 describe the Association as "the first major document of the American Revolution", and a stable 2010 navbox from another popular (although unsourceable) website, Historical American Documents.
 * 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 had to reluctantly clear Liberty's road when they realized its size, spirit, and direction.
 * Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Third(?) statement by Moderator, Founding Fathers of the United States
I'm just going to say this right now: there is nobody to blame but me for the technical hiccups this case has encountered, and I'm sorry.

With that out of the way, I think it's a good idea to refactor discussion and try to corral all these threads into one coherent discussion instead of jumping all over the place. I would like a short statement from all parties on the following things:

1. In one of all these massive threads of stuff, Randy suggested: Is this an acceptable compromise to you all, and if so, what needs to be done going forward?

2. If that is not a good compromise, is it RfC time?

3. If the answer to both above questions is "no", what do you suggest we do, going forward?

casualdejekyll 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Allreet (Founding Fathers)
1. I definitely do not favor the compromise suggested regarding signers of the Continental Association. My reason is that their acceptance as founders would be to endorse an extreme minority view. Sources are so scant in this case that Wikipedia would be leading the way as an endorser (1st, 2nd or 3rd), and it my understanding that Wikipedia does not lead in adopting minority views; it follows. I came across this construct around the time the current dispute was developing. It was in a RfC or DRN discussion, and I haven't been able to find it again. In any case, the concept exists and we would do well to adhere to it. Perhaps a check with knowledgeable Admins/Wikipedians might be a way to track it down.

I do see some justification for a compromise regarding signers of the Articles in that at least 2-3 reasonably prominent sources support it. Unfortunately not anyone nearly as authoritative as the National Archives. If you don't know what that means, check out Founders Online, a project of the Archives that has consolidated the papers (185,000 documents) of seven of the top founders. Essentially, they're the keepers of the Holy Grail, so if anybody knows, they do, and they clearly do not endorse the Articles as a founding document. So what justifies us accepting a couple middling sources against la crème de la crème of authorities? That I'm afraid is a tough question. So I'd like to reserve offering an opinion on this part of the equation until hearing from Robert and Randy.

Meanwhile, to clarify the the idea of minority views and Wikipedia "leading", I'd like to offer a quote I shared with Randy during our two-month ping-pong match that further clarifies WP:VER: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia..." — Jimmy Wales, 2003. I'm leaning toward the third of Jimmy's scenarios, plus I don't see any harm in letting future "scholarship" shine its light.

2. Rather than do something for expediency's sake and certainly rather than do the wrong thing, I'm perfectly willing to endure another trial by fire or whatever a RfC might mean. That said, this would not be my first choice.

3. I think my second answer (if that's what it takes...) renders this moot.

In closing, I'm mystified by whatever chagrin you're suffering from, casualdejekyll. Ya done just fine, in my view. I have no complaints, zero, plus I've been through enough ordeals in various roles and organizations that I look at everything as a learning experience and believe nothing is ever gained by being your own worst critic. So thanks for leading the way and especially for treating us fairly. Allreet (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've thought about this at length, did some more research, and read Robert's thoughts, which I generally agree with, especially the idea that this is as much about the biographies of 50 dead people as the Founding Fathers article itself.


 * I stand by what I said about the Continental Association: sources are so lacking that saying "some consider" its signers founders would be to ignore WP:VER. If someone did something else to qualify, of course they should be recognized.


 * As for the Articles, I'm amenable to adding wording along the lines of "A few sources consider XYZ to be a founding father" with Padover, Stanfield, and Werther cited and a wikilink to the main FF article. (This is not to withdraw my objections regarding the ambiguity of Werther's piece.) To be clear, I would not accept "Founding Father of the United States" as part of the wording. I know that sounds nit-picky but what's being compromised is "due weight"; that is, we're not acknowledging the greater authority of the sources that disagree, so I think it's important to imply as little as possible.


 * The Founding Father article's list section needs to be edited to remove the implication that everyone on the four lists is a founder. First, that is not the case with the Continental Association. Second, the ambiguity regarding Articles signers needs to be brought in line with what's proposed for individual biographies. And third, delegates to the Constitutional Convention who did not sign for one reason or another need to be listed somewhere. They're noted in the last paragraph of the lede (source: National Archives) but aren't listed individually somewhere and should be.


 * Finally, I'd like to apologize for my own verbosity throughout this exercise. I spent 20 years as a software documentation writer, a large part of that training others to cut, cut, cut. In looking back at my writing here, I'm about to fire myself. Allreet (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging @User:Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon, @User:casualdejekyll: I've thought about the wording and not allowing caps and "of the USA". Consistent with that, a more complete sentence would read: "A few sources consider XYZ one of the nation's founders" followed by the three cites. Note the wikilink. Regarding my objection to the Association, the same could not be said because "a few sources" are not available to support that. Allreet (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by Robert McClenon (Founding Fathers)
I didn't read the two months of back-and-forth and do not intend to read it. I would not have read it if I had been the moderator. However, it appears that either the real issue or part of the real issue is not just about the article on the Founding Fathers of the United States, but the biographies of dead people of the men who signed the Continental Association or the Articles of Confederation, but not the American Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. It appears that a question is whether they should be referred to in the lede paragraph of each biography as a Founding Father.

I think that we agree that any signer of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is a Founding Father.


 * 1. To answer the first question, I think that the "some sources call him" formulation is not only an acceptable compromise but at least as good as any other resolution, and probably better.


 * 2. To answer the second question, a two-part RFC on the status of the signers of the Continental Association and of the Articles of Confederation is a good idea, but the instructions to the closer should say that No Consensus should be the result unless the consensus is strong, and that if there is no consensus on a document, the status of its signers will again revert to "some sources call him".

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3. The third question is irrelevant because the first two questions were both sort of Yes.

Third statement by Randy Kryn
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 silver-standard website sources meet:
 * Wikipedia's long-time and 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 who viewed 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".
 * Thus "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?
 * Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Back and Forth discussion, Founding Fathers of the United States
To prevent cluttering up the main statements, I've moved all the responses down here and I ask that you continue to respond to things down here.

Allreet's response to Randy Kryn's Second Statement #6
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.

Randy Kryn's response to Allreet's second comment to #6A
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 first 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 a dedicated "enthusiast". Bless his soul). Randy Kryn (talk)

Allreet's reponse to Randy Kryn's last two statements
The dispute is not over founding documents. The issues are sources and founders. The following observations apply to both of Randy’s most recent statements. I have no qualms regarding subsequent RfCs if that’s what it takes. I believe sources will determine the outcome and should others see them differently, what’s to fear? Allreet (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Gold standards" are the Archives, Congress, Harvard, etc., whose views represent decades of scholarship, the efforts of numerous scholars.
 * Saul K. Padover would be the only source with any academic credentials who recognizes the Articles' signers. The Continental Association has no scholars supporting it.
 * Lincoln’s address makes no reference to founders.
 * “Long-time, stable criteria" is meaningless. Reliable sources are the only criteria that matters.
 * In terms of proportionality, support for Continental Association signers is in an extreme minority; for the Articles, a slim one. That’s based on the number and prominence of sources that look to other documents for founders.
 * The Articles’ signers founded a nation of loosely affiliated nation states, a form of government that was dysfunctional and could not succeed. What’s to honor about that?
 * My POVs, whatever they may be, begin and end with sources.

