Jump to content

Talk:Society of the Cincinnati/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

I don't know if it's true but I heard the founding of the society was related to the near military coup that occured in the closing days of the Revolution.

I heard the same thing from a high school history teacher years ago. Something about an effort to make Washington king, that George heard about and then prevented by telling the story of the Roman dictator. It would be nice if we could find a solid reference for this.

I think you're talking about the Newburgh conspiracy. They happened around the same time, but are unrelated. Coemgenus 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
How can you claim these are unrelated? The conspiracy occurred only three months prior and involved the same principals, i.e. Henry Knox. It is reasonable to expect that the founding of the society was a direct reaction on the part of the founders; whether the reaction's genesis is from recognition of the threat and establishment protective measures or a case of mere guilt and absolution would be a matter for inconclusive debate. 17MAY2010

Robert E. Lee

In the 19th century, rules for membership were relaxed by some of the constituent societies to allow eligibility for those other than the first born son. In some of the constituent societies, it was allowed for a waiver of a descendant of his right to membership in favor of the next in line of succession to the membership. This would have allowed for Robert E. Lee's eligibility.

Unsigned above. I can confirm part of that, I know a member, received membership from his father upon his death, and membership was not given to first born. Wfoj2 (talk)

POV in Reaction to the Society and The Later Society sections

The last paragraph of the 'Reaction to the Society' section and all of the 'The Later Society' section read like they came out of the official history of the Society. It is not so much what is said as the way it is said that bothers me. I also think that the article, and the 'The Later Society' section in particular, needs to be carefully referenced, and not just cite a couple of books at the end. I'll come back to work on it as I have time and find references. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections removed for a list of wiki abuses

Sections relating to expulsion and sexuality have been removed for failure to cite or substantiate. Either a prank or anti-masonic in nature. I fear the conspiracy theorists have picked up on the great deal of content that's been posted to this article of late, and are beginning to post themselves.

--Haskelljn 07:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And I just restored those sections because there was no explanation for the removals in the edit summaries, and the removals were done by an anon IP with no other edit history. While I wholeheartedly support the removal of unsourced material when appropriate, this instance looked too much like vandalism or POV protection of the article. I have to comment that your account looks like a single-purpose account, as 95% of your edits have been to this one article. I have marked the two sections requesting citations. Please let them sit for a few days to see if reliable sources are cited. -- Donald Albury 11:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section about Steuben's supposed homosexuality--even if this quote were cited, it belongs on a page about Steuben, not on a page about the Society (Unless, of course, a claim could be substantiated that the Society knew of Steuben's homosexuality). I also removed some (but not all) of the expulsions section. I left the claims regarding members, but deleted the obviously abusive section about the sexuality of members from Connecticut.72.165.203.226 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake for not logging in before making edits, and recording reasons in the proper way. This was my concern--that homosexuality of a single member does not necessitate an entire section, and that this issue of sexuality and closed groups (like masonry) is more of an obsession of conspiracy theorists. It was the pattern of behavior that concerned me. I would like the remainder on exuplsion to be cited, especially since it came from the same questionable author. I'll look more into the expulsion subject, and to the other POV issues you addressed earlier, above.

Thanks, --Haskelljn 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Regarding the expulsions, they are fact. Huss was expelled for faking his ancestry. I'm not sure what kind of citation you want, this is hardly something that the society is going to publicize. The same is true of Briethaupt. I know a number of the people who were at his expulsion hearing, but of course he now has enough lovers in the society to stop his expulsion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.197.200 (talk • contribs)

I reverted the removal of some material on September 4 because no reason was given. On the other hand, if the material cannot be {{WP:V|verified]] from reliable sources, then it does need to come out. Personal knowledge is original research, and not allowed in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cincinattus's Title

Shouldn't the article state that he was made dictator, not consul? -69.136.86.237 22:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I should think so. Someone recently changed it to Consul and I was waiting to see if someone else, with more specific information on the point, would address that. Pzavon 02:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, Cincinnatus initially served as one of two Roman Consuls. He left that post and went back to his farm. The war emergency came up, the Roman Senate (unbeknownst to him) then appointed him as Magister Populi (in essence, a "dictator"). The official title at that time wouldn't have been "Dictator" but rather "Magister Populi". The Dictator came more as the Republic declined and Rome became the "Roman Empire".

