Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 10

1964–1980
	Buzz Aldrin in 1969 as part of NASA's Apollo 11 spaceflight that was the first to land humans on the Moon.
Location	United States
Including	Late New Deal Era; Cold War; Fourth Great Awakening; Second Great Migration; Third Industrial Revolution
President(s)	Lyndon B. Johnson; Richard Nixon; Gerald Ford; Jimmy Carter
Key events	Civil Rights Movement; Space Race; Vietnam War; Détente; 60s Counterculture; 1970s energy crisis; Watergate Scandal; Iran Hostage Crisis; Moral Majority movement
History of the United States (1945–1964)	History of the United States (1980–1991); -; Reagan Era

This is an archive of past discussions about Founding Fathers of the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Getting out of hand

As I said above, I believe this is "getting out of hand". Nearly everything that has been added this past week or so relates to the founding, with very few references to founders. Regarding the founding, we already have an extensive article on the subject: American Revolution, which is where readers are re-directed if they search on "Founding of the United States". We also have main articles on each of the subtopics that are being addressed: Continental Congress, First Continental Congress, Second Continental Congress, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution of the United States.

The intent of this section - its reason for being - was to provide a succinct overview, a summary of some sorts as a background, not to re-trace the entire story of the Revolution. Now the section has "ballooned" into three separate sections, none of which is complete. If this continues, the "back story" is likely to double from its current length before all is said and done. That's more an understatement than an exaggeration if you consider how much attention is being devoted to the First Continental Congress which covers just the first two months of the founding process (September-October 1774).

I also am concerned a considerable amount of Original Research/Synthesis is involved here. A "good" example would be the new opening paragraph @Gwillhickers just proposed and "created". IMO its content is at best loosely based on the few sources provided. Gwillhickers is writing as an author would, using other knowledge and imagination to embellish what sources are saying. For example, he asserts that "Congress became a laboratory where many developments and experiments in government were performed..." (Burnett, p. ix). The closest the source comes to this in any explicit fashion is the phrase "trial and error". Most of the paragraph appears to be synthesized in a similar fashion.

No doubt I'm alone in offering these perspectives since not many editors have been actively involved, so I could well be wrong. I, therefore, would like to hear from others who have had a previous interest in the subject. Accordingly, I am notifying @Atsme, Binksternet, Gog the Mild, Gwillhickers, Robert McClenon, North8000, Orson12345, Pincrete, Randy Kryn, Rjensen, The Gnome, Thucydides411, and TheVirginiaHistorian: for input. Allreet (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt I'm able to contribute more to this discussion. I find the whole effort to maintain integrity in Wikipedia to be a lost cause, for the reasons I explained above. After my ill-fated resort to ANI about ignoring consensus, I feel particularly unwilling, if not disgusted, with the whole rigmarole. -The Gnome (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
In reviewing Gwillhickers edits and use of sources, I agree that WP's integrity could well be a lost cause. He's a highly experienced editor, meaning he's made tens of thousands of edits. He's also a decent writer. And I believe that while there's some room for an attitude adjustment, he is sincere in his intentions. But given his assertions about how sources can be used and examples that I've found, I'm now suspicious of everything that's being published here. There's no editorial process or review system to ensure the validity of material, and the effort to "set things straight" borders on impossible. Just look at this Talk page - how even the most obvious abuses can be filibustered ad infinitum. In any case, I do thank you, unhappy as I am, for validating my worst fears. Allreet (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Did an edit run and cut much of the good faith opening paragraph per Allreet's concerns and brevity. Works better now, and give a quicker introduction into the main body, the work and actions of the path to Independence. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
That removes some of the material in question - thanks for the effort - but this doesn't address my primary concern about how this section (actually, now three related sections) is largely irrelevant and redundant. In other situations like this, where comprehensive articles are available to provide background materials, links to such main articles are provided rather than re-hashing everything and obscuring the topic at hand. Allreet (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Responding to ping. Above I did an update on my previous posts. I reiterated that the topic of the article is a variable-meaning term and also noted that the article is evolving towards covering the term as a term, and then covering the (groups of) people commonly covered by the common meanings of the term. Which inherently means covering the events (and their action at those events) directly caused them to receive that moniker. My advice would be to not go any deeper on background than that. Not that it's a wiki-sin to do so, but IMO not a good idea because such would be a history of the formation of the United States, something too big for and beyond the scope of or need for coverage in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Obviously, I agree with your assessment: that there's nothing wrong with a synopsis of the Founding Era, but that there's no need to repeat a history of the nation's formation. We now have seven paragraphs on the First Continental Congress alone (including a paragraph preceding this section), a period of less than two months' duration. The next 15 years encompasses four events of even greater significance: Independence, Revolutionary War, Articles of Confederation, and U.S. Constitution. All of which is covered in the American Revolution as well as under their main articles. Allreet (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with North8000 assessment. I have no intention of expanding the account to the point where we are writing a complete history of the forming of the United States, and don't appreciate the assumption that I want to and that I'm about to. I added an opening paragraph to the Continental Congress section, with a couple of other minor edits in its subsections. This does not warrant launching an entire Talk page section and carrying on like the sky is falling. It is this sort of over reaction and ownership behavior that has largely caused this Talk page to take on epic proportions and unending arguing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Keeping a good summary even though other articles exist does this page justice as long as the section's concepts flow well and lead the reader to understand the context of the era and the revolutionary air surrounding these brief, but so historically important, events. Tightening the language without losing its meaning should be essential for this encyclopedic experience. We'll get there. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: - Randy, yes, we can only tighten the wording so much without sacrificing a lot of comprehensive context. We don't want to be so brief that the readers are forced to jump to another article to get a clear picture, for every few sentences of reading. A fair amount of contextual overlap should be welcomed between this article and the ones that truly go into greater depth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hel'yo @Gwillhickers and Allreet:. Totally agree that the length of the summary section has to be long enough to include the full story while being tight enough to be readable so readers can follow the concept flow and timeline. The key is in the presentation. I take it there are further arguments below this section, haven't read those more than a glance (things go so quick here that even if you only miss 12 hours to two days worth the added discussion is novella length), but I think the language is getting there (I haven't read it since my edit removing a paragraph section which could probably go into a footnote at the end of the paragraph) in creating a mosaic for the reader of the founding of the country. I also agree that the First Continental Congress is extraordinarily important to the founding, and the length of its descriptor has to be long enough to tell the story and not leave it to a link or two. Look at all the precedents they expressed, agreed to, or set during their brief existence (and thanks to the editor who added the Samuel Adams quote about "America"), and that should be conveyed well in an understandable word-picture. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: A summary would have been nice. Even more appropriate would have been a summary of the contributions of founders in the founding - a condensed telling of the roles of key individuals and groups of individuals who contributed. That would make sense. Instead what we're getting is a lengthy account of the First Continental Congress's role in the founding.

Meanwhile, @Gwillhickers says "more than a dozen names of founders and British individuals" are mentioned". The British individuals, King George aside, are irrelevant here, but in any case, considering there are 150+ people recognized as founders, "more than a dozen" is a pittance.

My POV is that the editing here is being driven by bias, a prejudice in favor of recognizing all members of the First Continental Congress as founders. It's dominated the discussion on this Talk page and it's cluttering the article - in the interest of two editors. For more about biases, see my comment below. Allreet (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — "a pittance"? The names in question are key founders – and if I had included 150 names you would have said something about that. The few names of the British are relevant -- whom do you think the founders were directly involved with? The section in question is about the founders in the capacity in which they functioned. i.e.The Continental Congress. I added a short overall opening paragraph, and you reacted with your usual hyperbole, opening up yet another entire section e.g."getting out of hand", a second time, and now here you are piling on more of the same, "driven by bias, a prejudice", "ballooning", and I see you launched another one below, The role of bias in determining the article's directions. Such misguided notions only serves to boomerang back to exemplify your own bias, which has obviously take on personal proportions.
The RfC was for the Continental Association, not to determine whether members of the First Continental Congress were founding fathers. You're attempting to use the ruling of that narrowly worded RfC as sort of a blank check to snub anything to do with the First Continental Congress, including the dozens of sources that outline their various involvements, and there were many – so much so that it resulted in war shortly after that Congress adjourned. But according to you, this has little to do with the founders, never mind that that Congress included, Washington, Adams & Adams, Patrick Henry, etc, so please, don't speak to me about bias because yours has blinded you to the significance of the history involved.
No one wants to present coverage of the First Continental Congress any more than the history warrants. I've asked you, in response to your comment that the Second Continental Congress needs to be better covered, if you were going to get into that, but instead, you're putting almost all your energy in other menial and opinionated matters simply because things aren't going your way 100%. Once again, you do not own the article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like it and didn't fill up the talk page with one new section after another with compound false accusations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is about founders. Re-counting history of the founding covered elsewhere is a waste of space and readers' time. They come to this article to learn about founders - they can get the story of the founding in great detail in multiple other places. My "bias" is most decidedly in that editorial direction - to produce an article of direct relevance to the subject of founders. You've just added seven paragraphs on events that led to the founding. Yet nobody is considered a founder based solely on what happened in this brief two-month period.

As I just said elsewhere, the events that followed produced 5-10 times more in terms of significance. The period involved, 1775-1781, was 36 times longer. That just covers up to the Articles of Confederation, which leaves another significant period to address. A full decade that included the failures of the Articles, the end of the war, adoption of the Constitution, and adoption of the Bill of Rights.

What's the justification, then, of devoting 4,000 bytes or so to September and October of 1774? For just one measure of assessment, do the math on what this will mean if we provide proportionate attention to the next dozen-and-a-half years. Allreet (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is about founders, indeed, and to write a comprehensive narrative about these founders we cover the things that established them as founders in practical proportion. That there are dedicated articles for many of these things doesn't mean we can't provide a general overview, a section, focused on the founders, by name, for the various topics involved. The typical attempt to confound and exasperate simple straight forward matters has failed to justify why we can't, or shouldn't. We've been through this. Yet again, you said the Second Continental Congress needed to be better covered. How would you go about this if we didn't give general coverage for the things they were involved with? You've repeatedly asserted one thing and then have contradicted with something else. GW, -- Orig date: 6 August 2022 (UTC). Links added. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

OR issues

Allreet, it seems we've had this discussion regarding founders v founding before. How are we supposed to present a comprehensive narrative about the founders without offering an overview of the founding, which is all that the first section of the Continental Congress is. Now it seems you're going on a fishing trip to see 'what if' based on our conversation about synthesis, and right off you've made some glaring mistakes.

I also am concerned a considerable amount of Original Research/Synthesis is involved here. ... For example, he asserts that "Congress became a laboratory where many developments and experiments in government were performed..." (Burnett, p. ix). The closest the source comes to this in any explicit fashion is the phrase "trial and error". Most of the paragraph appears to be synthesized in a similar fashion.

There was no O.R. in that section. The reference to laboratory, etc, comes from Friedenwald, p. 197, not Burnett, p. ix. You didn't even bother to read the actual sources! This is what Friedenwald stated.

"The Congress, too, was the laboratory wherein were performed many experiments in government before a satisfactory national constitution was finally evolved"

Now please compare this to my what I had wrote:

"In the process the Congress became a laboratory where many developments and experiments in government were preformed before an adequate Constitution would ever evolve".

Where is the "synthesis" and "original research" here? This is not the first time you've made a serious oversight and misrepresentation of my contributions. Just recently you stated...

"And some of these things simply aren't true. For example, James Madison did not fear it would take a century for the Supreme Court to embrace liberties - that's not what the source says."

...when in fact I had wrote that "He feared, however, that such all encompassing liberties would not be embraced by the Supreme Court for any more than a century." Madison did not fear it would take them a century to embrace liberties. How are we supposed to take your assessments seriously when you make mistakes like these?
With all due respect to Randy Kryn I'm going to ask him to restore my edit because he apparently made the deletion based on your erroneous account on matters. If its inclusion is such a pressing matter for you, then it should be discussed first. At this point you have made highly questionable criticisms about nearly all of my contributions, not to mention your recent violation of the 3RR policy in the process, so now I'm deeply concerned that you may be driven by personal matters and it could be effecting your judgement. Given the two above examples of misreadings and oversights, and your recent violation of policy, for openers, I believe this is a fair assessment. Regrets. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Friedenwald. My error. You correctly cited the source.

Regarding Madison, he didn't fear anything about the Supreme Court. You put such fears into Madison's mouth. Meanwhile, your reverted all of my edits except this one. Why?

As for 3RR, what are you talking about? I made one series of consecutive edits in a section, and then you threatened me with 3RR, at which point I made no subsequent edits. That's a false accusation.

I regret that one error. Nothing else. Allreet (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, claiming I violated policy is a serious accusation. I demand you provide specifics. If the shoe fits, I'll wear it. If you hide behind silence, you will hear from me elsewhere. Allreet (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You've forgotten already? Here's a Reminder. Last time I checked, exceeding the 3RR policy is a serious violation with a 24 hour block for the first time. In any case, I sought no noticeboard action in the hope that we could iron things out, but you keep coming back with something else, and never anything one can put their finger on, and always something highly opinionated, which is your right, but it's constant and has long since become incessant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, heating up again. Please, no threats of another ANI or name calling. Gwillhickers, would the paragraph in question fit better in a Note, and thus reduce the size of the intro? Allreet, what in the intro doesn't fit the narrative, and would returning it distort the page? I removed it not because of its content but just to shorten the section, so from that admission alone I would think Gwillhickers would have the right to restore it, which I'll leave to him as he already has the creator's mental map which sees if the importance of keeping it merits extending the length. As for the overall sections, I'll plan to do another edit run with some focus on brevity, but not now. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Thanks for your words of conciliation and advice. In light of all the multiple sections that were aimed at me, with the usual highly questionable and opinionated accusations, e.g."ballooning, bias, gross distortion, O.R.", etc, and in light of a string of reverts in violation of 3RR, I've kept my cool as much as can be expected of anyone and have not gone running off to a noticeboard. Having said that, the opening paragraph is very short, which just presents an overage of the Continental Congress in its entirety. In all honesty, I'm not seeing why this short paragraph, cited with four different sources, was an issue to begin with. The Continental Congress, from its conception, on through the war, was the working arm of the founders, and coverage of this entity in terms of those founders, esp the key players, merits good coverage in an article about the founders. This in not a List of the Founding Fathers, it's supposed to be a comprehensive overview, linking to dedicated articles which go into far greater depth than the sections in question do here. Concern was expressed that the Second Continental Congress needed better coverage, yet look at the focus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:I did not violate the 3RR policy. Each of the incidents you point to is a single, one-time edit of different material. I never reverted one of your reverts. This is character association. An ANI may very well be the only way to address this. Allreet (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

'Revert a revert'? That's really rich. Yes, exceeding the 3RR policy involves single one time reverts or modifications, one after another, of someone else's edits, which is what you in fact did. This actually escapes you? The diffs speak for themselves. All the edits included material that I had researched and added and which you removed or modified. You can rationalize it all you like, but if you feel your character has been "assassinated" then you might want to review your own actions. The diffs in question involve text I had entered into the narrative, and did not involve any revert of anyone else's edits, thank you. If you "believe" this is not so, would you please link to at least one example where I removed someone else's text during the course of adding the edits in question? No more incessant talk, just give us the link. In any case, lets say for the moment that I had removed an other editor's edit in the course of adding my own writing – this still doesn't excuse you from coming along and making multiple reverts in a row, original material, and there is no policy that supports that notion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Contradictions, exaggerations and misrepresentations

Allreet, you contine to give us fuzzy accounts and now contradictions:

The intent of this section - its reason for being - was to provide a succinct overview, a summary of some sorts as a background, not to re-trace the entire story of the Revolution.

