Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Alliance

There is a newspaper article mentioning John Adams, the approval of the Declaration of Independence on July 2nd, and also that he mentioned documents like the "treaty of alliance" that would be remembered. (There was another word used to describe such, but I don't remember it.) In any case, it seems that some other documents were considered founding documents at the time. Gah4 (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have the story's date, name of newspaper and/or url? Allreet (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please source. Was it an older or recent article? The 'treaty of Alliance' could of course be the Continental Association, the Alliance with the French, or a collective "treaty" encompassing these and other actions and resolves. Thanks for continuing to dig. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Treaty of Alliance importance, relevance

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and TheVirginiaHistorian: — The treaty to which Gah4 is referring to is the Treaty of Alliance (1778), forming an alliance with France in 1778. I wouldn't exactly regard it as a founding document. Whether it has a place in this article, that would be a matter of opinion it would seem. If it had a significant bearing on the founding process, somehow, it might merit a mention in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a passing reference is called for, but it is called for. To assume, among the powers of the earth, "an equal and separate station", does mean de facto "contract treaties" and "establish commerce", which the United States did in 1778. but which the stillborn Confederate States failed to do after some substantial but fruitless bloodshed which Jefferson Davis lately described as "just disappeared".

- Aside: Noting the Treaty of Alliance with France and others of the Continental Congressional "Model Treaty" here and elsewhere, could dispel some of the misconceived "moral equivalence" between (a) the ongoing, expanding democratic-republic regime founded in the United States as opposed to (b) the slavery-based confederation-republic intended in the failed Confederate States of America.

- The concern is rekindled this July at the American Revolutionary War article, where the introduction was disrupted by a Lost Cause and/or Neo-Confederate lede paragraph published there for two days at the run-up to July 4th, the peak readership all year for the article by a factor of 5+ as I remember monthly tallies in previous years, asserting that the original 13 individual states aligned contemporaneously to overthrow the British Empire from each of them: an off-putting "yuk" and "eeeweh" post, and not very "yuk-yuk" funny historiographically, imho. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Founders Documents - notability ranking

Passing reference here, but prominent in the American Revolution and American Revolutionary War articles. In the FF article this may find a mention in either the summary or in reference to Franklin, Lee and Deane, its signers. It's not regarded as a founding document, but of course neither is the Treaty of Paris which would be up notch or two on the scale of notability.

I checked and the Alliance currently leads a paragraph on France's assistance in the American Revolutionary War article and is covered in a subsection in the American Revolution article. Allreet (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO, the Treaty of Alliance would be 5th in significance among the documents related to the founding.

Declaration of Independence, established independence
U.S. Constitution, determined the nation's form of government and ensured a lasting union
Bill of Rights, established the rights of the people
Treaty of Paris, ended the Revolutionary War and with that, secured the nation's separation from England
Treaty of Alliance, gained France's military support in the war, which was essential to victory
Articles of Confederation, our first constitution, though fatally flawed in that under it, the union would have failed.
Continental Association, an embargo that included mechanisms for overcoming dissension within the colonies

Take this for what it's worth, but my point is that the Treaty of Alliance was highly significant in regards to the founding. We could have prevailed without #6 and #7 given the inevitability of an independence movement and other possible developments, but the first five here were essential. Even if I'm off base on anything here, without a doubt. this Treaty represented a document essential to the founding. Allreet (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Extemely significant, and each and every one of those documents and their signers should be listed on this page, and their signers presented as Founding Fathers (which, given commonsense mixed with taking into account all of these as founding documents, is where the page will probably land when the dust settles). Two of the signers of the Alliance are not listed as Founders, Arthur Lee and Silas Deane (Deane signed the Continental Association as well, so he got around). Thanks Allreet for the concise summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

For goodness sake! This has been RFCed to death, and fairly recently. If you don't like the RFC outcome(s) get over it, and/or edit a different article. Fighting a consensus established via an RFC is not going to end well. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Continental Association ranking & edit proposal

"...the Treaty of Alliance was highly significant in regards to the founding." The founding was based on a system of government that was formed over a fifteen year period approximately, so in that sense the treaty was not a founding document. The treaty certainly allowed the Americans to fight the war more effectively, but it had nothing to do with the actual founding principles. The Continental Association should be listed as number one, as it introduced the idea of an actual working independent body of representatives, a basic founding concept that led all the way through the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

:@Gwillhickers and Allreet: I am persuaded to the importance of the Continental Association to the NATION-founders, because (1) their membership were elected to majorities of British Lower Houses of colonial Assembly, (2) who then sent Delegates to the First Continental Congress, were re-elected "fresh from the suffrages of the people", (3) who then wrote state constitutions to replace colonial charters and (4)contemporaneously sent Delegates, their membership included, to the Second Continental Congress with instructions variously to vote for Independence or on conditions in Congress.

MAY I PROPOSE: re: CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION: #1. per User:Gwillhickers, (a) a brief description for definition and context in the article; but amended following an observation made by User:Allreet, (b) adding some FEW to the Founders Chart, i.e. ONLY those members of the Continental Association who later sign the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE, a point of general editor wp:CONSENSUS as a defining "Founder" criterion for this article.

- along with #2. per User:Allreet, (c) links to the Continental Association (i) in the article narrative, and (ii) in an NATION-Founders NAVIBOX. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Randy Kryn, and Allreet: — There were 15 men who signed the Continental Association who also signed the Declaration, including John and Samuel Adams. Formally, the Chart of Founders revealed this information, but those who only signed the Continental Association were removed based on the ruling of an RfC. Without referring to any sources, and based on the idea of what some of the sources didn't mention, they decided these men were not part of the founding, ignoring the idea that they were all delegates of the First Continental Congress and participated in the debates along with Washington, Adams, Henry, Randolph, et al. As you must know, there are many sources that cover the importance of the Continental Association, including Lincoln. The First Continental Congress did much more than hammer out the Continental Association. In the lead up to drafting that document they drafted and adopted the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. Resolution one forms the basis of colonial grievances and is ultimately what brought the Congress, many of whom were at first reluctant, to pursue independence. All these things, and other actions, were never considered, as the No votes clearly reveal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

All members of the First Continental Congress fit into Founder status, as both Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian have shown in various ways. Looks like an RfC may be needed to revolve (and resolve) this, specific finely worded language on the First Continental Congress backed up in the RfC by sources, links, and analysis. The CA should not be the core focus but the status of the delegates to the First Continental Congress itself who, as John Adams' notes bear out, were thinking and openly discussing the Congress as the formation of "America" and if they should then and there write a constitution or wait. Adams' notes prove it for me. Or we could just agree and add them to the chart with "First Continental Congress" as the heading. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Both you and @Gwillhickers base this conclusion on Original Research. You have no reliable sources to back up the assertion that "all members of the First Continental Congress fit into Founder status". I'm not sure if your view is shared by @TheVirginiaHistorian, but I am sure that his request for a consensus on revamping the Founding Fathers article is part of an attempt to, as I said, override the ruling of the RFC on the Continental Association. Allreet (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, which included a detailed list of grievances, and listed a colonial bill of rights, ideas which form the basis of the Declaration and the Constitution respectively, most certainly can also be considered a founding document. This declaration is outlined in Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American states, published by the U.S. Government Printing Office, vis-à-vis: The Library of Congress, in 1927.^[1]

^ Meyer (ed.), 1927, p. 1-5

Meyer, H.H.B., ed. (1927). Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American states. U.S. Government Printing Office: Library of Congress.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress with its resolutions and its advancing of fundamental founding principles, such as a bill of rights, natural law, and authority beyond that of the dictates of the Parliament, is clearly a founding document, and that the First Continental congress were most certainly among the founders:

The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, a series of resolutions adopted by the congress on October 14, showed how far radical sentiment had progressed in the gathering. Other provisions of the resolutions amounted essentially to an assertion of a colonial bill of rights as against even royal authority. ... Six days after the adoption of the Declaration and Resolves came the formation of the Continental Association, the first positive measure of resistance to British authority taken by the colonies acting in their united capacity. ... With the creation of the Continental Congress, the formation of local, state, and federal revolutionary governments was complete. ^[1]

^ Kelly, 1991, pp. 56-57

Kelly, Alfred Hinsey (1991). The American Constitution : its origins and development. New York : Norton. ISBN 978-0-3939-60563.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur with @Randy Kryn: Editors here do not violate the RfC rejecting the addition of "all" signers of the Continental Association as "Founders" in the article, were we merely extend the article consensus criterion, "SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION" in the "CHART of Founders" => to add columns for milestone document assemblies leading up to the Declaration that the Declaration signers attended and signed (or attended and did not sign}, backwards to include those signing the Continental Association, and forwards to include the Articles of Confederation (sourced Constitution-related criteria in the "second founding" as Joseph Ellis called it, to follow).

- for those documents (a) re-cited in @Allreet:s "modern" scholars (published over the last 50 years 1980-2020) among the documents we consider for added columns from among (b) those published in the @Gwillhickers:-referenced 1927 Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American states.

- in that way, this article comprehends consensus Founders and important others in the Revolution by linked reference to the assemblies and documents in columns, without making this article unreadable by excessively expanding the number of subjects-as-Founders beyond the article consensus "SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION" for Ellis' "first founding"; "second founding" discussion to follow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I consider all of this an attempt to override the ruling of the RFC. Clearly, @Gwillhickers and @Randy Kryn have continued to argue against the ruling, which is their prerogative on the Talk page but not in terms of affecting the Founding Fathers article itself, which is exactly what @TheVirginiaHistorian's proposal to reinstate the signers of the Continental Association in the Chart of Founders would do.

Accordingly, I am alerting other editors who participated in the two recent RFCs and request their feedback: @Atsme, @Binksternet, @Gog the Mild, @Robert McClenon, @North8000, @Orson12345, @Pincrete, @The Gnome, and @Thucydides411. Allreet (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, you know perfectly well that nothing has been or will be added without a consensus. Now you've got the Gnome all worked up and asking admins to ban Gwillhickers and TheVirginaHistorian and another rebel from all founding articles for violating consensus. Sorry, lol, which I only write when I'm actually laughing out loud, but Gwillhickers and TVH have been among the Wikipedian leaders in creating and refining founder and American formation articles for lo so many years, and an apology to them does not seem out of the question. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I only asked for feedback. What, then, should I apologize for? Allreet (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

True. I guess I was thinking more of The Gnome taking your comments to mean that everyone was breaking consensus willy nilly, running wild on the topic, when in fact The Gnome has now been told that nobody has broken consensus and was properly trouted for trying to get Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian (and another guy) banned from editing any topic related to the founding of America. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Gnome's action resulted in a couple significant developments that may lead to a resolution of this six-month dispute. Your attack on him strikes me as an attempt to deny your responsibility in this. So if he's been "told", so have you and @Gwillhickers. The difference is, The Gnome may have been mistaken but he did nothing to be reprimanded about. Allreet (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall be bringing up a proposal for a topic ban for the aforementioned violators of consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me, User:Allreet. Thank you for your planned action, User:The Gnome. Should I be expecting it at WP:ANI, since American history before 1992 does not fall within Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, Robert McClenon. See here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For goodness sake! This has been RFCed to death, and fairly recently. If you don't like the RFC outcome(s) get over it, and/or edit a different article. Fighting a consensus established via an RFC is not going to end well. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Gog and Gnome and others, there has been no violation of consensus by anyone involved in this discussion, and the discussions continue to follow and build on much more research and analysis that have been provided since the last very close call RfC on the Continental Association (please read the close) and focus on the delegates of the First Continental Congress. Any new RfC would be substantially based on new information. Randy Kryn (talk)

Responding to ping. I had worked at trying to help out navigating the situation at article and was "up to speed" at that time but subsequently left. The situation here is a large complicated one. The RFC resolved one specific question but IMO the article has a fundamental structural problem embedded in it (in it's title) which will likely prevent any real resolution. In essence trying to define the scope and topic of a historical article using a variable-meaning 20th century term. Any statement that implies that the narrow answer from the RFC somehow defined an overall course for the article in the disputed area(s) is not correct. This sounds radical but my advice is find somewhere else or a different title to cover the material that is in this article and then to have the article under this title be a short article about the variable meaning, vague, 20th century term "Founding fathers" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Thanks for your objective reply. Yes, the term Founding Father is a 20th century term, and as we've discussed, and as the article itself acknowledges, the scholarship varies as to whom is considered as a founding father. I'm not sure, however, that creating a second article, and then changing the scope of this one, is a practical solution. My advice would be to consider the sources and relate the information in a neutral and objective manner. Evidently this effort has been interpreted to mean that the ruling of the former RfC has been violated, which is a totally unfair and rather malicious accusation. Hoping you stay with us. At this point more fair minded objectivity is certainly needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: My post wasn't intended to say that my idea was great, it was to say that the the current title, and treating covering "founding fathers" as an extant reality (named by that term, and perhaps determinable by sources) rather than as a mere term set this article on a hopeless course. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: — The idea has merit, certainly not a bad idea in its essence. Yes, we're dealing with a term, Founding Father, where the idea of founding has been the subject of many discussions. All we can do is look to more sources which is what I've been doing in these last few weeks. All along there was discussion, sometimes heated discussion, but no one has resorted to a noticeboard action over something like this until now, thanks to one other editor in particular. Perhaps there is a silver lining there, as it will draw more attention to the new sources in question, where reason will hopefully prevail, which I've provided links for below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, @North8000, the "new sources", so to speak (many have been used for years), do nothing to identify anyone as a founder. While these sources indicate the Continental Association was an important step in the nation's founding, not one recognizes any individuals as founders as a result of signing this document. Meanwhile, a similar number of sources identify other documents and events as equally important steps - for example, the Boston Tea Party, Suffolk Resolves, and Treaty of Alliance - yet nobody is regarded as a founder solely by reason of their involvement in these developments. To draw the conclusion @Gwillhickers finds in his sources - the idea that someone is a founder simply based on the importance of a document - is unquestionably Original Research: asserting a conclusion not directly stated by the sources cited. Allreet (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000, again with all due respect (I recognize your view as sincere), the only thing different between the 19th and 20th centuries in this regard is that the term "founding fathers" did not come into use until 1916. But this term is no different from "founders", "fathers" and "forefathers", all of which were used extensively throughout the 1800s. IOW, the meaning of phrases John Quincy Adams used in 1825 is exactly the same as the meaning of the phrase Warren Harding supposedly coined nearly a century later. Allreet (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The idea that someone is a founder simply based on the importance of a document - is unquestionably Original Research: asserting a conclusion not directly stated by the sources cited

If a founder isn't identified because of his involvements, then what establishes him as a founder? Are not many of the founders recognized as such for their "involvement" in the debates and ratification of the Constitution? All of the names listed in the chart have no individual citations, yet they are considered founders because of their overall involvements, and because the sources say the involvements were part of the founding. This is not synth or O.R. because it's an obvious deduction -- no extended "research" or 'math' is required. Nothing any different has been asserted for members of the First Continental Congress. The claim of "original research" is based on total conjecture and false accusations. Once again, we've been through this more than once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What you folks don't realize is that you you are not debating/talking about/ trying to discern (via references or whatever) some reality, you are debating the mere definition of a mere word. And Allreet, you have not established that there is "some reality" that y'all are trying to discern, you merely introduced three new words (founders, fathers and forefathers) which also have the same issue. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What one word? Founders, fathers, forefathers, founding fathers, all seem to define the concept, as Allreet points out. I guess I missed something in your viewpoint. Thanks. Related in a way, just a couple of hours ago I found that America is a redirect to United States on Wikipedia, decided by a 2015 RM. Just last week I read John Adams' notes on the First Continental Congress (some, all? I don't know, it was a chapter in a book), and in them he mentions that what they were doing was creating "America". Adams' notes, if accurately presented in the volume (will have to add the name of the book later) are a pretty good argument in favor of the delegates of the First having a thing or two to say about founding a nation. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000, what do you mean I "introduced" three new words? The words came from the mouths of presidents and others, long long ago. And what exactly is "the same issue"? That's either a riddle or an abstraction. Please be more specific, because your meaning's not clear.