I don't believe this is correct. The name of the law that authorized extraordinary magistracy in Rome was lex de dictatore creando ("law for the creation of a dictator.") The law was made after the expulsion of the kings, and there's no reason to think Cincinnatus wouldn't have been called Dictator while he held the office. Fumblebruschi 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

nb

L. servare - to save
L. servire - to serve. --VKokielov (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The Society's motto reflects that ethic of selfless service: Omnia relinquit servare republicam ("He relinquished everything to save the Republic")." Would someone care to check original sources for the Latin? The verb relinquit is present tense ('leaves behind'), not past tense ('left behind'), which would be reliquit (with no N in it). Jacob (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Shaw

I removed this name because I was unable to find substantiation for it. Robert Gould Shaw (1776-1853) was a president of the society starting in 1849, but clearly was not a founding member. There is a "Captain Shaw" referenced in early documents (http://www.societyofthecincinnati.org/institution.htm for example), but it appears his first name was Samuel. I did find a reference online to a Samuel Shaw (1754-1794), but this doesn't appear to be Samuel Shaw. Floatjon (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

French Founding Members

It strikes me that Rochambeau and Lafayette ought to be identified as such in the list rather than under their personal names which won't be reconized by the vast majority of Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.178 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reduce number of portraits

Take away some portraits, particularly of Frenchmen. This is excessive in terms of the 300-yr-old organization. Parkwells (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Lots of names added as members

Might we have cites to reliable sources for the additions, please? Collect (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This pagespace has become a list article

I suggest we reclassify it as "list-class" or remove the hundreds of member names to a new page: List of Society of the Cincinnati members. BusterD (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

Removed the unsourced allegation that Benjamin Franklin changed his mind and joined the Pennsylvania Society. Franklin actually joined the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, an entirely different thing. The Pennsylvania Society actually relevant to this discussion, which was alluded to in the excised paragraph, was not formed until over a century after Franklin's death. Ojh2 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Capt. Jacob Bower

In researching Captain Bower, many of his biographies list him as a founding member of the Society from Pennsylvania. He served in the revolution from 1775 - 1783 and achieved the rank of Brigadier General of Pennsylvania Militia at the start of the war of 1812. He was from Berks County Pennsylvania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.110.139 (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC) I'm the one who added the preceding prior to joining. Please excuse me if I went about it wrong. Blair

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Society of the Cincinnati. 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) 16:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

George Augustine Washington

I'm curious how George Augustine Washington could have been a "charter member" of the Society, when according to his Wikipedia page he wasn't born until 1815, thirty-two years after the founding of the Society? I don't wish to presume to delete his name, although the evidence would appear to direct such an edit. Redrocketred (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That's because the George Augustine Washington who was a charter member of the Society was a different GAW than the Wikilinked gentleman. The linking is in error. The person who lived from 1758–1793 and was a 2nd lieutenant, then an ensign/personal guard to General George Washington & subsequently served as an aide to General Lafayette during the American Revolution was indeed a charter member, according to the cited source - the July 1898 edition of the The Virginia magazine of history and biography, published by: Virginia Historical Society. The full text of can be found here. George Augustine was General Washington's nephew and after the war worked as the farm manager for Mount Vernon until George Augustine died of tuberculosis in 1793. George Augustine's body is buried in the Washington Family Crypt at Mount Vernon. (See National Archives notes. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy - I have removed the linking that goes to the wrong Wikipedia article. Shearonink (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Big addition to list of "original members" from two sources

I made this big addition using two sources. Feel free to revert and discuss. I know there are some typos, because I took the original material and used a wildcard search/replace to remove the ranks and other material and just get the names of the people. I want to see if it will stick. If you notice errors, please fix. I am concerned that this biases and puts in a huge list of members to ONLY 3 STATES. I have no interested in that kind of WP:NPOV problem, and would accept a revert on those grounds alone. However, if we could get a COMPLETE LIST of the original members, that would be the best. Or we could only include the most significant members. How to chose what makes someone significant might be tricky... --David Tornheim (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

