Talk:Charles Humphreys

Founding Father label misleading, unsourced

If Charles Humphreys was a Founder, he was one who opposed independence, which would make the label an oxymoron in describing someone who founded something but didn't actually because was against it. I realize the article explains why - because of his religious belief - but that's no different from the usual reason, that is, being a Loyalist and a nay being a nay. To the point, he voted against the Declaration of Independence, his vote could have defeated the Declaration and with that, the founding, and he left Congress immediately thereafter. Thus, no source can be found on the internet that labels him a Founding Father, other than websites that mirror Wikipedia. The assertion is also unsourced and will be removed unless sufficient sources (multiple) can be provided that explicitly refer to him as a Founder. Allreet (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow. And wrong. The signers of the other three founding documents are accepted per sources and various talk page discussions as Founding Fathers, and since there is no dispute that the Continental Association is a founding document, site consistency applies. Besides the defining 2017 Werther article "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" in the Journal of the American Revolution here are two other sources which, for consistency and per WP:COMMONSENSE, acknowledge that the Founders include the signers of the fourth: The Founder of the Day article "Signers of the Continental Association" clearly states "Below is a list of the Founders who signed the Continental Association" [emphasis mine], followed by the names of the 53 signers (Founder of the Day also names the Association as one of the four founding documents). The worldhistory.edu "Top 10 Founding Fathers of the United States of America" - section "List of Founding Fathers of the United States" asserts "Also, two broader groups of Founding Fathers capture the signers of Articles of Confederation (the initial version of the American Constitution which was adopted in 1777 and ratified in 1781) and the signers of the Continental Association (created on October 20, 1774)" [emphasis mine]. Please add these sources to the pages of the other Association signers you are intent of removing from Founding Father status, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Please apply citations for your assertions and don't expect me to do your job for you.

• The only source Randy has cited so far that could be considered reliable is the Journal of the American Revolution article that he mentions above. Yet that article does not include one sentence or even a paragraph that connects "signers of the Continental Association" (or any derivation thereof) with the term "Founders" or "Founding Fathers".
• Randy says the article's title makes this connection. That argument could not possibly satisfy what WP:VER says - that sources must be "clear and direct". Leaping from the title to the text to come up with a conclusion is anything but direct.
• No other reliable sources exist. Randy has had over a month to find one and so far the best he's come up are two websites whose reliability is highly questionable. I've already removed one of these as unreliable and am preparing to do the same with the other since it provides no sources for its information. By the way, the website's sole author explains this by saying adding references is too "time consuming."
• COMMONSENSE is no substitute for WP:VER if an issue requires multiple sources, which is the case when extraordinary assertions are made.
• Obviously, "53 signers" are not "considered" Founders, because at least one of the 53 was convicted as a traitor and another was accused of being one. Both were loyalists and neither supported the nation's founding. It's also unclear how many other signers were loyalists.
• The fact is, we do not know who voted for or against the Continental Association. No minutes were kept of Continental Congress's sessions, and leaders declared the final vote unanimous even though the delegates included "loyalists" and pacifists who were clearly opposed to the measure.

I stand by the dispute template I've applied with the firm belief reliable sources are needed for declaring anyone a Founding Father, especially someone like Charles Humphreys who refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. Allreet (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(boldface added after Allreet's post below and his adding many more talk pages to his forum shopping, shouting is needed at this point): Will get back to this as I try to keep up with Allreet who has been at his crusade of canceling founders for what seems like months on dozens of pages and tens of thousands of words. For example, he has opened and closed three (3, III) simultaneous RfC's on the same question because he didn't like the results (a Wikipedia record?), and is now looking for a different conclusion (which wouldn't count anyway given the results of three simultaneous RfC "loses") I'll answer further within a day or two, can only juggle so many of his new discussions at a time (which he knows and is maybe - surely? - counting on) but I do ask him now, is he going to add this campaign to the Peyton Randolph page, who, given Allreet's wishes, would lose Founding Father status on Wikipedia? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't wait so I thought this through, keeping your basic argument in mind.

COMMONSENSE allows exceptions to WP's rules if they interfere with our ability to edit. It doesn't refer to using common sense to draw conclusions or apply consistency. So just because we recognize signers of three "founding documents" (Declaration, Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution) as Founders, we're not compelled to consider signers of the fourth document (Continental Association) Founders too.

The larger problem, however, is that the four documents are regarded very differently. Many if not most sources/historians accept the Declaration as criteria for "fatherhood" and almost as many the Constitution. But just a few recognize the Articles, and hardly anybody (IMO, nobody) accepts the Continental Convention.

Even if you're correct, then, about Werther and your other two sources, we can's say "Charles Humphrey is a Founding Father" because that would indicate prevailing if not universal acceptance. The most we could say, considering this is such a minority view, is that "some sources consider him a Founding Father".

BTW, based on this, we can't call signers of the Articles of Confederation founders either, as I just discovered you did in your one-person editing campaign last year. Sources are far and few between on that claim as well.Allreet (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I consider your accusation of "forum shopping" tantamount to a personal attack. I will assume good faith and with that consider your response above simply a result of the "heat of the moment." As I'm sure you are aware, you have made significant changes to more than 50 articles. I have tried to engage neutral editors for input on these changes. Those efforts failed as you also well know. If you believe I am acting improperly in any way by continuing to insist on adherence to basic WP guidelines, I would appreciate your letting me know. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Forum shopping it is, wikisue me, as you expect me to follow and engage in dozens of simultaneous discussions at once, seemingly more added every few minutes, and you know I or anyone can't do that. And you are just now expanding your campaign and with intent on canceling the Articles of Confederation as a Founding document on Wikipedia too. And yes, Peyton Randolph is in your canceling sights too. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I know I am but what are you? The point: where's that get us? In any case I don't expect you to respond to anything. We've said far more than enough and my addtions to Talk pages can be restricted to two lines. It's just that disputes require Talk postings. At this point, I'm simply exploring the landscape to get a sense of what needs to be done. I'm hoping you'll work with me. If not, that's your choice. But no matter what, any changes going forward or back must reflect the range of documentable opinion as best as can be determined. How that migh affect individuals or anything else, I haven't a clue nor any intention other than what I just said. And if you prefer I not "ping" you, let me know. Allreet (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: thanks for pings, helps to follow your evolution (now saying that the Articles of Confed. isn't a Founding document seems, well, words fail). Your three closed RfC's and other discussions over the past couple months should have made clear that the Werther paper is both reputable and applies FF status to signers of the CA, and hopefully you can accept that and we can discuss language of the FF page. Yes, Peyton Randolph's ff status hinges on CA as a major-four founding document, and if you keep this going that becomes a serious and sad discussion point and maybe a blind spot in your analysis (removing Prez Peyton from Founder designation, again, no words fit to print). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Peyton Randolph has been recognized as an "Other" on the Founders page since 2005, whereas the Continental Association didn't find its way onto the page until 2012. So his legacy isn't tied to that document but rests on his early leadership role. In any case, nobody has anything to fear about anything. Our only care is to be faithful to the sources, not where those sources take us. Allreet (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Randolph is now appropriately listed as a Founding Father in the founders chart and not an 'other' in the related patriots list. Passage of the CA founding document is the high point of his legacy and no, without it he would not be considered a Founding Father on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)