Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 219

Founding Fathers of the United States

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Allreet on 14:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC).

@Casualdejekyll: Thank you for all you did. Honestly, I doubt the DRN could have settled our differences since neither I nor @Randy Kryn was willing to compromise. I refused to because I believed it meant compromising verification, that is, the need for reliable sources. In fact, RS has continued as the central issue in both of the RFCs that resulted. Thus, I believe you did the best you could in a dispute between two editors who were steadfast in their positions. Hope we meet again and under less contentious circumstances. Allreet (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Founding Fathers of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Allreet (talk · contribs) Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) North8000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have thoroughly discussed content in this article with another editor regarding the lack of adequate sources, specifically in terms of an assertion made on July 30, 2021 by a different editor claiming 145 historical figures are founding fathers. After we were unable to reach a resolution, I opened a 3O. The editor who responded seemed to agree with me, but was refuted by the other editor. I then opened a series of RfCs, none of which received an adequate response; only four editors replied, three of whom agreed with me. Unable to resolve anything through these avenues, I made substantial changes to the article to clarify the lack of consensus among historians regarding who is a founding father and who is not. All of those changes were based on reliable sources and none has been reverted or disputed. Only yesterday did I change the edits made last year. My latest changes were reverted today in what may be a violation of WP:3R. Also in dispute are 50 or so articles where the subjects were deemed founding fathers, most without any sources. Please note that the disputes in question also relate to another article, Continental Association. Additional discussion can be found on that article's talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide feedback, and hopefully a resolution, on the need for reliable sources regarding the content in this article and changes made to many others. Summary of dispute by Randy Kryn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Pointless dithering I know you are but what am I? Randy Kryn (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC) @user:casualdejekyll: I am asking you as moderator what this means? The personal attacks have finally been removed, for that I'm thankful. But frankly, this strikes me as mockery of the DRN process. Allreet (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Hi. From someone who has a little sister who says this way too much... yeah, this is Randy being strangely combative casualdejekyll 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) What? No, this was "said" lightly, and had been used several times between Allreet and myself. If I was mocking the process it would be shorter. It is actually something light in place of my earlier assessment, which had been criticized and I'd been asked to change, and wording that I assumed Allreet would recognize as a friendly summary. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC) I see no humor in what you said before. More appropriate would have been an apology. Allreet (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC) An apology for saying that you are now forum shopping here after you've posted scores of discussions, some very long, and opened and closed three RfCs, with every discussion and RfC ending with results you didn't like? I, at least, need a sense of humor to continue this journey (because it's true, canceling 57 or so Founding Fathers is no laughing matter). As to the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation not being founding documents when the former non-famously formally formed the first and foremost union of the colonies and the latter literally created (in other words, founded) America's first constitution and first government (the Confederation Congress), it's either smile awhile or drink heavily (and I seldom use, alcohol at least). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC) @User:casualdejekyll, I am respectfully requesting feedback from the moderator on @User:Randy Kryn's reinstatement of his personal attack. My opinion is this and other comments he has made throughout potentially falls under Wikipedia:Behavior that disrupts dispute resolution, though of that I know nothing. Allreet (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC) A major problem here is that you are disregarding "Edit only in your own section" and have filled my brief summary with requests for apologies and questions and respectful requests for feedback, thus not allowing another editor to just have their say. I'm not editing in your summary section, although I could say a thing or two, but I wouldn't even think of actually doing such a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Your "brief summary" was a playground taunt, Randy. Collapsing section. casualdejekyll 22:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Founding Fathers of the United States discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Old discussion Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Question - Is this a dispute about article content, or about the reliability of a particular source? It is difficult to determine, from the length of the discussion on the article talk page, exactly what the issue is, other than that it is clear that there is an issue. Please be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (repeated from above) Well, there is no dispute. Months have come and gone, and so have three open and closed failed RfCs by Allreet (and many page discussions where he also didn't get his way). If three failed RfCs haven't gotten the message across to him I know why he may be calling it a dispute - forum shopping. Please ask him to stop what has possibly become, after not prevailing at three RfCs, slow-motion and ongoing vandalism ICANtHEARYOU edits of the page (although he has done many good edits as well). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC) This is a dispute over content regarding the need for reliable sources. For just short of a year, actually much longer, the Founding Fathers article has had no sources to support the assertion that signers of the Continental Association are "considered founders". This specific claim was made in July 2021. The "implied" claim is about seven years old. The same may be true of the Articles of Confederation though at least some authors recognize its signers. However, the National Archives, USCongress.gov and "serious" historians do not. Allreet (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Note - please remember that participation in DRN is voluntary. @Randy Kryn - If you truly believe that having this discussion would not be valuable and that there is no dispute, you do not have to participate. However, calling his (presumed to be good faith) actions vandalism may constitute a personal attack. So, don't do that, please. casualdejekyll 17:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Struck, thanks. Could be valuable if mediators would read every word at scores of discussion pages (not only the Founding Fathers talk page but at least the talk pages of Continental Association and Articles of Confederation, then I could leave it as is. So will wait to see what occurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC) So, you do want to have a DRN discussion? (I'm planning on opening pending you actually wish to participate.) casualdejekyll 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Tagging @Randy Kryn for response because I forgot to the first time. Whoopscasualdejekyll 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Of course I'll join in, and hopefully be as brief as possible as tens of thousands of words already exist, but can you do me a big favor? Please don't open a discussion for a couple of days. I've been going at this almost daily for two months, and breaks from it are valuable and I'd be dragging if this occurred immediately. It should take you at least a couple of days anyway to read the discussions, RfCs, and the sources, and create a mental map of the vital American history being discussed, how Wikipedia has accepted and stood behind much of the definition and terminology being discussed since 2010, and the discussions themselves. If you're willing to do all of that then the least I can do is join in, but after some time away if you don't mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I would welcome whatever it takes to resolve this. And per Randy's request, I'm willing to wait until next week or whenever it suits Randy or whoever else is involved. Allreet (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Seriously, next week, a few days actually away from all of this with things left as they are I assume, would be great, thanks (and it may take the mediator a few late nights and some strong coffee to put enough time in to really study the entire structure, and what's nice is they will learn a lot of American history by taking on your request). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Volunteer note - Randy Kryn there is no expectation or need for the moderator to be or become an expert in the topic area of a dispute to properly moderate it. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I am no expert on the subject either. The issue is not American history, but the need for reliable sources. What Wikipedia has "accepted" for however many years does not qualify as a source. Nor does an article that cannot be quoted, that is not clear and direct, regarding what is being claimed. @Randy Kryn) Allreet (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I did let Randy know on his talk page, though I may not have followed whatever guideline applies. Allreet (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I see that a volunteer has agreed to moderate the discussion of this dispute, so I will offer a few comments. I may choose to list myself as a participating editor, but am not doing that yet. First, I advise the moderator not to try to read the lengthy prior discussion in detail. Taking a look at its volume will be desirable, but it is neither necessary nor useful for the moderator to try to study the details. The participants should be able to present their arguments concisely without repeating what has already been said repeatedly. Any argument that cannot be summarized concisely may not be adequately presented. Any argument that has not been summarized concisely is one that needs summarizing. Second, the principal editors both refer to three RFCs. One of them was at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States. The other two were at Talk:Continental Association. But none of the three RFCs were open for 30 days, and none of them were formally closed. The statement by one editor that the other editor "lost" three RFCs is incorrect; the RFCs were withdrawn. In my opinion, two of the RFCs were poorly worded. There has not, in my opinion, been an effective attempt to use an RFC, so much as playing around with RFCs. I would suggest that the moderator and the editors conduct the moderated discussion with a recognition that a good neutrally worded RFC might be the best resolution of this dispute. That will not require that the moderator review the excessive interchange between the two participants. I might have a third comment later. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Note I am currently formulating a first statement. At the request of Randy Kryn, I will not formally open the moderated discussion until.. well, you seemed to agree on next week, so I'm going to take that to mean Sunday the 13th Monday the 14th, please correct me if that is wrong. I request that both editors involved refrain from commenting on this thread further until that date (unless agreeing on a different one), and make an attempt to comment as little on this topic on other places as possible. Further comments will be taken as an invitation to open early, since I see no reason for any more pre-discussion discussion. Putting this on hold, then. casualdejekyll 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Can you make it Monday, lots of Sunday and weekend stuff to do. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Monday the 14th it is! Since there is no deadline, I'm willing to moderate whenever you two have the time to start the discussion casualdejekyll 00:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Agreed. I'll tune in as early as I can. Thanks to all. Allreet (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC) First statement by moderator, Founding Fathers of the United States I am opening this thread for moderated discussion. Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth. First, please read the rules carefully. Then read them again, just to be sure. If you have questions on the rules, ask before assuming. The rules may be different from any previous cases you have participated in. Any uncivil comments will be collapsed. (I reserve the right to move to stricter rules if the discussion gets nasty, but so far, so good.) Each editor is asked for up to one-paragraph statements on each of the following questions. (Remember, being concise makes your points more clear.) 1. Does signing a founding document of the United States make one a Founding Father? 2. Is the Continental Association a founding document of the United States? Please make arguments based on policy and sources. Also, as Robert McClenon said, a proper RFC hasn't really been done on this yet, and it may be the best solution. casualdejekyll 23:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Allreet, @Randy Kryn for reminders. (No hurry, just wanted to make sure you knew.) casualdejekyll 18:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) First statements by editors, Founding Fathers of the United States First statement by Robert McClenon Since I have listed myself as a participant, I will make my statement: Signing a founding document is the usual definition of who are the Founding Fathers of the United States and represents what reliable sources have written. The Continental Association is not one of the founding documents of the United States, because most reliable sources do not consider it to be one, and because its signers did not necessarily think that they were founding a country. The other participating editors, who have been pinged, should respond within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Just noting that I've updated my First statement to make it clear that I am perfectly okay with this style of response despite my original statement implying I wouldn't be. casualdejekyll 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) First statement by Randy Kryn As a wise man once wrote, "Signing a founding document is the usual definition of who are the Founding Fathers of the United States and represents what reliable sources have written." When Abraham Lincoln, contemplating the coming war he had accepted the burden to lead, addressed four founding documents in his 1861 inaugural address, he said that the Continental Association literally formed the Union: "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774". Lincoln thus deemed the CA forever and historically a founding document by providing a reputable source for the ages. Many others have since adequately seconded Lincoln's motion, including the Journal of the American Revolution, the Architect of the Capitol who includes the Continental Association among "all four of the great state papers", popular websites such as Founder of the Day, and Wikipedia which, although it cannot be credited here as a source, has been stable since 2010 in recognizing the CA as one of four major founding documents. They join Lincoln's reasoned, undeniably historically presented, and accurate common sense assessment and acknowledgment of the first agreed upon and signed document to unify the Colonies. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC) First statement by Allreet The Continental Association is considered a founding document by a few sources - e.g. Werther, Architects of the Capitol - but not by most - e.g. National Archives, U.S. Congress, Pandover, Stanfield, etc. As best as I could determine from a search of numerous indexes, few histories of the Revolutionary era pay much attention to the 1774 trade embargo. While Lincoln may have cited the document in his first inaugural address, his purpose was to build a legal argument against secession, one that rested primarily on the Constitution. He had nothing to say of the Continental Association's signers nor did he say the document actually founded the nation. That act, which occurred in 1776, owed everything to the outbreak of war in 1775, little to the First Continental Congress. As for the logic that founding documents + signers = founders, not one person who signed the Continental Association did so with independence in mind. In fact, the document begins with a lengthy pledge of loyalty to King George III. In 1774, nearly everyone was a "loyalist". In sum, sources are lacking in substance and number, particularly regarding the extraordinary claim that the Continental Association's 53 signers are "considered founders". The policy that applies is WP:VER, which states "exceptional claims require exceptional (multiple high-quality) sources". The sources offered so far don't come close to satisfying that. 1a Statement by Allreet This is neither here nor there, so I put it here. After looking up annual page views for Founding Fathers, I thought I'd do the same for some related pages. The number I find most interesting is for the Articles of Confederation. Really, that many people still care? The stats are for 2021. The number of most importance, I think, is for Founding Fathers - that it's in the ballpark with far more relevant and contemporary topics. United States - 16,838,160 U.S. Senate - 2,696,726 U.S. House - 2,502,161 Declaration of Independence - 1,663,157 U.S. Constitution - 1,441,282 U.S. Congress - 1,378,966 Founding Fathers - 1,092,453 Articles of Confederation - 454,226 Continental Association - 27,309 By coincidence, I came across a column in last Sunday's New York Times on James Madison and suspected the interest in the Articles is based on Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism. I have no fish to fry over the politics therein but suspected the interest in the Articles is related to libertarianism. So I looked into it by googling "Cato Institute Articles of Confederation". Sure enough the 245-year debate rages on, though nobody has much to say about founders beyond an occasional reference. Allreet (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Second statement by moderator, Founding Fathers of the United States There's an alternate universe where I'd be opening this statement by saying "Is Abraham Lincoln a reliable source?". Thankfully, this is not that universe. As far as I'm concerned today, it doesn't appear like what Lincoln did or did not say is very important. Judging by your responses, it appears that there is consensus that signing a founding document makes you a founding father, but rough consensus that the Continental Association is not a founding document. So, a tally of opinions suggests to remove the Continental Association signers from the list of Founding Fathers (unless other, non Continental Association related reasons apply - for example, it'd be ridiculous to argue that George Washington was not a founding father just because he signed the Continental Association. Don't think I needed to spell that out for you all, but I did anyway just to make sure.) Obviously a tally of opinions isn't the perfect solution (if it was, 3O would have ended it), but it is suggestive of a forward path. We could probably discuss forever about the definition of a founding document without getting anywhere useful. I'm going to do something a little odd and phrase my next questions in the form of sentences, which I want you to state whether or not you Agree strongly, Agree, are Unsure, Disagree, or Disagree strongly. (Think of it like a 1-5 scale, because that's essentially what it is.) Just to make sure we all understand what I'm asking for, let's say for example - 0. "Robert McClenon is amazing and his work at DRN is invaluable to the Wikipedia project." For this statement, I personally would say I Agree strongly, because I agree strongly. I would then follow this up by explaining why I believe this, for example: "He has been resolving disputes between editors for many years now and has been mediating a large proportion of DRN cases." Here are the actual statements: "Signers of the Continental Association were undoubtedly pro-independence." "Most reliable sources agree that the Continental Association was a founding document of the United States." "Abraham Lincoln claimed that the Continental Association was important in the founding of the United States of America." "The Continental Association was written from a Loyalist perspective." "Signing a founding document is the usual definition of who are the Founding Fathers of the United States and represents what reliable sources have written." "Signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers of the United States." "Signing the Continental Association does not mean one supported the Union." Some of these statements are contradictory. Some of these statements are repetitive. That is intentional. You may be as concise or as long-winded as you want while explaining your answers, but keep in mind that shorter answers are typically easier to comprehend. Some last notes from me before I sign - The previous RfCs, despite not being proper, do show a greater headcount supporting omitting the Continental Association founders. I put little weight in this but do note it. Additionally, I would like your opinions on whether it is necessary to open a new RFC. casualdejekyll 00:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Allreet, @Randy Kryn. Would ping McClenon but we all already know he watches this page like a hawk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ casualdejekyll 00:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Second statements by editors, Founding Fathers of the United States Second statement by Allreet 1. Disagree strongly: independence wasn't on anyone's mind 2. Disagree strongly: most agree on Declaration and Constitution, few on Continental and Articles 3. Agree strongly: no question, but Lincoln only mentioned it once; he referenced the Constitution 28 times 4. Agree strongly: everyone was a loyalist, to be otherwise was treasonous 5. Disagree: it's used as a definition sometimes but usually only regarding the Declaration and Constitution 6. Disagree strongly: some are regarded as founders, far from all 7. Unsure: actually the "union" began with the Congress's opening, not just the Continental Association I have no objection whatsoever to another RfC. My concerns, however, go well beyond this one issue. Everything said here also applies to the Articles of Confederation; it has more support than the Continental Association but not enough to satisfy WP:VER in regards to anointing 28 signers who signed nothing else founders. National Archives and U.S. Congress, for example, do not consider it a "founding document" because it was a failure. For ten years, the Founding Fathers article has "implied" and at times explicitly stated that the signers of all four documents are founding fathers. The two additional documents were added in 2012 without any sources, and since then assertions about the four "founding documents" have been emphatically presented as "fact". Yet this characterization, like the term founder itself, is purely subjective. In fact, most respected historians eschew both terms, and the few who do use them on occasion, primarily Morris and Ellis, limit their choice of founders to a select few. I've tried to reflect this state of affairs with the changes I've made recently. Since the issue is unsettled, I left most of what was here intact, that is, until removing the unsourced statement that "the following (146 signers) are considered founding fathers". Clearly, more work is needed to straighten this out, not just here but in the 50 or so other articles affected. Allreet (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Second statement by Robert McClenon on Founding Fathers First, a proper RFC is in order on the Continental Association, and probably on the Articles of Confederation. Second, I will respond to the seven statements: 1. Disagree. As noted, there wasn't an independence movement in 1774. 2. Disagree. The importance of the Continental Association is a matter of disagreement, and it is not even well known. 3. Agree. He did say that. 4. Agree. 5. Strongly agree that the Founding Fathers were the signers of the founding documents. 6. Disagree. Some are, because they also signed another document. However, this is the question that calls for an RFC. 7. What Union? Third, using the DRN talk page to discuss this dispute on the side is inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) I agree with your third point and just wasn't sure how to bring it back over here (see how I pinged Allreet "for transparency".) I realize now that I should have been upfront with saying that the discussion must move back to the main page here. casualdejekyll 00:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC) I initially thought your comment, Robert, related to my "side discussion" (additional comments) above. I now understand you were referring to the talk page. However, in my uncertainty I thought it appropriate to "hide" my comments to avoid interfering with the process. Not sure what to say about my action being reverted. In any case, I have no problem with what I said so if all else is okay, I'll leave the revert stand. Please clarify "how far we can go" with our responses. Allreet (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll: Robert indicated I should direct my questions to you. I'm open to submitting this for a RfC should @Randy Kryn: not respond. What do you recommend?. Also @Robert McClenon: Thanks to all. Allreet (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC) I was hoping Randy had the intention of responding. If they don't respond soon then an RfC is in order for sure. casualdejekyll 22:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC) What do you recommend regarding a RfC should there be no response? Allreet (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Excuse me, nobody gave a time limit, and when I get pinged I see this back and forth with two of you going off in new directions, talking among yourselves, which all further clutters what needs to be responded to. These things take time, this topic is not one that should be handled lightly or quickly. Many thoughts to organize into words for my response, now a few more, so I'll focus on posting it on Monday if not before. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Second statement by Randy Kryn First: Do we need a new RfC? Certainly not on the question of the Continental Association, its sources, or its founding document status. I will explain why. To understand the real scope of our daily two month discussion, and why other editors were given every opportunity to join in, allow me to draw your attention to the sections of the talk page of Founding Fathers of the United States devoted to it, which includes 13 long discussions plus one RfC: Contents 2 List of Founding Fathers disputed 3 Officially WP:3O 4 Request for comment on use of sources 5 Key 8 Erroneous Origin of Term "Founding Father" 9 Lack of sources for Continental Association signers being considered Founding Fathers 10 The "Myth" of the Founding Fathers 11 Deleted wordhistoryedu.com citation - source is unreliable/unnotable 12 Should Lincoln also be credited with early usage on the page? 13 Fathers 14 Replaced paragraph in lead...other suggestions 15 Revised List of Founding Fathers section 16 Prior Political Experience section 18 Changed title of list section ...and to the sections of the Continental Association talk page devoted to it, which includes five detailed discussions plus two RfCs: Contents 5 Not a "detailed system" 6 Inline dispute regarding Founding Fathers and Continental Association 7 What the Journal of the American Revolution has to say about the Continental Association 8 Request for comment regarding WP:VER and the use of sources 9 Request for Comment: Are Continental Association signers Founding Fathers? 10 "Union" of the colonies 11 New source, CA and AofC Founding Document discussion Please note that in all those sections, and on literally dozens more on other talk pages, not only was no consensus reached but few editors even joined in even though the discussions were well viewed ([1] Founding Fathers of the United States 90-day talk page views and [2] Continental Association 90-day talk page views). Arguably, everyone who did not comment agreed, by their non-response, that the page and sources were fine, and at a minimum many opportunities for comment and/or criticism by the community were freely available and not taken. Next, and maybe even more importantly regarding the need for a new RfC on the Continental Association or its sources, several times it has been stated-as-fact in this process that Allreet's RfC wordings were "not proper". That is just not true. Let's take a look. RfC #1. Allreet's RfC title and question are understandable and quite direct (plus he then presented his concerns well in the first comment). "Request for comment on use of sources: Are the sources being used sufficient for declaring signers of a particular document 'Founding Fathers'?" RfC #2. The title and question technically described the concern and seemed accurately worded (Allreet then adequately presented his case in the first comment). "Request for comment regarding WP:VER and the use of sources: 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?" RfC #3. The third RfC has gold-standard wording. Could not be more direct. Why has this been described as inadequate or improperly worded? RfC title: "Request for Comment: Are Continental Association signers Founding Fathers?" RfC question: "Are the 53 signers of the Continental Association agreement Founding Fathers of the United States?" These three RfCs join dozens of other discussions in not gaining outside response. Many editors followed all or parts of the dialogue, but did not choose to join in, and Allreet closed all of them accordingly. There is no need, or has a need been shown, for yet another RfC on the stable and well-discussed existing wording concerning the founding document status of the Continental Association. Now, to answer the moderator's other questions: 1) "Signers of the Continental Association were undoubtedly pro-independence." Agree strongly. The Adams boys, Washington, and many if not most of the others, of course they were. These people were not blubbering idiots, they knew exactly what they were stepping into. But the Colonies had to first unite and try to either make their rulers see the sense in backing down from their oppressive actions or they were going to go toe-to-toe with England - it was going to turn one way or the other. The Continental Association was not pulled out of a hat for the wonderment of children. It was the initial giant step towards war and independence. 2) "Most reliable sources agree that the Continental Association was a founding document of the United States." Disagree strongly. Not at present...yet more than enough sources do to give due weight to the Continental Association not only as a mere dime-a-dozen founding document but as a major founding document. One of the "Fab Four" as it were (always wanted to use "as it were" in a sentence). WP:VER tells us when "reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Allreet did just that with his carefully crafted neutral language, an inspired job well done and consistent with Wikipedia's stable-since-2010 four-document presentation. Then, with neutrality and due weight in place, he inexplicably started an edit war. 3) "Abraham Lincoln claimed that the Continental Association was important in the founding of the United States of America." Agree strongly. Please note the criteria for FF status as directly spelled out in the stable opening sentence of Founding Fathers of the United States (emphasis mine): "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...". The Continental Association united the Colonies. It was designed to do that. There is no possible argument refuting it. Abraham Lincoln correctly said that the Continental Association formed the union. It was revolutionary in nature and devastating in practice, and so recognized by Lincoln. 4) "The Continental Association was written from a Loyalist perspective." Disagree strongly. The first few sentences were, loyal subjects asking nicely for a favor. Then, the worm turns, and the "Loyalists" threaten England with a total export-import economic boycott such as the world had never seen. True-blue Loyalists do not dare such a thing, so before very long and by the time they could sing a rallying song or two for the dear old, Loyalists became few and far between, many fled, and the Adams's and associates got their war. 5) "Signing a founding document is the usual definition of who are the Founding Fathers of the United States and represents what reliable sources have written." Agree, yes, in part, but certainly not limited to just signers (see George Mason, one of foundliest of the founders). 