This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Do we have the ability to put the Articles of Association on Wikisource? Chadlupkes 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The article now shows the appropriate link on Wikisource. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I feel that Continental Association should be merged into this article. I've put the merger banner on both pages in case there might be any objection. The Continental Association article is a stub, and if it weren't, then it would most likely duplicate the information here. -- BOARshevik 08:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

There wasn't anything to merge; it simply restated some of the information already found here. I just redirected it. Postdlf 15:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

There was also another article: Continental Association of 1774, which I'll move to Continental Association, which is the standard name and should be the primary article. This article ("Articles of Association") confuses several different things: the Continental Association, the document that outlined the Association (the Articles), the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, and the Petition to the King (1774). I'll be working on sorting this out. — Kevin Myers 16:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I ended up moving this article (formerly known as "Articles of Association") to "Continental Association", because there's more good text in this one. I'll merge in Continental Association of 1774. "Articles of Association" will remain a redirect, of course, and can be broken out again in case an article on just the document founding the Continental Association is needed. — Kevin Myers 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Latest update, in case anyone is watching (which seems doubtful): "Articles of Association" no longer redirects here, and instead goes to the more common legal usage, articles of association, with a hatnote pointing here. The Continental Association is rarely referred to as the "Articles of Association", the original title of this article. — Kevin Myers 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The Articles of Association is what established the Continental Association; the original article on this topic focused on that document rather than the Association itself. I've noticed in passing that you deleted a number of paragraphs from this article recently that summarized that document's provisions; I haven't had the time to really review and come to a conclusion as to whether that was a good thing in the end, but that pruning raised an eyebrow. Postdlf ( talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I pruned what were some comments that essentially conflated the Association's preamble with the grievances spelled out in detail in Congress's Declaration and Resolves. This was stuff left over from when the article began with "The Articles of Association were petitions of grievances...", which was a confused interpretation of what the Association was, conflating it with the Declaration and Resolves and the Petition to the King (1774). The Association was not a petition or a list of grievances; it was a collective effort to get Britain to pay attention to the petition and the grievances.

There are fourteen points (or "articles") in the Association; those fourteen items are what the "Articles of Association" really are; I may have been in error when I said in May 2008 (above) that the "Articles of Association" was the document itself. No matter; what's important is the boycott and the revolutionary organization that the boycott created. We need to better summarize the fourteen articles and, more importantly, expand our discussion on the committees of observation and inspection, which effectively became local revolutionary governments. We've yet to get to the really crucial stuff here! — Kevin Myers 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The text links to George Ross, which could be either of two men:

• George Ross (delegate) (1730–1779), signatory to the U.S. Declaration of Independence
• George Ross (Pennsylvania statesman) (1746–1801), Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania, 1788–1790

It would seem that George Ross (delegate) is the right man, because he was elected to the Continental Congress, but I have hesitated to change the link without confirmation. Can some other editor be of assistance here?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's definitely the delegate. The article on the second George Ross is perhaps misleadingly named: "statesman" is a pretty strong description for someone about whom almost nothing is known for certain. — Kevin Myers 03:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

All info comes from only one source. Editors who added info to this article should include their sources. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 22:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply

The Continental Association was not a "detailed system" as is stated in the lead. The article has no source to support the use of this term, and no source can be found on the internet that uses the term other than websites that are echoing Wikipedia word for word. I searched the article's edit history and found the edit where "system" was first added: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Continental_Association&diff=next&oldid=209986435. In 2008! Somebody, apparently trying to make sense of it, later added the adjective "detailed". No citation or any other information was provided in either case to explain what this means. The lead should be changed to reflect what dozens of sources indicate: the "Association" was - just that, an association of the colonies (as in the organizational use of the term). The creation of the association was formed by an agreement, so that term can be used too, that is, "the Continental Association was an agreement by (or of) the colonies..." The spin-off from that is the agreement called for several things, among them, a boycott and an end to slave trade. As it stands, the lead sentence makes no sense. Yes, a system was required to effect the boycott, but that's what the agreement called, not what the Association or agreement was. Allreet ( talk) 22:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I'd think the words "detailed system" are referring to the many dos and don'ts pertaining to the boycott mandated and called for by the wording of the Association. A remarkable document where 53 brave souls put their lives and livelihoods on the line to unify the colonies and boycott all British goods. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