Randy Kryn's response to Allreet's reponse to Randy Kryn's last two statements
(In progress. I was not pinged, missed this and just saw it, so would ask for an additional 24 hours to respond. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC))
 * @User:Randy Kryn, independent of your latest post, I've changed my mind about a compromise. I'm telling you that to save you the time of making a reply, though of course that's up to you. Stand by for a new comment under "Back and Forth". Ping @User:casualdejekyll, @User:Robert McClenon Allreet (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement 2A by Robert McClenon
One of the statements is too long to understand. I see that it is saying that there is no need for an RFC, and it says it at so much length that it doesn't say anything. However, there may not be a need for an RFC, but not for the reason argued at length. The text of the article says that different reliable sources disagree as to whether signers of the Continental Association and the Articles of Confederation alone are considered Founding Fathers, and the table lists which documents were signed by each person. That seems to be an adequate way to finesse the disagreement. I don't think that it has been established that the signers of the Continental Association were Founding Fathers, and writing at length that has been established does not make it so. However, I see no harm in retaining the current acceptance of ambiguity. I personally think that the signers of the Continental Association were not Founding Fathers unless they signed something else, or are founders in some other way; I personally think that the signers of the Articles of Confederation were Founding Fathers, and that they engaged in a very successful failure that set the way for the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Those are my opinions, and they are worth what you paid for them. I don't think that we need an RFC unless someone objects to the current studied ambiguity. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon, I reacted to your first couple sentences here and your comments at a talk page I had just read, and stupidly didn't comprehend the rest (you, too, may need to be more concise but my fault). You seem to say leave the stable status quo, and of course I'd agree. A real compromise may be achieved by adding words on the pages of the disputed founding fathers that "some sources call him...". Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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 points of view, and after giving it some thought, North8000 came back 18 hours later 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 Articles 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 (except maybe for big hitters like Patrick Henry and Peyton Randolph, where a qualifier isn't needed and it can say in the first paragraph).

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. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Randy Kryn, @Robert McClenon, @Casualdejekyll: I like that wording. I might suggest adding "sources" after "some", but either may work. To be clear and hopefully not contentious, I would not agree to this for the Continental Association at present. More sources of a prominent nature would be needed to support that. Allreet (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed FF of the US which I objected to earlier. I was going to object to it again, but then thought "what the hey". I'm pointing this out to be explicit about my change of mind. Allreet (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Sometimes the lights at the other end of the tunnel are trains. :) Allreet (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, is that.. that? casualdejekyll  20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, if Randy accepts what I just said, that this would only apply to the Articles, not the Continental Association. If not, I’m willing to ask for RfCs on both documents. Allreet (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What did you mean you objected earlier to "FF of the US"? I'm missing something there. And sure, since you refuse to accept that the CA has enough minority sources to be neutrally named a founding document by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, a qualifier on at least the Articles is fine (although, because all pages of Article signers already mention that significant signing in their lead paragraph, the Founding Father descriptor should quickly follow). Thanks for putting that dispute behind us. As for yet another RfC on the CA, which Allreet's already had, I would ask the moderator to advise against it. If he seriously plans to continue, then how would wording be decided (and I should, out of fairness because Allreet unilaterally opened and then closed three previous RfCs on the exact same topic when they weren't going his way, be given the first statement). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:casualdejekyll: I don't think it would be appropriate to respond to any of the above so I'll leave that to your good judgement. Allreet (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Allreet's final answer
@User:Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon, @User:Casualdejekyll: The compromise before us was one Randy proposed and I believe Robert endorsed: we accept "some sources consider XYZ to be a founder”. Then after much thought, I realized how anathema this is to our responsibility as editors regarding sources.

The Continental Association has two sources at best:
 * founderoftheday, a self-published website. Here’s what WP:VER says: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert...Exercise caution when using such sources..." Just to "peak your curiosity", click the link to find how reliable the author is. (Besides his attitude about citations, I found at least four other writing errors here.)
 * Richard Werther's journal article analyzing founding documents. Werther mentions signers 78 times and founders/fathers 3 times each. Nowhere does he say or even imply all signers are founders. To confirm that, read the first several paragraphs, or however much you want. The point: WP:VER requires that the text of sources be "clear and direct".

Both these also apply to the Articles of Confederation, which has one additional source:
 * Saul K. Padover's "The World of the Founding Fathers" in the journal Social Research. Unquestionably reliable.

Even if I'm wrong about founderoftheday and Werther, we barely satisfy "some sources" for the Articles and a "couple" for the Continental Association. Meanwhile, I can name more than a dozen sources that clearly hold otherwise, the leading institutions and books on the subject. (I now own seven of the latter.)

