Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Church Fathers

The concept of Founding Fathers seems related to the notion of Church Fathers, i.e. the bishops who presided at the early synods and councils of the Christian Church. It might be of some value if anybody could verify whether such a link exists. ADM (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference #15 - Vandlism

Hello,

The link for reference #15 has been vandalized. The correct link is: http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm

- Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Japhy4529 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done SADADS (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

William Cotter?

He's listed as one of the signers of the Constitution...but there seems to be no information about him. Does he even exist? The intertubes are turning up no information about him, and I can find no record of a street named after him in Madison, Wisconsin, which has or had streets named after ALL of the other signers at some point.76.208.70.185 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, there seems to be no credible information about him. The wikilink on him links to a disambiguation page which lists three individuals by that name, none of whom could even theoretically be a signer of the Constitution, given the time period in which they lived. This might be case of clever and sneaky vandalism. I will unlink his name and put a "citation needed" tag next to it. If that does not produce reliably sourced info about him in the near future, then the name should be removed altogether.--JayJasper (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cotter is also not listed as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention at the National Archives site (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html), and he should definitely be removed from the list. I can't do it myself, however, because the page is semi-protected. Someone please remove his name from the list. 76.208.70.185 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the observation, and for calling it to attention.--JayJasper (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For the Founding Fathers page, it first states there were 38 men that signed the bill and then on the bottom you have 40 names listed for signatures

The correct info is this, 74 men were called to attend the Constitutional Convention, but only 55 showed, (nobody from Rhode Island) and 39 men ended up signing the US Constitution which was first called the Articles of Confederation until the Bill of Rights were added along with a few other amendments that were ratified into our US Constitution

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/134275/Constitutional-Convention

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

http://www.ourrepubliconline.com/OurRepublic/Page/6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBDCB (talk • contribs) 08:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Founders

George Nicholas - Edmund Pendleton - Greyston - Randolf -

See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

Contributor - RichardTaylorAPP APP 6-16-1788 full day Convention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.170.25 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

death graph

wtf is that? A bar chart should have both x and y axis clearly labelled. That is shoddy and unfit for any encyclopedia, even a sub-standard one like this. My 2 year old can do better. Fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.148.6 (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Collective biography of the Framers of the Constitution: Political experience

I noticed about a year ago that President of the Continental Congress, Pierce Gaithe, was taken off of the wiki about this subject. There are many other sources that list him as being a president of said congress. I have tried to revise it personally, but because the wiki for this subject is on lockdown I cannot. I find it wholly unacceptable that a proud and noble ancestor of mine is being erased from history just because not much is known about him. This is censorship at its worst, and needs to be remedied.

I CONCUR. I too, am the descendant of Founding Father, Signer and Framer, JAMES WILSON of PA, another FORGOTTON FOUNDING FATHER. I am curious as to who is responsible for rewriting the history of the United States. Here are some FACTS about James Wilson: He had more education in the fields of Law and Politics than that of any other member of the Continental Congress or of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention; His 1774 pamphlet "Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament" was the major influence for Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independance TWO YEARS LATER IN 1776; Only one other delegate to the Constitutional Convention spoke more often than James Wilson; Appointed by G. Washington to serve on the Detail Commmittee which was tasked to produce the FIRST DRAFT of the Constitution and it was written in Wilson's handwriting (two drafts are located in Washington, D.C. and a third was recently found at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania); "WE THE PEOPLE" can be attributed to James Wilson; First Justice of the Supreme Court appointed by G. Washington and more qualified than John Jay for the Chief Justice position; Director of the First Bank of the United States; Served as Ambassador to France between the First and Second Continental Congress. No doubt James Wilson played a major role in the founding of the United States. However, as a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court he also became the first Law Professor at the Uni. of PA where he gave lectures on the law. These lectures were attended by many delegates including Geo. Washington. In 1798, Wilson found himself deep in debt as a result of land speculation. Several Founders had speculated in land in western PA and upstate NY. He died while in North Carolina having fled from creditors in the north, which could explain his being left out of the history books.

THIS TOO IS A WRONG NEEDING TO BE CORRECTED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.157.148 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Economic Classification Broom and Few are listed as being "small farmers" which brings to mind the image of a share cropper workings 5 to 20 acres on a small family farm. If you look at even the Wiki biographies of these individuals you will see that their farms were small only in relation to the large plantations of other Founding Fathers. If you track Broom for instance you will see that his family's farm was over 500 acres. This is a wealthy colonial by any definition of terms, especially compared to the indentured servants who created his wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.4.133 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Revere

Paul Revere should be under the list of "other founders" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.143.211 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

slave owners?

Which of the founding fathers were not slave owners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

John Adams for one, I can't list the rest off the top of my head, but I pretty certain there were others. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't think Sam Adams did either. Maybe the WP:HELPDESK would be a better place to ask. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 18:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-keg (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor order issue

In the list of Declaration of Independence signers, John Penn is listed above Robert Treat Paine. 99.59.12.200 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This Page in Spanish

I just created a basic version of this article on the Spanish version of Wikipedia, and I would like to connect this page to the Spanish version, but I can't because it's protected. Also, if anyone would be interested in helping make that page viable, I would highly appreciate your help. es:Padres_Fundadores_de_Los_Estados_Unidos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Galt (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete

This article, though accurate in points of fact, is entirely incomplete. It is wholly incorrect to label the majority of the founding father's to be 'deists', at least in a modern day understanding of the term. Each and every one of our founding father's was an enthusiastic proponent of the Bible, and almost exclusively Christian. It is historically irresponsible to leave this out. Even the least 'religious' of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, made a clear and bold proposition to the council that each and every meeting begin first with prayer to the Lord God who had given them charge over a developing nation, when the practice had begun to languish. Even he acknowledged that God was the fundamental element! He was quoted as saying, "If not even a sparrow falls without His notice, is it possible to believe that a nation could rise without His aid?"

The consequences of incomplete historical documentation have ravaged our country's morality, and the integrity of this country which was given to a Godly people by their Creator for the purposes of furthering the kingdom of Jesus Christ is mocked by it. It is not that this were a nation of rebels, caused into being by evolutionary law which blindly guided us to the status of an indestructable superpower. It is that this nation was deliberately sought out, by much prayer and meditation of the scriptures, by godly men who desired a 'city on a hill' to be a beacon of light to the world. Not only have we become a nation of barbarians, protecting the criminal and exploiting the innocent, killing our unborn and spending ourselves sick, dancing to mindless music constructed of pulses and grunts, and completely overtaken by sex and idolatry- but that we are this way, and fail to recognize the devestation in it! It all begins with the ability to remember... we must remember where we have come from, and why... it was not for this reason.

John Adams said that this constitution was written for a people who were inwardly governed by Jesus Christ, as the freedoms it allowed would be completely distorted otherwise... that democracy cannot WORK with a people who look to eachother for morality. Please, I implore you, with all concern for the country and our children's futures, for the sake of any individual who looks on this page fore information for a menial book report of integral information, include this necessary historical fact. It is not hard to verify; one need only read ANY of the original letters, documents, or even Webster's dictionary (1850 or before) to know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.51.222 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue since it is those to whom believing that the founders were not Christian it is important. Those who believe the founders were Christian have no need to prove otherwise given this belief has remain constant since the beginning. Given the significance of Christianity in early American history it would be difficult to believe that a coindidence occurred in which only deist and atheists formed the group in Philidephia that represented the citizens of the 13 colonies. I was never taught either way, yet only in contemporary times has it become an issue as more and more individuals (likely atheist) feel the need to prove the founders were not Christians. Typical is to trot out quotes from Jefferson, yet he wrote his own Bible that included quotes from Jesus Christ, so why do they attempt to remove Christ from Christianity? Anyway, this isn't a forum, so you need to present sources to support your point. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

the religion of the Founding Fathers is a far cry from 21st century evangelicals--many (like Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Monroe, Adams) did not see Christ as divine, for example. Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In all this discussion of whether the founding fathers were Christian or Deist, perhaps it might be helpful to note that the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the Revolutionary War, begins with this dedication: "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity." This is an entirely Christian statement, not in any way Deist. And (Rjensen) the Doctrine of the Trinity assumes that Christ is divine. If the American framers of the treaty (Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams) didn't believe it or accept it, why would they have made this dedication? Also, it might be noted that the marks of Deism that are used in some of the sources (specifically Note 15) of this article are not accurate. One of those supposed marks of Deism is avoidance of Communion. Yet avoidance of Communion was a very common practice in many 18th century English & American churches. It was one of the things John Wesley criticized within the Anglican Church, and Wesley's insistence on weekly communion earned he and his followers the slanderous name "Methodists." Anyone who actually knows religious history (as opposed to religious historical assumptions) knows that avoidance of Communion during this time period was typical of almost all English & American Christians, and does not qualify as a mark of Deism. The site "Deist Roots of America" actually states, "Belief in God + God Given Reason = Deism." This statement is entirely inaccurate. Anglicans & Episcopalians hold that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason should be used in all theological reflection; and Methodists hold that Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason should be used in all theological reflection. I am a Methodist, and I am not a Deist, yet I believe in God and in God given reason. The definition of Deism by these sources is simply incorrect. Silmalel File:User Silmalel SigPic3.PNG 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone do a little independent research on this? Lambert(2003) hardly qualifies as a citation if we don't know what study it was referring to (it's certainly lacking in the reference section). According to the data provided by www.adherents.com, which identified 204 individuals "who did one or more of the following: - signed the Declaration of Independence - signed the Articles of Confederation - attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 - signed the Constitution of the United States of America - served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791) - served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress" Their religious affiliation were found as follows: Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% Presbyterian 30 18.6% Congregationalist 27 16.8% Quaker 7 4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% Lutheran 5 3.1% Catholic 3 1.9% Huguenot 3 1.9% Unitarian 3 1.9% Methodist 2 1.2% Calvinist 1 0.6% TOTAL 204 This number far exceeds "49" given in the religion section. Which one is more accurate?

Also, to Rjensen's comment, we are trying to address "how many founding fathers identify themselves as Christians", not "how many founding fathers identify themselves as Evangelical Christians".mean (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete #2

Hi, sorry I couldn't figure out how to respond to to thread...

Bascially, I found this quote very quickly in a surface search of the subject:

John Adams and John Hancock: We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

and to me it says a great deal about these men, and their veiws on Christ- if He were not divine (in their eyes) than He could not be King, because He would not be alive to reign. I think the inferences are quite clear when you look at the statements made about Jesus by the founding fathers, and frankly if they were Christian (which I will shortly provide quotes to verify) than it is fundamental that they believe Jesus was Lord, as this is the pillar on which CHRIST-ianity is held.

John Adams: “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” • “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” –John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

Samuel Adams: “ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

And so on, and so forth. 67.241.51.222 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)November 28th, 2010

The Adams-Hancock quote and 1787 Franklin quotes are fake. All the quotes reflect Deism. Anybody professing them today would be expelled from an evangelical church Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stating something is 'fake' is a weak argument, especially given the hundreds of other forms of original documents that reflect like statements concerning the faith of these men. Nearly every memorial sone and mural in Washington DC reflect the Christian faith of the founders. But for arguments sake, supposing those few quotes were not verifiable (which they indeed are) and taking just this quote---Samuel Adams: “ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia] Which has never been disputed, I find it difficult to belive-- as a congregant in an Evangelical church-- that this sort of statement wqould get me 'expelled' for deistic worldview. Brooketo2881 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Brooketo2881Brooketo2881 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Nov 29th, 9:44am

the internet is full of fake quotes--they suddenly appear and are not linked to any RS. Perhaps Brooketo2881 belongs to a very tolerant church, but I suspect that most evangelical churches would expel any known Deist--like Ben Franklin, John Adams or Jefferson--who did not believe Christ was divine. Rjensen (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

John Adams was most certainly not a diest, as he has left a plethra of letters to and from his wife Abigail that indicate without any shadow of a doubt that he was a Christian with strong relationship to his faith in Jesus Christ. As for Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson I cannot comment as I have not looked deeply enough into their personal backgrounds to say; however, certainly Rev. Witherspoon (the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independance) was a devoted Presbyterian, and Sam Adams (known as the most vocal advocate for revolution) was undisputedly Christian as well. But even further back, all one need know that the country was found by Christians for Jesus is to read the Mayflower Compact, 1621, which states:

         "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620." 

So clearly, the pilgrims (the term of which, by the way, was coined from a passage in Hebrews 11:13 stating--"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth") were followers of Jesus Christ, even to founding a country specifically for His kingdom. The Mayflower Contract, by all rights and for all intended purposes, was our first Constitutional agreement. History must recall itself with all integrity of fact in order to be of any benefit to us.67.241.51.222 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Link change

Hi all,

I think it might be better to link 'the' (as written in the article, not 'a') "Declaration of Independence" to link to "/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence" as opposed to /Declaration_of_Independence

Thanks, Ian Clark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.196.222 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

French founding fathers

Seems that there is little support for these additions. Could the user adding the information come up with a persuasive argument and a source for these inclusions?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

--> Please define "little support". Even a cursory review of the articles for the names recently added to the "Other Founders" list will reveal that the additions are exactly comparable and equivalent in historical importance - if not more so - to Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, whose name already appeared in this list prior to the addition of the accurate content that has been deleted impulsively and without review of the relevant historical facts. Deletion of historically relevant names on this list should be accompanied by a persuasive argument as to why they should be deleted.

First, read what consensus is. Also read WP:V, which is a core content policy. If three different people revert the names, its a pretty fair bet that it shouldn't be in the article. Also, wikipedia cannot be used as a source for other article per WP:CIRCULAR.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sammy Houston has not provided any WP:RS to support his claim that the French officials he has listed should be included in a list of founders of the United States. His reference to Lafayette already being on the list does not support his claim. Lafayette was in the service of the rebelling colonies and not at that time serving under French government authority. Sammy Houston is in clear violation of WP:3RR. Dwalrus (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted twice already and don't wish to fall into his trap,so I'm out of options when it comes to someone who doesn't care about WP:BRD and WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS, andWP:V, and WP:RS, and WP:CIVIL, and ect, ect.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for 'Other founding fathers'?

