Jump to content

Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

RFC on Continental Association

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.

In this Request for Comment, editors discussed whether or not signers of the Continental Association (CA) should be described in this article as Founding Fathers. This RfC comes amidst a variety of discussions on this question and closely related ones, both on this page and at the dispute resolution noticeboard (permalink). In the RfC, editors offered a variety of arguments for the inclusion of such people as Founding Fathers. Among other reasons, proponents of inclusion argued that sources supported the idea that the CA is a founding document of the United States, that some sources describe signers as Founding Fathers, and that there has been a longstanding consensus for inclusion. Arguments in opposition pushed back along several lines, including: that the characterization of the CA as a founding document is incorrect, that assigning the title to someone based on their signing a founding document is original research if no single reliable source describes them as such, that using the descriptor except when a substantial amount of reliable sources do so gives undue weight to a minority view, and that "Founding Father" is an honorific reserved for a select few people rather than all signers of one or more particular documents. Editors attained a rough consensus against categorizing signers of the Continental Association as per se Founding Fathers.


The affirmative arguments for inclusion include a syllogism: that the CA is one of the founding documents, that people who signed any founding document are Founding Fathers, and therefore any signer of the CA is a Founding Father. The first premise of this argument—that the CA is widely considered to be one of the founding documents of the United States—draws upon several sources. Proponents supported the second premise with many of the same sources. Opponents challenged the extent to which sources support the first premise, saying that some were unreliable, that some do not support the premise directly, or that there are many reliable sources that do not describe the CA as a founding document. Opponents of the second premise—that anyone who signed a founding document is per se a Founding Father—provided several sources that distinguish between founding document signers and people widely considered to be Founding Fathers. Some editors found the conclusion of the argument to be original research and/or novel synthesis.


Proponents of including CA signers point to the inherent "inclusion criteria" established by the longstanding-consensus version of the article’s lead and body. They argue that the signers are well described by these sentences, and that therefore they meet the inclusion criteria. Though explicit references to specific policies and guidelines were not made, policies and guidelines on lists do emphasize the importance of unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria supported by reliable sources (WP:LISTCRIT), while also providing editorial freedom for local consensus to establish which specific criteria to use (WP:NLIST). Opponents rejected the inherent inclusion criteria as too "inclusivist" in light of the claim by multiple reliable sources that there is no objective definition for the term. Other inclusion criteria were proposed, including restriction to contain only names with explicit RS support for the label or to include names when a "broad consensus of best sources" declare all signers of a particular document to be Founding Fathers.


Affirmative arguments against including the signers of the CA as "Founding Fathers", or at least doing so in Wikivoice, were presented as well. One is that the members of the First Continental Congress, who drafted and signed the CA, were not a group of revolutionaries, and that the attendees signed without the intent of founding a country. Another editor emphasized that the term "Founding Father" originated in the 20th century and is typically applied to a smaller number of individuals involved in the founding. All sources editors have raised in this discussion, at minimum, include several individuals as being considered Founding Fathers. Some proponents of exclusion argue that any expansion beyond this small core should be supported by strong sourcing.


Basing their arguments in core policies including WP:V and WP:NOR, "No" !voters opposed inclusion of CA signers without a substantial amount of reliable sources explicitly referring to that group as "Founding Fathers". "Yes" !voters disagreed on the grounds that requiring such an explicit reference for every name is too onerous a requirement. They pointed out that "Founding Father" is not an official term, and as such sources may support an individual or group as being "Founding Fathers" without explicitly using the term, for instance, by describing CA signers as pioneers of representative self-government in the US.


Overall, there were more editors in opposition to listing all men who signed the Continental Association as Founding Fathers on a per se basis than there were in support of doing so. However, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, not as the result of a vote. And, through that lens, editors achieved a rough consensus that the article should not list the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers on that basis alone.


The ongoing discussions on this page evidence that this close will not end all disputes regarding who to include as Founding Fathers. As always, consensus can change, and long-standing text can later be challenged and removed if editors decide it is no longer due for inclusion. In ongoing and future discussions, editors are reminded to maintain civility, to focus on content during content disputes, and to seek resolution of conduct disputes at appropriate venues.


(non-admin closure)



Survey

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


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


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


And per the stable first sentence of this article, the inclusion criteria for the page: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...". Well, "united the Thirteen Colonies" fits the definition of the CA like a glove. Its signers were the ones who did just that. United the colonies. It is why they've been included on this page since 2012. And it is why the navbox {{Historical American Documents}} has followed Lincoln's four major founding document timeline since 2010.
Wikipedia's long-term page inclusion criteria for this article fits the Continental Association to a t. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


  • No, signers of the Continental Association had no intention of founding anything. Accordingly, authoritative sources such as the National Archives and U.S. Congress do not regard it as a "founding document", and most major works on the era (by Morris, Ellis, Isaacson, McCullough, Bernstein, Brown, et al) barely mention it. Adopted by the First Continental Congress in October 1774, the act imposed a trade embargo on British goods, but was prefaced by a lengthy statement of loyalty to the King. At the time, few colonial leaders favored independence. What changed that was the outbreak of the Revolutionary War in April 1775, an event that had no connection to the Continental Association. Anointing its signers founders would be an exceptional claim that under WP:VER would require verification by "multiple high quality sources". Allreet (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No. This group of men are not widely described as founding fathers, and this stuff is exactly the dross I was referring to earlier when I said I was in favor of brevity here. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes to including in the article, No to any statement in the voice of Wikipedia that they are Founding Fathers. Basically, regarding this question, leaving it at the status quo of the article after the tweaks that I did 1-2 weeks ago, plus add coverage of the FF term and who (the smaller group) that is typically included in it. Founding Fathers is a particular 20th century term that is seldom applied to the larger group. But this is also currently Wikipedia's article about both the larger and narrower groups which are closely related, which could fall under a broader second functional meaning of founding fathers (note the switch to lower case) and it would be a big complex job to change that. The overview of these closely related groups together that the article currently gives is also very useful. North8000 (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Definitely No. There are simply no significant sources that explicitly, directly place the signers of the Continental Association in the category of the Founding Fathers of the United States. We almost always have, in History, events and people precipitating an outcome; we never treat them as equivalent or identical to the outcome. The Association was obviously a significant factor in bringing about the events that led to the Declaration of Independence. But that development neither followed the work of the Association in a necessary way, nor was the Association's work the sole or greatest factor. There are truly no historical or logical grounds on which to base the equivalency suggested here. It is actually quite surprising to witness such an effort, especially when experienced editors are involved. North8000 has it right. -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Just expressed it once in this RfC, in my answer to Allreet. Please consider answering the question which directly contradicts your initial statement, or consider withdrawing your objection. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Fine. Primo, the Journal of the American Revolution is an online publication launched in 2013. It describes itself as offering "a business casual approach to scholarship," whatever that means - although, it certainly does not mean that the Journal is an "academic paper." It is not "peer reviewed", nor is it necessarily "reputable." If we had a Wikipedia lemma about it, we'd perhaps know more but we do not have one.
    • Secundo, the piece is written by a Richard J. Werther, who's studied business management and describes himself as a "history enthusiast". Again, not the academic background that would support the effort to present this source as some impeccable academic fountain. In other words, you are misrepresenting that source. Onwards to whatever that text contains of relevance.
    • Tertio, the article takes, inter alia, the following positions:
    • "[T]he Continental Association is significant in that it got the ball rolling toward independence." No objection there.
    • "The Articles of Confederation...acquired signatures over a long period of time." True.
    • "Only seven of the Association signers (about fourteen percent) ended up signing the Constitution, maybe not that surprising due to the thirteen year gap between the two. In other words, the cast of characters signing the Constitution was about eighty-six percent different from the group [the Association signers] that started the whole process." This is the most relevant part. Hereby the author of that text states that the the Association signers "started" the process towards independence. But even we accept this as true, the fact that they started something does not mean by any stretch of an imaginative historian's flights of fancy that independence would necessarily follow. And this is where the placing of the Ass/n signers on an equal pedestal with the F.F. fails: It cannot recognize the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
    • "[Continental Association] signers turned Loyalist: Two (Joseph Galloway and Isaac Low, each signers of the Continental Association only)." Trivially true and, if anything, it makes it that much harder to argue that the Continental Association signers were somehow as significant independence-wise as the Founding Fathers - among whom we find no "loyalists."
    • In sum, the cited text does not offer any kind of serious testimony in support of listing in this article the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers of the United States. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    • (The Gnome, I was asked to not respond to discussions in the survey part of this RfC, so don't tell anyone. Just wanted to say I appreciate your full analysis and point of view, and didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • (copied from the Henry Laurens talk page, April 26, since nobody responded to the ping I'll post this here to disprove points made by the pingees in this discussion) As for a quote from the Werther paper showing that he meant what he said in the title, please read (boldface mine):
    • "What this illustrates is how many others were involved besides the most famous involved in the founding. It was a wide array of men who brought differing skills to bear. In a piece entitled “The World of the Founding Fathers,” historian and political scientist Saul K. Padover, writing in the journal Social Research in 1958, amplified this point in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents), stating:
    • The answer [as to whether the framers were geniuses] is not to be found in any extremes. A few of the Founding Fathers, to be sure, were towering figures to whom the term genius has been applied [Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington]…Others were persons of uncommon talents as thinkers, writers, or orators [among them were John and Samuel Adams, Dickinson, Hamilton, Henry, Madison, and Mason]…
    • But the great majority, possibly four-fifths or more, were not particularly outstanding men. They were, rather, persons of generally average ability and character…In general, the Founding Fathers were what one may call solid citizens, respected by their neighbors, usually of good family and well-to-do.”[18]
    • To repeat: "in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents)". @Allreet:, somehow both of us overlooked this sentence and its following quoted-descriptor during our discussion. It seems very clear and direct in naming the signers of the four documents as founders, exactly as he says in the title. How would you describe it (it doesn't read as if it can be explained away)? Will ping @The Gnome: and @Binksternet: as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the ping. My position remains nchanged. There is no solid ground in terms of historical evidence on which to build the alteration you're seeking. There is only repetition ahead. And Werther remains well below the threshold of acceptability; for certain, he is not on equal footing with the myriad of historians whose work supports the article's content. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Not as framed (Summoned by bot) The short answer is that unless an overwhelming majority of sources name these signers explicitly as FFs, we should not either. There may be a minority opinion that the signers of this document should be included, but even that seems unclear. Even if one counts all 4 documents as 'founding documents', it does not follow that the signers of all documents are automatically FFs, the definition of the documents' status may be tighter/looser than that of the 'Fathers'. We may have a 5th or 6th person popularly or sometimes named as "the 5th/6th Beatle", that does not mean there were 5/6 members of the band. Covering how to deal with the fact that there is not a single definition, and some historians may be broader in their definitions than others is distinct from simply accepting a (seemingly minority and possibly slightly SYNTHY?) inclusionist definition. Pincrete (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No I have a problem with the Werther article--as far as i can tell no historian or scholar has ever cited it. Werther is an amateur historian with no special qualifications. That makes it fringe. Rjensen (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes     Undecided     In the article here there are fifteen names on the list of Founding Fathers of men who only signed the Continental Association. Though this only involved a boycott against Britain, this was the first document that brought the colonies together in a common cause. The C.A. is listed as a "founding document" in this article and is what really got the ball of colonial unity rolling and got colonial delegates primed for supporting the Articles of Confederation, the D.O.I. and the Constitution. As the C.A. was created and adopted by the First Continental Congress, this more than suggests the idea of the C.A. as a founding document. In an 1861 speech President Lincoln said the C.A. was, in many ways, the blueprint for the Declaration of Independence. However, and regrettably, if there is only one RS that supports this idea in terms of founding father, that would raise doubts, and if that's really the case then we should avoid that term. Something to consider. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No: If we consider signers of the CA to be "founding fathers", we'll end up in the absurd situation of calling prominent Loyalists, such as Joseph Galloway, "founders". The CA was an important step in the American Revolution, but it did not establish an independent country, and in fact, people who were vehemently opposed to separation from Britain also signed the document. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Quite right. The CA was the tail end of the various attempts by colonists to stay faithful to the Crown while gaining a degree of self-determination for the colonies. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
(Discussion moved to the Discussions continued section -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC))
But meets WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