"Detailed system" is a novel description of the document, so much so that it lacks any sources. It's also extremely confusing to readers. The Continental Association may have led to the development of a system or suggested one, but it in itself was not one. As I said, the Continental Association is a document. It also can be described as an agreement. But a "system" is is not. And again we get back to the use of sources. There is not one that can be found to this effect. These are the concerns I raised, not a thing about brave souls, unification, boycotts and the like. Allreet ( talk) 21:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The article cited as a source for the sentence in dispute does not include any clear and direct statement that would satisfy the requirements of WP:VER. The editor who added the citation and assertion is engaged in an RfC I posted elsewhere regarding this, yet he has proceeded to make additional edits here and in other articles without waiting for a resolution. Meanwhile, he has been claiming that his assertion is supported using the reasoning that if you keep the article's title in mind while you read the text, this is the conclusion you would reach. Even if true, this would not be direct. I further maintain that the reasoning the editor suggests for reaching this conclusion is a process that amounts to synthesis, a violation under WP:NOR.

In the article in question, the author is simply comparing signers of the Continental Association with those of other founding documents. He makes no specific or even general reference to these signers in terms of being considered Founding Fathers. Furthermore, while the title might imply this, the issue of Founding Fatherhood is not even the premise of the article. The author is simply curious about identifying which signers signed which documents, how many, and what other characteristics do they share in terms of their background. Beyond that, he offers no particular perspective or judgements regarding the founding. Similarly, neither do any of the sources he cites that is, not one of the author's sources makes a connection between signing the Continental Association and being a Founding Father.