6) "Signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers of the United States." Agree strongly. All sources agree on the Declaration and Constitution being founding documents. Then enough sources add the Association and Articles of Confederation (the nation's first constitution and governmental blueprint) to make the Four-document presentation a significant alternate view worthy of triggering Wikipedia's article neutrality and due weight directives. Several sources stand out: Abraham Lincoln. Yes, we live in a universe where Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address is a reputable source which examines the pathway Americans took to create their nation (formed, Lincoln explained, by the Continental Association: "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774"). Lincoln pioneered, within this section of the speech, the Four-document approach used by Wikipedia and others. The Journal of the American Revolution, a scholarly academic journal devoted to the era, provides two major 2017 reputable sources: "Roger Sherman: The Only Man Who Signed All Four Founding Documents" and "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents", complete with detailed charts and quotes such as "...all four of the documents (The Continental Association, The Articles of Confederation, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution) that transformed thirteen English colonies into these United States" and "Writing about Roger Sherman, the only man to sign our four most important founding documents – the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution..." Popular websites such as Founder of the Day, with articles including "Signers of the Continental Association" which describe the Association as "the first major document of the American Revolution", and a stable 2010 navbox from another popular (although unsourceable) website, {{Historical American Documents}}. Last but not least, the Architect of the Capitol, who writ large the following assessment: "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." 7) "Signing the Continental Association does not mean one supported the Union." Disagree strongly (trick question?) because the Association created the union of Colonies. The signers knew what they were doing and where their deeds could lead. Joseph Galloway, John Dickinson, and a handful of others tried valiantly to stop what they experienced as a runaway team of horses barreling towards war and independence, but had to reluctantly clear Liberty's road when they realized its size, spirit, and direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Third(?) statement by Moderator, Founding Fathers of the United States I'm just going to say this right now: there is nobody to blame but me for the technical hiccups this case has encountered, and I'm sorry. With that out of the way, I think it's a good idea to refactor discussion and try to corral all these threads into one coherent discussion instead of jumping all over the place. I would like a short statement from all parties on the following things: 1. In one of all these massive threads of stuff, Randy suggested: A real compromise may be achieved by adding words on the pages of the disputed founding fathers that "some sources call him..." Is this an acceptable compromise to you all, and if so, what needs to be done going forward? 2. If that is not a good compromise, is it RfC time? 3. If the answer to both above questions is "no", what do you suggest we do, going forward? casualdejekyll 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Third(?) statements by editors, Founding Fathers of the United States Third statement by Allreet (Founding Fathers) 1. I definitely do not favor the compromise suggested regarding signers of the Continental Association. My reason is that their acceptance as founders would be to endorse an extreme minority view. Sources are so scant in this case that Wikipedia would be leading the way as an endorser (1st, 2nd or 3rd), and it my understanding that Wikipedia does not lead in adopting minority views; it follows. I came across this construct around the time the current dispute was developing. It was in a RfC or DRN discussion, and I haven't been able to find it again. In any case, the concept exists and we would do well to adhere to it. Perhaps a check with knowledgeable Admins/Wikipedians might be a way to track it down. I do see some justification for a compromise regarding signers of the Articles in that at least 2-3 reasonably prominent sources support it. Unfortunately not anyone nearly as authoritative as the National Archives. If you don't know what that means, check out Founders Online, a project of the Archives that has consolidated the papers (185,000 documents) of seven of the top founders. Essentially, they're the keepers of the Holy Grail, so if anybody knows, they do, and they clearly do not endorse the Articles as a founding document. So what justifies us accepting a couple middling sources against la crème de la crème of authorities? That I'm afraid is a tough question. So I'd like to reserve offering an opinion on this part of the equation until hearing from Robert and Randy. Meanwhile, to clarify the the idea of minority views and Wikipedia "leading", I'd like to offer a quote I shared with Randy during our two-month ping-pong match that further clarifies WP:VER: "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..." — Jimmy Wales, 2003. I'm leaning toward the third of Jimmy's scenarios, plus I don't see any harm in letting future "scholarship" shine its light. 2. Rather than do something for expediency's sake and certainly rather than do the wrong thing, I'm perfectly willing to endure another trial by fire or whatever a RfC might mean. That said, this would not be my first choice. 3. I think my second answer (if that's what it takes...) renders this moot. In closing, I'm mystified by whatever chagrin you're suffering from, casualdejekyll. Ya done just fine, in my view. I have no complaints, zero, plus I've been through enough ordeals in various roles and organizations that I look at everything as a learning experience and believe nothing is ever gained by being your own worst critic. So thanks for leading the way and especially for treating us fairly. Allreet (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC) I've thought about this at length, did some more research, and read Robert's thoughts, which I generally agree with, especially the idea that this is as much about the biographies of 50 dead people as the Founding Fathers article itself. I stand by what I said about the Continental Association: sources are so lacking that saying "some consider" its signers founders would be to ignore WP:VER. If someone did something else to qualify, of course they should be recognized. As for the Articles, I'm amenable to adding wording along the lines of "A few sources consider XYZ to be a founding father" with Padover, Stanfield, and Werther cited and a wikilink to the main FF article. (This is not to withdraw my objections regarding the ambiguity of Werther's piece.) To be clear, I would not accept "Founding Father of the United States" as part of the wording. I know that sounds nit-picky but what's being compromised is "due weight"; that is, we're not acknowledging the greater authority of the sources that disagree, so I think it's important to imply as little as possible. The Founding Father article's list section needs to be edited to remove the implication that everyone on the four lists is a founder. First, that is not the case with the Continental Association. Second, the ambiguity regarding Articles signers needs to be brought in line with what's proposed for individual biographies. And third, delegates to the Constitutional Convention who did not sign for one reason or another need to be listed somewhere. They're noted in the last paragraph of the lede (source: National Archives) but aren't listed individually somewhere and should be. Finally, I'd like to apologize for my own verbosity throughout this exercise. I spent 20 years as a software documentation writer, a large part of that training others to cut, cut, cut. In looking back at my writing here, I'm about to fire myself. Allreet (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Pinging @User:Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon, @User:casualdejekyll: I've thought about the wording and not allowing caps and "of the USA". Consistent with that, a more complete sentence would read: "A few sources consider XYZ one of the nation's founders" followed by the three cites. Note the wikilink. Regarding my objection to the Association, the same could not be said because "a few sources" are not available to support that. Allreet (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Third statement by Robert McClenon (Founding Fathers) I didn't read the two months of back-and-forth and do not intend to read it. I would not have read it if I had been the moderator. However, it appears that either the real issue or part of the real issue is not just about the article on the Founding Fathers of the United States, but the biographies of dead people of the men who signed the Continental Association or the Articles of Confederation, but not the American Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. It appears that a question is whether they should be referred to in the lede paragraph of each biography as a Founding Father. I think that we agree that any signer of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is a Founding Father. 1. To answer the first question, I think that the "some sources call him" formulation is not only an acceptable compromise but at least as good as any other resolution, and probably better. 2. To answer the second question, a two-part RFC on the status of the signers of the Continental Association and of the Articles of Confederation is a good idea, but the instructions to the closer should say that No Consensus should be the result unless the consensus is strong, and that if there is no consensus on a document, the status of its signers will again revert to "some sources call him". 3. The third question is irrelevant because the first two questions were both sort of Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Third statement by Randy Kryn 1) "some sources call him" would end this discussion and I urge the moderator to boldly accept it per WP:NPOV: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and WP:RELIABLE: "...making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". The reliable minority gold standard sources (Journal of the American Revolution, especially its defining article "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents"; Abraham Lincoln first Inaugural Address; the Architect of the Capitol) and several silver-standard website sources meet: Wikipedia's long-time and stable criteria for being called a Founder in the article's first sentence: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...": The 1774 Continental Association literally "united the Thirteen Colonies". That is what it was designed to do and that is what it did. As clear as can be. The Articles of Confederation literally "built a frame of government". It was the nation's first constitution which built the nation's first government, the Confederation Congress. As clear as can be. 2) No new RfC needed, as Allreet's very well viewed and clearly worded Request for Comment: Are Continental Association signers Founding Fathers? RfC already provided an adequate request and ample opportunity for comment and topic clarification. Interestingly, of the hundreds of readers who viewed the RfC, the only editor besides myself to respond said: "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...What arises from my post is that any statement would need calibration like "sometimes considered to be founding fathers". Thus "sometimes considered to be founding fathers" or "some sources call him" meetsWP:NPOV for the Continental Association. As for an RfC on the Articles of Confederation, please, can we deep six that one? The Articles of Confederation created both a national constitution and the nation's first government. How much more founding-centric can you get? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Back and Forth discussion, Founding Fathers of the United States To prevent cluttering up the main statements, I've moved all the responses down here and I ask that you continue to respond to things down here. Allreet's response to Randy Kryn's Second Statement #6 Five sources are mentioned for the claim that signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers. Yet not one reliable source supports this. While they all call the Continental Association a founding document, we cannot jump to the conclusion that signers of founding documents are founders on our own. Lincoln says where the Union began, but never mentions founders. The JAR's Roger Sherman article discusses only Sherman. Richard Werther's JAR article does not include a single sentence or group of sentences verifying this. Founderoftheday assigns the title to Continental Association signers, but it's not a reliable source. This is a commercial website. The only credential of its sole author is that he's an "enthusiast". Fine, except he offers no sources for his writings and bestows the title on dozens of figures who aren't recognized by anyone. Architect of the Capitol, as with the first three sources, confirms the Continental Association is a founding document, but the only signer it mentions is Sherman. I contend multiple sources are required for an assertion of this magnitude. If the claim is "true", it should be easy to find sources stating this clearly and directly as WP:VER requires. Allreet (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Randy Kryn's response to Allreet's second comment to #6A Thank you for agreeing that the Continental Association is a founding document. That alone should end this dispute. Wikipedia has recognized signers of four founding documents as, well, founders, since time immemorial (2010) and lays out the criteria in the first sentence of Founding Fathers of the United States: "The Founding Fathers of the United States, or simply the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America...." Specifically, Abraham Lincoln, as an inarguably reputable source in a historically major speech, agrees on the four founding documents. In doing so, Honest Abe actually created the standard (honestly, he did, please read the link). The inarguably reputable Journal of the American Revolution agrees with Lincoln, and its inarguably reputable defining article "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" provides all the clarification needed in its title. Allreet, you argued for a month or so that the title of this major academic paper was maybe placed there not by the academic paper's author but by a rogue typesetter or some other vandal (I kid you not, read the book-length discussion). The paper first sets out the criteria (Signers=Founders) and then discusses these signers in its text and interesting charts. The two inarguably reputable sources which focus on Roger Sherman as a Founder who signed all four founding documents (the Architect of the Capitol calls them the "four great state papers") of course extend to the other signers of the same great papers, per consistency and common sense. Sherman, the Journal, and the Architect, bless their souls, leave no man behind (nor does the "Founder of the day", a very popular and, more importantly, carefully crafted website by a dedicated "enthusiast". Bless his soul). Randy Kryn (talk) Allreet's reponse to Randy Kryn's last two statements The dispute is not over founding documents. The issues are sources and founders. The following observations apply to both of Randy’s most recent statements. "Gold standards" are the Archives, Congress, Harvard, etc., whose views represent decades of scholarship, the efforts of numerous scholars. Saul K. Padover would be the only source with any academic credentials who recognizes the Articles' signers. The Continental Association has no scholars supporting it. Lincoln’s address makes no reference to founders. “Long-time, stable criteria" is meaningless. Reliable sources are the only criteria that matters. In terms of proportionality, support for Continental Association signers is in an extreme minority; for the Articles, a slim one. That’s based on the number and prominence of sources that look to other documents for founders. The Articles’ signers founded a nation of loosely affiliated nation states, a form of government that was dysfunctional and could not succeed. What’s to honor about that? My POVs, whatever they may be, begin and end with sources. I have no qualms regarding subsequent RfCs if that’s what it takes. I believe sources will determine the outcome and should others see them differently, what’s to fear? Allreet (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Randy Kryn's response to Allreet's reponse to Randy Kryn's last two statements (In progress. I was not pinged, missed this and just saw it, so would ask for an additional 24 hours to respond. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)) @User:Randy Kryn, independent of your latest post, I've changed my mind about a compromise. I'm telling you that to save you the time of making a reply, though of course that's up to you. Stand by for a new comment under "Back and Forth". Ping @User:casualdejekyll, @User:Robert McClenon Allreet (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Statement 2A by Robert McClenon One of the statements is too long to understand. I see that it is saying that there is no need for an RFC, and it says it at so much length that it doesn't say anything. However, there may not be a need for an RFC, but not for the reason argued at length. The text of the article says that different reliable sources disagree as to whether signers of the Continental Association and the Articles of Confederation alone are considered Founding Fathers, and the table lists which documents were signed by each person. That seems to be an adequate way to finesse the disagreement. I don't think that it has been established that the signers of the Continental Association were Founding Fathers, and writing at length that has been established does not make it so. However, I see no harm in retaining the current acceptance of ambiguity. I personally think that the signers of the Continental Association were not Founding Fathers unless they signed something else, or are founders in some other way; I personally think that the signers of the Articles of Confederation were Founding Fathers, and that they engaged in a very successful failure that set the way for the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Those are my opinions, and they are worth what you paid for them. I don't think that we need an RFC unless someone objects to the current studied ambiguity. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Robert McClenon, I reacted to your first couple sentences here and your comments at a talk page I had just read, and stupidly didn't comprehend the rest (you, too, may need to be more concise but my fault). You seem to say leave the stable status quo, and of course I'd agree. A real compromise may be achieved by adding words on the pages of the disputed founding fathers that "some sources call him...". Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC) A light from the middle at the end of the tunnel? unfortunately, later events have made this not a viable exit point A pleasing solution has been there all this time. Quite awhile after this discussion began a third RfC was held. It consisted of Allreet and I continuing our back-and-forting (not misspelled) except for one lone editor who wandered in. Let's call him North8000. After commenting on the value of both points of view, and after giving it some thought, North8000 came back 18 hours later and proposed a simple and fair solution: "What arises from my post is that any statement would need calibration like 'sometimes considered to be founding fathers'". I suggest we accept North000's wise counsel, retroactively agree that he provided a consensus, and then work on simple wording. Articles of individuals who signed only the Con.Assoc. or Ar.ofConf. (although some could easily argue that such wording belongs on all founder articles except for the "Big 7" Superstars) would contain a qualifier such as "Because he signed the Articles of Confederation, some consider xxxxx a Founding Father of the United States" and appear not in the first lead paragraph but later or much later in the lead (except maybe for big hitters like Patrick Henry and Peyton Randolph, where a qualifier isn't needed and it can say in the first paragraph). With North8000 being the sole editor, aside from the two of us, who replied to the well worded and well-viewed RfC, accepting his solution reads out as symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing, making it, in some schools of thought, the correct one. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn, @Robert McClenon, @Casualdejekyll: I like that wording. I might suggest adding "sources" after "some", but either may work. To be clear and hopefully not contentious, I would not agree to this for the Continental Association at present. More sources of a prominent nature would be needed to support that. Allreet (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC) I just noticed FF of the US which I objected to earlier. I was going to object to it again, but then thought "what the hey". I'm pointing this out to be explicit about my change of mind. Allreet (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC) P.S. Sometimes the lights at the other end of the tunnel are trains. :) Allreet (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC) So, is that.. that? casualdejekyll 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, if Randy accepts what I just said, that this would only apply to the Articles, not the Continental Association. If not, I’m willing to ask for RfCs on both documents. Allreet (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC) What did you mean you objected earlier to "FF of the US"? I'm missing something there. And sure, since you refuse to accept that the CA has enough minority sources to be neutrally named a founding document by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, a qualifier on at least the Articles is fine (although, because all pages of Article signers already mention that significant signing in their lead paragraph, the Founding Father descriptor should quickly follow). Thanks for putting that dispute behind us. As for yet another RfC on the CA, which Allreet's already had, I would ask the moderator to advise against it. If he seriously plans to continue, then how would wording be decided (and I should, out of fairness because Allreet unilaterally opened and then closed three previous RfCs on the exact same topic when they weren't going his way, be given the first statement). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC) @User:casualdejekyll: I don't think it would be appropriate to respond to any of the above so I'll leave that to your good judgement. Allreet (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Allreet's final answer @User:Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon, @User:Casualdejekyll: The compromise before us was one Randy proposed and I believe Robert endorsed: we accept "some sources consider XYZ to be a founder”. Then after much thought, I realized how anathema this is to our responsibility as editors regarding sources. The Continental Association has two sources at best: founderoftheday, a self-published website. Here’s what WP:VER says: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert...Exercise caution when using such sources..." Just to "peak your curiosity", click the link to find how reliable the author is. (Besides his attitude about citations, I found at least four other writing errors here.) Richard Werther's journal article analyzing founding documents. Werther mentions signers 78 times and founders/fathers 3 times each. Nowhere does he say or even imply all signers are founders. To confirm that, read the first several paragraphs, or however much you want. The point: WP:VER requires that the text of sources be "clear and direct". Both these also apply to the Articles of Confederation, which has one additional source: Saul K. Padover's "The World of the Founding Fathers" in the journal Social Research. Unquestionably reliable. Even if I'm wrong about founderoftheday and Werther, we barely satisfy "some sources" for the Articles and a "couple" for the Continental Association. Meanwhile, I can name more than a dozen sources that clearly hold otherwise, the leading institutions and books on the subject. (I now own seven of the latter.) So rather than compromise on one of our core values, I’d rather endure RfCs on the two documents. That leaves two questions: With sources this clear, why would anyone have to? And then, if there's a good answer to that, who would initiate and manage them? Allreet (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Other editors, please read the title of what Allree refers to as Richard Werther's journal article. I have a sense of wonder as to just why, oh why, he didn't include the paper's name (which summarized its premise)? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn, because I wanted to make sure you'd point out the "premise" you've repeated since January 14: that you can't find a direct connection in his text - that you must read the article with his title - "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents" - in mind. My response to that is he never makes a "clear and direct" statement such as "I wanted to analyze the Founders" or "when the Founders signed these documents". No matter. Even with Werther you're left with just one other source of any worth. Allreet (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Aha, you set the bait and reeled me in, just to be told that the entire article is about the founding signers (signer=founders according to the paper's clear, direct, and defining title). As for only one more worthy source, are you referring to Abraham Lincoln, the Architect of the Capitol, Founder of the Day, or the spirit of common sense itself? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, I wanted to call attention to the specific flaw in your reasoning, and you're still citing the title as if it can be used as a source. Could somebody else please provide feedback on that? As for Lincoln, he's a source for what? Founding documents? That's not at issue. For the nth time, the issue is signers, and Lincoln said nothing even remotely connected. The same is true of Architect; it's a source for founding documents. Founderoftheday, as a self-published work without any editorial oversight, is an unreliable source (per WP:VER). Which leaves Pardover, but only for the Articles and its signers. So where are we on these issues? Anybody else care to chime in? Allreet (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Pinging @User:casualdejekyll and @User:Robert McClenon Allreet (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC) If the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation are sourced as two of the four main founding documents but you can't accept that their signers are Founding Fathers, shouldn't consistency with the signers of the two Superstar documents, the Declaration and the second constitution, be maintained? Although the signers of the CA and Art.ofConfed. have fewer but existing reputable sources, articles should be neutral and reflect all validly sourced points of view. Common sense really should be a factor here. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn, @Allreet This discussion has slowly become more and more violent. Reel it in you guys. Titles of articles can in fact not be representative of the actual article. This is a truth. Regardless of that truth, the only thing the title actually says is that the documents are founding, not the people which signed them. WP:V does in fact say "clear and direct", as Allreet pointed out. Are we going to have this argument AGAIN? Because we can have this argument again. That just seems like the opposite of productive. If we've agreed on the Articles of Confederation (which mind you - was NOT the subject of this when the discussion was opened).. can we please move past it? Would you guys both agree that "some sources" is acceptable for the Articles? This discussion appears to have stonewalled. I can tell you two have respect for each other's contributions, but it's looking less and less like you have respect for each other. casualdejekyll 22:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Casualdejekyll, I fail how to see how anything I have said or done could be construed as "violent". While I appreciate the difficulty of your position, the need to be equally fair to both sides, how is that judgement fair to me? I'll let that question go by saying it's a rhetorical one meant solely for the record, so I see no particular need for a response. Your feedback on Werther's article is part of what I asked for at the beginning of this DRN. As for other sources, while it's clear the Continental Association has plenty of support as a founding document, the only support its signers have is founderoftheday.com. Unfortunately, in terms of reaching a resolution, the same is true of the Articles except for one prominent source, Saul Padover's article. How, then, does it qualify for "some sources consider signers of the Articles of Confederation founders"? I'm afraid that compromise runs contrary to WP:VER and my regret about that is I, too, would like nothing more than a speedy and peaceful resolution. BTW, the Articles of Conderation is at issue under this DRN. In the opening, I mentioned the Continental Association page was also affected and not the Articles of Confederation page because it wasn't changed last year. But the issue I raised at the outset expressed concerns over "an assertion made on July 30, 2021 by a different editor claiming 145 historical figures are founding fathers." About 30 of those figures (part of the 50 pages changed) were signers of the Articles. Subsequently, the Articles has been mentioned by all three of us throughout. Ping: Randy Kryn and Robert McClenon. Allreet (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll, @Randy Kryn @User:Robert McClenon: In looking back, I saw that I overlooked Stanfield, which gives us two sources on the Articles and I'll compromise on founderoftheday to make that three, because the day is bound to come along when we can replace it and in the scheme of things, it's not so bad. And so, I will accept "some sources, etc." provided the wording doesn't go overboard. Solely for the record, I'll note that this compromises a bit on WP:VER's Neutrality provision in the sense that the other side should be acknowledged when sources differ. We can let that go as well. Also, I want to let Randy know three things. First, I see no reason why the Founding Fathers article should not be a Featured Article, and I'd like to work with him on that process if he's willing. Second, regarding the Continental Association, its day may come and I will endeavor diligently to dig up sources to facilitate that. And third, what say you, Randy, on shaking hands and moving on? Allreet (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC) As a preface, to quote Abraham Lincoln once again, "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774". 1) All of these document and main FF pages should be feature articles (none of them is at present) especially with the upcoming 250th anniversaries. The Continental Association will be first up among the documents, and should be featured near or on the date of its creation by the First Continental Congress, in late October, 2024. Hopefully many editors will join in on your plan. 2) Since everyone here agrees on the four founding documents, on the signers of the Articles being Founding Fathers, and that the biographical pages of the Articles sole signers needs a brief qualifier, can we please return to the initial and ongoing disagreement on the signers of the Continental Association. The signers of the Association and Articles being founders are both minority viewpoints (other editors could claim there are plentiful sources for only seven men to qualify as real Founders, and they would list all other founding-document signers as alternate minority viewpoints which would need qualifers) that have enough sources to be included per neutrality, as Wikipedia has stably done since 2012. Wikipedia has stably aligned with the four-document format since 2010, so a main question is one of consistency - if the signers of three of the four are listed as founders, which Wikipedia has done for a decade, how can the signers of the fourth now be excluded, especially when they can be backed up by sources as well as being explicitly and concisely defined by the criteria for founders in the first sentence of the Founding Fathers article. 3) Academic papers are a realm to themselves, and in that realm "Titles of articles can in fact not be representative of the actual article" is incorrect, and actually just the opposite. The title sets the premise and then the paper explores the premise. Werher's entire aricle is about America's founders signing the four major founding documents. It doesn't separate founders and non-founders by document signed. It includes informative charts of which founders signed which founding document, and a sorting tag that includes the word 'Founders'. 4) I again propose that we accept @North8000's compromise of including a brief qualifier on pages of the signers of the Association as set forward by the only "non-combatant" of Allreet's defining and well-worded third RfC (pinging North8000 as a non-participant reader to let him realize the influence that they've already had in this discussion). It seems the only fair and neutral resolution to our "dispute". Everyone here must realize that we cannot unilaterally change the criteria for a Founding Father or remove the signers of the CA as Founding Fathers on the FF page from a discussion on a non-public page, even if we wanted to. The best we are able to do, and arguably probably the best we can do, is accept North8000's consensus of adding qualifiers on biographical pages of many of the sole signers of the CA (I would think that qualifiers shouldn't be needed on some of the biographical page of prominent sole CA signers such as John Jay, Patrick Henry, and Peyton Randolph). 5) A handshake? Ha. No matter what evolves, when I meet you in person at the next North American WikiConference (hopefully in Vegas) expect a hug as a worthy adversary and, more importantly, as recognition to someone involved in improving and safeguarding Wikipedia's Union and U.S. founding pages (many of which already include very good edits by both of us because of these long discussions). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC) To the community, to be as clear and objective as I can: The only issue of relevance is sources that explicitly identify founders. Sources that recognize founding documents must say more to identify the documents' signers as founders. Lincoln only addresses founding documents, not founders. The text of Richard Werther's article is only "clear and direct" about founding documents, not in recognizing signers of the Continental Association or Articles of Confederation as founders. Its title is irrelevant. The Continental Association has no reliable sources that accept its signers as founders. The Articles of Confederation has only two reliable sources (Padover and Stanfield) identifying its signers as founders. Stability, consistency, common sense, and the like are unacceptable criteria for verification. I find it disappointing that WP:VER and the most reliable and prominent of sources - from the National Archives to Morris, Ellis, Isaacson, et al - are ineffective in the face of recalcitrant subjectivity. Since that tactic is not likely to prevail, I'm committed to enduring whatever else it takes to remove the 50+ claims for both the documents in question. Allreet (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Randy Kryn, @Robert McClenon, @Casualdejekyll, @North8000 @Randy Kryn: Thanks!! North8000 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I respectfully ask the moderator to put an end to this as regards the Articles of Confederation. Allreet kindly outlined above that he had taken the Articles off the table after adding a new source, and was quite articulate about it. It was a well-worded and obvious defense of keeping the Article signers as Founders and adding the qualifier to the biographical pages as proposed, and I think we all have agreed to that. As for the rest of his new statement, it is yet another long posting with points to counter, which would need a complete answer, a forty-eight hour clock starts now I would say (just came online and saw it) but I'll try to keep it to 24. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll: I can substantiate that to compromise on the Articles as proposed may violate three provisions of WP:VER (exceptional claims, neutrality, questionable/self-published sources). But fair enough, if Randy wants to rebut what I said. BTW, my "long posting" of 180 words simply summarized points I've raised several times. So I kindly ask that he stick with the issue: do signers = founders in terms of what reliable sources have to say? Ping: Randy Kryn and North8000 Allreet (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Various replies to Second Statement by Moderator @User:Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon, @Casualdejekyll: I'm curious as to our next step. I would like to respond to Randy's 2nd statement, but only in regards to sources (about 300 words). I would also appreciate a revision of Randy's Summary of Dispute, which continues to impugn my integrity. Allreet (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC) You may respond, yes. casualdejekyll 01:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC) We can respond to each other? In that case I would have had lots to say already. I'm assuming I can then respond to Allreet's response, so the two-month-plus daily back and forth will now pick up again and continue? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll, @User:Robert McClenon, @Randy Kryn: Casualdejekyll, before I say anything else, I think it would be a good idea to have some ground rules on responses. I agree with Randy to the extent that we don't need another unending back and forth. Concurrent with that, we don't need responses that run 1,000+ words long or that drag in everything imaginable. The first amounts to filibustering; the second, to a holiday for red herrings. What we do need, then, is focus. So I thought a good place to start would be the subject of this dispute: the need for sources to verify whether signers of the Continental Association are "considered founders". Just as a suggestion, a 300-400 limit should suffice. The same would be true of some of the other (but hardly all) of the issues addressed in your seven questions, such as #2 and #5. The item I had in mind immediately in terms of sources is #6 where Randy mentions four. Allreet (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Rather than await further permission, I thought it better to simply be bold and exercise the permission I have. So I'm adding a 200-word response to Randy's assertion that "Signers of the Continental Association are Founding Fathers". He based this on five sources. IMO, none of them qualify anyone for the distinction. The only way to test this is to post and let others have their say. Pinging @Casualdejekyll, @User:Robert McClenon, @Randy Kryn, @Casualdejekyll. Randy, swing away with your response, but please try to keep the verbiage to 400 words.Allreet (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC) So we have a new moderator? I'll await the real moderator's response to see if I should respond to the response to my second statement newly posted just above my second statement (placement seems backwards and, honestly, quite unfair. So should my answers, if any, always go above or can I put some below responses?) and the intrusion in my second answer-box, and ignore for the moment the two moderator-wanna-bees. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC) The 400 word limit is acceptable - personally I would have it shorter, but if both of you agree I am open to it. Aditionally, calling me and Robert "wanna-bees" is a personal attack. Be civil, Randy. casualdejekyll 12:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Where exactly can I answer him? Interesting reading of my comment. No, just the opposite - based on this discussion I was calling Allreet and Robert "wanna-bees", not you. Both were trying to dictate page direction and moderate, but you, not either of them, are moderating. 400 words sounds doable in 4eight hours, hopefully sooner, but a lot to summarize even though the exact same thing has been discussed in public space scores of times now and there is no dispute on this: he never got a consensus. Another RfC would be giving another huge bite at the apple because, as already decided by scores of no-consensus public settings and discussions, no RfC or even another public discussion is warranted. Please read both my first and second statements again for further explanation of this, thanks.Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll, @Randy Kryn, @User:Robert McClenon: Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about how many words it takes, though I do know brevity is preferable to volume. As for "bites at the apple", let's try getting our priorities straight. The Founding Fathers article has a million viewers per year, so it's important that what we offer is the best possible. In that regard, the only consensus that matters is that of historians. It then follows that the key is sources, major and minor, which means keeping their notability (relative importance) in perspective, for example, the National Archives versus a random journal article. That's far from the end of it all, so to speak, but not a bad place to start. Allreet (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn: Please stop personalizing this. Reply below my response. Don't worry about the RfC - casualdejekyll will help adjudicate that, I'm sure. Allreet (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Rules for Founding Fathers Moved from User talk:Casualdejekyll/Archive 1 § Rules for Founding Fathers  – casualdejekyll 19:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC) I think you made a typo in trying to provide a link to the rules that you were specifying. As a result, the link doesn't link to a set of DRN rules, but to an editing essay. That is why one of the editors said that there wasn't a time limit. You might want to check that and repost the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) OH/ oops casualdejekyll 18:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Update: no typo, but WP:DRNC, for whatever reason, does not match the pattern of WP:DRNA and WP:DRNB. Fixed. @Randy Kryn, @Allreet. I apologize for the inconvenience but the rules were not linked properly. This is entirely my fault and I'm very sorry. casualdejekyll 18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC) ?, those are the rules I was going by, which added to my emphasizing consensus and the many opportunities Allreet already had on multiple talk pages to build one, which he never did. New Rules? Sounds like Bill Maher. Since we are so far into whatever territory we've entered it seems the rules have pretzel-wised so maybe should be set aside for this one. I'm working on the rest of my second answer and will post it sometime on Monday if not before. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Agreed whole-heartedly. Let's just say I screwed it up and move on. casualdejekyll 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC) @User:Robert McClenon, @User:Casualdejekyll, @User:Randy Kryn: I just returned from a vacation and in catching up with things, I came across this exchange. I have no understanding of the snafu, nor does it seem very important. What I'm wondering about is what "the many opportunities Allreet already had on multiple talk pages to build (consensus), which he never did" has to do with anything? The characterization is simply not true, in fact a complete distortion of what went down. Anybody care to explain its relevance and then how such comments should be regarded given Rule 1.1? Allreet (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC) User:Allreet - First, as to the mistake. The link that the moderator had provided that was supposed to be to the rules was originally not to a set of rules but to an unrelated editing essay. As a result, in particular, discussion started without a time limit, and the rules didn't originally include a statement to be civil and concise. As a result, the discussion hasn't been following a 48-hour response cycle. Also, the rule to be civil restates the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, but there hasn't been a rule to be concise, and User:Randy Kryn hasn't been concise. That is the issues about the ground rules. If you think that civility has been violated or that another editor has been commenting on contributors rather than on content, state it plainly to the moderator. You are implying such a complaint, but you aren't stating it plainly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC) User:Casualdejekyll - You are the moderator. Please provide further instructions. This discussion needs moderator intervention. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Moderator's instructions were "You may be as concise or as long-winded as you want while explaining your answers..." I chose long-winded, and on such an important topic that seems the right choice, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll, @Randy Kryn, @Robert McClenon: Robert, I understood there was a problem with the link as well as a misunderstanding regarding the rules. What you said clarifies that further. In any case, NBD. What I found mystifying was how any of this related to me and then that nobody noticed what Randy said. So I felt that calling attention to the passage would do all the talking needed. If it would be better I say so directly, yes, I absolutely consider his comments uncivil. Allreet (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Allreet My comment was framed by the linked rules, I explained that above. Please read the full sentence you object too. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC) User:Randy Kryn - Thank you for calling my attention to the moderator's instruction about verbosity. The idea that importance of a topic warrants overly long posts is silly. You had the right to post at length. It often makes one feel better. It often does not convey information to the other editors; whether a lengthy post clarifies or obscures depends on many factors. Your post summarized your opinion on the Continental Association in a way that one paragraph could have done. I will comment that you complain that another editor had many opportunities to build consensus on talk pages. If you are trying to build consensus by posting at length for two days, it hasn't done that, but maybe you need a choir to preach to. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC) While foolishly thinking I was answering the moderator's questions I must have just been silly as a goose, wandering about looking for a choir (if you see one, preferably robed, please let me know, thanks). And you're the fellow the moderator admires so? Yikes. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Robert is probably a better moderator than I. Regardless. Whoah. I'll type out a third statement Soon:tm: but I'm thinking the next step is a trip to RfC land. Anyway, Randy, take a step back. Allreet opening three RfC's, despite their failures, is very much not never trying to build consensus. Which one of you opened the DRN case, exactly? If you guys both believe I've failed as a moderator, I will step down, but I really think that's not the issue here. (Obviously, I'm biased towards myself, but still.) @Allreet, @Randy Kryn casualdejekyll 12:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Allreet opened it, I joined to say there is no dispute, the issue was settled. Robert isn't moderating, you are. Maybe a student-becomes-the-teacher moment, at least on civility. You're doing fine as a moderator so far, aside from the biased very early assessment of the Continental Association and its founding document status, mainly because, and thanks again, I needed the time to compose my detailed and full second answer which Robert seems up in arms about and hopefully shifts your CA assessment a little. Robert, just what did I get wrong? A serious question. And no, I never said "not never trying to build consensus". Again, just the opposite, he tried in public discussions scores of times, viewed by probably many of the main editors of the pages, and never found one. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC) @User:Robert McClenon, @User:Casualdejekyll, @User:Randy Kryn: I did start this. Frankly, disputes are beyond my pay grade and that includes RfCs, which I was obviously incompetent at. I won't say the same about the other work I do, though I believe all writers need a combination of excruciating humility and somewhat overbearing egoism. That said, teams require a high level of mutual respect. That doesn't mean we can't fight - we should regarding anything we're passionate about - but for sure we need to fight nice. Allreet (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, and to those who don't know, I have the utmost respect for Allreet, as I would for any Wikipedian who has a true interest and has done good edits on Founding Faher and founding document pages. Wikipedia has a very nice collection, and Allreet has ably added to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Communication gaffe on my end - I meant to say it was very much not "never trying to build consensus" but dropped the quote marks casualdejekyll 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Casualdejekyll: Can you "collapse" this section as more "dithering"? I don't see much of substance. I have no problem whatsoever with anything I've said here nor do I see anything of value from others regarding the issues. Ping others to ask if they object. Or be bold. Just a suggestion. Allreet (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Collapsing is fine, that doesn't mean it's removed from the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Statement 3A by Robert McClenon User:Casualdejekyll - Where are we? User:Randy Kryn and User:Allreet seem to be responding to each other all over this noticeboard and pinging all of us, and it isn't clear to me whether they have agreed on something, or almost agreed on something, or are just talking back and forth. Also, is there still a dispute about the Founding Fathers article itself, or does the issue have to do with a number of biographies of dead people? If that is an issue, then I think that we only have an issue about anyone who signed only the Continental Association and/or the Articles of Confederation, and not signers of the US Declaration of Independence or United States Constitution. But I think that I will ignore the pings from the other editors until the moderator asks for more input. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC) For the latest, refer to the to the series of comments added by Randy since I began writing this and then the preceding comments. Allreet (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC) At this point I'm just trying to figure out if Randy will cooperate or not. Regardless, they appear to have agreed on the Articles which leaves the Association open for RfC or similar. Allreet appears to support an RfC, Randy does not. Randy has also been skirting the edge on personal attacks, which I have warned him on before. He's gotten better about it since. I would like everyone involved to stop pinging Robert please. casualdejekyll 00:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC) @Allreet, @Randy Kryn, @North8000 casualdejekyll 00:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by North8000 I'm sure I didn't follow the format correctly so feel free to fix that or tell me what to do. I would like to start with a few structural observations. First, it would be good to more specifically frame the question of the dispute. I don't see that above. Presumably it is "Should the article say / imply that members of the Continental Assoc are founding fathers?" but that should be clarified. Next, it should be recognized that we're not trying to uncover some fundamental reality, we're trying to decide whether or not to apply a mere vague characterizing term that was made up about 140 years later to characterize those individuals. So IMO the article should more strongly cover the fact that it is about a term. So, since we're talking about a term, the common meaning of the term should help guide things. IMO, the later shorter lists certainly fall under all of the common meanings of the term and so it would be OK to explicitly or implicitly treat them as founding founders in the article. Some (but fewer) common meanings of the term include the full larger lists such as the CA. IMO any explicit or implicit (by inclusion) statement that they are founding founders should include clarification/calibration/ attribution type wording e.g. "often considered to also be founding fathers" but that it is a fine and good idea to include that info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The dispute is about whether sources explicitly identify signers of certain documents as founders. The documents in question are the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation. At issue are signers in the article's list section and then in the individual biographies of certain signers. I won't say more about that because I don't want to influence you or appear that I'm trying to. Regarding your editorial point, we can save that for later because it's separate from the dispute. Allreet (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The two main persons in this dispute need to pose a specific question regarding the content of this article that they disagree on. I don't see that here. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Since nobody will define the specific content question, perhaps I could help by suggesting a few ideas (in shorthand, would need the details fleshed out): Is it OK for the article to flatly state in the voice of Wikipedia that persons who are only members of the Continental Association are founding fathers? Is it OK for the article to make a more limited attributed statement of persons who are only in the CA sometimes / by some / by some criteria also being considered to be founding fathers? Is it OK to even/merely list persons who are only in the CA in the article, thus implying that they are in some way founding fathers? Is this article about only persons typically included within the common meaning of 20th century term "Founding Fathers", or is it about the larger group of people (including the CA) who had significant founding functions in the US. Or does it cover both which means also recognizing the narrower group as such. Note that this is an internal Wikipedia organization question. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC) To summarize, my reply to all of your questions is "no". Sources define founders, not criteria. The Continental Association? It turns out it has no reliable sources. As for implying anything, that's not acceptable. In fact, that's been the problem with the Founding Fathers article since its inception. Despite claims of "stability", the article's list section has vacillated between "Founders" and "Signatories" throughout its history, and the problem with that, once lists of Continental and Articles signers were introduced, was the implication that everyone was a founder. I think the only solution to that, since "fine print" disclaimers are likely to be missed, is to remove the two lists and recognize those who do qualify separately. As for a "common meaning", there is none beyond a dozen or so "greats" and recognition of signers of the Declaration and Constitution. Just to demonstrate the lack of consensus: How Do You Define Founding Fathers? I'm a little puzzled by your observation that nobody has defined the "content question". The content in dispute is the statement that "the following (145 persons) are considered founders", and then, the 50 or so biographies where the title Founding Father was added. I've said this a few times before, and I just provided a statement on the nature of the dispute in my response below to Robert. Given that and what I just said, how would you re-word that statement? Allreet (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @North8000 @Randy Kryn @Casualdejekyll Is there an answer to my question? A larger question is: is there anybody here to help? I'm a volunteer who's acted on nothing but good faith for 16 years. I've followed every rule. I've never had an unkind word with any editor. My work is fully researched and sourced. But when I stand up for the core values and policies that I've followed faithfully and this endeavor is supposed to be about, I'm totally on my own. It doesn't matter that I can fully document my concerns. It's my word against what often is simply not true even if it can be proven as such and is apparent to others. But no, what you say is ignored. And if you say it a couple times, you're criticized for repeating yourself. I can't tell you how messed up that is. Allreet (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC) @Allreet: Once the specific content questions is defined, you'll be able to find out if anyone is with you. Now that you are at least starting to at least more specifically explain the question. it's looking like my #1 above, along with n assertion that the answer is "no" and that the article as currently written does #1 above. Although there is some calibration type nuances, I tend to agree with you. And a while back I proposed a re-write solution that significantly reduces that problem, and Randy agreed with it and has been promoting it. So, where are we? North8000 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC) You need to be specific about "specific content" messages. I'm specifically disputing a specific assertion, not a definition of founderhood or some other broad concept to bring others into the fold. It's as if @Randy Kryn changed the spelling of someone's name. I'm challenging the sources on that change. So since I honestly don't understand what you're saying, would you mind offering an explanation? As for #1, Wikipedia doesn't have a voice per se. It reflects what others say through its editors. We as editors cannot "flatly state" Continental Association signers are founders unless reliable sources express that first. Allreet (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC) @North8000, thank you for your reply. Allreet (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Statement 3B by Robert McClenon User:Casualdejekyll : Was the dispute resolved, or did it merely take a nap? It seems that we passed the Do Not Archive date, and then no one said anything for 48 hours, and the bot came in with a broom. I have rescued this dispute from the archive. Is the dispute closed, or did we just take a nap? Also, is this dispute really about the article, or about multiple biographies of dead people who signed the CA and/or the A of C? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC) A nap while waiting for a reply from @Randy Kryn, and then the bot intervened. I'm amazed nobody knows what the dispute is about, though clearly much of the confusion stems from the extraneous issues that are being raised at every turn, including some of those introduced at the top of the DRN. No point at all in recounting any of that, so as best as I can summarize it at this point: I dispute that signers of the Continental Association and Articles are founders, based on what the most reliable of sources have to say. And again, this applies to both the main article and the 50 or so biographies of dead people where the title Founding Father needs to be removed. My position on this is stronger than ever based on the additional research I've done in every corner. Thus, the "studied ambiguity", as you called it at one point, is not acceptable and neither is the compromise because both run counter to the prevailing view, and to award the minority view any weight, given the scarcity of sources, would violate WP:VER. Since the term "prevailing view" may be new to some, I refer everyone to WP:VER's Exceptional claims provision. I have more to say on that and other provisions of WP:VER, but first I'd like to hear from @Casualdejekyll on how he would like to proceed (and please remove the errant footnote below...thanks). Ping @North8000. Allreet (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC) What "errant footnote"? As for VER... Well, I was intentionally avoiding this before, but as Randy appears to be combative and has failed to respond in a timely manner repeatedly... I think you're at least partially right. VER clearly says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", and calling somebody a Founding Father of the United States is clearly an exceptional claim. Signers of the Continental Association have maybe one-and-a-half sources at best. One is surely not multiple. The Articles of Confederation, however, are much more of a gr[a/e]y area in this regard. casualdejekyll 19:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC) As a matter of fact, I have whittled the sources down to 1-1/2 and the 1/2 is not a quality one by any means. "Multiple" simply isn't there. The exceptional claims provision also touches on my main concern and explains why I've hung in this long: the article's potential for "significantly alter(ing) mainstream assumptions" - from school kids to house dads to assistant profs. That's what's wrong with the "studied ambiguity"; its nuances are sure to be lost on most. The "edict" also pairs with the Jimmy Wales quote I found, which not only bears repeating but belongs on every Wikipedian's "rules of thumb": "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." Since adherents for the minority are far and few, I'm sure I'm more than partially right, plus I have more to say on WP:VER in a new section that should settle the dispute, at least "on paper". I qualify that because @Randy Kryn is certain to disagree. Which means I will seek an RfC, but a very focused one to prevent another endless back-and-forth. BTW, the footnote I mentioned is now below the next dispute. Ping: @North8000 Allreet (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC) With statements like this from the moderator and other biased statements during this discussion, starting with my revised opening summary which I told him was written lightly, playfully, and was ignored and accused again of, well, we all can read, and the moderator weighed in heavily against the obviously reputable and important Werther article, which is a very major point in this dispute and the subject of numerous discussions and three failed RfCs, I believe it is within my right to request that he consider withdrawal, and that an unbiased moderator be appointed to guide what is to come. If he doesn't want to recuse himself because he truly believes that he has been and is unbiased, and can be so going forward, as is his right, then I ask that he please at least re-read my "Second statement by Randy Kryn" where I've laid out many of the reasons behind my responses, emphasized the importance of the Journal of the American Revolution article, and gave specific reasons why yet another RfC is not needed. As for the new walls of text above and below from Allreet, for sure I'll need two days to respond or even to wade through them. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I have no intention going around and around again on whether Werther is identifying all signers as founders. I questioned this in my very first posts on the Founding Fathers talk page in January, and we're still nowhere. Meanwhile, @Randy has interjected countless issues in this DRN that are either totally irrelevant or grossly mischaracterized. In my view, our discussions have become an endless game of "whack a mole" addressing everything except founders and what reliable sources have to say. The short list: Lincoln, past RfCs, page views, stability, consistency, Architect of the Capitol, "popular websites", the lede's opening sentence, and now bias. The only thing that can settle this, at least as far as I can see, would be consensuses from the larger community on some key issues. Therefore, as a starting point, in my next post (under Statement 3c?) I'll be proposing a RfC focusing on Werther's article and Randy's novel view of WP:VER. Ping @Casualdejekyll, @North8000 Allreet (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC) This is going nowhere, (and it appears than the proposed RFC may have the same problem) until it gets framed in the main SPECIFIC CONTENT question(s). I gave 4 ideas for those above. Except for helping develop the specific questions. I'm not going to participate further here until the specific content question(s) gets developed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @North8000: With all due respect, I just rejected your four ideas as unacceptable, primarily based on verifiability. Regarding content, I'll try to clarify the issue a different way. As I've said numerous times, the statements about certain signers being founders lack sources, as do the Founding Fathers titles @Randy Kryn added to 50 articles. If I can marshal a consensus on this, that that these edits lack sources, I will remove all such content. This is no different from if I declared the Earth flat based on a bogus citation, and upon proof that my source was unacceptable, my assertion about the Earth would have to be removed. I hope that helps and also that you hang in for another round or two, because I'd appreciate your input on a series of specific RfCs I would like to initiate. At that point, the DRN will be wrapped up. So in fact this is going somewhere. Allreet (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC) As for "framing" an RfC, that's where I need the help of others. A less specific RfC on the Continental Association is not likely to garner much input because nobody knows or cares what it is, while a broad one on the nature of founders is likely to veer into all the areas of irrelevancy that have plagued this DRN and all previous discussions. 'herefore, I'd first like to dispense with something tangible, the only source @Randy has to "hang his hat on" regarding signer=founders, Richard Werther's article. @Casualdejekyll's feedback on Werther is what I was asking for at the top of the DRN in terms of "feedback on sources". Unfortunately, his assessment has no weight because DRNs seem to be short on "teeth". Anyway, if I have anything "wrong", I'd also appreciate feedback on that. Allreet (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "A less specific RfC on the Continental Association is not likely to garner much input because nobody knows or cares what it is..." Seriously? Nobody? The CA formed the union. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn: Well, next to nobody. If the Continental Association is barely mentioned by historians - as I said earlier, I've checked as many indexes as I could find - and its Wikipedia page draws less than 28,000 views per year, how many people know about it? And if you can't find a source to support it, how notable could it be? As for when the Union was formed, that's not at issue. The issue is its signers. Allreet (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Statement 3b(?) by Allreet: WP:VER In under 300 words: Here's the sentence that was suggested for individual signers: "Because XYZ signed the Articles of Confederation, some sources consider him a founding father of the United States". Actually, only "two" sources, Padover and Stanfield, recognize signers of the Articles, and Stanfield is questionable. As for other sources, Werther does not identify specific signers as founders, and founderoftheday.com is not reliable. Eliminating the last two leaves Continental Association signers without any adherents. WP:VER's Neutrality provision We must present "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints..." At best, then, the proposed sentence would read: "Two sources consider XYZ a founding father based on his signing the Articles of Confederation; however, most scholars do not recognize signers of the Articles as founders" (sources: National Archives, U.S. Congress, Harvard, and leading historians). WP:VER's Exceptional Claims provision "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Exceptional claims are defined as those "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community...especially in science, medicine, history..." The prevailing view does not embrace Articles signers as founders, and Stanfield is not in any sense a "high-quality source". WP:VER's Self-Published provision "(S)elf-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites…are largely not acceptable as sources…(except) when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published..." All of Stanfield's books were published through self-publishers - Lulu, Trafford, Universal, and Xlibris. The website founderoftheday is also a self-published work, and its author, like Stanfield, has no credentials as an expert. Conclusion: We have only one reliable source for Articles signers, Padover. Even if we could accept Stanfield, we'd still have a less than significant minority relative to sources representing the prevailing view. Ping: @Randy Kryn, @North8000, @Casualdejekyll Allreet (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Comment 3C by Robert McClenon User:Casualdejekyll - Again, where are we? It appears to me that User:Randy Kryn and User:Allreet are going on and on, restating more or less the same positions, one that signers of the CA and the A of C should be considered founders, or at least considered to be considered to be founders by some sources, and one that the claim that signers of these documents is an extraordinary claim that has not been adequately verified. Sometimes disputes are resolved in Wikipedia by strength of arguments; any idea that they are resolved by length of arguments is a myth. It looks as though at least Randy Kryn is trying to "win" this content dispute by length of arguments. How long will the two editors just continue to restate their views? Both the bot and I are becoming tired of the repetition. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC) For sure your assessment is accurate. North8000 and Allreet have the right idea with RfCing to end it once and for all. That is where we are, since Randy's argument for why an RfC isn't necessary is basically saying 'an RfC isn't necessary" ad nauseam, or "Arguably, everyone who did not comment agreed, by their non-response, that the page and sources were fine, and at a minimum many opportunities for comment and/or criticism by the community were freely available and not taken." This, while correct to some degree, represents a feather-weak consensus that is effectively overturned by the fact that there is still an argument about it to this day. casualdejekyll 19:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I just added a fairly succinct analysis of WP:VER, the policy at the heart of this dispute. Everything I said is new except for further clarifying "exceptional claims". I can't think of a stronger argument, then, than demonstrating that at best, only one source supports Articles signers. That’s also a new development, considering everyone else was recognizing 2-3 sources and also believed the Continental Association had some support. Since this would normally settle any argument over an article's content, I'm totally at a loss as to what's expected, because for sure, my good faith attempts are apparently inadequate. On a similar note, I just posted the fact that I intend to propose a RfC. Didn't that strike anyone as new development, a way to settle what this DRN apparently can't? So in 150 words or less, that's where we are. Allreet (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Please note that what I just added was without the benefit of Casualdejekyll's comments. Our replies "crossed in the night" Allreet (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Comment 3C by Randy Kryn Journal of the American Revolution, 2015 ("How Do You Define Founding Fathers?". multiple major historians, including John E. Ferling and Daniel Tortora, each interview is an individual source), 2017 (Werther). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Ferling: anyone who did anything is a founder, for example, soldiers, state legislators, and members of committees of safety. That gives us tens of thousands of founders. Tortora: mentions signers of the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution along with all other "key influencers", yet another broadly inclusive view. Then we have a dozen or so additional interpretations. Together they support what we all know: that there is no appreciable consensus beyond a few greats and signers of two particular documents. In fact, I made exactly that point in the lede of the Founding Fathers article a month ago with this Journal article as one of its sources. I also pointed out the lack of consensus to @North8000 yesterday and provided the very same link to illustrate it. @Randy Kryn, so how does this help your cause? Allreet (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC) One use of these reputable sources: Yes, Tortora does mention signers of the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution. Please count him among your Article sources. For another, John E. Ferling specifically mentions the Association. Others interviewed also expand the definition to the point of covering the CA and Articles. Each one is a separate source. My cause? World Peace, bringing back Indian food buffets, things like that. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn, please keep your own tally. Ironically, a month or so ago when I first brought this article to your attention, you claimed the Journal was correcting its uncertainties with Werther's 2017 article. At the time the argument suited your subjective interpretation of what Werther was saying. Now you're pitching a different interpretation, asserting things about this article that simply aren't there. For example, that its 14 opinions "expand the definition to the point of covering the CA and Articles"? Besides the fact that this amounts to Synthesis, that's not at all what the article is saying. Allreet (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC) I wrote some of the 14 do, and maybe FF's should include some of the French and some other Union military leaders in that second chart-list of other FF who didn't sign a founding document that you were going to prepare. You have ignored Ferling as including the CA and Tortora including the Articles, so please don't misrepresent the number of sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC) One-liners from the article are worth maybe 0.1, which brings the tally I'm keeping to 0.1 for the Continental Association (Ferling) and 1.1 for the Articles (Padover-Tortora). Not that Ferling and Tortora are 1/10th as reliable as Padover, but neither gives any detail to indicate what they mean. Ferling, for example, would include the entire Continental Army so how significant are the signers he favors? Meanwhile, the tally for the prevailing view is 10-20 times greater, possibly more given that the National Archives' POV represents a broad community of scholars. Re-read the Neutrality section of WP:VER: "Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them". On that basis, I'd suggest removing the List section and using it for an article on Founding Documents, but surely it doesn't belong here. Ping: @North8000 and @Casualdejekyll Allreet (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC) P.S. I didn't ignore Ferling's reference to the Continental Association. He specifically said "those that enforced the Association", which is why I included "members of committees of safety". As I'm sure you know, they were responsible for enforcing the embargo. Allreet (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Interviews of multiple people can be used as a source for any one of them. Do you not know this? And why not just be happy to add these reputable sources? Our three-month-old discussion seems to have just gotten ten-percent weirder. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Comment 3C by Allreet Ping: @Casualdejekyll and @North8000. I would appreciate assistance/feedback on composing a neutral RfC seeking consensus from editors on whether it is acceptable under WP:VER to rely on the title of a source rather than solely on the text in verifying a statement. Everyone should be familiar with the source in question: Richard Werther's Journal of the American Revolution article. @Randy Kryn has admitted that the text does not directly support his assertion that Werther considers signers of the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation to be founders, but says the article's title establishes Werther's "premise" and thus an understanding of his text. As Randy put it in one exchange: "I don't have to quote from Werther's article because the entire text backs up the title of the paper". Here's a "prototype" for the wording I have in mind, though I could re-word this in countless ways. Others will probably have a better idea than my example: "Does WP:VER allow using the title of a source to elucidate its text or must the text stand on its own in verifying a statement?" Pardon the multi-syllabic "elucidate" but it is the best word I can think of. The questions are: is this clear and is it neutral? Any and all comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)' Yes, the text supports it completely and I stand by "I don't have to quote from Werther's article because the entire text backs up the title of the paper". By the way, this is not how this works on DRN or on a common sense site for a fourth RfC on the same topic (at least I would think not). You've already "worded" three of them, so if the moderator (new or same one) deems there should be a fourth RfC then the wording would come from a full all-agree consensus. And I still want the first posting on a potential 4th RfC out of fairness. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @Randy Kryn, @Casualdejekyll, @North8000: So far everyone except you seems to think a RfC is the avenue to pursue to settle this dispute. I really do want to be fair in terms of how this works out, so I posted the suggested wording to try to get your input as well. That offer is still open. So do you want to help? As for "full all-agree consensus", where'd that rule come from? Allreet (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC) As soon as I get some feedback on the above - any comments at all - I'm willing to ask that the moderator, @Casualdejekyll, close this DRN. In advance of that, thanks to all. Allreet (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC) If the RfC goes up, I can put the DRN on hold just fine. I'd rather wait for both of you to agree that closing the DRN is a good idea before closing the DRN. casualdejekyll 20:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I'm just trying to help if I can, Anything that y'all want to do is fine with me. North8000 (talk) @North8000: For sure I know you have, throughout, tried to help and that's greatly appreciated, no doubt by everyone. I would like some feedback on the wording or even the efficacy of this, but if you prefer not, that's okay too. Allreet (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC) In stasis until an unbiased moderator informs us how an RfC, if any, emerging from DRN is formed (surely not by one participant jumping ahead and wording the RfC, this would, in fairness, have to be jointly decided per topic, wording, and placement). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Ping: @Casualdejekyll @North8000 @Randy Kryn: While awaiting some direction, I thought I'd post a few more examples of possible RfC statements. At least I'm finding the practice helpful. While they all say basically the same thing, I did include a couple that may be slightly less objective than others. "Does WP:VER allow using the title of a journal article to clarify what the article is saying or must we rely solely on the text?" "Editor A contends the title of a source proves what the text is saying. Editor B contends we can only reference the text. Based on WP:VER, who is correct - Editor A or Editor B?" "If a source's text does not state something explicitly, can we reference both the title and text to verify a statement?" "Regarding verification, is it okay to use the title of an article for clarifying the article's meaning or is the title irrelevant?" "May we ascribe conclusions to a journal article based on its title, or are we limited to relying on the text?" "If a journal article does not state something explicitly, can we reference the article's title for clarifying the article's meaning?" "Are we allowed to use the title of a journal article to reach conclusions not directly found in the text?" "Can the title of a source be referenced as proof of what the source's text means?" "In verifying a statement, can we use combination of a source's title and text or must the text support the statement on its own?" I understand that the question would be followed by a summary of the specifics. As for what I do post, I'm certain that's up to me, so I'm not looking for permission or for anyone to take my side. Where Randy is getting the idea that somehow this would be collaborative or adjudicated first is beyond me. Not that I wouldn't prefer sharing or handing off the responsibility, but unfortunately that's not how RfCs work. Allreet (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Comment 3D by Robert McClenon First, all 9 of the abstract questions listed above by User:Allreet will distract attention from what the dispute should be, which has to do with the content of the article on Founding Fathers of the United States. The question is, or at least should be, whether the signers of the Continental Association should, by that action, be listed as Founding Fathers, and possibly whether the signers of the Articles of Confederation should be listed as Founding Fathers. None of those questions will answer the content issue. Those are not questions about American history, but about policy and procedure, and abstractly worded questions about policy and procedure. If you plan to use one of those questions to introduce the Continental Association question, that will be putting cart before horse. Second, the lead sentence of the RFC, which is listed on a list of all open RFCs, should be a summary question that may get the attention of editors who are looking for RFCs. A question about who is a Founding Father is more likely to get the attention that is needed than a question about the details of verification. Third, I am willing to assist in formulating the RFC. Fourth, the idea that agreement is required prior to posting an RFC is mistaken. One editor can post an RFC, although it might or might not resolve this dispute. However, any of the questions listed above will just prolong this dispute by another thirty days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Action 3D by Robert McClenon I have created a temporary subpage to compose the RFC. It is at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Fourth Draft RFC. After its wording has been tweaked and diddled with, and possibly rewritten, it can be moved to Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States, at which time the {{RFC}} thingy should be activated by removing the commenting code, and a signature can be inserted below the key statement. I would prefer that we get agreement on the wording, but if this discussion continues to go nowhere, I or someone else can activate it unilaterally. If we want to change the wording, we can discuss changing the wording before it is activated. For instance, do we want to offer three answers to the question: Yes, No, and By Some Sources? Do we want to also ask about the Articles of Confederation? In any case, what I have drafted is a better wording for an RFC than any of the 9 abstract questions listed above. User:Casualdejekyll - I think it is time to do something other than continuing to talk in circles. What do you want to do next? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Casualdejekyll @North8000 @Randy Kryn: I appreciate Robert's setting up a page for drafting a RfC on signers of the Continental Association and possibly the Articles, though I'm concerned as to the lack of sources for either. I do want to let everyone know that a random "Third Opinion" from an experienced editor has been provided at the bottom of the Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States page. His feedback should clear up any misconceptions about Richard Werther's journal article. Based on the summary provided, there shouldn't be any question remaining regarding the article's title or content: I'm just now noticing the extended kerfuffle of the last three months, and I would like to point out that Werther does not support the idea that "signers" are the same as "founding fathers". Werther uses the term signers specifically to talk about the men who helped shape and then signed at least one of the four major founding documents. He uses the term "founding fathers" to refer to a smaller and more influential cohort; he chooses six of them to demonstrate a point. Werther does not define "founding fathers" and he does not name a number of them. I don't discount Werther because history is a hobby for him, he was after all published in a fine journal, which provides the credibility. Rather, I hold the position that Werther is not relevant to "founding fathers", because he does not actually define the topic. User:Binksternet I'm not sure how this relates to the issue of whether Association/Articles signers are founders, though it does remove Werther as a potential source since he doesn't discuss founders to any extent. For confirmation, refer to the above and then the related sections of the article. Allreet (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Remove the issue? Well, no, not at all. I've answered the edior's posting with: "hello, and thanks for joining in. Some counter-points to your comment. You truncated Werther's use of the term 'Founding Father's', notice that he prefaces it with saying "The core group of the most prestigious Founding Fathers (I have chosen six)..." and only then names six of the 145 signers who he includes in the title. Please give Werther a re-read with the title of his peer-reviewed Journal academic paper in mind (titles of peer reviewed academic papers distinctly set a paper's premise, and they are almost always designed, and can be read, as the paper's first sentence) Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents. He thus includes all of the signers of the four great founding papers as founders, and focuses on specific signers only after using not one but two qualifiers: 'core group' of the 'most prestigious'" Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Based on what he wrote, I'm certain @Binksternet can read. I'm pinging him to get his input on the current discussion. Allreet (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Robert, thanks for getting a well-worded RfC draft in place. If this goes forward where should we comment on its wording and structure, here or on the draft itself? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Robert, regarding a goal as a clear content question, IMO you should clarify one thing. "listing in the article as FF" could mean two different things. One would be listing with a statement that they are FF, the other could be mere listing in the article without any such statement, which one might imply is such a statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC) "Recognized" would be better. The "implication" that those listed are FF is a problem that has plagued the page since the addition of Continental and Articles signers in 2011-12. Allreet (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) "Plagued the page" since 2011? Abe Lincoln, who recognized the CA as the document which formed the union and as one of four founding documents is turning over in his grave (per the video feed). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, plagued. What you described as stability over the decade was actually a back and forth between "List of Founders" and "Signatories", but no matter which, the lists implied everyone was a founder. For an edit history of the list section, see my Sandbox. Lincoln is a irrelevant, a red herring, because he has nothing to say on who's founder and who isn't. Allreet (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comments about the draft RFC go here until the RFC goes live. When the RFC goes live, they go in the Discussion section. I did not include sources in the draft RFC because the draft RFC is not about sources, but about article content. Sources for a position in favor of or against can and should be added to the Discussion section of the RFC, that is, on the article talk page, when the RFC goes live. Until it goes live, discussion of its wording should be done here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Robert and @Casualdejekyll, does Yes mean a definitive or a nuanced acceptance of founders per the wording that would result? I believe the first possibility would be to ignore WP:VER, while the second would allow the ambiguity of "some sources". I'm asking because you posed "some sources" as a possible third option, which indicates the intention to have black-and-white Yes's and No's. Another question: either way, who gets to determine the wording, what would then be acceptable for future edits, and just as important, the use of sources? The above concerns, plus all the red herrings likely to be thrown at this, convinced me a broad, once-and-done RfC was less desirable than a series of incremental ones that dealt with sources and policy (with specific examples, my examples were only meant to abstract the questions' structures). That would mean working toward acknowledging guidelines and then allowing editing to continue as usual for a more natural, ultimately more accurate outcome. As for the current article, I believe it's misleading. Since that would mean many editors might start their thinking process with a false impression, I suggest the dispute templates I posted a month or so ago be reinstated to alert newcomers. Allreet (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Statement 3E by Robert McClenon I have a question for User:Allreet. Are you really interested in resolving a dispute about the content of the article, or are you interested instead in just discussing and discussing and dragging on and on? First User:Randy Kryn was bludgeoning the process with an interminable posting. Now User:Allreet seems to be trying to extend the process indefinitely with interminable proceedings. Any RFC runs for 30 days, and this dispute has already been going on and on. I am confused as to what Allreet wants. They say that the current article is misleading, which implies that they want to change it, but they want to continue editing with a "more natural" approach to editing, and they seem to want irrelevant tangential RFCs while leaving the main content issue, which is the status of signers of the two documents, unresolved. Are they really just trying to drag this out? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC) I will try to get the RFC to be satisfactory to as many editors as possible, and then if I think that it is not making any more progress, I intend to post the RFC, at least unless User:Casualdejekyll provides other direction. The RFC that I will post will answer one or two content questions, about signers of one or two documents. Issues about sourcing can be addressed during the discussion of the RFC. So should I revise the RFC to ask about two documents rather than one? And if anyone wants to change the wording of the question or questions, please indicate how they think the question or questions should be worded. I would like to get this matter resolved. The issue isn't sources. Sourcing questions are secondary to the primary question of what the article or articles should say. Most readers do not read the sources. We certainly don't need to waste time with abstract tertiary questions such as the 9 questions in the list, having to do with how to use sources. If there is agreement or near-agreement on a better wording for the main question, I will revise the main question. Then I will start the RFC (at least unless the moderator gives other instructions). So discuss the wording of the RFC now, before I start the RFC running. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Hi. Just read this, can you give us a day or so for wording discussion? Will quickly say that the Articles of Confederation seems a different set of issues and sources which deserve their own subsequent, not concurrent, RfC if Allreet insists on going forward with such a thing. More later, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The only things I "insist on" are an adherence to guidelines, good-natured collaboration and personal honesty. The Articles do represent a separate issue of sorts. The Continental Association has almost nothing to recommend it - and I'm basing that on the fact that the leading historians and institutions give it little to no attention - visit the indexes of your choosing for proof. The Articles, admittedly more prominent, are problematic in that they too are short on support as a founding document. My not-so-humble opinion is that the Articles provided a governmental framework that got us through the Revolution but little else in terms of forming a union, an assessment based on the many sources I've surveyed. The "news" here, meaning what seems of utmost importance and interest, is that the founders were able to hammer out agreement on the Constitution despite the deep differences between the new "nation states". Whatever, the Articles could be addressed in a joint RfC, but then you'd have to pose separate Yes's/No's. Difficult but I'm sure Robert can work it out if we're going to take that route. I also request a bit more time (until tomorrow, Tuesday) since this has been three months in the making and shouldn't be rushed. Ping @Randy Kryn, @North8000, @Casualdejekyll Allreet (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Why can't we just drop the Articles for now (or, like a hot potato, for always). Its signatories easily have adequate minority sources to be considered Founding Fathers per Wikipedia neutral content and coverage guidelines, as well as per common sense, because a country's 'Founding', by definition, would surely include the first national constitution, the first framework of government, the literal creation of an agreement for what turned out to arguably be the core founding principle of the United States (defended to the death by Abe Lincoln and hundreds of thousands of others less than a century later): a Perpetual Union, and a founding document which formally laid out the functioning framework in effect for the first 12 years of a nation's existence. Pretty please with a fife and drum on top. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC) More fiction, really. The Articles do not obviously have sufficient support; the opposite is true. Would they be accepted in a RfC? Probably, because few people know the history and it sounds right. The problem is that this would put Wikipedia way ahead of the prevailing view defined by sources. Signers of the Articles have one solid source - Saul K. Padover - and then a one-liner from the JAR's FF definition article. As for Werther, he has nothing to say about signers = founders. And Lincoln? The same is true, though Randy uses synthesis to find meaning there. (Lincoln's speech is a primary source in which he never mentions signers or founders.) So what qualifies this view as more than a "tiny minority"? Even Randy's "facts" on the Articles as a framework are fiction. The Articles were ratified in 1781 and were superseded in 1789. That's 8 years, so he's using the creation year (1777) as the start point. Meanwhile, the Articles didn't form a union, but a confederation of nation states under an all but powerless federal government. Most scholars understand that, which is why so few consider it a founding document and almost nobody recognizes its signers. I think expert advice is called for before taking this particular leap. Why not ask the Archives or Harvard's scholars for guidance? If we were running a newspaper, we'd do that. Why? Because it's a reliable way to confirm information. Allreet (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Werther says outright that "signers = founders", and includes the Articles. Much of it was used as an unofficial framework of U.S. government from 1777 until its formal 1781 ratification. I think the Founders began work on creating the Articles and the concept of Perpetual Union the day after approving the writing of the Declaration - the two went hand in hand in a logical calling for, and then the creation of, a new nation. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Action 3F by Robert McClenon @Casualdejekyll, Allreet, Randy Kryn, and North8000: I have created a second draft RFC that will cover both the Continental Association and the Articles of Confederation. It is at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States/Draft RFC 4B. Please discuss the draft RFCs here, not in their Discussion sections, which are for discussion by participants after the RFC goes live. As you can see, I have made two changes between the two versions of the RFC. The first change is the inclusion, with a separate question, of the Articles of Confederation. The second is to provide an ambiguous answer as well as Yes and No on each question. If there is a preference, a compromise is possible with A, B, and C only for the Continental Association. It is my intention to post one or the other of these draft RFCs as a live RFC within a few days. How many days will depend on whether the comments that are offered are useful or are just empty comments. That is, I will wait a few days if there are useful comments being made that will improve the RFC I don't intend to post any abstract RFCs about how to interpret sources. I also don't intend to post any more specific RFCs about sources; those should go to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. If I don't read any useful comments within 24 hours, then the second RFC may go live within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC) We've all agreed to your first RfC language, so that should be posted. Second one is much too complicated, seems confusing with so many moving pieces. So I'd be against the second and go with the agreed upon first. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Done. The RFC is running. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Throwing the DRN on hold for now while this runs its course casualdejekyll 03:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Question: is it okay to alert major editors of RfC pages to the existence of an RfC? The main FF and CA editors are the ones I have in mind. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC) WP:CANVAS says: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." (Emphasis mine.) As long as your statement is neutrally worded, and you notify people because of their interest in the topic, not because they agree with you on it (I'm not accusing you of that, just explaining), you should be fine. (Also, the following tip is not from policy, but from me, myself, and I: Please avoid mentioning Lincoln at all and any point in that statement. He has no relevance in that context.) casualdejekyll 04:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Much thanks. Aye, swearing by the great beard of Abraham Lincoln himself, I shall go forward. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Dispute resolution has ended by coloring outside the lines? With the surprise filing of an RfC on the Articles of Confederation by two participants without agreement here I'd suggest that this has gone off the rails. Thanks to Casualdejeky for moderating - and the new RfC should really have been discussed here and with you. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC) I'd rather suggest that the return of the RfC shows that the issue is being discussed - i.e. no longer at an impass. casualdejekyll 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) User:Randy Kryn - Please show me where the moderator, or anyone else, had told participants not to use the article talk page while the DRN was on hold, or more specifically where the moderator, or anyone else, had told participants not to use RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) DRN is voluntary. If you, User:Randy Kryn, don't want to take part in DRN, you can tell the moderator that you are withdrawing from it. However, the DRN hasn't been doing anything for more than a month anyway. User:Casualdejekyll - Is there a next step in this DRN? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved StN (talk · contribs) Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) Bakkster Man (talk · contribs) Alexbrn (talk · contribs) RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have made good faith edits, with appropriate sources, to the fact that there is a disagreement among scientists about the origins of the Covid virus. I have not proposed any alternative scenarios to the natural origins (zoonotic) theory but have simply referred to the disagreement and cited letters and articles in prominent journals (Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci) stating these doubts, some signed by the prominent scientists themselves. The editors in question falsely claim I am making these issues up, that the scientists are fringe figures, and that I am advocating my POV on an alternative theory. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2/Zoonotic_origins How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please enforce Wikipedia standards. I am not proposing an alternative hypothesis, but simply reporting, with references, the controversy about this issue, which has been very public and is taken seriously by the director of the World Health Organization: https://usrtk.org/biohazards-blog/who-chief-tedros-no-dispositive-evidence-yet-on-covids-origin/ Summary of dispute by Hemiauchenia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bakkster Man Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Alexbrn Decline to participate. Note OP has been blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RandomCanadian Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Procedural comment This should be closed per WP:FORUMSHOP. User didn't get their way on article talk page, and this is otherwise a near archetypical case of WP:One against many. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of wars involving Turkey