As I see it, the only reality is the one identified by sources. We're not here to discern what reality is, but to report what sources say. If they say George Washington is the "father of his country" that's a reality we can report, and if sources say it's also a myth, which they do, we need to report this "reality" as well. Allreet (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I just saw your "hopeless cause" statement above. So does this just apply to Wikipedia's Founding Fathers article, or would Encyclopedia Britannica be guilty of the same? How about Richard Morris or Richard B. Bernstein? Allreet (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No, although it isn't obvious, Britannica did exactly what I suggest for this article. Their whole article is in essence about the TERM, the variable and variability of meanings, including saying what the most commonly accepted meaning of it is, defining the latter via naming the people in that group. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And Morris and Bernstein? They defined the term and identified founders. Morris names seven greats who meet his criteria, and Bernstein recognizes signers of the Declaration and Constitution along with a couple dozen individual contributors to the nation's founding. The National Archives also recognizes signers of the two above documents, as do other sources. Meanwhile, the current Wikipedia article reflects exactly what those sources say. We discuss the term, provide a history of it, and go on to identify founders providing explicit sources for everything. The same is true of the lengthy analysis of founders toward the end (based on sources such as Brown and Padover). Since you still think there's something wrong with this, please be more specific in saying what it is, because if it's valid, I'll do all I can to remedy it. But I can't .fix anything if all I know about its deficiencies is that it "isn't obvious". Allreet (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Also take into account this, a book by Encyclopedia Britannica's editors - Founding Fathers - that identifies and provides profiles on dozens of founders. BTW, one of the encyclopedia's chief editors on the subject is Joseph Ellis, author of Founding Brothers (Pulitzer Prize) among other books on the founding.

@Allreet: We're talking about two different things. I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just fulfilling my moral obligation to say something (including noting a different route) when I see folks heading down a dead end street. With my moral obligation fulfilled, I'll shut up. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not very helpful and IMO your fulfillment of this "obligation" seems to muddy the water without any benefit I can see. That may be my own myopia, but it could also be a result of having no light for guidance. No animosity in any of that, only some disappointment. Just the same, thanks and be well. Allreet (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: My "dead end street" comment was was focused on one main issue and that made my comment too narrow minded. This article is evolving towards another viable route which I didn't think of at the time. Which is coverage which acknowledges that "Founding Farthers" is a term with variable meanings, and covering the term as such. But each group defined by each of the variable meanings is worth covering as a group, and this article is a fine place to do that as well. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000:, not exactly sure how that would be handled. Part of it is the idea of creating wheels. To make an analogy, can we say Gaul is divided tres partes without Caesar for a source? If we tried the division on our own we might have come up with more parts. And without a source, are we originating a novel theory that might run contrary to higher opinion? Things to think about, all of which I will. And thanks for getting back to this. I believe we're making progress on other fronts as well. The list seems to be stabilizing, expansion of the origins/background section is in progress, and we're working together productively.

Sorry to have only implied this rather than saying it, but my point was that you are already successfully accomplishing this. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Continental Congress

The Continental Congress section, which covers the First and Second Continental Congress, needs a more definitive opening paragraph. While the Congress lacked certain authorities over the colony/states, it did have a measure of authority, with general consent from the people, for purposes of handling the events just before and during the war. A short opening paragraph was added to better cover these ideas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft Founders Chart

Below I offer a draft Founders Chart, noting the major documents associated with First Founding and Second Founding of Joseph Ellis. - The broadest wp:consensus on this page is to include Signers of the Declaration and Signers of the Constitution. These are here denoted with a "Yes", other documents under discussion with sourced documentation are shown with a "green check". - Names ~~struck through~~ are those with only one major document signed, not including either the Declaration or the Constitution.

I want to argue for EXPANDING this list to include prominent contributors to the nation's founding(s) including "TWO-FERS" such as PATRICK HENRY, signatory to the Continental Association (Articles of Association) & floor leader of the "Anti-federalist", [classical] Republican, Opposition Caucus in the Virginia Ratification Convention; and JOHN JAY, signer of the Continental Association, co-author of the Federalist Papers, and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Constitution regime.

- I have pressing family engagement, but I will return later this weekend to try to master the Chart Title Block, and respond to any comments. Friendly corrections are always welcome to perfect the list in any dimension. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian:, I appreciate your effort here - a huge undertaking. However, as I just said (also 28 July), I don't see the need, given that the current chart fulfills its function in identifying founders based on documents they signed. To reiterate my other point, I believe that the proposed chart is difficult to figure out and goes well beyond the interests and attention span of most readers. It also eliminates several founders for no particular reason and assigns "founding document" status on the Continental Association and state constitutions (if that's what's claimed). With that, I dispute there is "wide support" of sources for the additional documents. Allreet (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page procedure

If there is no substantive objection to publishing the proposed Chart here, I'll publish it in the Article, and if you object on whatever grounds, I’ll craft an RfC to address my preferred editorial direction, without contention or name calling, it’s just the editorial business here.

- But before I do that, let’s have two more volleys of discussion. Here are my replies to several recent critiques in the following sections, (1) I invite interested editors to make an answer to each, then (2) I’ll make additional revisions (such as after the last exchange, adding a comprehensive Title using the “|+” wiki-code that I was unfamiliar with), then I’ll make a further explanation here at Talk, and only then I’ll post the amended Chart. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Choosing Founders-as-leaders

- (a) Identifying the “Founding Fathers of the United States” by an arbitrary “pick-three” Document list is WP:OR, as has been pointed here at Talk frequently in the dialogue threads over the last three months by User:Gwillhickers and others.

- (b) Scholars have chosen various criteria for short and long lists, as discussed here over three months, which will be identified by links in any subsequent RfC written.

- - The WP editorial choice for “Founding Fathers” should conform to what the preponderance of the literature holds as the “consensus” standard for naming “Founding Fathers of the US”, to take one example discussed here at Talk by User:Allreet, using Richard B. Morris, who made up his list by naming those who were (1) prominent national leaders with (2) staying power in their national influence across both the Revolutionary and New-Nation Eras of American history.

- - Editorially we should determine one or combination of those scholarly criteria used among the most cited modern historians of the last 50 years; not adopt arbitrary “pick-three” documents of presumptive wp:owner-editors here, however worthy their own “American Documents” graduate studies may have been.

- - My own view is that “staying power” across (a) the Revolutionary Era, for discussion purposes 1763-1787, and (b) the New-Nation Era, likewise 1777-1814, requires a chart for ready visual comprehension that encompases Joseph Ellis “two Foundings” referred to me by a collaborative User:Allreet here. His First Founding lead up to a successful INDEPENDENT nation-state, and the Second Founding” lead to a peaceful initiation of N. Bellah’s American “Civil Religion”, a nationhood is Ellis’ term, about the US Constitution, as amended in the Bill of Rights and thereafter.

- - This view aligns with the Talk discussion initiated by User:Allreet, promoting the authoritative National Archives for guiding editorial direction in this Article, referencing their perpetual Charters of Freedom exhibit: the Declaration, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal does not OMIT (dismiss) lesser characters

- (c) Passive Signers of parchment at one time or another, those who are NOT notable leaders in BOTH the (i) Revolutionary and (ii) Early Nation Eras as sourced Brown and others. So while not omitting signatories participating in the Founding, they are to be dropped from the Founding Fathers Chart of prominent leaders for brevity and clarity.

- - HOWEVER they ALL included in the Chart by reference to articles for exhaustive listings of the Continental Association, Articles of Confederation, State Ratification Conventions, and Constitutional USG regime publishing the Bill of Rights to the States for Ratification . . . and now as of discussion here this week, perhaps the Stamp Act Congress which surfaced as an inflection point in the “staying power” of Founder’s national leadership across the Revolution Era.

--- ”Omitting names for no particular reason”, is an incomplete retort. For those who merely were attendees at a state delegation determining at each roll call, the one-vote-per-state, those several who are noted for merely following written instructions from each legislature to their appointed delegates, can ALL, every one, be found in links to each assembly where they represented their state legislature in its delegation. Links to each assembly will be noted in (a) Section paragraphs above the chart, (b) Chart Title & (c) column links.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Smaller charts are more likely to be read and understood

- (d) The Proposed Chart, both in Step #1 with a 93-name list, and the expanded Step #2 of 102+, will be SHORTER than the existing Article chart which includes parchment signers who are not Founding Father leaders in both the Revolution and New Nation Eras, and it is NARROWER, as determined by the font measure called out in the wiki-code for each column, an objective comparison for the charts width, regardless of our individual browser view.

- - And, happily for editorial inclusiveness, there is still more room in the proposed chart to add two more columns for the Stamp Act Congress, under discussion below in this Talk, and yet another one as yet to be determined, and YET, STILL REMAIN shorter and narrower than the existing Chart, making it more accessible than the one currently published.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Other criteria for Founders-as-leaders

- (e) As explained for my Step #2 proposed elsewhere here at Talk, I argue to expand the 93 signers in Step #1, increasing the name list by 8 names by limited, sourced criteria. Besides the signers of the (1) Declaration and (2) Constitution, include those (3) admitted to the Second Continental Congress who did not sign, but substantially contributed leadership at another ‘inflection point’ of Ellis’ ‘First’ or ‘Second Founding’, as noted in another column: e.g. John Alsop-NY, George Clinton-NY, Richard Bland-VA;

- - (4) Delegates admitted to the Constitutional Convention who acted in a leadership role in at least one other ‘inflection point’ column, including NO votes as suggested previously by User:Allreet in discussion: Edmund Randolph-VA, Elbridge Gerry-MA with a NO vote in both Constitutional and Ratification conventions; (5) My so-called “TWO-FERS”, leaders at two American founding inflection points other than the Declaration and Constitution, e.g. Patrick Henry-VA, John Jay-NY, Francis Dana-MA.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

States-rights confusion

- (f) The column for State Ratification Conventions (SRC) was linked in blue to the Constitutional Convention#State ratification conventions, however one critique was made from a misreading of the link as Constitutional Convention (United States); and yet again a curiously inept and misdirected comment of tangential neo-Confederate commentary crept in the discussion, deliberately misreading the last EDIT-REVISON of the proposed chart to label the column “Ratification SRCs (’88-’90)” linked to Constitutional Convention#State ratification conventions as “State Constitutions. I presume” (note: enacted in 1776-1778, not 1788-90).

- - NO. As a matter of reliable sourcing, the states did not rewrite their local Constitutions to admit the new Federal, consolidated, national US Government. Rather, the Articles Congress approved State Ratification Conventions in elections directly from the voters as the Sovereign People, then state legislature authorized voters without property requirements in Virginia and New York -- ONLY for this Ratification Convention, and

- - NOT STATE CONSTITUTIONS as implied in the misconceived critique – a Ratification (Federal) Convention in each state was to be convened for the express purpose of ratifying (or not) the US Constitution “as written”. The Articles certified that 11 state conventions had Ratified, set the place and time of meeting of the First US Congress, First Session in March 1789, Washington was inaugurated First US President August 1798, the First Supreme Court was authorized by Congress in September 1798, and the Bill of Rights was authored by Congress to be submitted to the States for ratification as Amendments the day after.

AS AN INFLECTION POINT of the New Nation, the State Ratification Convention column in the chart allows the reader to readily comprehend that the FOUNDERS-AS-LEADERS who became “Anti-Federalists”, [classical] “Republicans”, “Opposition”, such as Eldridge Gerry-MA, Patrick Henry-VA, and George Clinton-NY guaranteed “instructions to the first state delegation to the US Congress” in each of their Ratification Conventions to secure the Bill of Rights Amendments to the Constitution, later extended to the States by incorporation in the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights is one of the OMITTED elements in the current chart of Pick-Three Document Signers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm certain everything you've determined from what's listed in the chart is perfectly clear to you. My opinion is that most readers would need a fair amount of explanation and thought to reach the same conclusions. And while "reliable sourcing" may apply to the individual items, the same is not necessarily true of the analysis or those conclusions.

Just for one example of how some of this veers into the realm of original research, if Morris sets criteria such as "founders as leaders" or "staying power", he can use it to identify founders but we can't; that is, we can only report the founders he identifies using this criteria. Similarly, we can't "build" on Ellis's analysis that there were two foundings; IOW, we can only say someone falls under one founding or another (Ellis's concept of it) if he or some other author says it.

Meanwhile, you haven't addressed why the current chart with its list of sources should be replaced or how the Continental Association qualifies as a founding document. If you have, I can't find it in the mass of what's been presented, though I've tried to.

"Deliberately misreading", "curiously inept", "misdirected", "misconceived critique" and the like are more signs of personal frustration than objective responses likely to elicit a positive response. My personal observation is that you're overloading the subject and one of the things wrong with that is it's impossible to digest and respond to this much information. Allreet (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Failure by an objecting editor to directly address the discussion items in a thread, but instead immediately posting on other subject matter, can in wp:good faith be taken to mean that there is a wp:consensus because the previous objections are summarily dropped by the editor raising objections.

- The proposed Chart cannot be misinterpreted, BECAUSE (a) Constitutional Convention is NOT State Ratification Conventions, and (b) State Ratification Conventions is NOT State Constitutions --- as a previous editor surmised might have been possible to the average reader prior to the clarification here.

- Without any reply to assert otherwise, Editors can fairly conclude that the proposed chart is not confusing on the subject of Constitutional Ratification in the states, @Allreet, Gwillhickers, and Randy Kyrn:. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not under any obligation to respond to the thousands of words you have posted (5,000?). Why you think your proposal has a consensus is mystifying since little has been offered by other editors. So why are you singling me out? Because I disagree with you?

I have nothing to add to what I've already said. To summarize, I believe your chart is confusing and amounts to original research in that it has no source that supports either this particular analysis or the sweeping conclusions you find in it.