There seems to be no consensus on criteria for a person's inclusion in this section. The result is an overly long list of names. I suggest that a minimum qualification for a 'Founding Father' is that his main accomplishments in service to the U.S. occurred during the founding period (from about 1765 to 1789). WCCasey (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, what you're calling for is original research, which we don't do. On Wikipedia, the only meaningful qualification for inclusion on the list is that a reliable source calls the guy a Founding Father. Anyone should feel free to remove any name from the list for which you cannot find support in a reliable source. Some, like Patrick Henry, should be easy to support. A few other names are dubious and will probably be removed. —Kevin Myers 01:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why any OR is necessary; these names are all linked to bio articles. I'm willing, however, to support Kevin's proposed criterion. To try it out, I read the article on Ethan Allen, first name on the list. He is described as "one of the founders of the U.S. state of Vermont", but I didn't find the words 'Founding Father' anywhere. Should Allen be removed from the list? As for Patrick Henry, my opinion is that he qualifies as a Founder, but the statement to that effect in his bio is not sourced. Tag it? WCCasey (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm a bit skeptical about the sub-list of "other" founders. It includes a lot of people who were relatively unimportant, and omits people who seem equally important (e.g.omitting Paine Wingate). The sub-list includes:

• Richard Allen
• Egbert Benson
• Richard Bland
• Elias Boudinot
• Cyrus Griffin
• Michael Hillegas
• William Jackson
• Thomas Sim Lee
• Philip Mazzei
• Edmund Pendleton
• William Rickman
• Robert Smith

These were founders? I plan to delete these people, and slap "citation needed" tags on the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Might as well just do a JSTOR/Google Scholar search for each name in the list and cite as many as we can. After that initial pass, then we can reevaluate who belongs. NW (Talk) 02:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and get started with deletions. Robert Smith (cabinet) was the second United States Secretary of the Navy from 1801 to 1809 and the sixth United States Secretary of State from 1809 to 1811. I can't find any reference referring to him as a founding father or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove Michael Hillegas, who was the first Treasurer of the United States, up until 1789. I can't find Hillegas mentioned anywhere as a "framer" or "founder" or the like. The closest I get is that he is mentioned by Robert Wright and David Cowen in their book Financial founding fathers: the men who made America rich (University of Chicago Press, 2006). But Hillegas is not among the nine people identified in that book as financial founding fathers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think William Rickman is also an outlier here. He was a doctor who helped care for soldiers of the Revolutionary War, but I can't find any sources that say he rose to the level of a "founder" or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've installed a "seealso" for President of the Continental Congress. I'm going to remove the following because I can't find support for them being founders: Cyrus Griffin, Thomas Sim Lee, Thomas Pinckney, Peyton Randolph, and Arthur St. Clair.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Statement in Article

The second paragraph, first sentence, "Most historians ....", is false. The source cited actually reads the opposite: "Most scholars identify as founding fathers the politicians, soldiers, jurists, and legislators who held leadership positions during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic. This category has two subsets .... First are the Signers .... Second are the Framers". [Bernstein, The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, first chapter, electronic edition, location 106.] Two paragraphs later, Bernstein writes, "Some have expanded the phrase to embrace ... Americans of the middling and common sorts who served in the [military] during the American Revolution, who voted for delegates to state conventions that were to ratify the Constitution, and who helped bring the new government into existence." [id., location 110.] However, Bernstein explicitly uses the more common definition of the founders, i.e. the Signers and the Framers, not "the middling and common sorts." Stephenrumson (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With your ellipses in the quotations, it does not conflict. "politicians, soldiers, jurists, and legislators who held leadership positions during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic" would appear to be a larger group then the latter mentioned "two subsets" but much smaller than a definition including "Americans of the middling and common sorts" which he rejects. If it clearly said that it consists of "only two subsets", it would conflict and without the full text it is hard to say for certain. Rmhermen (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I also see no conflict. There really is no hard and fast definition for "founding father"; it's been a vague term from the getgo, and it depends upon who you talk to and who you read as to the extent or limitation of the phrase's meaning. That's what I glean from the Bernstein source. Aside from that, I also liked the part about Abbs Adams and the "founding mothers of the USA". Anyway, due to the phrase's inherent vagueness, I really don't see a way to limit the extent of its meaning. The above conversation in the previous section calls for "criteria", and one editor said that "the only meaningful qualification for inclusion on the list is that a reliable source calls the guy a Founding Father." Good luck with that. In light of the realization that the term "founding father" has always had veiled meaning at best, the requirement for the described reliable source would probably wipe out most of the article. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The conflict is that article states that "Most historians" include "ordinary citizens" in their definition of Founding Fathers. However, the sources cited by Bernstein do not include ordinary citizens. Bernstein later states that "Some" historians include ordinary citizens. The difference between "most" and "some" is huge. The consensus of academic historians, in fact, is that the Founders and Framers comprise a few hundred men, at most. Now, within that consensus, numerically small differences exist, but nothing approaching anything that warrants including ordinary men in the definition. Further, the three historians Bernstein cites for his "Some" historians statement are considered narrative and/or post-modern historians that research "ordinary" people during this era; their use of "founders" is largely rhetorical. About my text, my ellipses are only meant to make it easy to read. The first ellipses can be read in full in the article. Removing my second and third ellipses, the text reads: "This category has two subsets, each keyed to one of two founding images. First are the Signers, the delegates to the Second Continental Congress who in July 1776 in Philadelphia's State House (now called Independence Hall) declared American independence and revised and adopted Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence. Second are the Framers, the delegates to the Federal Convention who met in the same building from May through September of 1787 and framed the Constitution of the United States." And third: "Some have expanded the phrase to embrace not only the usual cadre of elite white males but also Americans of the middling and common sorts who served in the militia or the Continental Army or Navy during the American Revolution, who voted for delegates to the state conventions that were to ratify the Constitution, and who helped bring the new government into existence." Stephenrumson (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

From the article: "to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America." You seem to be concentrating on the "ordinary citizens" part of the sentence while ignoring the "took part in winning...and creating" part. Someone like Haym Solomon who was not a soldier or judge or politician or statesman but a financier comes to mind. Rmhermen (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that some historians apparently encompass ordinary citizens in the term "Founders" comes as a surprise to me. I'm not disputing it, but I've always seen the term used to refer to leaders, only, such as signers of the Declaration and participants in the Constitutional Convention. So I've changed the word "most" to "some," since Stephenrumson tells us that the cited reference uses the word "some." NCdave (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

deists?

The article says, "Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson... and Benjamin Franklin. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists."

That is very misleading, in that it greatly understates the dominance of the Christian religion among the Founders and Framers:

1. Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were "vocal about their opposition to organized religion." Both were anti-clerical, and Jefferson (though he called himself a "true Christian") was noticeably heretical, but neither expressed opposition to organized religion. None of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention did so, either.

2. The phrase "anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion" strangely lumps together many Protestants, such as Methodists and Congregationalists (who were and are anti-clerical), with non-Christians. It sounds as though the writer doesn't know the difference.

3. The 2nd sentence makes it sound as though "proponents of traditional religion" were a mere faction, with representation at best comparable to those who were in "opposition to organized religion." In fact, the vast majority of the Founders & Framers were practicing Christians.

4. The 2nd sentence also suggests that the whole spectrum of "organized religion" was was represented. That is not the case. The only organized religion professed by any of the signers of any of the founding documents was Christianity. A few Jews also had some level of prominence: Isaac Franks, Haym Salomon & Francis Salvador. No other "organized religion" had any representation at all.

5. The claim that "several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists" is false unless you use a rather broad definition of the term "Founding Fathers." It was true of none of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The most prominent men who fit that description were Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen, neither of whom signed any of the key founding documents. Franklin, who came to his faith late in life, is sometimes included in such lists, but he was a vocal Christian by the time of the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson is also often accused of being a Deist, but he was a regular churchgoer, and he called himself a Christian. NCdave (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1 has a discussion of this subject. Rmhermen (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Signers of the declaration of Indepence

I counted your list and you have 57 names, but all the other sources say there are 56 names. So who is extra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.158.178 (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is Charles Thomson, secretary. Rmhermen (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson?

Seriously?

He was a teen during the war. --Earthbatslast (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

yes seriously. It was a young man's war. Jackson was in Congress when Washington was president. Rjensen (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Multicultural view

I added a multicultural view from an article by Thurgood Marshall in Ebony Magazine (September, 1987). African Americans, women, and Indians were excluded from suffrage. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going by the source article in Ebony Magazine and yet my edit was deleted. Am I to view that Wikipedia is excluding Thurgood Marshall a Supreme Court Justice from an article on the Founding Fathers? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Blacks gained suffrage in 1870. Women gained suffrage in 1920. Indians gained suffrage in 1924. Asians gained suffrage in the 1940's and 1950's. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record here was my edit:

• "Many founding fathers were slave owners and the Constitution adopted in 1787 protected slavery while excluding African American, female, and Indian suffrage.

What states allowed suffrage for blacks, women, or Indians in 1789? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is information on African American voting.

• "At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good faith compromise edit:

• "Although free African Americans with property could vote in several states, slaves, women, and Indians were federally excluded from suffrage at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative version:

• "Although the Constitition adopted in 1787 federally excluded slaves, Indians, and women suffrage, freed blacks owning property in several states could vote." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

we don't use popular magazine articles when solid scholarship is so plentiful. The 1787 Constitution did not mention women, for example, and certainly did not exclude them from voting. The suffrage issue simply was not a major or minor topic for the Founding Fathers and has no place in this article. Nor does the 18-year-old vote, for that matter. Rjensen (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that redefining suffrage was not of the least importance to the Founding Fathers. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought "No taxation without representation" was the montra of the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers were not repesented in Parliament. Isn't Democracy founded on voting rights? If suffrage was not an issue for the Founding Fathers then what were they really fighting for? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Democracy was not the issue either. it was republicanism versus rule by inherited elite (kings & dukes) who used corruption as their tool. Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC).

The Constitution stated that Representatives would be elected by population with human property, or slaves, counting as 3/5 person. Weren't the Representatives voted into office directly by persons who owned property? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Founding Fathers and slavery

I added that many Founding Fathers owned African American Slaves and that the Constitution sanctioned slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Slavery section proposal

I believe a slavery segment would be good for the article. Not to discuss slavery in general, but rather, to show where the division was between the Founding Fathers and slavery that resulted in the 3/5 compromise at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The other issue would be containment of slavery. Freehling points out that the Founding Fathers contained slavery, somewhat with the North West Ordinance and the Abolition of the slave trade. Many states were abolishing slavery and Virginia allowed slave masters to set their slaves free. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential edit:

• "Many Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison used slave labor on their respected planatations, farms, or estates. The Constitution agreed to in 1787, sanctioned the system of slavery by counting slaves, or "human property", as 3/5 person in apportioning representation and a fugitive slave clause to capture and return runaway slaves. The Founding Fathers, however, did make signifigant efforts to contain slavery. Many Northern states had adopted legislation to end slavery after the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson in 1784 proposed to ban slavery in all the Western Territories, having failed to pass Congress by one vote. Following Jefferson's plan Congress did ban slavery in the North West Ordinance of 1787. The African slave trade was banned in several states and finally in 1807, President Jefferson signed into law federally banning the international slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

ok. note that all the states abolished the INTERNATIONAL slave trade by 1800 but SCarolina reopened it. Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I plan on using the Freehling source, since he tends to be the most neutral with the Founders. Yes. I can mention all states abolished the International slave trade. I need to find out when the Northern states banned slavery or legislated gradual emancipation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Final draft:

• Many Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison used slave labor on their respected plantations, farms, or estates. The Constitution agreed to in 1787, sanctioned the system of slavery by counting slaves, or "human property", as 3/5 person in apportioning representation and a fugitive slave clause to capture and return runaway slaves. The Founding Fathers, however, did make important efforts to contain slavery. Many Northern states had adopted legislation to end or significantly reduce slavery after the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson in 1784 proposed to ban slavery in all the Western Territories, having failed to pass Congress by one vote. Following Jefferson's plan Congress did ban slavery in the North West Ordinance of 1787. The international slave trade was banned in all states except South Carolina by 1800. Finally in 1807, President Jefferson signed into law a federally enforced ban on the international slave trade throughout all the United States and territories. President Jefferson, in 1804, however, allowed the domestic expansion or diffusion of slavery into the Louisiana Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe a section on slavery is better then a segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a shorter version of the opening: "Many Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin owned slaves. The Constitution of indirectly mentioned of slavery by counting slaves as 3/5 person in apportioning representation and including a fugitive clause to capture and return runaway slaves." Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Slaves and slavery section looks great. Thanks for your help and cooperation Rjensen. I believe this will help in better understanding the Founding Fathers and may correct any misinterpretations or any biases positive or negative. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add to the subsection on "Other founders" the following person: [[Abigail Adams]], wife and mother of presidents.<ref name="guide" />

She is included in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Founding fathers: the essential guide to the men who made America[1]198.228.196.247 (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Done198.228.196.247 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest removal of the slavery non sequitur added by Cmguy777 in the opening paragraph. The information is covered in bullet point 3, and while slavery in a shockingly important subject and should be included in the article, it diffuses focus of the article in the opening paragraph. FWIW 67.176.147.202 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The French

Should the French be mentioned as part of the "Founding Fathers", particularly Rochambeau, Lafayette, and Count Duex-Ponts? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is tempting to do this given the allegiance during the war, but I think most people believe the founders are those who conceived the revolution and constructed our new nation via the founding documents. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a definition of "Founding Fathers" needs to be given. This would clarify the issue. Thanks.Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think you posed a very good question-- one that I never even considered until now. But while the French were critical in helping us achieve victory in the Revolutionary War, they didn't actually play any direct role in the drafting of the the Constitution, at least as far as I'm aware. I think this is a question that should be put before a few historians who specialize in this period and see what they think. Though I know more about this than most Americans (sadly, that's not saying much), the more I think about your question, the more I realize that I am woefully unqualified to answer it. Sir kris (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In reading the lede, there could be room for mentioning other people, including women, in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Paine should be mentioned with the French as important figures. Thomas Paine was never a citizen of the United States. He was an Englishman, - which is on the original cover of Common Sense. Thomas Paine never gave that up, and moved back to England after the war. Paine was kicked out of England (it's unclear to me without looking it up if he then lost his British citizenship or was just kicked out) and moved to France, helping them in their war there. Towards the end of his life, he moved back to the United States with his french mistress and children, but was a non-naturalized immigrant - he never became naturalized before his death. So Thomas Paine should be listed with important French figures - they aren't founders because they weren't citizens, but they're important top the history - and he's also part of French history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.69.27 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Unsourced Claim

I removed an unsourced paragraph making the very dubious and harmful claim that nearly all of the founding fathers were devout Protestants. I was unable to find any credible sources to substantiate this claim via a Google search. It also contradicts what we were taught in school regarding the prevalence of Deism among the nation's founders. I judged this claim to be potentially very harmful because it directly pertains to a number of highly contentious and far-reaching political debates happening throughout the country. In fact, my attention was drawn to this after reading a posting that cited the unsourced paragraph in this article as its sole source and drew a number of conclusions, many of which verifiably false, from it. Regardless of how any of us feels about these issues, we should all at least be able to agree that it's not Wikipedia's mission to influence public policy by including unsourced, original research in its articles.