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 5.151.88.4 on 13:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of wars involving Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Praxidicae (talk · contribs) Shadow4dark (talk · contribs) Beshogur (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have made my case as to 1. why the outcome of Turkey's participation in the war in Afghanistan should be labelled "withdrawal" or something similar, and not "defeat" and 2. why Azeribaijan's 2020 war should be added to the list. Other editors have provided only 1 argument against each of my suggestions and ignored all of my counterarguments in which I very clearly and logically explain my reasoning. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [3] [4] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Look into our discussions and my suggestions and arguments and their own. Decide who is being more reasonable, unbias and coherent in their statements. If you disagree with my suggestions then perhaps you can explain why because they are not willing beyond repeating biased media's preferred definitions and ignoring the countless more other media's preferred definitions as well as more official sources. Summary of dispute by Praxidicae Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Shadow4dark Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Beshogur Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of wars involving Turkey discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Balochistan, Pakistan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rahman1212 on 22:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Balochistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Balochistan, Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rahman1212 (talk · contribs) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page contains outdated demographics information from 2008 population census. I have tried my best to update the information to latest 2017 census. But due to some reason, another author (Kautilya3) has not just repeatedly reverted my updates, but also instead added false demographic information. I have tried to discuss the issue in the talk page but unfortunately they have failed to remove the false and outdated information and instead removed the updated and official numbers. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? At bottom of following talk pages: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balochistan,_Pakistan https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Kashmiri How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Remove fake or outdated demographic information from the page, and replace it with updated and official data. optional: remove repeated and conflicting information on multiple places on the page Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Balochistan, Pakistan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New English Review