COI Editing question

While of good intention I find Marlan Drive's edit [1] which Train of Knowledge reverted and no introduced problematic including introducing uncited WP:ORIGINAL into the lede which is not present in the body. The above edit contains a summary describing the connection. Train of knowledge was persuaded to revert following this discussion: [2]; Comments have also been left on Marlan Drive's talk; and I have added COI and connected contributor to this talk page. I have a feeling the current situation is unsatisfactory; but there is insufficient discussion here to refer to WP:COIN. I don't want to get into an edit waywar here and would appreciate a neutral point of view here. I may request advice on this at the Teahouse. Thankyou.23:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Marlan DriveTrain of Knowledge As an editor who knows nothing about this topic, this is how I see it: Marlan Drive added content to the Lead without providing references. And in Edit summary, claimed expert knowledge because of personal involvement in the society. Train reverted all changes, then undid the reversion. While content in Leads does not necessarily require referencing, it must reflect content in the body of the article and that requires referencing. As this was Marlan's first edit ever, should know that standard practice is reference as you go rather than adding content and intending to return later to reference it. The latter is subject to being reverted. Some editors find it helpful to copy a portion of an article into their own Sandbox, work on revising it there, then patching that into the article. Another error common to new editors is original research - adding content based on what you know to be true (or think to be true) - without references. As for the question of conflict of interest - any editor with a personal connection to a topic should declare that on there own User page. Anyone paid by an organization must declare that on their User page. WP:PAID also asks that rather than directly editing the article, an editor proposes specific changes in a New section of the Talk page of the article. This allows a non-paid, non-COI editor to review the proposed changes and either incorporate into the article or not. Hope this helps. David notMD (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I support everything said above by David notMD. An editor with a conflict of interest has made extensive changes to the lead, unsupported by any references, and not reflecting any changes to the body of the article. Those changes should be reverted. If Marlan Drive is aware of errors in the article, they should detail them, with references, on this talk page, so that they can be corrected by editors not having a conflict of interest. Maproom (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Having looked at the responses by neutrals David notMD and Maproom I am at this point minded he problematic COI edit [3] should not currently remain in the article and I have just WP:BOLDly removed it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon. This is Jack Warren (Marlan Drive). I want to offer some additional information, offer a few comments, and make a suggestion. Please appreciate that I am not at all familiar with Wikipedia's unique editing and review processes. I don't know who any of you are, which I suppose is consistent with Wikipedia's standards and practices. I am an academic historian, and am firmly committed to transparency and objectivity. That's why I didn't disguise my identity as the executive director of the Society of the Cincinnati, which you all seem to agree makes my editing the Wikipedia entry on the Society of the Cincinnati a "conflict of interest."

I understand the concern that underlies this label. Someone closely associated with an organization has an interest in seeing that it is presented in a positive way, and any good editorial process guards against the natural tendency such a person might have to dismiss common or valid criticisms of their organization. I understand that. On the other hand, an insider, which I certainly am, is often the best person to describe an organization — he or she simply knows more than others and has the documentation ready at hand. In this case — without humility — I'm that person. I was a college faculty member specializing in late 18th century American history (the Society is a late 18th century institution) for a decade and have been the executive director of the Society for more than fifteen years. I'm widely published in American history and a solid professional non-fiction writer. I've contributed to many encyclopedias and reference works, so I know how to write for them. I edited the presidential series of the published Papers of George Washington for publication by the University of Virginia Press so I do understand the nature of proper documentation. I don't have a lot of time to give to Wikipedia, but I thought — hey, I'm taking a few day off work for Christmas — maybe I can spend some time and make the Wikipedia entry on our organization accurate and informative. I should add that I bristle at the suggestion that I tag myself "PAID" in some profile. No one is paying me to do this work. I've got a full time job running our organization, believe me. I was going to do this in what passes for spare time.

Yes, being told I've got a conflict is frustrating, because, candidly, the article is bad and I can make it good. Your own editorial team has put red flags all over it for lack of documentation. It's laced with factual inaccuracies. Here I'm not talking about matters of interpretation — things about which reasonable people can disagree. I'm talking about assertions that are objectively and demonstrably false or very misleading. Let me give you a simple example. The last sentence of the current lead reads "The Society does not allow women to join, though there is a partnership society called Daughters of the Cincinnati which permits all female descendants of Continental officers." Yes, the Society is all-male — something for which it can be criticized, and I don't suggest hiding that at all. But the "Daughters of the Cincinnati" is not "a partnership society," whatever that means. It is a wholly independent organization. And it doesn't "permit all female descendants of Continental officers" to join. Set aside that the sentence is poorly composed and doesn't say "to join," which is what seems to be implied. The Daughters don't welcome "all female descendants of Continental officers." That organization only admits female descendants of qualified Continental officers, and like the Society, it generally admits only one woman to represent each officer. So the sentence published in the current Wikipedia article is misleading. I can fix misleading things like that, eliminate the completely false, add some missing material, and thoroughly document it all. And think carefully at what I've just said. The current sentence was probably written by a Society member (who didn't reveal that identity to Wikipedia) trying to avoid criticism of our organization by saying we have a "partnership" with an analogous organization that admits "all female descendants of Continental officers." Whoever wrote that sentence was trying to exonerate the Society . . . to deflect perfectly reasonable criticism of our all-male status by assuring Wikipedia readers that women can join a "partnership society." The executive director of the Society of the Cincinnati, who you have decided has a disqualifying conflict of interest, is trying to tell Wikipedia users the truth, which is that we are all-male and have no "partnership" with the Daughters of the Cincinnati. Does that sound like someone unworthy of trust? Especially when he will footnote everything in the body of the article?

