Talk:Edmund Pendleton

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Virginia High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Children

He had none. The confusion arises because Edmund Pendleton (subject of this article) married Sarah Pollard while his nephew Edmund Pendleton married Milly Pollard, her sister. Edmund and Milly had a son Edmund, Jr. Rmhermen (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edmund Pendleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute regarding Founding Father title

Multiple sources are needed to support a claim that as far as I know has never been made specifically about Edmund Pendleton. I understand @User:Randy Kryn added the Founding Father title believing Pendleton 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 centers on one of Wikipedia's most basic principles, verifiability (WP:VER). Nothing else is at issue. Feedback from other editors would be appreciated, as would the addition of reliable sources. Allreet (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Randy Kryn means well but he's evading the issue by pointing the finger at me. Having added thousands of citations to articles, I'm pretty sure of their importance as well as the standards associated with their use. Thus, I've filed three RfCs that unfortunately received almost no feedback from other editors. It's a total distortion and then a personal attack to say I "didn't like the results"..

What's extraordinary here is that Randy has conferred the title Founding Father on no less than 25 patriots who previously were not regarded as such by anybody. He did so on the basis of a new interpretation of an article that's been cited in Wikipedia for several years, but on a slightly different topic. Then in mid-2021, the article's "deeper meaning" occurred to another editor who used this new angle to significantly change a main article. Then, beginning last October, Randy began changing all related articles, including this one.

So my "crusade", as he puts it, has merely been an attempt to rectify a similar campaign on his part to alter 25-30 articles without sufficient evidence, changes that unfortunately are now being echoed with every internet search on the term "founding father". I believe with good reason that millions of people are being mis-led based on what amounts to a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:VER. Allreet (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Randy's closing concern, I'm only disputing his applying the title Founding Father in connection with the source he's been using. Peyton Randolph deserves the title based on many other sources. As for anyone else "losing their status" - what, the status nobody recognized until October 2021 when Randy began changing dozens of articles on his own? Allreet (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) 'hank you for crediting me with so much, but will have to set you straight on all that. Since the signers of the Association have been recognized as Founding Fathers by Wikipedia for many years, and the Association has also been recognized as one of the four main Founding documents by Wikipedia since at least 2010, all I did was bring mention of Founding Father status to the leads of all Founder's pages which didn't yet have it - except for Peyton Randolph who was added, credit where credit is due, by Civil Engineer 3 on February 4. Figured it was lead material, no? Which has somehow led to Allreet's now wanting to cut the Association loose from Founding document status on Wikipedia. After maybe tens of thousands of words and three simultaneous RfC's which Allreet opened and closed because he didn't agree with what developed (seriously, has to be some kind of record), he's now opening another dozen or so more Founder's talk page discussions on the exact same topic. Or...maybe, one more? Which brings me to 2) Yes, you now would have Peyton Randolph stripped of Founder status on Wikipedia, so please add your disputed tag and discussion there. De-foundering Prez Peyton seems to merit a discussion at his talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Randy Kryn: I finally worked this through keeping your argument in mind.

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 apply 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 problem, 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 "Edmund Pendleton is a Founding Father" because that would indicate wide if not universal acceptance. The most we could say, considering this is such a minority view, is that "some sources consider him a Founding Father", a pronouncement so meaningless it's not worth making.

BTW, based on this, we can't call signers of the Articles of Confederation founders either, as I just discovered you did in your one-person editing campaign last year. You'd think you would have sought some input from the larger community before forging ahead in re-writing history on such slim reasoning and so little evidence. Allreet (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]