Furthermore, I also noticed that at least one of the sources in that section has one link that leads to a 404 and two other links to general material about Deism that doesn't actually substantiate what the reference claims. I believe that the entire "Religion" section should be re-visited and cleaned-up. I have a feeling there may be more incongruous sourcing in and around there. I'll try to set aside some time to look at it in more detail and add the appropriate templates. Sir kris (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Instead of simply removing information that you find dubious, just add a request for citations. That allows others to look for and add the citations at another time.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

An unsourced claim in an article can and should be removed if no verifiable source can be found to substantiate it. The citation needed tag is used to mark an uncited claim to undergo this verification. If the verification has already been performed and no substantiation can be found, removal of the uncited material is the prescribed action. Sir kris (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't uncited. The very first words are Lambert (2003). You just look at the bottom of the page for the entry by Lambert written in 2003. Then you go to a library and read it. Rmhermen (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I read it a few years ago back in college and it does not substantiate the claim in question. The other sources mentioned, as I alluded to in my initial comment, came up 404 and otherwise unverifiable. If you want to re-add that section, you'll need to include some kind of reliable source to substantiate it. I have not been able to find a single one so I removed it in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. I will revert any further attempts to re-add that unless a verifiable source is included.

Oh and this has nothing to do with any sort of debate. I wasn't actually participating in that discussion I alluded to. I was merely a spectator with no dog in that particular fight. If the claim is accurate, source it and I'll be more than happy to leave it at that. Sir kris (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

the material by Lambert is valuable and non-controversial. It identifies what denominational connection each person had -- it does not discuss anyone's theology or private beliefs. Lambert is a leading expert on the subject with numerous well-received books vetted by leading publishers like Princeton University Press. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not accurate. The material, as you just alluded to yourself, does not assert-- properly sourced or otherwise-- claims with regard to the founding fathers' individual theological affiliations. Put simply, the source does not match the claims in the content that cites it. Furthermore, the claims you're making in that paragraph are very much controversial! Whether the founding fathers were Christians, Deists, Atheists, etc? That's a very heated topic and one for which there is, unfortunately, relatively little data to moderate. For example, some of the founding fathers were members of England's official church, though many historians believe that many of them were only members because it was expected of them back home and there are indications that at least some of them renounced that affiliation when the colonies broke away from England. Evidence also suggests that 'Deist' was frequently used as a somewhat covert label for 'Atheist', since the latter term tended to carry a rather harsh stigma with it. But again, the data is really hazy on this and we have to be careful not to make representations that have not been corroborated.

If you can locate a reliable source that backs-up the claims in that paragraph, post a link here and I'll take a look. I'd be more than happy to re-add it if you can show me a verifiable source that actually substantiates the content in question. Until then, I'm re-applying the removal on the grounds stated above. Sir kris (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to get "support" for its removal. So far you are the only one who appears to want this paragraph removed. Just because you don't want it in there or that you don't think its sourced is irrelevant. Do not continue to remove it without talk page support.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why a footnote cannot be inserted identifying the pages in Lambert's book that are relied upon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not required for unsourced material, JOJ. And Anythingyouwant is absolutely right. Even page numbers would at least give us a basis upon which to discuss why OP believes that it supports the section. According to Wikipedia's rules, unsourced sections can be removed at an editor's discretion. In this case, mine. Find me a verifiable source-- any source-- that backs-up this claim and I'll leave it be. Otherwise, I have no intention of backing down. Sir kris (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I'll compromise (for now) and go along with Anythingyouwant's approach of adding the citation needed tag. That'll serve as a short-term solution, at least. However, those of you who want that in there, I'd strongly advise you to use this time to get that sourced! I'll leave it be for a few months so you have plenty of time with which to do that. If it's still unsourced by the end of the year, I'll renew my insistance that the unsourced content be removed. I think that's a reasonable compromise, yes? Sir kris (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

Per WP:Cite:

A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. For example: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. This type of citation is usually given as a footnote, and is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles.

And:

A short citation is an inline citation that identifies the place in a source where specific information can be found, but without giving full details of the source – these will have been provided in a full bibliographic citation either in an earlier footnote, or in a separate section. For example: Rawls 1971, p. 1. This system is used in some articles; the short citations may be given either as footnotes, or as parenthetical references within the text.

As far as I can tell, the material in question does not have a full cite and does not have a short cite either, because no "place" in the source is provided. So, I will insert "citation needed" tags.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"many historians believe that many of them were only members because it was expected of them back home" indeed, some people belonged to a church because it was expected of them. Yes, same as today. But WHAT church did they belong to is the question here. Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, that's not the question. The question is regarding the individual religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the founding fathers, *not* what religious organizations, including churches, they participated in at any given time. If you want to change the scope of the section from "Religion" to something like "Church Membership", then I might be able to work with you on that. Sir kris (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

slavery

I dont get the point of the second paragraph. Are you a bigot? Why is if important to bring up slavery so early in the discussion? The founders were ultimately very critical of slavery and eventually eliminated it. At our founding, every nation on earth had slavery but none existed in such a state of conflict over a subject which was the norm of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.83.83 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Syntax?

Is there a special reason why the founding fathers are referred to as "Signers" rather than "Signatories", which seems more appropriate. 114.240.158.190 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Because that's what we call them. When I type "signers of the declaration" into Google, I get links from the U.S. National Park Service and the Society of Descendants of the Signers... But when I change it to Signatories I get a number of links from the UK and Ireland. May be some BE/AE difference here. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Slavery

I second the previous complaint regarding the second paragraph. Though many of the Founding Fathers were indeed slaveowners, this is not the correct location in this article for such information and seems randomly interjected. This information would be much more appropriate under section 2.2 (Occupations and Finances), or 2.4 (Demographics). Furthermore it is factually incorrect to state that 'the Constitution adopted in 1787 sanctioned the system of slavery". Slavery was never mentioned in the Constitution ratified at this time. The first mention of slavery in the Constitution occurred with the passage of the 13th Amendment at the close of the American Civil War. The Constitution as ratified in 1787 did not 'sanction' slavery, nor did it abolish it, it was by design mum regarding the issue, as the Founders were well aware of how contentious it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.201.132 (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Constitution mentions slavery at least three times. Rmhermen (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

It would be good if someone would list names of the Founding Fathers in to the lead. --93.180.104.61 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There are already several mentioned - and any entire section listing them all: List of the Founding Fathers. Rmhermen (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mostly all ethnically Celtic

Can it be pointed out that most all of the founding fathers are ethnic Celts who wanted to have freedom from the "Germanic" monarchy of England/Britian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.146.134 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

no, First it needs a reliable secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

The second paragraph of this article should be relocated. When read in sequence, paragraphs one, three and four follow one another logically. However, the second paragraph is inappropriately placed in the article and due to its clumsy interjection, disrupts the flow of the rest of the introductory content. The information it provides is not germane to the introduction portion of the article as owning slaves was neither a singular nor defining achievement of the men referenced in this article to be the 'Founding Fathers' and the term 'Founding Fathers' was not coined to draw attention to those mens' participation in the practice of slaveholding. The 'Founding Fathers' were so categorized for their having founded a new sovereign nation, the United States of America and its first government. Though the Constitution tacitly mentions slavery, the second paragraph could as logically say 'Many of the Founders were Freethinkers and codified the separation of church and state in the Constitution'. Or by the standards of the current second paragraph, the intro could state 'Many of the Founding Fathers wore wigs' or 'Many of the Founding Fathers did not own slaves', all equally true, and all equally irrelevant to this part of the article. The information in the second paragraph should be moved to a more appropriate location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.201.132 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that paragraph from the introduction for the reasons you stated. Drdpw (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014

Demographics heading should spell Alexander Martin's surname correctly (not Martieno). 108.15.205.14 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--JayJasper (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadly and narrowly

The lead use of "refers broadly" and "more narrowly" doesn't work well because the second sentence does not cover a subset, nor a family of subsets. The first excludes anyone not yet a leader, or not yet allied with the patriots, during the war. Perhaps it would be an improvement to say "commonly refers" and "Alternatively, it refers" or "Commonly, too, it refers". Either one fits what we now say in the lead. (--and complements any remarks, below or elsewhere, that the Framers are "commonly" this or that, with Founders sometimes considered to encompass them, sometimes recognized or emphasized to be distinct, sometimes simply equated.)

--P64 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Died in duels and died youngest

Beside the bar graph of ages at death, we identify the three who died in their 90s by name; report the numbers who died in their 80s, 70s, down to 40s; and close by naming three who died in duels. This suggests that the latter are those three who died in their 30s as shown by the graph. But the unfortunate duelists all died in their 40s. We should identify the three who died in their 30s.

Who were they? --P64 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor who created the table is still active: User:Wylve. You could try asking if he still has the data he used. Rmhermen (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Other Founders"

Accidentally reversed when trying to respond to edit, apologies for that...In any case, the subsection "Lists of the Founding Fathers" appears to have five categories: Signers of the Constitutional Association (1774), Signers of the Declaration of Independence, Signers of the Articles of Confederation (1777), Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and Other Founders.

Four men (Richard Bland, Patrick Henry, John Jay, and Edmund Pendleton) appear both in at least one of the first four lists and in the "Other Founders" list. The latter list is described as "individuals are also referred to in cited reliable sources as having been fathers or founders of the United States". It seems to me that that description would imply that they did not fit in any of the previous four categories; I'm not sure why that edit was reversed.

Bartletforgallifrey (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Attendant but non-signatories

We should have way of including those who attended the founding meetings but did not sign the documents. We already include the non-signers of the Constitution in the statistical section counts. Rmhermen (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Paine

I would argue that by any reasonable standard, Thomas Paine more than qualifies as a Founding Father. His two pamphlets were critical to shifting public opinion towards the revolutionary cause, and the sociopolitical views he espoused were hugely influential upon the Declaration of Independence. As John Adams wrote -- ""Without the pen of the author of Common Sense (Paine), the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain." So unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm going to add Paine to the list. Bricology (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Paine is already listed in the Other founders section.  Stick to sources! Paine  01:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Image of John Jay

Minard38 (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Minard38 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC) I am confused by the continued removal of an image of John Jay on the Founding Fathers page given that Jay is one of the seven most prominent Founding Fathers of the United States. I have tried to add supplemental information to adequately reflect Jay's proper place among his peers. The Editors of the Selected Papers of John Jay at Columbia University are equally confused by the deletions. They and Pulitzer Prize winner Joseph Ellis (who recently wrote the Quartet and highlighted Jay's contributions in concert with Hamilton, Washington and Madison) and many other academics already referenced on the page including Joanne Freeman and Richard Bernstein agree that Jay merits attention as already indicated in the introduction of the page, "Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[4]

Since Jay is already mentioned in the article many times and is listed in the extensive chart I thought it appropriate to add his image to go with the existing images of Washington, Franklin, Adams and the other individuals who are illustrated. Thanks for any light that can be shed on this omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minard38 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the dispute is not the presence of the image but the prominence of it. I don't think adding it to other images in the Founding Fathers list section would draw any complaints. Rmhermen (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response! I did try placing the image in several different places including as you suggested in line with the other Founding Fathers. I will try again - thank you for your understanding and encouragement!Minard38 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Founding Fathers of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118024728/http://www.ushistory.org/carpentershall/history/congress.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/carpentershall/history/congress.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Founding Fathers of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123151450/http://ecollege.edu/about-us/veritas-aeterna/383-religion-of-jefferson to http://ecollege.edu/about-us/veritas-aeterna/383-religion-of-jefferson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Need to clarify who and how many

This article should be improved to do a better job clarifying who, exactly, it is referring to in a given section, at least when numbers are given. As the article makes clear from the lead, the term "Founding Fathers" can broadly describe some or all of the people "who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America upon republican principles during the latter decades of the 18th century" -- this is a large, maybe uncountable number, set by fairly amorphous criteria. The article also acknowledges that narrower definitions or qualifications are sometimes used instead -- for example, "the Signers of the embossed version of the Declaration of Independence"; signers of the Continental Association or Articles of Confederation; or the Framers of the Constitution. Generally, this seems fine -- there is not a universally accepted "definition" for "Founding Fathers," and Wikipedia certainly should not attempt to invent one.

The problem is that elsewhere in the article, we see hard numbers. For example:

• "The great majority were born in the Thirteen Colonies. But at least nine were born in other parts of the British Empire" (majority of how many? 9 of whom?)
• "As many as thirty-five including Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Jay were trained as lawyers"
• "Only four (Baldwin, Gilman, Jenifer, and Alexander Martin) were lifelong bachelors."