I do not dispute the importance of the Continental Association. I agree it is a founding document. I also agree that the Journal of the American Revolution, the publisher, is a respected source and that the same applies to the author. What I dispute is the editor's assertion and his use of the source. I maintain that because signers of the other three documents are considered Founders, the same does not necessarily apply to the Continental Association's signers. I further maintain that even if the source being used is valid - which it is not - the editor's assertion would require multiple sources, as is the case with the other three documents. Multiple sources can be found for each that would support a statement such as "many historians consider signers of the Declaration of Independence (or one of the other two documents) to be Founding Fathers". It is my position, then, that under WP:VER, multiple sources of prominent reliability are required here, especially because the claim in question is a minority view. Allreet ( talk) 11:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: Allreet ( talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You state that the Association is a founding document, and that the signers of the other three founding documents are accepted as Founding Fathers. Here are several sources which, for site consistency and per WP:COMMONSENSE, acknowledge that the Founders include the signers of the fourth: The October, 2017, article by Richard Werther, "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" article in the Journal of the American Revolution names the signers of the four founding documents as Founders per its premise-setting title. 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) 11:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Of the three sources you cited, the Richard Werther/Journal of the American article would be the only one considered authoritative - and I maintain it does not clearly and directly support the statement that the Continental Association's "53 signers are considered Founding Fathers of the United States". In fact, none of the Werther's sources support that assertion either. Furthermore, it is also not accurate to state as you do - it's simply not true - that this is the position of the Journal of the American Revolution. The Journal has published many opinions on the subject, a survey of which I will list below, including two more recent ones by Werther where he discusses the Continental Association and makes no mention of its connection with Founding Fathers. In short, we have no way of knowing exactly what Werther's or the Journal's position on the subject is because there is no statement that can be quoted one way or the other. As for your other two sources, the Founder of the Day website appears to be a "self-publication", the work of one person who provides no sources for his articles (hard to tell, he may be relying on Wikipedia) and whose credentials are unclear. As for the other, worldhistory.edu, its writing appears to be the work of high school students at best, with no sources mentioned or even an About page describing the website. All of which puts the onus on you. If your assertion regarding Founding Fatherhood and the Continental Association is valid - that its 53 signers are considered Founding Fathers - you should be able to easily provide a reasonable number of prominent sources. Otherwise, your POV is in a distinct minority, one that is not shared by respected scholars/historians. As for "common sense", while the Continental Association eventually led to the nation's founding, its signers had nothing of the kind in mind. The document they approved doesn't even hint at the possibility of founding a newnation, and in fact, it begins with a statement of their allegiance to the King. In any case, WP:COMMONSENSE is not the issue. The issue is WP:VER. Allreet ( talk) 15:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Did you read the title of Werther's "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" article in the Journal of the American Revolution? I know you've read it, it's the core topic of the Wikipedia reference credibility discussion we've had before, although maybe an edited version could be more clear and direct: "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" There are plentiful sources listing the Continental Association as a founding document along with the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. Werther's article is sound and reputable, I don't think there's any dispute about that. The other two internet sites, I know nothing about, but both have published what seems to be quality information for a good amount of time and are probably doing their best (and are two of the websites which promptly pop up when search words are typed in, so they likely receive a lot of traffic, which means they've constantly being fact checked by many and have gained at least some credibility). Wikipedia has accepted that the signers of the four founding documents are Founding Fathers, but you dispute, what, that the signers of one of them are not? Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Of course I read the title, and I think your argument about it is anathema to our "discipline" as editors - contrary to our rules and to our commitment to be as careful as we can with what we publish. As I see it, a "strict constructionist" view of WP:VER is the only way to "keep us honest", since we can't trust interpretations, guesswork, prejudices or even common sense. All we can trust is what reliable sources say. Obviously, at least to me, that means only text qualifies because we can't quote titles, and even more obviously, we can't quote a combination of the two - that most definitely is synthesis. Which brings us back to square one: since you and I are unable to reach agreement on the use of this particular source, input from other editors is needed and another RfC is in order. I'll be sure to let you know when I post it. BTW, synthesis amounts to splicing tape, which is what you just did with Werther's title. As for the other two sources, both are awful in terms of reliability, though Founder of the Day is certainly the better of the two. Allreet ( talk) 18:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lots of words to somehow say 'titles don't count'. Yes, they do. Pointing out a sources title is both fine and requested, see WP:CITEHOW, quote, "Citations for journal articles typically include: name of the author(s), year and sometimes month of publication, title of the article, name of the journal...". In this case the entire text both follows the title and uses it as the paper's premise (as academic papers usually and routinely do). Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

So you do understand that I'm saying "titles don't count". I mean exactly that. In fact, I haven't seen one instance in years of research and general reading where someone said, "The title proves the point". As for the premise, an article should state one, clearly, and the title should reflect it. Not the other way around. Werther it turns out doesn't have a premise. Read the opening. He is simply curious why only one person signed all four founding documents and why more of the signers hadn't signed more. He then goes on to offer a thoughtful but informal analysis of many things, but not a word that deems the signer of any particular document a "founder". (Try using "found" to search the text to see what he does say on the issue.) Further proof of Werther's lack of a premise is his conclusion which begins: "So there you have it. A total of 145 men signed at least one of the four founding documents, though just one signed them all." And you think that's clear and direct regarding the premise you believe in - that Signers are automatically Founders? Allreet ( talk) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Werher's paper "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", please notice 'the Founders' is defined as 'Signers of Four Founding Documents'. Charts then back up the premise of how many of the 145 signers signed which founding document. Seems clear to me. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

One thing the Journal does not say in any direct way is that "signers of the Continental Association are considered Founding Fathers", as is claimed in the lead section of the Continental Association page. For anybody who wants to verify that, here's the article being cited: Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents, by Richard Werther, 2017. Just to be fair to the other editor's view, be sure to read the article's title before diving into the text.

Meanwhile, the Journal has published a raft of articles on the Continental Association since it began in 2013, and not one of them can be construed to reach the conclusion quoted above. By the way, I arranged these articles chronologically, though there really isn't any progression in terms of the Journal's opinion.

