Talk:Benedict Arnold/Archive 2

This archive includes threads from Talk:Benedict Arnold from January 1st, 2009 to (?).

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should WP really make such a direct assertion?

"...but after he switched sides, his name, like those of several other prominent traitors throughout history..."
Seeing as how the article later deals with the dispute over whether or not he was a traitor, is it really appropriate for WP to directly assert that he was a traitor like this? 209.90.134.12 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be avoided. It might be better to reference people calling him a traitor, rathern that WP seeming to assert it. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be avoided. That's how he's known throughout history, as the great American taitor.Wikidude57^S_BC 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in the American version of history. It's hardly a settled point. It also violates WP:NPOV to use the term when there is obvious contention over the matter. Rlinfinity (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the language User:209.90.132.12 complained about is no longer in the article, and in fact the uses of "traitor" are qualified. If you have reliably sources that document views on why his actions might not be viewed as treachery, or that document the contentious nature of the assertion, please share them with us. (I'm assuming you're not substantively disputing the account presented here.) Also, if you have sources documenting historical and contemporary views of Arnold from Canadian and British perspectives (similar to what is presented of American views at the end of the article), those would also be useful. Magic♪piano 02:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot to surrender

Pursuant to the above discussion, I've added some words to the section before West Point, and retitled the West Point section. I'll continue to fill in details of the plot there -- Randall goes into excruciating detail. Magic♪piano 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved

I moved it to Benedict Arnold V Wikidude57^S_BC 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how this move is not a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. It's not like the others so named are particularly notable, other than this one's great-grandfather. Magic♪piano 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the move was contrary to wikipedia policy and also feel it was a little bit too bold to do it without some discussion on this page. I have restored the previous version -- if there is a case that can be made for moving it, then let the discussion begin. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with revert. Initial change completely frivolous. Wikidude57 makes the change, suggests 'let the discussion begin', and promptly saunters off into the sunset. RashersTierney (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Benedict Arnold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. Links should only appear once in the prose. I see several links that appear more than once. Please go through the article and cut down on repeated links, per WP:OVERLINK.
   2. "(which left his left leg 2 inches (5 cm) shorter than the right)," - How did this happen? Was the leg partially amputated? Explain it for the reader.
   3. The first sentence of the "death" section needs a ref, and also a date. When did he first become afflicted with Gout?
   4. With only one link, the "See also" section should be either expanded or removed.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "He presided over the rear of the Continental Army during its retreat from Saint-Jean, where he was reported to be the last person to leave before the British arrived." - reported by who? needs a ref.
   2. "...following a series of escalating disagreements and disputes that culminated in a shouting match, removed him from field command after the first battle." - Needs a ref.
   3. "...engaging in a variety of business deals designed to profit from war-related supply movements and benefiting from the protection of his authority." - Needs a ref.
   4. "...that he owed the Congress some £1,000, largely because he was unable to document them." - Needs a ref.
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Not Yet

   1. "Arnold was ambitious and aggressive, and quickly expanded his business." - sounds kind of opinionated, it needs a ref.
   2. " The oppressive taxes levied by Parliament forced many New England merchants out of business." - calling it 'oppressive' is also opinionated; the word should be avoided, or the sentence should be referenced.
   3. "...Arnold began scheming to capitalize financially on the change in power there" - 'scheming' is not a neutral word. It should be replaced.
5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Not Yet

   1. Images are heavily weighted towards the right of the page. Reviewers for A and FA articles often suggest making the balence even and alternating, ie. placing images on the left, then right, then left, then right, etc.
7. Overall:

   On Hold while issues are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your detailed comments. I think I've addressed most of your issues. I'm not sure what repeated links you're finding -- I do repeat links in the lead and image captions, something no one has complained about before. (There might, as always, be one or two that slip through, but it would probably be easier for you to fix the ones you saw -- I wasn't able to find them.) Magic♪piano 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

All right. The issues have been addressed to my satisfaction. Looking over the article again I don't see any repeated links, maybe I imagined them or something. The article now meets GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

God Bless this hero of human kind

This guy was about being a saint... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.8.45 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, really? So, do you have anything to back this up, or do you just say ridiculous things to be inflamatory? Jersey John (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Internet troll. Was clever and annoying 15 years ago, now just redundant and old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold room, University of New Brunswick