By contrast, here are some examples of how it should be done for maximum clarity and verifiability (emphasis added):

• "at the Constitutional Convention at least 29 had served in the Continental Army"
• "Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 28 were Anglicans (i.e. Church of England; or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), 21 were other Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll and Fitzsimons)"

Then there are cases that make no attempt at precision but rather seem to generalize about the whole group of people who might be considered Founding Fathers. I think these instances are sub-optimal, but probably OK as long as they are accurate and properly cited:

• "Many of the Founding Fathers attended or graduated from the colonial colleges.... Some had previously been home schooled or obtained early instruction from private tutors or academies. Others had studied abroad."

Of course, this last example could possibly be improved with something like "Of the ## signers of DOCUMENT, ## attended or graduated from the colonial colleges," although this might actually make the article harder to read or confusing if it gives specific numbers for each document. The broader point is that the people involved in this process came from a variety of education backgrounds. Similar arguments might be made regarding other issues, such as birthplaces, religion, and family/marital status. One potential solution in some cases might be combining a general observation with one specific data point, e.g.: "Many of the Founding Fathers attended or graduated from the colonial colleges, including ## of the ## signers of DOCUMENT." or "The vast majority of Founding Fathers were Protestant; for example, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention (28 of 55) were Anglican, another 21 were other Protestants, and just two were Roman Catholics."

I hope some editor(s) will take on this project to improve the usability and reliability of this article. --EightYearBreak (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Mga Amang-Tagapagtatag ng Estados Unidos" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mga Amang-Tagapagtatag ng Estados Unidos. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous viewpoint

The page doesn't really represent the indigenous viewpoint to these "founding fathers". What did the people already living in the areas claimed by the the "United States of America" think about them? This is a very long page and yet there is, surprisingly, no mention of "indigenous" or "Indian". - Francis Tyers · 00:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A good point, but the events and individuals on the page relate to the founding of the United States as a nation, which occurred long after the founding and land-and-population distribution of theThirteen Colonies, where a tag would be more appropriate (although that page lightly addresses the topic). I did remove the tag and originally had a descriptor edit summary but made a mistake in not publishing that first edit, which is why the edit summary is brief. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Randy Kryn on this. This article is about the founding of a polity, a political entity, not about land and a clash of cultures. Those aspects should certainly be covered in this encyclopedia in great detail, but doing it here would be a WP:COATRACK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with Randy Kryn on this. My glance at the RS turns up no articles on the topic by scholars.Rjensen (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Section editing

After adding and extending some descriptors in the Other notable patriots of the period section of the page, and adding an additional name, I thought I'd give out a call for other editors to consider editing and polishing the section. The topic seems important enough to include a good descriptor for each entry and making sure that every name that should be on the list finds inclusion, so will start by giving a "shout out" to just a few editors who might enjoy filling in the empty, too-brief, or inaccurate list descriptors (Rjensen, Dicklyon, SMcCandlish, Wbm1058). There are hundreds more who could be pinged or who watch-page this article. With a little attention from several editors the list can end up reading pretty well, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, there's a bunch of over-capitalization there I could help with! I'm told I might be descended from Thomas Nelson Jr.; other than that, I don't have a lot of special interest in this space. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, quite a bit of over-capping in office titles, good observation (have edited casing). And from the looks of it Thomas Nelson Jr. didn't use the comma, Jr., so you do likely carry his genes. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Did some minor copyediting. I would have concerns that this section could be prone to PoV-laden insertions, but as long as the sources are good, it's probably reasonable. I think it would be better to have multiple sources per entry. It's too easy to find someone somewhere claiming that Person X is a "forgotten founder" without that actually representing a scholarly consensus. On the copypediting front, what this article probably most needs is a consistent citatation style, per WP:CITEVAR. I would suggest WP:CS1 format, since it's the default, and is already the most prevalent in the article. I already converted a few citation to this, to better structure data, but I don't have time to pore over the entire thing. PS: Far as I can tell, I'm related to no one famous. I did a lot of genealogy, and it's mostly farmers, plus some farmers, and even some farmers, back to the 1600s. Actually there was a once semi-famous preacher in there somewhere, but he was also a farmer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is not gender neutral and must be fixed!

"Founding Fathers" is too very masculine, it doesn't reflect role of womene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.146.242 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Because of your comment I added an image of Abigail Adams to the "Other notable patriots of the period" section. The topic, with its well known common name "Founding Fathers", emerged from the male-influenced events of the era​ and its initiatives, circumstances, and societal norms. At the time women were more or less not involved in the creation, organizational representation, and document developing and signing activities of the founding of the United States. Any major influence by individual women would be listed in the "Other notable patriots of the period" section, and Abigail Adams may be the foremost of the women who made a difference in the thought processes of these events. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

petty revert war over the word "Traitor"

seems like there is a little dispute over the use of the word "Traitor" in the opening line of the article. Personally I think the characterization is appropriate, and salient enough to be included in the opening sentence of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.214.171 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mention Samuel Slater in the "other" list?

A few weeks ago, I added Samuel Slater to this list, but was reverted. My reasoning is this: He is often called the "Father of the Industrial Revolution" and he built his first textile mill around the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted. He would not be the only businessman on the list if added. pbp 02:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Slater opened his first factory in the U.S. in 1793, by which time the founding of the United States was accomplished and recognized. A good faith suggestion but not directly related to the nation's founding or Founding Fathers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Founding Fathers disputed

I have assigned a Disputed template to this section. For one, its only reference is to Richard Werther’s Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents article in the Journal of the American Revolution, which adds the Continental Association to three documents that have helped identify Founders in the past, namely the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution. The author then provides an analysis of 145 members of the Continental Congress who signed one or more these documents between 1774 and 1788. While Werther does mention that signers of the Declaration and Constitution are often recognized as Founders, nowhere does he state that signing any particular document automatically qualifies someone as a Founder.

Meanwhile, some editors apparently have taken an expansive view of Werther's article and have construed it to mean all 145 signers (plus 10 others who didn't sign anything) are Founders. As part of this, the section's title was changed from "Signatories of founding documents" to "List of Founding Fathers" and a sentence was added stating that those on the list are "considered Founding Fathers" without any citation to support it. To make matters worse, the list is now being used to add "Founding Father" to the lead paragraphs of the articles on all of the signers, also without citations. Besides the fact that the contributions of many figures on the list were relatively marginal, we now have two "Founding Fathers" who were prominent Loyalists, both of Richard Werther’s Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents article in the Journal of the American Revolution,whom collaborated with the British.

I initially considered placing this template on the article itself, though a "ref-improve" template might be more appropriate, since citations are needed, key issues are not addressed, and among other problems, the lead and Background sections are somewhat aimless. Regarding citations, in a sentence at the end of the lead, a statement is made that signers of the Continental Association qualify as Founders, while the article referenced doesn't even mention the subject. Part two of the sentence adds the idea that signers of the Articles of Confederation are also Founders, and I assume that the book referenced supports the thought (the author anoints 164 patriots as Founders), but all of this ignores the fact that by and large historians are deeply divided on the issue. Some eschew the concept of Founding Father as trite, others consider it sexist, while still others are inclusive to the extent of regarding anyone who did anything to help start the nation as a Founder.

Because of the importance of this article (over 2,000 views daily) I believe the attempt to include an extensive list of founders is a terrible idea since even experts cannot agree on who is and who isn't beyond a dozen or so obvious candidates - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton and so forth - whose names unfortunately are buried in the opening's overly long second paragraph. But for certain the title of the list section, if the section is allowed to stand, needs to be reverted, and its text should be re-written to clarify why these four documents are relevant to the main topic. Similarly, the application of the Founding Father wikilink to many of the individuals on the list also needs to be reverted, except where clearly supported by sources. Allreet (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The signers of the four great founding documents seem a good place to at least draw a line. Even Abe Lincoln counted the Continental Association as the document first binding the colonies together as a unified entity moving forward together. The present selection for this page seems to adequately cover the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Only sources can determine the places to start and the preponderance seem to indicate those places are elsewhere. Allreet (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Richard J. Werther's article in the Journal of the American Revolution seems determinative, as it has been for this page, and there are many other sources already on the page. Werther's logic of including the signers of the four founding documents, men who directly put their lives, fortunes, and livelihoods on the line by signing their names, has been said no better. Will remove the template, as the sources already exist and now linked again. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that "sources exist". As I previously pointed out, Richard Werther fails to say anything close to "signers of the Continental Association should be regarded as Founders"; if you'll notice, he carefully uses the term "signers" throughout. Meanwhile, none of the other sources cited in the article suggest this either, but if I've missed something, please provide a passage from a source that you believe applies.

I've also looked at 50 or more websites and haven't found one that connects the Continental Association with the Founding Father designation. That said, even if there was a source, what we'd have would be a disagreement amongst historians, and then, all we could do in Wikipedia is present the various sides; for example, "some historians recognize signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers, though most cite the signing of one or more of the other founding documents as criteria". In any case, as editors we have no right to draw a connection based primarily on what "seems" right to us.

I must say I was surprised to find you had removed the dispute template without further discussion. I'll assume you did so in good faith, so I'll refrain from reverting your change for now believing we can settle this without gravitating toward edit warring. My hope is that you and possibly others could help shed some light on the justification for assigning the Founding Fathers designation to the following individuals - in the list as well as in their Wikipedia articles: John Alsop, Edward Biddle, Richard Bland, Simon Boerum, Richard Caswell, Stephen Crane, Silas Deane, John De Hart, Eliphalet Dyer, Nathaniel Folsom, Christopher Gadsen, Charles Humphreys, Thomas Johnson, James Kinsey, Isaac Low, Thomas Lynch, Henry Middleton, Richard Smith, Matthew Tilghman, Samuel Ward, and Henry Wisner. Allreet (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, absent some substantive evidence, I plan to seek administrative assistance for correcting the Founding Fathers article. I am also considering posting disputed templates to other articles where you have applied the Founding Fathers designation, either based solely on Werther's article or without any citations whatsoever. I'm curious, though, as to how you think it's reasonable that the connection between the Continental Association and qualifying as a Founding Father has escaped scholars for centuries, but now, on the basis of one article (which doesn't say anything of the kind), the record should be amended. Allreet (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has drawn the line for quite awhile at the Founders being those who signed the four important founding documents, as well as a few others such as George Mason. Werther's article, a valid source, is headlined "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". That logical criteria, naming the signers of the four documents, is and has been determinative. When I suggested that you bring this question here I had no idea you'd try to boldly change the focus of this page without consensus. You may have a case for some but not all of the names you mention above, but that is a separate issue (Nope, no case). If you want articles cited please add the Werther source. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You've read the sources, and I haven't seen some of the good ones, but what better sourced division could there be. The four signed documents. Even Abe Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, many decades before Warren Harding came up with the term 'Founding Father', traced the birth of the Union to the Continental Association. Rather than debate sources about which ten or fifteen men are the Founders, Wikipedia long ago joined Lincoln's analysis by sourcing Werther, taking the logical route of Werther's four document criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't get to draw a line. It (we) can only report what scholars and other experts have to say. Out of curiosity, I checked back through the edit history again and found that Richard Werther was cited in the article as far back as 2019, but at the time, his analysis was accurately reported. I didn't find exactly when that text was changed, but I did find the other fundamental changes that brought the article to its current state: July 29, 2021. As for consensus, I found no discussion of those changes one way or the other.

And no, I won't assign the Werther citation to the articles you changed. That was your responsibility when you made the changes, but more important, the source your using, Werther, doesn't explicitly say what you're claiming (nor does anything else in most of those articles support it either). Meanwhile, there is an amicable solution to this, as I suggested above, and that is to include a more succinct discussion of the varying opinions and criteria for identifying Founders, which happens to be the approach many if not most historians have taken and that was pretty much followed here in the past.

As for being bold about any of this, I'm not, though that is my right as a Wikipedian. What I am being is tenacious about one of our other core values, verifiability. In any case, I think it's time for some others to chime in, first by restoring the dispute template, waiting to hear what people have to say, and then if necessary, bringing in some outside editors for their input. But please don't remove it again without allowing that process to run its course. Allreet (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To simplify this for others, the primary issue I'm raising is that there is no source provided to support the contention that "The following persons are considered Founding Fathers of the United States of America, including some who did not sign a formative document." There are numerous sources to support the signers of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, some who believe the signers of the Articles of Confederation should be included, but none who say the designation applies to all the signers of the Continental Association. Allreet (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No source?, you know that's wrong. Everyone please take note that the Journal of the American Revolution headlines Richard Werther's article Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents. The criteria used by the Journal can't be any clearer than that. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an interpretation not supported by anything in Werther's text. As far as we know, he didn't write the headline. Read the article, and provide a quote that says what you think the headline implies. Again, what exactly is it that you think Werther is saying that supports "the following persons are considered Founding Fathers"? I've asked you that in one form or another at least five times, and the fact that you can't give a direct answer doesn't help your position. To be very clear, the issue is WP:VER: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Allreet (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Don't you understand or respect any of Wikipedia's guidelines? Under WP:VER: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". In fact, multiple sources. As for your removing the template again after my polite request that we allow the dispute process to play out, that's tantamount to WP:WAR as well as a violation of what you'll find under Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. None of which helps your cause. Anyway, I'm done talking with you until we hear from admin. Allreet (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently a good-faith case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'll try to explain simpler, maybe my fault. I don't have to quote from Werther's article because the entire text backs up the title of the paper. Please read the article again with Werther's premise of the inclusion of the Continental Association as one of the four major founding documents. He literally, and I won't quote it, please re-read the thing which is at the center of your dispute, discusses the inclusion of the Association and its signees with the other three signed founding documents. As far as I know both Werther and the Journal of the American Revolution stand behind the name of the paper, "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", a name in which Werther directly addresses the signees of the Association as Founders. As for the admin, I would say that Allreet may have a good point on removing some individual names, and that should be discussed as a separate issue. But no, it's not WAR, it's reading the reputable source and understanding why Wikipedia has followed its logical premise. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to give this one more "go". Again, WP:VER requires that sources provide "direct" support of what we as editors publish. What you're contending is that to reach a particular view of Werther's article, we'd have to read his text through the "prism" of the article's headline. IMO, that's not direct.