• The First Continental Congress Responds to the Intolerable Acts, 2014: Discusses the First Continental Congress in depth, though only a little about the Continental Association and nothing about Founders.
• How Do You Define Founding Fathers, 2015: Surveys the Journal's writers/editors on what defines a founder. Only one mentions the Continental Association, but nothing about its signers, only those who served on the Committees the Association gave birth to.
• Roger Sherman: The Only Man Who Signed All Four Founding Documents, 2017: Richard Werther discusses the four founding documents in depth, but his only mention of Founders is that Sherman "lacks the flash" of "other founders", like Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton and Adams. This recognizes Sherman as a Founder and nobody else except these greats.
• Patriots Turned Loyalist—The Experiences of Joseph Galloway and Isaac Low, 2018: Richard Werther discusses two signers of the Continental Association who were accused of treason against the American cause. He also mentions the other three founding documents. He points out that 146 men signed one or more of these documents but does not refer to any of them as Founders.
• Reconciliation Between the Colonies and Great Britain—A Close Call, 2019: Richard Werther discusses the Continental Association in depth, but never mentions Founding Fathers.
• The First Efforts to Limit the African Slave Trade Arise in the American Revolution: Part 3 of 3, Congress Bans the African Slave Trade, 2020: Includes an extensive discussion of the Continental Association, but does not refer to any of its signers as Founders.

Allreet ( talk) 19:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sand in the eyes (to those reading this, myself and this editor have been going round and round on this for weeks, and they keep jumping to different pages and starting all over again). Yes, pointing out a sources title is both fine and requested, see WP:CITEHOW quote "Citations for journal articles typically include: name of the author(s), year and sometimes month of publication, title of the article, name of the journal...". The Werther paper in question was published in October, 2017, in your timeline this was years after 14 editors couldn't agree on where to have lunch let alone of who was a Founding Father. Werther set them straight by saying that the guys who signed the four founding documents, those are the Founders. Some of the other pages you mention are mainly about Joseph Galloway (and probably use Werther's 2017 paper as a source). Four Founding documents signed by a total of 145 men. That's the starters and the deep bench. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:CITE is not the issue, a red herring. Of course citations require titles and publishers, but that has nothing to do with WP:VER's RS requirements. The Journal article my fellow editor criticizes succinctly explores the indefinite nature of the term Founding Father, including the fact that many serious historians don't lend it much credence. As for Werther settling the argument, so to speak, he later (after October 2017) wrote two more Journal articles on the subject of the Continental Association and didn't once declare anyone a Founder other than Roger Sherman who had signed all four so-called "founding documents". (I use quotes to point out that like "founding father", this is a construct, not a tangible.) Meanwhile, my fellow editor veers from the issue with a number of OR opinions that distract him from the nature of and need for RS. My observation is that a "cottage industry" has grown up around less serious historians who keep expanding the list with "forgotten founders" articles - the total count has ballooned to upwards of 200 or more. The relevance of this is that these outliers don't satisfy WP:VER's guidelines, such as minority views require multiple sources of significance and the related idea that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". Arguments about Werther, the significance of the Journal of the American Revolution, and so forth cloud the fact that all I'm seeking is clear evidence from authoritative sources that "signers of the Continental Association are considered Founding Fathers". Allreet ( talk) 17:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

PLEASE NOTE: I am withdrawing this RfC on the advice of another editor, who suggested the question be re-phrased and the summary eliminated (see WP:Help desk, February 11, 2022). I plan to post a new Rfc with the wording suggested. Ignore the following for now. I'll be seeking feedback on what to do with this section. The only comment is from the other editor involved in the dispute, @ User:Randy Kryn. Thanks. Allreet ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Regarding WP:VER, does "clear and direct" mean relying solely on the text of a source, as opposed to allowing verification of an assertion with a combination of the source's title and text? Allreet ( talk) 20:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Summary: An editor has made an assertion in the lead section of the Continental Association page that 53 signers of the Continental Association "are considered Founding Fathers of the United States". He has made this same assertion in 25 related pages. In this one, he has included three citations, two of marginal reliability (IMO), but that's a separate matter. His primary source is an article in the Journal of the American Revolution that analyzes signers of four "founding documents". However, this article does not include any text that can be quoted to the effect that the Continental Association's signers are "considered Founding Fathers". My fellow editor has been unable to provide any direct quote from the text supporting this statement, but maintains that the article's text in combination with its title confirms his assertion. Other issues such as the reliability of sources and the question of whether the Continental Association is a "founding document" are not in question. Respond Yes if you agree only text can be used for verification or No if you believe a combination of text and title is allowed. Allreet ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Whole article backs up the title. Please pull per forum shopping. You already have an ongoing RfC and maybe ten discussion pages going on same subject. Have written tens of thousands of words including discussion above and my computer no longer works for several keys and have lost so can no longer defend hese baseless attacks (have to cut and paste 't') . Please sop preending you can' read. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