When I worked between 1994 and 1998 at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, there was a Benedict Arnold Room in the Faculty Club. This had framed original letters written by Arnold hanging on the walls. Professors took great delight in taking American guests to dine there. (I was always told that Arnold lived in Fredericton, but the article states Saint John instead. The University of New Brunswick also had a campus in Saint John, so this is quite possible.) Unless there are objections, I will add this room to the "Tributes" section (which is what I will rename the current "Legacy" section). HairyWombat (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems possible (based on a quick search of Google Books) that Arnold lived in Fredericton for a time. I don't recall the sources I consulted making a big deal of it, though, which is why it's not mentioned here. I suspect he spent much of his time in Saint John (or at sea), but I'd have to start digging into sources again to be sure.

I'd also note that the section on American historical opinion will not go well should in a section entitled "Tribute" -- it's not much of a tribute. Magic♪piano 14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Later. I have been digging in the on-line Loyalist Archives at the University of New Brunswick. I can't find any mention of Arnold living in Fredericton, although he was, with others, granted 13 acres of lands there. Found a reference you might be interested in, Quigley, Louis (2000). Benedict Arnold: the Canadian Connection. Riverview, New Brunswick: Queue Publishing. ISBN 9780968701003. OCLC 47908325. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help) HairyWombat (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, although there aren't any copies near me at present. Magic♪piano 13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I propose to do:

1. Promote the sub-section "American cultural depictions" to its own section.
2. Rename this "American cultural depictions" section to "Demonization".
3. Rename the section "Legacy" to "Tributes".
4. Reorder the sections to: Death, Demonization, Family, Tributes. (I am not sure where "Family" should logically go.)
5. Add the Benedict Arnold Room at the University of New Brunswick to the section "Tributes".
6. Move the mention of the stained glass window in St. Mary's Church to the section "Tributes". (It was recently added to "Death".)

Does this all make sense to people? HairyWombat (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has objected, so time to implement these changes. HairyWombat (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of article

Given the amount of childish vandalism this article is subjected to, is it time to apply for indefinite semi-protection? This would prevent edits by anonymous users, but still allow edits by people with accounts. If so, a non-admin can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. HairyWombat (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Later. So impressed by overwhealming support that I went ahead anyway. Did this when I discovered that it had been going on for over three years (I only looked back that far). Request is here. HairyWombat (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Silence implies assent :). The vandalism on this and other popular Rev War articles tends to be somewhat cyclic, according to when things tend to be taught in American primary schools; the need for permanent semi-protection is not something I personally feel strongly about. Often, applying the protection for 1-3 months is sufficient. (Yes, it's been bad recently. They're also somewhat busy over at Battles of Saratoga.) Magic♪piano 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Command vs Treason

A recent edit changed the section title from "Command at West Point" to "Treason at West Point". Is that actually more clear? Is it more factual? Is it supported by reliable sourcing? Before I revert back to the origianl, I would like to see what the consensus would be for either choice. Tide rolls (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit appears (in the context of the editor's other changes) to be at least partly POV-pushing Tedickey (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the original title. I consider it less POV...I could be wrong. Input invited. Tide rolls (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Yes. Vidor (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm - someone who hasn't read through your edit history might be misled to believe that you were agreeing with him, since that would be the only reasonable response. Tedickey (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No sir! I'm merely answering his questions. Is that actually more clear? Yes, because it accurately describes Arnold's actions, whereas "Command at West Point" is a weasel phrase that in fact leaves anyone looking at the table of contents with no idea of the significance of that time in his life. Is it more factual? Yes, because Arnold, a general officer in the army of the United States, sworn to uphold that nation and its government, conspired with the enemy. Is it supported by reliable sourcing? Yes! Every single biographical source written about Arnold over the course of two hundred years notes that he plotted with the British to hand over the fort and the soldiers under his charge. There was a little more going on than "Command at West Point", as the weasel heading would have it. (In fact, someone new to Arnold's story would have no idea where to go to read the story of his treason, and would have to hunt through the article to find it, since the weasel heading obscures the events of 1780. Vidor (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, Arnold commanded at a lot of places. He commanded at Quebec. He commanded at Montreal. Commanded at Ticonderoga. At Valcour Island. At Philadelphia. At Saratoga, where he commanded half the American army. For that matter he commanded at various locations after switching sides. Yet one particular section of the article is headed "Command at West Point"? Vidor (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, now that I think about it, there's a distinction between switching sides, i.e. defection, and treason. Defection is the act of switching sides. James Veneris and James Joseph Dresnok were defectors. Those people changed allegiances but did not plot against the United States while under oath to defend them. Treason is the betrayal of a trust, as Arnold attempted to do when plotting to hand over the fort and soldiers under his command, or working to overthrow the government to which one owes allegiance, as Arnold did when conspiring against the United States after swearing an oath to defend them. "Command at West Point" is descriptive of nothing but a location. "Treason at West Point" accurately describes Arnold's actions. If "Treason at West Point" is uncomfortable, please suggest another heading that more accurately describes the events in the section. Vidor (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps The Arnold-Andre conspiracy Tedickey (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vidor..thanks for taking the time to bring your discussion to the Talk page. You haven't convinced me that your version is actually the way to go, but I do appreciate your points. I am a bit dismayed at your choice of "deliberately" in your edit comment. Please rest assured, my intent was never to "obscure"...neutrality was my goal. Tide rolls (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What I get from reading Vidor's response is that the reader has to be told what to think, since they're incapable of doing so themselves. Tedickey (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand what he's trying to get across. My concern is that the "treason" happened while West Point was under his "Command". As for (In fact, someone new to Arnold's story would have no idea where to go to read the story of his treason, and would have to hunt through the article to find it,....the article is meant to be read...isn't it? And the characterization of "Command" as "weasal wording" and obscuring is inaccurate (to be kind) Tide rolls (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The information that Vidor has to "hunt" through the article is in the second sentence of the lede. It would be nice if the table of contents were more visible, e.g., by moving it after the first paragraph. The other paragraphs before "Early Life" while useful overview get in the way of seeing the topic's structure. Tedickey (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD) I had a similar impression on the layout, but I thought it might be my browser's fault. In any case I do not possess the technical proficiency to address that issue. I'll leave that for the brighter bulbs :) Tide rolls (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The other day, using a different browser, I seem to recall seeing that the table of contents was immediately visible (but it is not convenient at the moment...). But changing it is simple - see Help:Magic words and Help:Section (I recall seeing __TOC__ before, but found it now using a search ;-) Tedickey (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. Tide rolls (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

the reader has to be told what to think Not at all. But a headline should be accurate and descriptive, and not deliberately obscufatory. I would note, BTW, that Tedickey has made no positive case here for titling the section "Command at West Point", and has made no response to what I wrote above, and has not attempted to rebut the known facts that Arnold did swear an oath of allegiance to the United States, and was in fact entrusted with the fort at West Point while serving in a Continental uniform, and that such meets the dictionary defintion of treason. Will such a response be forthcoming? Vidor (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

probably not, since I'm not arguing about the facts, but the manner in which they are presented. Tedickey (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if it's deemed necessary I'd be fine with The Arnold-Andre Conspiracy or perhaps Conspiracy with the British. Vidor (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Andre is fairly well-known in this context (perhaps better known than the location - here google finds twice as many hits for "benedict arnold" andre as for "benedict arnold" "west point") Tedickey (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This question didn't seem to have been resolved and the article still read "treason", so I have returned it to read the more neutral "command". Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what the opponents of the use of the word "treason" are arguing against. Are you arguing that Arnold's behavior does not satisfy the definition of treason, or something else? I don't see where anyone has really rebutted Vidor's point above.

The content of that section deals almost entirely with Arnold's conspiracy and its exposure. If the section actually discussed his command activities (like, say, him ordering various troop movements or ordering and distribution of supplies, corresponding with Washington and others), the title "Command at..." might be meaningful. As the section currently stands, it is misnamed.