My belief regarding the need to ensure accuracy in identifying Founding Fathers also includes WP:VER's tenet that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." Werther, even if he's saying what you think he's saying, is just one source for a far-reaching assessment - that the 31 people who signed the Continental Association and no other document are Founders. As I see it, to put these individuals on the same plane as signers of the Declaration and Constitution, multiple sources may be required. This is not to deny that a fair number of them qualify. What needs to be confirmed is the novel claim that they all do.

I hope that clarifies my position for you, but if you remain unconvinced, we can always request a Third Opinion or other such measure to help resolve this. Allreet (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Journal of the American Revolution doesn't have "headlines", like a newspaper. It, like all academic journals, has titles of papers given to them by the author, papers which summarize their content in their title. Both Werther and the Journal, by publishing his work, "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", named the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers, neither controversial nor extraordinary. The Association was the first document to tie-together the thirteen colonies as an active unit. Abraham Lincoln, a student of history, names the Continental Association as the beginning of the United States in his First Inaugural Address. There is little to dispute here, and really no need of resolution unless to stop you, respectfully, from repetitively ignoring the obvious and allowing both of us to freely go on with our editing elsewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with just about everything you just said. So given that this conversation is clearly at an impasse, I will be asking for input from a neutral editor. Allreet (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

At an impasse? I've factually pointed out your mistakes, errors, and spent time trying to educate you, apparently to no avail. In your view of the Founding Fathers you'd remove the signers of the wonderful historical document, the Continental Association, thus demoting John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph, among others (all those who you listed above, although you seem to have purposely omitted those three), from the list. Jay and Henry are usually noted as major Founding Fathers, with Randolph not far behind. Although we've gone round-and-round like an American history Merry-go-round, some good edits have occurred at the Association article and elsewhere because of our conversation, so in that sense thanks, it was worth it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If we still disagree on almost every fundamental issue related to this, how else would you characterize that "brick wall"? As for your "educating" me, I had hoped that the WP guidelines I have referred to with wikilinks would help you understand the issues I have raised. Apparently, you haven't bothered to educate yourself, given that nearly everything we've discussed relates directly these guidelines (for example, your view that Wikipedia "draws the line" in defining things.) But now that you've been running around making additional changes, I'm even more concerned. I'll take a look at your changes in preparation for our discussion with another editor. Meanwhile, I believe it would be prudent for you to focus on something else until we can both get further direction. Allreet (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at one of your changes, and as I suspected you would, you're making additional, highly significant changes in reaction to the issues I've raised. In effect, you're re-writing history to justify your position when there are serious doubts regarding your sources - Lincoln and Werther. Understand that I intend to seek the reversion of all such edits, depending on the outcome of this dispute. Allreet (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no serious doubt, or any doubt whatsoever, about Werther's paper "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". Have you read it with his title in mind? I see you skipped over in your answer above why you don't list John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph as Founders who shouldn't be Founders, as they only signed the Continental Association. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My omission of certain names is based on the general acceptance of some figures as Founding Fathers per their additional contributions, which can be easily verified via numerous sources. However, besides disputing the inclusion of others you consider Founders, I believe the list here is probably incomplete regarding still others. Absent citations for all four of the lists - as well as for the lead-in sentence that declares everyone on the list a Founder - nobody has any way of verifying where these claims originated. However, again I suggest you refrain from making changes to this and related articles until the validity of the sources you point to can be determined. And of course I read the title and text of Werther's article, examined it thoroughly. It's a great article in terms of Werther's analysis. The headline - somewhat misleading in terms of what he actually says. Allreet (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not so sure how I got here, but anyway ... There is no DNA test for founding fatherhood. It seems to me that the best resolution is for the article to follow the uncertainty. List the better known ones first, indicate that there is a difference of opinion on some, and then list those. If the strength of the difference changes through the article, explain the difference. That assumes that there is/are WP:RS applicable, though I don't know a test for the reliability of any source. If some are sufficiently questionable, they should be removed. Gah4 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a "headline" of a newspaper story, Werther titled his published academic paper "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". He thus names the Continental Association one of the four founding documents and its signers as Founders. He couldn't have been clearer, nor could the Journal of the American Revolution by publishing it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Gah4, I suggested exactly that - changing the article and taking the editorial approach of listing the different theories, the differences in opinions - much earlier in my comments. The other editor, meanwhile, has no reliable source, nothing he can quote from the text of his source, to back up the claim that the Continental Association is "DNA" proof (or as I called it earlier, a "litmus test". What needs to be examined is whether the source being cited by the editor is strong enough on its own merits to confer "fatherhood" on 25 or so individuals. Under WP:VER, multiple sources would be required for an "extraordinary" claim, one of this magnitude. Yet he can't produce one other source except for a general quote about the Continental Association document from Abraham Lincoln. Meanwhile, the editor is claiming you have to read the headline of an article to understand the article's meaning. Then he claims, steadfastly, it's really not a headline, but a title that he's certain the author wrote - without a shred of evidence to prove that. In any case, Gah4, are you the "neutral" editor assigned to this or did you merely click on the link back in the request posted in the WP:Third opinion page? Allreet (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I get it now. The "3O" process simply allows a random editor to pick a posting and chime in. That strikes me as consistent with WP's general editorial approach but not one that offers any assurance that an issue will be resolved. That said, Gah4's comments would satisfy most rational people, his point about a DNA test for Founding Fathers, but apparently not an editor who's sticking by his guns no matter what our guidelines - WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:Dispute resolution, etc. - have to say. Meanwhile, this particular editor claims he knows for certain (using ESP?) who wrote a headline or title and that you have to read that title to get a particular interpretation of the source. Meanwhile, based on this and other assertions of a thin ice nature, he's running rampant re-writing dozens of articles to prove he's correct. Allreet (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This is almost too weird for words (which, I thought we weren't supposed to write any more of until the third party had a say) but I'll again try to make them simple words. Titles of academic papers are chosen by the writer. They submit the paper under a title. The journal, in this case the Journal of the American Revolution, then accepts or rejects the article. If it is accepted then the journal puts its full weight behind it. This paper was accepted and printed, and in it the author and journal matter of factly state the obvious: that the Continental Association is one of the nation's four founding documents, that its signers are among the Founders, and goes on in an interesting analysis of the signers, the founders, of the four documents. This is how academic journals work. There is, aside from what Allreet implies and maybe believes, no ESP or guesswork involved, just the standard practice of academic publication. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If your first sentence is sincere, why is it that you immediately chimed in after Gah4's feedback? And what's your source on "Titles of academic papers are chosen by the writer"? I doubt you have one - believe you made that up, because it's not universally true. Plus it makes no sense that somebody would write a lengthy article as Werther did and then apply a title that doesn't directly reflect something he said. By the way, you do realize that the Journal of the American Revolution is solely an online magazine, not a print journal (though books of its articles have been published)? And that the JAR publishes articles by and that are intended for not just scholars, but "enthusiasts" (their word)? For example, Richard Werther has no academic credentials - he's a retired CPA. What I object to is your mis-use of what he wrote, a distortion that you're applying it as if you discovered a "Big Bang" of additional Founders, one that nobody else I could find subscribes to and that scholars totally neglected over the centuries. And you're doing so while completely ignoring, failing to research, the large body of work on the subject. JSTOR, for example, has numerous papers related to Founders, none of which (that I've seen) mention the Continental Association or go so far as to identify a list of Founders. The truth is there is "no consensus" on who qualifies. My source on that is the History Channel. And their source is the Journal of the American Revolution. Look it up. Allreet (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think if I want to be an actual "3O", then I am supposed to do some things to say that I am doing it. I didn't decide to do that, but so far just comment. Since I mostly work on science/engineering articles, I suspect that I am less attached to this, so could do the "3O". One thing, though. I keep wondering when Lin-Manuel Miranda will do the musical on the next founding father. Gah4 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion would be a musical about Charles Thomson, a unique front-row eyewitness and participant to a full-range of U.S. Founding Father history. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I was commenting to your posting not to Gah4 (see standard Wikipedia spacing, like this one) which you added after requesting a third party. Werther's paper is a reputable source. I did not discover the source or the paper's title as a Big Bang (or by ESP as alleged), it has been here for several years. Abe Lincoln's first inaugural address is also not a new find, he gave it soon after his first presidential election. Things like this also exist. Wikipedia adds the signers of the Association as Founding Fathers using the Journal of the American Revolution as a source, there is no sourced dispute presented just an unusual assertion that no listing can be called sourced. The Journal differs. Bottom line, you are literally asking to remove dozens of Founding Fathers from Wikipedia's list on a guess that Richard Werther and the Journal were somehow unaware of his paper's title. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't be any clearer than this: Under WP:VER a source must directly support an assertion. And on matters of an exceptional nature, more than one source is required. Nothing in Werther's article meets that standard. Nothing he wrote indicates he considers signers of the Continental Association to be Founders, so you can't use him as a source to support what you've been writing. And "Founder of the Day" is not sufficient either. You need multiple, reliable (and therefore, unequivocal) sources to support an assertion of this order. Why on earth would you want it to be any other way? Don't you understand that this is what makes Wikipedia reliable? As for ESP, I was referring to how you knew who wrote the JAR headline - with astounding certainty. As for writing history, we don't get to. We can only report what others who have the credentials to do so write. So at the end of the day, Wikipedia did not add these signers. You did. And yes, the title should be removed for everyone where you applied it to without having the required sources to back up your claims. Allreet (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Round and round we go. Please read the title of the academic paper in question which also provides the premise of the article: "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" (maybe with a dictionary in hand). You imply, and it's actually all you have, that the author and the Journal of the American Revolution were unaware of the title, that they were somehow and continue to be bamboozled by a rouge copy editor or someone. The title and premise of the paper, and the Journal, call the signers of the "Four Founding Documents" Founders. Those words may mean something different to you, I don't know. And no, I did not add this source or create the chart. Whoever did added a good reputable source, the bricks that build Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The round and round might end if you could offer some satisfactory response to WP:VER. All you do is repeat the absurd proposition that the title explains the text, whereas WP:VER requires a clear and direct connection between your changes and the text of the source. Meanwhile, stop using BOLD in the Talk page. It's akin to SHOUTING in a text message. Allreet (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

New source: Here's another Journal of the American Revolution signed paper by Werther: "Roger Sherman: The Only Man Who Signed All Four Founding Documents", published September 28, 2017, where again the Journal names the Continental Association as one of the four founding documents. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Good article. I think I came across it before. It might satisfy WP:VER in verifying Sherman as a Founder, though the closest Werther comes to an endorsement is somewhat indirect: "...he was also short on some of the attributes that defined the other founders". Shortly thereafter, however, Werther in his conclusion makes a much clearer statement regarding Sherman's status or legacy: "At this point, he’ll just have to settle for his surest claim to fame: The only man to sign all four key founding documents." Personally, on the basis of those observations, I would not use this article to verify Sherman's status as a Founding Father, but I also think it's very likely other sources are available that would make a stronger endorsement. That's an educated guess based on the research I've done pertaining to our dispute. (Darn you, making me learn a few things or two.) Allreet (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Roger Sherman is an almost-but-not-quite forgotten American hero. I've learned much during our discussion as well, and we've both made some good edits (my latest on the Charles Thomson page after bantering with Gah4 above). From all sources what seems to stand out is that six items are credited as being founding documents by differing but reputable sources: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and The Federalist Papers. The signers and authors of these six being defined as Founding Fathers seems to draw a sourced line which Wikipedia could accurately stand with, and could be defined as such in the lead. The Federalist, collectively, being defined as a founding document, is new to me but seems sourced and arguably accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

An option anyway. Then some of the others (George Mason comes quickly to mind, one of the major founders but not included among signers). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Points well taken. All these documents fall within the founding time period and all were indispensible. One question is, how crucial were they individually regarding the formation of the Union? The Bill of Rights, for example, defines a new purpose for government, the protection of individual rights, but I'm not sure how that relates to the founding itself. No matter since plenty of sources support the Bill as a founding document (National Archives, for example). Meanwhile, here's a long discussion on Founding Fatherhood, a chapter from an open access book I found on JSTOR: American Independence and the Myth of the Founding Fathers (that's the chapter not the book title). As an aside, I just learned anyone can register with JSTOR for free, and at least during COVID, can access up to 100 articles per month. The downside is you can't download them, just read the articles online. So I'm going through the process "speed reading" articles and capturing "snapshots" of key passages for possible use as citations on the founding, individual biographies, etc. Tedious but quite a treasure trove. The only thing I don't like is that while we can cite them as sources, JSTOR's "pay wall" means we can't make the articles accessible to readers. Perhaps some Aaron Swartz is out there who can help with that. Allreet (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

George Mason? I'm reluctant to take a claim seriously when there's only a source or two that calls someone a "Forgotten Founder" or "Missing Link." But when there's a mix like the following, who's to argue: Reluctant Founder, Forgotten Founder, Forgotten Founder, Founder, Forgotten Founder, Founder, Lesser Known Founder,Founding Father, and among many others, Slave-Owning Founding Father. The strike against Mason is he refused to sign the Constitution. Balancing out what he didn't do, however, were the many notable things he did. Allreet (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm reluctant to sign up to read the chapter. Not surprising that the National Archives would list the Bill of Rights (I've mentally classified it as a logical extension of the Constitution due to the urging of Mason and others who took a stand of not approving the Constitution without it) as a separate Founding document, especially if you own the original (have you seen a photo of what the Declaration of Independence looked like at the start of World War II, yikes, once you see and zoom in on it you can't forget it). I don't believe the delegates actually signed the Bill that was sent to the states for ratification, although I may be wrong, so the main unfounder connected to it who could arguably be listed as a founder is Mason. The Archives seems the best source for including it in Wikipedia's list. Incidental but interesting is that Mason is honored with a simple Memorial near Jefferson's, making him one of only three from that era so individually honored on or near the National Mall (seven if the Jefferson Memorial pediment is included) along with the Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence featuring their names and signatures. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Officially WP:3O