Discussions

  • The opening sentence of the article sets Wikipedia's page criteria: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies...". The pioneering document which united the colonies was the defining action of the First Continental Congress, the Continental Association. Question: why should Wikipedia change focus and ignore and dismiss the First Continental Congress as a group of revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Answer: The document didn't unite the colonies; their meeting as a Congress did. As for the achievements of the First Congress, their most significant was agreeing to meet again. That decision and ensuing events led to not just a figurative founding document but the Declaration. All of which is according to sources. Allreet (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Writing and passing the Association, and then the American Colonies enforcing the Association, was what Lincoln spoke about as forming the Union. But even adding your "their meeting as a Congress did" into the equation I'll ask again, concerning stable page inclusion criteria for being called a Founding Father ("The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies..."): Why should Wikipedia change focus and ignore and dismiss the First Continental Congress as a group of revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    • As for the idea of Wikipedia "changing focus", this article has vacillated from "my" end of the spectrum to "yours" for much of its history. Here's the condensed timeline on changes regarding the section in dispute: stored in my Sandbox. I know you won't be satisfied with anything I just said, but at least you have an answer to your question. I also have no intention of debating this with you. It's a report of the facts as I see them, so take it for what it's worth. Allreet (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
As for "the majority of the delegates did not favor independence" the 'important minority' of Samuel and John Adams, Patrick Henry, and many others knew that when this radical colony-wide boycott was initiated it would be an act of slow-war (a similar tactic was used in the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott). These people were not ignorant of the ways of the world. Besides, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV have been met below, which makes this disagreement interesting but mute. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Importance of the sections below ("Discussion", "Original research and misrepresenting the sources", "Other reliable sources", "More sources", and "Sources covering the Continental Congress, its Association and the founding​"): New sources provided by Gwillhickers and their accompanying clear logical conclusions prove an RfC "Yes" by much more than WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRALITY, although both of those seem to have now been met. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Though there are presently more 'No' votes than 'Yes', most of the 'No' votes are based on the assumption that the sources don't cover the idea that the Continental Congress, or that its Articles of Association, were not a fundamental entity that led to the founding of a representative government, or that they don't employ the particular figure of speech of "founding" enough. One of the 'No' votes merely mentioned that there was already "adequate mention" of this idea, but didn't mention where or whether there was agreement or disagreement over those instances. In order for a consensus to be valid it has to be based on sound reasoning, facts and the sources, and all these things support the idea that the Continental Congress, and its Continental Association were representative entities, and as such were fundamental to the founding, or establishment, of representative government in America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
      • That's an entirely arbitrary assessment of the No suggestions, Gwillhickers. Moreover, the claim promoted here by you as well as by Randy Kryn (to wit, that "the Continental Congress, and its Continental Association were representative entities, and as such were fundamental to the founding, or establishment, of representative government in America") simply attempts to slide the term "founding" into the narrative - and does so, as has been pointed out time and again, without basis. Let's cut to the chase, once more: You or me or anyone else, including "casual" historians such as the Werther, are entitled to their view on the issue hereby promoted and also entitled to equate continentals with founders. That is not enough, though! That's, actually, as far from enough as Wikipeia is big. We must have sources that state that - and to state it firmly, categorically, and irrefutably. Until that happens, we are not allowed to alter the clear, established, and well-sourced assessment about who were the Founding Fathers of the United States. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Please find my "quote" you've directly quoted above. I don't recall it and you may be misremembering or quoting a detractor. What kind of mission have I said I'm on? Thanks. The Library of Congress isn't a good source when it names the 1774 papers? Seems it would be. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    • No, the Library of Congress is not a good source. Its "Charters of Freedom" include 277 documents representing Congress's official actions from 1774-1789. However, these are primary sources. What we need are secondary sources to tell us the meaning and significance of the Continental Association. Regarding the sources posted by @Gwillhickers, these are also of no use since not one directly refers to the CA's signers as founders or connects them with the nation's founding. You can claim that this is the case, but without a source, your opinion is worthless. Allreet (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • (Inserted)   @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, we have provided several sources that describe the importance and significance of the Continental Association. That you carry on as if we haven't clearly tells us you're just scurrying along through the discussions and overlooking and ignoring everything that's been presented. Please review the discussions. Now you're telling us the Library of Congress is not a good source, which has been used as source throughout WP for years, and which only confirms that you've digressed into a contrarian form of debating, all the while you accuse people of making things up. Btw, you should learn someday that primary sources are allowed and routinely used on WP, so long as they are used to make straight forward statements, and where no one is advancing an unusual idea. The Continental Association and its first official action, the Continental Association, clearly tells us that they initiated a representative form of government, and is nothing unusual. Secondary sources confirm this, while this has also been explained for you repeatedly, but you continue to deny its significance. Disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • A nice thought by Allreet, and I hope the same for all here. Allreet, does this mean you can't discuss the topic logically or are just in a really good mood and wish good things for a very fine editor who seems to have blown sourced holes in your own logic both above and below this comment? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Randy Kryn - You are bludgeoning the survey in the RFC by replying to allmany of the No replies. I had forgotten to include an instruction not to reply to other replies in the Survey, but rather in the Discussion, so I included it an hour later, and you removed it. You were probably within your rights, because I had forgotten to include it originally, but removing it doesn't improve the RFC, except by allowing you to argue with the other answers. You also tried to !vote three times, and I collapsed two of the three votes, and you then removed the collapsed !votes, hiding the evidence (but it is still in the talk page history). I realize that you have a strong opinion on what the answer should be, but it is neither necessary nor useful to argue with everyone else, and I don't think that you will change their !votes, and I also don't think that it will cause the closer to discount them. Do you really want me to request that an admin watch the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No, I've not replied to all no votes, not even close, please look again and maybe strike a couple things (thanks). And my three "yes" votes were a stylistic mistake as I explained and fixed. So editors shouldn't reply directly to incorrect accusatory statements? Never came across that policy before. And hopefully the closer(s) will pay attention to my first discussion post above (which you've derailed a bit so maybe move your concern to a separate point, thanks) and how others will answer it, as it seems of prime RfC importance. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Randy Kryn - I don't see "incorrect accusatory statements". It is common, although not universal, in RFCs, to separate the short responses from the back-and-forth discussion. Please point out, here (not in the Survey above)) where there were accusatory statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • First, can you please move these comments, which are unrelated to my very relevant question above, to its own posting and not as an off-topic "answer" to my question? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Who's on first! I responded, which was my choice until you corrected me, and please notice that I haven't done so since. I was justifiably answering things like "It is actually quite surprising to witness such an effort, especially when experienced editors are involved", and then where I answered and corrected an editor by pointing out I had "Just expressed it once in this RfC". One I didn't answer involved dross, not the kindest of descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Rjensen, thanks for finally coming by, have been waiting for your comments for awhile. Aside from Werther's paper (which comes from a peer-reviewed journal) what is your opinion of the page excluding Association signers as Founding Fathers? Wouldn't this remove Peyton Randolph and many other prominent individuals who only signed this one founding document from Founder status? Please join in further, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Randy, Peyton Randolph is explicitly named as a founding father by a couple of book sources, so all we would need to do is introduce those and Randolph's place would be secure. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that was one of my main concerns. Although I believe all of the CA signers meet page inclusion criteria which nobody has addressed yet (see my opening question in this discussion section). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • WP's guidelines define our inclusion criteria, not what's currently included. FYI, our current lede dates to May 5, 2019 with some minor tweaks thereafter. It seems to be based on the lede in Britannica's FF article, written by Joseph Ellis who adds: "While there are no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion, membership in this select group customarily requires conspicuous contributions at one or both of the foundings of the United States: during the American Revolution, when independence was won, or during the Constitutional Convention, when nationhood was achieved". That's the prevailing view, and we would do best to adhere to it. Allreet (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • There are many ways to look at this from a wiki-standpoint that could justify retaining the list in the article without direct explicit statements that they are founding fathers. (which is what I suggest). North8000 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The assumption that goes with the lists is that everyone must be a founder. Why else would people be listed in an article on Founding Fathers? This editorial problem has existed since Association and Articles signers were added in 2011-12. Editors alternated between "Founders" and "Signers" as a title as one side or the other (inclusionists vs. exclusionists) won the day, but I doubt readers ever caught the distinction. The same goes with trying to clarify matters with explicit lead-in text - the table draws the attention and readers are more likely to pore over a colorful chart than read an explanation first. So, if certain signers aren't considered founders, why pose complications and risk confusing people? A perfect example of that would be Randy's confusion over the meaning of Werther's article. His reasoning was based on the title and context. Exactly what readers will be faced with if we continue to include non-founders in an article on founders. Allreet (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If this RfC, which has a long way to go, removes founder status from CA signers, then that should be plainly made clear in the intro to the list. Long-term encyclopedic inclusion and interest in who signed the four major founding documents does not change with this RfC, although the result should be clearly reflected in the language introducing the list. As for myself experiencing "confusion over the meaning of Werther's article", how about we take a look at its title one more time: "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". What words do you think I was most confused by? Founders? Signers? Founding Documents? Asking for a friend. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Please put down the stick. Werther's title doesn't say what you think it says, and it doesn't provide an overarching filter for the topic the way you think it does. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Please notice that the stick was picked up by someone else, and I'm responding and whittling that stick. So Allreet, excuse my confusion at reading words which obviously make no sense when strung together in the mysterious and ultimately meaningless sentence "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Allreet, good points, but briefly, I think that there is a way to retain the current article content written in a way that reduces that issue (implying modern-meaning-FF status from mere inclusion) to near-zero. I think that my last changes brought the article much closer to that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Pardon my long explanation, @North8000. The short one is the list of signers is irrelevant to the topic and then misleading. Your changes do clarify things considerably, but leave the impression the Association enjoys some appreciable support. As far as founding goes, no authoritative source suggests this. Allreet (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. So if your valid concept is fully implemented, you'll need to delete about 2/3 of this article, and it will be an article on 18th century history delineated by a 20th century term, plus coverage of the 20th century term. Through a large effort, most of the deleted material could be merged into other articles except, barring a very large effort, the unified table would probably disappear. I don't describe this to disparage it, it's a valid outcome. The alternative is to tweak this article a little further. Consider it to be coverage both of the 20th century proper noun FF and a slightly broader functional group expand coverage of the FF (capitalized) term, it could even explicitly say that the other 2 associations are generally not considered to be in the capitalized FF group. That way your work would be to mostly evolve and expand this article rather than exploding it and probably have the unified table not end up anywhere. I don't need to imply my preference for either. This RFC asks a narrower and IMHO slightly ambiguous question and I responded above accordingly. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers, actually, 28 of the 145 signers signed the Continental Association and no other document. As for getting the ball rolling, Charles Nettels, in Origin of the Union, ascribes the union to the Continental Congress itself, its formation being the first time the colonies came together. The war broke out six months later, without any connection to the Continental Association, and Nettels notes that this event secured the union since the only way any colony could achieve statehood would be if they all acted as one. Regarding the capitalization of founding father, IMO this is an artifice without any particular meaning. Individuals are founders if sources say they are, and none I've seen distinguishes one type from another except to say that some founders made greater contributions than others. Allreet (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet: — Reviewing the list I counted 27. The Continental Congress authored the C.A., which is what introduced the idea of actually challenging royal authority in terms of concrete and definite actions, and remains the first official document which helped to lay the foundation to the idea of colonial independence. The C.A. is addressed to the King, but in no uncertain terms it challenged the royal authority in its practice of taxing the colonies, whereupon a definite line in the sand was drawn. The Continental Congress and the C.A. were hand-in-glove and two components to a significant first step towards colonial unity and independence, even though the idea of outright independence may have been a remote idea at the time. While we may be hard pressed to find sources that spell out the term Founding Father in every individual instance, they do indeed support the idea. The men behind the founding of the country can be articulated in many ways other than by referring to this unofficial and rather allegorical term, so I'm left wondering how much stock we should place in the lack of frequency the term is used when it comes to every individual involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: It is 27 - I counted Dickinson who has two lines (three signings). "Royal authority" was not being questioned; Parliament's was. Immediately after passing the CA, the First Congress passed the Petition to the King, and the Second Congress followed up, as late as July 1775, with a similar appeal to the crown, the Olive Branch Petition. Both petitions took aim at Parliament. I also question a couple other assertions, but all these apply to whether the CA is a founding document. The RFC's question is different: are the CA's signers considered founders? No source says that's the case for the entire group. And while I agree abut the term's broader sense and believe it should be addressed by recognizing more than just document signers and a few extra "do gooders", when it comes down to conferring the specific title on specific individuals, we must have sources. Allreet (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Since Founding Father is not an official term, like Colonel, President, Congressman, or some such, and since the men in question played a first hand role in challenging the Crown, via Parliament, and in so doing established the idea of colonial unity, which fed right into the idea of colonial independence, we should be a little more flexible when it comes to ascribing a simple title for them, that is, when the sources support the idea without actually using the term Founding Father in every individual instance. Otherwise we will be chopping up this article all because of an unofficial term not used often enough. The lede of this article describes Founding Father as someone who belonged to... "a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America..." The men in question indeed united the colonies behind a common and pivotal issue, taxation, and were delegates to the First Continental Congress and sometimes the Second, which ultimately built a frame of government. The only thing these men don't have in common with the other founders is that they didn't sign the DOI or Constitution, but the foundation for independence was already laid before those documents emerged on the scene. So the only thing we really have are sources that cover these things but don't happen to use the figure of speech, Founding Father, in most cases, which, imo, is not much of a reason, all by itself, for ignoring their roles as founders.
    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, we don't have an Academy of Motion Picture Arts to confer "Oscars" on 18th century patriots. Instead, we turn to "panels" of reliable sources who research, assess, and then recognize their contributions. The title these scholars confer on a select number of individuals has a real meaning in the sense that with some slight variations it's universally accepted and understood. Morris, Ellis, Bernstein, and company share that opinion as do the National Archives, its subsidiary Founders Online, and the cooperating universities that maintain the papers of individual founders. The more "expansive" view, which goes beyond a handful of greats, is built to a significant degree on studies of those letters and documents. This process, of course, does not involve a vote but is more deliberate and collective in terms of how it evolves, and concurrence on its conclusions are expressed in most major works.
  • By contrast, your roundup demonstrating the founderhood of members of the First Continental Congress via the definition in the FF article's lede is classic OR. The process here involves a piecing together of the period's events to reach a conclusion based on the lede's definition. Sources are needed for that definition, those connections, and whatever conclusions there may be.
  • Signers of all the documents no doubt have a great deal in common, but two things set those who affixed their signatures to the Declaration and Constitution apart: intent and effect. These signers knew exactly what they were doing, and their specific aim and the result was a new nation. This is the "prevailing view", that is, the predominant opinion of multiple sources. There may be validity to the possibilities suggested by other sources, but those being far and few between constitute minority views that appear to be negligible. Allreet (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Like the signers of Declaration of Independence, the signers of the Continental Association also knew what they were doing -- uniting the colonies under one common cause. Yes, some of the signers were skeptical about independence, at that time, but they still realized they were drawing a definite line in the sand by telling Britain that they no longer recognized its authority over the colonies. The Continental Congress, via the Association, drew up articles to this effect and sent representatives to each colony and established committees to oversee the enforcement of these articles. This is the first time the colonies officially came together and answered to a central government through representatives. Most knew it would eventually lead to war, but they still tried. This organizational effort was the prototype of the soon to come U.S. representative government. The D.O.I. only served to inform Britain of colonial grievances and that they were breaking from the mother country. When the D.O.I. was drafted and signed the Continental Congress and its Association, were already in place and are what led to, established, founded, representative government in America. All the D.O.I. did was declare this advent to Britain. In of itself it was not an organizational entity as was the Continental Congress in all its forms. Still, its signers are considered among the founders. The founding of a US representative government didn't occur with one step, it came about in several, and the Continental Association was one of those important steps, putting the idea of a representative government into actual motion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Good conversation, and of course they knew what they were doing. Either that or they were blubbering idiots, one and all, and Lincoln right along with them. The CA signers have enough sources now, with your new information, that WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRAL have been met. Since not every "no" editor will read this deep into the discussion (or even read one word of the discussion) I'd suggest that the RfC "yes" has been proven according to due weight and neutrality. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: Please ask editors to refrain from loading up the Survey section with comments. The most recent "No" had over 1,200 words of commentary. @Randy Kryn is also adding comments in bold that are obscuring votes and creating confusion for any "new" editors who would like to chime in, I am moving my reply to the latest of these comments to the Discussion section (immediately below). Thank you. Allreet (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Allreet - I tried asking editors to refrain from inserting long comments in the Survey. I tried that about 24 hours after publishing the RFC on 13 April, because I had forgotten to put that instruction in the RFC. I did then put that instruction in the RFC, and User:Randy Kryn removed it. I don't plan on adding anything to the RFC at this point. If it is being disrupted, that is what WP:ANI is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Okie doke. I'll ask @Randy Kryn - right here and now - to try to be fair either by moving his last bulleted comment (as @Gwillhickers was kind enough to do) or at least by removing its bold lettering so that it doesn't look like a vote. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I didn't overlook Werther's quote. It's one of several statements Werther makes that relate to my point about him. He's perfectly capable of "bean counting" basic facts such as the number of lawyers and merchants in Congress, but he has no authority to make pronouncements about larger matters because the subjects are far too complex for "armchair" enthusiasts like either him or us. 1) He cannot declare these documents "founding documents" on his own. As an amateur, he's held to the same level of verification we are, and he provides no source in his text or footnotes supporting this characterization about the four documents. 2) Similarly, he has no authority (knowledge, credentials or however you want to measure this) to apply Padover's statement about the Constitution to the other three documents. Padover as an expert can do that, but all Werther can do is quote Padover or somebody like him.
Gwillhickers is correct that I am "dug in". I firmly believe that I know too little to know anything about what I said above are "larger matters". And I am absolutely convinced that because of this WP:VER needs to be strictly applied. By contrast, Randy and Gwillhickers have reached conclusions and asserted "facts" that go beyond anything explicitly stated by historians. Both, IMO, are making things up and some of those things are extraordinary, such as the Continental Association is as important as the Declaration of Independence and everyone in Congress was a founder. Allreet (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


