Talk:Society of the Cincinnati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792) American Revolutionary War task force

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)

Contents 1 Robert E. Lee 2 POV in Reaction to the Society and The Later Society sections 3 Sections removed for a list of wiki abuses 4 Cincinattus's Title 5 nb

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

• • This article is drenched in POV content - esp. the latter part. - Plasticbadge 11:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] nb

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