This is another inaccurate characterization. To retrace the "entire story" would require writing the equivalent of the American Revolution article into this one, and no one has come even close to doing that. Also, you are attempting to place your own rules as to what the section should include. It's "reason for being" involves much more than what you are dictating. We can provide an overview, but evidently your idea of "succinct" doesn't lend itself to a comprehensive account on matters, and is not all binding, as other editors may want to include items that involve more than your idea of "succinct". Once again, you are showing signs of ownership behavior to the extent where you want to delete the contributions of others, not those of your own.

Now the section has "ballooned" into three separate sections, none of which is complete.

You complained that the section has "ballooned", I've only added an opening paragraph, yet in the same breath you also complain that the section is not complete.

If this continues, the "back story" is likely to double from its current length before all is said and done. That's more an understatement than an exaggeration if you consider how much attention is being devoted to the First Continental Congress which covers just the first two months of the founding process (September-October 1774).

"just the first two months"? The First Continental Congress only lasted two months in the first place, so there is no point to that apparent retort. This alarmist attitude is totally uncalled for. The First Continental Congress section has more than a dozen names of founders and British individuals in it. Though that Congress only lasted two months it was central to the beginning of the founding process and was an entity that caused Britain to declare war, and as such deserves ample coverage in an article about the Founders, and because most if not all of that congress were founders, which included Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Patric Henry, Peyton Randolph, along with all the other delegates from the colonies. It is this in depth coverage about the founders, and the founding, i.e.hand in glove subjects -- not separate subjects, that will bring this article to FA standards, the criteria of which reads: A. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; B. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. You are unnecessarily aggravating matters, and at my expense, so you can assert your rigid take on how the article should be structured and written, while again, the article has only 32k of readable prose and is not considered long by any means. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, you recently expressed concern that the Second Continental Congress needed to be better covered, which seems like another contradiction to your overall position now. It seems that you only want additions made if you're the one making them, as I've lost count of the criticisms and accusations you've made on virtually every one of my edits lately, none of which you have substantiated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I specifically said that you've devoted seven paragraphs to a time period of just two months, the duration of the First Continental Congress. You should read what I write more carefully because you missed the point entirely.

As for the beginning, the founding actually began in the 1760s with resistance to the Stamp and Townshend Acts. We can let that go, but what about the key "founding moments" in the 15 years that followed the First Continental Congress, namely the Declaration, Revolutionary War, Articles of Confederation, and U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights? Should we repeat all the "comprehensive" details about that time span as well so that readers don't have to refer anywhere else?

Apparently, however, you seem to believe all credit should go to the First Continental Congress - which was your thesis in purporting that its delegates should be regarded as founders. So you lost that argument in the RFC and now you're going to prove it here by loading up the article with all you can on this brief time period.

In fact, you just said it again: "most if not all of that congress were founders". Not even close. Allreet (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you misrepresent my account on matters:

Apparently, however, you seem to believe all credit should go to the First Continental Congress - which was your thesis in purporting that its delegates should be regarded as founders.

Please stop with these continuous false accusations. I stressed the importance of the First Continental Congress, but I never once intimated that "all credit" should go there. Please quote where I have ever asserted anything of the kind. Typically, you contradict yourself. Above you just stated that the founding began in the 1760s, then turn around and try to brush off the First Continental Congress as something that was inconsequential to the founding. Unbelievable.

you just said it again: "most if not all of that congress were founders". Not even close.

Nonsense. The First Continental Congress, once again, consisted of individuals like Washington, Adams, etc, etc, and those who worked along side them and drafted and adopted important documents e.g.Suffolk Resolves, Declaration and Resolves, the Continental Association, can easily be considered as part of the founding process and those who were among the founders. Of course many of the delegates were not key founders like Washington and Adams, but if the yardstick we use to establish 'founderhood' can include individuals like Abigail Adams and Crispus Attucks, we certainly can include all delegates of the First Continental Congress as founders, who all took an actual part in the debates and adoptions of various important documents, resolves, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense: "most if not all"

A total of 56 delegates constituted the First Continental Congress. A bit more than half that number are regarded as founders.

You lost this argument in the RFC, and since then, you've been waging a campaign to reverse the RFC's decision. You've done that here on the Talk page with tens of thousands of words and dozens of sources, many of which prove either nothing or the opposite. And now you're waging it in the Founding Fathers article itself. A newspaper reporter would get fired for attempting such a thing.

Abigail Adams and Crispus Attucks have thin support for founderhood. On that, I wholeheartedly agree. But if we're counting sources - which is all we can count - the width of a razor is infinite in comparison with nothing. Allreet (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Did the founding process begin in the 1760s or not? You're skipping ten years (except for what I added on the Tea Party) and devoting seven paragraphs to a two-month period. By comparison, how important are the stories of the Declaration of Independence? Or the Articles of Confederation and its failures? At the very least, 2-3 times more significant. Allreet (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: — It doesn't matter which document may be "more important" than another, they all involved significant and crucial steps in the founding process. You claimed the founding began in the 1760s but at the same time tried to dismiss the First Continental Congress, established in 1774, who all took part in the debates, drafting and adoption of several important documents, unless of course you're assuming that some delegates just sat on their hands and said nothing on behalf of the colony/state they were representing. As for 'losing' the argument at RfC, again, nearly all of the 'No' votes were merely based on what some sources didn't say, and a review of the 'rationale' behind almost every 'No' vote confirms that, so lets not try to skirt this all over again. This is why we need to have a comprehensively worded RfC that doesn't attempt to establish or dismiss founding status merely on the basis of signing one document, but takes into account all the things a given individual was involved in, and in many cases, the names removed from the chart were delegates who went on to be members of the Second Continental Congress. These are all things that you and some of the other voters were either ignorant about, or who simply flat out ignored these things, as you're attempting to do. Your 'winning' argument is really little more than a grand denial of the sources and the history. This has been explained for you more than twice before now. It would be an effort of "congeniality" if you tried to come to terms and cooperate with other editors over such matters. Apparently you're opposed to a better worded RfC.
Also, you included Attucks on the basis that his name came under a heading of a book, Founders. Okay, that's somewhat fair, as the entry failed to explain why, but here's another general statement in reference to the Continental Association, something made up of delegates.

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association by the First Continental Congress in 1774."<Lincoln>

Are you now going to try and convince everyone that Lincoln is less of a reliable source than the one for Attucks? You attempted this once by trying to brush him off as a primary source (which are allowed in the first place) but again, Lincoln was not around during the revolution, so anything he says or writes about of that era is not a primary source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, try focusing on ideas one short paragraph at a time instead of a run-on paragraph that raises a kitchen sink of issues. Since that's impossible to respond to in any succinct fashion, I'll focus on my original subject and one of your contentions.

The Revolution began in the 1760s with the Sugar, Stamp, and Townshend Acts. The Congress was the end result in a sequence of a dozen or so events that followed - from the formation of the Sons of Liberty in 1765 through the Intolerable Acts in 1773. In terms of what came later, just about everything else is credited to the Second Congress, 1775 through 1781. For a decent road map, see Timeline of the American Revolution.

What Lincoln's speech has to do with Crispus Attucks is beyond me. The source for Attucks as a founder is the Encyclopedia Britannica's editorial board. Lincoln didn't identify any founders, didn't mention the word founding, nor did he equate the nation's start with the Union's formation. He did come close to this in his Gettysburg Address: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". Since he's far more specific here about the nation's founding and even provides a start date, 1776, maybe we can say he thought the signers of the Declaration were founders. However, even that's not clear and direct, so we probably need another source for certainty's sake. Allreet (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The seeds of revolution were being sown beginning in the 1760s, but the actual revolution didn't begin until until 1775. Lincoln has nothing to do with Attucks. Again, please read more carefully. I was just making a comparison with a general statement, in this case in the form of a heading, The Founding Fathers, which supports the idea, however vaguely, that Attucks was a founder. Lincoln's general statement is in reference to the formation of the Union via the Continental Association, which as you know was a document drafted and adopted by representative delegates from 12 of the 13 colony/states. Since the articles contained therein were calling on every state to participate in a boycott, naturally the delegates from each state spoke on their behalf and partook in the drafting and debates to where the delegates finally concurred and signed. Also, we shouldn't be trying to read other things into Lincoln's statement, which again, is very straight forward. As for a "kitchen sink of issues", I'm sure you realize that you've initiated most of the contentious sections, as can be evidenced with edit history, and have contended virtually everything in these discussions, just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The role of bias in determining the article's directions

I just mentioned to another editor, @Randy Kryn, that I believe the "summary" of the founding is being driven by a bias toward the First Continental Congress's part in the founding. Randy and @Gwillhickers were in the minority in the recent RFC on the Continental Association's signers, the Congress's delegates, being recognized as founders. After the RFC's ruling, Gwillhickers began loading the Talk page with sources and assertions "proving" the Continental Association was a founding document and therefore, its signers were founders. Of course, that went nowhere.

What's happening now is Gwillhickers is loading the article's summary with the story of the First Continental Congress. Everything he just said above bears this out - these are the "major facts" - and the rest of the story, such as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, doesn't really need to be delved into. So instead of a summary on the contributions of founders in a process that covered nearly three decades (1763-1791), we're getting the "comprehensive" details on what happened over a 50-day period in 1774. Allreet (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the First Congress has been focused on, cited, and discussed repeatedly, probably because it is obvious to some of us editing these pages that all of the delegates of the Congress should be named Founders from a commonsense viewpoint. But the astounding detail remains that one, two, or three determinative sources for that assertion have not yet been found (or have they?). What the founding is wrong with professional historians that they haven't yet laid out that clear fact? In a book, in an article, in a major motion picture advisory role? Maybe the intern of the Historian of the National Archives (remember her?) has scooped everybody. Would she be a good source (if so, that would be one - are there two others?). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Biases affect balance, neutrality, and other fundamental principles. Most importantly, they distort the truth and lead to sloppy mistakes. A case in point is Samuels Adams. @Gwillhickers has mentioned Adams at least two dozen times on this Talk page, more than any other figure. He recently updated an existing paragraph in the First Continental Congress section to assert that "under the leadership of Samuel Adams", the delegates approved the Petition to the King and the Declaration and Resolves. This is the third time Adams is being mentioned, but more important, it isn't true. Adams was an important figure but at no rathert did he lead the way during the brief seven weeks the Congress was in session. In fact, the source being used to support this clearly states that Adams was a leader of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, not the Congress, MacDonald, p. 356. The source also makes no mention of the Petition - Adams apparently had nothing to do with it.

Earlier, Gwillhickers complained that enforcing how sources are used would require "a cop on every corner". As a matter of fact, that's what Jimbo Wales had in mind in allowing an unlimited number of editors to contribute to Wikipedia. His thought was that a million eyes would eventually catch all errors. I think Wales was grossly over optimistic, that there's no limit to the number of errors that can occur and that as soon as diligent eyes clean up one set of issues another is either waiting in the wings for correction or is in the process of being created.

Gwillhickers isn't alone on the bias front. @Randy Kryn has been advocating for certain viewpoints regarding the First Continental Congress for over six months and several times has offered the regret that scholars haven't caught up with the truth. As an example, Randy spent months asserting that an amateur historian was a reliable source on certain individuals being recognized as founders. Now he's doing the same with the work of an intern. If something is "true", it should be easy to find an abundance sources to confirm it - again, so says Jimbo Wales. An intern and an amateur hardly represent an abundance. Allreet (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Richard Werther's Journal of the American Revolution's peer-reviewed paper has been proven to be a reliable peer reviewed source for the signers of the Continental Congress as founders, something which was disputed during the RfC and thus confusing to editors who disregarded it as a source. Werther's paper would include 53 members of the First Continental Congress, but it leaves out three who should also be added. My question above: how many reliable sources exist naming all of these congressmen as founders? The intern's essay on the blog overseen by the Historian of the National Archives' would seem peer reviewed per the fact of its inclusion - the intern submitted her essay but the professional Historian of the National Archives had to approve its use (it is still on the blog, indicating no opposition has emerged within the Archives community to its clear language). Gwillhickers, I know you have done a great job in finding sources but I haven't kept up enough to point to them myself, do you have at least two others with clear language? Maybe pick your best two or three if they exist (those which actually use the words 'founders' etc., such as the Warford-Johnston "American Colonial Committees of Correspondence: Encountering Oppression, Exploring Unity, and Exchanging Visions of the Future". The History Teacher. Society for History Education. 50 (1): 83–128. JSTOR 44504455 source that you found). The groundbreaking intern would be one (she possibly doesn't even know that her essay is such a major contribution to the literature), and I would think three good sources would meet WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Do they exist? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, all you're really giving us is your usual accusatory conjecture, with the assumption that none of it pertains to yourself.

Biases affect balance, neutrality, and other fundamental principles. Most importantly, they distort the truth and lead to sloppy mistakes.

This is yet another one of your recitals that attempts to talk down to editors. Yes, sloppy mistakes, misreadings and so forth. Do you really need to be reminded of your recent activity? Please lose the weasel worded recitals, because you have yet to put your finger on anything any editor has done wrong around here.

Gwillhickers has mentioned Adams at least two dozen times on this Talk page, more than any other figure.

Yes, and upon review of the discussions you'll also see who I'm responding to, so please don't carry on like I'm just throwing Adams' name out there for no reason.

This is the third time Adams is being mentioned

You should learn that a narrative will often mention an individual, several times, in relation to different events. Take Washington and Jefferson for example. Their names are mentioned in the narrative here about two dozen times each, so perhaps Samuel Adams isn't mentioned enough. Please give us something more than your assumption that something wrong has occurred.

Gwillhickers complained that enforcing how sources are used would require "a cop on every corner"

That comment was made in response to the way you continue to assume what amounts to synthesis, as in the past you've attempted to use this as some sort of blank-check argument anytime we use our own words.