  • @Allreet: — WP:VER is satisfied if we can provided sources that cover how the members of the Continental Congress and its Association were part of the founding process. This advent has been gone over several times now, per the first representative government in 1774. No one is "making things up", so please refrain from making any more false accusations and respond to fair points. You have been asked several times now to provided a source that explains how the men in question are not founding fathers, or that the sources "do not regard" them as such. All you've given us on that account is that the sources don't mention "founding father". We provided several that cover this affair. Once again, we don't have to use the exact phraseology as a source may use. This is your own expectation and something you made up. So long as the sources clearly cover how the Continental Congress and its Association established the first representative form of government over the colonies, we can show that they were indeed involved as the founders of representative government in America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for moving your comments. I'll return the favor by responding directly to your latest comment by using your previous comment as an example (in the paragraph beginning with "Like the signers of the DOI...")
  • Nearly everything here is made up. A majority of the colonies (nine) had come together nine years earlier, in 1765, with the Stamp Act Congress, the predecessor of the Continental Congress. Delegates who disagreed with the CA were forced to sign, even the Loyalists, and for certain nobody signed with the thought that this would create a new nation. The purpose of the document was not independence, but to delay the possibility - the CA was adopted with the hope that Parliament would come to its senses and that separation could be avoided. Multiple sources say exactly that. Some "line in the sand" - Britain was so impressed it sent troops into Boston, an act that had nothing to do with the CA and everything to do with the radicals who tossed tea into the harbor. That's what led directly to the founding, the British attacks. Thus no source regards all members of the Continental Congress as founders, because the founding really begins with the Second Congress and even then, as I've said previously, they still sent off yet one more written appeal to the King. It's also astounding to say "All the D.O.I. did..." as if the Declaration was only a formality and it was the CA that actually sealed the deal. And finally, your most recent comment makes clear only one thing: that your conclusions are nothing but synthesis.
  • To expect me to provide sources that prove a negative - that these people are not considered founders - is utterly ridiculous. What's required under WP:VER are sources that prove the positive: sources that say in some form or another that all (or most) Continental Congress delegates are founders. Meanwhile, nobody is requiring the exact phrase "founding father" - anything close to "founders" will do - but you can't discern the meaning of "founding" in a source that doesn't at least say "formed", "created" or something else like it. Your interpretations, the syntheses you're engaging in, amount to putting words into the mouths of sources. That you think this use of sources is okay demonstrates how little you understand about WP:VER and WP:NOR.
  • WP:NOR begins with: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". Under Other Sources, it says "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express..." Some (nearly all) of the sources you point to don't even refer to founding, and still you think it's okay to say this is essentially what the sources are saying. Sorry, but that's "making up things". Anyway, good luck trying to apply your unique approach in future edits on this or any other subject. Allreet (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, okay, you're falling back to your usual and misplaced recitals about WP:NOR. No one has made anything up. The Continental Congress was what gave us, or drafted, or established, or initiated, or founded, etc, etc, representative government, "clearly stated by the sources themselves", and referring to its members as founders shouldn't be anything that amazes you -- nothing was synthesized simply because we're not using a particular figure of speech. There are many terms and ways this idea has been covered by the sources. You did more than assert a negative, you've claimed, also in several other articles, btw, that the sources "do not regard" the individuals in question as founders, so it is incumbent on you to show us sources to this effect. You also have to show us what policy says we must use the same exact phrase as a given source may use, and you've yet to do either. Once again, the sources clearly cover how the Continental Congress established the idea of representative government in America, whether they use terms like founded, established, initiated, etc. You've made a big deal out of nothing but a selected modern day figure of speech, one which has been used in many WP articles for more than ten years, including this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


Moved discussion :

@Atsme: This is not really a reason. There are a number of things that also have "adequate mention", but this is not a reason to exclude them from the list of founders in this article, which is the issue of this RfC. Not sure if you've read the discussions, but the signers of the C.A. were members of the Continental Congress, the ones who drafted and adopted the C.A., and were a central founding component, while the C.A. itself was the first official document that brought the colonies together under one representative body. The C.A. instituted representatives and committees in each of the colonies who were answerable to the Continental Congress, which became the first major step towards representative government. It could easily be argued that the signers of the C.A. had more to do with the founding than the signers of the Declaration of Independence, though many were one in the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers – it is a valid reason per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V – but if you require more valid reasons...alrighty then. We can consider whoever we want to be our Founding Fathers but to include it in WP we need to cite the sources that (1) provide the exact list that has been suggested, and (2) specifically names those people as Founding Fathers. If I'm not mistaken, there were also women involved so why call them "fathers"? Why exclude Abigail Adams and the very influential letters she wrote to John? And we certainly cannot exclude Mercy Otis Warren, considered to be the leading female intellectual of the Revolution that resulted in our early republic. And let's not forget the men and women who fought in the Revolutionary War - are we going to name all of them or just those who sent them into battle and signed paperwork, or led them into battle and signed paperworki like Washington? If we're going to IAR and be noncompliant with OR, why not go all the way? j/s Atsme 💬 📧 14:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: The sources fully explain that the signers of the Continental Association were members of the Continental Congress, which were indeed part of the founding process, as they drafted and instituted a form of representative government in the colonies which were answerable to the Continental Congress. As for women founders, if you can provide a reliable source that places them in the realm of the founding process, i.e. actually involved in establishing the soon to come U.S. government, by all means bring it into the discussion. You don't actually need a source that uses the specific modern day figure of speech of Founding Father or Founding Mother so long as you can show the woman in question took place in the drafting of the Continental Association, and/or the Articles of Confederation, and/or the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution, or was a delegate to any of these things. These are the general requirements that have been used to include the names listed in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