From ff RfC: 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, the Journal names the Continental Association as one of the four founding documents, an extremely reputable source which specifically names the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers. In fact they do so in the academic papers title, which provides the premise. Couldn't be clearer about it. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

From above discussion: Sand in the eyes (to those reading this, myself and this editor have been going round and round on this for weeks, and they keep jumping to different pages and starting all over again). Yes, a sources title is both fine and requested. And see WP:CITEHOW quote "Citations for journal articles typically include: name of the author(s), year and sometimes month of publication, title of the article, name of the journal...". The Werther paper in question was published in October, 2017, in your timeline this was years after 14 editors couldn't agree on where to have lunch let alone of who was a Founding Father. Werther set them straight by saying that the guys who signed the four founding documents, those are the Founders. Four Founding documents signed by a total of 145 men. That's the starters and the deep bench. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Please Note: I am removing this Request for Comment because of the lack of response from other editors. I want to thank the one outside editor who did respond and also wish the best to the other editor involved, @ Randy Kryn:. While the issues I've raised have not been settled, I plan to seek resolution through other avenues, because I believe that to be in the best interests of our readers. Allreet ( talk)

Are the 53 signers of the Continental Association agreement Founding Fathers of the United States? Allreet ( talk) 16:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• 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" 2017 article in the Journal of the American Revolution does so in the academic paper's title, which provides the premise. Couldn't be clearer about it. Wikipedia accepts the signers of the other three founding documents, per sources, as Founding Fathers, and since there is no dispute on Wikipedia that the Continental Association is a founding document, site consistency applies. 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) 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Werther's article, the only authoritative source cited, does not include one word recognizing the Continental Association's 53 signers as Founding Fathers. Allreet ( talk) 18:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The entire article, including its interesting charts, is about the Founders signing the four founding documents. The Continental Association is one of hose documents. Even the paper's title spells it out: "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". This Journal of he American Revolution article, at the very least, backs up the Association's signers as founders. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The Journal's article discusses signers of four documents. It never calls signers of this document founders. Not once. Allreet ( talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Please read the title, the paper's premise. By the way, Wikipedia has listed signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers for years (see w.'s chart). Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That's not true. The section in question was originally named "Signatories to founding documents". It was changed seven months ago by another editor. But you would know, since you've been actively editing the Founding Fathers page for years. Here's the page just before the section's title was changed, July 29, 2021. 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

100% true, for nearly seven years. The section name seems edited for accuracy since the lead already stated the sourced fact (see references): "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." Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

What you said was untrue: that the Continental Association's signers were "listed" as "Founding Fathers for years". The fact is significant edits were made that changed the nature of the list. For accuracy? Hard to tell since no citation was added.

As for the section of the lead you mentioned, "two further groupings", it's never had a citation either to tie the Continental Association with founders.

Besides, you're now citing another WP page to justify what's said in this one. Allreet ( talk) 06:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You're at the "You lie!" stage (when logic fails this is what emerges). The fact was initially cited in 2015 to Jack Stanfield's 2001 book America's Founding Fathers: Who Are They? Thumbnail Sketches of 164 Patriots and has been in the lead since. Randy Kryn ( talk) 06:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Stanfield's book only supports signers of the Articles of Confederation, though I understand your misconception. Most likely, you don't have the book. See below.