So rather than compromise on one of our core values, I’d rather endure RfCs on the two documents. That leaves two questions: With sources this clear, why would anyone have to? And then, if there's a good answer to that, who would initiate and manage them? Allreet (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Other editors, please read the title of what Allree refers to as Richard Werther's journal article. I have a sense of wonder as to just why, oh why, he didn't include the paper's name (which summarized its premise)? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, because I wanted to make sure you'd point out the "premise" you've repeated since January 14: that you can't find a direct connection in his text - that you must read the article with his title - "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" - in mind. My response to that is he never makes a "clear and direct" statement such as "I wanted to analyze the Founders" or "when the Founders signed these documents". No matter. Even with Werther you're left with just one other source of any worth. Allreet (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha, you set the bait and reeled me in, just to be told that the entire article is about the founding signers (signer=founders according to the paper's clear, direct, and defining title). As for only one more worthy source, are you referring to Abraham Lincoln, the Architect of the Capitol, Founder of the Day, or the spirit of common sense itself? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wanted to call attention to the specific flaw in your reasoning, and you're still citing the title as if it can be used as a source. Could somebody else please provide feedback on that? As for Lincoln, he's a source for what? Founding documents? That's not at issue. For the nth time, the issue is signers, and Lincoln said nothing even remotely connected. The same is true of Architect; it's a source for founding documents. Founderoftheday, as a self-published work without any editorial oversight, is an unreliable source (per WP:VER). Which leaves Pardover, but only for the Articles and its signers. So where are we on these issues? Anybody else care to chime in? Allreet (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging @User:casualdejekyll and @User:Robert McClenon Allreet (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation are sourced as two of the four main founding documents but you can't accept that their signers are Founding Fathers, shouldn't consistency with the signers of the two Superstar documents, the Declaration and the second constitution, be maintained? Although the signers of the CA and Art.ofConfed. have fewer but existing reputable sources, articles should be neutral and reflect all validly sourced points of view. Common sense really should be a factor here. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn, @Allreet This discussion has slowly become more and more violent. Reel it in you guys.Titles of articles can in fact not be representative of the actual article. This is a truth. Regardless of that truth, the only thing the title actually says is that the documents are founding, not the people which signed them. WP:V does in fact say "clear and direct", as Allreet pointed out. Are we going to have this argument AGAIN? Because we can have this argument again. That just seems like the opposite of productive. If we've agreed on the Articles of Confederation (which mind you - was NOT the subject of this when the discussion was opened).. can we please move past it? Would you guys both agree that "some sources" is acceptable for the Articles? This discussion appears to have stonewalled. I can tell you two have respect for each other's contributions, but it's looking less and less like you have respect for each other.  casualdejekyll  22:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Casualdejekyll, I fail how to see how anything I have said or done could be construed as "violent". While I appreciate the difficulty of your position, the need to be equally fair to both sides, how is that judgement fair to me? I'll let that question go by saying it's a rhetorical one meant solely for the record, so I see no particular need for a response.
 * Your feedback on Werther's article is part of what I asked for at the beginning of this DRN. As for other sources, while it's clear the Continental Association has plenty of support as a founding document, the only support its signers have is founderoftheday.com. Unfortunately, in terms of reaching a resolution, the same is true of the Articles except for one prominent source, Saul Padover's article. How, then, does it qualify for "some sources consider signers of the Articles of Confederation founders"? I'm afraid that compromise runs contrary to WP:VER and my regret about that is I, too, would like nothing more than a speedy and peaceful resolution.
 * BTW, the Articles of Conderation is at issue under this DRN. In the opening, I mentioned the Continental Association page was also affected and not the Articles of Confederation page because it wasn't changed last year. But the issue I raised at the outset expressed concerns over "an assertion made on July 30, 2021 by a different editor claiming 145 historical figures are founding fathers." About 30 of those figures (part of the 50 pages changed) were signers of the Articles. Subsequently, the Articles has been mentioned by all three of us throughout. Ping: Randy Kryn and Robert McClenon. Allreet (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Casualdejekyll, @Randy Kryn @User:Robert McClenon: In looking back, I saw that I overlooked Stanfield, which gives us two sources on the Articles and I'll compromise on founderoftheday to make that three, because the day is bound to come along when we can replace it and in the scheme of things, it's not so bad. And so, I will accept "some sources, etc." provided the wording doesn't go overboard. Solely for the record, I'll note that this compromises a bit on WP:VER's Neutrality provision in the sense that the other side should be acknowledged when sources differ. We can let that go as well. Also, I want to let Randy know three things. First, I see no reason why the Founding Fathers article should not be a Featured Article, and I'd like to work with him on that process if he's willing. Second, regarding the Continental Association, its day may come and I will endeavor diligently to dig up sources to facilitate that. And third, what say you, Randy, on shaking hands and moving on? Allreet (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 document and main FF pages should be feature articles (none of them is at present) 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 @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 North8000 as a non-participant reader to let him 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 a non-public page, even if we wanted to. The best we are able to do, and arguably probably the best we can do, 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To the community, to be as clear and objective as I can:
 * The only issue of relevance is sources that explicitly identify founders.
 * Sources that recognize founding documents must say more to identify the documents' signers as founders.
 * Lincoln only addresses founding documents, not founders.
 * The text of Richard Werther's article is only "clear and direct" about founding documents, not in recognizing signers of the Continental Association or Articles of Confederation as founders. Its title is irrelevant.
 * The Continental Association has no reliable sources that accept its signers as founders.
 * The Articles of Confederation has only two reliable sources (Padover and Stanfield) identifying its signers as founders.
 * Stability, consistency, common sense, and the like are unacceptable criteria for verification.
 * I find it disappointing that WP:VER and the most reliable and prominent of sources - from the National Archives to Morris, Ellis, Isaacson, et al - are ineffective in the face of recalcitrant subjectivity. Since that tactic is not likely to prevail, I'm committed to enduring whatever else it takes to remove the 50+ claims for both the documents in question. Allreet (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Randy Kryn, @Robert McClenon, @Casualdejekyll, @North8000

Thanks!! North8000 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I respectfully ask the moderator to put an end to this as regards the Articles of Confederation. Allreet kindly outlined above that he had taken the Articles off the table after adding a new source, and was quite articulate about it. It was a well-worded and obvious defense of keeping the Article signers as Founders and adding the qualifier to the biographical pages as proposed, and I think we all have agreed to that. As for the rest of his new statement, it is yet another long posting with points to counter, which would need a complete answer, a forty-eight hour clock starts now I would say (just came online and saw it) but I'll try to keep it to 24. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Casualdejekyll: I can substantiate that to compromise on the Articles as proposed may violate three provisions of WP:VER (exceptional claims, neutrality, questionable/self-published sources). But fair enough, if Randy wants to rebut what I said. BTW, my "long posting" of 180 words simply summarized points I've raised several times. So I kindly ask that he stick with the issue: do signers = founders in terms of what reliable sources have to say? Ping: Randy Kryn and North8000 Allreet (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Various replies to Second Statement by Moderator