Discussions continued

  • I see now that you brought up the OR argument previously. Here is the problem I'm seeing: if the sources don't distinctly say the "founding fathers are...(yada yada) with a list" then it is indeed original research, or at the very least, SYNTH. I've said what I wanted to say, and will gladly leave this debate to all of you. My priority now is to find a nice comfy spot on the beach with a cocktail in hand while I watch the windsurfers on Bonaire. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: — Thanks for your friendly tone. Let me just say before you 'hit the beach' that it takes more than a different phrase or term for something to amount to OR or SYNT. So long as no one is trying to advance an unusual idea not supported by the sources there should be no issue, unless of course someone decides to make it an issue. The Continental Congress is what established, or led to, or 'founded', representative government in America, as was said before several times. Therefore, referring to an individual member as a founder is completely appropriate, even if a source doesn't attach that particular label to the person. "Founding Father" is a later day figure of speech. Even today, it is not used exclusively, but this idea has been articulated by many sources which cover the history of the Continental Congress and its Association. Some members of the Continental Congress are otherwise obscure, and its often difficult to find any source on them as individuals, let alone finding one that uses the term in question. Heck, there are even sources about George Washington which don't employ that term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


(Below discussion moved from the Survey section)

  • The Declaration of Independence also did not actually "establish an independent country" by itself, it was just a declaration, but like the Continental Association, it was one of several steps in its founding. Hence, its signatories are referred to as founders. As for calling Loyalists founders, unless they were part of the establishing process, like Galloway was as a member of the Continental Congress, no one is going to refer to them as a founder. Also, the CA was the first central authority over the colonies and had the overall support of those colonies, which not only mandated a boycott, it provided articles that placed restrictive controls over importation,  (See Article 1)  price gouging, hoarding,   (See Article 9)  etc. It sent representatives to each of the colonies to establish committees to oversee that the articles were enforced, which became the framework of state governments under one federal umbrella.<Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84><Phillips, 2012, p. 269> The CA was the very prototype of a representative government, and hence played a central role in its founding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @The Gnome: — All stages of the founding were important steps, including the first time the Colonies came together under one representative body, per the Continental Association. We can't dismiss this premier event with the claim that it was not as important. It could easily be argued that the Continental Congress and its Articles of Association were the most important step, as this put the idea of a colonial government independent of the Crown on the table for the first time in colonial history. As for sources, I believe we've provided more than enough to establish the idea that the Continental Congress, in its entirety, were founders. The idea that WP is not a journal could be applied to any article on history, so we should have more than a claim that this is what is occurring here. To single out only those who signed the Continental Association would be saying that only part of the Continental Congress were founders, regardless if they were part of the debates, adoption and signing of this document. Many sources don't use the term "Founding Father" in biographies of the various founders, but they do outline how they functioned in that capacity without using that particular figure of speech. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Imo, we're being unfair to the history if we demand that this particular term be used in any and all accounts of the Continental Congress, the Association and its individual members. Hopefully this will be taken into account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


Other reliable sources

Below is a source and statement from David Ammerman, 1974 that more than supports the idea that the Continental Association laid the foundation for independence and government.


"The Continental Association is one of the most important documents of American colonial history. By authorizing the establishment of local committees to enforce the embargo of trade, it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution. By providing for nonimportation and nonexportation as a means of forcing Great Britain to redress colonial grievances, it convinced Parliament that war was inevitable and thus led directly to the engagement at Lexington and Concord."[1]


In reference to the various committees in the Continental Association sent to the different colonies to enforce the articles of the Association, Kevin Phillips, in his work, 1775, published 2012, asserts:

"These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."<Phillips, 2012, p. 269>


Ammerman and Phillips doesn't use the term founding in reference to the document, the signers, and the U.S. government, but it's rather obvious that they convey this basic idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


"More than supports" and "it's rather obvious" are not objective assertions but polemics. Many things are obvious: the importance of the Continental Association, the fact that the British would have initiated hostilities with or without it, the likelihood that war on its own would have unified sentiments, and so forth, up to and including the drafting and signing of the Declaration. And it's also obvious, that the author has nothing to specifically say about what to @Gwhillhickers is rather obvious, namely that this document inevitably led to the nation's founding. Allreet (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
"More than supports" and "it's rather obvious" are indeed objective assertions when read in context with the facts presented. The above two sources have clearly explained how the CA became the frame work of local governments, which as a whole are components of the greater government to which they answered to, just like they have since the US government was established. Aberman refers to the CA as the most important document of American colonial history. Phillips asserts, "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States." Yet you're still ready to dismiss the idea because you can't find a particular modern day figure of speech often enough. If we can show that an individual was a member of the Continental Congress, and/or a prominent leader during the Revolution we can say he was a founder, without finding that particular term in a given source, because the sources regard these things as founding, primary, important, elements. Or are you now trying to tell us that the Continental Congress had nothing to do with the founding? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In response to your comment above about my tone, you raised accusations of misrepresentation and OR that aren't exactly true. That said, I sincerely apologize if I was harsh. I know I wasn't happy so that's likely the case.
"Rather obvious" is absolutely unacceptable for verification purposes. What may be obvious to you is a subjective matter since it assumes others will come to the same conclusions you do. And "more than supports" is also a matter of personal opinion, especially since the source here says not a word about laying "the foundation for independence and government". What Ammerman does mention is that the CA led to the "government of Revolution". This has no relation whatsoever with the form of government adopted later under the Constitution. It refers to the system of measures that kept people in line under the CA to ensure loyalty to "the cause". (For a brief explanation, see Continental Association.)
I believe you may have an unusual understanding of verification. For example, earlier you said that if we're to exclude the CA as a founding document, we need a source that says this. The opposite is true: we need sources that say it is a founding document. More than one, and probably several, according to WP:VER Exceptional Claims. And if the National Archives and Congress.gov disagree with other sources in identifying founding documents, we not only can but should mention this. One way to word it, just for example, would be: "The Journal of the American Revolution identifies the Continental Association as one of four founding documents, but the National Archives and Congress.gov do not recognize the Association as a founding document". (See the first paragraph of WP:VER.)
Also regarding verification, you said "if we can show that an individual was a member of the Continental Congress (etc.)...we can say he was a founder". Don't you see how OR that is? Under the Reliable Sources sub-section of WP:NOR, conclusions must be explicitly supported by sources. Allreet (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Pointing out the misrepresenting of sources isn't personal as is referring to someone as "aghast" and referring to my "lengthy huff". I explained the misrepresentation. Again, you can not claim a source "does not regard" anything if it doesn't clearly state and explain this in clear language. I've explained how the signers of the CA are founders. They were part of the Continental Congress, all founders, which drafted and adopted the Articles of Association, which by several accounts is a primary and important document, signed by members of that Congress, i.e.delegates from the different colonies, and one of the most important documents in colonial history, as it officially united the colonies together under one common cause for the first time, setting a landmark precedent, and subsequently formed the basis of the future US Congress, government and Union of the United States, so please don't continue to regard the document as inconsequential in terms of establishing the U.S. government simply because you can't find enough occurrences of a particular figure of speech, i.e."founded". Thus far this is all you've given us. You have yet to produce any source that shows why the Continental Congress, and its Association, were not the first significant step in uniting the colonies and forming one common representative government. You haven't even offered an explanation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • When it comes to covering individuals, we can refer to them as founders if they were members of the Continental Congress, and/or prominent leaders leading up to and during the Revolution. (Add:) These things can be verified by the sources, as I've been saying all along. Verifiability doesn't require that we have to use the exact same figure of speech. If a given individual was a member of the Continental Congress, which founded the US Congress and the US Government, it is not OR or SYNT to say that any member of that Congress was a founder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: I apologized and we can put that bump in the road behind us. More important are your misconceptions about WP:VER, WP:NOR, and related guidelines. I referred you to the pertinent sections and the fact that you've replied as you have indicates you either haven't read them or still don't understand what they say. I did my best. Perhaps someone else can explain them to you. Allreet (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I've been well aware of this since 'day one'. If you can show me where it says, in effect, and clearly, that we can't refer to a e.g.champion swimmer as an athlete, or a primary document of the US Gov as a founding document, we can move on indeed. Where does it say we must use the exact same phrase or wording? Editors are allowed to use their own words so long as they're not advancing a weird or otherwise unusual idea not supported by the sources. There is nothing unusual about referring to an individual member of the Continental Congress, a founding establishment, as one of the founders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
While I believe your aims are sincere, many things you've said indicate some fundamental misunderstandings of the facts as well as the guidelines involved. I've tried to explain the specifics and referred you to the related provisions of WP:VER and WP:NOR, but you keep coming back with one fallacious argument after another. Your latest: champion swimmers = athletes. Of course that's a given but you offered this analogy because you're convinced congressmen = founders and CA = founding document. Sorry, neither is a given. Both are assumptions.
I see no point, then, in re-visiting either the issues or the related guidelines. You're too dug in in terms of the conclusions you've reached. What's wrong with this is that editors, like reporters, should approach their work with an open mind rather than preconceptions. The best way to avoid the pitfalls of the latter is through research. Which may be your biggest oversight: a failure to appreciate how essential sources are to what we do. As indicated by your last sentence, you seem to think we can live without them. Allreet (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Alltreet, it's more than apparent that you're dug in as well, perhaps more so, in light of the fact that we've demonstrated that the C.A. signers were members of the Continental Congress who established a central and representative form of colonial rule. There is no question of its premier and founding role, and there are enough sources that cover that idea, esp when it comes to the Continental Congress itself. Once again, you seem bent on the notion that we can't mention this idea unless we find enough sources that employ a selected modern day figure of speech which refer to matters as "founding" fathers or documents. You've yet to present a source that explicitly says that the CA signers were not founders, or that they "do not regard" them as such, or any words to that effect. Meanwhile we've produced several. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
As I said earlier today, I am decidedly dug in, convinced, biased and guilty of other such sins but on one subject only: verifiability and the need for reliable sources. Regarding convictions about the nation's founding, I believe a few things, but this subject is so complex, meaning laden with countless factors and details, that only experts can have an inkling. You seem to know more than they do, because you're finding meanings in sources that aren't explicitly expressed by the sources themselves. You say things like "obviously" and "clearly" about things that are anything but obvious and clear. If these matters were so apparent, we wouldn't have needed the last 50 years of scholarship. And if you know anything about this scholarship, you'd also know that there are many, many issues that the leading historians are still trying to figure out. Allreet (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Only experts can have an inkling? Then what are we doing here? It is clear that the Continental Congress and its Association initiated a representative form of government, sent representatives to the colonies which in turn established committees to oversee the enforcement of the Articles, who in turn answered back to the Continental Congress. This representative procedure is what formed the framework of the US Government, which is still employed today. That you consider all this as something amazing and abstract suggests you lack a basic knowledge of how representative government works. Once again, please stop with the recitals about the scholarship, WP:VER, your habitual reckless and narrow conjecture, and accusing me of making things up, and "finding meanings" in sources that aren't there. The only thing I've ever asserted about the Continental Association is no different then what has just been repeated for you here, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The source you provided above, the National Humanities Center, clearly supports what we've been saying about the Continental Association. Re: the first paragraph:
The Association of the First Continental Congress, Philadelphia, October 20, 1774
In October of 1774 the First Continental Congress issued the Association, a set of regulations curtailing commerce with Great Britain. Although the Congressional Delegates called for a general boycott of trade with the mother country, they also set up a structure for an insurgent government to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of royal authority. Specifically, Congress authorized committees that in the fullness of time turned their attention away from commercial violations and demanded loyalty to the American cause.
While you've scoffed at virtually all the sources, including The Library of Congress, you turn around and hand us this source. I'm simply bringing the paragraph to your attention as you offered it as something that somehow supported your position, all the while you accuse others of "finding meanings in sources" that aren't there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