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ibn Khaldun 127 on 11:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute New English Review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk · contribs) TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) Thriley (talk · contribs) Egsan Bacon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe the above article was originally written in a very biased manner, contravening Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I have tried to edit the article to provide more balance and have engaged in conversations with other contributors who disagreed with me. Two of these were Thriley and Egsan Bacon who eventually agreed, after discussion in the Talk page, that a sentence could be added about the NER's missin statement. This is not advertising, it is information on what the organisation claims it seeks to achieve and seems to be allowed for other Wikipedia entries (I cite about 10 of these in the Talk page). However, TrangaBellam keeps removing the changes I have agreed with other contributors, ignoring or not engaging in discussion with my reasons for the edits being justified and instead keeps repeating their own reasons, which I have attempted to address, and citing justifications which do not fall within Wikipedia's guidelines (i.e. citing an article WP:MANDY). You will see I have tried to engage in discussion at every step of the way but TrangaBellam is not discussing, rather ignoring my points and justifying their own with invalid sources. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:New English Review#Removal of The New English Review describes itself as "unaffiliated with any political party or religious denomination" and "dedicated to the return of the spirit of public debate." under NER: political orientation How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Given Wikipedia allows inclusion of how other organizations describe themselves (for example: New Statesman, The Sun Magazine, American Humanist Association, The Economist, The New York Times, Movement for Black Lives, The United Nations, EU) there should be consistency and NER be allowed to do the same. In addition, contributors must show they are being neutral rather than denying others through difference of opinion. The sources cited in the article have not been scrutinised for accuracy. Summary of dispute by Ibn Khaldun 127; TrangaBellam Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have no inclination to participate in this forum. The OP is free to launch a RfC. Thanks, New English Review discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. volunteer response I am happy to mediate this discussion, however- all participants must be notified on their talk page first- there is a template for how to do this at the top of this page. Second- a majority of involved editors must agree to participate. Finally- no edits to this section should be made until this discussion is resolved. Editors are already dangerously close to edit warring- so this requirement is important. Also- this forum is to discuss edits, not editors. If you have concerns about the behavior of other editors- the WP:ANI is the place, we help solve content disputes only. If you agree to these guidelines and are willing to participate- please indicate this in your section above. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jessica Taylor (British Author)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Freethinker6799 on 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Jessica Taylor (British Author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Freethinker6799 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Greetings. The other day I've made an editions to three pages including Jessica Taylor British Author page. In ehich I added a section titled "criticism and controversies" because there wasn't appropriate section to add. Also added a few citation to, that was from international news agencies and the incident was happened in Twitter. One or two days later I realized that the whole section was removed by user: generalrelative on the basis that it has no reliable sources which wasn't true. Because sources were appropriate and for something like that reliable international news agencies are good. Ihad undid the removal when found out. After that I realized that user: generalrelative also tracked down my activities and removed two other editions! First I thought maybe it's a joke, undid those two either. The next day I found out that same user removed editions once again a few minutes after! Another Time I undid it thought it's kidding. Meanwhile I send an email to the user telling them it's inappropriate do that. No answer from email but the user put a warning on my page on "edit war" which is so offensive that the person who tracked down my activities and removed them warned me of edit war. I wrote a couple of messages on user's page telling that it's cited by sources, WP isn't for promotion or advertisments that any criticism would be prohibited.Those threatenings are continuing and I see no way to resolution except third party interference. Would be appreciated if take suitable measures. Yours sincerely. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The sources added are informative for a neutral person and I've left comments on user's page. No progress. Telling things strange on I used two accounts or whatever which I didn't as far as I were aware. Also it's not related to rlthe dispute. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Assess the added part to the page under dispute and assess sources to decide why it shouldn't be there. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so any individual person should be subject to impartial criticizing which is very common and person's fans could not prevent it. Jessica Taylor (British Author) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wave Accelerated_Ring_Pinch_Reactor