Regarding your other assertion, I laid out the section's edit history twice for you, the first time in our initial exchange on the Founding Fathers talk page. Yes, we've said quite a bit since, but those changes and their lack of sources are precisely what this dispute is about. Allreet ( talk) 07:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

There is no question that the Werther article is a reputable source, you've said so elsewhere in our novel-length discussions. Who are Stanfield's 164 signers if not the signers of the four main founding documents (the book's images do not appear on my browser)? Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Please do not put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the kind. Werther's article does not in any direct way support your contention that signers of the Continental Association are regarded as founders. But even if we accept this article plus a couple others, your view about 53 signers would still have no weight, meaning too few sources are available to make the idea worthy of more than a passing reference. Allreet ( talk) 21:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

From Feb. 2 you wrote: "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." so I took that as you at least agreeing Werher's aricle and the Journal are reputable. What you disagree on is that the paper in question supports the signers as founders (although the title directly says so). Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You are quoting me out of context. The point I made (in regards to another article but the same issue) is that the Continental Association, Werther and the Journal are not in question. For the nth time: the only question is the need for reliable sources regarding "founding fatherhood".

• There are multiple definitions of "Founding Fathers" and they certainly meet at least one of those definitions, and would be excluded under at least one of those definitions. (invited by the bot) North8000 ( talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

What arises from my post is that any statement would need calibration like "sometimes considered to be founding fathers" North8000 ( talk) 13:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• No...sufficient sources cannot be found to support the claim. Two sources, both questionable, are hardly enough to award these 53 figures the same status as signers of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. At best, it is the view of an extreme minority. Allreet ( talk) 23:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jack Stanfield's 2001 book America's Founding Fathers: Who Are They? Thumbnail Sketches of 164 Patriots is not questionable. Nor is the 2017 Journal of the American Revolution article. Again, for nearly seven years Wikipedia has named four founding documents whose signers qualify as Founding Fathers, backed by reputable sources. The Continental Association is one of those four. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Stanfield barely mentions the Continental Association. He lists signers of the Declaration and Article of Confederation, and then both signers and framers of the Constitution. See for yourself: Founding Fathers by Jack Stanfield.

Wikipedia agrees there are four major founding documents (no dispute and sourced), but you argue that only the signers of three are Founding Fathers. Thus WP:COMMONSENSE and logical consistency enter the discussion. Book's text not appearing on my browser, so who are Stanfield's 164 founders? Does he omit Continental Association signers or, like Werther, include them? Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Common sense and logic: signing a "founding document" doesn't automatically make anyone a founder, especially in late 1774 when the idea of founding was far from anyone's mind. Here's what the National Archives has to say about the thought of independence.

Stanfield's founders are the groups I mentioned, though he adds a handful of other figures for deeds not related to signing. He uses charts to list everyone and then puts them all in a grid. The Continental Association doesn't get a mention. Allreet ( talk) 17:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Stanfield source adds the Articles of Confed. and not the Association like Werther and the others do. Was on the Founders page since 2015 so moved it here in a good faith mistake that it covered both founding documents, thanks for reverting. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Point of order: Wikipedia has recognized the Continental Association as one of the four major founding documents since at least 2010 (see {{ Historical American Documents}}). Just to be clear, there is no disagreement on its Wikipedia status? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

An irrelevant diversion from the point of this RfC: the need for sufficient sources supporting whether 53 signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers. Allreet ( talk) 20:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Seems relevant on several levels. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The long list of secondary possibilities interferes with a direct discussion or exploration of sources. I think the first thing anyone should do in responding to the RfC is to look for sources by searching on "Continental Association Founding Fathers", for example. If sources are found, then an assessment can be made. But bringing up all the side issues gets us nowhere. Focus, please. Allreet ( talk) 23:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

You also have a very unusual POV regarding content here on Wikipedia. Because something has stood without change for 10 years means nothing. It's quite possible "Wikipedia was wrong" all that time. In this case, regarding four "founding documents", as far as I know that claim did not have a source until Werther's 2017 article. Meanwhile, some very prominent sources disagree with him on exactly what those documents are, for example, the Library of Congress and National Archives neither of which identify the Continental Association. I believe it's absurd, then, to give Werther the only "say". The other side deserves "equal time". Allreet ( talk) 23:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Regarding changes to the last paragraph of the lead, I am simply restoring a statement that was properly sourced but had been reverted on the basis of a "dead link" and then the timeline of another article I had referred to in error. For clarification:

• Here's the direct quote from the source supporting the original change I made: "The Union, as an enduring entity, originated on September 5, 1774, when delegates of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies met in Philadelphia and formed the Continental Congress."