Meanwhile, the current chart ably fulfills its purpose in identifying individuals who are recognized as founders for having signed one or more key documents. It fulfills all of the requirements for publication: it's verifiable, it's notable, it's understandable, and while this isn't required per se, it has enjoyed a consensus of editors for nearly seven years. Allreet (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Most visitor families with children who walk through the National Archives Charters of Freedom exhibit can all comprehend the importance of the documents because they relate to three inflection points of American history. That the three are a part of the American founding(s) is NOT something this editor has determined alone, and so is perfectly clear to myself only. The current chart is inadequate because it omits the Bill of Rights.

If editors can understand and accept Richard B. Morris “Founders” criteria that User:Allreet promoted here at Talk, i.e. Franklin, Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, John Jay, and Hamilton --- then they can also see my objection to a wp:synthesis of an editor-chosen “pick-three” documents lists of names that arbitrarily promote state-delegate signers over national leaders so as to omit John Jay. That omission makes the current chart inadequate.

- I need NOT provide repetitive sourcing for the Continental Association as a founding document because you have, in wp:good faith read and responded to User:Gwillhickers sourcing without refuting it.

- I need NOT repeat here my five rationales for (a) why the current chart is inadequate to its task, and (b) why it should be replaced with the improved proposed chart (as currently revised along with posts meeting every objection here to date).

For me to reiterate the comprehensive and sourced replies elsewhere responded to by User:Allreet could be used by other editors to mislead an ANI administrator with a link to this post, with the spurious accusation that I am wp:bludgeoning --- which is passingly strange since my rationales rely heavily on collegial contribution here at Talk, as previously referenced with frequent User:Allreet and User:Gwillhickers attributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Chart sourcing

Editors did not propose that signers of the DoI, AoC, and USC should be recognized as founders. Sources asserted this. The chart is simply a way of reporting what those sources say. We could eliminate the chart and list the same individuals in column fashion - the result would be the same, so the "medium" doesn't matter. However, you're proposing a medium to assert an analysis that's wholly original, as is its message. "Synth", then, happens to describe what you're doing here in patching together multiple sources.

Regarding "bludgeoning", posting 5,000 words or so without any similarly substantial response from others strikes me as accurate, though I intentionally didn't use that word in referencing the WP essay. In any case, what you're doing seems to fit the definition provided. "Bludgeon: To beat powerfully with an object of great mass".

As for collegial, the accusations you offered - "deliberately misreading", "curiously inept", "misdirected", "misconceived critique", "passingly strange", and such - fall short of the congeniality one should aim for if they're hoping to win over another editor's support. They're also not true. Allreet (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: wp:Bludgeon requires making an immediate contradicting response to every post by others, so as to "bludgeon" them. I have done such thing, there is no evidence of me having done so.

- What I have done is, make a substantial proposal for a substitute chart with rationale for the need and and for the advantages of it, and then completed the coding to put it in place. The sequencing of six representing Founders in two historical eras is sourced just as well and better than sequencing three to represent Founders in two historical eras, without omitting the Bill of Rights, which sources show is one of the Charters of Freedom.

- There is no general response in opposition because there are no credible objections to it. Take for instance the imagined and reasserted reader confusion that may arise from the "Ratification" column where MA, VA, and NY Conventions, spurred by their Opposition (Anti-federalist) Caucuses, prominently instruct their first US Congressional delegations to obtain a Bill of Rights, one of the current chart omissions.

- Just as there has been no objection to admitting the Bill of Rights as a Founder's document. Someone posting as User:Allreet promoted the three Founders Documents in the National Archives Charters of Freedom previously here at Talk: Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights.

- I concur with that User:Allreet, and more than that, I have taken the next collegial step forward with who ever that editor may have been, to develope a chart, sourced in the same way as the previous one, to include the other User:Allreet's Bill of Rights, which in turn requires two steps reflected in two chart columns, akin to the two-step Declaration-Constitution process founding the US republic found in the first chart. #1 the originating Ratification Conventions, and #2 initiating Bill of Rights in the first six months of Constitutional US Government (USG). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

As a collegial reply, I sincerely doubt there's much support for changing the chart, though an argument of some kind can be made for the Bill of Rights given its recognition by the National Archives. However, the BoR is a completely different instrument in that it's not a separate document but a set of amendments to the original document, the Constitution. Thus it has no list of signers, or at least none that's been published.

Meanwhile, numerous authors and institutions have identified signers of the DoI, AoC, and USC as founders, so we have ample sources for each set of signers. With that, we also have a general agreement, as well as a convenient device for listing them. That's not the case with the BoR or the idea of working in the ratification conventions.

As it turns out, neither the Archives nor anyone else has published a list of founders/signers who were associated with the BoR. So if we added a column and came up with a rationale for identifying and including its "signers", Wikipedia would be the only source publishing such a list. That's also true of the ratification conventions. Without question, then, adding the two columns (three, if you count the Continental Association) would constitute original research.

BTW, I'm the only Allreet on Wikipedia, so while you may "concur" with something I said previously about the Bill of Rights, I never suggested its "signers" should be added to the table of founders. Allreet (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: If "misdirected" is not true, then explain how you found the Chart link to subsection "State ratification conventions" was other than "State ratification conventions" in your critique.

- To object to the Chart, you restated a column header as "confusing" because readers could interpret A. State Ratification Convention at the link pipe to Section "State ratification conventions", as B. "Constitutional Convention".

- Then after my wp:good faith revision in response to your critique, revised to 'Ratification SRC (’88-’90)’, you again objected because reader would misinterpret A. again, this time as C. “State Constitutions'” passed in 1776-1778.

- Please explain, How is "Constitutional Convention" and "State Constitutions" NOT a misdirected interpretation of "State Ratification Conventions"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not offered a critique in any detailed way, but I'll try to do so as succinctly as I can:

It's impossible to respond to a proposal that requires thousands of words to explain. If it's that involved, how are casual readers supposed to understand it? On that note, despite what someone else said, we're not writing for scholars. We may be reporting what scholars have to say, but most of our offerings should be for general readers, not experts.
There's nothing wrong with the current chart - it does its job and does it well.
Since nobody signed the Bill of Rights, it doesn't belong in a chart of signers. As for its being a "Charter of Freedom", neither the Continental Association nor Articles of Confederation are recognized as such by the National Archives so if the BoR belongs, the other two don't (of course that's not what the chart is about).
Your chart includes too much information for most readers to figure out, while leading them there is about as OR as it gets (spoon feeding conclusions).
Also regarding OR, I believe that you're applying criteria such as "leadership" and "staying power" from sources to reach conclusions elsewhere, that is, in specific areas those sources don't address. We're not allowed to apply someone's analysis elsewhere, any more than we're allowed to develop analysis on our own (see WP:NOR and search on the word "analysis".)
As for confusion, yes, your SRC column is confusing, plus this is the only case where I've seen someone add this to the discussion.

I don't know if disagreeing with someone on so many points can be considered collegial, but I offer what I've said with all due respect. By that I mean, I consider your efforts to be a sincere attempt to improve the article. While I object to some of this on the basis of editorial policy, that doesn't mean I think you're doing anything wrong either deliberately or with ill intent. Allreet (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Some founders are signers; some founders are not-signers

Founding Fathers are not exclusively "document signers", including those leaders who vote “NO” at several important documents, as an Editor posting as User:Allreet has observed here at Talk before.

- As I have noted before, Americans in the Patriot political community are credentialed from their Patriot legislatures and seated in national “founding assemblies” such as the Stamp Act Congress, First & Second Continental Congresses, Articles Congresses, and the US Congress, across both Revolution and New Nation Eras, and they vote both YES and NO there; credentialed national assembly 'NO' votes are cast by founders, too.

The replacement Chart is a clear, improved Table noting the Founding Fathers of the US (founders), across their two generations and the topic’s two eras with green-boxes and green-checks (color-coded just to be clear), with a list of names that uses the same kinds of sources used in the previous Chart for the same names.

- 1000s of words are required to answer repeatedly baseless assertions, some to the effect that the reader may be confused and unable to acquire the Chart information. But there is never a coherent explanation by opponents as to how any of that may happen.

- Example: In columns laid out chronologically, - - - A. "Constitution", B. "Ratification" with an SRC "State ratification convention" link, C. "USG/Bill of Rights", - - - an objecting editor imagines a “confused” layout leading a Page visitor to read State "Conventions" labelled (’88-’90) as State "Constitutions" ten (10) years before, or become so befuddled and intellectually defeated at this novel notion: That at the US Constitution, the USG has three (3) branches of government.

- That is to say, MORE BRANCHES in the modern US nation-state of international reader interest than a ONE-branch 'Congress' alone, but also a SECOND-branch 'Executive', a President, VP and his Cabinet, Chart-listed GREEN-BOX Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Randolph, and a THIRD-branch Supreme Court, Chart-listed John Blair, James Wilson, and I would like to add John Jay, first Chief Justice and Continental Association signer.

Spurious Objections which are self-contradictory: Even as there are supposedly too many columns for a visitor to grasp in an imagined cloud of confusion, at the same time they will be compellingly “led” --- scholars, 8th grade researchers, and casual readers alike regardless of their educational attainment --- to inevitable “conclusions” about the founders that are “about as OR as it gets”,

- WHICH IS, that among the 93 (sourced) signers of both Declaration and Constitution, as “prominent leaders” of “persistent influence”, they frequently participated in four additional inflection points, green-check column-events of sourced significance across the Revolution and New Nation Eras, which will be apparent to the visitor by a cursory inspection of large-font color-coded GREEN-for-YES boxes, in a total of six (6) sortable column CHECKS as variables by founder name - - - fewer columns with simpler “signifiers” than many Good Article topic Charts on WP.

- And a sourcing note: Brown, directly speaks to the subject of Signers of Independence and Constitution to admit many of the Independence and Constitution Signers as “leaders” of “sustained influence” across Revolution and New Nation Eras, unlike a mis-interpretation here at Talk pretending that Brown dismissed the 93 plus I propose to Chart-list. He did NOT dismiss them as belonging “elsewhere” than the founders in the American historical cannon.

The sourced names list in the proposed Chart features many of the “most famous” founders in two generations, many in their 30s either at Independence, or at Ratification.

- Also, I do propose adding fewer than a dozen more who were outvoted Convention(s) “losers” of a classical republican persuasion who brought about the Bill of Rights, such as Patrick Henry-VA, George Clinton-NY, Edmund Randolph-VA, and Elbridge Gerry-MA, all of whom were nevertheless prominent elected leaders in their respective political communities in the new Constitutional regime, post-1789.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Point by point:

The current chart is not intended as the all-inclusive list of founders, but as a list of signers who are considered founders on the basis of their having signed particular documents. The decision of identifying founders this way was made by sources, nearly all of them scholars including those at the National Archives and Harvard. Meanwhile, additional lists of founders follow the chart and the basis for their status is clearly noted. The last of these lists, Additional Founders, is incomplete in that more signers are bound to be added as sources are found, and some may be dropped for lack of sufficient support - all to be determined as part of our ongoing, generally-accepted editorial process.
IMO, the proposed chart is not clear, and based on this and other concerns, not an improvement. The columns represent different criteria (something akin to apples and oranges) and the relationships between them aren't as apparent as you think. Even similar entities, the documents, are different as far as the analysis is concerned because one of them was voted on but not signed (BoR) - and the chart gives no indication how anybody voted. It also mixes members of Congress with members of the cabinet (who had no vote). These are flaws, whereas the original table has no comparable ones and is as easy to understand as Signers = Founders.
"Spurious" could just as well apply to the virtues you perceive in your columns. In the case of the Continental Association, you don't have sufficient sources (just a single questionable source) for including it, and it takes similarly subjective judgement to include the SRCs. Excluding the AoC as a primary column for identifying founders is also arbitrary especially considering it ignores what reliable sources say - not many but enough. None of this is "self-contradictory". As for the number of columns, that's not the issue regarding confusion. It's the fact that the columns are fundamentally different in terms of what they're identifying. The reader has to determine 1) what each column is saying, 2) how the different columns relate to each other, and 3) what all this taken together means. The first point here is somewhat easy to discern, the second somewhat difficult, and the third, as I've said, beyond me in terms of purpose and takeaway.
"Most famous" founders is subjective because with this many candidates, the idea is extremely relative, as is "many" considering that this means an appreciable number are not being included and for reasons not exactly apparent or justified. Of course, you could say something similar about the current chart except the prevailing view (significantly more than any other) concurs with this approach. Admittedly, the entire subject - Founding Fathers - is a subjective issue, so a considerable amount is in the eyes of the beholders. Regarding ages, the averages for the Declaration and Constitution were about the same, 44 vs. 42, a bit older than life expectancy at the time (around 35). So what's your point - or rather, is your assessment incorrect?

Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to replace the current chart or adopt the one you're proposing. I'm responding - essentially the only editor who is - because I know your intentions are to improve the article and settle the differences between editors. With that and the effort involved, you deserve a thoughtful response. I wish mine could be more positive, though I offer it in a spirit similar to yours. Allreet (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Allreet, and Randy Kryn: — As I've said, the proposed chart is very complex and would do better in a scholarly journal or some such publication aimed at scholars. TVH, I believe your efforts would be better spent involved in the debate, currently on hold, to reintroduce the Continental Association back to the existing chart. In response to the claim that there were few sources that covered its significance, many were introduced, and unfortunately dismissed by various individuals for not spelling out the exact term of founding document, though this idea is clearly supported in many instances, starting with Lincoln's claim in his inaugural address of 1861: "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association...etc." You can review the sources here and perhaps better decide if the existing chart should be restored to the way it was for many years prior. In any case, re-inclusion of the given names will require another RfC, one which doesn't try to establish founding status simply on the basis of signing one document, but one which takes into consideration all the involvements of the individuals in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian:, I tend to agree with Gwillhickers and Allreet that at the moment the present chart seems better. That said, your work and interesting extended analysis is not at all in vain, as the record of this six-month long discussion will be intact and presented, and some parts of it will likely be incorporated in the chart at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your consideration. @Allreet, Gwillhickers, and Randy Kryn: Some of our “failure to communicate” is a function of different historiographic method, and some must be my personality.

- At 73, I am much influenced in my progressive reading of American History over 50 years, first by Fernand Braudel, the Annales School of “long history”, and then a couple of decades later, by Pauline Maier (2010), since then Bernard Bailyn her mentor, who together (a) extended the sources of the Revolution and New Nation scholarship from the American-centric to include British, French, Native American, Spanish and German primary sources and the historiography of their respective scholarships on the American Revolution and New Nation, and (b) she contentiously persisted in using good scholarship from previous, “old” sources after their half-baked (biased) conclusions were dismissed in “New” History academia. Also in the mix is some idiosyncratic brain-wiring, as I am one of the Meyers-Briggs INTJs, 3% of the American population who characteristically take an overarching, wider view of events.