More sources

  • "Continental Congress, in the period of the American Revolution, the body of delegates who spoke and acted collectively for the people of the colony-states that later became the United States of America. The term most specifically refers to the bodies that met in 1774 and 1775". (emphasis added) < Encyclopedia Britannica > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Interesting. More than anything, it demonstrates why encyclopedias usually should not be used as sources. The definition ignores the next six years and with that the adoptions of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. To the point, the Second Continental Congress continued to meet until 1781 when it was replaced by the Congress of the Confederation. Allreet (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, I double checked the source and you mis-quoted it. The source says "1774" and "1775-81". You left out the "-81". My apologies to the Editors of the EB. Allreet (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "Continental Congress, 1774–1781
    The Continental Congress was the governing body by which the American colonial governments coordinated their resistance to British rule during the first two years of the American Revolution. The Congress balanced the interests of the different colonies and also established itself as the official colonial liaison to Great Britain. As the war progressed, the Congress became the effective national government of the country, and, as such, conducted diplomacy on behalf of the new United States." (emphasis added) < U.S. Office of the Historian. > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The Congress became the national government "as the war progressed". Turns out the war didn't start until after the First Congress closed. The Second Congress met for the first time in May 1775, the first month of hostilities, and it didn't do much until the next month when it created the Continental Army. These folks were only beginning, then, to found the nation and it took another year before they got around to a final decision. In fact, peace was still possible as late as July 1776. Allreet (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "The First Continental Congress convened in Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between September 5 and October 26, 1774. Delegates from twelve of Britain’s thirteen American colonies met to discuss America’s future under growing British aggression. ... Furthermore, the delegates promptly began drafting and discussing the Continental Association. This would become their most important policy outcome." (emphasis added) < George Washington's Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Who doubts the fact that the most important policy outcome of the First Congress was the Continental Association? That's not the issue. Founding is the issue and the source has nothing to say about the CA's connection with this. In fact, the source doesn't use the term founding or anything remotely like it. BTW, other sources point out that the most important action of the First Congress was its decision to meet again as the Second Congress. Allreet (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "From 1774 to 1789, the Continental Congress served as the government of the 13 American colonies and later the United States. The First Continental Congress, which was comprised of delegates from the colonies, met in 1774 in reaction to the Coercive Acts ..." < HISTORY,com > --- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This source begins with a major faux pas. The Continental Congress ceased to exist in 1781 with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. That's a technicality, I realize, but large enough to call into question the source's reliability. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


Once again, you're ignoring matters. In the lede of the Continental Congress article it says, The term "Continental Congress" most specifically refers to the First and Second Congresses of 1774–1781 and, at the time, was also used to refer to the Congress of the Confederation of 1781–1789." This type of sniping really isn't helping. In your rush to ignore yet another source you just scurried over the part about the Continental Congress meeting in 1774 over the issue of taxation, to which they formed the Continental Association. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


  • The source says nothing about what led to the U.S. Constitution. None of the constitutional questions discussed by the First Congress had anything to do with what resulted in the U.S. Constitution. While the source mentions the rights of Americans, the biggest constitutional issue was the subject of British trade. This is a prime example of how someone who wants to prove a point finds meanings in sources that simply aren't there. Allreet (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Under the heading of what lead to the creation of the U.S. Constitution it says first Continental Congress. You accuse me of finding meanings that aren't there and in the same breath try to tell us that the Continental Congress had nothing to do with the Constitution. The Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation, which in turn led to the creation of the Constitution. "...the biggest constitutional issue was the subject of British trade"? Yes, which was the same issue behind the Continental Association when it mandated a boycott against England and cessation of imports and exports of British goods. That we have to continue to spell things like this out for you only tells us you have no intention whatsoever of acknowledging much of anything. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


The main idea that's been used to challenge these events is that most sources like this don't use the word "founding". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


Clearly that would help. I mean if you want to prove something, it would help to refer directly to it. The word "founding" is pretty darn important, though we can settle for lesser terms, such as "created", "formed", "started", "began", etc. You know, something specific. Allreet (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


More to follow ...


  • I'll help a bit. Listen to this YouTube speech: Was the American Revolution Inevitable?. To save you time, tune in at around 31:50. The discussion of the First Congress begins around 21:00 but there's no reference to the CA and close of the Congress until the time indicated. Even then, no big deal is made of it. You also may want to read the sources I've provided on the First Congress and Continental Association at the bottom of the current Talk section. I haven't had time yet for a close look since I've been busy digging up sources of help on all related fronts. Allreet (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


The chase

After all is said and done, are there many, reliable, and independent sources out there that explicitly and firmly support verbatim the notion promoted by some folks here that the signers of the Continental Association should be listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States? So far, I have not found in a reliable source supporting that exact statement. We have, all in all, personal interpretations of texts and texts talking about the "importance" of the continentals, etc. And, last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a historical society. -The Gnome (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. The CA was not an attempt to create a new country but an attempt to gain a greater degree of self-governance under the Crown. Even Royalists in the colonies were interested in such a measure, but Parliament was having none of it. CA signers range from anti-founders to wafflers to full founders. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • So you two are saying the CAssociation signers (who Abraham Lincoln credits with founding the union) were idiots who didn't have a clue as to what they were doing and put their families and livelihoods at risk on a whim? Sam Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, John Jay, George Washington, John Dickinson, Peyton Randolph and the others who signed the CA would likely beg to differ (and possibly one or more of them would at least feign giving you a Buzz Aldrin-type nose punch to boot), as would Jefferson and Lincoln themselves. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I would very much appreciate it, Randy Kryn, if you were to refrain from baseless, personal accusations, such as putting words in my mouth, as the saying goes. I never called the continentals "idiots" or without "a clue", nor insinuated as much. The way you are asserting something about the continentals without verbatim support from sources has started to affect the way you are arguing. Stick to the words as written, please. -The Gnome (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Of course you didn't write those exact words. Only my words describing the implication - and there is no other explanation - of your OR analysis. And did you find the quote yet about my "mission", where you actually used quote marks? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The claim that the CA was not an attempt to create a new country is immaterial to the fact this was the first time the colonies came together and instituted a representative government policy independent of the Crown. They sent representatives to the individual colonies and established committees to enforce the articles, who in turn answered to the Continental Congress. Regardless of individual intentions about creating an independent government at that time, and as Randy Kryn points out, its highly unlikely that figures like Washington, Adams, et al thought along those lines (esp the outspoken Samuel Adams who rallied for independence long before the Continental Association was drafted), these individuals put in motion the idea of an independent representative government which soon evolved into a U.S. representative government. This idea is easily verified without using sources that use the particular modern day figure of speech, Founding Father. We've been through this several times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


Input requested from the RFC's "Closers" and editors

An editor in this dispute, @Randy Kryn, has indicated he would oppose removing signers of the Continental Association from the article even if the RFC ruling should find that these signers are not considered founders. In fairness, I should note that the editor in question does concede that the term "founding father" should be removed from their individual biographies if the RFC's ruling requires this.


I believe the table that lists these signers as well as signers of the Articles of Confederation has given the one million readers who visit this page annually a false impression. For ten years, the table's section has been variously titled "List of Founding Fathers", "List of signatories", and more recently "Founding documents". In all cases, the implication, given the article's subject, is that the signers listed are founding fathers. Only more recently have any sources been provided to clarify the table's meaning. In fact, until I initiated this dispute on January 9, the section specifically said everyone listed was a founder even though no sources , noywere provided supporting this claim. Also of note, when this description was added in July 2020, the table was moved from midway to near the top making it the article's focus.


Since founding fathers, not founding documents, is the article's topic, the section should be replaced with lists of founders for whom sufficient sources exist. "Sufficient" would mean reliable, explicit, multiple, and consistent with the "prevailing view" on the subject, as required under provisions of WP:VER, WP:NOR, and other guidelines.