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WarpingSpacetime on 20:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WarpingSpacetime (talk · contribs) PianoDan (talk · contribs) TonyFox (talk · contribs) Mu301 (talk · contribs) Agricolae (talk · contribs) Srleffler (talk · contribs) Tercer (talk · contribs) XOR'easter (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Article was nominated for deletion citing WP:GNG. In response to WP:GNG, the article's author, in good faith, provided more directly relevant independent reliable peer-reviewed sources on article title, topics and subjects. Unfortunately, the discussion's group of editors are still not satisfied and arguments have become stale and cyclical. Author believes there may be confusion between WP Guidelines. WP:N, WP:SPS, WP:SOURCEACCESS and finally WP:NPOSSIBLE which appears was never followed by editors. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wave_Accelerated_Ring_Pinch_Reactor How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Confirm WP Guidelines and WP Policy have been met, specifically with respect to Article's notability and reliable sources requirements for Article Title, Topic/s and Subject/s. If necessary, start process for Deletion Review and Request for Undeletion. Summary of dispute by PianoDan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TonyFox Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mu301 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Agricolae Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Srleffler Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tercer Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by XOR'easter Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wave Accelerated_Ring_Pinch_Reactor discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Balhae

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sturmgewehr88 on 01:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Balhae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zessede (talk · contribs) Qiushufang (talk · contribs) Esiymbro (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Content dispute by named users at Balhae, Goryeo, Buyeo, Goguryeo, and others over sourcing, POV, and weight. Editing is becoming disruptive and spilling over into other articles. Requesting dispute resolution on behalf of the involved users. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Balhae#Sources Talk:Buyeo#Fuyu_removed_and_proto-Korean_added? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide outside comment to help resolve the dispute. Summary of dispute by Zessede Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Qiushufang Balhae 17:43 7 June - Zessede removed content citing Crossley (2016) saying that less than 100,000 Balhae refugees fleeing the destruction of Balhae moved into Goryeo after its destruction by the Liao dynasty 17:53 7 June - I reverted, could not understand what Journal [52] meant in Zessede's edit summary. Did not find reasoning sufficient, noted that sources that do not agree with each other is not against wiki policy. Content made clear it was Crossley's statement. 23:01 7 June - Zessede reverted, added additional material (some unsourced), and removed maintenance templates. Page needed maintenance templates did not appear to be fixed. Inclusion of WP:OR explained here. Deletion of pinyin Chinese transliteration names and links such as Shangjing Longquanfu. 23:05 7 June - Esiymbro reverted cited unexplained deletion of sourced material. As far as I could see the material citing Crossley was not deleted but changed to be part of the WP:OR. 00:17 8 June - Zessede reverted. It appeared to me that the WP:OR was fixed. 00:28 8 June - Esiymbro reverted. Goryeo 8:50 2 April - Zessede added Balhae in brackets behind Goguryeo among other things in the lead of Goryeo. 15:27 26 May - Esiymbro reverted citing "not mentioned in source." 21:10 3 June - Zessede reverted citing Chinese bias. 23:18 6 June - I reverted citing the lack of context behind putting Balhae in brackets behind Goguryeo. The two are not the same and the source does not support the claim. Added a dead link behind one source. 23:34 7 June - Zessede reverted the dead link maintenance and added a primary source to justify the inclusion of Balhae in brackets. 00:09 8 June - I reverted citing usage of primary source and Zessede's mission oriented editing. 01:01 8 June - Zessede reverted and accused me and Esiymbro of being Chinese saboteurs on Korean articles. 01:07 8 June - Esiymbro reverted accusing Zessede of ultranationalism. 01:17 8 June - Zessede went to the talk page accusing me and Esiymbro of being Chinese saboteurs among other things. 01:22 8 June - Zessede reverted accusing Esiymbro of ultranationalism as well among other things. 01:41 8 June - Esiymbro reverted, no explanation. 01:55 8 June - Zessede reverted accusing me and Esiymbro of coordinating and being Wumaos. That's everything up to now. Qiushufang (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Esiymbro Copied from the ANI thread: Zessede's edits have a consistent pattern of adding false citations to otherwise unsourced content. This, more than the "Korea vs China" controversy, is at the root of every edit war involving them. In the article Goguryeo controversies for example Zessede added multiple "counter-arguments" with sources to a section for third-party views (eg. [5]) despite the fact that they are entirely absent from the citations. This edit in another section is another good example of a clearly deliberate attempt. And these are only the ones that I've checked. This happens again when they rewrote the lead section of Buyeo ([6]) and later the lead of Goryeo (all the citations in the last section). In the current dispute at Balhae, Zessede's "criticism" is literally sourced to the original publication of the source content. (see the Crossley citation) In both cases it was impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion with the editor. They immediately resorted to personal attacks when challenged, much like what they are still doing right now. Esiymbro (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Balhae discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timothée Chalamet