If something is "true", it should be easy to find an abundance sources to confirm it.

This comes off rather naive. Many of the lesser figures in history do not receive nearly as much coverage as e.g. Washington, Jefferson, etc. That you carry on as if this has eluded you all these years only serves to tell us that you're not necessarily familiar with the sources, here and elsewhere.

He recently updated an existing paragraph in the First Continental Congress section to assert "under the leadership of Samuel Adams", the delegates approved the Petition to the King and the Declaration and Resolves.

Where are you getting this quote from? Going back to where the statement was first entered, there is no mention of "under the leadership of Samuel Adams", and the article at present doesn't mention Adams in that regard, while the source for the statement, Perry, 1959, pp. xix, 285, doesn't mention Samuel Adams. The statement about a petition to the king was added by you. Please tend to your own mistakes and misreadings before you go around accusing others with false accusations and assumptions that something wrong has or is occurring. Thanks Allreet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The quote in question was at the beginning of the First Continental Congress's 3rd paragraph:

"The delegates, under the leadership of Samuel Adams, then approved a series of measures, including a Petition to the King in an appeal for peace and a Declaration and Resolves which introduced the ideas of natural law and natural rights, foreshadowing..."

According to the edit history on August 1, you added the bolded phrase above with a citation for Macdonald 1899, p. 356. Your edit note was "Mention Samuel Adams at this juncture". Since MacDonald indicates Adams was a leader of the Massachusetts assembly, not the congressional delegates, I removed the phrase in question.

Yes, I added the original sentence with Perry as the source, on July 25, a week before you added the phrase about Adams.

So what exactly did I accuse you of that is incorrect? Allreet (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Many edits, somehow I missed that going through edit history. In any case, the source, McDonald, p. 356, clearly says "under the leadership of Samuel Adams", who was a delegate to the First Continental Congress, regardless if he was also a member of the Massachusetts Assembly. The First Continental Congress produced five resolves, one of which was the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. The resolves were drafted and adapted under his leadership. You haven't given us any reason why this should be reverted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, nothing personal but you seem to have an indisposition to admitting you're wrong. The source "clearly" said that "the Massachusetts Assembly was under the leadership of Samuel Adams". The source did not - as you asserted - say the delegates of the First Continental Congress were under his leadership. Since you quoted the source incorrectly, thereby distorting Adams's role in Philadelphia, I removed the assertion. Allreet (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems there's enough "indisposition" to go around for everyone, starting with your take on the 3RR rule, but enough of this game of hot potato. The source said under the leadership of Adams, whether he was from China, Turkey, or a maintenance fellow at the Whitehouse. Adams, a delegate, was at the forefront in drafting the resolves and for advocating independence. A leader, perhaps not in an official sense, but indeed a leader, and we have a reliable source that refers to him as such. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Regarding "naive", my point about an abundance of sources was expressed by Jimbo Wales in a dispute around 2004. Wales was saying if something is a fact, it should be easy to find sources to confirm it. So if a single author asserts something, that doesn't make it a fact. Without other sources, it's merely the author's opinion. Thus, if we have 100 sources on a particular subject and only two recognize something, the thought isn't worthy of publication. The same applies to "lesser figures". Allreet (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, here's Wales's full quote:

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, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. - Jimbo Wales, 2003

I doubt any of this is naive. Allreet (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wales also offered the following, tying the above quote, which relates to scientific writings, to history:

Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history. - Jimbo Wales, 2004

Allreet (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

So now you're expecting three, four or more citations for each and every statement, name or short paragraph – and if we can't, we get your synthesis/original research brand? Wasn't it also Wales who gave us WP:IAR, realizing there will always be some individual who applies policy without much discretion? Nothing has been added by any editor that even warrants this sort of discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if one or two sources say something, that doesn't make it so. Not if they're the only proponents of a particular viewpoint. So when it comes to assertions outside the "prevailing view" - the preponderance of scholarly writings - three sources isn't a very high bar.

You, it turns out, are the one lacking discretion. I've just reverted three of your edits: one on Madison, another on Adams, and a third on the cross-section of Americans. These are fairly straightforward matters, meaning the sources are clear and the issues fairly simple. If you were more careful, you'd be batting a thousand, but after just a few fact checks (admittedly, I had one issue wrong), I'm becoming concerned. What else is not so? Allreet (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Now you're saying we need more than three sources to source a statement. Often times scholars, past and present, have noted something, based on a letter, dairy, or what have you, that few if anyone one else has published. But according to you we can't mention this unless it is published by at least three(?) other sources. Thanks for that opinion, but if you start making reverts on that sketchy and opinionated basis, ignoring the scholarship, you will be invoking more than ownership issues. There are thousands of sources on the revolutionary era, so until you can cite at least 50 of them that don't happen to mention a particular idea, all we have is your opinion about what is "prevailing", on the many thousands of names, issues and events. By the way, you've made more than just one mistake, I can think of three off hand, just recently, while right here you just said you reverted an edit about "the cross-section of Americans", yet it's still in the article. We all make oversights, but please don't start giving us bogus numbers, i.e."one issue wrong", in some attempt to set yourself apart from the rest of us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "cross-section", you misquoted the source by leaving out the key word "leadership". I added the missing word, so while the general statement remains, its specific meaning is now accurate.

Regarding Madison, you combined two separate ideas from the source to create a misleading thought. I reverted the sentence.

Regarding Samuel Adams, he did not lead the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration & Resolves and Petition to the King. I reverted the phrase you added because it misquoted the source.

No issues here regarding ownership, only accuracy. Your hostile remarks aside, I'll assume you made these errors in good faith. As for "mistakes", no doubt we've all been off the mark on many issues on this Talk page. I was referring to what we've done more recently in terms of publishing. Allreet (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, you can't be making reverts on the basis that it's not among the "prevailing view", as that would require much research, i.e.hundreds of sources, no doubt some of which would encompass original research, if you attempted to establish some concrete "prevailing view", general facts aside, on your own accord. If an item is not controversial or highly unlikely, all we need is one good reliable source, perhaps two, to corroborate, from recognized historians, to make the grade. If you wish to academically shackle your editing efforts with such an ambiguous restriction, which I've never seen you do, btw, over relatively simple matters, that is your prerogative, but please don't try to do so on our account. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Samuel Adams' role

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian: — Allreet, you've made a fair number of edits since Aug.10. When bringing a past revert to one's attention on a Talk page it would greatly expedite matters if you quoted the edit(s) in question. Could you do this, with any additional comments so I don't have to comb through edit history? With your help I'd like to straighten any issues out.

Also, the statement I added about Adams and leadership didn't say that he lead the Continental Congress, only that his leadership played a role. Perhaps these sources would help:

"On June 14, Adams, while sitting on the Massachusetts House of Representatives, which was under his leadership, proposed to the other colonies the appointment of committees to meet at New York, in October, “ to consult together on the present circumstances of the colonies."^[1]

It was at this gathering that the Declaration and Resolves" were adopted giving, rise to the Continental Association on October 14, 1774. Adams was the organizer and key player during the entire time. Admittedly, the term "leadership" can easily lead one to assume he was the leader of the Continental Congress, so perhaps it would be better to say that the drafting and debates involved were "under his direction", or "guidance".

"Undoubtedly Adams’s greatest triumph was the formation of the Continental Association, a plan that was adopted by the Congress on October 20 by the usual lopsided majority. In his private sessions Adams stressed that it was desirable to address a direct statement to the Crown and to Parliament so that the whole world would know what was at stake, Therefore the Congress should draw up a Declaration of Rights and Grievances. Richard Henry Lee proposed to the Congress that a committee be named to draw up such a declaration, and to the surprise of no one, Sam Adams became its chairman. The First Continental Congress ended its session on October 31, 1774, and Sam Adams emerged from the convention as a national symbol of opposition to the Crown. Men from all thirteen colonies recognized him as a leader of the independence movement, and he had taken no pains to conceal his aims."^[2]

The Continental Association article refers to Adams' role thusly: "On May 13, 1774, the Boston Town Meeting passed a resolution, with Samuel Adams acting as moderator, which called for an economic boycott in response to the Boston Port Act, one of the Coercive Acts."^[3]

The resolution referred to is the Declaration and Resolves...

^ MacDonald, 1899, p. 356
^ Lewis, 1973, pp. 215-216
^ Ammerman, 1974, pp.23-24

Ammerman, David (1974). In the common cause: American response to the Coercive acts of 1774. Charlottesville : University Press of Virginia. ISBN 9780813905259.
Lewis, Paul (1973). The grand incendiary; a biography of Samuel Adams. New York, Dial Press.
MacDonald, William (1899). Select charters and other documents illustrative of American history, 1606-1775. New York : Macmillan Co.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll do my best to be as clear as I can on any concerns I have going forward and will link or quote whatever I'm referring to.

Regarding the sources you've just cited, it's clear Adams's role was significant, especially as committee chair. That still falls short of "under his leadership" because that's not what the source (Lewis) says, nor does that describe a committee chair's role (in any organization). So rather than characterize it, why not just report what the source says - that Adams chaired the committee that drew up the Declaration? Or that he came to be recognized as a leader of the independence movement?

That said, you can't cite MacDonald or Ammerman as quoted here to support what Adams did a few months later in Congress. You could report his leading role in the earlier events, which are obviously connected.

Here's what I think all editors should follow as a guiding principle: The best practice is to adhere as precisely as possible to what sources say. That means approximations, implications, assumptions, interpretations, and so forth should be avoided - absolutely. If we paraphrase, we must aim for 1=1 as much as possible. And I'm not making up this principle. It's in WP's guidelines. It's the rule all news, publishing, and academic institutions. Historians, reporters and editors justifiably fret over and take pride in "getting it right". It's their craft and with that their discipline. It's ours as well. Allreet (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: — Samuel Adams was sitting in the Massachusetts House of Representatives when the Intolerable Acts made the scene early in 1774, and it was here that he called for and organized delegates to present the King with grievances, and a declaration of rights, on June 14, which is how the Declaration and Resolves came about. This is the "leadership" MacDonald, p. 356, is referring to, and yes, we should be more clear on that than I was originally. We also can, as you suggested, qualify the account and mention that Adams chaired the Committee that drafted the Declaration and Resolves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"Bias" and other such notions

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and TheVirginiaHistorian: — Allreet, you need to get a handle on the hyperbole and false accusations:

and the rest of the story, such as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, doesn't really need to be delved into.

Nothing of the sort was ever asserted by me, thank you. Twice now I've expressed support over your concern that the Second Continental Congress needed to be better covered. The only "bias" I possess involves covering matters as the history warrants. I'll have just as much "bias" for better covering the Second Continental Congress and how it functioned during the war, and how it forged the Articles of Confederation. Wp articles can be up to 90 and 100k in readable prose, so it would be nice if no one carried on as if a 33k article is something we should get our feathers ruffled over.

As for the opening paragraph, it was rather short to begin with, and now it's only a two sentences. This is hardly a comprehensive summary. It's more like a statement in an outline. I'll be returning a couple important points, that the Congress derived its authority from war time concerns, that its authority, however, was ill defined, and that overall the Congress as a whole is where experiments in government occurred -- all an important part of the role the founders played in the initial and continuous founding. I'll make efforts to use fewer words, but those major details need to be stated in the opening. The First Continental Congress section is only a browser page in length, and summarizes the role the key founders played in relation to key British figures. The Second Continental Congress section is currently much shorter and needs to present more coverage, as this Congress lasted the duration of the war, established the Continental Army, the Articles of Confederation, etc. I'm hoping this will be the focus at this point, rather than 'how long' an other section may be. The article is presently at 33k of readable prose, which is rather short for an article of this scope and involvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional: The Continental Army is only mentioned once in the narrative. It and Washington need to be better covered, in the Second Continental Congress section. We seemed to have lost sight of matters far more important. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The Continental Congress lasted until 1781, when it was replaced by the Confederated Congress. In a sense, that's "splitting hairs" since you could say it was still the same basic group. The difference is that over next eight years or so, the Congress did very little of significance.

The First Continental Congress is only a browser page or so in length. That's one page covering seven weeks. The Second Congress covered a period 36 times as long (1775-1781) and its accomplishments are at least 5-10 times greater. Are you proposing five pages, then, for the Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence, and among other highly notable accomplishments, the adoption of the Articles of Confederation?

My take is that you're dead set on proving what you were unable to do in the related RFC, that "most if not all of the First Continental Congress's members are founders". As I see it, 25 or so of its members do not qualify. By the time of these other events, most had drifted away. Thus, they don't share much in common with key founders in terms of attributes such as leadership, longevity, and statesmanship. Allreet (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Members, of the First Continental Congress, i.e.delegates, men who represented their entire colony/state, all played important roles in drafting and/or debating and signing important documents, and collectively they provoked Britain into resorting to war shortly thereafter. Your attempt to single out certain individuals on the basis that they only signed one document is very narrow in its approach, and, as you've been informed before, ignores the sources and the history. The only thing I'm "dead set" over is the prevention of trying to gloss over or the ignoring this history. At this (very) late date, no source has been presented that would actually explain why all the members of the First Continental Congress were not necessarily founders. Meanwhile many sources, including Lincoln, have been cited which more than support the fact that the First Continental Congress were indeed a collective body of founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln didn't say a word about founders or the founding. He spoke of the union. You can use his quote in that latter regard and no other. Allreet (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Lincoln again, that rascal. His entire quote (see Continental Association#Legacy) discussed the founding of the nation in a four-step documental process. By "union" he meant the union of colonies, later renamed states, into a new country, and clearly outlines that in a concise manner by laying out the process in its order of growth extension. Was Werther the first writer to second Lincoln's motion (although years after Wikipedia did)? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Lincoln made the point without using the term founding fathers, unless of course someone wants to assume the founding had nothing to do with the founding fathers. Here we go again? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln didn't say a thing about the founding. He didn't even imply anything about it. He mentions "Union" 28 times, "Nation" only once - in a general reference to God, the "Almighty Ruler of Nations" - and nothing that comes even close to what both of you, @Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn, are claiming.

Lincoln's speech was about two things: a promise to not outlaw slavery and the legal argument against seceding from the Union. Give it a good read, and if you don't understand what his points are, try googling the subject. Betcha won't find one source that mentions founders.

As for "here we go again", I didn't bring up Lincoln. He's your fixation, not mine. Allreet (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Fixation"? Lincoln was presented by Randy Kryn as a reliable source. Since then you've been just as amendment, and "fixated", about what Lincoln was saying as anyone else, perhaps more so, given the reaching and quasi rationale you've given us in some attempt to dismiss it entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln is a firm source for the Continental Association as one of the four great founding documents, and when Lincoln said it formed the union he meant that exactly - that the Union was formed in 1774 and then it was matured and continued in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. We all know what he meant but we can't use his words for naming founders because, although his implication is clear as to the importance of the actions of individuals to the Union/nation's founding, he named none of the signers of any of the four documents as founders in this particular speech. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Randy, this isn't what WP editors do. We don't write things based on implications, but on direct statements. It's verboten to do otherwise. Allreet (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln quote

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association [by the First Continental Congress] in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”
— Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861

Lincoln didn't say a thing about the founding. He didn't even imply anything about it.
Lincoln didn't have to "imply" anything, as the statement is straight forward, regardless if he didn't employ the word "founding" or "founded. Yes, here we go again, with your narrow interpretation based on your 'exact phrase' rationale. So go on assuming that the Union has nothing to do with a nation, and that formed has nothing to do with founded, and that the founding had nothing to do with the founding fathers, per your "Lincoln didn't say a word about founders or the founding" comment. This is all you have -- the same 'exact phrase' arguing, which detaches itself from the idea that an idea can be expressed using different words, while you continue to ignore the scholarship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead, use the quote as you see fit. I'll be sure to revert anything that comes close to what you've been arguing for months. Otherwise, drop the issue. It's a waste of space and time. Allreet (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If you revert something based on a highly questionable opinion only, trying to build some wall between simple ideas like formed and founded, or Union and Nation, you'll only be creating revert and ownership issues, once again. You've only tried to assert what Lincoln wasn't trying to say – never anything about what he was saying. Seems if you had such strong feelings about what Lincoln wasn't saying it would be in light of what you thought he was saying. You never provided fellow editors with such reasoned conviction, just the same 'exact phrase' usage argument, ignoring the fact that a given idea can be clearly expressed using different words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, what language are you thinking of using? In a footnote or in the text itself? Each word would matter in quoting Lincoln. It's pretty obvious, Allreet, that Lincoln meant the nation when he said the Continental Association formed the Union, and that this union was "matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence" (maybe "continued" presents the key word here, indicating that there was something already in place in order for it to "continue"). I agree with Allreet that Lincoln did not call the signers of any of the documents founders or founding fathers, although anyone reading his statement could "assume" that he would have if that title and descriptor had achieved common use in 1860. His quote is usable for citing the four founding documents, the Continental Association among them, but not, as decided in the RfC, as to signers of the CA as founders. I mistakenly used Lincoln as a source in the RfC in favor of naming all the signers of the CA as founders, and Allreet has convinced me since that we need a historian or three to say these things clearly (although non-professional historian Richard Werther and the intern at the National Archives already have, breaking new Captain Obvious but important in-the-literature ground that professional historians seem to have missed). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Randy, it's obvious only to you. Lincoln wasn't saying anything even closely related to the nation's founding. His only concern at the beginning of his presidency was to hold the Union together.

Nobody should "assume" anything - the old phrase about the very word has a huge grain of truth to it.

I'm happy you've come to agree with me on some of the related issues here, though I think you still believe Lincoln regarded the Continental Association to be a founding document. I wouldn't quibble with the possibility that he considered that to be true in terms of establishing the Union, but I would object to extending that to the idea of founding the nation. While the latter statement might be true as well, we just don't know for sure and thus to say so would be beyond our "pay grade" so to speak. Meanwhile, we know this for sure: no historian has been found that has described it as a founding document nor any who believes this is what Lincoln meant. Allreet (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and TheVirginiaHistorian:
Allreet, the only assumptions I'm seeing are actually coming from yourself:
— Lincoln wasn't saying anything even closely related to the nation's founding.-- Allreet
Lincoln said the Union was formed by the Continental Association. You're assuming that's not what he was saying, and still haven't qualified your assumption in terms of what Lincoln was saying, apparently reluctant to commit, as it would likely undermine your arguments if you answered objectively. So far all you've given us is that you're not sure, yet you are dead-certain about what Lincoln wasn't saying, per your above (and similar) statements. Easy to see.
— His only concern at the beginning of his presidency was to hold the Union together. -- Allreet
Yes indeed, and he offered a little history about how the Union was formed and held together in a speech aimed at holding the country together. Amazing. Or are you going to assume, also, that he just threw that statement in there for no particular reason?
:— Randy, it's obvious only to you. -- Allreet
Yet another assumption, and wrong.
— It's pretty obvious, Allreet, that Lincoln meant the nation when he said the Continental Association formed the Union, and that this union was "matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence. -- Randy
Lincoln is likely the best source yet for establishing that the Continental Association initiated the founding, signed by delegates in the First Continental Congress, representing a colonial Union, and as such is a founding document, an idea that is clearly supported in other words by multiple scholars. As for using this statement to cite the founding status of individual delegates, I'll entertain that further when I see a citation for every individual listed in the chart, because at present they're all covered by blanket citations. Not allowing similar citations for the removed names would be resorting to a double standard, not to mention a huge measure of hypocrisy. This was discussed before, but as usual, was buried in an endless jungle of diversions and argumentative talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional:
— Meanwhile, we know this for sure: no historian has been found that has described it as a founding document nor any who believes this is what Lincoln meant.
Actually, we don't know that for sure. You're assuming this based on the idea that the sources you've checked, many no doubt, don't use the exact phrase "founding document", while, once again, many scholars have clearly related this idea in their own words. As for what you think historians think of Lincoln's straight forward statement, this is still another one of your assumptions. If you're trying to read some cryptic or unusual idea into Lincoln's straight forward statement it's incumbent on you on a Talk page to give us something more than yet another empty assumption that he really wasn't saying what he said in simple English terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I specifically said "no historian has been found" to account for the possibility that some source may exist.

It's not at all "obvious" that Lincoln meant anything more than he said. You and @Randy Kryn are leaning on "implication". An RFC would settle this quibble in a heartbeat.

Everything else I said in my three paragraphs is as solid as rock. Again, there's no point discussing this until you actually use the Lincoln quote to support a specific assertion.

And stop characterizing what I'm saying using terms such as "empty assumptions" and "fuzzy" whatever. I don't characterize what you say as idiotic or stupid. Focus on the specifics of what I say rather than replying with insulting generalizations. Allreet (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again, Lincoln said the Union was formed by the Continental Association. You've given us nothing more than an assumption that this is not what he meant, all the while you continue to refrain from saying anything about what you thought he did say in a discussion which apparently you're trying to avoid, and which subsequently remains an empty assumption – hardly "solid as a rock". As for an RfC, it would no doubt be attended by the same editors, at least one of whom has demonstrated to us as being highly reactionary and obviously disgruntled, [Add:while a couple of others lectured us during the proposed ANI topic ban of three editors,] while the rest would continue to ignore your pings as they've done at least two times before, and which I take no pleasure in, btw, because this issue needs to be settled. As for using the Lincoln quote, I think you know that this would not be wise until we come to an understanding, first. At this point all you've put on the table in essence is the same 'exact phrase' rationale, trying to pass off ideas like union and nation or formed and founded as terms that are completely different, while you continue to ignore the scholarship who have clearly characterized the significance of the Continental Association, which united the colonies via a Congress of representatives, and which ultimately provoked the King and Parliament into war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I have maintained throughout that the focus of Lincoln's inaugural address was a legal argument against secession, which had begun in the previous month. He didn't say a word related to the nation's founding, nor did he give a rat's mustache. His sole focus was on keeping the Union together and avoiding what came the following month, the start of the war. You should read WP's article on Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address to get a better sense of what the speech was about.

However, I do agree with you on this: the argument needs to be settled. Here are three fairly sure fire ways:

Present some sources that support your view of his speech. That would be the easiest way - except for the difficulty in finding them.
Probably easier, then, would be to take this to the Help Desk where at least 2-3 editors are likely to respond. I'll gladly post an inquiry, and ping the two of you so you can present your sides.
If you believe as fervently as you seem to that this is the meaning of Lincoln's speech, step up to the plate and use your interpretation. After posting a dispute template and additional discussion, I'll file a RFC, and for the sake of fairness, I won't ping any editors whatsoever.

As for my "empty assumptions" and my "ignoring the scholarship", since you insist on repeating such characterizations I'll be more pointed. What you're engaging in is a form of personal attack. You may think your comments enjoy safe haven because they're indirect, nonetheless you're violating what's stated up front under WP:Personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Allreet (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've already addressed this squarely.
He didn't say a word related to the nation's founding, nor did he give a rat's mustache. His sole focus was on keeping the Union together
Yes he did, in his own words, and again, in an effort to keep the nation together he went all the way back to the Continental Association which formed the Union. To say he didn't give a "rat's mustache", about the nation's founding, outlandish, in his first inaugural speech is, frankly, making me wonder which planet you're from, Allreet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my planet, I've spent a fair amount of my life involved with media. I know first-hand what reporters and editors do, the values they live by and the discipline they practice. What you're proposing is not from that particular part of the universe.

Since you have nothing to say about the options I suggested for settling this, I gather you really aren't interested. So let's just drop it and move on. Allreet (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the discipline of reporters by and large these days is nothing to rave about, so thanks for the unintended compliment. Universe.. Heh, good one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Your comment is a political view of journalism that misses my point entirely. The discipline entails two basic skills: objectivity and remaining true to what sources say. So before congratulating yourself, you ought to work on those aspects of the discipline. A good place to start would be to gain a better understanding of WP:VER's concepts, especially "clear and direct" and "explicit". Allreet (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Allreet and Gwillhickers, I'm glad I waited to read this section, you have an interesting discussion going on. An RfC would probably make for a further interesting discussion at least, and the closer of that good faith strange trip to the admins did suggest that a series of focused RfC's be held. A lot would depend on a fair and full wording of the question about Abraham Lincoln being a reputable source for the founding document status of the CA, and then if Werther, the intern, and the architect agreeing with his premise, and Werther and the intern specifically calling its signers founders, is enough to add them to the list (what would be new since the last and deciding RfC premise would be establishing that Werther wrote a peer reviewed paper and the intern was allowed to publish her essay by the historian of the National Archives, where it can still be found with no signs that it is controversial. Lincoln sourced the Union emerging from the First Continental Congress, and a new RfC question centering on Lincoln's status as a reputable source sounds both fun and wider-discussion worthy. I would ask that the discussion take place in a threaded open-ended RfC and not in a mandatory quick response section followed by a "Discussion" section, because letting it naturally unfold gives the full point counter-point up front where it would be considered by new arrivals who often don't scroll down to read discussiom sections before commenting. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

All is "theoretical" until one of you actually tries to apply your interpretations of Lincoln's quote or Werther's article/title. So absent action, what's the point of batting this back and forth? Allreet (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's your non defined (still) interpretation of Lincoln's straight forward statement that is the only thing really in question. You're attempt to blow off Randy's well defined rationale, with a flip statement, sort of puts a lot of light on this (assumed) rationale anomaly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

My "interpretation" of Lincoln's quote and in fact his entire speech goes no further than his words. Throughout, he spoke only of holding the Union together, said nothing about the survival or founding of the nation, and even suggested he was willing to keep slavery in place.

@Randy Kryn's "rationale" is as off the mark as yours - both incorrect and if applied, in violation of WP:NOR. Before objecting to my invocation of policy, try searching NOR's text for "imply" and "implication". That said, all this is a waste of time since you haven't tried to apply the quote to anything. Apparently you prefer to argue rather than put your arguments to the test. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, partner in irrationality Gwillhickers, at least Lincoln has a place of honor on the Continental Association page, as he should. His groundbreaking observation, laying out for himself and for the public a concise definitional view of the progression of the Union at the moment he has vowed to hold that Union as one America (as Patrick Henry had proclaimed it at the start of the First Continental Congress), is quite the masterpiece. Lincoln called the first-tier correctly, and the amateur, the intern, and the architect (and Wikipedia by the way, since at least 2010) got around to it a little later. As Allreet says, since no exact language has been included or asked for here, a new RfC on the use of Lincoln's top-four stack seems premature. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A future RfC should not just focus on Lincoln's statement, but the Continental Association as a whole, where sources, including Lincoln, will be presented in support. Should the document be ruled as a founding document, it will substantiate, what should be an obvious fact, that Lincoln meant what he said, that the Continental Association formed the Union. Thus far, no sources, or rational explanation, has been presented to conclude, in no uncertain terms, that Lincoln really didn't mean what he said in simple language. Still also, no one has given an alternative explanation as to what Lincoln supposedly meant otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, is it your understanding that there is disagreement on the Continental Association being recognized here as a founding document? I thought that was cleared up months ago, with the disagreement and RfC pertaining only to its signers being called Founding Fathers, with nothing about changing the status of the already recognized four founding documents. Maybe a future RfC on the entire First Congress qualifying as founders, but just one or two more good sources should be enough to add them. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Not sure I follow. The Continental Association is not recognized in this article as a founding document. In any case, if and when another RfC is conducted it should address this in light of all the sources presented, including Lincoln, to support the idea. This way we'll be killing two birds with one stone. i.e.If the Continental Association is a founding document then it obviously goes that those who drafted, debated and signed that document are founders -- an obvious deduction, no research needed to arrive at something so straightforward. We must bear in mind that no one document is responsible for the founding all by itself. It was an ongoing process of trial and error that finally resulted in the Constitution. They just didn't pull that final document out of thin air. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gwillhickers. Wikipedia has recognized it as a founding document for a long time, but not the signers as Founding Fathers, which is what much of this discussion and four RfCs concerned. It's easy to assume that the signers are founders, as Werther, the intern, and others have, but the RfC showed that more exact sources are needed which clearly state that the CA signers are founders. In the case of the CA the two - founding documents and Founding Fathers - are no longer being connected on Wikipedia. They'll be back though, the tipping point of including them will occur with just one or two more clear sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Only a matter of time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

One Declaration signer missing on chart Done

I added Philip Livingston yesterday, but there are still only 55 listed of the 56 signers. First one to find the missing founder wins no prize! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Found the Founder, Arthur Middleton, and added him to chart. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy...two major oversights. Funny this wasn't caught before. Numerically challenged we must be. ;) Allreet (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Randy, good looking out, with so many DOI signers, listed with all the other signers, something like that would be easy to overlook unless you happened to be making an inquiry about the particular men in question, if that's how you noticed (?) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Philip Livingston was listed on the above Continental Association list, and his name wasn't crossed out as a founder so I added him. Then the next day or so I counted the documents signers, and the Declaration was one off, so checked that against the {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} navbox and Middleton was missing. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy about Founding document quantity

On this page, the chart indicates three US founding documents, and the image indicates four; which is it, three? Or four?

^ Bradford, 1994, pp. 21-25

Please sign your posts. The answer to the above query is that the caption was incorrect and should be re-worded. Sherman was one of two people who signed the three documents on which the nation was founded - DOI, AOC and USC - the other signer being Robert Morris. The fourth document referred to, the Continental Association, was a nonimportation agreement. Allreet (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Founders' chart

Name	Province/state	DI (1776)	AC (1777)	USC (1787)
Andrew Adams	Connecticut		Yes
John Adams	Massachusetts	Yes
Samuel Adams	Massachusetts	Yes	Yes
Thomas Adams	Virginia		Yes
Abraham Baldwin	Georgia			Yes
John Banister	Virginia		Yes
Josiah Bartlett	New Hampshire	Yes	Yes
Richard Bassett	Delaware			Yes
Gunning Bedford Jr.	Delaware			Yes
John Blair	Virginia			Yes
William Blount	North Carolina			Yes
Carter Braxton	Virginia	Yes
David Brearley	New Jersey			Yes
Jacob Broom	Delaware			Yes
Pierce Butler	South Carolina			Yes
Charles Carroll	Maryland	Yes
Daniel Carroll	Maryland		Yes	Yes
Samuel Chase	Maryland	Yes
Abraham Clark	New Jersey	Yes
William Clingan	Pennsylvania		Yes
George Clymer	Pennsylvania	Yes		Yes
John Collins	Rhode Island		Yes
Francis Dana	Massachusetts		Yes
Jonathan Dayton	New Jersey			Yes
John Dickinson	Delaware		Yes	Yes
William Henry Drayton	South Carolina		Yes
James Duane	New York		Yes
William Duer	New York		Yes
William Ellery	Rhode Island	Yes	Yes
William Few	Georgia			Yes
Thomas Fitzsimons	Pennsylvania			Yes
William Floyd	New York	Yes
Benjamin Franklin	Pennsylvania	Yes		Yes
Elbridge Gerry	Massachusetts	Yes	Yes
Nicholas Gilman	New Hampshire			Yes
Nathaniel Gorham	Massachusetts			Yes
Button Gwinnett	Georgia	Yes
Lyman Hall	Georgia	Yes
Alexander Hamilton	New York			Yes
John Hancock	Massachusetts	Yes	Yes
John Hanson	Maryland		Yes
Cornelius Harnett	North Carolina		Yes
Benjamin Harrison	Virginia	Yes
John Hart	New Jersey	Yes
John Harvie	Virginia		Yes
Joseph Hewes	North Carolina	Yes
Thomas Heyward Jr.	South Carolina	Yes	Yes
Samuel Holten	Massachusetts		Yes
William Hooper	North Carolina	Yes
Stephen Hopkins	Rhode Island	Yes
Francis Hopkinson	New Jersey	Yes
Titus Hosmer	Connecticut		Yes
Samuel Huntington	Connecticut	Yes	Yes
Richard Hutson	South Carolina		Yes
Jared Ingersoll	Pennsylvania			Yes
William Jackson	South Carolina			Yes
Thomas Jefferson	Virginia	Yes
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer	Maryland			Yes
William Samuel Johnson	Connecticut			Yes
Rufus King	Massachusetts			Yes
John Langdon	New Hampshire			Yes
Edward Langworthy	Georgia		Yes
Henry Laurens	South Carolina		Yes
Francis Lightfoot Lee	Virginia	Yes	Yes
Richard Henry Lee	Virginia	Yes	Yes
Francis Lewis	New York	Yes	Yes
William Livingston	New Jersey			Yes
James Lovell	Massachusetts		Yes
Thomas Lynch Jr.	South Carolina	Yes
James Madison	Virginia			Yes
Henry Marchant	Rhode Island		Yes
John Mathews	South Carolina		Yes
James McHenry	Maryland			Yes
Thomas McKean	Delaware	Yes	Yes
Gouverneur Morris^[a]	New York		Yes
Gouverneur Morris^[a]	Pennsylvania			Yes
Thomas Mifflin	Pennsylvania			Yes
Lewis Morris	New York	Yes
Robert Morris	Pennsylvania	Yes	Yes	Yes
John Morton	Pennsylvania	Yes
Thomas Nelson Jr.	Virginia	Yes
William Paca	Maryland	Yes
Robert Treat Paine	Massachusetts	Yes
William Paterson	New Jersey			Yes
John Penn	North Carolina	Yes	Yes
Charles Pinckney	South Carolina			Yes
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney	South Carolina			Yes
George Read	Delaware	Yes		Yes
Joseph Reed	Pennsylvania		Yes
Daniel Roberdeau	Pennsylvania		Yes
Caesar Rodney	Delaware	Yes
George Ross	Pennsylvania	Yes
Benjamin Rush	Pennsylvania	Yes
Edward Rutledge	South Carolina	Yes
John Rutledge	South Carolina			Yes
Nathaniel Scudder	New Jersey		Yes
Roger Sherman	Connecticut	Yes	Yes	Yes
James Smith	Pennsylvania	Yes
Jonathan Bayard Smith	Pennsylvania		Yes
Richard Dobbs Spaight	North Carolina			Yes
Richard Stockton	New Jersey	Yes
Thomas Stone	Maryland	Yes
George Taylor	Pennsylvania	Yes
Edward Telfair	Georgia		Yes
Matthew Thornton	New Hampshire	Yes
Nicholas Van Dyke	Delaware		Yes
George Walton	Georgia	Yes
John Walton	Georgia		Yes
George Washington	Virginia			Yes
John Wentworth Jr.	New Hampshire		Yes
William Whipple	New Hampshire	Yes
John Williams	North Carolina		Yes
William Williams	Connecticut	Yes
Hugh Williamson	North Carolina			Yes
James Wilson	Pennsylvania	Yes		Yes
John Witherspoon	New Jersey	Yes	Yes
Oliver Wolcott	Connecticut	Yes	Yes
George Wythe	Virginia	Yes

^ Morris signed two of the documents, one as a delegate from New York, and one as a delegate from Pennsylvania.

Yes, many historians mention the Continental Association as an important document, but there was an ongoing debate a month and more ago as to whether this was a "founding document" on the academic basis that most sources don't refer to it with that exact phrase, even though many sources articulate this idea in other words. Many historians have noted Sherman as the only one to sign all four major U.S. founding documents, per the caption. There was an RfC that debated this, but most of the nay-sayers, apparently, were unaware, or refused to accept, all the sources that support this idea. Here we go again? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: thanks for responding, well how many people signed the Continental Association and none of the three "above-charted" documents? Maybe it's best to hash out a consensus for each one of those individual people in question one-by-one (alphabetical order would probably be the easiest way to organize the sequence of the discussions)

Reverted the other chart, etc. No need for the chart that was never used in the article. Let's keep it simple. Many founders signed the Continental Association, including George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Richard Henry Lee and many other founders. If you're serious about this, recommend you register, give yourself a goofy user name, as many of us have, and jump in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Continental Association signers

Striking through the names of those who are consensus founding fathers to see who’s still up for debate (process of elimination), 1-revert-rule with the striking please

Sources determine such things. If marginal sources are in play, meaning debatable ones, consensus would be appropriate. Which is to say, our opinions need support. For the sake of paring down who was eliminated, I struck out "candidates" who aren't mentioned under one of the "founding categories", doing the best I could. I believe Henry Wisner is the only figure listed under "Other Patriots" (non-founders), whereas all of my strike-outs have been identified as founders by sources. Regarding Wisner, I previously compiled a list of sources for him, but none that indicates he was a founder. Allreet (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

All we really need are sources that indicate that members of the First Continental Congress were an important part of the founding. Again, if we're going to demand a single citation/source for all the names in question, then we'll have to do likewise for all the rest, and one that says "founding father", or one of the "founders", lest we resort to a double standard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require multiple sources, and by any measure, the term Founding Father is an extraordinary honor. That's the standard. As for the idea that a single source should suffice, I can dig up two or more reliable sources that recognize everyone currently listed and will gladly remove anyone who can't fulfill that criteria. But such sources must be explicit. Which is not the same as citing sources that say XYZ (person, body, or action) contributed to the founding, because that would also include not only everyone in the First Continental Congress, but hundreds of other individuals who served in provincial assemblies, committees of safety, military leadership, and related positions during the revolutionary era. Allreet (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The term Founding Father is actually a common place term typically found in American history books. Referring to the delegates in the First Continental Congress as such is really nothing extraordinary given their involvements. Trying to lump this body of representatives in with "provincial assemblies, committees of safety, military leadership", etc, is only exasperating the idea since these individuals in their given capacities did not come together, declare themselves as a Congress representing the several colonies, and as no longer bound by British authority, threatening independence, and provoking Britain into declaring war, which sealed the idea of independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you and I and probably everyone here knows that the delegates of the First Continental Congress are Founding Fathers. But, inexplicably, no major historian or group of historians have yet deemed them so. I have to guess that early American historians just assume that other professional historian have already written on the First Continental Congress delegates as Founding Fathers. Yet I think we found only two reputable source-worthy individuals who already have: the intern of the Historian of the National Archives, who called them Founding Fathers in a 2015 article that the historian published on her blog, and Richard Werther, an amateur historian, who named the signers of the Continental Association as Founders in his 2017 Journal of the American Revolution article. These won't pass muster as enough to add the delegates of the First as Founders. A professional historian or two will certainly, sooner rather than later, publish the assertion that these delegates are Founding Fathers. This seems inevitable. It's just common sense. But a bit of Wikipatience may be required (unless an unfound source or three turn up). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — Randy: Appreciate the words of conciliation. Yet, I have to stand by the fact that many historians have, in their own words, once again, put the First Continental Congress, which included Washington, Adams, et al, central to the initiation of American independence, and the colonial/revolutionary/American government that followed, ultimately bringing that ideal to fruition, as I know you, and hopefully Allreet, realize. The only thing preventing coverage of this idea is that the exact term of "founding document", etc, doesn't occur, ignoring Lincoln who specifically said the Continental Association formed the Union, and, primarily, an RfC whose voters were largely unaware of the sources presented thereafter. Just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Washington, Adams et al became founders based on their long connection with events related to the founding, not solely for what occurred in October 1774. As for others in the First Continental Congress, many returned for the Second and a fair number remained through July 4th, 1776. Those who didn't don't deserve the recognition because they weren't there. The Quakers who opposed the war. The Loyalists who stuck with the other side. Those who didn't think independence was possible or desirable. And those who went on to do something else.

As for the "facts", what historians have said "in their own words" is exactly what they meant, not the interpretations you read into them. If that's what they believed - the hundreds of them - you would think at least a few would have actually said so.

I've offered several ways in which this can be settled - another RFC, the Help Desk, or posting what you keep claiming. Instead, you've chosen to fill this page with arguments that lead nowhere. Allreet (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, you're giving us a lot of opinion.

Washington, Adams et al became founders based on their long connection with events related to the founding, not solely for what occurred in October 1774.

What you should have said is that they became key founders based on their long connection... There are many founders listed on the chart for only having signed one document, and whose involvements hardly compare to Washington, etc, yet are still considered founders.

As for the "facts", what historians have said "in their own words" is exactly what they meant..

Indeed they have, including Lincoln. You're trying to suggest that the historians in question were not even remotely relating to the founding.

Those who didn't don't deserve the recognition because they weren't there. The Quakers who opposed the war. The Loyalists who stuck with the other side

Actually I tend to agree, on that particular point, but looking at the greater picture, they were still there, debating and endorsing the Suffolk Resolves, forging the Declaration and Resolves and the Continental Association, and were part of the founding process, in spite of themselves.

I've offered several ways in which this can be settled ... Instead, you've chosen to fill this page with arguments that lead nowhere.

Seems you're not in a position to be making that particular accusation, changing the tone of the discussion to unfriendly, esp when you've done the same thing in the past, as you're also doing now: ( 1, 2 ) — If anything leads nowhere it's that sort of talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional note: Regarding the Quakers, I'm not sure how many of them were in the First Continental Congress, but though they were opposed to war, this doesn't by itself automatically negate any desire for independence. They had no great love of England, and the Church of England, and had a long and sordid history of persecution under their rule, in the mother country, as well as in Boston. They knew full well that the actions of the First Continental Congress was steadily severing the ties with England, and indeed their actions provoked Britain's declaration of war. It would seem that if anyone was ripe for independence it was Quakers like Charles Humphreys, who was highly critical of English religious persecution. They opposed war but must have at least entertained the idea of independence. The Declaration and Resolves, forged by the First Continental Congress, called for "establishing the Roman Catholick Religion in the Province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English Laws" concerning religion, law and government. It would seem any Quaker among the Congress would have had something to say about that idea. The roots of Freedom of Religion goes all the way back to the First Continental Congress - certainly one of the principle founding ideals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk about opinions. Many wrong-headed but too many to respond to without writing a book. Just consider "the roots of Freedom of Religion" - which go back to the Mayflower (Protestants) in the 1620s and the Pennsylvania colony (Quakers) in the 1680s. As a matter of fact, religion wasn't on the First Continental Congress's agenda, and it wasn't raised by the Second either until the Bill of Rights came up for discussion. It had nothing to do with anything except the fact that a few opposed independence based on their pacifist religious beliefs.

Similarly, the founding had absolutely nothing to do with what Lincoln said. He was only talking about the legitimacy of the South's attempt at secession. As with many of the sources you've cited to support your "thesis", you're putting words into Lincoln's mouth.

As for "unfriendly", I didn't cast any aspersions. I simply disagree with you, and rather than continue this ridiculous ordeal (nearly nine months and running), I've suggested several options for amicably settling the issue. What is unfriendly is telling someone they have no right to do so and then falsely accusing them of having "done the same thing in the past" (your two references make no sense whatsoever). Allreet (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian:
Allreet: — You say you didn't cast any aspersions and in the same breath refer to the discussion as ridiculous.
The Mayflower. Of course. Almost any idea can be taken back to the 'stone age' -- the point you seem to be avoiding is that the First Continental Congress took that hitherto unofficial idea and included it in their Resolves, an official document drafted by representatives from each colony, aimed at Britain, which is not an opinion. That founding principle was an important element in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution -- but of course this had nothing to do with the founding principles, and neither did the First Continental Congress, aye? Also, Lincoln said the Continental Association formed the Union, and indeed he took that basic idea and backed up the context of the south's illegal attempt to succeed, which actually helps to substantiate the legitimacy and formation of the Union. Thanks for that at least. If Lincoln wasn't saying the C.A. formed the Union, then what was he saying? You have this strong opinion about what Lincoln wasn't saying but have not explained for us what he might have been saying otherwise, once again. Lincoln didn't say the C.A. did not form the Union -- nor did he say it had nothing to do with the Union -- he said it formed the Union in plain and simple words. i.e.Lincoln meant to say the C.A. formed the Union. How do we know? Lincoln said the C.A. formed the Union. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ridiculous since all you seem to be interested in is arguing. Post what you're claiming and then we'll have something to talk about. Allreet (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the only thing truly ridiculous is the continued failed attempts at spinning Lincoln's straight forward statement into something else, esp since it would tend to undermine that narrowly worded RfC, where most of the nay-sayers were either ignorant of or conveniently refused to accept the scholarship rather than to stand corrected. Sad.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

spinning Lincoln's straight forward statement into something else

"Spinning" would be to transform "The Union...was formed...by the Continental Association" into "The United States of America was founded by the Continental Association". Meanwhile, there is no "scholarship" supporting that this is what Lincoln said or meant. Not one source, not one scholar.

As for characterizing those who participated in the RFC as being "ignorant", that's sad, especially since even you don't believe in what you're saying firmly enough to put it to the test. Allreet (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of scholars have noted Lincoln's speech, usually in context with his inauguration, not the Revolution, and don't need to tell readers what he was saying in plain English. Besides, Lincoln is a reliable source. We don't need one source to tell us what another source is saying. As for "ignorance", this was stated in context with the sources they were either ignorant of, or simply refused to accept. All of them. I didn't flat out call them ignorant, and your attempt to spin this as to mean that I did is what's disappointing. Equally so, you're trying to tell any given reader what they can read for themselves here also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Demographics section in need of re-write

I've started revising the Demographics section, which was limited for the most part to signers of the Constitution. The update is something of a "long slog" because no single source seems to cover the individual topics for the full range of founders. Thus, every founder needs to be looked at individually to glean details for each category.

I completed the first part of the Education sub-section with a listing of graduates from American colleges. I still need to add those who studied abroad. I've already identified the grads but need to add citations.

I also plan to re-vamp the Political sub-section. Since every founder was involved politically at some level or another along the way, the list here could end up with an inordinate bullet points. Better might be to provide summaries of people who held significant offices; for example, "The following founders served as governors of their states..." or "as Supreme Court justices".

I'd appreciate suggestions regarding sources that address the remaining sub-topics, particularly Finances and Religion, as well as feedback on all of the above. Allreet (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Allreet: you've done great ongoing work keeping track of this page's edits and discussions, I'm currently engaging in a project of building info regarding early 19th century American religion, maybe we can find common ground in this page and my project. In particular, one of the key religious figures I'm starting from was born and raised in Vermont at the turn of the century about a decade after the Founders laid the groundwork for American government with the set of documents they signed (I believe T-Jeff was president at that time). Any info about Founders based in Vermont would be much appreciated, and likewise I'd be happy to swing by regularly for some edit runs on this page's religious section and add data and supply sources as needed. Maybe Randy and G-Will can provide additional ideas for this work, thank you to all three for your earnest work as a team preserving the Founders' legacy and importance, building a firm foundation for the present-day US government. How Firm a Foundation (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@How Firm a Foundation, Allreet, and Randy Kryn: — As we know, Freedom of Religion was one of the basic founding principles, however, and unfortunately, while "religious liberty" is mentioned once, in passing, Freedom of Religion is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so we would do well to perhaps expand a bit in that area, with focus on the founders who were in the forefront in promoting this ideal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

A good idea all around on more religious freedom coverage, an example of a nice collaboration. Thanks How Firm a Foundation for the nice words. Yes, these guys are kind of amazing, even when they're taking each other to task. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Oh well...thought we were going to have another regular editor dedicated to article improvement/coverage amongst us, but as it turns out, our new arrival is a sock. Disappointing, since he or she had some good suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

He's made good suggestions and edits almost everywhere he goes, and is learning how to collab on major articles. He comes back when he sees a major point to discuss or edit. But why was he even checked on for suspicion of sockpuppetry, just because he edited this page as an articulate editor? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Lot's of editors have more than one account, including myself, which I haven't used in years. Sock issues occur, as you must know, when someone uses these accounts on one page to give the appearance of two editors, or to establish a false consensus, or to comeback after being blocked, as was the case here. His/her only hope would be to make an appeal and show good faith. If there was no vandalism and such involved there's a good chance -- at least I would hope so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree the recent entries were legitimate, but share @Gwillhickers's disappointment - using multiple names isn't exactly "cricket". And I don't see anything wrong with "sizing up" another editor. That's usually just a matter of curiosity that's satisfied by linking to their talk page. Innocent enough. Allreet (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

Was Vermont one of the 13 colonies? Somehow I believed it was but I'm unable to find any info to corroborate this, any clarification would be appreciated, thanks. How Firm a Foundation (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@How Firm a Foundation: See WP's Vermont and Vermont Republic articles for the state's basic history. Vermont was admitted into the Union as the 14th state on March 4, 1791. So the answer to your question is "no" - it was not one of the original 13, which trace their origins to the Declaration of Independence. However, some state constitutions preceded the Declaration, and the Union itself wasn't completely firmed up until the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. Even then, the states acted as sovereign nations under a loose confederation for six years. The Constitution resolved all that by establishing a strong central government.

Britannica also has a brief history on Vermont. And JSTOR has a more detailed account titled "State-Making in Revolutionary America: Independent Vermont as a Case Study". BTW, "seasoned" WP editors can access JSTOR papers for download. For information, ask the WP:Help desk. But even if you can't download JSTOR articles, you can still read up to 100 articles per month by establishing a free account with the website. And without doing anything, you can access and download all past issues of Vermont Life magazine for free by running a simple search on JSTOR. And if all else fails, there's always the Internet which as we all know, knows everything. Correct?

Anyway, I hope all that helps. I'll respond separately to your request above within the next day or so. All the best... Allreet (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How Firm a Foundation, a good question as many readers will not be aware about Vermont's place in the original U.S., so I drifted over to the Vermont page and found that it was confusing, so made this edit. I don't know if it'll hold up, but it seems to clarify the topic (although I had to go back and add a comma). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead paragraph with a series of stylistic changes. Your original edit was a definite improvement. Another problem was how the sentences, the details, flowed. There are many ways to reword and reorder things. The first priority, always, should be clarity but then it's important how one thought leads to the next. Allreet (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice work Allreet. Vermont, she is definitely better for the topic raised in this section. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Randy. Allreet (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation work

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Many of the citations and sources still need work. I'd like to get underway but realize I may revert or edit a given editor's work and invoke 3RR issues in the process. If I happen to do this please bring it to my attention and I'll gladly restore the edits in question if asked to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up as I go. Hey, if you don't mind, I'd like to remove the "double" cites to the Concise and "unexpurgated" versions of the American Bio Dictionary. The latter is a challenge for readers to navigate, too many volumes, not very friendly. Perhaps a scholar might appreciate the extra definition, but that's not our audience, and it seems too pedantic to serve any purpose. If we're going to double ref, we should offer something more accessible. Allreet (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)I'll continue to use scholarly sources in place of website sources, in most cases, esp those with no name. You removed Isaacson, 2004, one of the best authorities on Franklin, for some website source, with no name or references. Also, the Treaty is great context for Franklin's diplomatic role, so I'll be returning that. "Our audiance" is wide and varied, but when it comes to those looking into history, they're usually a bit more intelligent than your average reader of People magazine, etc. The inquisitive and intelligent reader will appreciate that. Our bibliography is filled with scholarly sources, as are virtually all bibliographies in WP history articles. Those that could care less, it won't matter. This shouldn't be an issue, and there's no policy or guideline issues, so kindly not revert the good faith edits of others unless you have more than a down-grading highly debatable opinion to substantiate it, and while we're at it, please don't tell me to "keep it simple" as if I'm running on endlessly on some tangent, as no one owns the article. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, regarding this claim in edit history: "you're editing everything I add..". This is simply not true. However you're original statement claimed that Franklin retired for political reasons. That was simply not correct, and needed to be fixed, as I did with a highly reliable source. Please stop making highly exaggerated accusations on my account. I do not edit "everything" you add, far from it. Thanks again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

And I'm "opinionated"? I asked a civil question, provided a comment of under 50 words, and received a 250-word response laden with personal hostility. And I wasn't addressing you or anyone else with "keep it simple", since I had no idea who began using the multi-volume version as source nor do I care.

Also, the subject here was not Franklin. If you wish to initiate a separate discussion about a one-line entry on Franklin, feel free. Otherwise, please stick with the subject. Allreet (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking at your latest edits, you accused me of added "clutter", made an issue about using two citations, then turn around and add this detailed overview of Fanklin's occupations, all the while you add three citations, four actually – you added the same citation twice (#355), back to back. Everything you added can be covered by Isaacson, 2004, just so you know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)

But no, not everything can be covered by Isaacson. For just one example, he doesn't mention Sweden. Besides, we should never rely on one source.

(Personal attack removed) Allreet (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Isaaason is among the best sources for Franklin, which you omitted, and okay, he didn't mention Sweden, probably because it wasn't worth mentioning, as Franklin was in Paris at the time and only negotiated with a Swedish representative who played a very minor role at the Paris peace talks. Yet you omit the Peace of Paris, which was Franklin's crowning and most important achievement as a diplomat, for which he is very famous for, and which served as excellent context for the summary account of Franklin's occupations in that section. (Personal attack removed) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

As for Franklin, the discussion was occupations. In that context, IMO, "Treaty of Paris" is a non sequitur.

On other issues, to be fair - and civil - it was an big improvement to note "science, politics, and diplomacy" rather than just politics. Now, please, try to be more civil. Allreet (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Finances subsection: totally unreliable

The Finances subsection, under Demographics and Other Characteristics, is virtually source-less and totally unreliable:

The section was written with only the Constitution in mind. So the text does not account for signers of the Declaration and Articles or address any of the other founders. What is said, then, is not true; e.g., there were more than "7 land speculators", "11 securities speculators" and "8 whose incomes came from public office".
The lead sentences - that some founders were well off, some were not and that Loyalists were wealthier than Founders - are not supported by the subsection's only source. The first thought, of course, is true, but to the point of being trite - of course, some Founders were better off than others. As for the second idea, this is widely accepted but is only true of Loyalists as a class versus Patriots as a class. It's not true of Loyalists versus Founders because Founders represents an elite subclass: 80-90% were lawyers, plantation/farm owners, and business owners, and over half had at least some college education. By contrast, Loyalists included both elitists and commoners.
Researching and rewriting this subsection could take weeks, since we don't have a handle on the scholarship and don't have a clue as to what needs to be and can be said.
On that last note, I'm not even sure what "Finances" means. Does it mean Wealth or Income? If so, that's a very narrow discussion, one that could be addressed with a couple bullet points in the subsection above it, namely Occupations.

My recommendation would be to mothball (delete or hide) this section until we can assess the scholarship and come up with an editorial approach. But that decision is "beyond my paygrade", as the saying goes, so first, I'd like to hear what others think. Allreet (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Tend to agree here. We should just use a summary paragraph about the overall and varied financial status of the founders, as their 'bank accounts' had little to nothing to do with the founding. We really don't need to spell out all their names, and the same could be said for some of the other subsections under the Demographics section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Although it's interesting, per above the Finance section hasn't been as sourced as the other sections (where names seem appropriately listed), so removing it seems page-consistent in regards to the standard and quality of the sourcing (Personal attack removed) Allreet and Gwillhickers, have set. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting but leaves out nearly 100 other founders. I also think the meaning of the details isn't clear: what's a land speculator, what's securities speculation, and to what degree was each involved? One thing missing regarding this last question is the fact that at least two founders, Morris and Wilson, spent time in debtor's prison as a result of their machinations, and Wilson died there. Nothing like a scandal to add "sex appeal" to an otherwise routine subsection. :)

P.S. Duer, a real scoundrel, also died in debtor's prison. BTW, I also found the practice of jailing people for financial debts was ended by Congress in 1833. Allreet (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Bill of Rights section: lead sentence

The Constitution, as drafted, was sharply criticized by the Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, and included George Mason, Samuel Adams and Elbridge Gerry, all of whom refused to sign the document, contending it failed to safeguard individual liberties from the federal government.

The lead sentence in the Bill of Rights section is in need of a re-write. Some thoughts:

"Anti-Federalists" were a large group of people, not just the four mentioned, whereas the sentence as written sounds almost all-inclusive.
"led by Patrick Henry" is not supported by the source. For one, Henry did not "lead" the three people named, nor the entire "movement". What is true is that Henry was a leading opponent of the Constitution. But he's on the same plane with other ardent Anti-Federalists, and in fact, the source mentions Henry and Adams together, giving them equal weight.
"all of whom refused to sign" does not apply to Henry, so it should be made clear it's true only of the three who were delegates, a point that might be worth working in.
The last phrase is fine but might be better at the very top as a part of a definition or description of so-called Anti-Federalists. For certain, many readers won't know the term.

I realize that's a lot about one sentence, but therein is one of the problems: two much is being said here for one sentence to convey. Why not try expressing the thoughts in two? Allreet (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — I qualified the lede sentence by saying "various anti-Federalists". Labunski, 2006, p. 22, says, " Madison received disturbing reports from Virginia that Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee", so I added Lee's name. I also qualified it by saying "leading opponents". What source(s) is claiming Patrick Henry signed the Bill of Rights?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn: I rewrote the lengthy lede sentence as three sentences. The first defines Anti-Federalists (mentioned only once previously), the second notes the leading proponents, and the third identifies Convention delegates who refused to sign. IMO, the sentence is way too long and therefore confusing, Anti-Federalists needs to be defined, and delegates who refused to sign were mis-identified: Randolph was omitted and Adams wasn't a delegate. Allreet (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Please address my comments in the relevant Talk sections. Your reply in the section below makes it difficult to respond and detracts from what's being discussed.

My reply to your comment below is what I just said to you and Randy. Your revision, IMO, does not resolve the problems noted including the inaccuracies. I believe my rewrite is supported by your source, Labunski, though other page numbers from his book need to be added. Allreet (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Founding Fathers: Sources

Signers and Framers

Signers of the Declaration of Independence and Framers of the U.S. Constitution are each recognized as founding fathers by three reliable sources. Combining the two into a single list results in a total 99 founders, eight of whom are both Signers and Framers.

Declaration of Independence: Signers

Bernstein, R.B., The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, Appendix: The Founding Fathers: A Partial List, 2009
Brown, Richard D., "The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787: A Collective View", William and Mary Quarterly, 1976
National Archives, Signers of the Declaration

U.S. Constitution: Framers (includes Signers)

Bernstein, R.B., The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, Appendix: The Founding Fathers: A Partial List, 2009
Brown, Richard D., "The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787: A Collective View", William and Mary Quarterly, 1976
National Archives, Meet the Framers of the Constitution

Additional Founders

7 Greats

Two reliable sources recognize the following individuals as founding fathers: Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington. Note: Adams and Jefferson are also Signers, while Hamilton, Madison, and Washington are also Framers. Franklin is both. This adds Jay to the list as a founder. These sources, then, apply mostly to discussions of the greats.

Morris, Richard B., Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny, 1973
National Archives, Founders Online

Allreet (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sally Hemings, Harriet Tubman, and User:TheRealFaxs

the real founding fathers are sally hemmings, harriet tubman, and me. this is real stuff by the real faxs — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealFaxs (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TheRealFaxs:, if you would like said info to be called out in this article, please present any reliable sources that support any (or all) such claims, so the full community can discuss and assess the merits for potential article inclusion, thank you. NeutraI (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet, Gwillhickers, and Randy Kryn: is there any merit to adding Sally Hemings to the women section of this article? NeutraI (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hemings was a slave who lived in Jefferson's mansion as a nanny and was not a founder, and it's highly questionable as to any patriotic feelings she may have had. Besides, there is no conclusive evidence that she had any of Jefferson's children, as the DNA evidence, not from Thomas Jefferson, but a close relative, points to numerous other Jefferson males, most notably Randolph Jefferson who fraternized with slaves all the time. There's no reason to list Hemings in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: thanks for the info NeutraI (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@NeutraI: Hemings is a significant figure historically but only in regards to her alleged relationship with Jefferson. The more relevant point is that no source I know of identifies her as having a role in the founding. Accordingly, I agree with @Gwillhickers that she has no place in the article. Allreet (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: Thanks for adding another perspective, and for finding and acknowledging a common area of agreement with User:Gwillhickers NeutraI (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Others

The following represent other sources and possibilities for identifying founders. Please add more.

Bernstein, R.B. identifies another 15 men and women.
Wikipedia: Other Notables List needs to be vetted. Single sources, especially on "forgotten founding fathers", are not sufficient.

Discussion (2)

Just wait a Bicentennial Minute: Franklin signed the Declaration and Constitution (so in your form of a list he'd already be included as a twofer, please delete this once fixed for layout purposes). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I have him on my spreadsheet for both and missed it. I'll adjust my text accordingly. 16:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Allreet (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The subject of identifying others requires wider discussion. The same is true of possibilities for creating the separate list articles (one just might do). Allreet (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy about American college quantity

In the American colleges section, the prose indicates five while the list calls out six, which is correct? NeutraI (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Numerically challenged, apparently. Now corrected. Further proof that every writer needs an editor. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

More accurately, we all need one another, even Pulitzer Prize winners who don't write in a solitary vacuum. Without writers all we're left with are "editors" on a mission to clean up. Humility is a two way street, and is only embraced by those with the capacity to see beyond their own social devices. Einstein once said, in so many words, every time I uncover something, ten other questions takes its place. A real trooper. Something for us all to appreciate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore image in cultural impact section?

Support? Or oppose? NeutraI (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, as that section seems pretty full now and only two of the four people on Rushmore are Founders. The section looks good as is, especially with the fireworks image which gives the page a lift. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The section in question already has a good number of images, and the Mt. Rushmore statue is note worthy in-of-itself, but has little to do with the culture, as do the founding principles, e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, representation, etc, and the various laws, all of which were forged by the Founding Fathers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Support Rushmore is a monument to two founders, a symbol of the making of America if ever there was one. More iconic than a team name, commercial product, pop song and most other such references. For sure, if Washington's face on a postage stamp or dollar bill is relevant, then his massive bust next to Jefferson's is just as worthy.

Alternative suggestion

Ok thanks for the perspectives, would anyone be interested in collaborating on a new page titled something like Legacy and cultural impact of the U.S. Founders? We can add things like Mount Rushmore and the Liberty Bell and the New England Patriots. NeutraI (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Best thing to do is come up with a draft. You should know that the topic could become quite involved, involving many dozens of individuals, and potentially controversial, and would involve (very) many reliable sources. Perhaps it would be best to cover cultural impact of the various founders on an individual basis, but here also you could grow old in the library getting all the sources involved for each founder. Imo, it would be best to concentrate on a given founder, or two. Appreciate your enthusiasm. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and ok, I’ll create a draft at Draft:Legacy and cultural impact of the U.S. Founders where anyone is more than welcome to collaborate with me. NeutraI (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

p.s. I was aware of such "individual-basis" pages like Legacy of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin in popular culture but will also note that many things are part of the legacy and cultural impact of the Founders as a group or concept, and thus can’t easily be identified with just one Founder (i.e. Liberty Bell, New England Patriots, etc) NeutraI (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the Washington-Franklin links. Who woulda thought? To get a better sense of the possibilities, I did a quick survey. Besides Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln, no pages of a similar nature exist on other individual founders. As for the rest, the pages on other more notable figures (e.g., Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Hancock, Sam Adams, etc.) have fairly extensive "legacy" sections, while those in the next "echelon" of fame (e.g., Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, etc.) have similar sections, but less extensive, of course.

My conclusion, then, is we don't need to cover any individual founders. Also, before going much further we also need to consider the existing article Commemoration of the American Revolution. The question is how would the Founding Fathers version be different? Allreet (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox installation?

Support? Or oppose? If the former, which style/type would be ideal? NeutraI (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, this article has so much information already packed into its lead that it doesn't need a large infobox taking up a lot of space at the pages start. The image of the painting seems to set the page up nicely. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Support, a least in theory. However, I don't know what the possibilities are. I started to search Category:Wikipedia infoboxes but there are too many possibilities to sort through. So what're some examples of options that fit the subject? And/or where can they be found? Thanks. Allreet (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose — Which particular info-box would be best suited for an involved article like this? Not one for people, or military leaders, or presidents, politicians, scientists, authors, etc. In many cases a well written lede is more than sufficient, and we have a good one thanks to editors here. Realizing WP is its own entity – but in what other publications do we ever see an 'info-box'? What the scholars give us is a (comprehensive, sometimes) table of contents, appendix, notes and perhaps a Bibliography - easy quick references. I've added info-boxes to some of the article I've launched, usually at insistence from other editors, just to avoid debate during a DYK nomination, but IMO, it seems the info-box habit is geared to the grab-and-go crowd, checking out an article on their cell-phone or tablet, trying to get through an assignment they'd otherwise not have to contend with. Those genuinely interested in the subject won't have to depend on that. Others? Well, they can always check out some website page if they feel WP requires too much literary effort for them to bother with. Main objection: How do we stuff all the basic yet diversified information, and there is much, into an info-box -- and which one? If it happened, somehow, we'd have an info-box as long as a runway. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What about something in the spirit of this?

The US history era articles have a nice series of infoboxes, we can continue discussing in response to this comment/subsection, and drafting can be done in the below section.

Draft/sandbox

Fail to see how this addresses all the concerns outlined above. Buzz is one man, who was on one assignment. Realizing we've objected to most of your suggestions, and to be politely frank, there's no need to fix what isn't broke. Still, your input is welcomed – at least it makes us review the existing article. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

It’s just brainstorming for now. NeutraI (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Foreign policy of The First Five?

Socking. Any user may reöpen this if they feel there's still something to discuss. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Seems this article may benefit from some coverage of their foreign policy while in the Oval Office (1789-1825), adding some "meat" to the presidency section, thoughts? NeutraI (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO, Louisiana Purchase and War of 1812 could be good starting points to build from. NeutraI (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "Foreign Policy" covers the Louisiana Purchase or if that's the most appropriate title for such a section. What I do like about covering the succeeding events is that it puts the founding in perspective. History is a continuum and to understand it more fully it helps to know both causes and effects. "Subsequent Events", "Aftermath", and "Following the Founding" are some other possibilities for a title.

As for what to list, the Purchase and War of 1812 are unquestionably the most significant of the decades that immediately followed. From there, we can get into a debate. Lewis & Clark Expedition while related to the Purchase is in itself probably the next most notable event in terms of "common knowledge". Lesser known but reflective of the post-founding era in terms of being closely related:

Congressional Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves (1807)
Battle of Tippecanoe (1811) or Tecumseh's Confederacy (1805-1824)
Seminole Wars (1816-1858)
Treaty of 1818, U.S.-Canadian Border
Panic of 1819
1820 United States Census

These are just examples, but a few address issues all but ignored by the founding, Slavery and Native Americans, (see Bernstein's Founding Fathers Reconsidered), which are also among the leading topics of the 19th century. Allreet (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC for installation of infobox + portal

PROCEDURAL CLOSE

This RfC was dominated by a user who has proven to be a sockpuppet of, unsurprisingly, Awolf58. His involvement in this RfC was so extensive that I don't think it is salvageable, and the bits with clear consensus have already been implemented, so I am closing this. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to reöpen this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Round One (closed)

Should the US Founding Fathers infobox (w/ US history portal) be installed?

Support? Or oppose? (Would be installed as shown, displacing/expanding upon the current lead image)

NeutraI (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Votes

Support but only with most of Gwillhickers' amendments, except for the picture. (The Declaration was more central to the Founding than the Constitution, which more than a few of the Founding Fathers regarded as a mistake.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Support Unconditionally Signing of the Declaration is far more iconic than the signing of the Constitution in people's minds. For additional comments, see Allreet's Feedback below. Allreet (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and NeutraI: — Well, it's not that long as I thought it might be. I would replace the image with that of the signing of the Constitution (pictured left), as that is what most folks associate with the founding. We should also omit the 'Presidents' section in the box, as, once again, the presidents were not elected until after the final founding when the Constitution was ratified. We should just place their names under the 'Leaders' section. As it is, Washington, Jefferson and Madison are listed twice. We should also add Patrick Henry's and Samuel Adams' names to the leaders, though not leaders in the same sense as Washington and Jefferson, they were key and very influential founders, just as Franklin was. I would also add the Intolerable Acts to the list of Key events, as these measures ultimately solidified the colonies and provoked the war. Last, the 'Louisiana Purchase' should be removed because, while that greatly expanded U.S. territory, its acquisition was not part of the founding process. If the others go along with these changes then an info-box would be fine by me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

List of Gwillhickers' amendments (5 total)

#1: Replace Declaration image with Constitution

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Gwillhickers: and others who may be interested, are there any reliable sources that support the specific notion that the Constitution is more closely associated with US Founders/Founding than the Declaration by most folks? (as "most folks" springs to mind as a phrase that WP projectspace seems to call out as weasel words) NeutraI (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@NeutraI: — We are not claiming that the Constitution is more notable than the Declaration, which of course is debatable, so there's no need to look for a citation for that point. It was my recommendation only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Maybe this sidebar portal add-on is an acceptable reasonable everyone-gets-most-of-what-they-want middle ground (inspired by the History of the United States (1776-1789) page). Would go "hand and glove" with the infobox (like the cultural impact section's currency/stamps tandem) especially considering that it has this Founders page link in the series. The portal's image can be customized article-to-article, like a "runner-up lead image" of sorts compared to the "winning image" in the infobox, given that the Declaration pic is the longstanding lead image.

The lead seems long enough to allow vertical coverage of both features (infobox + portal in its collapsed-by-default length) without creating unnecessary blank space or formatting/accessibility obstructions, and it seems like a nice additional benefit for readers from the navigational, educational, and aesthetic standpoints.

If format/access/spacing issues arise, we can always reel the portal back in here to the talk page and play it by ear. NeutraI (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I "stole" your Constitution pic, and dropped it into the portal. NeutraI (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: maybe add another 2-3 lines to the caption summarizing the signing and/or image for improved context for readers (like the Declaration lead image has) NeutraI (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
There were two foundings, the first being the Declaration and the second the Constitution: Political Thought, Political Development, and America’s Two Foundings. But few people date the founding from the signing or adoption of the Constitution. Want a source? Ask Google when the U.S. was founded. Allreet (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

And who added the Done's and what do they mean? Whoever did, please sign your posts. Allreet (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

#2: Omit Presidents section

Done

#3: Add Patrick Henry and Sam Adams as leaders

Not done for now: In a ranking of founders, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams wouldn't "crack" the top 15. Morris, in Seven Who Shaped Destiny, applied three criteria: "charismatic leadership, staying power, and constructive statesmanship". Henry fails to satisfy any of these, and Adams fares only slightly better. As Morris wrote on the same page where he defined his criteria: "Samuel Adams's and Patrick Henry's noblest efforts were largely confined to the preliminary stages of the Revolution. Thereafter they gave way to more constructive leaders; indeed, succumbed to mediocrity." I believe the following outrank Henry and Adams. For one measure compare their infoboxes with Adams's and Henry's in terms of national "leadership, longevity, and contributions". BTW, I have as many sources to back up this ranking as others do to elevate Henry and Adams in the pecking order, which is to say none. But I do have Morris as a reliable source on Henry's and Adams's failings.

Other Leading Founders

#4: Add Intolerable Acts to key events

Done

#5: Remove Louisiana Purchase from key events

Done

Refs and notes

Objection

I would like to enter an objection regarding how this RFC is being administered. While I appreciate your good efforts, @NeutraI, decisions are being made regarding the infobox without "community consent". Meanwhile, our comments are being "re-packaged" in such as way as to be mis-leading for any potential voters who review the comments before voting. For example, Louisiana Purchase was removed from the box's list of events, and my header was removed from my comment on including Henry and Adams as significant founders. In the first case, issues such as the Purchase need to be discussed before decisions are made, and in the latter, few people reading this will understand what I said since the context has been removed. In fact, so has my signature.

The initial RFC wording said we were to vote on the infobox. I didn't know what had been done to the box between when the RFC was first posted and other editors had entered their votes, though I had seen the box and its original listings. IOW, the box should not have been updated. Any and all changes should be discussed, as opposed to making changes that satisfy the requests of a single editor. Also, the way this is set up it's now difficult to enter comments. For example, to enter this one, I had to use Edit on the previous subsection of notes.

IMO, this is no longer acceptable as an RFC, at least as far as my experience with three others has been, and for the sake of fairness, you may want to consider starting over. Allreet (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@NeutraI, Allreet, and Randy Kryn: — Am in general agreement with Allreet in as much as the way the discussion has been handled and part of the discussion gone, including his signature. Also, and I'm complicit to a degree for my suggestions, I agree that any changes should not occur in the middle of an RfC. In the mean time I really can live with the article as is, except for maybe some minor points here and there, which is the norm for almost any article. Re:Louisiana Purchase. It worries me somewhat that a consensus could opt to include this in an info box for this article, esp since the sources in no way support that idea, in their own words, or in any words. That should be something no consensus can force into an article. While the L.P. is mentioned in relation to Monroe regarding his overall background, it is not mentioned in relation to the Founding for the simple reason that it occurred many years after the final founding, per the Constitution. Again, the L.P. greatly expanded U.S. borders but has nothing to do with how the Constitution, or any other founding document, was debated and signed.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Then there shall be a "Round Two" of votes and comments forthcoming, with everything prior to this point considered as "Round One". No need to start all the way over, as this thread’s current rendition of the infobox has been very thoughtfully curated, thanks. NeutraI (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, no Allreet signatures were removed or harmed in the process, the unsigned comment that was (almost certainly) an obvious response to Gwillhickers' amendment was simply "slid" into where it belongs from an organizational standpoint NeutraI (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In short, a major comment doesn’t need its own subsection except when its thesis hinges around a topic not discussed elsewhere in the thread. NeutraI (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You had no right to alter or move my comment. This is an RFC - a request for comment. I made mine and it should have remained as I entered it, particularly since I did nothing wrong.

You also had no right to accede to @Gwillhickers's requests regarding the infobox you initially posted. In fact this RFC should not have been opened in the first place. An RFC is a dispute resolution process. There was no dispute or at least none that had been discussed at any length as suggested by WP:RFC. As the person requesting the RFC, your only role is to pose a neutrally-worded question. Instead, you've been using it as a collaborative process to further your initial suggestion and you've appointed yourself administrator and judge. An example of that would be a) what you did with my comment and b) your reply above. Allreet (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: — I feel I should take some of the heat here, as I offered the suggestions thinking they would be added by NeutraI, but you are right about when and why an RfC should be launched, and that edits should not be made regarding the issue in question during that RfC. Didn't think it mattered regarding a suggestion or proposal but again Allreet is correct here. The proper way to handle the proposal would be via simple discussion on the Talk page, without the RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Makes sense and seems reasonable. This probably wasn’t made clear enough from the start, but a key reason why this was RfCed was to attract more "neutral fresh eyes" on the discussion (as a preventive/protective measure of sorts) in light of a set of immediately preceding discussions where behavior had a slow but steady decline and digression into personal attack territory. NeutraI (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gwillhickers. We're all free to suggest, so no need to apologize for being pro active. I was a bit miffed by the change in my comment as well as over the related issues, but looking back on what I wrote and doing some soul-searching, I believe I owe an apology to @NeutraI. The bottom line is that all was done and said in good faith, and I feel badly about being so acerbic. We all have a right to object but we're better off as people and fellow editors if we endeavor to play as nice as possible. Allreet (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: Agreed, thanks for bringing it all full-circle for us. NeutraI (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Round Two (open)

Did a BRD install of the infobox and portal; do you support both? Support infobox only? Support portal only? Or oppose both? NeutraI (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Votes

Amendments (4 total)

#1: Add Patrick Henry as leader

Support, Patrick Henry was at the time widely known for his contributions to the Patriot cause; in the years that followed the American Revolution became synonymous was his famous words "give me liberty or give me death". OgamD218 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Support per OgamD218. On the original RfC question about infobox and portal: the edits under consideration here should (if they pass muster) be made to both, since they should agree with each other. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Patrick Henry's quote about liberty and death does not qualify him as a leader. His service in the Continental Congress was short (less than six months) and during that time, he accomplished nothing. In fact he left the Congress in mid-1775 to lead the Virginia militia and his service there was a failure. Following that, his primary leadership role was as governor of Virginia, but in the ensuing years he alienated Washington, Madison, and Jefferson and went to his grave being detested by the three of them. Meanwhile, there are about 15 founders whose contributions are far greater. If we include Henry, we should list them as well. Allreet (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Richard Morris and Allreet, no need to open floodgates that may allow arbitrary inclusion of up to 15 or so names in the infobox, as doing so would dilute the definition of leadership for the purposes of this page. NeutraI (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for now, per Allreet and Neutral. Although a fan favorite, Henry probably could not be defined as one of the top leaders of the Revolution. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for now, also, until such time when an adequate info-box is drafted and one that gets wide approval above and beyond a marginal consensus to approve. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

#2: Add Samuel Adams as leader

Support, his role certainly was unique and at times his involvement arguably was that of a symbolic or "pop culture" icon that does not mean it should be sold short. His major contributions and leadership positions within the Sons of Liberty, the Boston Tea Party and both Continental Congress' garner this recognition. OgamD218 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Support per OgamD218. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Richard Morris, author of Seven Who Shaped Destiny, one of the most respected and referenced books on the founders. Morris said this: "Samuel Adams's and Patrick Henry's noblest efforts were largely confined to the preliminary stages of the Revolution. Thereafter they gave way to more constructive leaders; indeed, succumbed to mediocrity." Allreet (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Richard Morris and Allreet, no need to open floodgates that may allow arbitrary inclusion of up to 15 or so names in the infobox, as doing so would dilute the definition of leadership for the purposes of this page. NeutraI (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Support, please read this months Smithsonian magazine cover story on Adams, which lays out his accomplishments and leadership during the first stages of the American Revolution. He was the star of the First Continental Congress calling for the creation of a new country, preceded by his leadership in Boston in stirring the Revolution into being. Interestingly, aside from his public role, the Smithsonian describes how he was likely instrumental in most of the early decisions behind the scenes. I haven't seen a tee-shirt saying "Sam Adams is more than a beer", but would congratulate someone I saw wearing one. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Support, per Randy Kryn's and OgamD218's point on assertions. Adams was a major influence, so much so he was targeted by the British. Adding S.Adams' name would not open any floodgates, as there are few that can compare to him. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

#3: Add James Monroe as leader

Not done NeutraI (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, Monroe was a junior officer during the revolution, he would go on to be a major force in shaping modern America but his achievements did not take place during the era we consider to be that of the founding fathers-indeed during his presidency that historians generally recognize as the time when the founding fathers and their actions (finally being sufficiently far in the past) began to take on a romanticized image before the general American public. OgamD218 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per OgamD218. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, Monroe qualifies as a "late" founder, but his leadership roles came after 1800. He was minister to France under Jefferson, with responsibility for negotiating the Louisiana Purchase, and was Secretary of State and Secretary of War under Madison, leading the war effort in the final months of the War of 1812. Allreet (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutral, this was offered up as a formality/courtesy, to rectify a discrepancy after removing the Presidents section, since all of The First Five presidents are already among The Seven Greats except Monroe. NeutraI (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Monroe's role in acquiring the Louisiana Purchase territory had nothing to do with the founding, neither did his term as the 5th president. He was a member of the Second Continental Congress but didn't sign the Articles of Confederation, nor was he present during the Constitutional Convention, and didn't sign the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

#4: Switch "including" order to DoI, AoC, USC

Done NeutraI (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral – the difference is too little for me to care much, but doing this to feel out what other regulars may think about R. L. Kryn's desired switch. NeutraI (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. I believe the chronological order is important. Allreet (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Support, per using proper chronological order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. Chron. order here would be meaningful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

I posted this list above, but believe it's just relevant here. If we are going to "honor" Henry and Adams as "leaders" in the founding, we'd have to also recognize the following as at least if not more notable: John Hancock, Henry Knox, Richard Henry Lee, Robert R. Livingston, Robert Morris, Edmund Randolph, Peyton Randolph, and Roger Sherman. If you don't know what these founders did that was more significant than the accomplishments of Henry and Adams, you'd do well to look into it. Knox, for example, was Washington's second in command in his campaigns from 1775-1781 and then our first Secretary of War under both the Articles of Confederation and Constitution. Morris helped finance the Revolution. Sherman and Morris signed all three founding documents: Declaration, Articles and Constitution. Lee and Livingston were as important to our declaring independence as Jefferson.

Now that I think about, what exactly is being proposed in nominating Henry and Adams as "leaders"? Are their names going to appear next to the seven unquestioned leaders - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. - and nobody else is going to be recognized? If so, that's absurd. Not one historian would put Henry and Adams in such hallowed company, that is, as one of the top 10 founders. Allreet (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to open floodgates that may allow arbitrary inclusion of up to 15 or so names in the infobox, as doing so would dilute the definition of leadership for the purposes of this page. NeutraI (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

,

Another sock

Allreet, Gwillhickers, SMcCandlish, Orangemike, OrgamD218, let's discuss opening this up again, most of the questions and discussions have already helped the page. Maybe a couple of the questions should be removed or reworded, I don't know which ones (thoughts)? NeutraI did a good job in making and suggesting positive changes on the page. Was he sock-checked for any particular reason? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I couldn't tell you what reasons zzuuzz had in mind when they checked NeutraI, but I know I had spotted enough behavioral similarities to past Awolf58 sox that I was a few minutes away from either blocking or endorsing a check when zzuuzz blocked. A new user popping up on this talk page or Talk:United States and displaying precocious editing is basically always going to be Awolf (although that's not the only behavioral similarities I had in mind). Awolf's behavior is pretty distinctive, and he doesn't make much effort to disguise it. I know you're fond of him, and I have some sympathy for him as well, but he's been quite disruptive to date, and if he'd like to resume editing Wikipedia constructively, he needs to follow the standard offer... or, speaking practically, start over on an entirely different set of pages (not something anyone's supposed to do but, if done right, not something any admin can prevent). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, Randy Kryn, SMcCandlish, Orangemike Tamzin, zzuuzz — Yet another sock. When I noticed that 'NeutraI' spelled his name using an upper-case 'I' (i) rather than with a lower-case 'l' (L), I have to admit, I became a bit curious, because, as some of you will remember, an upper-case 'I' was used to fake and abuse my user name, substituting the 'I' for 'l' which produced 'GwiIIhickers', which at a glance looks like 'Gwillhickers'. Suppose I should have called him on that, politely, here at Talk, just to bring attention to this anomaly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The uppercase "i" instead of the lowercase "L" is one pattern that occurs in Awolf58 socks. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: FYI, adding usernames to an already-sent message does not actually send pings. See Help:Fixing failed pings. But yeah, like I said, I would assume someone popping up here who seems wise beyond their account age is much more likely to be Awolf than not. Feel free to ask me, if you have a suspicion; I don't think I've been wrong yet on spotting him. I've semi'd this page for now... Would have ECP'd it, but I'm in the perhaps-minority of admins who still follow the letter of policy on not skipping from unprotected to ECP. If I do have to ECP the page, that would be a real shame, but one can only get so delicate when working with blunt instruments. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: — Thanks for your oversight. I have no issues, at all, for protecting this or any other page right about now. There's certainly a large segment of users, perhaps even a majority, esp among experienced users, who at this late date feel the 'anyone-can-edit' idea is sort of a touchy-feel-good idea, and that in real life it is replete with never ending abuses. They say 'one rotten apple spoils the barrel' -- what we have is '100' rotten apples in our barrel. If an unregistered editor is serious about improving an article he or she is free to leave suggestions on the Talk page. In this case, we have protection on this Talk page, so it might do well to lift ~~ECP~~ it here after a brief period, but I'd recommend leaving ECP on the article indefinitely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I'm a big believer in keeping everything as open to editing as possible, but the truth is, when you edit logged-out, you're sort of trading on the collective goodwill of everyone else who does so (or, in case of rangeblocks, everyone with nearby IPs). It sucks when we have to protect a talkpage, just like it sucks when we have to lay down massive rangeblocks (sometimes most of certain major cities due to a single LTA), but the alternative is... well, see the first quote from me on GeneralNotability's userpage... Trying to write a reference work while keeping out all sorts of bad actors is a very strange balance of duties.

As to editing this talkpage, WP:RFPP/E does exist for editors really determined to request an edit here. It's not ideal, but, it's something. Try clicking edit on this page or the article while logged out (or in private browsing), and you can see the message shown to editors with insufficient permissions.

Also, just to be clear, talk is only semi'd right now. I'm just pessimistic that that will hold. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We'll see. Fair enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Needs cleanup before restoring

NOTE: My response in this section was to the removal of content. However, since this was done by a "sockpuppet" editor, the entire section is bogus and my response in error. However, I see no harm allowing it to display, nor do I see any benefit in restoring the removed material. Just for the sake of cleanup, I'm removing the one reference here that's appearing at the end of the Talk page, as well as the "citation needed" template. Allreet (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment

I agree with the removal of the Finances section. Besides lacking references, the section primarily addressed signers of the Constitution and needed to be updated to include other founders. As I said somewhere else before, this is actually no different from the Occupation section. Financial speculation was something some founders did to earn a living, and frankly, at least three of them failed and ended up in debtor's prison as a result.

The Prior Political Experience section has similar flaws, but it's greatest failing I think is this: Every single founder had prior political experience. Nobody was named to the Continental Congress or Constitutional Convention without having served in other political roles first. So should we list every founder's prior roles? Of course not. Should we list the most notable roles some founders played before becoming founders? Actually, that's what the current section is all about, but that strikes me as highly subjective and exceedingly pointless.

Finally, why was all of the following excised material being posted here? This is a talk page. Where's the discussion? Allreet (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed material

A few of them were wealthy or had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent, but there are other founders who were less than wealthy. On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists.

Seven were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimmons, Gorham, Robert Morris, Washington, and Wilson.

Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.

Many derived income from plantations or large farms which they owned or managed, which relied upon slave labor and women, particularly in the Southern colonies: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Charles Carroll, Davie, Jefferson, Jenifer, Johnson, Madison, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington.

Eight of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.

Prior political experience

Those who lacked national congressional experience were Bassett, Blair, Brearly, Broom, Davie, Dayton, Martin, Mason, McClurg, Paterson, Charles Pinckney, and Strong.

Infobox: Leaders

I want to thank @Randy Kry for adding the infobox. I disagree, however, with Sam Adams as the sole addition to the leaders who are widely recognized as the "seven greats". Rather than debate that and invite a full-scale RFC, I thought it better to add others whose bona fides are greater than Adams's at the national level.

My selections are based on two factors: offices held and years of service, both of which reflect the criteria used by Richard Morris in selecting the seven greats, namely leadership, longevity, and constructive statesmanship. Here are the national leadership positions and contributions of the six founders I added:

John Hancock - Congress president, 1775-77 and 1785-86
Richard Henry Lee - authored Lee Resolution, 1776; Congress president, 1784-85; U.S. Senate pro tempore, 1792
Robert R. Livingston - Committee of Five, 1776; Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 1781-83; Minister to France, 1801-04
Robert Morris - Finance Superintendent, 1781-84; U.S. Senate, 1789-95; also signed DoI, AoC and USC
Peyton Randolph - Congress president, 1774-75
Roger Sherman - U.S. House, 1789-91; U.S. Senate, 1791-93; also signed DoI, AoC and USC

The one exception in terms of longevity in this list is Randolph, but his elections as president of the first two Congresses clearly support his claim as a leader. The others all held significant leadership positions and for significant periods of time - and I'll emphasize - outside their respective colonies, meaning nationally. Allreet (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have no idea where the following citations belong but I'll leave it to the editor who added them to define their appropriate location. Allreet (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed both citations from the excised material. Allreet (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

[1] MacDonald, 1899, p. 356

[2] Lewis, 1973, pp. 215-216

[3] Ammerman, 1974, pp.23-24

[4] Bradford, 1994, pp. 21-25

[5] Morris signed two of the documents, one as a delegate from New York, and one as a delegate from Pennsylvania.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[a]