Talk:Articles of Confederation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Federal?

The first paragraph refers to the US government under the AoC as "federal". Is this anachronistic? I think the word came into wide use with the later Constitution which was explicitly labeled Federal. Often Federation and Confederation are considered distinct forms. --JWB (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this anachronism out; I've changed the wording from "federal government" to "central government." Drdpw (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the federalism had somewhat of a slightly different meaning at the time, and it could be used interchangeably with confederation. In the late 1700s, the Articles of Confederation were considered "federal". You will see in writings from the time that the Confederation Government is often referred to as the "federal" government. However, for purposes of this article, it makes sense to avoid using "federal" since it might confuse people. Ltwin (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Founding document status disputed

The issue of "founding documents" is being disputed on 50+ pages. Despite a lack of resolution, @User:Randy Kryn added material central to this dispute to the Articles of Confederation page. Why this was done without any discussion or alert is difficult to determine. I had three immediate choices (there may be others): 1) add an inline or sectional dispute template, 2) add sourced material contradicting the addition, or 3) remove the edit. The third seemed to be the easiest and least disruptive of the three options, since this will allow the article to remain as it previously existed while we seek a resolution here on the Talk page. Allreet (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully this editor realizes that the Articles of Confederation is the nations first constitution. I mean really understand what that means (to keep assuming good faith I have to accept that he may not). Of course it is a founding document, this is well sourced and has been noted as such on Wikipedia for well over a decade. Yes, 50 plus pages and seemingly growing daily since the discussion now inexplicably includes the denial of AofC as a founding document. It has been a strange couple of months and luckily I took the long weekend off from engaging in this odd back and forth which has covered tens of thousands of words and three failed and closed simultaneous RfC's. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The added founding document status paragraph in the lead does seem a bit unnecessary to the lead section (and possibly driven by editorial disagreement). Perhaps, given that neither the U.S. Constitution article nor the Bill of Rights Declaration of Independence article has a lead section paragraph stating its status as a founding document, this article should not either. The essential point—the connection between the AC and the USC—is made in the lead section. Founding document status appears not to be an essential point. Drdpw (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree that it's not essential for the lead, although the four major founding documents status which Wikipedia has adhered to since at least 2010 (see linked navbox below) should probably find some mention on each of the four pages per encyclopedic educational value. It's already acknowledged via {{Historical American Documents}} but navboxes are not seen on mobile. Maybe we can come up with language for the four pages on this talk page. As for a real time example of whack-a-mole forum shopping, even as I type this Allreet is adding new discussions on the talk pages of the signers of the Articles of Confederation, each worded as if he's ignorant of the answer, thus dispersing the now two month old daily run ever-outwards after not getting the results he sought in three - 3! - simultaneous and now closed RfCs (and on many other talk pages). Opening and then shutting three RfC's before each would have been closed by a closer as, at the very least, no consensus, should have ended his WikiCrusade long ago and put a moratorium on new RfC's and talk page sections (three failed RfCs make any local consensus, which he's now trying to obtain somewhere, anywhere, mute). Thanks for your patience. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "adhere" to anything. It reflects what sources say. The dispute over "four major founding documents" has nothing to do with the list of Historical Documents @User:Randy Kryn points to, but to the term's first appearance in the Signatories to Founding Documents section of the Founding Fathers page, May 15, 2019 and then to its subsequent application in declaring all signers of the four documents "founders" in the List of Founding Fathers section, Founding Fathers page, July 30, 2021.

As for sources that do not recognize the Articles of Confederation and Continental Association as founding documents, most prominent are National Archives and U.S. Congress. Another example, the Library of Congress also does not regard the Articles as a founding document, but instead lists it among 20 or so "primary documents". In short, the assertion that the Articles are one of "four major founding documents" ignores what authoritative sources have to say.

Meanwhile, the personal comments being made obscure what initiated this dispute: the addition of the "Founding Father" title this past October to more than 50 signers of the Articles of Confederation and Continental Congress, all based on the "founding document" assertion and most without any sources being cited. Before that, none of these figures were considered "founders" going back as far as 2004. Allreet (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You have the sources that refute your objections, in fact several were on this article. You forgot to mention those either here or on the talk page merry-go-round you want me to endlessly ride. Besides good-ole common sense there are many good sources naming the first U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, as one of four major founding documents (of course it is). You've seen those sources many times now, and argued some of them through three losing RfCs and many talk page sections. Now you want me to get drawn into even more multi-talk page thousands-of-words discussions on the exact same topic as your three closed RfCs. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Three losing RfCs" is a complete mischaracterization. None of the RfCs garnered the attention of a sufficient number of neutral editors. We received three opinions through the RfCs and another through a Third Opinion request. Only one editor agreed with you. That's a score of 3-1 but nothing that could be regarded as useful, so I personally closed the RfCs as is permitted.

Meanwhile, I have not seen the citations for the Founding Father titles you bestowed on approximately 50 signers of the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation this past October, since most of these edits were made without sources. That's what's in dispute. Anyone can verify your unsourced edits by visiting the pages affected. They can also view your responses to my requests or the lack thereof by visiting the related Talk pages. Following are the pages you changed.

Continental Association, all under dispute: John Alsop, Edward Biddle, Richard Bland, Simon Boerum, Richard Caswell, Stephen Crane, Thomas Cushing, Silas Deane, John De Hart, Eliphalet Dyer, Nathaniel Folsom, Christopher Gadsden, 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.

Articles of Confederation, either under or headed for dispute: Thomas Adams, John Banister, William Clingan, John Collins, Francis Dana, William Henry Drayton, William Duer, John Hanson, Cornelius Harnett, John Harvie, Samuel Holten, Titus Hosmer, Richard Hutson, Edward Langworthy, Henry Laurens, James Lovell, Henry Marchant, John Mathews, Gouverneur Morris, Joseph Reed, Daniel Roberdeau, Nathaniel Scudder, Jonathan Bayard Smith, Edward Telfair, and Nicholas Van Dyke.

Allreet (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Randy Kryn: Please do not change my comments. I fully understand this was accidental on your part but it rendered one of my paragraphs unreadable. The one above that begins "Meanwhile, the personal comments being made obscure..." I would appreciate if you would restore the paragraph to its original state. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Accidental if I was me, please put your comment back as it was. As for your three opened and then closed RfCs, all of which were full discussions (over and over again) that would make all three closed as not supporting your hoped for objective, which is when you should have stopped this cycle of seeking 50 separate discussions. My appropriate adding of Founder status was done because the Founding Father page lists all of those men as Founders, simple as that. You know the sources and that they exist. If they are added to all those pages will you be wanting a full discussion on every talk page or will you finally leave them be? And per your list above you seem to now claim that Gouverneur Morris is in dispute as a founder, "We the whatnow"? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I'll fix it. RfCs not worth another argufest. So now you're citing Wikipedia as a source: "Because the Founding Father page lists all of these men as Founders"? Regarding the disputed pages, I'm not interested in discussion as much as seeing some citations to support your edits. It's as simple as that. And finally, Morris is the only edit of yours I'm not disputing. Check it out. Allreet (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)