- You may now better understand my attraction to Braudel and Meier as models, but at the same time, the critiques leveled at them that now appear on this page against me are familiar, and so they are not persuasive as assertion-by-fiat when they suggest that the Chart is generically wrong in some way(s).

So, I will first make proposed Chart revisions in response to several good points in critique here at Talk based on documentation.

Then I will address only the outstanding issues point by point, as some repeated assertions in the ongoing critique ignore revisions I have already made in response to earlier exceptions.

Those "old news" points have been answered, and because they may be a common misunderstanding among Editors generally, they will become "introduction points" in a later RfC that will follow the sure-to-come reversion of the Chart's introduction to the Article page. Your collegial critiques-as-contributions to the Chart will not be forgotten. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Synth is not a catch-all argument

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Allreet, and Randy Kryn: — Allreet: "However, you're proposing a medium to assert an analysis that's wholly original, as is its message. "Synth", then, happens to describe what you're doing here in patching together multiple sources."
Editors on Wikipedia have for years been using multiple sources to establish one point. Examples abound where one statement has three or four citations which supports that statement. We have pointed out legitimate examples of synth before, which you might do well to read, and more over, understand, starting with this important item, as well as these two items (1, 2,)
Having said that, I agree, that TVH's chart is a bit much in terms of complexity, but throwing the usual wet blanket of "synth" over it remains unsubstantiated, typically, in terms of original research. Wikipedia editors are allowed to assimilate sources and write a narrative, "in our own words of course", just like authors of history have always done, where they don't have to use exact phrases and such. As has been explained for you before, this is common place on Wikipedia and is allowed if nothing unusual or bizzar is being advanced. If you're seeing an actual bona fide example of original research on TVH's behalf it would be incumbent on you to substantiate the accusation aimed this editor, and perhaps as an example of your own "congeniality". Thus far you've alluded to no actual examples and have cited no sources used by TVH to promote such an example – just the typical accusation of "synthesis". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".

Yes, we can cite multiple sources if a sentence contains multiple assertions, for example, "Ben Franklin was a printer, inventor, and diplomat". But we couldn't combine these sources to offer the conclusion that Franklin was "multi-talented". If a source doesn't offer this qualitative assessment, we can't draw the conclusion ourselves. So no, we're not allowed to "assimilate" what multiple sources say.

Most of what @TheVirginiaHistorian is asserting with his proposed chart amounts to original research. For example, in asserting that certain individuals satisfy "inflection points", he's applying Morris's and Bernstein's criteria to identify founders. Only sources can make such assertions. He's also created a unique analysis tool, meaning an original one. With it, he hopes to lead readers to conclusions that are not directly provided by individual sources.

As for "bizarre" and "unusual", it doesn't matter if what's expressed is perfectly normal. What matters is the need for sources that clearly and directly support whatever is being claimed. Yes, we can re-word a conclusion, but we cannot introduce new thoughts however logical they may be.

In any case, I'm pleased you agree that the chart is overly complex. Allreet (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the chart is not taylored for the average reader, but could do well for the intelligent and inquisitive reader, which, I'm albeit assuming, are those who come to articles such as this and are looking into the finer points of American History. But again, the existing chart is sufficient in that regard, but should, imo, as you know, include the signers who only inscribed their 'John Hancock' on the Continental Association, for definitive reasons that are articulated throughout this Talk page. As to your assertion that "it doesn't matter if what's expressed is perfectly normal", that is the entire point. How do you know it's "perfectly normal"?? Your assumption alone? I would assume not. Where are you getting this from? Sources? I'm not seeing where TVH has used any source to, allegedly, leap to such a conclusion, and in all fairness, you haven't outlined this to any convincing extent. Synth is allowed in many cases, as was explained, so long as we are not trying to introduce the square wheel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. The reader's intelligence level has nothing to do with it. What you and Randy and TVH are proposing is the creation of a new tool by which to anoint Founding Fathers. It's a travesty. A sense of self-importance must be required to think that Wikipedia would tolerate this kind of synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet, you've maligned me several times during this discussion and the ANI fiasco, including your repetitive misunderstanding of why Thomas Lynch Jr. is a Founding Father and accusing me of making that up, so this time please quote me on supporting anything discussed in your insulting post above or, hopefully as a good Wikipedian which I thought you were at one point, both apologize and strike your own "nonsense" accusations about me above and throughout the discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have said several times that you are trying to insert a synthesis here, which you are. It's shameful; a blight on Wikipedia. The website was never intended to be a platform for synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet, if I was the kind of editor who goes moaning to the administrators about slights and editors standing by misinformation you'd be taken to the Wikipedia woodshed. Please show where, quotes and dates, I supported inserting synthesis or "am trying to insert a synthesis here", or remove your insults. If not, and if you are not vegetarian, prepare the skillet in anticipation of a formal trout. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet, Well.... Randy Kryn (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, obviously I agree with @Binksternet that there's synth/OR at play here. I also believe that a forum of uninvolved editors would concur with this assessment.

In all fairness, I don't believe Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn have been actively supporting the proposed chart. However, I don't think either one understands what constitutes synth/OR. For example, Gwillhickers says some synth is allowed. I've searched our guidelines high and low and have found no such allowance. And it doesn't matter whether an assertion involves "square wheels" or round ones. The fact that anyone would say such a thing indicates that they just don't understand what constitutes original research. It has nothing to do with the nature of what's said; it's about the use of sources or lack thereof, particularly in relation to analyses and conclusions. Allreet (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Allreet, thanks for the acknowledgment that we're not supporting this particular chart. My contention is over what is allowable synthesis.
Re: Synthesis. Okay, this is really the same argument based, obviously, on exact phrase usage. Please just present the statement/item in question, and couple it with the sources so we can see what the fuss is. And to whom it may ever concern, please leave out the weasel terms like "travesty, shameful", they're only a shallow substitute for reasoned arguments, which no one has really wagered thus far. Please review what synthesis is not, regarding original research. No one has taken any source(s) and come up with something conceived on another planet here, and the contention that anyone has, based on a "patchwork" of sources is no more than a rehashing of past failed arguments. Again, editors are allowed to take two and more sources to make one statement or idea, so long as nothing unusual is being advanced.
For example, source A says Mr. Smith was a novelist. Source B says he has received awards for his literary accomplishments. Therefore we can make the general statement that Mr. Smith is an award winning, talented and noted novelist. Source A said nothing about Smith being talented or noted, while source B also said nothing about these things, yet through allowable synthesis we can make the above general statement, because the sources "explicitly" supports that idea, and without using those exact terms, and because nothing unusual was stated. This kind of synthesis has occurred on Wikipedia since the beginning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I've specifically said numerous times that "exact phrase usage" is not required - stop pretending that's the issue being raised. As for WP:What SYNTH is not, this essay spends as much time explaining what it is, and without question, the ideas for expanding the chart qualify as synthesis. For example, there is no published list of signers for the Bill of Rights, nor any for the State Ratification Conventions. On what basis would this form of synthesis be allowed?

BTW, your latest analogy is fine except for the use of the word "talented", which is a very specific matter of opinion. That's not the case with the adjective "noted". IOW, if the NY Times published a report about the award, we couldn't say the NY Times considered Mr. Smith talented, nor could Wikipedia since it introduces a thesis not mentioned or even implied by the Times. I'll also note that the analogy is totally irrelevant regarding the proposed chart. Allreet (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

there is no published list of signers for the Bill of Rights, nor any for the State Ratification Conventions. On what basis would this form of synthesis be allowed?
The Bill of rights is part of the Constitution, adopted by Congress, totally undisputed as a founding document, and as such, is part of a founding document. We would not be saying anything unusual to refer to the Bill of Rights, or its signatories, as part of the founding.

BTW, your latest analogy is fine except for the use of the word "talented", which is a very specific matter of opinion.
Yes, an opinion, but nothing unusual, unless you prefer to assume that literary awards are won with no talent involved. Here also, nothing unusual or bizzar is being stated.
Yes, the "What SYNTH is not" article makes comparisons as to what sort of Synth amounts to O.R., but the point was, Synth was for months being pushed around this Talk page, with no qualifying words, with the apparent assumption that any sort of Synthesis is O.R., and that we can't combine sources and ideas to make similar statements in our own words, which would be self defeating, a bit ridiculous, and would require a 'cop on every street corner' to enforce. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Unusual" isn't the point. "Talented" would be to put words into the mouth of the source, in which case it cannot be verified. So instead of reporting what sources say, we'd be using sources to create "facts". Meanwhile, Synth was "being pushed" on this page because you were pushing it and you're still pushing it. You amassed dozens of sources on the Continental Association and not one stated that its signers were founders. Yet you asserted that the sources were essentially saying this. After all, these actions led to the founding. Or if you put them all together, this is what the sources are saying. Well, anyway you dice or slice it, that approach to editing is Synth. If we were allowed to do this, we wouldn't be editors - you'd be authors.

The other day I reverted an edit of yours where you took several related thoughts from a source and came up with something like "Madison feared it would be a century before the Supreme Court would recognize these rights". Just on the surface that smelled fishy. What's Madison doing thinking a century down the road? Sure enough, all the pieces were there, but that's not at all what the source was saying. Perhaps you just made an error, but if you're going around reading things into your sources, you're going to make numerous errors like this along the way.

What you're saying is ridiculous. Because you take liberties, other editors are going to have to be the "cops on the corner" to make sure your "reporting" is true to the sources. That's not fair to us and when you go astray, it isn't fair to our readers. Allreet (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

And regarding the Bill of Rights, please provide a source that lists its "signers". I've been saying the BoR is a founding document for months, but there is no list of "signers" associated with it. The proposed chart would create one, but how? By noting those who served in Congress when it was passed? How do we know who voted for or against it? And when it was passed, did anyone actually sign it? Again, "unusual" has nothing to do with anything, except for the fact that we have several experienced editors here who don't understand some of the fundamentals about using sources. Allreet (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, we actually "put words into the mouth of the source(s)" all the time when we use our own words, and if we use discretion, which we are allowed to do to a reasonable extent, we can make obvious assertions as in the case with "talented". But for now I'll not push "talented", so as not to drift away from the main point, that being, we can make statements from two and more sources which don't include the same terms in question, and this is called synthesis, which doesn't automatically make it O.R.
Bill of Rights: It never occurred to me that there isn't a list of signatories, or one with with yea and nay noted, for this landmark founding document. Since it is part of the Constitution we can of course consider it part of a founding document, but okay, we just can't assume members of the Congress all signed it. Some could have been absent. Are you sure there is no list? Have you come across a source that indeed stated that there is no official record of signatories? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Our discretion in citing sources is limited to the words of the sources. You know perfectly well what I mean by "putting words" - mis-quoting - so your opening comment is a case of "being cute". If you don't appreciate what that means, stick with me. I'll refer to it again in a moment.
As basic rules of thumb, meaning in most instances, we can only cite multiple sources in two respects:
- If the sources are addressing the same thing in a similar way. Often, the additional source would not be needed, though sometimes it might further clarify either the statement or what the first source is saying. In that case, we must be very careful to avoid asserting a "new" idea by combining thoughts from the sources, for example, A+B=C.
- If each source verifies a separate fact in a statement, such as a list of baseball greats or two different ideas - but not their combination.
It's not synthesis if the two sources are saying the same thing using different terms and we paraphrase the two to express the thought in a third way. In effect, that's no different from paraphrasing a single source.

Splitting hairs by citing unrelated exceptions is in the same ethical class as being cute. You know perfectly well what we're talking about and the exceptions ain't that. Of course, therein lies one of the problems: knowing precisely what sources are saying, so a good editor as all good reporters do errs on the side of caution. He avoids taking liberties because of his obligation first to the truth and then to readers.

Nobody signs amendments. They're proposed by joint resolutions of Congress and sent to state legislatures for ratification. If approved by a super majority of states, three-fourths, they pass into law without anyone's signature. If you google the question, 39 displays, but that's the number of delegates who signed the Constitution in 1787. Allreet (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

REVISED CHART - Signers of Declaration & Constitution with SIX (6) documents columns

Founding Fathers of the United States of America
as framers and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights
including the Continental Association, Second Continental Congress, Articles of Confederation, Constitutional Convention, State Ratification Conventions, and **First US Government** of the First Congress: First President & Cabinet, First Supreme Court
Prominent Founders	Prov./ State	Continental Association AoA (1774)	Declaration Independence DoI (1776)	Articles Confederation AoC (1777)	US Const. USC (1787)	Constitution Ratification SRCs ('88-'90)	New USG Amended BoR ('89-'90)
John Adams	MA	Y	Yes	-	-	-	Vice Pres.
Samuel Adams	MA	Y	Yes	Y	-	Y ^[1]	-
Abraham Baldwin	GA	-	-	-	Yes	-	House
Josiah Bartlett	NH	-	Yes	Y	-	-	-
Richard Bassett	DE	-	-	-	Yes	-	Senate
Gunning Bedford Jr.	DE	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
John Blair	VA	-	-	-	Yes	Y	Supr. Ct.
William Blount	NC	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
Carter Braxton	VA	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
David Brearley	NJ	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
Jacob Broom	DE	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
Pierce Butler	SC	-	-	-	Yes	-	Senate
Charles Carroll	MD	-	Yes	-	-	-	Senate
Daniel Carroll	MD	-	-	Y	Yes	Y	House
Samuel Chase	MD	Y	Yes	-	-	No	-
Abraham Clark	NJ	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
George Clymer	PA	-	Yes	-	Yes	-	House
Jonathan Dayton	NJ	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
John Dickinson	DE	-	No	Y	Yes	-	-
James Duane	NY	Y	-	Y	-	Y	-
William Ellery	RI	-	Yes	Y	-	-	-
William Few	GA	-	-	-	Yes	-	Senate
Thomas Fitzsimons	PA	-	-	-	Yes	-	House
William Floyd	NY	Y	Yes	-	-	-	House
Benjamin Franklin	PA	-	Yes	-	Yes	-	-
Elbridge Gerry	MA	-	Yes	Y	No	No	House
Nicholas Gilman	NH	-	-	-	Yes	-	House
Nathaniel Gorham	MA	-	-	-	Yes	Y	-
Button Gwinnett	GA	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
Lyman Hall	GA	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
Alexander Hamilton	NY	-	-	-	Yes	Y	Sec. Treas.
John Hancock	MA	-	Yes	Y	-	Y	-
Benjamin Harrison	VA	Y	Yes	-	-	No	-
John Hart	NJ	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
Joseph Hewes	NC	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
Thomas Heyward Jr.	SC	-	Yes	Y	-	-	-
William Hooper	NC	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
Stephen Hopkins	RI	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
Francis Hopkinson	NJ	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
Samuel Huntington	CT	-	Yes	Y	-	Y	-
Jared Ingersoll	PA	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
William Jackson	SC	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
Thomas Jefferson	VA	-	Yes	-	-	-	Sec. State
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer	MD	-	-	-	Yes	Y	-
William Samuel Johnson	CT	-	-	-	Yes	Y	-
Rufus King	MA	-	-	-	Yes	Y	Senate-NY
John Langdon	NH	-	-	-	Yes	Y	Senate
Francis Lightfoot Lee	VA	-	Yes	Y	-	-	-
Richard Henry Lee	VA	Y	Yes	Y	-	-	Senate
Francis Lewis	NY	-	Yes	Y	-	-	-
William Livingston	NJ	Y	-	-	Yes	Y	-
Thomas Lynch Jr.	SC	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
James Madison	VA	-	-	-	Yes	Y	House
James McHenry	MD	-	-	-	Yes	Y	-
Thomas McKean	DE	Y	Yes	Y	-	Y	-
Gouverneur Morris	NY	- ^[a]	-	Y	-	-	-
Gouverneur Morris	PA	- ^[a]	-	-	Yes	-	-
Lewis Morris	NY	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
Robert Morris	PA	-	Yes	Y	Yes	-	Senate
John Morton	PA	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
Thomas Nelson Jr.	VA	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
William Paca	MD	Y	Yes	-	-	Y	-
Robert Treat Paine	MA	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
William Paterson	NJ	-	-	-	Yes	-	Senate
John Penn	NC	-	Yes	Y	-	-	-
Charles Pinckney	SC	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney	SC	-	-	-	Yes	Y	-
George Read	DE	Y	Yes	-	Yes	-	Senate
Caesar Rodney	DE	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
George Ross	PA	Y	Yes	-	-	-	-
Benjamin Rush	PA	-	Yes	-	-	Y	-
Edward Rutledge	SC	Y	Yes	-	-	Y	-
John Rutledge	SC	Y	-	-	Yes	-	Supr. Ct.
Roger Sherman	CT	Y	Yes	Y	Yes	Y	House
James Smith	PA	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
Richard Dobbs Spaight	NC	-	-	-	Yes	-	-
Richard Stockton	NJ	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
Thomas Stone	MD	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
George Taylor	PA	-	Yes	-	-	No	-
Matthew Thornton	NH	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
George Walton	GA	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
George Washington	VA	Y	-	-	Yes	-	President
William Whipple	NH	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
William Williams	CT	-	Yes	-	-	-	-
Hugh Williamson	NC	-	-	-	Yes	-	House
James Wilson	PA	-	Yes	-	Yes	Y	Supr. Ct.
John Witherspoon	NJ	-	Yes	Y	-	-	-
Oliver Wolcott	CT	-	Yes	Y	-	Y	-
George Wythe	VA	-	Yes	-	No	No	-