I also think that if the section heading is changed to omit the word "treason", it should not mention Andre directly, since that would imply Andre was the principal actor on the British side. Clinton was the one Arnold was really conspiring with; Andre was one of the intermediaries. A suggested title that does not use "treason": "Plot to surrender West Point". Magic♪piano 13:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not rebutting Vidor's point because I am not arguing that treason was not committed. Repeating myself, the "treason" took place while Arnold "Commanded West Point". It's more of a style issue for me. That's why I have not reverted the heading again. I have not changed my view on the matter, though. "Treason" in the heading seems less neutral. Tide rolls (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does it "seem" less neutral? (I'm still confused.) If it's just a style thing, why argue the point?

The section actually says that the dialogue with Clinton began before Arnold assumed command at West Point. (I don't have access to sources right now to confirm or deny this.) The incident that exposed the treachery clearly happened while he was in command. Please also address my comment that the section deals only with the conspiracy, and not with other activities related to his command of the fort. Magic♪piano 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm not going to keep posting the same explanation for my POV. If it's not clear to you, I can accept that. Tide rolls (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A few facts for you: April 1779 Arnold first writes to Clinton, Arnold actively seeks out Washington, and is assigned to West Point July 31, 1780, same page, he spends the next six weeks gutting the fort's garrison. The plot is unmasked September 23 (do the math). Arnold's command of West Point is a subplot to his treachery, not the other way around. Is "Plot to surrender West Point" acceptable as a section heading? (I can write more of this early plotting into the article.) Magic♪piano 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally still favour "command at West Point", but "plot to Surrender West Point" would work as well. Treason is probably a word best avoided, particularly in headers, as it gives undue weight to one POV. Genrally from what I've read Arnold considered his action a return to his previous alleigance (having served in the French and Indian Wars) rather than a betrayal of his new. He considered his "treason" to have taken place when he joined the rebellion. While Arnold's actions in 1780 do fit the definition of treason, Washingtons actions in taking up command of forces besieiging Boston in 1775 equally fits that definition. It's worth mentioning in the Legacy section that he has been accused of "treason", but use in a header its straining NPOV a bit too far.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to abondon "Command" either, but "Plot to Surrender" is much more neutral than treason. Magicpiano, fuller development of the early plotting could be interesting to see. Tide rolls (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, especially Cornwallis, for explaining your view of treason. I would question whether Washington actually committed treason against the Crown: was he a sworn active-duty officer of the British Army when he took command of the Continental Army (rhetorical question: answer is no)? Vidor above points out the difference between defection and treason. If Washington betrayed something that had been entrusted to him by the British (e.g. the command of a military unit, or other authority to act on behalf of the Crown), then it seems a British charge of treason would be appropriate. If Arnold did not want to be viewed as a traitor, he should have resigned his American commission.

I will (in due course, probably not before next week sometime), fill in some more of the plot, once I find an acceptable source or two to reliably document it. I think that Cornwallis' observation on Arnold's view of treason also deserves space in the article, assuming it can also be sourced well (probably in the Legacy). Magic♪piano 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington certainly risked being hung as a traitor had the British won. As Ben Franklin put it, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." However, Washington made no pretense of loyalty to Britain when the revolution began. When Arnold changed sides, he did so without openly changing sides, still wearing the American uniform and feigning loyalty to the American side.--RLent (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He was a traitor when he allied himself with the rebels but when they aligned themselves with the French and other enemies of the British Crown he reverted to being a loyal citizen. The problem is if Arnold had reverted via the proper channels he'd have been hung before he made it to the British. Can you imagine Washington et al.'s faces upon reading Dear Sir I am hereby resigning my commission in the treasonous army of the rebellion and intend to once more serve the crown to the fullest of my capacity. Yours sincerely, Benedict Arnold :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.54 (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rats the post changes I made don't seem to have taken. Washington & Co were traitors to Crown & Country. Arnold joined them in treason but reverted to being a loyal citizen. His method may have been intended to maximise effect and also prove his intentions but does not constitute treason, at least not outside a narrow USA interpretation of history. At the time of the rebellion Britain was the only crown and country in North America to betray barring the Indians. 118.208.167.54 (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions I don't see where you've attempted to edit the article, so I am unable to comment on this point. However, the POV of the term "treason" has been discussed previously in this thread with your POV being one of the reasons it's being avoided; that which constitutes treason is a matter of perspective. Also, Spain had extensive colonial representation in North America during the Revolution and Russian interests had founded a colony in Alaska three years prior to the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Regards Tiderolls 14:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User 118's observation could be described as a "narrow British interpretation" of the affair. One man (or country's) treason is another's patriotism. If you cannot see that treason could be committed against the Congress and what it represented, it is you whose view needs widening. I actually understand the viewpoint you present -- I just happen to disagree with it. Arnold took no oaths to the Crown, which withdrew its protection from the colonies in August 1775. It is (weakly, IMHO) arguable that commissions issued before then by Congress and provincial assemblies constitute treason or rebellion, by the act of subverting or ignoring the legitimate rule of the royal governors; it is (again, IMHO) not possible to argue they are actionably treasonable afterwards. What are you to do if you are disowned by your own government? On the other hand, Arnold did take an oath at Valley Forge, he held a senior military commission, and was given a position of authority at West Point. His actions arguably violated the trust represented by all of these things. Magic♪piano 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been massively improved and rewritten since this first came up, it now qualifies the use of the word treason. As Magicpiano and Tiderolls have said it is a matter of perspective. A direct accusation of treason in either this or the Washington article would be wrong. Treason is a specific crime, and it requires a country to betray. I suspect with both men a legal case could have been made against them for treason, but wasn't in either case. Arnold ceirtainly presented himself returning to his previous loyalty, rather betraying his new nation - and in the context of the debate of when America was created (1776 or 1783 or possibly earlier) this is a valid viewpoint, amongst several others. As best as WP can, it should try to balance between those views which I think this article does rather well. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold was very brave

General Benedict Arnold, was very brave. I mean he could have been killed! I would have fainted if I had been there. Seeing your husband dieing would just be to much for me so I will not be in the army when I'm grown up, and even if General Benedict Arnold, was a Morman GeneralGeorge Washington was a christian and prayed every day. General Benedict Arnold, had to obey General Washington.

Over and out,

Jessica Marie Overtoom Age 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.241.120 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Um...are you allowed to delete useless comments?  :) —LaserWraith (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Jessica's comment is vandalism, but I'm not sure it needs a response, either. Magic♪piano 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jessica, yes, Benedict Arnold was in fact, in all likelihood, obeying General Washington, throughout his treacherous career, from Fort Ticonderoga on, which is exactly why this article, and all the other aspects of the American origin myth story on Wikipedia, are so jealously guarded by these latter day loyalists. All pretty confusing? I know. Look, do you know those TV science fiction shows where people 'go to the past'? Well, maybe in your lifetime you may see machines built that can do just that, go to the past, so to speak, and take pictures. When that happens there will be no more secrets, and yes, history will be less fun, but more useful. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.121.162 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why turned traitorous?

The section about the beginning of Arnold's plotting with the British could use some info on Why he became a traitor. Such as: in debt, thought he didn't get enough respect/honors, etc. —LaserWraith (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is difficult, because the exact reasons are not clear (he says having read the better part of a half dozen bios of the man). There does not appear to be any obvious "tipping point" event, although the opening of the secret negotiations does happen not long after he marries Peggy Shippen, and the issue of yet another inquiry looms. The best one could do here is to go through the various theories put forward by a selection of his biographers. You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions from what is known about his life, but that's not exactly Wikipedia fare. Magic♪piano 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

Many, many of the references are to the same few books. The references are overloaded with multiple entries for the same citations. Would it be a good idea to consolidate these using {{rp}} template, so that <ref name="Brandt7">[[#Brandt|Brandt (1994)]], p. 7</ref> would become <ref name="Brandt">[[#Brandt|Brandt (1994)]]</ref>{{rp|7}} Or would that clutter the body of the article too much? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had negative feedback in formal reviews (e.g. WP:FAC) on the use of {{rp}}; I don't use it for that reason. Also, few people seem to object to long lists of citation endnotes in articles. Magic♪piano 13:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Revolutionary War

I'm not sure where to add this but why is there no mention of his actions in Quebec? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbee.girl (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

see the section named "Early Revolutionary War". It's already mentioned, along with links to expanded discussion Tedickey (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox synch

The contents of {{Infobox military person}} for the various members of the Benedict Arnold family of articles need to be synchronized as each contains slightly different information.