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hatrant on 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Timothée Chalamet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hatrant (talk · contribs) Trillfendi (talk · contribs) Czello (talk · contribs) Dispute overview They don't want to make it appear that Timothée Chalamet is a Franco-American actor, whereas this is the case on all the pages of the other countries, except here. He clearly is, he has dual nationality and he is bilingual. The facts are not discussed, it's French-bashing How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Archived: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Timothée_Chalamet/Archive_1#French-American,_American_with_two_citizenships,_etc. New one: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Timoth%C3%A9e_Chalamet How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? be an arbiter Summary of dispute by Trillfendi Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Czello Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Timothée Chalamet discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

avs

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Simiria1980 on 03:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Avs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Simiria1980 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview dispute How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Australia How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Talk:Australia#Removal_of_Chief_Justice_from_Infobox avs discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peter Singer's wikipedia Page

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2603:8080:1501:3816:7CEC:E387:5B4D:791F on 02:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Peter Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved multiple users (talk · contribs) Dispute overview As a disability rights activist and disabled person, I have attempted to include information about Peter Singer's status in the disabled community. The addition contains only objective facts about things that Singer has said and about the protests that have been waged against him. However, other users keep deleting that information. I feel that this editing is very ableist. The disabled community deserves a voice in discussions about public figures who make statements about our human rights. Before the edit was added, Singer's support for denying insurance coverage for disabled newborns and his statements about disabled people being comparable to pigs were either absent or buried in his "other views" section. I ask that the content that I added be maintained. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2603:8080:1501:3816:7CEC:E387:5B4D:791F&oldid=1092711193&diff=cur How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please allow the information about Singer's statements regarding PWD and the disabled community's response to his statements to remain. Summary of dispute by multiple users Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Peter Singer's wikipedia Page discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

European Colonization of the Americas

Closed discussion

List of Vietnamese Americans

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Skywatcher68 on 00:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of Vietnamese Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 118.208.233.159 (talk · contribs) IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) Bumbubookworm (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I only stumbled across this while patrolling recent changes so I'm not really involved. The issue, as noted on the Talk page by editors who are involved, is who should and should not be considered as Vietnamese American. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List_of_Vietnamese_Americans#Who_to_include_or_who_not_to_include How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? One editor clearly has decided that certain people should not be included on this list. Somebody should step in to determine who is in the right here. Summary of dispute by 118.208.233.159 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My arguments: - It is often said that mixed race individuals are often ostracised from their parent communities. This happens for a reason - they don't truly belong to either. The Vietnamese will always view them as non-Vietnamese. But the party that is non-Vietnamese will always view them as other. Hence, they're not really Vietnamese, but should be filed under as "multicultural" or "mixed ". - What we see is a huge number of what appears to be white men with Asian Vietnamese women, which is overrepresented in the ranks of White or Black American GIs with Vietnamese wives or Vietnamese female news anchors and politicians all getting a white trophy man as their husband. Now clearly, I don't agree with this. To me, White men and Vietnamese (Asian) women are an overrepresented demographic (something that I clearly find to be disturbing), which aims to overshadow and dominate at the cost of Asian men and other minorities. I must not be a hypocrite and say that Vietnamese men are also at fault of marrying out, but not as bad as Vietnamese or Asian women. - Thus, what appears to be happening in this case is that from my perspective, which I don't think is strange at all, is a cat and mouse chase of Asian women wanting to appear white and assimilate with white but they will always be viewed as other, whilst Asian men are victimised but remain silent in the hopes of that the world will come to their senses. - I dispute that Vietnamese Americans are divided on certain lines, just like Latin Americans have White, Mixed, Black, Native as their ethnic census, I also see the same distinction that by and large, the Vietnamese identity does NOT include the "mixed" identity and is just Vietnamese which is East Asian and Southeast Asian. "Mixed", implying with Whites or Blacks, isn’t within the Vietnamese identity. - This means that, Vietnamese are those who have Vietnamese names or Vietnamese surnames and are with Vietnamese partners. Those who are Vietnamese but with someone not Vietnamese are now part of the "mixed" category. For example, Tommy Pham the baseball player to me is Black, and there is little to no resemblance to Vietnamese people at all with him. However, someone like Johnny Tri Nguyen, who is also with a Vietnamese partner, is 100% Vietnamese to me. Tommy Pham does not belong, as well as the slew of Vietnamese people with non-Vietnamese people, but Johnny Nguyen belongs. Fixing/Fixed for formatting issues 118.208.233.159 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IronGargoyle The IP editor is making the dubious assertion that Vietnamese Americans who are of the children of mixed-ethnicity relationships should not be considered Vietnamese and the even more bizarre and offensive assertion that Vietnamese Americans who are in mixed-ethnicity relationships are not Vietnamese. The IP has been removing large amounts of referenced material and seems intent on enforcing a particular POV in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This "great wrong" is allegedly systematic bias, but it is hard to see how systematic bias is cured by removing entries from a list. The implicit consensus of a list's scope can be determined by the plain meaning of the title and by what people add to that list (barring substantive discussion and consensus to the contrary). As long as those entries are members of the target group (referenced either on the list itself or in the target articles with reliable sources), they belong in the list. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bumbubookworm Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of Vietnamese Americans discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. IP, I mean this with all due respect, but as far as I can tell, your post above is entirely WP:OR, and, were it up to me, would be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. While you and your opinions have value, they're not what we're after here. You really need to substantiate your positions with either Wikipedia policies, or, better yet, with reliable sources about the issue at hand. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC) (Non-noticeboard volunteer comment) I'm just someone who encountered this dispute during recent changes and followed it. Anyway, on the IP's talk page, I left a comment expressing my concerns about them. I'm worried that they do not want to reach a consensus with IronGargoyle and Bumbubookworm because in their edit summaries, they plan to WP:GAME the system by reverting the next day to avoid a WP:3RR violation. They also left a concerning message on their talk page. Should they receive a WP:BLOCK to prevent potential disruption? --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 14:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Pinging other editors in the DRN discussion: Dumuzid, Skywatcher68, and 118.208.233.159. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Just returning to acknowledge the ping; I have no underlying knowledge of this page or the dispute, but I will be watching the page. I would just encourage the IP to engage such fraught issues as ethnic identification with a bit more humility; as I say, advocacy has its place, but it is not in editing Wikipedia. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pamela Hanrahan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Martian2 on 05:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Pamela Hanrahan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk · contribs) Martian2 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Editor MrsSnoozyTurtle continues to apply a notability tag to my article. This is incorrect as user MrsSnoozyTurtle did not acknowledge my position on her talk page whatsoever and discontinued communication. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrsSnoozyTurtle&oldid=1086147094 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Prohibit this user continuing to apply notability tags to the article. Summary of dispute by MrsSnoozyTurtle Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Pamela Hanrahan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.