 * @User:Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon, @Casualdejekyll: I'm curious as to our next step. I would like to respond to Randy's 2nd statement, but only in regards to sources (about 300 words). I would also appreciate a revision of Randy's Summary of Dispute, which continues to impugn my integrity. Allreet (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You may respond, yes. casualdejekyll  01:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We can respond to each other? In that case I would have had lots to say already. I'm assuming I can then respond to Allreet's response, so the two-month-plus daily back and forth will now pick up again and continue? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Casualdejekyll, @User:Robert McClenon, @Randy Kryn: Casualdejekyll, before I say anything else, I think it would be a good idea to have some ground rules on responses. I agree with Randy to the extent that we don't need another unending back and forth. Concurrent with that, we don't need responses that run 1,000+ words long or that drag in everything imaginable. The first amounts to filibustering; the second, to a holiday for red herrings. What we do need, then, is focus. So I thought a good place to start would be the subject of this dispute: the need for sources to verify whether signers of the Continental Association are "considered founders". Just as a suggestion, a 300-400 limit should suffice. The same would be true of some of the other (but hardly all) of the issues addressed in your seven questions, such as #2 and #5. The item I had in mind immediately in terms of sources is #6 where Randy mentions four. Allreet (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather than await further permission, I thought it better to simply be bold and exercise the permission I have. So I'm adding a 200-word response to Randy's assertion that "Signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers". He based this on five sources. IMO, none of them qualify anyone for the distinction. The only way to test this is to post and let others have their say. Pinging @Casualdejekyll, @User:Robert McClenon, @Randy Kryn, @Casualdejekyll. Randy, swing away with your response, but please try to keep the verbiage to 400 words.Allreet (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So we have a new moderator? I'll await the real moderator's response to see if I should respond to the response to my second statement newly posted just above my second statement (placement seems backwards and, honestly, quite unfair. So should my answers, if any, always go above or can I put some below responses?) and the intrusion in my second answer-box, and ignore for the moment the two moderator-wanna-bees. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The 400 word limit is acceptable - personally I would have it shorter, but if both of you agree I am open to it. Aditionally, calling me and Robert "wanna-bees" is a personal attack. Be civil, Randy. casualdejekyll  12:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where exactly can I answer him? Interesting reading of my comment. No, just the opposite - based on this discussion I was calling Allreet and Robert "wanna-bees", not you. Both were trying to dictate page direction and moderate, but you, not either of them, are moderating. 400 words sounds doable in 4eight hours, hopefully sooner, but a lot to summarize even though the exact same thing has been discussed in public space scores of times now and there is no dispute on this: he never got a consensus. Another RfC would be giving another huge bite at the apple because, as already decided by scores of no-consensus public settings and discussions, no RfC or even another public discussion is warranted. Please read both my first and second statements again for further explanation of this, thanks.Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Casualdejekyll, @Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon: Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about how many words it takes, though I do know brevity is preferable to volume. As for "bites at the apple", let's try getting our priorities straight. The Founding Fathers article has a million viewers per year, so it's important that what we offer is the best possible. In that regard, the only consensus that matters is that of historians. It then follows that the key is sources, major and minor, which means keeping their notability (relative importance) in perspective, for example, the National Archives versus a random journal article. That's far from the end of it all, so to speak, but not a bad place to start. Allreet (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: Please stop personalizing this. Reply below my response. Don't worry about the RfC - casualdejekyll will help adjudicate that, I'm sure. Allreet (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Rules for Founding Fathers
I think you made a typo in trying to provide a link to the rules that you were specifying. As a result, the link doesn't link to a set of DRN rules, but to an editing essay. That is why one of the editors said that there wasn't a time limit. You might want to check that and repost the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OH/ oops casualdejekyll  18:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: no typo, but WP:DRNC, for whatever reason, does not match the pattern of WP:DRNA and WP:DRNB. Fixed. @Randy Kryn, @Allreet. I apologize for the inconvenience but the rules were not linked properly. This is entirely my fault and I'm very sorry. casualdejekyll  18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ?, those are the rules I was going by, which added to my emphasizing consensus and the many opportunities Allreet already had on multiple talk pages to build one, which he never did. New Rules? Sounds like Bill Maher. Since we are so far into whatever territory we've entered it seems the rules have pretzel-wised so maybe should be set aside for this one. I'm working on the rest of my second answer and will post it sometime on Monday if not before. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed whole-heartedly. Let's just say I screwed it up and move on. casualdejekyll  18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon, @User:Casualdejekyll, @User:Randy Kryn: I just returned from a vacation and in catching up with things, I came across this exchange. I have no understanding of the snafu, nor does it seem very important. What I'm wondering about is what "the many opportunities Allreet already had on multiple talk pages to build (consensus), which he never did" has to do with anything? The characterization is simply not true, in fact a complete distortion of what went down. Anybody care to explain its relevance and then how such comments should be regarded given Rule 1.1? Allreet (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - First, as to the mistake. The link that the moderator had provided that was supposed to be to the rules was originally not to a set of rules but to an unrelated editing essay.  As a result, in particular, discussion started without a time limit, and the rules didn't originally include a statement to be civil and concise.  As a result, the discussion hasn't been following a 48-hour response cycle.  Also, the rule to be civil restates the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, but there hasn't been a rule to be concise, and User:Randy Kryn hasn't been concise.  That is the issues about the ground rules.  If you think that civility has been violated or that another editor has been commenting on contributors rather than on content, state it plainly to the moderator.  You are implying such a complaint, but you aren't stating it plainly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Casualdejekyll - You are the moderator. Please provide further instructions.  This discussion needs moderator intervention.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Moderator's instructions were "You may be as concise or as long-winded as you want while explaining your answers..." I chose long-winded, and on such an important topic that seems the right choice, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Casualdejekyll, @Randy Kryn, @Robert McClenon: Robert, I understood there was a problem with the link as well as a misunderstanding regarding the rules. What you said clarifies that further. In any case, NBD. What I found mystifying was how any of this related to me and then that nobody noticed what Randy said. So I felt that calling attention to the passage would do all the talking needed. If it would be better I say so directly, yes, I absolutely consider his comments uncivil. Allreet (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Allreet My comment was framed by the linked rules, I explained that above. Please read the full sentence you object too. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Randy Kryn - Thank you for calling my attention to the moderator's instruction about verbosity. The idea that importance of a topic warrants overly long posts is silly.  You had the right to post at length.  It often makes one feel better.  It often does not convey information to the other editors; whether a lengthy post clarifies or obscures depends on many factors.  Your post summarized your opinion on the Continental Association in a way that one paragraph could have done.  I will comment that you complain that another editor had many opportunities to build consensus on talk pages.  If you are trying to build consensus by posting at length for two days, it hasn't done that, but maybe you need a choir to preach to.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While foolishly thinking I was answering the moderator's questions I must have just been silly as a goose, wandering about looking for a choir (if you see one, preferably robed, please let me know, thanks). And you're the fellow the moderator admires so? Yikes. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert is probably a better moderator than I. Regardless. Whoah. I'll type out a third statement Soon:tm: but I'm thinking the next step is a trip to RfC land. Anyway, Randy, take a step back. Allreet opening three RfC's, despite their failures, is very much not  never trying to build consensus. Which one of you opened the DRN case, exactly? If you guys both believe I've failed as a moderator, I will step down, but I really think that's not the issue here. (Obviously, I'm biased towards myself, but still.) @Allreet, @Randy Kryn  casualdejekyll  12:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Allreet opened it, I joined to say there is no dispute, the issue was settled. Robert isn't moderating, you are. Maybe a student-becomes-the-teacher moment, at least on civility. You're doing fine as a moderator so far, aside from the biased very early assessment of the Continental Association and its founding document status, mainly because, and thanks again, I needed the time to compose my detailed and full second answer which Robert seems up in arms about and hopefully shifts your CA assessment a little. Robert, just what did I get wrong? A serious question. And no, I never said "not never trying to build consensus". Again, just the opposite, he tried in public discussions scores of times, viewed by probably many of the main editors of the pages, and never found one. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Robert McClenon, @User:Casualdejekyll, @User:Randy Kryn: I did start this. Frankly, disputes are beyond my pay grade and that includes RfCs, which I was obviously incompetent at. I won't say the same about the other work I do, though I believe all writers need a combination of excruciating humility and somewhat overbearing egoism. That said, teams require a high level of mutual respect. That doesn't mean we can't fight - we should regarding anything we're passionate about - but for sure we need to fight nice. Allreet (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to those who don't know, I have the utmost respect for Allreet, as I would for any Wikipedian who has a true interest and has done good edits on Founding Faher and founding document pages. Wikipedia has a very nice collection, and Allreet has ably added to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Communication gaffe on my end - I meant to say it was very much not "never trying to build consensus" but dropped the quote marks casualdejekyll  18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Casualdejekyll: Can you "collapse" this section as more "dithering"? I don't see much of substance. I have no problem whatsoever with anything I've said here nor do I see anything of value from others regarding the issues. Ping others to ask if they object. Or be bold. Just a suggestion. Allreet (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Collapsing is fine, that doesn't mean it's removed from the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement 3A by Robert McClenon
User:Casualdejekyll - Where are we? User:Randy Kryn and User:Allreet seem to be responding to each other all over this noticeboard and pinging all of us, and it isn't clear to me whether they have agreed on something, or almost agreed on something, or are just talking back and forth. Also, is there still a dispute about the Founding Fathers article itself, or does the issue have to do with a number of biographies of dead people? If that is an issue, then I think that we only have an issue about anyone who signed only the Continental Association and/or the Articles of Confederation, and not signers of the US Declaration of Independence or United States Constitution. But I think that I will ignore the pings from the other editors until the moderator asks for more input. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * For the latest, refer to the to the series of comments added by Randy since I began writing this and then the preceding comments. Allreet (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm just trying to figure out if Randy will cooperate or not. Regardless, they appear to have agreed on the Articles which leaves the Association open for RfC or similar. Allreet appears to support an RfC, Randy does not. Randy has also been skirting the edge on personal attacks, which I have warned him on before. He's gotten better about it since. I would like everyone involved to stop pinging Robert please. casualdejekyll  00:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Allreet, @Randy Kryn, @North8000 casualdejekyll  00:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by North8000
I'm sure I didn't follow the format correctly so feel free to fix that or tell me what to do. I would like to start with a few structural observations. First, it would be good to more specifically frame the question of the dispute. I don't see that above. Presumably it is "Should the article say / imply that members of the Continental Assoc are founding fathers?" but that should be clarified. Next, it should be recognized that we're not trying to uncover some fundamental reality, we're trying to decide whether or not to apply a mere vague characterizing term that was made up about 140 years later to characterize those individuals. So IMO the article should more strongly cover the fact that it is about a term. So, since we're talking about a term, the common meaning of the term should help guide things. IMO, the later shorter lists certainly fall under all of the common meanings of the term and so it would be OK to explicitly or implicitly treat them as founding founders in the article. Some (but fewer) common meanings of the term include the full larger lists such as the CA. IMO any explicit or implicit (by inclusion) statement that they are founding founders should include clarification/calibration/ attribution type wording e.g. "often considered to also be founding fathers" but that it is a fine and good idea to include that info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The dispute is about whether sources explicitly identify signers of certain documents as founders. The documents in question are the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation. At issue are signers in the article's list section and then in the individual biographies of certain signers. I won't say more about that because I don't want to influence you or appear that I'm trying to. Regarding your editorial point, we can save that for later because it's separate from the dispute. Allreet (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is around this statement from the article:

"The 2nd President of Azerbaijan, Abulfaz Elchibey during a speech in June 1992, once said "If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku". He also once "threatened to occupy Armenia, wash his feet in Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores"

Number of Editors agreed that this sentence should not be in the article due to a number of reasons:

1. It is not supported by reliable sources. The only provided source refers to the transcript of Baroness Cox's speech at hearings, parliamentary debates & talks. The transcript of Baroness Cox's speech by itself is a reliable source only to prove what was said at hearings, this does not prove that Elchibay actually said that.

2. Neutrality of Baroness Cox is under big question. She openly admits in the same source being engaged in "advocacy for the Armenians of Karabakh". On 15 February 2006, she was awarded the Mkhitar Gosh Medal by the President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan.

3. Not possible to verify. The only source supporting alleged Abulfaz Elchibey's statement is Baroness Cox's speech at hearings. No reliable source confirms that. No transcripts of his speech exist.

4. This is an exceptional claim as per WP:REDFLAG should be supported by a number of reliable sources, but none available.

As the majority of the editors agreed with the above - the statement was removed. However, user ZaniGiovanni disagrees with the above. He reverted the edit with the following comments "restored Elchibey with Uk source. How is this "alleged"" and " Elchibay you removed yourself as "allegation" so I restored with the Uk source. "

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[] , []

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard can review the dispute and provide an opinion on whether the mentioned statement is supported by a valid reliable source and should stay, or the opposite. I believe this can help to resolve the dispute.

Summary of dispute by ZaniGiovanni
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. After this comment by the DRN mediator, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to engage in the same discussion brought up here again. Keeping that in mind, I'll address some of the things brought up here:

1) I don't know exactly why the source isn't reliable for that quote, I'm not following up on the reasoning. Also, I didn't restore "threatened to occupy Armenia, wash his feet in Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores", my edit is publicly available . Not sure why I'm being assigned to something I didn't do (again).

2) If npov or redflag are the supposed issues, here's a Russian-Azeri source stating the same quote. Btw, the Sevan Lake bit is mentioned as well which currently is removed from the article:

3) I see 4 editors involved in the 2 discussions regarding Elchibay quote(s) (not counting the unrelated to Elchibay BLP comment by Morbidthoughts), one is topic banned, so I guess this "majority" is 2 v 1 editors. And if I'm not wrong, consensus isn't really a vote, but rather strength of the arguments. That's also why we have RfC's and whatnot to get wider community opinions and not just the same editors who most often take same pov positions.