References

^ Maier 2011, p. 171-2, 195-7

Bibliography

Maier, Pauline (2011). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-6848-6855-4.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

REVISED TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This list includes young Mr. Lynch Jr who never was called a "Founding Father" by a source speaking to his words and deeds. He has only been connected to the concept of founding father by his signature, by his action of filling in for his very influential father who was ill. But Junior did not do anything Fatherly to help form the new nation, and no historian has ever classified Junior specifically, individually, as a Founding Father. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The 'backbenchers' on names list present in the assembly who were merely following written instructions from local legislatures in their respective delegations who are NOT demonstrated "leaders" of "persistent influence" SHOULD NOT be listed.

Implication. Those NO votes or those who "left before roll call", excluding themselves for reasons of health or conscience, but who were Members credentialed to the national assembly WHO DID show themselves "leaders" of "persistent influence" in at least one additional pivotal event SHOULD be listed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Some of the names from the previous chart are missing. e.g. Aslop, Biddle, Bland, Humphreys, etc. Realistically, I'm not seeing general acceptance of such a chart at this point in time, no matter how well reasoned, but your efforts are certainly, and sincerely, appreciated.
General comment to all: No matter what chart used, it should only serve as a quick reference as to what documents were signed by whom. It should not by itself be used to determine founding status, as there are many names of individuals in this article who didn't even participate in the debates, let alone any signing of documents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I heartily concur with the sentiment following "No matter what chart used." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Signers of the three documents - DOI, AOC, USC - are considered founders and solely on that basis. That's according to sources. See Founding Fathers: Sources above for a few prominent sources on the first two documents. I haven't updated this to include the AOC, but sources @Gwillhickers dug up during the RNC seem to have settled that issue as well.

Thus, the current chart - as a quick reference - identifies signers as founders, providing a complete list of those who meet this criteria. The chart does not determine founding status - the sources on which the chart is based determine that status. The other sections recognize those who are considered founders based on additional contributions, again, as determined by sources. @Randy Kryn and TheVirginiaHistorian: Allreet (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The "pick-three" document schema advanced in the post above OMITS national founder-leaders across several inflection points of both the Revolutionary Era and the New Nation Era; these inflection points are represented in the six proposed Chart columns, they may be economically expanded. A "documents history" criteria arbitrarily ends up acknowledging some national Founder-leaders but NOT others, @Allreet, Gwillhickers, and Randy Kryn:.

- The "pick-three" editorial choice asserts to the reader that state-delegation passive parchment signers among national assemblies, those who merely followed written state legislature instructions, must by an editorial choice "bump" excluded Founder Leaders who had staying power in national influence across both Revolution Era and New Nation Era. The editorial "documents signers" decision is a wp:synthesis, apart from the disparate documents lists as sourced.

- The '"one-shot signers" in the chosen "pick-three" documents who inked a parchment in a national assembly were state-legislature functionaries, local worthies in each state as they may have been, and they also will be found noted in any reputable "American Founding Documents Anthology".

-The "pick-three" editorially chosen criteria adopted earlier OMITS the National Archives' Bill of Rights in its Charters of Freedom --- promoted here at Talk by User:Allreet. It was an inflection point of the American 'Second Founding' in September 1789 during the 1st Session of the 1st US Congress which saw several national Founder-leaders continue their substantial and continuing national leadership role in the New-Nation Era.

- Elsewhere one editor suggests Washington during that time should be obscured to save the reader confusion at the mention of Washington as the first US Constitutional President, one of several roles he performed as a national Founder-leader. This general knowledge will not be 'confusing' to the international general reader.

But all Signers were not prominent national leaders across two Eras in the founding of the American republic (Brown), neither (a) at nation-state independence, nor (b) at instituting the Constitutional regime to initiate American nationhood (Ellis).

The modern reader sees the article title and the chart holding themselves out to describe Founding Fathers of the American republic of the modern era, and not the more scholarly (arcane, difficult-to-discern, obscure) "founding documents signers" that have been mischaracterized as nation-founding leaders elsewhere. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

::@Gwillhickers: I am embarrassed that my wp:good faith effort at a comprehensive EDIT REVIEW of the existing chart disappoints right out of the gate, but it seems the unhappy development is not entirely my fault.

- I copy-pasted this section's base chart WITHOUT altering the NAME LIST from the existing published chart in the Article, which now omits the names of "Aslop, Biddle, Bland, Humphreys, etc." -- Rats. Do I find myself a prisoner of an earlier wp:edit war of some description? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

-

See more comments below. Allreet (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Step 1 signer names of 2-Docs, chart six docs

- THE COLLEGIAL ATTEMPT in this Section is to work out a draft "sandbox-like" chart which is accepted in wp:concensus without dissent by all recent participants here at Founding Fathers Talk for ONLY those found among two groups, to begin the collegial editorial process:

(1) published as Signers of the Declaration as sourced at Declaration of Independence, and

(2) published on WP as Signers of the US Constitution as sourced at Constitutional Convention (United States).

That is the chart with a NAMES LIST above to the best of my ability, with STRIKE-THROUGHS for those signing the Articles of Confederation, BUT NOT Declaration or Constitution.

The existing Article chart is EXPANDED to include columns-FOR-not-ALL-names-of important founding documents to give the reader context and links to learn of additional worthies such as Richard Bland-VA. These include nominations for important documents from contributions by:

(a) User:Gwillhickers and User:Randy Kyrn:

(i) Continental Association (AoA), and (ii) Articles of Confederation; and

(b) User:Allreet and User:TheVirginiaHistorian:

(i) State Ratification Conventions, and (ii) those of the Declaration and Constitution Signers in the "Second Founding" USG (First US Congress, First US Executive, First Supreme Court) who sent a Bill of Rights to the states, crucial to the peaceful acceptance nationwide of the new regime (See Maier (2010).

Hello, Step #1. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments2

That's 93 NAMES on the chart, with LINKS TO ALL documents signers at the six (6) COLUMN HEADERS for (a) Contintental Association (AoA), (b) Declaration, (c) Articles, (d) Constitution, and charting those at columns for

(e) listed signers who are also major speakers in each Ratification Convention (Maier 2010, pages available for citations), (f) listed signers who are also in the Constitution's first USG at 1st Session of 1st Congress & federal authorization of the Bill of Rights to send to the States found at sourced articles for First US Congress, Washington's Cabinet, Martis (1989) on US Congress, page 70. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Step 2. Add-on names in a limited, sourced editorial process

I suggest editors consider ADDING NAMES in three (3) more LIMITED categories:

(3) "Delegates" who are (i) received into the Second Continental Congress as credentialed representatives of their elected colonial houses of legislature, (ii) who later are participants in at least one other "column" founders document, and (iii) who are named as a "Founder" of the United States by at least one reliable source;

(i) John Alsop-NY, signed the Continental Association (Articles of Association), a significant merchant supplier of power to Washington's Army.

(ii)George Clinton-NY, Governor of NY 1777-1795 and thereafter, Continental Army General commanding two forts on the Hudson River, continuing strong personal friend of Washington's for taxing NY to supply the Continental Army, though later Clinton was an Anti-Federalist (classical) republican Opposition leader nationally. Clinton ensured the New York Ratifying Convention instructed the NY delegation to the First US Congress to work for a Bill of Rights.

(iii) Richard Bland-VA, author of 1766 An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies relative to the King, Parliament, and the chartered North American colonial legislatures, concluding no taxation without representation. He signed the Continental Association and seated in the Second Continental Congress; then withdrew due to failing health and eyesight.

(4) "Delegates" who are (i) received into the Constitutional Convention as loyal citizens of the United States, (ii) who are participants in at least one other "column" founders document, and (iii) who are named as a "Founder" of the United States by at least one reliable source.

(i) Edmund Randolph-VA, who as a former Governor of Virginia, became a Federalist in Virginia's Ratification Convention, somewhat balancing Governor Patrick Henry's political connections to help achieve Virginia's ratification with instructions to Virginia delegation at the First Congress to pursue a Bill of Rights --- as MA did before, and NY Convention did after;

(ii) George Mason-VA, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, in the Anti-Federalist, (classical) republican Opposition caucus with Patrick Henry who ensured the Virginia Ratification Convention instructed Virginia's First Congressional Delegation to work for a Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution.

(iii) Elbridge Gerry-MA, add NO to his Constitution and Ratification Convention columns.

(5) TWO-FERS, prominent men sourced as a "Founder" who participated in two (2) COLUMN EVENTs, such as

(i) Patrick Henry-VA, signer of Continental Association (AoA), and Virginia Ratification Convention floor leader of Anti-Federalists, (classical) republicans, Opposition who ensured a BILL of RIGHTS amendments from the First Congress to the States (along with Conventions in Massachusetts before and New York after);

(ii) John Jay-NY, signer of Continental Association (AoA), co-author of The Federalist Papers, and USG first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, the "Jay Court",

(iii) Francis Dana-MA signed Articles and Federalist in Ratifying Convention.

Hello, Step #2. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment.

These three elements of the Second Step, along with the First Step sum up to 100 NAMES on the Chart. That is, Proposals #3, #4, #5 add 2 + 2 + 3 = 7 names to the 93 previous, to total 100 NAMES in the summary chart, with Founding Fathers of the US exemplary examples placed in columns for LINKS-TO-ALL signers of the (a) Continental Association (AoA), (b) Declaration (DoI), (c) Articles of Confederation (AoC), and (d) US Constitution. ---A win-win on all sides for discussion here at Talk, IMHO. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the point of expanding the current chart. Of course, I realize that its intent is to identify other contributions of the signers currently listed. However, I believe that the added columns/documents/roles make the proposed chart difficult to understand, whereas the current chart does what's intended; that is, it lists everyone who signed at least one founding document, earning them recognition as founders. All it takes to explain this is a lead-in sentence or two, but even that isn't necessary - the full meaning of the chart is clear without any explanation. That would not be the case with the proposed chart which IMO provides TMI and interferes with the original purpose. Allreet (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

- @Allreet and Gwillhickers: Sorry I don't understand either "expand" or "current chart" as the term might apply to the article chart today, 25 July noon EST.

- 1. Step #1 proposes shortening the existing list of NAMES to only those who signed both Declaration and Constitution. Adopting Step #2 adding only seven candidates in three categories would also shorten the 'Founders Chart', even before the AoC names omitted on 25 July are added. But ALL names of the AoC can be found at the "AoC" column header, and in a paragraph above the chart introducing the documents included there.

-It does so by striking out only names of Article signers who signed neither DoI or USC, without "enlarging" the chart to include all of the Articles of Confederation signers who are omitted in the 25 July 'Founders Chart', as noted above in the User:Gwillhickers post (in reference to my first posted chart, now revised by removing all the strike-out names before).

-2. But Step #1 adds COLUMNS to enlarge the readers understanding at first glance, so that they may clearly grasp the 'Founding' process across the six (6) founding documents sources here on Talk: 1. Continental Association, 2. DoI, 3. AoC, 4. US Const., 5. state ratifications, and 6. Bill of Rights.

-a. it encompasses the Charters of Freedom you have acknowledged as Founding Documents by the authority of the National Archives: Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and

-b. the editorial decision at Step #1 can end the extended discussion here on Talk in a consensus by adding COLUMNS of documents, rather than "expanding" the list of names to encompass all signers of either the now (25 July) omitted AoC signers, or to add additional one-off Continental Association signers, which remains in contention for now.

Step #1 Chart is SHORTER with a smaller list of 93 names on the 25 July Chart, so I do not see the proposal as an "expansion".

Step #1 Chart is NARROWER since the two-letter abbreviation of states makes room for additional columns with green checks.

The last USG column for the 93 signers of both DoI and US Const. are included as a Founders moment of US history -- because -- The First Session of the First Congress is when the Bill of Rights is formulated in the USG. It occurs at the endorsement of the Articles Congress which certified 9-or-more states had ratified the US Constitution, then it set the US Capitol at New York and the date of First US Congress convening, and finally adjourned itself sine die, without a date to reconvene.

Hello. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The addition of columns expands the width considerably despite the space saved by changing state names to abbreviations. In any case, I see no sense in condensing the number of signers to those who signed both the DOI and USC. The intent of the DOI, AOC, and USC listings is to identify all those who qualify as founders based on their signing one or more of the three documents. The changes, as best I can tell, would transform the table into a tool for analyzing this set of founders. What would be the purpose? I know you believe readers would gain an understanding of the founding process, but I think that's reaching. I'm pretty sure the average reader will, as I did, spend a lot of time trying to figure out the meaning of all this. SRC really threw me, since it links to the USC, though I understand the ratification of state constitutions was an important part of the process.

