Talk:Richard Smith (Continental Congress)

Reliable sources need for Founding Father claim

Multiple sources are needed to support a claim that as far as I know has never been made specifically about Richard Smith. I understand @User:Randy Kryn added this title believing Smith qualifies because he signed the Continental Association, but I contend reliable sources are needed for an assertion that's being made as of this writing in 25-30 articles. All based on one source and often, as in the current case, without a citation.

For those who don't know, this is part of an ongoing dispute over a single source where the text being cited does not directly support the claim. Other sources have been provided but they too are lacking, though on other grounds, namely reliability.

To be clear, the issue is one of Wikipedia's most basic principles, verifiability (WP:VER). Nothing else is at issue. Feedback from other editors would be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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 looking for a different conclusion (which wouldn't count anyway given the results of 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 now, is he going to add this campaign to the Peyton Randolph page, who, given Allreet's wishes, would lose Founding Father status on Wikipedia? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Randy Kryn: You can stop with the innuendos. Everything I've done has been above board, by the book. The problem is this situation is so far-reaching, it was hard to wrap my head around. Now I see it's even larger than I thought. Instead of just 30 articles, it's gotta be twice that, though admittedly I haven't taken a head count yet.

So to address your argument, COMMONSENSE allows exceptions to WP's rules if they interfere with our ability to edit. It doesn't refer to using common sense to draw conclusions or force consistency. So just because we recognize signers of three "founding documents" (Declaration, Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution) as Founders doesn't mean we're compelled to consider signers of the fourth document (Continental Association) Founders as well.

The larger issue, however, is that the four documents are regarded very differently. Many if not most sources/historians accept the Declaration as criteria for "fatherhood" and almost as many the Constitution. But just a few recognize the Articles, and hardly anybody (IMO, nobody) accepts the Continental Convention. Yet you treat all the documents as equals. They're not, and more than just my opinion, it's a documentable reality.

So even if you're correct about Werther and your other two sources, we can's say "Richard Smith is a Founding Father" because that would indicate wide if not universal acceptance. The most we could say, considering this is view held by so few historians and institutions, is that "some sources consider him a Founding Father", a pronouncement not worth making.

Speaking of which, that's why nobody bothered before to refer to signers of the Articles of Confederation as Founders. The evidence was so slim, nobody thought it worth mentioning. Until you came along. Allreet (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Smith's resignation from Continental Congress

I added a stub template because this article is exceedingly short. One issue that drew me to this was Smith's resignation from the Continental Congress. No reason is given and it took a bit of research to pin it down. As was the case with several other members of Congress who resigned 1775-1776, Smith was a Quaker, and since independence meant armed conflict and Quakers were pacifists, as a matter of conscience they could not continue in service to the revolution. An excellent source on the issue, which requires JSTOR access for the full document:

Diary of Richard Smith in the Continental Congress

Allreet (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)