I won't drag you down into the weeds of this topic, but my plan was to provide a solid basic account of the founding of the Society and a basic encyclopedia-style history of what the Society has done over its 236-year history to replace the "Origins" section you have, which begins oddly with the origins of our name, which I can address in a tighter way. The present article is missing a description of what the Society did between its founding and the present, which is worth an overview. The Society was briefly the object of some criticism in the 1780s, shortly after it was founded, and I can address this objectively, I assure you — it was a very long time ago, and we have no incentive to hide the fact that Thomas Jefferson and some others worried that the Society was trying to foist an aristocracy on the new nation. Then I was planning to replace the section titled "Insignia" with one on "Symbols," including our insignia, which is inaccurately described in the current article. From there I was going to add a section on our Membership and Governance, our Headquarters, and what the Society does today, along with a bibliography and notes. My guess is that the Wikipedia team would like it, if they gave me a chance to write it.

Here's the suggestion: why don't I write what I have in mind — yes, that means investing time in work you might reject — and send it to one of you, or all three, perhaps by email. If you think it's worthy, one of you can post it. Pride of authorship is of no consequence to me here. I only have so much bandwidth, and I don't know if I have the time to deal with an entirely opaque editorial system in which quite random people can throw what I do away and leave a misleading, inaccurate, and incomplete article in place for billions of people to read. I'm interested in doing this out of respect for Wikipedia and as a service to its worldwide users — and because I want people interested in organization to be correctly informed about it. What do you say?

Jack Warren Marlan Drive (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd firmly suggest you do thing in very small chunks (ideally a sentence or at most a paragraph at a time being very prescriptive of what (if) anything needs to be removed and what needs to be added) and I'll add a little and some suggestions as where to look for examples on your talk page hopefully shortly. I personally would recommended studying Wikipedia:Edit requests carefully and using the Template:Request edit technique. Please don't email me, and perhaps others, unless we pre-agree to it first. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Useful Guidance

I suppose the right thing for me to do is give up. The system in place is extraordinary cumbersome and so loaded with jargon and gibberish that it puts up a barrier to effective conversation. Though the people who've made comments about my revision and my proposed revision are undoubtedly well meaning, what strikes me most powerfully is that none of them have said that they are concerned that what Wikipedia has published is inaccurate and misleading. The sole outcome of today's exchange is that one of the people I've been trying to have a conversation with has flagged me as an inappropriate contributor and one of them has published my name on the page in the box at top right as a key person, thus associating me, to my considerable embarrassment, with an article that misleads people about our organization and now about me personally. Jack WarrenMarlan Drive (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marlan Drive: You seem to be talking about me. I seem to have put considerable wasted time with efforts to assist you in going about things. I apologise if these were not sufficient. If you feel I have done you wrong, and I do make mistakes, you can ask for advice at WP:TEAHOUSE. You can even complain about my actions at WP:ANI if you wish. You can relatively easily ask for removal of unsourced information if you wish, or perhaps even do it yourself, but I would advise that if it is sourced. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Marlan Drive: Furthermore let me make additional observations. You have been fairly clearly guided on your talk page to place a Template:Paid at least Template:UserboxCOI on your userpage. I have reached the point where I am pragmatically minded, to quote Judge Judy, "You're not listening!". It should be note that while you claim to be "Jack Warren" of the "Society of the Cincinnati", and association somewhat borne out by McGrath's: "Give Me a Fast Ship: The Continental Navy and America's Revolution at Sea" ISBN-13: 978-0451416100 P.428; I need to also be aware and alive to the albeit very remote possibility that account "Marlan Drive" is in fact someone impersonating "Jack Warren". Quite frankly it matters not which way that is providing a COI is declared and any alternations are backed by appropriate sources. I think I personally am reasonably willing to tag the article Template:Disputed if asked providing your user page is tagged appropriately which allows people to immediately know there may be issues; this is not unreasonable as some parts of the article seem poorly sourced at present. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

How Many of Them Are There?

Daughters of the Cincinnati

Although the Society of the Cincinnati admits only male lineal or collateral descendants and male honorary members, a parallel organization, the Daughters of the Cincinnati, admits female descendants of Continental officers.

I moved this to the talk page because it appeared in the article lead. I think it has a place in the article, but almost certainly not in the opening since it is much, much later organization and has no dependent relationship with the Society of the Cincinnati. I would invite discussion. FEastman (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Axel von Fersen

...is listed as an Honorary foreign member. Is that really correct? He did serve in the War of the Revolution. Jonar242 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Society_of_the_Cincinnati/Archive_1&oldid=1080802951"