Talk:James Duane

Related to Diane Duane

According to her blog he's her "six-times-great-grandfather". I'm sure we could find sources which would be more acceptable to more people, but this is just to make a mark. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute unsourced addition of Founding Father title

@Randy Kryn: Please provide sources identifying James Duane as a Founding Father. According to the National Archives and U.S. Congress websites, Duane is not associated with any founding document. I also understand other sources do include the Continental Association and Articles of Confederation. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(can someone stop his guy?, now also trying to cancel the Articles of Confederaion as a Founding document WP:WtF?) Will get back to this as I try to keep up with Allreet who has been at his crusade of canceling founders for what seems like months on dozens of pages and tens of thousands of words. For example, he has opened and closed three (3, III) simultaneous RfC's on the same question because he didn't like the results (a Wikipedia record?), and is now doing another two-or-three day forum shopping run - I've lost count - looking for a different conclusion (which wouldn't count anyway given the results of his three simultaneous RfC "loses") I'll answer further within a day or two, can only juggle so many of his new discussions at a time (which he knows and is maybe - surely? - counting on) but I do ask him again, is he going to add this campaign to the Peyton Randolph page, who, given Allreet's wishes, would be among a massive amount of Founding Fathers losing Founding Father status on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: To allow discussion and avoid edit warring, I have been very considerate regarding what you call "canceling". I have reverted none of the significant changes you made about four months ago. Those changes, to a main article and then more than 50 biographies, were not reviewed by anyone at the time, nor was any feedback sought before they were made (as far as I was able to determine). I only chanced upon them while working on the bio of a Founding Father and was surprised to see the title Founding Father applied to one of his associates who was later convicted as a traitor to the Revolution.

I did change that latter article by re-writing its lead entirely but rather than act unilaterally in other instances, I have been seeking input from you and then neutral editors in an attempt to ensure that the pages affected are true to the available sources. I've been under the impression Wikipedia is a collaborative project so I would appreciate if you would work with me as best you can in the interests of our readers and community. If you believe anything I am doing is improper, I would welcome any suggestions you may have. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Very diplomatic language but not accurate as to your sometimes heated months long effort refuted in three now closed RfC's and many other discussion venues. Your approach to loyalists not also being Founding Fathers seems akin to removing O.J. Simpson from NFL record books because of his later acts. As for Galloway and Low, well, I don't intend to read or work on their pages anymore as a volunteer choosing what to edit (per diplomacy?, actually just not feeling like editing particular pages). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification, I probably will glance at them again at some point but won't edit Galloway or Low if Founding Father status is at least somewhere in the lead, even "buried in the lead" in journalistic language, because being a Founding Father is nothing to sneeze at. Allreet, you don't want Loyalists to be considered Founders, I get that. Yet all the signers of the Association, such as Peyton Randolph (who presided over the Association's creation in Congress and stepped down as president four days later) have been recognized as Founders on Wikipedia for many years, and the document itself as a founding document for at least 12. Galloway and Low should have been tar-and-feathered by the likes of Sam Adams. Yet even though Loyalists, as two of a group of 145 signers their founder status seems at least "buried in the lead"worthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)