Charts should simplify things, provide information in some condensed way and thereby make it more accessible. As I said initially I think this is TMI that won't be discernible to many. I'll also add that we're not here to "win" anything. Consensus is meaningless in and of itself. Our reason for being is to serve the information needs of our audience, not keep editors happy. Allreet (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

1. “The intent of the DOI, AOC, and USC listings is to identify all those who qualify as founders based on their signing one or more of the three documents [alone].”

2. “Charts should simplify things, provide information in some condensed way and thereby make it more accessible.”

3. The editorial choice here seems to be a consensus to picture Founding Fathers only in agreement even when the actors themselves changed in their view of good principles of governance from 1774 to 1777 to 1787 to 1789 at the Bill of Rights.

- It seems that anything other than a uniform cast among the iconic Founders would cause confusion and consternation among WP readers, which is to be avoided by charts to “simplify things”.

My takeaway is that this is a delightful article. Cheers TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Chart revised - rationale

@Allreet, Gwillhickers, and Randy Kyrn: I’ve done my best to answer User:Allreets concerns, so the proposed chart for STEP #1 is now: (a) both shorter AND narrower, not only in the “Prominent Founders” names list, but also in the chart width in pts as well as the previous draft in my browser, but not in his:

Existing Chart = 360pts total: 150 + 105 + 30 + 25 + 25 + 25 = 360pts total

Proposed Chart = 274pts total: 120 + 4 + 15 +15 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 35 + 40 = 274pts total

or, 86pts narrower by the Wiki Code standard measure Table width.

- (b) revised with a clear header, for the Table and its columns, as I have learned Chart Titles are rendered with a |+, and not the previously posted draft use of |- in the previously posted DRAFT.

The revisions allow a focused choice between:

- Alt #1 Chart: present some few prominent founders

- (a) only when they are in agreement, and --- (b) in only THREE (3) of the widely agreed upon founding documents,

- (c) OMITTING one of the three Founders documents among the Charters of Freedom as determined by the authoritative National Archives, the Bill of Rights.

- Alt #2 Chart: present the MOST widely agreed upon scholarly consensus in the preponderance of the literature designating the Declaration and Constitution as keystone US “founding documents”, INCLUDING links to four additional sourced founders documents:

- (a) SIX (6) “founding documents” sourced among many prominent scholars in the field, and (b) encompassing ALL three of the Charters of Freedom: Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and

- (c) present a quick (short, narrow) visual that is readily acquired by the reader, however incomplete for reader convenience, showing both the variety of views and the variability of views among Founders over the founding period of Revolution and New Nation Eras, so

- (d) allow the reader a one-click access from the chart to six "founding documents" articles for any one or group among less cited Founders of interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian:: The physical width of the chart isn't my concern. By "width", I was referring to the number of columns/issues, and then the difficulty readers would have in discerning what all this means. The current chart provides a simple and attractive way of listing founders, and I see no reason for replacing it. Among other objections, I also dispute that the Continental Association is a founding document, and I really don't get what how SRC represents a sixth document or what cabinet positions have to do with the Bill of Rights. Allreet (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Half-a-dozen inflection points across two historical eras of American history does not confound the international middle schooler as you suppose --- without any evidence to overthrow the established precedent in numerous wp:Good Article charts with more than eight variables to comprehend. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

For just one example of the chart's lack of clarity: The Bill of Rights column lists people who served in the cabinet and two houses of Congress when the BoR was adopted. What is meant by the roles listed? Certainly cabinet members didn't vote for the amendments. And because someone was a member of Congress doesn't mean they supported the BoR either. So what's the intended "take-away" from this column?

Other examples where the meanings aren't immediately clear: What do the checkmarks in SRC column represent - did these people vote Yes at a state convention (as opposed to those who have a "No")? What's the purpose of listing the Continental Association, since it's not a founding document? And most important, what happened to the 25+ founders you've eliminated - are you saying they're not founders?

You may think what I believe is nonsense, but my questions are "evidence". If I don't "get" what's specifically intended, I'm sure that a demographic beyond middle school will be similarly confused. And since that's the case, what on earth is wrong with the current chart that clearly identifies 116 founders in a fashion even elementary school students would understand? And if you think the absence of the BoR is justification, that idea if valid could be covered with a single asterisk/footnote. Allreet (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

'Reply' function resolved

Comments can no longer be replied to using "reply" links

Apparently a recent edit has created a problem that is now making it impossible to reply to comments. When you click "reply", the following message displays:

Comments on this page can't be replied to because of an error in the wikitext. You can learn about this error by reading the documentation, ask for help by posting here or fix the error by opening the full page editor.

I tried deleting the table that was recently added to see if this is the source of the problem, but that "test" proved unsuccessful. Does anybody understand what this message is saying and, more important, would anyone know how to fix the problem? Allreet (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you can still reply to comments using "edit". BTW, I tried the links in the error message. I found that there's apparently a wikitext bug of some sort that causes this, but the message's "fix the error" link wasn't helpful (to me at any rate). Allreet (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and TheVirginiaHistorian: Because the talk page is so long and involved, trying to find what's causing the 'Reply' problem seems like a near impossibility. One way might be to re-install a dated version of the Talk page, save it out, and see if the Reply function works, working backwards to the version where the Reply function was working, but this would likely involve a lot of trial and error and could tie up the Talk page for sometime. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to give it one quick shot, re-installing the version just before TVH's latest series of edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet and TheVirginiaHistorian: — Okay, I re-installed the Talk page of July 22, 2022 just before TVH added a new section ‎Draft Founders Chart, and the reply function worked. This doesn't tell us exactly 'what' mark-up is causing the problem, but we do know it involves something within the new section. Will look further to that section and see what gives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is something of a mystery. I tried deleting one sub-section at a time, under the Draft Founders Chart main section, to see if the reply malfunction problem was being caused by one of them, but no luck. I tried removing the chart, no luck. I then removed the entire Draft Founders Chart section, with all its sub-sections -- still no luck. We do know that when we revert back to the Talk page of July 22, 2022, the reply function works. Now what? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into this. I filed a fix request using one of the error message's links, so maybe we'll get an answer.

Somewhere in your attempt to fix this, you inadvertently deleted my most recent comment, an objection to the expanded chart. No biggie for me, but @TheVirginiaHistorian's comment was deleted a well. So I'm going to restore the two comments, hopefully in the original location. Allreet (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I deleted and restored sub-sections so many times, somehow I zapped your comments. Sorry about that. One way to resolve the problem might be to revert back to July 22, and then have TVH save the section markup in Notepad, or wherever, and then delete the entire section and sub sections, and then bring them back, one step at a time, checking to see if the 'Reply' function works after each save. What fun. Can't help but wonder what item of markup has disabled the reply function -- for the entire page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: No problem. I thought of reverting to the earlier date, too, and then restoring the newer material but that seemed painful. So I pasted in the missing comments and if anybody notices something else has disappeared, it should be easy to track down. What's needed most, though, is a straightforward fix to the reply bug. If one's not forthcoming, then we may have to do the revert/restoration thing starting with July 22 as you suggested. Allreet (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

MAYBE, Set Talk page to "automatic archiving" at postings aged out at [33] days to encompass the RfC 30-day window?

That will clear out any topped-out "Reply" cache on the current Talk page, wouldn't it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how the Reply function, or any cache it may have, works. At one point I copied the Talk page to my sandbox, where I discovered that the 'Reply' links do not show up, so all I can gather from that is that the inner workings of this function are somehow connected with article talk pages only. If the problem is not fixed in the next few days, with consent, I'll revert back to July 22, and then add in our latest discussions. This is where I'd recommend that you re-introduce your chart, first, to see if that by itself jams up the works. If things are still working then you can re-add your sub-subsections, one at a time, to see if any one of them is the cause of the problem. I'm speculating, admittedly, that the abundance of compound punctuation, even in the section titles, the underlining of bold lettering, small and large lettering, etc may be causing the problem, which would be unusual, so you may want to simplify the markup in that regard when you re-introduce your sub-sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Randy Kryn: -- Okay, I believe I found the cause of the problem, as I'm using the "Reply' function now as I write. Evidently the underlining markup that was in this section title was causing the glitch. After removing the punctuation markup from the section title things seem to be working, so far. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:, thanks for all your efforts. Yep, just used Reply myself, and it's back in good health. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This section probably should be collapsed as it is an off-topic technical section. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Do it, @Randy Kryn or @Gwillhickers - I'm on another mission. And thanks for the suggestion, Randy. Allreet (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Expanding "Colonies unite" section

In an attempt to provide a more complete overview, I've added the Boston Tea Party to this section, and fleshed out information on the First Continental Congress. I believe additional changes are called for:

More on the Second Continental Congress.
A synopsis of the war, 1776-1783, touching on the main campaigns (New York, Philadelphia, the South, Yorktown), the entry of the French, and the Treaty of Paris.
Details on the Articles of Confederation, particularly its failures, but primarily as a lead-up to the Constitution.
A re-write of the Constitution that also includes something on the Bill of Rights.

The aim should be to tell the story succinctly, so IMO the above shouldn't involve more than two paragraphs for each bullet point. The section should then be broken up with sub-heads (2-3). Of course, any and all improvements are welcome. Just try not to get too detailed. If you'd like to discuss or suggest things, this is the place to do it. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: — The Colonies unite section covers a very significant and definitive point in the revolutionary era, and should be mostly confined to that idea. "A synopsis of the war", and other such topics need to have their own section, remembering that we should concentrate on what united the colonies and the beginning of the founding process, focusing on the founders in question during this time.
Also, citation [70] is undefined and not linked to any source. What is Suffolk? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

My primary interest in the above suggestions is to create a narrative connecting the events. I'm not interested in including any particular details on the subsequent developments, simply in providing an overview of events that were either related (tied together) or concurrent. While what I suggested would be more detailed, I believe this can be also be done in more condensed fashion. But as it stands "hopping" directly to the Declaration of Independence, onto the Articles and finally to the Constitution is too sketchy and not very readable. Also, if we take Lincoln literally (and I believe we should), the unification entailed four steps, and what I'm proposing would show the progression. I'll take a crack at it to see if it's possible to do succinctly and satisfactorily. And I'll be sure to fix the citation you mentioned, thanks. Allreet (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I added the reference under Online Sources. One item here that still needs a source is that the Congress wanted assurance that Massachusetts' colonists would do nothing to provoke war. I need to dig up and add where I learned this. The Story of the Suffolk Resolves mentions this intent (para 12, p. 31), though the authors indicated they would act in self-defense if necessary. As I recall, the source I found expressly indicated Congress expected that the colonists would not provoke war. Interestingly, this raises the question (not for publication): did the militia act in self-defense at Lexington/Concord or were their actions more proactive? Allreet (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Section structure, etc

@Allreet, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Randy Kryn: — We have the initial uniting of the colonies, a very important first step that introduced the idea of independence, which, as discussed, was not the intention of most delegates at first. But when it became clear that the king was not compromising in any way most of them began considering complete independence from what was proving to be a very arrogant king and parliment. Then we have the overall union, or founding, which, as Lincoln stated, was a process that took well over a decade. In any case, though we have sections with general themes, i.e. Continental Congress, Independence and Form of government, this doesn't necessarily mean the reader will be "hopping" from section to section, and of course we should as you say tie these things together, where, ideally, one section will feed into the next. So long as we list these things in chronological order we will have largely done this, but moreover, we may still need to add more context to better effect this.

The Colonies unite section, imo, should not be a main section to the above named sections. They involve general subjects and should have their own sections. The Colonies unite section simply, but very importantly, defines the initial unification of the colonies. I moved and added some text at the end of this section which now better leads into the following section. Also, I've always been an inclusionist, and write for the enthusiastic and inquisitive reader, offering as much context and details as is of course practical. However, I'm mindful of adding too much and going off on sort of a tangent into the lesser subjects. The article as you once mentioned is about the founders, but it is important as I think you know, that we comprehensively define the various events and involvements that made them a founder, otherwise we would just end up with a glorified list of names.

A word about sources: Since we have many texts and journals at our disposal, most of them searchable on and/or off line, it is my preference to use them first over website sources, if possible, because as you know many url addresses go south over time, whereas a page reference to a publication remains the same. I'm seeing a lot of website sources used to cite information that could very easily be cited with scholarly publications. Of course, some websites are top notch, those of governmental and historical agencies. Whenever possible I always substitute a publication for a website source. In any case, the article has many areas that need citations, so we should make efforts to remedy that situation as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Your comments, all well expressed, cover a lot of ground so I'll do my best to respond.