• Abraham Lincoln did not credit the Continental Association with the "origin of the United States" but specifically said "the Union is much older". Lincoln was making a legal argument about the beginnings of the union, not the nation's founding two years later. His point was that the agreement for a union between the colonies marked the beginnings of a contract that the South could not unilaterally break with secession.

• The timeline cited regarding the United Colonies is irrelevant, though I was in error in referring to that article. The term "United Colonies" had a specific official meaning apart from the uniting of the colonies referred to by Lincoln and the author. I mistakenly tied the two together in my initial edit - there is no connection as far as I know between the terms Union and United Colonies.

• The "dead link" related to the revert was caused by a simple typo, an errant period. I removed the period and the link works fine.

Additional changes to the text on my part, all minor, allowed me to weave everything together without affecting the last sentence and its citations, which remain under dispute. Allreet ( talk) 03:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Please read and/or memorize Lincoln's First Inaugural address. It is all about keeping the United States as one union of states in anticipation of the looming Civil War. His impassioned presentation of the nation's history begins with - you guessed it - the Continental Association. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

"Roger Sherman". Architect of the Capitol. Retrieved 2019-08-13. Here's the Architect of the Capitol, bless their heart, having a turn at bat naming the four "great state papers: "Respected by his contemporaries, Sherman was the only member of the Continental Congress who signed all four of the great state papers: the Association of 1774, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution". Can you suggest a good spot for this, asking for a friend (seriously Allreet, are there a couple places this could go? Thanks). Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

A few places, at least for mentions. Starting with some candidates that turn out not to be: Sherman's statue is already listed in the National Statuary Hall article, so of course the United States Capitol and Architect of the Capitol pages are out. History of the United States Senate has too brief a section on 1789-1865 where it might bear mentioning. And it's probably too "granular" for the History section of the Constitution of the United States. Some candidates, then: Roger Sherman (obvious), Founding Fathers of the United States and Constitutional Convention (United States). Two items in particular that struck me as "news", that is, worthy of mention, are Henry's quote and, "He proposed the dual system of congressional representation, which was adopted". The latter is significant regarding the Senate History and other related congressional history articles. Hope that helps. Allreet ( talk) 22:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

'hanks. Have added it to another spot on the Roger Sherman page, where I originally found it. Am hesitating adding to the Founding Father page due to our recent discussions, but a good idea. Haven't read the Senate history page before, thanks for pointing it out. AofCapiol pages may have much useable data given the number of statues in the collection. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This may be of interest and directly apply to this page. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Gwillhickers: I have reverted your latest edit on the Continental Association because the issue of the document's nature/importance is currently the subject of the RFC mentioned above. Changing the article could influence editors who are considering a vote on the dispute. If you intend to revert my revert, please discuss first. Thank you. Allreet ( talk) 19:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Seems a good sourced edit by Gwillhickers. "The articles of the Continental Association were addressed to the King, as it was deemed if addressed to the Parliament it would be interpreted as an admissions of its authority over the colonies." has nothing to do with the topic of the RfC (the signers of the CA, not its importance which is well established). Please comment on the removed sourced material, which seems topic-relevant, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

It most certainly does relate to the dispute. On April 25-29 we were debating this very subject and the edit was made on the 27th. So it's no coincidence. In any case, if appropriate the change can be reinstated later. Allreet ( talk) 05:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The addition has nothing to do with any dispute about who or who isn't a Founding Father (and of course the signers of the CA are founders of the Union - they created the union). Why would you debate such a factual sourced analysis? Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Are there any original copies in existence? If so where are they? Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk) 06:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This discussion affects this page and may be of interest to topic editors. It concerns the navbox {{ Historical American Documents}}. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply