Talk:Culper Ring/Archive 1

Archive 1

What's a "half-quaker"?

Can we get a citation for this?--Shoreranger 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume someone who had one parent who followed the Quaker religion? Fustigate314159 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A few shortfalls in the article

1. Why isn't the Culper Ring's major role in the downfall of Benedict Arnold even mentioned here? Though Agent 355 was said to be responsible for catching Arnold through intelligence, the entire episode is omitted. Not a wise move.

2. While I know of few reliable references, can we not somehow introduce the legend- perpetuated by the U.S. government- that the Culper Ring still exists in some form?

3. Why isn't it outlined that a Culper Ring has become synonymous with ordinary citizens doing espionage? That a Culper Rule, some argue inherently inferred in the Bill of Rights, suggests that all citizens may spy for the U.S.? I know it sounds conspiracy theorist-minded, but these would be attractive, colorful factoids that might be put into a special section on the "Culper Ring in Urban Legend".

4. Is there no connection to be found between the C.R. and the Freemasons? I think it's there. I know of no refrence.75.21.150.44 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you want to fill the article with legends, factoids (because they're colorful!) and things for which you know of no reference.

Yeah, I don't think so.

Shortfalls in your Shortfalls

Let's go over this piece by piece, shall we?

Why isn't the Culper Ring's major role in the downfall of Benedict Arnold even mentioned here? Though Agent 355 was said to be responsible for catching Arnold through intelligence, the entire episode is omitted. Not a wise move.

Really? Why is it not a wise move? The article is not about the 'entire episode'. I think in its current state, which admittedly may differ from 2011, it mentions the ring's connection to Arnold appropriately. Besides, your "wise moves" aren't so wise. I don't mean to sound flippant, but there is truth to what I say.

While I know of few reliable references, can we not somehow introduce the legend- perpetuated by the U.S. government- that the Culper Ring still exists in some form?

No. There are absolutely zero reliable references on that front and for that reason alone its a preposterous notion.

Why isn't it outlined that a Culper Ring has become synonymous with ordinary citizens doing espionage?

Because it isn't.

That a Culper Rule, some argue inherently inferred in the Bill of Rights,

Who is "some"? Show me where this "rule" is. Here are the Bill of Rights, for your reference.

I know it sounds conspiracy theorist-minded,

It's worse than that and is along the lines of Big Foot.

but these would be attractive, colorful factoids

Which have absolutely no place in an encyclopedic article.

Is there no connection to be found between the C.R. and the Freemasons?

No.

MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 16:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Austin Roe of Setauket, New York

Hey, some of that questioned information in the article comes from "Brad Meltzer's Decoded" tv program. There is no page for Austin Roe, but how about we take the big ugly red print off it? Do we really need that? We'd have to print every word in red if we wanted to indicate every subject that does not have a Wikipedia page!75.21.150.44 (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Brad Meltzer's Decoded" --RS???Mannanan51 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Just wanted to update for future visitors to this page, Austin Roe now has a page and it has been linked in the article. As for the original poster, the problem with removing red-linked links is that it removes them from the requests for articles, I believe. Am I wrong on that? It's been a long time since I've even seen any so I'm not sure. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 17:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You are not wrong. In this case, some of the other persons for which there were red links besides Roe when the comment was written now have articles. I intend to add articles about the rest of them. I had started on a Roe article but someone beat me to it with a shorter one. I probably will expand that article, at least a little, and add a few citations, eventually. Donner60 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Citation Issues

Hopefully someone familiar with the topic can help clean up the citation problems. In this article we have "Notes" and "References" (and "External links" but that's not really a problem), and within the "Notes" section we have multiple styles. It would be great if these sections were reviewed and inline citations added where needed. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  18 November 2024, 04:56 (UTC)

I see that the date stamp on this thread updates to the current date and time. I believe I have handled this. This post will not update as the above does, however. Notes are inline citations to the references, or occasionally substantive footnotes, and are now the same style. References are the references used in the article, like a bibliography in a book. External links are...external links. I rarely, if ever, use them. The ones in the article were there when I started to work on it so I am just leaving them as they were. Donner60 (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agent 355 / Tallmadge

now that we are referencing there wiki pages is there any reason to give then short descriptions above that. I feel like there wiki pages do a good enough job

Sasnfbi1234 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Short descriptions above what? I guess whatever it was that you're referring to is now gone?MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a list of agents and others associated with the ring when the article was shorter. I deleted it as I worked the names into the text and expanded the descriptions. There should be no need for such a list in this article, or most articles, I would assume. Donner60 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement.

First I must say that someone has done a heck of a job on this article! The citations look beautiful too. Very well done! That said, I feel like we can make it more interesting. To begin with it needs images, and so I've tagged this Talk page with a request. Photos of places were people met, documents (good examples would be Woodhull's code book and letters they wrote, which are available at the Library of Congress, but I never can figure out how to word free use for pictures that are for free use) and even perhaps pictures of persons mentioned in the article. The other thing is an infobox of some kind. I tried toying around and looking to see if there's a general generic one, but couldn't find one that didn't require extensive editing and again, I'm not savvy in that area. I'd be happy to try and learn if someone can help me. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been working on the article. I must say that it is not finished and I have disappointed myself because I have not finished work on it more promptly. Instead, among other things, I have created articles on a few of the members of the ring and worked on some other articles while working on this one. See Anna Strong (spy), Jonas Hawkins and Cato (American Revolution), if you are interested. Not that this did not need to be done as well. I do intend to add more to the article and to do a little more editing on some of the content that was in the article when I started work on it.