Those interested can read Randy Kryn's comments and my response below by searching for "Nobody will be removed". To assist Closers in determining the current views of other participating editors, I am inviting the following, including Randy Kryn, to provide feedback: @Atsme, @Binksternet, @Gog the Mild, @Gwillhickers, @North8000, @Orson12345, @Pincrete, and @Thucydides411. I would ask editors to keep their comments brief to make it easier for Closers to determine current sentiments. Alert: @Robert McClenon. Allreet (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rjensen: missed ping-ing you as well. Asking for fair comment from participants on the above. If you're so moved. Allreet (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I gave my response to the RFC on April 13th which was my recommendations on what to do with with the article with respect to this question. The remains my response to the RFC. To give a condensed update on what I put in my "swan song" post, IMO both "sides" have made and proceeded based on the same logical error (that "founding fathers" is some type of actual status vs. just a 20th century metaphor term.) which has set you on a course where no resolution is possible. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your response, though I respectfully disagree to the extent that major historians and institutions recognize and use the term, metaphorical or not. Allreet (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. A panel of three closers have only one task, to decide if enough sources exist (including Werther, who has been found to be a reputable source during the discussion, and many sources added since the RfC began) for the Continental Association to continue to meet WP:DUE and WP:NPOV (and page lead sentence criteria) and call the signers of that first major founding document - and the founders of the Union - founders. The 1774 Union of the thirteen colonies formed by the CA, by the way, was the actual "thing" declared independent by the next major founding document, the 1776 Declaration of Independence. If so, status quo for the page. If not, seems only a few words have to be added, removed, or polished. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree. The closers do more than just count votes, they look to see if there are enough sources that clearly cover the idea that the Continental Congress and its Association were the first form of independent representative government in America, and thus a founding entity. That is the whole basis of this RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Responding to ping. I see no reason to change my views stated previously. As another editor says Here is the problem I'm seeing: if the sources don't distinctly say the "founding fathers are...(yada yada) with a list" then it is indeed original research, or at the very least, SYNTH. Each of these people and documents clearly had a role - more or less important - in the establishment of an independent 'Union', but unless a broad consensus of best sources agree, people should not be listed as though it was an established fact that these individuals are commonly regarded as FFs. The fact that there is no single objective agreed definition should be treated in some other way, not by WP inventing its own definition, or endorsing the most inclusivist one. Pincrete (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC) ps You're all treasonous renegades who can't spell as far as this editor is concerned. You'll soon be back begging to rejoin the Mother country. You mark my words! Independence? Bah Humbug !
  • @Pincrete: It's generally understood that the role of the founders varies in terms of the amount of their involvement. There is of course founders such as Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et al, who were among the most involved, but they did not found representative government all by themselves - far from it. Many others played significant roles, and the process took years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but if someone is generally understood as being a FF, it should be possible top find sources saying this explicitly - not working from our own definition (all signatories of document X) to compile a list. There is of course no reason why we shouldm't say in text that those signatories are sometimes seen as FFs (to the extent that this is sourced of course). Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment from a non-pinged contributor  : Having clearly stated my position as to the RfC's specific query, I would have little to add here were it not for the comment made by North8000: "... both "sides" [make] the same logical error (that "founding fathers" is some type of actual status vs. just a 20th century metaphor term)". That assessment is incorrect. I'm a refusenik, to half-jokingly use a term, and I most certainly do not personally assign to the term "founding fathers" any kind of "actual status", whatever that may mean (I assume North8000 implies some real-life status).
The basis of my refusal is actually quite simple and in strict accordance to Wikipedia policy: The overwhelming majority of third-party, reliable sources denote a specific bunch of people by the term "founding fathers". It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not the very term is "just a 20th century metaphor term", as North8000 claims - and with whose claim I might actually, personally agree, though, again, that would be irrelevant! We need to have the term "founding fathers" dissolved (or expanded to include continentals et al) on the basis of sources and not our personal viewpoint, no matter how convinced we are of it. Starting with the "Founding Fathers" article in Wikipedia an effort, no matter how well intentioned, to change the established paradigm is as erroneous an action as can be. Wikipedia is the end recorder of what sources offer; it's not a historical or scientific journal. -The Gnome (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@The Gnome: — On the surface it would appear that the term founding father has generally been applied only to people like Washington, Jefferson and Adams, but you have to remember that this is simply due to the fact that most historians, by far, have only focused their efforts on these individuals, while the majority of others are rarely mentioned - but this is not to say they were not important components of the founding process. This is why we have to step back and look at the larger picture, and base the decision on all of those involved, and in what capacity. Also please remember that the term Founding Father is a generally recognized figure of speech. For purposes of this article it is more than adequate. Yes, Wikipedia is not a historical journal written by one source and with one POV. This is why we consider the bulk of the sources and all the history involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
We have to "step back" and "look at the larger picture", you say? Who are we supposed to be, the Wikipedia Historical Society adjudicators? That's the most explicit call to editors to engage in synthesis I've ever seen since I started my presence here. We are not here to "consider" sources and pronounce our personal judgement on them. If indeed "most historians have only focused their efforts on [the so-called Founding Fathers], while the majority of others are rarely mentioned" as you say then this is what Wikipedia is supposed to present: The viewpoint of "most historians". It beggars belief that we are openly requested to contravene policy in order to break with established paradigm (what "most historians" say) and insert in Wikipedia our personal notions on the subject! We are most certainly not allowed to do that, no matter how well intentioned our effort is or how well formed our synthesis might be. You want to right a historical wrong? Take it to academia, the historical journals, and the publishing houses. Here is not the place for it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes the big picture, not a narrow one. This involves taking many sources into account, not just the ones for Washington, Jefferson, etc. Your notion of asking all the editors to engage in SYNTH is just another one of your twists that missed, or evaded, the point, entirely. That you doubt or are unaware of the fact most historians of early American history focus on the major subjects like Washington, Jefferson, would seem to indicate you've missed much. Please keep the exasperated and indignant conjecture about "righting wrongs" and "soapbox "to yourself, and get off the soapbox. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Well, since that's the second person who "disagrees" with me that I 100% agree with, I must emphasize that I was talking about a few abstract underlying navigational / structural problems in this discussion and do NOT mean to argue against use of or coverage of the term "Founding Fathers". North8000 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@The Gnome: I apologize for not ping-ing you. I should have reviewed the list more carefully. Thanks for caring enough to check back. Allreet (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Allreet - Responding to ping. I had not said Yes and No in the Survey. As the originator, I am allowed to !vote in the Survey, and the more Randy Kryn argues that he has resolved the matter of sources, the more it appears to he is cherry picking. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that and for sure your good work these past few weeks. Allreet (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Since there were numerous sources brought to this Talk page, that clearly support the idea that the founding process began with the Continental Association, composed of a Congress, a President, and Secretary, etc, whose first official action was the Continental Association, which united the colonies under one premier representative government, which ultimately led to war, I fail to see why this body of representatives should not be regarded as founding fathers. It was asserted by some individuals that each name listed under the C.A. be supported with multiple reliable sources that specifically use one figure of speech, founding father. I have to ask one last time if this assertion will apply to every individual in the list, not just C.A. signatories. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • You fail to see why because you are mistaking the sources stating, as the case might be, that "the founding process began with the Continental Association" with the notion that the same sources are explicitly lumping the continentals in the same category as the founders. But the sources do not have "the signers of the Continental Association...listed...as Founding Fathers of the United States". They have the Founding Fathers separately. Going beyond what the sources have would be pure, unadulterated -and forbidden- synthesis. -The Gnome (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • More conjecture, with only a generic allusion to the sources, where you once again use it in some attempt to speak for the entire "established paradigm". The Continental Congress was a first in representative government over the colonies. This is no abstract idea that requires "SYTH" from a dozen sources to promote here at WP. It's an established fact, covered by numerous sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 14 May 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.

First Continental Congress

The First Continental Congress is regarded by many historians as an important part in the founding process, and is what initiated that process, whether or not they signed any founding documents, and many of its members should be mentioned in this article along with those who are listed who had very little to do with the actual founding.

  • In his book The founding of a nation : a history of the American Revolution, 1763-1776, Merrill Jensen, 1968, devotes two chapters to the role the First Continental Congress played in the founding:  Chapter XVIII: The Beginnings of American Union: The Creation of the First Continental Congress, pp. 461;  Chapter XIX: The First Continental Congress, p. 483
  • The article mentions Peyton Randolph, first and third president of the Continental Congress who only signed the Continental Association and whose citation supports the idea that the First Continental Congress were founders."Peyton Randolph who was president of the First Continental Congress, and who was one of the very founders and builders of American Independence".[2] (Randolph died an untimely death in 1775, which would explain why he only had the opportunity to sign the Continental Association.)
  • As president of the First Continental Congress, Randolph is often considered "The Father of his country", second only to people like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. The source/Thesis can be read here: [3]
  1. ^ Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84
  2. ^ JSTOR: Ramage, 1922, p. 416
  3. ^ Julianne E. Sicklesteel, Thesis, Bachelor of Arts with Honors in History from the College of William and Mary in Virginia
See section below, Dispute use of King George III quote. Allreet (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There were 56 member delegates to the First Continental Congress, and 53 signed the Continental Association. Allreet, Gwillhickers, I'm not conversant with all the research and links accomplished on this talk page, but am I wrong that there are enough cites provided now to list all 56 of the First Continental Congress as Founders? For instance, the 2015 Journal of the American Revolution article arguably includes several of the 14 individuals interviewed whose language would be a source to include the delegates. If enough sources exist then the signers list may be added back with the 53 CA signers, and the three additional delegates who didn't sign the CA can be included under it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — There are no citations for most of them names in the chart to begin with, but they are listed on the basis that they were part of the founding process, not just because they signed a document. We have people like Abigail Adams, who wasn't even a delegate, and didn't sign any documents, but is listed as a founder for her letters and advice to John Adams. i.e.For her contributions, such that they were. There are several sources that refer to the First Continental Congress as founders, so there's no 'research', original or otherwise, involved to make the obvious deduction that the individual members of this Congress were part of the founding process, and therefore do not require a citation for each and every name, which is the standard we are using for all the names listed in the current chart. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, that's what I meant, if good multiple sources exist that call the 56 members of the First Continental Congress founders, then that would include them all on this page. Each of their individual names would not have to be sourced, as cites for the group as a whole becomes their source. The chart itself would remain secondary to the designation, but the delegates' names could be most easily listed by returning them to it in the form of signers of the Continental Association, well sourced as a founding document. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Randy Kryn - or he agrees with me. "Group" recognition of founders is permissible, as long as it's explicit; for example, "all signers of the Declaration are considered founders" recognizes each individual who signed. Allreet (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, their names should be reintroduced as they were clearly in the middle of the initial founding, which Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Randolph, Sherman and other such notables were a part of. Currently the section title over the chart of founders reads Framers and signers of founding documents. The section title would be better if it were simply entitled, Documents signed by the founders, as we need to show which founders signed what. The idea that not enough sources mention the Continental Association as a "founding document" is a rather shallow basis for removing that part of the chart, as it simply ignores the history and the idea that independent representation for the first time took on actual and functioning form, and whose theme became an integral component of the Constitution. This is simply too significant a chapter for a Founding Father article to be ignoring. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn: I believe the RFC determined that signers of the Continental Association are not considered founders unless they have individual sources that regard them as such. Not one "new" source has emerged that would have changed this.
Obviously, we're at different ends of the spectrum in terms of our POVs on the Continental Association. My view is that the full scope of events is being "ignored" by focusing on this one action, as if it was the answer to everything. I'm not going to go into it much further except to say that what occurred in Massachusetts had very little to do with the First Continental Congress. What set everything in motion was the Intolerable Acts, which threatened the laissez faire arrangement with the motherland that had allowed the colonies to govern themselves throughout most of the 18th century. It was this threat that led to the Congress and as a separate development, the outbreak of war. All did not begin, then, with the Continental Association, nor did this document determine the outcome however much it may have aided it. Allreet (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The question is not if they should be added as founders as signers of the Continental Association but as delegates to the First Continental Congress (and the close of the RfC said that they should not be added as founders just on the basis of signing the CA but leaves open the addition of other reasons for including them, and naming all the delegates of the First CC certainly overcomes the closers purposely italicized wording "on that basis alone").The 2015 Journal of the American Revolution article provides a couple of sources for including all of the First CC's delegates, and I think Padover is another, and am asking if more acceptable sources exist (Gwillhickers has provided quite a few sources, Allreet, how many of those can be counted?). What I was saying is that the easiest way of adding 53 of the 56 to the list is to simply return their chart positions, and then add the three outliers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC}}
Agree with Randy, if anything for the simple reason we are leaving out a big part of the story. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution didn't occur in a vacuum -- it all started with the First Continental Congress (the key word here is First) which introduced the idea of independence and representation in an official and working capacity. Frankly, I'm not quite understanding why there is such rigid opposition to the idea, as if we were trying to introduce a circus into the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: My "count" of sources for the AOC, off the top of my head (meaning without detailed research), is that three papers recognize it as a founding document and/or its signers as founders, plus the secondary education reading materials, which I believe includes 4-5 short books. As for listing the CA's signers in the FF article, what's the basis for doing so; that is, what's their relevance to the subject?
@Gwillhickers: You're "leaving out a big part of the story" by focusing on the Continental Association. In fact, your desire to promote the CA as a founding document has distorted your view of the events of 1774 and 1775, making it difficult for you to see things more clearly. That's what occurred with how you interpreted and then used Chorlton as a source. The only "rigid idea" here is that the Continental Association however important wasn't the "big bang". By treating it as such, you're reaching conclusions that may hold some truths but contain assumptions that are not true (e.g., what the King knew and the beginnings of independent government). Allreet (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Allreet, the basis is that some sources say that all members of the First Continental Congress are Founders. All 56, whether they signed the CA or not (most if not all also signed the Declaration and Resolves, so the collective papers of the 1st Congress is another route that sources have or could use naming the 1st members as Founders). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, multiple, high quality sources are required for what you're saying. Does anyone recognize signers of the Declaration and Resolves or all members of the First Continental Congress as founders? We don't have "routes" - paths, formulas or rationales - for recognizing anything, only sources, as required under WP:VER. Allreet (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
There are no citations for most of the names is not correct. Signers of the Declaration and Constitution are accounted for in the citations leading into the table. An additional citation is needed for the signers of the Articles to use in conjunction with Padover or any other source that recognizes them as founders. I'll add one now, but was waiting for the ruling on the Articles RFC to complete the sourcing.
For someone to be considered a founder, at least one highly reliable source is needed that recognizes them explicitly. This can be expressed in many ways but a term such as founder or founding father would be necessary. I'm not sure what other synonyms would apply (forefather?), but an indirect reference (e.g., Alfred Smith's writings provided the philosophical basis for the Constitution) would not suffice.
In any case, the Continental Association RFC clearly ruled against the idea that its signers are founders. No new sources have been found that contradict this, and even with them, we'd need another RFC or administrative action to overturn the ruling. Meanwhile, much else of what is offered here by @Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn is biased toward certain assumptions. There are too many to address individually, but if used, I would probably challenge them.
I'll give one example because it's highly significant, terribly wrong-headed, and applies to many issues: it all started with the First Continental Congress. The colonies had functioned on their own through most of their histories, governing themselves with very little interference from England's King or Parliament. In fact, what the Continental Congress did in 1774 originated as a result of "independent representative government" at the local level. The Suffolk Resolves were adopted by the leaders of Suffolk County (Boston) on September 9, 1774, as the Congress was just getting underway. Its provisions included not only a boycott, but a refusal to pay any taxes and, most important, the intention to raise a militia. The adoption of the Resolves by the Congress on September 17 tipped the scales in favor of its more radical elements, resulting in the Continental Association a month later and with that, the decision to meet again in May 1775. In focusing on the First Congress and Continental Association as the be all and end all, the full sequence of events is being "ignored", to the detriment of understanding how the Revolution actually evolved. Allreet (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Allreet:
  • "I believe the RFC determined that signers of the Continental Association are not considered founders unless they have individual sources
If this standard is not being applied to every individual in the founders list then that presents us with one more reason why that RfC was inherently flawed, esp since it was based on the idea of what some of the sources didn't say. An RfC shouldn't be able to institute a double standard. If all the current names can be satisfied with general citations, then this opens the door for members of the First Continental Congress to be cited accordingly. Most importantly, the history involved lends much credence to the idea for their inclusion in an article about the founders and what they were a part of.
"Individual" refers to sources, not to recognition of individuals. Obviously, a source that recognizes all signers of a document recognizes each and every individual who signed. There's no "double standard" suggested by the RFC's closers, who left a lot of issues undecided and also weren't totally clear on the reasons for its ruling. But it unequivocally (clearly) decided against listing CA signers as founders. If you disagree, for whatever reason, arguing here about the RFC's "illegitimacy" won't change a thing. Nor will your continued "reverence" of the Continental Association of the force behind everything. Allreet (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
As I've said several times, if adequate sources exist saying that delegates of the First Continental Congress are Founders then all 56 meet WP:DUE and WP:NPOV as Founders. If they can't go in the chart as signers of the CA (which would make it easier, and the CA has adequate sources for being a Founding document, "Great paper" etc. Or do we need another RfC on that one?) then the delegates not named elsewhere in the list (Washington, Hancock, the Adams' and the rest) will just have to be listed in the section below as Founders. Do enough sources exist? It seems so. Allreet, how many sources would you be satisfied with? Three? Four? And yes, I count Werther as one, Padover as two, and there should be others among the group that Gwillhickers has found. All 56 qualify without having to be named individually elsewhere, which is just icing on the 250th Birthday cake (and a correction: the Congress announced the CA on September 22, 1774, then approved it and the language in late October). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • "My view is that the full scope of events is being "ignored" by focusing on this one action, as if it was the answer to everything."
There's do denying that much attention has been given to this one action, (the Continental Association), but I think you know the reason for that at this late date.
@Gwillhickers: "At this late date" belies the fact that both you and @Randy Kryn have been forging a campaign for months to portray the Continental Association as the foundation for everything. And you're accusing me and others of "ignoring history"? What happened in Philadelphia in 1774 should not eclipse what was going on in Massachusetts, which was equally significant. For sure, the King and North had their attentions placed solely on the Bay Colony, and there's not a word they uttered to indicate otherwise. For sure, the hostilities that broke out in the Boston area were independent of what happened in Philadelphia. Some writers may speculate a connection, but that's not the view of most historians, who treat the two events at they should be treated, separately. And as far as what you or I believe, there is no "late date". We've settled nothing over the course of the past few months and still remain diametrically opposed in our views. Allreet (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • "what occurred in Massachusetts had very little to do with the First Continental Congress."
Even if that were entirely true, it has little bearing on the idea that the F.C.C. was a founding entity -- an entity, which included Samuel Adams, that certainly helped to fuel the fire in Massachusetts.
No dispute about the Continental Congress in general. Did the First Congress found the U.S.? No, but the Second did - three times. Agreed on Sam Adams "fueling the fire", plus he signed two founding documents sealing the deal. Allreet (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • "What set everything in motion was the Intolerable Acts,"
Very true, and one of the major responses to that was the formation of the F.C.C. and its articles, which put the idea of independent colonial representation into actual motion -- again, an idea that was central to the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The Acts aren't even mentioned, nor anything else about how the First Continental Congress was formed. "Independent colonial representation" not only existed for decades, but Parliament's attempt to end it in Massachusetts was what raised the most fears in the other colonies. Here is where Union originated, and everything the Congress did, from its formation to all the measures it adopted were expressions of that unity. Allreet (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • "All did not begin, then, with the Continental Association, nor did this document determine the outcome however much it may have aided it."
Entirely debatable, to say the least. Word of the May 13, 1774 resolution for a boycott, months before its actual adoption, certainly factored into the King's response and course of action when he finally instructed General Gage to move on Boston, with specific instructions to find Samuel Adams, the one who oversaw the drafting of the Continental Association. The Continental Association, even with its respectful address to the King, was an open challenge to British rule. Months before in his letter to North, George III, while hoping to avoid war, indeed said, "I do not wish to come to severer measures, but we must not retreat".
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence the King knew about the Continental Association or First Continental Congress. He relied on what North told him; for example, he didn't know about the Olive Branch Petition because North withheld it from him. We do know the King was aware of the events in Massachusetts, and everything he said related specifically to it. You're surmising things such as certainly factored into the King's response, a huge assumption and definite no-no. Plus your tendency to do this - frequently - results in misstatements of fact: the King told Gage nothing, and probably never heard of Sam Adams or the boycott. The "rebellion" George referred to was centered in Boston, not in Philadelphia, and there's not a word he said to indicate otherwise.
I'm taking the liberty of placing responses within your text. If you want you may revert, because normally this isn't proper but it's much more concise and easier to follow. Allreet (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