The "hopping" refers to the text, so segues of some sort are needed to carry the reader from one episode to the next chronologically. Again, I'll give it a try using as few words/details as possible. That's a word puzzle of sorts, though generalizing should be easier than having to go through a slew of sources to determine the essence.
(and part of 3) The "colonies united" in steps and we probably shouldn't stop at the initial one. The Continental Association, then, was first (keeping in mind the Suffolk Resolves; see my next comment), and the Declaration was second. The Articles attempted to formalize a union, but failed miserably, because they lacked teeth and because the states insisted on maintaining sovereignty. The Constitution resolved everything nicely. As for inclusionism, I am not an exclusionist but I am a devotee of the idea that Wikipedia should never lead the way. With the preponderance of sources, it's not always clear what the way is, so I tend to prefer more "popular" as opposed to more "scholarly" sources. The latter is widely scattered and more prone to staking new territory, while the former is based on more widely accepted thinking, which is what we get from Ellis, McCullough, Isaacson, et al.
I actually prefer web-based sources because they tend to give readers access to the source material, so if they're interested in learning more, they can. Scholarly sources are more difficult to access physically and otherwise. Unfortunately, as you said, links to web materials frequently go dead. The Time Machine helps this to some degree, though aesthetically it's not ideal. And yes, everything that needs to be sourced should be. Allreet (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

An aside: It's not true that the Declaration and Resolves "introduced the ideas of natural law and natural rights". The Suffolk Resolves did. From the Suffolk Resolves: "the rights to which we are justly entitled by the laws of nature, the British constitution, and the charter of the province". From the Declaration and Resolves: "the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights". Regarding my parenthetical above, the Suffolk document also introduced the idea of an embargo. Allreet (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll confine my comments to sources, and the Declaration of Resolves, and the Suffolk Resolves.
As most sources are accessible on line, esp via archive.org and JSTOR, where many texts and journals are entirely viewable, and searchable, I'll be using these whenever I can, as they also allow any interested reader to look further. Again, website sources often go south. Many of them will not have the same url address three and four years from now, if they still exist at all. And when you have an article with several dozen online sources, you can count on a few of them going 404 or disappearing in little time. All that aside, most readers don't look into the sources as they're reading along anyways, except maybe to note the name of the source and perhaps the year of publication. But the serious student, will appreciate that we're using scholarly works to derive information and cite our narrative. The casual reader usually just reads the lede and perhaps a few sections of interest.
Re: Declaration and Resolves, and the Suffolk resolves. — Yes, the Declaration and Resolves didn't actually say "natural law", but it did refer to "the immutable laws of nature" which intimates the same moral principle, as well as advancing a colonial bill of rights. In any case, yes, let's get both of these works adequately covered in our narrative. I'm hoping Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian, if we can tear him away from that chart, :-) will join us and bring this article to GA quality, and ultimately to FA status. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Haven't read any of the new postings for a few days, nor yet looked at TheVirginiaHistorian's charts, but have seen the several topics grow on my watch list's edit summaries. Will soon catch up, but on a very quick scan the quality and content of the research, analysis, and conversation seems to have continued to grow. Nice. One question, I thought that the name 'Congress of the Confederation' was how others referred to the Continental Congress, which kept its original name, later, and not at the time. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn:, I'm not sure of your question because of how it's phrased, but I think your understanding may be reversed. The official name under the Articles was Congress of the Confederation, but apparently people (many? most?) continued to refer to it as the Continental Congress, old habits changing slowly. Allreet (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your recent edits and now I understand the question. You're correct - "Continental Congress" is incorrect and should be "Congress of Confederation". But that poses a complication since the newer name wasn't used before. I'll fix it for now by dropping this half of the compound sentence. Frankly, the entire paragraph needs a re-write given that more important things should be mentioned about the Constitution and its passage. Also, the Bill of Rights needs to be addressed. Allreet (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian:: I thought about this a while because I also appreciate the level of scholarship and value the importance of stability. However, I have to give greater weight to concerns for the average reader. First, most readers have no interest in signing up for accounts with the archive or JSTOR; the vast majority haven't heard of either, nor are they visiting our pages for research purposes. Second, many sources are beyond the interests of most readers; what's the point of navigating to the middle of relatively dense work to verify a single sentence and how likely is someone to read on? Third, how deep are we taking readers; are they going to be enlightened by denser issues or will the fine details be lost on them?

Though some of the answers here are obvious, there is no clear cut path, but I raise these issues to point out that we're writing primarily for a general audience, as does any encyclopedia or for that matter, "popular", more accessible historians such as McCullough and Isaacson.

Therefore, I favor a balance. Despite the risk of some links going dead, that shouldn't be the basis for ignoring sources that are more accessible and offer "larger pictures" to readers. We're not going to serve many people by providing only the most scholarly works as sources. We'll satisfy far more by working in links to sites whose materials are rooted in scholarship but are intended for more general audiences.

My recommendation, then, is to offer a mix: that we focus on so-called scholarly sources but where possible we also work in more general ones that provide overviews, broader discussions, illustrations, graphics, and so forth as opposed to hundreds and hundreds of pages of fine print that most people are unlikely to bother with. Allreet (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:, I agree that "natural law" and "laws of nature" are the same thing. My only point was that the Suffolk Resolves was the basis for the Declaration, though I'm not exactly sure of the overall similarities. Both address basic rights and grievances, and both call for an embargo. After adding my "aside" today, I came across a book titled Milton and the Suffolk Resolves that included two items of relevance:

Page 15: A side by side comparison of the same two quotes.
Page 13: According to John Adams's notes from September 8, 1774, the day before the Resolves was adopted in Milton, Colonel (Richard Henry) Lee told Congress our "rights were built on a fourfold foundation: on nature, on the British constitution, on charters, and on immemorial usages". Apparently, these ideas were "in the air", so the Resolves didn't invent but embraced them.

The source is the Milton Historical Society so there's a heavy bias on the importance of the Suffolk Resolves, though up to a point, it's one I share. Allreet (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, very similar documents. I read that the Suffolk Resolves is largely what formed the basis of the Continental Association, but more accurately, formed much of the basis of the Declaration and Resolves, which is what gave rise to the Continental Association. Just a note on bias – this idea isn't necessarily analogous with the idea of inaccuracy. Sometimes that bias is something that insists on the whole truth, as compared to a negative bias which may tend to overlook such things. Stepping down from my soapbox. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

The section is becoming overloaded, to the point where it's no longer a synopsis or overview. It's becoming a grab bag of miscellany without much sense of what's essential to the subject. In short, the basic story of how Tea Party led to the Intolerable Acts which in turn led to the Continental Congress and the Revolution is being obscured by the addition of peripheral details.

Given that there are hundreds of thousands of such details and that all of them have sources, where does that stop? IOW, some editorial restraint and vision are called for that should begin with asking the question what do readers need to know about the founding in a nutshell? As opposed to the main articles where the finer details can flesh out everything. And as opposed to what I want to tell them and the POVs I want to get across.

And some of these things simply aren't true. For example, James Madison did not fear it would take a century for the Supreme Court to embrace liberties - that's not what the source says. I've removed this as both untrue and not needed in an overview. Instead of fine points, we should be addressing the story of how the Bill of Rights came to be and what it represents - in 100-200 words or less.

Meanwhile, an overview doesn't need to include details such as John Hancock had 200 broadsides printed and had copies sent to Britain and other parts of Europe. Relatively speaking (meaning within the context of an overview), that's trivia of little to no importance. Allreet (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've cut a couple sentences and condensed others. To @Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian: please try to do the same in adding material. What's needed most at this point are: more on the Second Continental Congress (esp. regarding Necessity to Arm, Olive Branch, etc.); expansions of the Declaration, Articles and Constitution/Bill of Rights sections; and something needs to be said about the War. These should tell the story of the development and nature of the documents without getting into "the crevices". I'm in the process of researching these subjects, and the stories haven't quite coalesced so I haven't begun editing. Allreet (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian:
Allreet, you've asserted nothing but your highly questionable opinion as to how the article should read and have made sweeping reverts without even a discussion first. If there are errors of course we fix them. If a lesser subject has been covered too far at length then this is an issue, but none of this has happened.

The section is becoming overloaded, to the point where it's no longer a synopsis or overview. It's becoming a grab bag of miscellany without much sense of what's essential to the subject. In short, the basic story of how Tea Party led to the Intolerable Acts which in turn led to the Continental Congress and the Revolution is being obscured by the addition of peripheral details.

"overloaded," is an opinion. The section was not that long. The tea party is covered well and has not be "obscured". What you referred to as "a grab bag of miscellany" are definitive major details that involve the founders.

Given that there are hundreds of thousands of such details and that all of them have sources, where does that stop? IOW, some editorial restraint and vision are called for that should begin with asking the question what do readers need to know about the founding in a nutshell? As opposed to the main articles where the finer details can flesh out everything. And as opposed to what I want to tell them and the POVs I want to get across.

"hundreds of thousands of such details" is a gross and distorted characterization as to what has been added to the section.

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

Please pay better attention to what you're asserting. The statement you removed said, "He feared, however, that such all encompassing liberties would not be embraced by the Supreme Court for any more than a century." He did not fear it would take them a century to embrace liberties.

Meanwhile, an overview doesn't need to include details such as John Hancock had 200 broadsides printed and had copies sent to Britain and other parts of Europe. Relatively speaking (meaning within the context of an overview), that's trivia of little to no importance.

More unfounded opinion. Hancock, one of the principle founders, felt it was important to get the Constitution printed and circulated. How else would it have been communicated to the public? Covering this involved two sentences, explaining how the Constitution was delivered to the public, Washington and important people. It is not "trivia".

I've cut a couple sentences and condensed others. To Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, TheVirginiaHistorian please try to do the same in adding material.

Okay, you just gave a directive to three editors as to how to make edits to the article, which is a clear display of Ownership behavior. None of us has made edits that warrants such a warning. I've no issues about someone making edits that combine or otherwise improve on statements made by other editors, but you are clearly trying to control the article on your own accord, and in the process you have far exceeded the Three Revert Rule which says:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert.

All of your last edits have done one or more of these things. Consider this a friendly warning. I have restored much of what you reverted. If you revert any of this again, excluding any errors, we will have to take matters to a noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

My edits preserved much of what was here by condensing sentences. "Hundreds of thousands" of details are available in the hundreds of sources we could draw on. Hardly a "gross distortion" since the point is obvious: some lines of editorial discretion are needed to keep this section to an overview and not create a new detailed article within another one.

All I did was as I said: "I've cut a couple sentences and condensed others" and I politely asked you and other editors to consider the same in adding material. I see you also left some of my edits stand, including removal of what was incorrect regarding Madison. As for Hancock: three sentences on printing and distributing copies and almost nothing on the Declaration itself? Surely you could condense this into a single sentence and still give readers all they need to know at this point. Give it a try.

As for "friendly warning", you're escalating a normal part of the editing process to the level of hostility that was your way before we settled into editing. Be similarly forewarned that noticeboards give equal and fair consideration to all sides. In which case, your record throughout will also be called into question.

Finally, regarding ownership, I claim none except for my rights to express an opinion and do what editors do, namely edit. That said, the more important question here is how can we better serve the needs and interests of readers, rather than the desires of editors. Allreet (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We all have the right to express opinions, but sometimes the assertion of an opinion i.e.telling other editors how to edit creates ownership issues. I'm not the only editor who has brought this to your attention - and the only one who has "escalated" matters was you with your assertion of compound opinions on almost everything I've added over the last few days, not to mention your numerous reverts. You did much more than "cut a couple sentences and condensed others".

diffs

Again, I'd rather work together but your recent involvements has made this very difficult. You mentioned that e.g.The Second Continental Congress needs better coverage, and I tend to agree. Hoping you'll focus on such constructive matters. [Add:] The article is only 32k of readable prose -- not even close to what's considered an article that's too long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

These are separate edits, not reverts that @Gwillhickers is using to falsely accuse me of violating WP:3RR. I made no reverts of his reverts. If I made a subsequent edit, it was at best a matter of word-smithing. I doubt I did even that, but I do know that after his "friendly warning" - at which point only one set of edits had been made with no reverts - I duly ceased and desisted.

This is a case of edit warring where an editor is claiming something that is simply not true in another corner of the universe. Apparently, he thinks this, his false accusations, will make him look good.

To be clear, I believe I have done nothing wrong, and thus I consider this an attempt at character assassination. It, his disruptive behavior, very well may result in an ANI. Allreet (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes separate edits. 3RR clearly states:

"An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert

— Consecutive edits. The reverts in question occurred consecutively, one at at time. Separately indeed. As for 'reverting reverts', the deletions you made involved text I had written and sourced from scratch. For example:
Madison was the principle author of the Bill of Rights and thus of the First Amendment, and was considered the foremost champion of religious liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press in the Founding Era. He feared, however, that such all encompassing liberties would not be embraced by the Supreme Court for any more than a century. - Here is the diff
This is what you're calling reverting a revert? Where is the text that I supposedly had removed by adding this text — The others diffs are listed directly above in this section.
As for "character assassination", you've managed to do this all by yourself – and now this, with another series of rather vain accusations piled on. I've tried to move on from this days ago, but you seem more interested in arm-wrestling than you are building the article, so you would do well from staying away from the issue of character. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Chart

In the Founder's chart, do we really need a dedicated colume indicating the "number signed"? i.e.1, 2, 3. This can be discerned at a glance. We should omit this colume. Anyone who wants to 'have-at-it' has my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion.

Done Allreet (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation and "proportional representation"

The statement regarding the Articles of Confederation and "proportional representation" in the Second Continental Congress section is not true. Under the Articles, all states had equal voting power regardless of size/population. The Constitution introduced proportional voting via the House of Representatives and maintained equal voting through the Senate. Furthermore, neither source mentions the Articles, and also of concern, the information on Sherman belongs in the Constitution section.

My first inclination was to revert, but the issue is crucial, so perhaps some re-writing and clean-up will correct the error. The existing sources may suffice, though it's possible other sources are needed.

I also believe that despite the issues's importance, two moderately lengthy paragraphs seem a bit much. Some condensation would help. Part of the problem is "wordiness". For example, the term "proportionate/proportional representation/voting" is used seven times. The repetition makes for boring reading. However, overall, one finely-tuned paragraph could easily address all that needs to be said in a summary. Moving the Sherman Compromise to the proper section (U.S. Constitution) would help in condensing this. Allreet (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: I removed the disputed statement. Thank you for your restraint once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Lists

Page may have WP:MTAU concern with regard to multiple lists that IMO don't provide clear value to the readers, don't think there should be a scoreboard of every school, meeting, and business transaction the Founders took part in; just the ones that have tangible relevance to building the country. Bk knwlg (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? That is, what lists are you referring to? I'm asking for some examples, not necessarily for a list of lists. Allreet (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Impersonation of my username

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian:, and to all else concerned — Just so there's no mistake, someone has attempted to impersonate or mock my username. Unlike my legitimate username of Gwillhickers, the imposter spelled it using two capital 'I' to come up with GwiIIhickers. Also, many thanks to @Tamzin: for reverting back to my last edit of August 16. Thanks also to @Mako001: for alerting me on my user Talk page, and to @Zzuuzz: for blocking the user account in question. This will be the second time recently some 'individual' has come along and reeked havoc in the article, and I'm hoping an investigation into who's behind this, and if it involves sock-puppetry, will be conducted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I believe this was either Awolf58 who is already banned by a resounding community consensus, or Mrbeastmodeallday who is blocked. If you see any other impersonation cases (Awolf58 has also been going after Randy), please report to AIV, and/or let me know if I'm online. Awolf58 has also been known to try to frame other users for sock/meatpuppetry, so be on the lookout for that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: — Thanks for looking out. Something similar occurred on Aug.14 by another, or the same, disgruntled joker, so I've requested page protection for the article, and surprisingly, it was granted about 20 minutes later. This article now has semi-protection for one year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

He's actually a good writer who was enthusiastic at the United States page and stressed its editors by adding hundreds of edits too quickly, and in the aftermath was banned. He seems earnest in his intent there and here (many of his reverted edits here were probably good although I didn't go through all of them). He has impersonated me a few times with variations of my username (he got Allreet too with that double II work-around), and actually did me a solid by purposely Wikiforcing me to focus on a page I should add more other-than-me references on. I would request that we keep much of his section of how the founders and founding have influenced the naming of sports teams (although the Philadelphia Phillies name doesn't seem to fit but their use of the Liberty Bell as a symbol does). That aspect does fit this page's cultural influence section well. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

If there are any good edits effected by this individual, okay, I suppose we can consider them. Having said that, mocking the names of other good faith contributors, not to mention Wikipedia itself, is beneath contempt in my book, regardless of any good writing, which could have been done legitimately and honestly in the first place. As for adding a lot of edits to the page, I've been at work trying to supply citations for the many dozens of statements that need them, so I'm hoping the large number of edits I've added hasn't given anyone cause for concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Please have a look at some of the twin GwiIIhickers (two capital i's) edits to see what I mean. An unusual approach and kind of an "already banned so why not" carefree editing style. The sports teams naming section does seem appropriate for the page, even if added this way. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've already looked into the spellings in question. Cute. Frankly, I'm not inclined to use anything by this user, as it would be sort of an unspoken endorsement of the illicit activity, imo. However, if you see something that would truly help the scope of this article, well, have at it, I guess. Sports teams? Seems that's a bit tangential and would be better mentioned in other more appropriate articles, again, imo. At this point it would seem our efforts would be better spent bringing the existing sections up to speed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The sports names focus on New England names, some of which do directly reflect the founders (New England Patriots a prime example). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: My interpretation of WP:BANREVERT is this: Banned editors aren't welcome. Their edits can (and imo, should) be reverted, as it sends the message that they are not welcome, as they have been banned by community consensus. I agree that leaving it is like endorsing illicit activity.