I have not yet taken the article through the entire war. I touched on some of the biggest exploits of the ring in the introduction but have not added them all to the text. The "spycraft" aspects need to be explained a little better. Culper, Sr. (Abraham Woodhull) reports and help during the "Whaleboat War" of 1781 need to be added. So there is work to do. I think I will get that done this month but one never knows what might intervene.

I had not yet thought about an infobox. I think I could come up with something to start with in about the same manner as you describe your efforts.

I agree about the images. I also am no expert in that area but I have added a few images to articles from Wikimedia Commons (and in a few instances from related articles) in the past. If there are some available there, I think I could insert them. After that, it becomes tricky for me.

Thanks for the nice comment on the additions. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've imported a variety of images and an infobox in answer to the above requests, myself being a Setauket native with uploading experience. Once the latter history is finished, I hope the article will be re-structured. I think it would be best if most content were organized as subsections of a larger chronological 'history' section (the current section on lesser known Culper ring members being integrated into this) and then separate 'methods of secrecy' and 'popular culture' sections. At this rate the article will become overly long and will need to be made more concise, with details transferred to the newly made pages on the individual agents and operations, at which point it will be high quality. Iracaz (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions to the article. With the exception of the expanded section on Hercules Mulligan and Cato, which had been part of the other informants section, I have been converting the article to a chronological history. The sections after Expansion of the Ring were in the article when I started working on it, although I did edit or clean them up to some extent as a temporary measure. I also expanded the Mulligan/Cato section as a temporary measure; arguably they were more than minor but I thought it would be faster to leave them separate until the chronology was complete, or nearly so. The secrecy section most likely could be integrated at the times the various innovations occurred. Likewise, the minor informants might be worked in chronologically as well.

I added a lengthy introduction because some of the early intelligence activities in New York City have been been mistakenly attributed to the Culper Ring and to show the importance of intelligence from New York to the Continental Army. The tv series Turn repeats some of these mistakes, no doubt for dramatic effect and because they are good stories - the actions are mostly true even if the persons who took the actions and the sequence of events and the dates of some events are fictionalized.

I am not sure the article will be too long. In the past few months, many thousands of readers have turned to this article (and were no doubt disappointed; I would hope perhaps less so recently) because of its poor quality and lack of detail. Wikipedia missed an opportunity to present a good article here when the tv series Turn dramatized the Culper Ring. I believe additional episodes of the series have been approved so another round of high readership may occur when those are shown. Of course, there has been continuing readership so I do want to complete the article to the extent I can without too much delay.Donner60 (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In reading this over after saving it, I noticed that Iracaz suggested leaving the methods of secrecy section separate. That would be easier and does make more sense than integrating it. While it could be fit into a chronological narrative, a separate section might be better. That would be my preference as well. Donner60 (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have been slow to complete the revision of the article. I have been working on some other articles at the same time. I have gathered some research on the later activities of the ring and on spycraft. In view of the coming re-run of the series, I will get on with this promptly. Donner60 (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Very Clear Bias Against Even the Idea a Woman Could Operate in the Ring....

W/ very sketchy evidence to back it up as well, not to mention the parts where it's brought up not flowing with the article. It's clear that someone or multiple don't want the idea that Anna Strong or any woman for that matter to be part of history or at least plant that seed of doubt even though other parts of the ring aren't questioned even w/ less evidence or references. There is plenty of evidence to back up her being not only part of the ring but a key part but each time she is mentioned there on this page there is a "alternate view." Someone is using middle of the road fallacy to taint the view of history against women's role in this.

All you have to do is look at previous edits of this article before movements on the web to move against women for anything that shows them in a positive light especially in the historical sense and the show did that even though it was true. Before the show came about to shine a light on this topic there were sentences like this in the article, "Women were also an integral part of the Culper Ring. At this time in history, women were supposed to believe as their husbands and not to be involved in politics. For this reason, they would not be suspected of being spies." You can see this phenomenon all over Wikipedia and these "trolls" are using middle of the road fallacy against the mods on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaqenHghar80 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I updated the references for Sally Townsend. There is a relatively new book about her which sheds more light on her role in the Ring. Based on my research, she should be included in the main article and NOT separated out from the male members. Diogenes99 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the article on Anna Strong and even that has been watered down a little in the interim. (Kilmeade book which is pop history at its worst, somewhat pov with few references and partly fictionalized, including various imagined conversations or declarations, should not be cited. The opinion about Anna Strong is contrary to all the other sources cited.) I deserve a trout for not finishing my revisions, additions and improvements to this article. The point where I left it, with only patchwork improvement thereafter, is unfortunately evident. I had moved off into some other articles where anniversary dates were coming up and other areas of the project and have not worked further on this article for too long. I intend to get back to it in the near future and see what else needs to be edited or added. Anna Strong played a key role and the doubts introduced about her role are unwarranted by the research and writings of several historians. Sally Townsend also should be given credit. This article was inadequately researched, incomplete and poorly organized when the the tv series began. Some of the principals were left out and all of the key actions of the ring were not mentioned. Perhaps it can be brought up to a proper standard; but since it is still a frequently visited article, one hopes it can be kept in reasonably good shape over time. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any such alleged bias in this article. Anna Strong's involvement is still debated, and that requires a balanced treatment in a neutral point of view. —Dilidor (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)