If Robert McClenon is comfortable meditating AA discussions, I'll participate as time allows. I'm not editing much recently because of IRL responsibilities, so if I'm slow to respond, forgive me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer Question - Is this a question about the reliability of a source? If so, the reliable source noticeboard may be a better place for the question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Question is not quite about the reliability of the source. The source(Transcript of parliamentary debates & talks) itself is reliable, however, it is reliable only to confirm what is said at the parliamentary debates & talks. The question is if the claim of Baroness Cox's about the Elchibay, at the parliamentary debates, is a reliable source to support the claim? No other sources confirming the claim of Baroness Cox available. Zani, additionally provided a link to the korrespondenT online newspaper article, but as per WP:NEWSBLOG it is not reliable, moreover, article published in 2021, so most probably it is WP:CIRCULAR. --Abrvagl (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So is this about the reliability of Baroness Cox? casualdejekyll  20:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a question of hearsay and/or Chinese whispers. Baroness Cox does not claim she heard the quote herself, she just mentions it as an unsupported statement. We don't know what her sources are. I'd be reluctant to take that statement as anything more than an an attributed claim. And then the question is if it's notable enough for inclusion - if the only source is the transcript of the debate, it does not seem to have raised a lot of interest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a proof of KorrespondenT source being a blog? It doesn’t look like one, seems to be just a regular news website. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * KorespondenT created in 2020 (as per web site), the article itself is quite recent either. It is posted on 07/2021. The article is written in a way to denigrate Elchibay, which also does not add weight to the article. The statement about Elchibay in the article is not sourced either. So it is not reliable as per WP:NEWSBLOG and it is most probably WP:CIRCULAR. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please show some factual information and stop presenting your thoughts as facts? Where exactly does it say the website is created in 2020 and what it has to do with my question? How is a Russian-Azeri news website and an article written by an Azeri journalist a “blog”? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Zani, Firtly, I want to make crystal clear, that Im here not to argue with anyone, I just stressing my point of view and if I'm wrong - I will accept that. If you go all the way down to the bottom of the website, you will see that it states "© 2020". With all respect to your point, I can not see how an article written on the not well-established news outlet can support WP:EXTRAORDINARY statement about the Elchibay. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the bottom 2020 number is the copyright year not when the website started operating, I may be wrong. Also, it isn’t really extraordinary when we have the Uk parliament source and an Azeri journalist’s article with those quotes as well. That’s the point of me providing an additional source you were asking. Moreover, not every source is going to be established like New York Times, who says that we can’t use a perfectly fine news website as an additional supporting source? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't actually have UK parliament source proving Elchibays statement. The only thing that we have is Baroness Cox's statement at the parliament debates. This simple not passes WP:EXTRAORDINARY requirements.Let's wait for the admins' decision. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

casualdejekyll, I think that we can not assert that Elchibay made such statement, as this supported only by the Baroness Cox mention. As you said - it is nothing but an attributed claim. Otherway it is not suitable for inclusion, because Baroness Cox's statement at debates is not verifiable. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah, calm down everyone. The case hasn't even been opened yet and you all are getting quite combative. casualdejekyll  22:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Volunteer question - would you be comfortable participating under my moderation? If so I'll open the case.A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I’ll participate as time allows. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
I am opening this thread for moderated discussion. Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth. First, please read the rules carefully. These are not exactly the same as the rules that other moderators normally use, but they are similar to the usual rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, rather than guessing.Each editor is asked for a one-paragraph statement on whether the inclusion of the disputed statement is supported or not by reliable sources. The paragraph should be kept as concise as possible and should not be split into bulleted sentences. Comment on content, not contributors. I have stricter standards for civility than most editors and will not hesitate to collapse uncivil comments. One additional paragraph may be used for any other discussion or questions about this dispute. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Abrvagl
Statement about the Elchibay is WP:EXTRAORDINARY and requires multiple high-quality sources, but no reliable source provided. So far the only considerable source provided to support the statement about Elchibay is the transcript of parliamentary debates & talks, at which Baroness Cox made the unsupported statement about Elchibay. Source itself is just a transcript of the debates&talks and does not claim that Elchibay made such a statement, so it is only about Baroness Cox's statement. Baroness Cox also does not claim she heard the quote herself and does not provide any evidence to support her statement. It is impossible to identify from where Bsrones Cox gathered such information, neither any reliable source is available to confirm her statement. Worth mentioning, that neutrality of Baroness Cox is under big question. In the same source, she openly admits being engaged in "advocacy for the Armenians of Karabakh", and on 15 February 2006, she was awarded the Mkhitar Gosh Medal by the President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan. Considering all the above and WP:WEIGHT, the statement about Elchibay shall be removed from the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article.--Abrvagl (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by ZaniGiovanni
We have the Uk source and the Russian-Azeri source written by an Azeri journalist Акпер Гасанов. This should be enough for Elchibay quote, since he isn't BLP or anything. There is also an Armenian source from 2008 by the investigative NGO Hetq.am with the same quote, not sure if this will be dubbed as 'biased' as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
I have some questions for each of you, based on the other's responses. : Do you dispute Abrvagl's claim the quote is extraordinary? What are Baroness Cox's credentials such that she can be considered a reliable source in this context? : Do you have any issues with the other sources ZaniGiovanni has offered in their initial statement?A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by Abrvagl
Yes, I do have issues with other sources. The sources 1 and 2 are written 16 and 29 years after the alleged statement of the Elchibay, and the statement of Elchibay just mentioned in them (it is not the topic of the article). They are most probably WP:CIRCULAR and none of them actually provide reference to the sources to support the material. There is still not a single source dating close to Elchibay's alleged speech to prove the statement about the Elchibay. Moreover, both of the provided sources are not well-established news outlets. So the statement about the Elchibay is gossip/rumour, which is not supported by reliable sources, and there is no place for gossip on Wikipedia. --Abrvagl (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by ZaniGiovanni
Do you dispute Abrvagl's claim the quote is extraordinary?

Yes, it has been quoted not just by Cox, but also by former deputy foreign minister Shavarsh Kocharyan, distinguished historian Shahen Mkrtichian, and other separate Armenian sources. 

What are Baroness Cox's credentials such that she can be considered a reliable source in this context?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackieabramian/2021/07/08/nurse-social-scientist-diplomat-humanitarianbaroness-caroline-cox-is-on-a-mission/?sh=1491fddff2b1

"has authored several books on...persecution, conflict zones and wars."

"In 2004 Baroness Cox founded Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART), leading countless missions to the world’s most dangerous conflict zones to witness first-hand, document human rights violations and humanitarian needs. Supported by donors, individuals, churches and grants, her published eyewitness reports verify humanitarian needs. Risking her life many times to bring aid to areas blockaded by authoritarian governments, she has led 50 visits to Sudan during the war raged by the Islamist regime in Khartoum (1989-2005) and continues to support the people of Sudan’s South Kordofan and Blue Nile States; 89 visits to war zones of the Armenian enclave of Nagorno Karabakh, 50 trips to Shan and Chin villages Burma’s jungles, and “countless trips” to assess Nigeria’s Boko Haram and Islamist Fulani violence–and many visits elsewhere, including Uganda, Syria and Indonesia."

"In April 1990, political activist Elena Bonner, widow of Soviet-Russian nuclear physicist and 1975 Nobel Prize for Peace recipient, Andrei Sakharov, initiated the first truly independent, high level Conference on Human Rights in the Soviet Union. She invited Baroness Cox to participate."

She visited the war zones in the 90s and been in contact with Azeri leaders:

"Baroness Cox 1990s visits to the war-ravaged Nagorno Karabakh included meetings with political leaders and healthcare providers who prioritized needs for the disabled."

"She led a delegation to Armenia in 1989 and later to Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku. Requesting to visit the enclave’s capital city of Stepanakert, Azeri officials had said to her “only if Armenia would send a plane to Baku,” and then cut off phone lines. She managed to call Elena Bonner from a “public telephone box” who contacted Zori Balayan–and the Armenian government sent a plane from Yerevan to Baku, and then she took a “terrifying helicopter ride into Stepanakert.” That was the first of the 89 humanitarian trips Baroness Cox has taken to Nagorno Karabakh." ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
, there is no reason to my knowledge why newer sources shouldn't be considered reliable. Also, I think you are citing the wrong PAG when linking to WP:CIRCULAR, as that refers to sites similar to wikipedia. ZaniGiovanni has provided journalistic sites (if partisan), not user-generated wikis (from what I can tell, as I am not fluent in the languages of the sources and used Google Translate). However, it is true that the sources provided in the first statement are neither ideal nor ones that allow for straight-forward verification of the purported quote (see WP:RS/QUOTE). the sources you have provided in your second comment are highly likely to be considered partisan. It would be useful if you could find a source that mentions exactly when and where Elchibay said the quote for verification. Baroness Cox's speech is likely to be considered too partisan as well, even if reliable, for the quote to stand without attribution. I will say, though, that Zani has provided significant evidence that according to some sources Elchibay did in fact say those words. Therefore I see two ways forward: I ask you both to provide a one or two paragraph statement on your opinion of these options. You may also provide another paragraph to discuss issues you feel I have missed or failed to consider in this statement. I will say, though, that it is disappointing the few academic sources (that are verifiable) both in this discussion and elsewhere in previous disputes. I have access to virtually all academic journals, so all I would need is a doi URL to verify claims. Online Armenian newspapers and statements by the Foreign Minister of Armenia (an obviously highly partisan source, which I cannot consider reliable in this case) are far from what one would wish for in this kind of dispute.A minor comment to, please collapse large quotations in the future. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) We work towards wording a sentence that, through attribution, says it is held by some that Elchibay made those statements
 * 2) A reliable source is provided indicating Elchibay did in fact say those words that allows us to verify in what context/where/when the words were said.

Third statement by Abrvagl
Considering the scrupulousness of the article statement of the Elchibay should not be reflected in it unless there is a reliable source to support it. I did my own research before raising this issue, and there is not a single reliable source available. I also reviewed all additional sources provided by Zani, and none of them can be used as a reliable source. I don't say that newer sources are not reliable, what Im saying is that there are no sources dating back to the years when Echibay allegedly made the statement in his speech, no newspapers, no magazines, no confirmation from the people who were at the speech, no recording of the speech and no transcript. Can not see how newspaper articles posted on not well-established news outlets 30 years later can be used as sources. I will summarize all sources provided by Zani to make my point clear:

1, mentions statement, but not source it. Not well-established news outlet; written in 2021; most probable circular, 2,mentions statement, but not source it. Not well-established news outlet; written in 2008; most probable circular, 3 Shavarsh Kocharyan, unrelated source. written in 2014. No mention of Elchibay's statement that we talking about. 4 Shahen Mkrtichian, Zani reference book of Shahen called "Why Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan cannot coexist". However, there is no mention of Elchibay's statement that we talking about. 5, an unknown news outlet, an article written in 2022. Most probably circular. 6, unknown news outlet. no mention of Elchibay's statement that we talking about. 7, Unknown news outlet (86 views of the article). Written in 2021. Most probably circular.

So, some of the sources are unrelated, others are unknown news blogs dating 2014-2020. I can not see how articles of not well-established/unknown news outlets, written 20-30 years after the alleged speech of the Elchibay, can be used as a reliable source. Even if it is not BLP, still, we should have multiple high-quality sources to support (WP:EXTRAORDINARY statement. So far we don't have anything but Baroness Cox's speech at the parliamentary debates. I vote for option 2 - we need to have reliable source to support statement, or statement should be removed. --Abrvagl (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by ZaniGiovanni
I think version 1 is an acceptable compromise. As it was noted, there are enough sources that, at least according to some, Elchibay said those words. Regarding bias, while there are sources that I understand can be seen as partisan, I don't think a Russian-Azeri news website and its article written by an Azeri journalist can be considered 'biased' or 'partisan'. On the contrary, it solidifies other sources more, imo. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
, the Russian-Azeri source you mention does not seem reliable enough to dismiss the claim that an overwhelming majority of your sources are partisan. The article is about Elchibay's son and thus is a passing mention. Additonally, at least from google translate the tone of the reporting did not seem like the academic tone one would expect to "solidif[y] other sources more". I will also add that per WP:WEASEL, we should avoid phrasings like "according to some". I merely gave that wording as a description of the option, and we'd have to work on a more encyclopedic phrasing if both parties agree to launching an RfC as described in option 1. , could you please specify what you mean by "circular"? I feel like your definition is different from the on-wiki use of the term. I will agree with you that the sourcing for this quote is, at least as presented by Zani, very weak. Zani, if you had access to the book and could provide us, by email, a copy of the page(s) referencing the speech we'd be able to verify the speech actually happened. I expect 's claim that this quote is not frequently mentioned in RS to be probable, at least in English-language sources, but I cannot nor should I make comment on Armenian or Azerbaijani sources that I cannot access for language reasons. If the speech is included in the article, we'd have to make it clear that it is only pro-Armenian (reliable) sources discussing the claim (at least from the sources presented in this discussion). Baroness Cox, for example, is part of the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group, while Hetq is funded by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation of British-Armenian origin. However, these are reliable-enough sources at least to be covered by attribution, so I currently do not see a policy-based argument (even WP:EXTRAORDINARY, as this was a statement supposedly made during a war by the leader of one of the combatants) that would support complete omission of the quote from the article as Abrvagl has suggested. Please respond below, with up to 3 paragraphs, with any comments you have on the matter. I expect this case to be closed relatively soon, unless new sources are presented. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by editors, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
By "circular" I mean that statement in the source is not referenced or proved, considering that the source is an article, written 30 years after the alleged statement of Elchibay, and also considering that source is WP:QS and low quality - most probably they just refer to the gossips and circulate them. But looks like, MOS:WEASEL is more appropriate than WP:CIRCULAR to express that. The korespondent source is not only not academic, but it is also yellow press and the pure aim of the article is to slander and ridicule a person. Can not see how it can be ever used as a source for Wikipedia Article.

The only reliable source mentioned here so far is the Transcript of Baroness Cox's speech transcript at the parliamentarian debate, where she stated that ELchibay said so, but provided no proof and neither did she personally observes that speech. It is politics and it might be dirty, and politicians, knowingly or unknowingly, may say things that are not true. All other provided sources are unknown news outlets and the yellow press. But it is not an issue. The main issue is that none of the provided sources actually in any way prove that Elchibay made such a statement and there is no source available to prove that either. Just imagine, the president of the country making a speech with EXTRAORDINARY statement and there is nothing to prove that. There are no newsletter articles, no TV shows, no articles, nothing but the statement of Baroness Cox at debates 5 years later in 1997. Maybe Baroness Cox unknowingly made a partisan statement? There are a lot of suspicious statements in her speech, which puts the neutrality and reliability of what she said under big question. Basically, whole her speech sounds propaganda and one-side. Maybe it is ok for parliament debates, but not for the Wikipedia article source.

I did research(Thru Google and Yandex) on Turkish, Azerbaijani, English and Russian and did not find any reliable source supporting Baronex Cox statement. So I still can not see how we can reflect statements supported with so low quality and weak sources on such a sensitive article. I propose the statement be removed from the article and if Zani or anyone else will ever provide a reliable source - we always can add a statement to the article. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
Note to, we are awaiting your response to continue the case. If for some reason you are unable to respond a week from Abrvagl's last comment I will consider this case failed although I will continue working towards some kind of RSN discussion or RFC with interested parties elsewhere, either on user talk pages or the article talk page itself, as I think we were very close to some kind of resolution. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by ZaniGiovanni
If we write something like “According to Armenian sources, X said…” this makes it appear as if there is an official Azeri position denying these quotes are real, which we have no source to believe there is. And personally, I don't see how these quotes are 'gossip' exactly, as I said, I would agree to keep the quotes with proper attribution. Sorry for the late reply,, it's hard to edit on Wikipedia when the country you live in is at war. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
I have reopened the case as the recent ANI thread is now archived without closure. I will remind you both that the purpose of this DRN case is not to achieve consensus here but to help you both find a way to reach consensus in the near future in the article's talk page. I understand 's reservations about the use of the quote, but I think that is best argued in the RfC. raises a valid point about the wording. Would you both agree to start working on the wording of an RfC and leave discussions of the sources themselves to the article talk page? Like that we can close this soon. Once again, apologies to all for the delays but I think we're quite close to finishing this case now, at least. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 06:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statement by editors, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
First of all we need to decide if provided source reliable for purpose. My main concern that provided source(Baroness Cox speech at the parliament debates) is not reliable for the purpose. All other provided sources by the Zani are unknow partisan news blog articles, which written 20-30 years later of the alleged Elchibay's speech and neither of them provide any references to prove the statement they have made. I think we all can agree that if that extraordinary statement was made during the speech of the president - then there should be at least any sources of that time reflecting that, but there is not. First time this was mentioned by the Baroness Cox at the parliament debates 5 year later of the alleged speech. I had already stressed the issues about the neutrality of the Baroness Cox and that she never referenced from where she took that information, so I will not repeat that.

"Armenian sources stating that..." would be applicable if reliable Armenian sources provided. However, we do not have any reliable Armenian source either. All we have is few unknown partisan news blog articles and I do not think that this is enough, especially for the AA2 area. I think we can agree on the following: We remove the statement about the Elchibay from the article. If Zani or anyone else will find reliable source to prove this statement - we always can discuss them and reinstate statement. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Addition. If we do not agree on above provided - then looks like Request for Comment is the way to go. So I would agree. Abrvagl (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Final statement by moderator, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
I think the discussion has reached it's natural end. I will propose an RfC wording below, you can give your feedback below, and then I will post it in the article talk page after addressing your feedback.

RfC: How should the following quotes, attributed to a 1992 speech by the 2nd President of Azerbaijan Abulfaz Elchibey, be introduced in the article?

"If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku."
 * 1) Without attribution
 * 2) Attributed to "Armenian sources"
 * 3) Attributed to "pro-Armenian sources"
 * 4) Attributed to a particular source, naming which in your vote
 * 5) The statement should not be introduced in the article

Tell me what y'all think. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * whether Cox is reliable is something that the community must determine and not us. You can discuss that in the RfC. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, reliability of her statement is the main milestone, as we do not have any other reliable sources provided. If community decides that it is reliable for the purpose, then statement stays and next is attribution, if not - then we remove statement. That's why I accentuated RfC question on that, rather than how it should be attributed. Abrvagl (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Final statement by editors, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
Looks good. Thanks for the work. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think RfC need to be stated as below. 1st no "Armenian sources" option, what Armenian sources we are talking about? Unknown partisan blogs are not sources as such. 2nd, I would prefer to stick to the original purpose of this dispute, which is to determine if Baroness Cox oration as the parliament debates is reliable source for the purpose, not how to attribute.

RfC: Is Baroness Cox oration at the parliament debates reliable source for the purpose of asserting following quote attributed to a 1992 speech by the 2nd President of Azerbaijan Abulfaz Elchibey? If yes, then how should quote be introduced in the article?

"If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku."


 * 1) The source is not reliable for the purpose and the statement should not be introduced in the article
 * 2) Without attribution
 * 3) Attributed to "Armenian sources"
 * 4) Attributed to "pro-Armenian sources"
 * 5) Attributed to a particular source, naming which in your vote

regards, --Abrvagl (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Truist Park
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am a lifelong resident of Atlanta, and I was on the Truist Park wiki page and noticed it had a location of Cumberland, GA. That is not a city. It is a neighborhood, and the location shouldn't reflect neighborhoods. There are a lot of political controversies because the Braves moved from Atlanta to Cobb County and Atlanta residents make it a point to say the Braves play in Cobb County. Since the Park is in unincorporated Cobb County, I feel as though Cobb County, GA, would be a better representation of where the park is located than Cumberland, GA, which isn't a real place. To make my point, I cited various corporate HQs and property tax bills which show that none of the companies reference that they are in Cumberland, GA. The page cited next to the location on the Wiki page reads, "Truist Park is located 10 miles northwest of downtown Atlanta in the Cumberland neighborhood of Cobb County." I ask why it is correct to say it is in Cumberland, GA, based on that statement? I have gone back in forth with one editor and another contributor, and neither is willing to consider another viewpoint. One editor suggested I visit the page on Wikipedia that details proper reliable sources. I cited sources based on that article, and I cited multiple that doesn't show Cumberland, GA being referenced. I would like a third party to look at it and decide. There is nowhere outside of Wikipedia that references Truist Park being in Cumberland, GA. I looked at the archive, and the deciding factor in deciding on Cumberland, GA was " If it is significant enough to get its own Wikipedia page, I think it can be listed as the location for the stadium." I would argue that shouldn't be a legitimate reason to name a location because many neighborhoods have Wiki pages. Since it is in unincorporated Cobb County, its location should be Cobb County, GA.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I don't know how to place references on the talk page. The link to the page is below. My entry is under Location on March 9, 2022 and the thread starts there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Truist_Park

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help to provide input on Cumberland, GA vs Cobb County, GA. I challenge anyone to find a reference of a business that lists its location as being in Cumberland, GA. I provided multiple instances of companies in the area including property tax bills and none listed the location as Cumberland, GA.

Summary of dispute by Nemov
I don't have anything to dispute. Byoungjr needs to find consensus for change. Byoungjr doesn't have it. This should be closed. For anyone curious, I argued Byougjr's point in the past but I was convinced by the consensus position.

Summary of dispute by BilCat
First, I was not informed that I was a party to this case, as is required of the nominator. I've also wasted enough time on the dispute, and decline to waste any more. As such, I will not participate here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Truist Park discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.