However, any editor in good standing is allowed to reinstate those edits if they consider them to be constructive, thereby taking responsibility for those edits themselves.

So if Randy Kryn is willing to take responsibility for those edits, then they can stand, but ideally after being reverted by someone and then reinstated by RK, to put it into the edit history that the edits have been (for want of a better word) "confiscated" by RK.

@Tamzin: Any idea why this 'I' for 'l' trick doesn't cause the impersonation filter to trip when they try to create the account? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Not the part you pinged me about, but I agree with your interpretation of BANREVERT (specifically its subsection PROXYING), except that I'd stress the requirement that the restoring editor need an independent reason to make that edit. But IMO that's met by the editor having previous involvement in the page or topic area affected. Randy has edited this article before, so no issue. (A while ago I was in the strange position of invoking PROXYING to revert BANREVERTs made to redirects I'd created, which had in turn arisen from a block I'd made.)

As to the actual question, the maintainers of Antispoof have said that it's a WONTFIX (not something they consider a bug). 🤷 All I can say is, if one has a username susceptible to that, one should register a doppelgänger. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Citations for complex statements

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and TheVirginiaHistorian: — There are a fair number of single statements that require many citations. For example:

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

This statement would need eleven citations, and from sources that convey the idea of "on a large scale", for each individual, which needless to say would be an effort that would involve great amounts of time and reading, and likely would prove near impossible. In an effort to make the citation process somewhat easier, I would drop the "large scale" idea. There are other such complex statements that would be easier to cite if items like that were simply removed also. Before proceeding to treat such complex statements some feed back would be in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You've been doing great work so far, so if it works please do so (although removing 'large scale' doesn't really overcome the citation problem). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sourcing "large scale" for each individual would be more than half the battle. We'll see how it goes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, I agree with @Randy Kryn about the ground you've been covering in general with some reservations, but I don't want to detract from the compliment by getting into them.

The statement in question ("Eleven speculated...") may have a single source - how else would someone come to offer this, since 11 separate sources seems unlikely. But generally the statement doesn't say much. What does it mean? What were "securities" back then? What's large scale? Etc. So without some other contexts, it's really not worth tracking down. Anyway, that's my off-the-cuff feedback. Allreet (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping there was a single source for that overall statement, and I too was wondering who ever entered this into the narrative, (I haven't as yet combed through edit history) may of had a single source, or two, that covered it, but that would beg the question – why wasn't it sourced in the first place? Again, sourcing/citing such a statement would require any given editor to jump through a lot of hoops. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Gallery of images

Images

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.

Resolved

Gwillhickers: Thank you for craftily and empathetically blending the merits from the wide variety of arguments into an all-in-one package (the light green collapsible gallery template), and also mirroring your article work on the talk page to keep us abreast of your editing process and make the talk page "cleaner".

Allreet: Thank you for boldly voicing the need for improved technical accessibility to editors and readers alike

Randy Kryn: Thank you for considering cognitive accessibility to the article for diverse populations such as international readers and young children

There's a very long tall interconnected stack of images along the right column from thumbnails, causing some to be aligned with sections they're not designed for; seems there's an excessive undue amount of Founding Father portraits, will cut and paste removed ones below and editors can feel free to restore and/or discuss: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bk knwlg (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there's an entire image-only section causing accessibility problems for editing other sections, cutting and pasting here: Bk knwlg (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bk knwlg, a good faith move although I'd suggest putting enough of them back to fill in a good portion of the right side below the Abigail Adams portrait. They are designed and worded for general topic, not specific topic, so aligning them down a large stretch of the page seems fine and focuses those readers who tend to look at pictures more than read text to get a good quick encyclopedic learning experience. I don't know what you're doing but I looked at a few random portions of your edits so far and they seem pretty good (but I'd suggest stopping now and let editors catch up for a day or so, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Peyton Randolph, as president of the Continental Congress, presided over creation of the Continental Association.^[3]

^ Jilson, 1994, p. 112
^ Allen, 2002, p. 75
^ Cite error: The named reference randolph'mountvernon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Jilson & Wilson, 1994, p. 50
^ Bradford, 1994, pp. 21-25

Bk knwlg (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Besides accessibility, the number of images - particularly individual portraits - is unnecessary. Allreet (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The space under the image of Abigail Adams is open, and these fine-tuned images have been here long term, so I'd go with let's add back as many as an average screen would hold without causing bunch-up problems. On my screen they all fit and seemed fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Bk knwlg: — Yes, the images have been in the article quite a long time, and before a major deletion occurred it really should have been first discussed, so I'll be restoring them and instead will arrange them in a format that doesn't stack them all on one side of the article, similar to how they're now arranged above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The images have been placed in their own section, i.e. Gallery of Founders, in a collapsible box which doesn't crowd the text or create other formatting issues with the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

What an interesting solution, and exactly well placed. Thanks Gwillhickers, and thanks Bk knwlg for pointing out the issue and inspiring the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:39, 18 August 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.

Scant coverage for Treaty of Paris?

There is was an image of the Treaty of Paris in the Key founders section, while the treaty is only mentioned in passing in that section. This topic merits a short paragraph, focusing of course on the founders involved, as this brought closure to the founding of the new nation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A new section, Treaty of Paris, has been added, highlighting the four founders who were responsible for negotiating peace with Britain. Since Franklin played a central role during the negotiations he has accordingly been given greater mention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed in many sections

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian:, and all others concerned. — Many sections contain statements or entire paragraphs that need citations. Some sections have no citations at all. It's sort of amazing that no one has tagged the prose in question. Below are listed the sections that need citation.

Key Founding Fathers -- Last paragraph, need additional citations
Education -- Two paragraphs needing citations
Advanced degrees and apprenticeships -- five statements, no citations
Demographics -- Five statements, no citations
Occupations -- Seven statements, no citations
Finances -- Five statements, no citations
Prior political experience Almost the entire section needs citations
Spouses and children Second half of paragraph, no citations
Post-constitution life -- two paragraphs, no citations
Institutions formed by founders -- Entire section, no citations

Reluctantly, I've tagged the article for Additional citations needed, rather than inserting at least ten tags in the sections in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the tag is misplaced. Except for the Key Founding Fathers section, which needs 2-3 citations for the end of its last paragraph, your list applies exclusively to the Social Background and Commonalities section. It's also absurd applying it to the entire article given that 199 cites are provided.

IMO, the Social Background section needs to be re-done in its entirety, and thus, a multiple issues template at the top of this section would be more appropriate, that is, fully justified. Allreet (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The tag simply indicates that the article needs additional citations and is used appropriately, whether the article has 199 existing citation or more. If you wish to tag the individual sections in question on top of that, you are free to do so. It should be stated up front that the article needs many additional citations. Hoping you'll do more than initiate another argument rather than helping out in an effort to remedy the problem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The tag indicates the entire article lacks sufficient citations. It's overkill given that this applies only to one long section. Allreet (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What I will do is add the 2-3 citations to the Key Founders section, remove the current template, and add the multiple template to the Social Background section. I doubt there's anything there to argue about. Allreet (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Re: The Social background and commonalities section and its subsections. If we're going to tag it for "Multiple issues" those issues, aside from Citations needed, should be defined here in Talk. This way any effort to rewrite will have a basis to which other editors can read and hopefully understand. Not wise to initiate a rewrite if no one understands the objective. It's understood that virtually all articles have some room for improvement, but a rewrite implies that the section in question is something of a hatchet job and needs much more than 'improvement'. Are there specific objectives, pressing issues, that need to be addressed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Without citations it's impossible to verify the completeness and accuracy of the Social Background subsections. It also would take a comparison of the edit history and text to determine whether the subsections address all three of the main founding "types" - DOI, AOC, USC.

We also need to account for "additional" (non-signing) founders editorially since there's probably no easy way to work in their demographics via sources. In fact, only a few sources (Brown, Werther, Padover) analyze the founders' backgrounds in any comprehensive fashion, and digging up information on each founder individually would be one massive undertaking.
A quick review of the subsections:
- Prior Political Experience needs a total rewrite. The lead-in, for example, states that "several" founders had prior experience, which is ridiculous since nobody would have risen to the nation level without it. Then there's a bulleted list with the backgrounds on 13 founders - these isolated examples make no sense.
- Religion addresses only the 55 delegates of the USC. Nothing on DOI or AOC signers.
- Spouses and Children is sketchy - for example, it says little about children in terms of the full range of founders and nothing on how many founders re-married.
- Slavery is an important contemporary issue and probably should be broken out as its own section, especially considering its length. It might need a few more citations, but otherwise appears to be well sourced.
- Attendance at Conventions doesn't belong in the Social Background section but should be addressed in the U.S. Constitution section. Also, its title is incorrect since the Constitutional Convention was the only national convention.
- Finances is somewhat misleading. While only a handful of founders were truly wealthy, most were of greater means than the general population. Also, the section should probably be combined with Occupations, since most of its text relates to this.
- Demographics is also mis-titled, since all that's covered is where founders were born, that is, ethnicity. The subject also pertains to other existing subsections, such as occupation, income (finances), education, and religion. Therefore, "demographics" should probably replace "commonalities" in the section's title, and this particular subsection should be re-titled Ethnicity.

I don't think I need to say more. Allreet (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well said, actually. Obviously the article needs much work. While slavery is an important issue, it remains the largest section in the article, so we might want to condense it, esp since there are dedicated articles on slavery for Washington, Jefferson and others, not to mention the main slavery article itself. This is not to say that the subject shouldn't get ample coverage here. During the founding era, the most important thing was establishing a solid union, keeping it from dividing, and of course the war with Britain and the Constitution under which all states could comfortably exist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on all of the above.

A couple things about the Slavery section. Most of the discussion seems apologetic, leaning toward the side of anti-slavery. Just about everyone pretty much gets off the hook. That's not the story, and it doesn't address how the institution survived another 60-plus years despite a fair amount of opposition. Also, the paragraphs are longer not only than others in the FF article but in most articles - a factor that discourages readership. So a condensation to 4-5 shorter paragraphs seems reasonable, but a more balanced account, one that explains how our founding required an abhorrent compromise. Allreet (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was once taken to task over trying to present slavery, in a largely Christian or God fearing nation, in a proper perspective. Jefferson, for example, regarded his "slaves" as an extended family, and would not allow others to call his "servants" as slaves. He built log cabins, with a loft and fire place for them, and allowed them to grow their own crops and raise their own chickens and encouraged them to go to church, which most of them did. This perspective is largely swept under the rug by activists and various apologetic politicians who would rather give you the flat earth version of slavery in America. This is not to say there were not some dark episodes, as there are in every chapter of history. Even Pulitzer Prize award winning Annette Gordon-Reed referred to Jefferson as a patriarch. In any case, dissecting this issue in this article would take pages of text, for which, as I said, there are several dedicated articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I happen to believe differently about Jefferson - and about what's been "swept under the carpet". My view is closer to Moncure Conway's: "Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do." For more, see Jefferson's Dark Side.

I also think Gordon-Reed's use of the term "patriarch" applied to Jefferson as a founder, not as a slave owner: Mount Vernon Interview and NPR Interview.

BTW, I share Gordon-Reed's admiration of Jefferson, but for his other qualities and accomplishments. Allreet (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding slavery, there are lots of opinions on Jefferson out there, good and not so good. Annette Gordon-Reed refers to Jefferson, in terms of how he treated his slaves, as a patriarch in numerous instances. I judge the man for his actions, and let the opinions fall where they may. e.g."Jefferson's dark side" seems like it's aimed at the sort of people who read The National Enquirer or People magazines, with very little insight into the priorities of life and hardships in the 18th century. In any case, Jefferson was just an example used, I didn't wish to get into a lengthy discussion over him, not unless it will directly lead to specific article improvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

American Heritage is hardly in the same class as The National Enquirer or People. Allreet (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I judge people for their actions and efforts, and in Jefferson's case, there are many to be commended, that is, if you can get past the modern day, media/activist induced stigmas and distortions of what occurred among humankind 200+ years ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Then "judge" Jefferson by the fact that he was a slave holder descended from generations of slave holders. Everything else you said is a reflection of your politics, which amount to a paternalistic view of slavery and a biased view of media.

Fine as far as personal views go, except for the fact that you allow such perspectives to influence your contributions. An example would be that you wrote that Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution failed to safeguard individual liberties "from the federal government". The source does not state this.

I removed the phrase and provided detailed reasoning in my edit summary as to why. You've reinstated it, saying "This point should be made clearly". I intend to apply a dispute template to the phrase, but will give you the chance to defend it first. Allreet (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers, I have carefully reviewed the source and consider your edit justified. My objection related to the term "federal government", which is not used by the source. However, I believe an argument can be made that this is synonymous with the word "government" in the text cited. My apologies. Allreet (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Allreet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

This edit request to Founding Fathers of the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix typo: change "ptrsident" to "president" Wpstatus (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Done Thank you very much! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Restored page

@Tamzin: Thanks for your help in dealing with our latest guest-sock, and for increasing the protection level. I restored the page to 17:37, 19 August 2022, because some sections and other text were still missing, and then replaced the protection logo. I'm assuming that page protection involves more than just adding a logo, and will remain so regardless what version has been restored. Once again, many thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried my best to slice and dice the correct bits in my selective revert, but yeah, might be better to go all the way back and then restore collateral-damage edits piece by piece. And indeed the ECP persists through the revert; and if you hadn't corrected the topicon, a bot would have done so sooner or later. As noted in the protection summary, if I don't remember to restore El_C's yearlong semi when this expires in 2 months, please do let me know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Will do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[1] Meyer (ed.), 1927, p. 1-5

[2] Kelly, 1991, pp. 56-57

[maier2011-3] Maier 2011, p. 171-2, 195-7

[5] Jilson, 1994, p. 112

[6] Allen, 2002, p. 75

[randolph'mountvernon-7] Cite error: The named reference randolph'mountvernon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[8] Jilson & Wilson, 1994, p. 50

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

[1]

[1]

[1]

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]