OK, I decided to be an official WP:3O. I removed the entry from the list, as requested. As I mostly do scientific articles, I expect to be more impartial than some who think more about history. This is my first WP:3O, so I will learn as I go. Thanks all. Gah4 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, if you Google "founding fathers" (in quotes) you get lists of 4, 5, 12, and 15 founding fathers. It seems that there is not a lot of consensus on the number. Early in this article, there is mention of "key founding fathers". If there are enough good WP:RS on those, I think it is find to see those listed early and well described. (I am not sure of the exact number.) Later on, there is Other notable patriots of the period which also seems to work well. With the Olympics coming up, I am reminded how Americans (and probably everyone else) like to celebrate the gold medal, number one, and forget about number two. But being second best in the world is still pretty good! This is tending to suggest to me that a longer list is good. I suspect, also, that if we asked any of the founding fathers, they would be, as with Newton's Standing on the shoulders of giants, that it was the collective work of all that made the U.S. what it is. Mostly I would like to see a compromise, where the more well known (more WP:RS) are listed earlier and have longer descriptions. Those less well known listed farther down, and with shorter descriptions. As well as I can tell, there is no WP:RS consensus on a specific number, so the article should also not be so specific. Gah4 (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

4, 5, 12, and 15? Sorry, good faith pass. Please stick to the question and dispute and catch up on the sources and discussion about the inclusion of the signers of the documents. "the more well known" being first on the alphabetical list also doesn't work (and Morris' accepted list is already in the lead followed by detailed information about those included) as it would not only be subjective but undue regarding fame and function. The main disputed question here is the alphabetical chart and which signers of which documents should be included, which has no disagreement on three and seems to have almost been resolved on the fourth. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking along the line of (quoting from above): That said, even if there was a source, what we'd have would be a disagreement amongst historians, and then, all we could do in Wikipedia is present the various sides. I suspect, though, that this gets complicated by the number of sources. Do we put for each name how many sources identify it (him) as a founding father? That doesn't seem right. I do like the idea of key founding fathers, as noted early in the article, if such can be identified. But how exactly to explain the rest? Gah4 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Gah4, thank you for responding to the WP:3O request. I disagree with my fellow editor that this dispute is "almost resolved". From the start, I have maintained that scant support exists for the assertion that signers of the Continental Association are considered Founders, as is stated in the article's lede and then, in the introduction to "the list". So far only one source has been found that states this, Founder of the Day, which is hardly definitive or even authoritative. Meanwhile, the citation that's being used as the basis for changes in this and dozens of other articles in Wikipedia, Richard Werther's article in the Journal of the American Revolution, fails to satisfy the guideline under WP:VER that sources must be clear and direct.

I believe the change I suggested earlier, the idea you've cited, would not be too difficult to produce since sources abound and only some additions and changes would be required, not a total revision. The premise is that there's no consensus on the subject, that historians differ widely on who is and isn't a Founder, as reflected in another Journal of the American Revolution article, How Do You Define "Founding Fathers"?. My proposal would be to present a summary of the "schools of thought", each supported by however many citations are needed. The concepts most widely accepted would be discussed first - the handful of "greats", signers of the Declaration, signers of the Constitution, etc., but the point should be made that even the "4, 5, 12, and 15" you alluded to are open to debate.

Whether my suggestion is the path taken, I'm not at all concerned. What I am concerned about is that this article and many related ones are claiming something significant without the grounds to do so. Accordingly, I plan to post a WP:RFC because it seems to me it's going to take the input of multiple editors to help resolve this. Allreet (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The two Journal of the American Revolution articles couldn't be more clear and direct. In fact the titles of the papers lay out the papers' premise clearly and directly, as titles of academic papers should. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

We'll see about that. Allreet (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

England and Scotland

Re, in Education: Founders also sought advanced degrees from traditional institutions in England and Scotland such as the University of Edinburgh, the University of St Andrews, and the University of Glasgow. Errrr none of these three cities is in England and the only mention of an 'English' education is much later: a few trained at the Inns of Court in London. Charles Carroll earned his law degree at Temple in London. I don't know enough about the subject to fix this. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Good find. How about just remove 'England' from the sentence? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Up to you, I'm not sure of the 'drift' of the content. Consciously seeking Scottish education would seem an odd thing to do. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Key

Can we pause for a little while and consider the key founding fathers mentioned near the top? It seems that Richard B. Morris included seven in a book. If you are going to do an in-depth study in a book, there is a limit to how many people can be covered, and I suspect seven is about right. (How long did it take him to write the book?) Are there other WP:RS that give about the same number, and about the same set of founders? But otherwise, for something as monumental as a revolution, I suspect that the number has to be somewhat larger. Enough people have to believe in the cause, which would have a big effect on their life, to make it convincing. Gah4 (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, some Founders have gotten good coverage in books. A couple even have depictions of their heads carved into an entire mountain, and several are regulars on the nation's coins. Those are the superstars. For the purposes of this page, however, at a minimum the signers of the founding documents already have adequate sources to be on Wikipedia's Founding Fathers list. The only disagreement concerns the fourth document being considered a founding document by reputable sources, which it has been credited so by Wikipedia for many years now. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

When I first started thinking about this question, I thought about how long it is since I was in DC, (I am on the west coast), but not so long since I was in Cape Cod, and visited Plymouth rock. I wondered if the signers of the Mayflower Compact should be considered founding fathers. It seems that some of their ideas went into the Declaration of Independence. Paraphrasing a famous quote, All founders are equal, but some are more equal than others. So, how to write the page such that some are more equal than others? Gah4 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Randy, your logic is this: The Continental Association is a founding document and anyone who signed it is therefore a Founder. Yet you cannot produce one sentence from a reputable source that says anything close to that. Not one. Meanwhile, without any such evidence, you are conferring the title on 25 people who if you Google their names in combination with "Founding Father", the only match in the vast majority of cases (20+) will be the Wikipedia articles where you added the title. As for the other 5 or less, you might find an article if you really dig where the phrase "Forgotten Founding Father" is used in the article's title but you won't find it in the text.

I'll put this another way. You have assigned the title Founding Father on 25 18th century figures who have been overlooked by historians for about a century (since Herbert Hoover first coined the term). Because not one historian or related institution in all that time has produced a sentence that says, "(Name) is a Founding Father." Prove me wrong - show me those sentences. Here's the 25: John Alsop, Edward Biddle, Richard Bland, Simon Boerum, Richard Caswell, Stephen Crane, Thomas Cushing, Silas Deane, John De Hart, Eliphalet Dyer, Nathaniel Folsom, Christopher Gadsen, Joseph Galloway, Charles Humphreys, Thomas Johnson, James Kinsey, Isaac Low, Thomas Lynch, Henry Middleton, Edmund Pendleton, Richard Smith, John Sullivan, Matthew Tilghman, Samuel Ward, and Henry Wisner. Allreet (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not create the chart or list the names of the signers. Richard Werther’s "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" article in the Journal of the American Revolution provides the premise of the academic paper, detailed in its title, and addresses and answers your concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Show me where Werther says, "here's the list of Founders." If you look at the edit history, you'll find that when this chart was added to the article in Wikipedia, the section's title remained true to Werther's article by referring to those on the list as merely "Signatories of founding documents". Someone then changed the title to "List of Founding Fathers", a change that was later reverted. Then last year somebody reverted the reversion (not you), and it was shortly thereafter that you began changing related articles throughout Wikipedia. Meanwhile, the chart has no sources attached, nothing to verify either the names of those who signed the individual documents, nor the assertion that these signers are considered Founding Fathers. I will gladly dig up sources for the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution, but I've been unable to find any single source that proclaims the list of signers of the Continental Association "founders". No doubt there are sources for confirming that some of the Association's individual signers are regarded as Founders, but far from most. Allreet (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Gah4, back to your question at the top, there are several tranches of Founders. The ones Morris and others point to as the "greats" range in number from 5 to 15 depending on who's counting, but nobody disputes any them per se. In the next generally accepted grouping are members of the Second Continental Congress who signed the Declaration of Independence, quite a large crew. Then there are the signers of the U.S. Constitution, though some historians extend this to also include the Framers-only group, that is, those who wrote but didn't sign the Constitution. Finally, we have the signers of the Articles of Confederation. What's now being argued is a new idea, at least as far as historians are concerned, that members of the First Continental Congress should also be included. While there may be good arguments one way or the other, in order for us to give this idea weight, historians have to. And with all due respect to Richard Werther, not just one writer in one online journal who has no books to his credit and who never served on a faculty. As with all the other groups, we need multiple sources of a substantial nature. Otherwise, we'd be the ones writing history. Allreet (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Journal of the American Revolution has taken that clear position more than once. It is a reputable source. The nationwide boycott of British goods agreed to in the Continental Association, which Abraham Lincoln points to in his first inaugural address as the beginning of the United States, was a major spark and cause for the start of the American Revolution and was the first major document which, as this article's lead specifies as criteria: "a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Journal has not "taken that position". You have. Please provide one quote of five words or more from the Sherman article that relates to your thesis. We've already been around the block on the other Werther article - and you can't produce a quote from that one either. You say the title proves your case. Historians don't use titles for what they write; they rely on direct facts in the text. And it's no different here in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you've taken your interpretation and anointed 25 figures Founding Fathers without any other source to go by. What is it that you don't understand about the use of references? Meanwhile, you've changed 25 articles, and in only one did you provide citations - in the Joseph Galloway article - and neither of those contains one sentence that confirms him as a Founding Father. In fact, he was a traitor - convicted by the Pennsylvania Assembly. Take another look at the source you used there. It's as if you can't read. Allreet (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Journal, as all reputable academic journals do, backs its articles unless and until a retraction is made. Richard Werther’s entire article, "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", follows the premise defined by the title. The founders on Wikipedia's list include the signers of the Continental Association, I didn't put them there but agree that they are clearly sourced in the Journal of the American Revolution article. Galloway signed the Association to boycott British goods, which was the action which brought unified action to the colonies for the first time. Here's yet another article, this one titled "Joseph Galloway, the Forgotten Founding Father", not sure what it says as I don't click on most pages asking to agree to cookies, does it give pertinent information? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And looking back on your (Gah4) specific issue - I see now I was still stuck on mine - it seems there is no end to the "credit". For sure, colonial settlement had its part: Virginia, New England, Georgia, Pennsylvania and their leaders - John Smith, Cotton Mather, William Penn. But nobody had an inkling of where all that would lead well into the 1770s. In fact even through the end of 1774, everyone was a "compatriot", both a patriot and a loyalist. The separation between the two came early the next year with the outbreak of hostilities. It was then that men began putting their lives and fortunes on the line for real. So I believe that's where the men and boys were separated, so to speak, and Fatherhood comes into play. Allreet (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There are more books about successful revolutions than unsuccessful ones. As well as I know it, the Plymouth trip was funded by the Virginia colony, so they were already rebels staying where they were, and they knew it. But yes, it took many more years before the actual revolution occurred. It is, though, hard for us now to know how they felt about what they were doing. I suspect also that many stories were improved over the years, making some look better. It seems that the George Washington and the cherry tree story wasn't true. Some of the ones we know better, are because they were better at telling their story. (Not to take away from the work that they did, though.) Gah4 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Political movement

OK, since WP:OR is allowed in talk, I am wondering how many people it takes to start a Political movement. The idea of independence and starting a new nation is fine, but how many people does it take? For one or a few people, it would just be a crazy idea. It has to spread through all the colonies and be believed. Personally, I believe that the Bandwagon effect is overused in politics, but it is there. It would have taken more than seven people with an idea to get the whole revolution started. So, personally and not related to anything I have read here, I believe that more founding fathers makes more sense. Any Political movement needs a spiritual leader, a name to associate with it, even if that person doesn't actually do much. George Floyd only had to die to get something big started. I do wonder how many of the founding fathers believed that they would die before it was over. It does seem to me that signing the United States Declaration of Independence put someone's life on the line more than the other documents. I am not so sure about the Articles of Confederation, but I suspect that could be dangerous, too. OK, WP:OR away so we can see where things really stand. Gah4 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Good questions. I'd guess the signers of both the Association and Declaration knew and discussed that they were putting their lives and livelihoods on the line (imagine being one of 53 people who boldly called for a total boycott of all trade with their overseas rulers, or one of 56 brave souls declaring that enough is enough and now a new nation has been formed). The spiritual leader during the founding was probably Liberty herself. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

p.s. As for number of people, during the various suffrage movements, the 1950s-1960s Civil Rights Movement, and of course during Gandhi's storied events, it was usually the same two to six people who began and ran the various strategies and actions. Of course others had to join with them to make it work, but the people who, like the Founders, first put their lives into the principled actions could be counted on one or two hands. In order to create an entirely new nation founded on principles of freedom 150 or so dedicated thoughtful activists seems about right, but the initial "full in" developers of the idea could easily be trimmed to a dozen (which is why a few scholars limit the number of Founding Fathers to a minimal few, which fulfills one viewpoint but arguably misses the bigger picture). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It sometimes bothers me in modern elections, how much the bandwagon effect has, where people will vote for someone not because they are a good candidate, but because many others are voting for him/her. In the case of a revolution, though, it is really important that people know which way things are going. Reminds me, from the book "The Great Influenza" by John Barry, about 1918. Wilson wanted to keep the US out of WWI, but once he decided to join the war, he was all in. Not just win, but smash Germany to bits. So, there had to be enough to get all colonies on the same side. I like the tranche idea that was mentioned earlier. Some founding fathers were better known, and were very important. In the days before TV and radio, it is harder to get ideas distributed throughout the public. Are there enough WP:RS for a good description of the tranches of founding fathers? Gah4 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