First Continental Congress continued...

@Allreet and Randy Kryn:
No worries, right now, but if you would take a few seconds to quote the statement and respond to it, rather than posting one of these general overtures about "forging a campaign", etc, which doesn't really address the point, it would be more appropriate. Can you actually explain why the First Continental Congress working through the C.A. wasn't the premier or prototype independent representative government for the Americans? Can you provide any sources that substantiate this? I've provided several that explain how it was, which is nothing really amazing. The colonies came together under a Congress and ran with this general idea -- all the way to the Constitution. We need to be telling that story.
" you and Randy have been forging a campaign for months to portray the Continental Association as the foundation for everything. And you're accusing me and others of "ignoring history""
Yes, and all things considered that is a fair assessment. The advent of independent representative government started with the First Continental Congress, and again took on actual form when it was put to use in the Continental Association. Blowing this off as inconsequential to the founding process that followed, and trying to keep it out of the article on such a superficial basis, is indeed ignoring the history, which has been well explained.
"We do know the King was aware of the events in Massachusetts, and everything he said related specifically to it. You're surmising things such as "certainly factored into the King's response", a huge assumption and definite no-no. Plus your tendency to do this - frequently - results in misstatements of fact: the King told Gage nothing, and probably never heard of Sam Adams or the boycott."
You're saying the King was aware of the events in Massachusetts, but then turn around and assume he never heard of Samuel Adams, of all people, and the boycott, which was being largely promoted by Adams and debated throughout the colonies, and further promoted through the Committee of Correspondence, long before it was actually adopted. Okay...  And you're wondering why we're here at this late date.    "everything the King said in his letter related specifically to events" you didn't say which, and neither does his letter, so it should be regarded in the context the king was dealing with at that general time, and there is much to consider. At your insistence I've already removed the quote from letter from the section, so there's no call to be making generalized objections over its significance until such time where we might introduce the quote again, but not without sources that connect the events in question. I agree, if we're going to mention the King and his letter along these lines, we need more specific sourcing, but to assume the King was just sitting on his throne, without a clue as to the volatile developments that were occurring in Massachusetts, and without any clue as to whom was largely responsible, is a little ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Effects of the Boston resolution of May 13, 1774

The Boston resolution of May 13, 1774 (for a boycott) was the precursor of the Continental Association, which was adopted on October 20, 1774. It seems its influence in leading to war[1] is being understated, almost ignored, in this article.

For an excellent read about the Boston resolution of May 13, and Samuel Adams' extensive involvements in that effort, i.e. "utilizing his extensive contacts throughout the colonies to lobby for the Boston proposals", (the boycott) see Ammerman, 1974, pp. 23-25. Adams also promoted the boycott through the Committees of correspondence, through which leaders of each colony kept each other updated. Such public activity certainly didn't go unnoticed by British authorities who earnestly kept the King informed with routine dispatches. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ammerman, David (1974). In the common cause: American response to the Coercive acts of 1774. Charlottesville : University Press of Virginia.
To read the text of the resolution, written by Adams, who asks for the removal of royal Governor Bernard, see Wells, pp. 181-182.
  1. ^ Ammerman, 1974, pp. 83-84
You're to be commended for continuing to dig. Yes, much is not being mentioned. I raised this issue in pointing out that the events in Massachusetts were being eclipsed by the First Continental Congress. That said, the summation in the Period of Prominence section can only go so far, and the more complete "stories" must be left to their main articles. IOW, the section should be a succinct condensation of those more detailed stories. Writing this is difficult, because it requires a round-up of key (not random or minor) sources and then a "clear" mind, meaning with utmost objectivity. This latter point is important to providing an overview, which inevitably means including certain specifics without bias while leaving out others. Whether the Boston resolution or Suffolk Resolves "makes the cut" is yet to be determined, though that's not the case with the Continental Association - or IMO, the developments in Massachusetts. Allreet (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You've proven quite resourceful yourself, so it would help if you joined in the effort to source this history, rather than taking a constant argumentative stance, as it tends to gloss over the times when you are dead right. i.e."Writing this is difficult." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
My "constant argumentative stance" is a steadfast opposition to assumptions. Nothing can be assumed. Nothing naturally "follows". Nothing can be said because "it's obvious" to us or must have been the case. We can only publish exactly what sources say, using our own words of course, but none that strays from what is stated explicitly. Sources keep us "honest" and relieve us of the burden of being correct. If the source is wrong, but we reported its assertions accurately, we did our job. But if we start guessing, sometimes we might be correct, and other times we won't, and in both cases, we will have led readers astray because what we've written, right or wrong, cannot be verified. Allreet (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
In regard to the King, saying, "it's possible he never heard of Samuel Adams" is argumentative, not to mention reaching. Nothing has been offered for the article that the sources don't clearly support, or simply because we think it's obvious. While some things of course are obvious, as I've said, that is not the basis for my efforts in including the various items we've been discussing. In any case, things naturally follow all the time. An independent Congress formed and threatened with a nation wide boycott and was ready to break off official relations with the Crown, while instituting their own laws and articles, with Samuel Adams as the primary catalyst from the start. That was the last straw. i.e."the dye has been cast". King George refused to yield, personally hand picked officers to serve under Gage, and sent them to Boston, and yes war naturally followed, and Ammerman and other sources support that course of events, and we can cover this, "using our own words" indeed, without advancing some bizzar or unlikely idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress

Evidence that the delegates of the First Continental Congress are considered Founding Fathers, the subject of this page, should include what historical appreciation exists for the Declaration and Resolves, another underappreciated founding document among the "papers of the First Continental Congress". The two papers (DaR and CA) and the unexpectedly successful widespread actions enforcing the Association, combined to jolt England and its King into giving the Congress a "submit or fight" choice. Related, there is a nice purported image of the signatures of the Declaration and Resolves at a Carpenter's Hall source page (our DaR article not only lacks such an image but contains nothing about the actual signers of the document - how many of the 56 delegates signed it, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — Yes, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress should at least be mentioned in the article. I'm not sure if this is quite a founding document in of itself, but it certainly fed into the Continental Association and adds additional light on how and why the colonies came together under the first Continental Congress. The article for the resolves contains King George's famous quote "The die is now cast, the colonies must either submit or triumph.", so apparently this is one of the things that led to his overall exasperation, while we would need a source that covers this more explicitly, but I'm assuming this was in response to everything that was developing in the colonies, esp in regard to Samuel Adams in the greater Boston area.


 • Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress (1774). This sometimes forgotten declaration was an American national bill of rights. Its background is fully stated in Mr. Perry’s introductory note. For the first time the law of nature was recognized as one of the foundations of the rights of the colonists, [1]
 • The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress was one of the most important forerunners of the Declaration of Independence and the declarations of rights found in the first state constitutions.[2]

  1. ^ Perry, 1959, p. xix
  2. ^ Perry, 1959, p. 285

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Yes, the First Continental Congress was a body of representatives that first put forth the primary founding ideas, in an official and dynamic capacity, that would shape all the forms of American government that followed.

"The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress in 1774 foreshadowed rights that would be included in the First Amendment, including the right of petition." <Encyclopedia of the First Amendment>

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn: Agreed. I believe all three of the First Congress's actions were significant and deserve mention. IMO, the background section should more or less begin with the Intolerable Acts, though it might better to first summarize the state of affairs in the colonies before all hell broke loose. From the Acts, the story leads to the Tea Party, reaction in London, First Congress, Lexington and Concord, Second Congress, and to be cute, the rest is history. For certain, the King could not have possibly known about the First Congress while it was in session, but that's really not important to the summary. His attitude that the "dye" (a typical spelling error) was cast is significant. There was no backing down, a gross error in retrospect but an attitude that's understandable for leaders of the world's number one power. Allreet (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally agree, but though the King may not have known when exactly the F.C.C. was in session he must have known what they were up to, esp since the debates and promoting of the boycott were occurring months before he wrote his letter to Lord North. It would be interesting to find sources that cover the frequency of dispatches sent from America to the King. I'm assuming he received any number of dispatches at least once a month. — Additional: Presumably, biographies about King George would be a good place to search. I'll see what I can track down. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    It took at least two months to cross the Atlantic. So at the time of his letter to North, George III's most recent information from the Americas would have been from early July. Compounding the lag is the fact that not everything "reached his ears", only what North (and assuming other advisors) wanted him to hear. In response to your next point, it's likely certain details were not shared. Kings don't need to "get into the weeds", so to speak, so it's possible he never heard of Samuel Adams. I searched the following for "Adams" and found nothing, but it may offer some clues on other matters: Letters of George III. Allreet (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually crossing times varied depending on the ship, load, winds, currents, etc. Estimates vary between six weeks and two months. Even if it took a full two months, that was plenty of time to receive word about the eminent boycott and come out with his letter to North exclaiming his overall anguish about the colonies. But let's not get too wrapped up in that. The more important thing here is that the idea of a boycott, and all it stood for, i.e.independence, is what largely led to war. Yes, circumstances in Massachusetts certainly factored in to the battle at Lexington-Concord, but the consensus for war overall was was welling up in late 1774, and by 1775 almost everyone, on both sides, were pretty much ready to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
You're overestimating sentiments favoring war prior to Lexington-Concord. And I believe you're "post dating" the beginning to late 1774 to try to portray the Continental Association as the cause of the war. You just attempted to publish this idea a few days ago based on a source you misread. Which means you don't actually have a source for this "is what largely led to war". Allreet (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — See responses in below section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • One thing we all need to agree on, is that King George had to of known that Samuel Adams was a leading revolutionary figure before and during the revolution. e.g. In 1770, after the Boston Massacre , Adams, through numerous colonial newspapers, esp the Boston Gazette, was largely responsible for fostering the rebellion sentiment against the Crown over that incident. Adams was also one of the loudest and most compelling voices against the Stamp Act of 1765, again through use of newspapers. In 1774 Adams was largely behind the push to organize a colonial boycott, beginning in May 1774 -- months before it took the official form of the Continental Association and finally adopted in October by the Congress. King George of course had to of known about him, which is consistent with his orders to General Gage at Lexington and Concord to 'get Adams'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • According to Pulitzer Prize-winning military historian Rick Atkinson, among the first scholars granted access to King George’s newly available papers, King George functioned as his own secretary and wrote everything himself and even made numerous copies of dispatches and letters. He claims that the King "reads the dispatches very carefully, has his own channels of information — people writing to him from the front, from America.” He also kept detailed lists of regiments and British navy ships. “He’s a great list-maker.” Atkinson maintains that George did not play the role of commander in chief, but he was a “war hawk of the first order” and was well aware of events as they unfolded in the colonies.[1]
  1. ^ Cohen, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2020, essay 
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, obviously George was well informed, and I doubt Lord North, the Prime Minister who proposed the Coercive Acts, kept things from his ears, esp important and pressing matters, like how those acts were working. (i.e."What?? Why wasn't I informed?") Adams was out in front and all over the map during the ten years leading up to the revolution, so if King George, somehow, didn't know about him that would be utterly amazing. And yes, sources nailing this down are needed. All things considered there's no doubt sources out there that at least touch on such matters. We just have to find them. Much of this stuff doesn't come up in google searches, but I've often had great success finding sources, primary and secondary, in the bibliographies in other books and journals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Founding Fathers Topics: Research

Following is a list of papers on miscellaneous topics related to the nation's founding. Consider this a start. Most of these are available through JSTOR. Wikipedia offers full access to JSTOR (along with other resources) for editors who qualify through The Wikipedia Library, in which case you can download pdf's of papers. If you don't qualify, you can register for a free JSTOR account; however, in this case, you can only view the papers (up to 100 per month) but you can't download them. You can locate many additional papers on a subject on JSTOR by searching on the topic's name. Of course, you can also do the same on Google. If you find any papers or sites you believe would be of interest to other editors, feel free add them to the list under the appropriate categories.

Note: If you do download a pdf from JSTOR, you cannot make it available to others, for example, by including its URL in a citation. For one, this would violate our terms of use, and for another, the generated pdf will include your IP address, making it viewable by anyone. This is not the case with pdf's in general, so I have included a few that I've found outside JSTOR.

Founding Fathers

Continental Congress

War, Union & Loyalists

Continental Association & Committees of Safety

Declaration of Independence

Articles of Confederation

Federalist Papers

U.S. Constitution

Slavery

Allreet (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Good selection of sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of consensus

@Gwillhickers is mis-using the word "consensus", despite what I described in the edit summary. Consensus means "general agreement". Gwillhickers replaced a perfectly acceptable phrase - "there is little consensus" - on the grounds that this is not neutral, whatever that means. But no matter what, the phrase "consensus varies" is as I said in my summary, an oxymoron. General agreements cannot vary and if they do, then you don't have consensus or agreement.

Meanwhile, my re-write, which was intended to avert an edit war, was perfectly acceptable, and no reason was given for Gwillhickers's revert. Allreet (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one whose provoking the edit war with this, typically, argumentative and fuzzy rationale. I gave a reason. i.e..Neutrality. More sources are needed to make a sweeping statement like the one you're attempting to advance. Many sources have covered an array of other founders, including those among the Continental Congress. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
I'm disputing your use of the word "consensus". It's the same as if you mis-spelled the word. As written, the sentence makes no sense.
This has nothing to do with the Continental Congress, "sweeping statements", "fuzzy rationale" or anything else. In bringing up these other issues, you've now personalized what otherwise is a wholly objective matter. The dispute template will remain until you correct your error in usage. Allreet (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be adequate sources for the language, and it uses the History.com language "the consensus varies". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The history.com "language" is as follows: "There’s no official consensus on who should be considered a Founding Father..." How that translates into "consensus varies" is beyond me.
The only source needed here is a dictionary. Look up "consensus" and see if you can find a rationale for usage such as "agreements vary" or "unanimity varies". Allreet (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I consider @Gwillhickers's position subjective, meaning personal and without objective grounds. Whereas, his use of the word "consensus" was clearly add odds with dictionaries.
To avoid further dispute, I've clarified the text and added more supportive references to satisfy objections that were raised about sourcing. I have no idea what he means about "neutrality": the text was as even-handed and unopinionated as possible. I've made it even more so. Given that the word consensus no longer appears here, I've removed the disputed template. Allreet (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
More argumentative statements, while you really haven't changed anything in the lede. Consensus varies is different than opinions vary -- as if consensus isn't based on opinion? I had removed "little consensus" to "consensus varies", as the former statement was one-sided and not neutral, yet you have no idea what that means. Yes, as you mentioned in edit history, you're making an issue over semantics while both terms were clearly conveying the same idea. You claim you were trying to avoid an edit war, yet look at your talk here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus does not vary. If it does, you don't have consensus. Therein lies the oxymoron. Similarly, agreements don't vary. If they do, you have disagreements, which happens to be the case in identifying founders. So to simplify matters, I eliminated the word - neutral as it was.
What exactly, though, is your specific problem with the lead? Let me know, and perhaps we can work together to fix it. Allreet (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In re-reading your comment, I see there's some misunderstanding regarding the word consensus. If you have consensus, opinions are the same or similar. A lack of consensus means a variance in opinion. "Consensus varies", then, is nonsense. For example, unanimity is a synonym for consensus. How can something that's unanimous vary? Allreet (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The RfC for the C.A. was a "rough consensus". I've also heard of such cases referred to as a "split consensus". There is a consensus among one group that only Washington, Jefferson, etc are the founding fathers, a view that overlooks much of the history, btw, while there's consensus among another group that includes other individuals as founders. The way the lede was written before conveyed this because the term consensus was used in the context of this simple idea. Webster defines the term as "general agreement", which, when it concerns the founding fathers is an idea that's near impossible to nail down. It also begs the question as to what is "general". More than half? Two thirds? Three quarters? Ninety percent? At least we are no longer saying "little consensus" -- that was highly debatable given the 1000's of sources on the revolutionary era. In any case, the lede is still reflecting the idea that historians vary in their views as to whom may be a founder, and I would say most of them include many others besides Washington and company, that is, if they truly understand that the founding involved several significant steps, with much debate among delegates and others, over many years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The best I can take away from the 200 words here is "the lede is still reflecting the idea that historians vary in their views as to whom may be a founder". You disagree with that? If so, please offer a source to go along with it. Or provide a sentence or two (no more) about what you think can be added or improved so that I can offer some suggestions. Allreet (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page clean up

@Robert McClenon, Allreet, and Randy Kryn: — The Talk page here has become something of a jungle. The Table of Contents is almost five browser pages long. Apparently the bot that archives inactive sections isn't doing this. Half the Talk page has sections that haven't received any edits since April and May. If there are no objections I'll delete some of these (excluding sections that contain reliable sources added by Allreet, myself and others) and leave a definitive note in edit history in each instance in case someone wants to revisit a given section. I'll also place the closed RfC for the C.A. in a collapsible box, as it's a mile long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Archive all you want. Do not delete anything. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, please do not collapse (or delete) anything and make the archive pages quite large like the last two. The entire discussion has been memorable and important to the topic as a Wikipedia-discussion archive. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done — Okay, a fair number of dated sections have been archived. If anyone feels that a given section still belongs active on the Talk page here, feel free to bring it back. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again for thinking of and doing the archiving (so at least not a thankless job!). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States/Archive_5&oldid=1109286240"