Talk:First Continental Congress

Rhode Island

I am going to leave the most recent edit by Reese1031 as it is, but I would like to see the article changed to reflect Rhode Island's participation, and a reference provided for same. If this is not done, I will revert to the previous version which indicates that Rhode Island did not participate in the First Continental Congress. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

# of Delegates

56 or 55? This website says fifty-five: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h650.html it's 56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth9200 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How did the First Continental Congress make war with Britain more likely?

I want this question to be answered short —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.251.182 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Deputies from N. Carolina

Reference to the Journals of The Continental Congress 1774-1789, Vol I, page 30.

As recorded, that on this date, September 14, 1774, the two deputies from North Carolina, William Hooper and Joseph Hewes, Esqrs. attended the Congress and produced their credentials.

The article would lead one to believe that all the delegates were present as of September 5, 1774. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.49.66.19 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Firstcontinentalcongress.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Firstcontinentalcongress.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Accomplishments

Another major accomplishment seems to be missing, namely the Declaration of Colonial Rights and Grievances. Is there any particular reason why it was not included? Otherwise, it really should be added. --Polymatheia (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC) I like ween — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.196.173 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Continental Congress. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216045633/http://jrshelby.com/sc-links/bancroft.htm to http://jrshelby.com/sc-links/bancroft.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

208.84.138.79 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

i would like to edit the day it happed

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Continental Congress. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206214032/http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/index.html to http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation

Dilidor (talk · contribs) apparently has no understanding of basic punctuation. He first reverted my edit that (among other things) added a handful of missing commas per WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. I then notified him on his talkpage of the above guideline.

I now find that he, instead of replying, has reverted me again(!), with the ridiculous comment "do not begin a revert war; take it to talk". Ok, I'm doing that now, although I was close to taking it to WP:ANI.

Let's see what happens. The WP:ANI avenue remains open.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: Your punctuation changes were wrong. I reverted them. What part of this do you wish to discuss? —Dilidor (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dilidor: Please point out the exact detail that was wrong. A tip: read the guideline above first. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: Your punctuation: "... who met from September 5 to October 26, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, early in the American Revolution." Strip out the extraneous info for basic sentence: "... who met at C. Hall in Philly early in Rev." Now add in your incorrect punctuation: "... who met, at C Hall, early in Rev." Commas not required, misplaced. Thus I reverted. Hope that helps. —Dilidor (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dilidor: "who met, at C Hall" is not how I edited it. I put no comma between "met" and "at".

"who met from September 5 to October 26, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, early in the American Revolution" is how I edited it. Copy-pasted it from the diff to be sure (removed the wikilink brackets though). Check for yourself.

Stripping out the extraneous/precision info:

who met from September 5 to October 26 at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia early in the American Revolution

Adding it back, step by step

1) adding year, set off by commas per the aforementioned guideline:

who met from September 5 to October 26, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia early in the American Revolution

2) adding state, set off by commas per the aforementioned guideline:

who met from September 5 to October 26, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, early in the American Revolution

You want to reconsider, or maybe get new glasses?

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8102:2E59:CCF3:D3D9:4616:EC90 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn’t the First Continental Congress

No one in 1774 called it that. It wasn’t until the Second one that this one had ”first” anachronically added to it. I’ve tried to fix it, wasted my time (see history), so someone else can deal with it. deisenbe (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No one referred to World War 1 as the "First World War," either, until the second one occurred. Yet these are the common terms which we now use to refer to these events. It's just the simplest way to avoid confusion. —Dilidor (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, but why was my pointing this out in the first sentence removed? deisenbe (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems self-evident to me. We call it the first one because there was a second one, and the second one is addressed in the intro. Does the article on WW1 specifically state that we call it the "first world war" because there was a "second"? I think we need to assume some level of common sense in the readers. —Dilidor (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It honestly, doesnt matter what they called it back then. Technically, its now is the First Continental Congress. We did refer to it as the First Continental Congress AFTER the second one, but the second one is over now so the proper term is "The First Continental Congress" But I am sure everyone appreciates your historical lesson. September 12, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8102:2E59:CCF3:D3D9:4616:EC90 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct Link for "Journals of the Continental" Congress Citation

It seems that the citation #8 under "Notes" has been changed to an incorrect address and should be changed (back) to http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=001/lljc001.db&recNum=109 as it had been on an old version of the page. Myfriendben (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

What is that portrait when you google the Website. Some random young man is the thumbnail that shoes up in the snippet. could you change to the first painting of the congress. 67.170.18.93 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia has no control over what shows up in Google searches. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)