In response to your last question, @Gah4:, yes, that's what my previous answer was based on, the number of sources/votes per opinion. Which is what this RfC is about. My position being that one, two or even three scholars is not sufficient to give anything the same weight as an opinion that is generally or widely accepted, as with "the greats". There being no law here - e=mc2 - or even a syllogistic equivalent - all dogs eat meat, Socrates eats meat, therefore... - you can only do what I suggested before, provide the different opinions and lay out the discussion in some fashion, which is usually done in order of diminishing returns. Most experts believe this, many believe that, a few think something else, and then we have whatever. Here's another approach, from the Journal of the American Revolution, which simply asks 13 editors/writers what they think: How do you define “Founding Fathers”?. I won't say anything further to give Randy some "equal time". Allreet (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The 14 editors opining in the December 1, 2015 article in the Journal of the American Revolution were all over the place, there was no Journal decision or consensus about who was or who wasn't a Founding Father. For such a prestigious academic journal to not have an answer about something so basic to their chosen area of expertise must have been quite a predicament. Then, on October 24, 2017, the Journal published an article taking a stand on that question. Richard Werther's "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". It defined, in its title and text, that at least the signers of four founding documents were Founding Fathers. You both know what those four are, and the Journal, Wikipedia, and other sites have now seconded Abraham Lincoln's analysis of the document which united the Colonies. The conception of what would soon become united states first arose as this complete and total boycott of the colonies rulers' goods and services: the Continental Association. The Journal had answered the 2015 question with what now seems the obvious answer: four founding documents signed by nearly 150 men who, because of their genius, bravery, and adherence to the principle of liberty for all, would soon be known as Americans. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I know scientific journals better than history journals, but I don't usually think of them as decision or consensus. Journals decide which papers to print. Reviewers make sure papers are up to an appropriate level, and that they make appropriate sense, but mostly don't do decision or consensus. It is, then, up to readers to make actual decision or consensus. Or paper authors make decisions and readers make the consensus. Then there are review articles, where again the journal doesn't make a decision other than to publish it, but one author collects together, usually ideas from multiple other papers or authors. Review articles come much later, though. And they are often by the more well known leaders of a scientific field. Gah4 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your key words may be "Journals decide which papers to print." That they do, and they stake names and reputations on each paper. If one is found to have gotten it wrong, they print a retraction. Until then, the key Werther paper speaks for both the journal and the author, passes muster as a reputable source, and seems very clear in its title and text that Founders signed four founding documents. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Randy, you're making overblown pronouncements. For one, the Journal isn't the last word on anything. It's simply a publisher, one of many, not by any means the one "that sets the tone". Are the folks at the Massachusetts Historical Society and American Philosophical Society pikers? They've been publishing for centuries. The Journal, it went online in 2013. As for "staking names and reputations" and "making detractions", I'd say neither really applies to a "popular" journal like the JAR or even to the proceedings of stodgy historical societies. They all do a respectable job, most of it fairly routine and nearly all of which sticks around forever right or wrong. You're also overdramatizing the two articles in question. It's not as if JAR's editors were experiencing a philosophical crisis in 2015. Their article was simply a piece of informative entertainment, a friendly informal survey of the range of opinion regarding what defines Founding Fathers and whether it really matters. The same applies to Werther's article. He was just making a comparative analysis, offering us a perspective on a lot of things, not breaking new ground. If he did, the news hasn't reached the broader community because there's been not a peep. What's overblown is that you're turning it into something like the shot heard around the world. Not exactly the kind of detachment required for editing. Speaking of which, I see you're still making unsubstantiated edits to the Continental Association article even though the matter is under review. Allreet (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Balderdash. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The "Myth" of the Founding Fathers

The following article - actually the chapter of a book - illuminates perspectives and topics that deserve consideration in the Founding Fathers page. For convenience, I'm also providing a citation, though other sources should be looked into. Allreet (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Myth of the Founding Fathers

Lack of sources for Continental Association signers being considered Founding Fathers

Following is a close look at the citations and text used in the Founding Fathers page in relation to assertions about the Continental Association.

Last Sentence in Lead (introduces Continental Association)

"Two further groupings of Founding Fathers include: 1) those who signed the Continental Association, a trade ban and one of the colonists' first collective volleys protesting British control and the Intolerable Acts in 1774, and 2) those who signed the Articles of Confederation, the first U.S. constitutional document."

The citations here (displayed below) do not support the claim that signers of the Continental Association represent a "further grouping of Founding Fathers":

• The first source, Karsch's Continental Congress article, mentions the Continental Association but says nothing about founders or groupings.
• The second source, Stanfield's book, recognizes signers of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and U.S. Constitution but makes no mention of the Continental Association.

Introduction to List of Founding Fathers

"Among the state documents promulgated between 1774 and 1789 by the Continental Congress, four are paramount: the Continental Association (CA) , the Declaration of Independence (DI) , the Articles of Confederation (AC), and the United States Constitution (USC). Altogether, 145 men signed at least one of the four documents. In each instance, roughly 50% of the names signed are unique to that document. Six men signed three of the four documents, and only Roger Sherman of Connecticut signed all of them. The following persons are considered Founding Fathers of the United States of America, including some who did not sign a formative document...(the lists of signers follow)"

• The only source provided, Richard Werther in the Journal of the American Revolution, does not use the word "paramount". Instead, Werther uses these descriptives: "most important" and "major founding documents". The word "paramount" and the exclusion of other views make it sound as if this pronouncement is beyond question. More accurate would be "the following are considered founding documents by some sources."
• Regarding additional sources, Werther's assertion about the importance of the Continental Association as a "founding document" is contradicted by the National Archives, Library of Congress, and among many others, Jack Stanfield's book. IMO, this is because the document in question founded nothing. It may have led to the founding (we only know it preceded it), but certainly it did not do what the other three did, that is, directly and legally establish the United States.
• The Werther citation only supports the analysis in his article, not the phrase "the following are considered Founding Fathers", which has no citation attached.

References Following are the citations from the italicized text above:

Conclusion: Sources are needed to support unsubstantiated assertions about signers of founding documents being considered Founding Fathers. Allreet (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, many adequate reputable sources exist which are clear and direct. Some are now added as cites (haven't added them before because you'd frozen that option by the novel-length talk page discussions and the numerous - 3, three, III, the smallest odd prime number - RfC's you opened on this exact same question and then closed for lack of support). You've said outright that the Continental Association is a founding document, but now say it isn't (?) because maybe you now realize that Wikipedia has accepted all four as such since 2010 (see {{Historical American Documents}}) and lists all of their signers as Founding Fathers. Please read article in the Journal of the American Revolution? The entire 2017 article and its fine charts back up the premise of the title: signers=founders. Another Journal of the American Revolution signed paper by Werther, "Roger Sherman: The Only Man Who Signed All Four Founding Documents", where "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" again the Journal names the Continental Association as one of the four founding documents. Two extremely reputable sources specifically naming the document as a founding document and its signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers. They couldn't be clearer about it. Besides the defining 2017 Werther article "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", and amateur historian Abraham Lincoln tracing the origin of the United States back to the Continental Association, here are two other highly read sources which, for consistency and per WP:COMMONSENSE, acknowledge that the Founders include the signers of the four founding documents: The Founder of the Day article "Signers of the Continental Association" clearly states "Below is a list of the Founders who signed the Continental Association" [emphasis mine], followed by the names of the 53 signers (Founder of the Day also names the Association as one of the four founding documents). The worldhistory.edu "Top 10 Founding Fathers of the United States of America" - section "List of Founding Fathers of the United States" asserts "Also, two broader groups of Founding Fathers capture the signers of Articles of Confederation (the initial version of the American Constitution which was adopted in 1777 and ratified in 1781) and the signers of the Continental Association (created on October 20, 1774)" [emphasis mine]. On this issue all the 't's are crossed (except for mine, I still don't have any). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Regarding the citations you added to the sentence on the Continental Association in the lead:

• Werther does not identify signers of the Continental Association as Founders.
• Founder of the Day and worldhistory.edu (whatever that is) are not reliable sources and you know it.
• Karsch, which you've left stand, says nothing about signers of the Continental Association and you know that as well.

Which leaves you where you started - with no reliable sources. This is the best you can do? Allreet (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you're boldfacing everything: Yes, Werther does. "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", read the title, the paper, and look at its charts. The two well-maintained internet sites are always in the top links on search engines for any Founding topic, and as for Karsch, it's not my added link. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Baloney about an article's title is nothing but - for sure you won't a word on Wikipedia allowing one as a source for verifying something. As for Karsch, you think it's okay to leave bogus material stand? I'll remove it then since you at least agree the citation supports nothing.

And finally, it took some digging but I found out worldhistoryedu.com is associated with Enoch Kwame Osei (aka Enoch Osei Kwame) and NetEarth One from Ghana, a major accounting firm or so they say. Which explains the absolutely atrocious writing style that I mentioned to you last week. But you think it's "highly read"? Where'd you get that? Allreet (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Karsch is an extremely good source for the Continental Association page (as is Werther) and talks about its signers knowing it was a declaration of war. The two internet sources appear along with Wikipedia near the top of a search of Founding topics, so well viewed seems obvious. Ghana uses English as a main language, but is everyone an expert at it? If not, that would explain what you see as an inadequate writing style, but more importantly, is any of what they say incorrect? Randy Kryn (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"More important" is to practice the discipline of history as historians do. So unlike the editor who posted Karsch where he didn't belong, a decent historian reads Karsch and determines whether what he has to say is both relevant and rings true with what other historians have written. No argument that he has some good things to say that are pertinent to the Continental Association page. But how did his citation sit here for ten years or so without any purpose other than to mislead?

"More important" is to read Werther's article and instead of finding things he did not say, look for what we can use directly from what he did say. He did not say he "considered signers of the Continental Association founding fathers". He did not say there is a "broader group" of individuals considered founding fathers. Instead, he offered a succinct analysis of the commonalities and differences among founders and others who signed four founding documents, drawing on the work of a dozen or so sources that back up his words. (You won't find any of those sources backing up yours - read them, please.)

As for the quality of writing and scholarship on the worldhistory website, you gotta be kidding about this being a reliable source. You mean you haven't bothered to read its articles? Here's the lead from its Declaration of Independence article, randomly selected, then copied and pasted directly: "The Declaration of Independence by the 13 small, but very much determined, North American colonies will always be regarded as a monumental feet of achievement." I could fill hundreds of pages with similarly inane, mistaken-ridden examples. Allreet (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I searched on "Founding Fathers", "Continental Association Founding Fathers" and "Founding Fathers Declaration of Independence," using Google, and worldhistoryedu is not among the first 30 hits. Allreet (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Correction (you snuck this one in): "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" article in the Journal of the American Revolution does not say "founders and others who signed four founding documents", it analyzes which founders signed which founding documents, with charts. (p.s. I just read Werther's article again, the entire paper analyses founders signing the four founding documents. Seriously, are you sure you've read it?) Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I say exactly what I mean, in plain sight. Werther's only interest is to analyze four groups of signers, many of whom are founders, but again, at no point does he accept all signers as founders, for example, by making a direct, clarifying statement such as "I'm going to analyze which founders signed which founding documents." Though he uses the terms founder and founding fathers several times, he never gets too specific other than for "big name" founders and the paper (Padover) he quotes on signers of the Constitution.

Specifically regarding the Continental Association, we know from a subsequent article that Werther excludes at least two of its signers. Are there more? We don't know, and we have no other reliable sources to go on, meaning no other notable historians, institutions or publications. Allreet (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You misquoted Werther above, which I corrected. Now you misquote him again: please show the quote where he excludes two signers as Founding Fathers, thanks. You also say he made no clarifying statement. He titled his paper "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". If you don't understand English please press 2. Or better yet, do a sentence diagram. 'Analyzing the Founders' means 'Analyzing the Founders'. Who are the Founders? "signers of Four Founding Documents". Per the title, chart, and the number 145, Werther equates 'signers' as Founders. He names the Continental Association as one of the founding documents. Yours in Jefferson, Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Werther article I cited in my last comment concerns two Continental Association signers therein identified as Loyalists. So you're saying what? That Werther considers Loyalists to be Founders?

You clearly need to read more on the subject. I suggest starting with Werther's sources. He cannot and would not stray further than his sources go - no bona fide historian would. Of particular importance, read the only source he provides regarding Founders, Saul K. Padover, who identifies 142 signers of the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution without a peep about the Continental Association.

Finally, consider that of Werther's 13 other sources, none uses the word "founder" and only one mentions the Continental Association: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0094. Allreet (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted wordhistoryedu.com citation - source is unreliable/unnotable

I deleted worldhistoryedu.com as a source in the lead for the assertion that the Continental Association represents a "broader group" of founders. My primary reasons:

• The source is unreliable. It provides no sources for any of its writings. Its articles are laden with errors, unusual syntax and unscholarly pronouncements. It has no About page describing what the website is or who its principals are. As a result, we cannot confirm even the most basic of things, such as what its authors' credentials are or even whether this is a magazine or encyclopedia.
• The source lacks notability in that no independent published sources can be found that mention or recognize it.

In researching the website, I did find a "domain" page concerning worldhistoryedu.com. Based on what's listed and related searches elsewhere, the website's owner is someone in Ghana associated with a "major accounting firm" that also claims expertise in human resources. My opinion, then, is that at best this is a commercial venture that has nothing to recommend it as a source for historical information. Allreet (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on use of sources

Please note: Because of the lack of a response from neutral editors on this subject, I am withdrawing my Request for Comment. This does not preclude the possibility of entering another RfC on a related issue.

Are the sources being used sufficient for declaring signers of a particular document "Founding Fathers"? Allreet (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Two sources are being used in the article to assign the title "Founding Father" to signers of the Continental Association, the most important action of the First Continental Congress (1774). The first source, The First Continental Congress: A Dangerous Journey Begins (near the end of the lead), supports only the importance of the document in the nation's founding, which is indisputable, but at no point does it use the word "founder". The second, Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents (in the List section), uses the term "founder" in its title and several times in its text, but says nothing to connect the designation with signers of the Continental Association. On the basis of this second source, a list of 25 or so figures are being declared Founding Fathers here and then in their individual articles. Besides disputing the use of these sources under WP:VER's guideline regarding clarity and directness, I believe the claims being made are very significant, relatively novel, and therefore, would require multiple sources. Allreet (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, adequate reputable sources exist which are clear and direct. Richard Werther’s "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" article in the Journal of the American Revolution, and another Journal of the American Revolution signed paper by Werther, "Roger Sherman: The Only Man Who Signed All Four Founding Documents", where again the Journal names the Continental Association as one of the four founding documents, are two extremely reputable sources specifically naming the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers. In fact they do so in the academic papers' titles, which provide the premise. They couldn't be clearer about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The signers of the other three founding documents are accepted in this discussion and per sources as Founding Fathers, and since there is no dispute that the Continental Association is a founding document, site consistency applies. Besides the defining 2017 Werther article "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" here are two other sources which, for consistency and per WP:COMMONSENSE, acknowledge that the Founders include the signers of the fourth: The Founder of the Day article "Signers of the Continental Association" clearly states "Below is a list of the Founders who signed the Continental Association" [emphasis mine], followed by the names of the 53 signers (Founder of the Day also names the Association as one of the four founding documents). The worldhistory.edu "Top 10 Founding Fathers of the United States of America" - section "List of Founding Fathers of the United States" asserts "Also, two broader groups of Founding Fathers capture the signers of Articles of Confederation (the initial version of the American Constitution which was adopted in 1777 and ratified in 1781) and the signers of the Continental Association (created on October 20, 1774)" [emphasis mine]. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, Agree with KrynTepkunset (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, per Allreet, being a signatory to a founding document is not inherently to be a Founding Father. The term is somewhat imprecise, but significant numbers of sources should explicitly name any individual as one of "the Fathers". Pincrete (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are many sources for Founding Father status for signatories of U.S. founding documents, and a D.C. monument honors all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Although they have raised a question about founding status of one document and its signers, I don't think Allreet is saying what you think they're saying. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Then it will not be difficult to find sources naming the founding fathers and relieving editors of the burden of doing so. I understood what Allreet was saying, a list of 25 or so figures are being declared Founding Fathers here and then in their individual articles. Besides disputing the use of these sources under WP:VER's guideline regarding clarity and directness, I believe the claims being made are very significant, relatively novel, and therefore, would require multiple sources ! Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  The signers of the founding documents are widely considered to be Founding Fathers. The question in this very long discussion (see sections above and below) is if the Continental Association is a founding document, and sources supporting that have been on this page for years. The pages of the signers of the Association, for example, can be sourced by Journal of the American Revolution articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody disputes the significance of signing the Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution. The Articles of Confederation are no doubt of lesser importance - and thus have less support from sources. The Continental Association would be of even lesser significance. The latter's contribution, widely recognized, was uniting the colonies around a single cause, but not around independence. In fact, the Continental Association starts with a statement of loyalty to the crown, a far cry then from the other three documents. All of which is beside the point. The issue is a lack of sources that say "signers of the Continental Association are considered Founding Fathers". Neither of the documents the editor points to can be quoted to that effect. IOW, those sources do not make a "clear and direct" statement supporting his claim as is required under WP:VER. Allreet (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Clear and direct: Richard Werther’s "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" article in the Journal of the American Revolution There are 13 words in the paper's title. I'm trying to be respectful, but which do you not understand? All anyone has to do is read the first three, four, or five paragraphs of the paper, couldn't be clearer or more directly address the topic of this RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody cites titles. In citing sources, we rely on text, not an interpretation of the text based on a title. That's synthesis, which clearly violates WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." So what I do understand from Werther's text is that he stops short of declaring the additional signers "founding fathers". I also understand that none of his sources do either - I researched them and didn't find one that says or even implies "signers of the Continental Association are (or are considered) Founding Fathers". Allreet (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOR does not apply. Step-by-step: Werther's paper adheres to its title (the name of his academic paper provides the premise of the Founders being those who signed any or all of the four founding documents). It then discusses and provides charts of the 145 founders in relationship to which of the four founding documents they signed. The defining title, the text which adheres to the title, and the many charts which include the signers of the Continental Association as founders provide a reputable clear and direct source. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  You are promoting a conclusion that's not clearly supported by the text. Your conclusion requires an interpretation based on a title. You previously claimed you know for a fact that the author wrote that title. Yet you cannot know that without a source - without asking Werther or the Journal - which is what makes this OR. It's nothing more than your opinion, and it doesn't matter how much you know about anything. We as editors only "know" what reliable sources explicitly say. Allreet (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  There is no original research, and false reasoning and a sand-in-the-eyes statement like that present such a misleading point that it should be enough to pull this RfC. The entire article expands on and is based on the premise presented in the paper's title (which includes the words "by Richard Werther", please read the article again, you have consistently mischaracterized this reputable source and have tried again to lead editors down an incorrect path, hopefully in good faith and not on purpose). Of course the title of the paper is not my original research. It is the given title of an academic paper published by a reputable journal, the Journal of the American Revolution. By publishing the paper the Journal stands behind the premise that the Continental Association is a founding document and its signers founders. They are clear and direct about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• For those who may have missed this at the Continental Association page or in the discussion above: "President Abraham Lincoln traced the origin of the United States back to the Continental Association of 1774 in his first inaugural address in 1861: "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Lincoln laid out his founding document timeline while knowing that civil war was near. Although his inaugural address statement may only be that of a student of history, Lincoln's assessment of the foundational documents of the United States seems an important affirmation of the Association's place among them. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You keep raising the same fallacious arguments. Lincoln may have recognized the Continental Association as a founding document, but he did not refer to its signers as Founders. Not in what you just quoted and not anywhere else in his 1861 inaugural address. (IMO, admittedly OR on my part, his reference to this then nearly century-old agreement was based on its boycott of British slave trade - see the document's fourth paragraph.) As for "you have to read the title to understand what the author says" argument, if a book is titled "The JFK Conspiracy", we can't cite the title. We must cite the passages in which the author lays out the conspiracy. If anything should be pointed out, it would be the changes you made last October to declare dozens of previously unrecognized individuals Founding Fathers. Without citations. When I challenged one of these, the article on Joseph Galloway, a convicted traitor who was Superintendent of Police during the British siege of Philadelphia, you added two references: the Werther article, which mentions the case against Galloway, and a "Forgotten Founding Father" article whose conclusion was that Galloway's opponents are considered Founding Fathers but he is not - read its second last paragraph. I should also point out, to be very clear about my motivation, is that I intend to renew that challenge and initiate disputes on all the other material you changed. You can prevent that by producing some reliable sources to back up your claims. Allreet (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see how a determined editor who throws out the same incorrect discussion points a dozen times in long posts can influence editors. Once again, clear reliable sources name the signers of founding documents as Founding Fathers. You seem to think I put the list on the page together, which I didn't (but you keep repeating it). You seem to think academic paper's title don't count as the premise of the paper. They do. Wikipedia accepts that signers of founding documents as Founding Fathers. There is no disagreement between any of us that the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and U.S. Constitution are founding documents and that their signers are Founding Fathers. That leaves the Continental Association, which is recognized by the Journal of the American Revolution as a founding document and, per Werther, its signers as Founders. I ask the closer, hopefully a group of closers, to note that throughout the discussions in various locations Allreet seems to focus much of their attention on one signer, Joseph Galloway, seemingly because he was a known loyalist who happened to become a Founding Father before his later actions. Wikipedia is not in the cancel culture business. Canceling 27 or so founders who signed a recognized founding document would do encyclopedic knowledge and American history a literal historic disservice. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, per Allreet. It seems clear that this term is not the consensus of scholars, and seems uncertain that it is clearly used by any RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't need a consensus of scholars, in fact there is no such consensus and the closest they come to one is that the signatories of founding documents are Founding Fathers. Gog the Mild, did you read and study both the discussion and Werther's Journal of the American Revolution paper, the reliable source used for many years by Wikipedia to place the Association as a founding document and its signers as founders? This is the type of decision which should be made on the basis of a deep dive, quite a bit of time should be put in. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  A "consensus" simply means a sufficient number of sources that happen to agree on something; the more important the issue, the better the extent of the agreement. You're right, though. I have been long-winded. It's just that I'm not accustomed to having to argue things that strike me as a given - clear and direct, for example, or what's permissible in using sources. As for being a "determined editor," I am, though not in the way you meant it. Allreet (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  There is no consensus of scholars. The Journal of the American Revolution is a major source for information and citations about the founding of the United States, there is no disagreement about this. The journal has taken the correct position and seconded Abraham Lincoln's assertion that the Continental Association is one of four principal founding documents, and the signers of the founding documents have been noted and charted as founders on Wikipedia for years. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  A simple reading of WP:VER should have been sufficient. Maybe this'll help: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia..." — Jimbo Wales September 2003. Allreet (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  More mud in the water, shaken not stirred, this time trying to say "Jimbo is on my side". No, he isn't, as far as I know. Among reputable sources for American Revolution and founding topics the Journal of the American Revolution rates at the top. It is a commonly referenced source. It does not belong to an "extremely small minority" but actually sets the tone of the topic. I don't know if a guideline applies to RfC's in which there is so much misdirection thrown up that it obscures the main question, which is actually only one question: Is the Journal of the American Revolution a reputable source. It certainly seems to be, and, if it is, then this good faith but almost off-the-rails RfC should be withdrawn. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  "Misdirection" is ignoring the issue, specifically, the use of sources, which is the nature of this RfC. The Continental Association is not in question (look back at my original comments where I said exactly that) and neither is the reliability of Richard Werther and the Journal. While I dispute that Werther and the Journal support the connection between the Continental Association and Founding Fatherhood, even if I'm wrong, theirs would still be in a minority. So what I've contended throughout, and all I'm pointing to in quoting Jimmy Wales, is the need for a more significant body of opinion - the naming of additional adherents - to support your edits. If the preponderance of sources believe otherwise, your claim can only be used in discussing the range of scholarly opinion. I don't think I could possibly be more direct than that. Allreet (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• More sources. If we agree that the Association is a founding document (which also agrees with Abe Lincoln no less), and that the Journal of the American Revolution and Werther are reputable source, why this novel length page discussion? For another source here is a Founder of the Day article entitled "Signers of the Continental Association" which states, clearly and directly, "Below is a list of the Founders who signed the Continental Association" (emphasis mine), followed by the names of the 53 signers (Founder of the Day also names the Association as one of the four founding documents). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Another source, Here is a worldhistory.edu link to the article "Top 10 Founding Fathers of the United States of America" - section "List of Founding Fathers of the United States" which states: "Also, two broader groups of Founding Fathers capture the signers of Articles of Confederation (the initial version of the American Constitution which was adopted in 1777 and ratified in 1781) and the signers of the Continental Association (created on October 20, 1774)." Randy Kryn (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  No doubt, you've finally found a source that endorses signers of the Continental Association. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement, given what you quoted, but that's because their writing is simply awful: "...two broader groups of Founding Fathers capture..." Really? You could say I'm being picky but this applies not just to this sentence but to most and then to all the articles I looked at: "Medgar Evers was a renowned civil rights activist who spent the bulk part of his very brief life working to end segregation..." "Growing from a small town into an empire, Ancient Rome was one of the most powerful and influential civilizations the world has ever known..." "For centuries African empires have been wrongly and unfairly shrugged off as insignificant and backward societies with hardly any contribution to the history of the world..." These are typical lead sentences in terms of style and content, which raises serious questions about the site's reliability. Extremely odd is that all articles are attributed to World History Edu, not to any author. Is this a junior high school project? I can't tell because there's no About page or anything else to indicate who's behind it. In any case, keep searching, since one source, and in particular this one, doesn't change much in terms of your claim and what I believe WP:VER's guidelines require. Allreet (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  I just saw your mention above of the Founder of the Day article that you had pointed out a ways back. This site is the work of one person who provides no indication of his sources, so it's hard to tell where he got the idea that these signers are founders or determine the reliability of his site. I'll leave that for other editors to figure out. Back to your point, Randy, about the length of this discussion, yep, I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Both of us are for going around and around on the same issues, when we should simply sit back and wait for others to have their say. Allreet (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Can't sit back since you keep posting misleading premises. It's obvious the Journal of the American Revolution articles are reliable and clear sources, there was no need for any of this. You've gone from guessing that a rogue typesetter titled Werther's paper (unbeknownst to the author who then signed the paper and the Journal's editors who allowed the title and the premise to stand), to "no original research" regarding that typesetter, to "Jimbo would disapprove", and now to denigrating collaborating information. The Founders who put their reputations, lives, and livelihoods on the line when they signed the Continental Association might shake their heads in wonder if they could read this discussion. At the very least they would be spinning in their graves. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop accusing me of being misleading. That's a personal attack. Everything I've posted has been offered honestly and is documentable. What I think leads you to that impression or reaction is that your POV and the desire to "be right" clouds your objectivity and then your ability to understand what basics such as "clear and direct" mean. I know that's personal, too, but I offer it kindly. I've gotten frustrated at times myself, so I apologize for wherever I've veered from the subject and responded with pot shots. Allreet (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Please read my above reply again where I lay out some of your, yes, good faith incorrect statements. Maybe you truly believe that Werther and the Journal of the American Revolution editors were tricked into signing and publishing a paper with a false title, a title which by coincidence fits the premise of the reputable source article. Maybe the people running the other websites who count the signers of the four core founding documents as Founding Fathers are delusional, I don't know. I do know that when Abraham Lincoln laid out why the Continental Association marks the beginning of the United States his loyalty to truth seems to have matched his future reputation for love of country, liberty, and personal determination to keep the United States unified as one nation (much as the Association's signers likely understood exactly what the near future was about to bring). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Erroneous Origin of Term "Founding Father"

It is not correct that Warren Harding coined the term "Founding Father." A search on newspapers.com retrieves occurences of the term as early as 1892. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.85 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that was the case. Unfortunately, the claim has solid sources to back it up, which rules out removing it. The solution, then, is to add claims to the contrary. Anyone have access to newspapers.com for generating the needed citations? Allreet (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, would like to read those. If accurate, good find IP user. Can you elaborate on the articles, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I drafted a para that needs a bit more research but covers very early references to the founders (called signers, patriots, heroes of the revolution) and then references by 19th century figures - John Quincy Adams (1825 inaugural), Lincoln (1863 Gettysburg Address) and Grover Cleveland (1885 inaugural). The main source is a Harvard Declaration Project article. The origin and use of the term should be discussed further along with more on Harding and then other possible references from newspapers. The FF page once had an etymology/terminology section and I believe it should be restored with something along the lines of what I'm writing, some dictionary definitions, etc. The section began as Terminology, Oct 27, 2014, was renamed Etymology, Mar 27, 2015, and for whatever reason was merged back into the Lead, Oct 7, 2015. Allreet (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)