• Benedict Arnold
• Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1775–1776
• Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1777–1779
• Military career of Benedict Arnold, 1781

Thx — MrDolomite • Talk 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

is this correct?

"Congress investigated his accounts, and found that he owed it money after he had spent much of his own money on the war effort. "

should it be they owed him? if he spent his own money on the war effort why would he owe congress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.39.39 (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is actually correct. Funding of military operations often came out of an officer's pocket, but he also received hard or paper currency through official channels. The officer was supposed to account for his expenditures. If he could not justify expenditures in excess of the officially received funds, he was found to owe money to the government. This is what happened to Arnold -- many of his papers for the Canadian campaign were taken or destroyed in the Battle of Valcour Island, so he could not justify his claimed expenses. Magic♪piano 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Legacy / monuments

It may be notable that there is at least one marker in the US that bears his name. A plaque in downtown Danvers, Massachusetts commemorates the stop that his expedition made there on their way to Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.240.165 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a source for this then it could go into the Tributes section. HairyWombat 04:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Later. I found a couple of sources, and one of them points to a further four markers. I will add these to the Tributes section. HairyWombat 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing not mentioned here (I added it to Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec) is the "Arnold Trail to Quebec" listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Magic♪piano 00:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Signature

I don't see any evidence that the signature image that's been used is actually his signature. His true signature is on this oath he signed, and it looks quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.114.206 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Good eyes! Looking at the image included it appears to have been traced from this page which makes it seem like a label rather than his signature. I'll ask the user who originally traced it to make the image here, but it seems safe to say that the signature you found is the correct one. If I have a chance I'll try to trace it in the next few days. a13ean (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The decoration under the signature was something common from what I know back in those days, and IMO the one I traced is pretty close minus that. But feel free to add the other one, I'll admit that my image was a but poorly done. – Connormah (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the svg looks good, we're just not sure if the text in the source image is a signature or just a label. a13ean (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Harvard's Benedict Arnold papers collection have numerous specimens of authenticated Arnold signatures, if anyone has the skills and time to convert these to a nice image file. Examples:

• http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/24226984
• http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/24226995?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no
• http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/24227002?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no
• http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/24227003

My favorite of these four is the last one. There are another 20 or so documents from Arnold there in addition to these; I just grabbed the first four. TJRC (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is indebted to whom?

The third paragraph includes the following: "Congress investigated his accounts and found that he was indebted to Congress after spending much of his own money on the war effort." If Arnold spent his own money on the war effort, isn't Congress indebted to him, rather than the other way around?

John Link (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, that's how it works. In practice, if you can't prove to Congress you spent your own money, it might just come to a different conclusion (as in, you spent its money on things it didn't authorize). Magic♪piano 18:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Court Martial

The article says he was convicted on two minor charges. Does anyone know of a source that goes into the court martial in more detail?That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benedict Arnold. 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/20091106151343/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/sara/s-act.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/sara/s-act.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

Benedict Arnold came up with the idea of faking death after seeing a skunk play dead when he walked towards it. Source: WikiHow 98.23.105.190 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as WikiHow is not a reliable source to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

British vs. American English

Should Arnold's article be in British or American English? While its obvious in some cases what should be used, say William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe or George Washington, this is more problematic when it comes to Americans fighting for the Crown or British/Irish fighting for Independence (and there were a lot) as they could be claimed by either country.

IMHO, I've always considered it to be linked to their choice of nations. (eg. Charles Lee, John Paul Jones or Horatio Gates should be in American English despite their British birth given their obvious preference for independence while Joseph Galloway, William Franklin and Oliver De Lancey showed their support for the Crown and became fully British by their residence in that country. Its also possible Benedict Arnold is the exception to the rule: given that he is far better known in the US than in Britain, he could be considered a more American than British topic. On the other hand, he made a concious choice to fight for Britain during the war, and later settled there. Many of his children served in the British military and considered themselves indisputably British. It seems that some sort of criteria needs to be established in this and other similar cases.

Obviously, this is all complicated by the fact that the seperation of national identiy was a tricky issue at the time. Phineas Lyman, for instance, likely died considering himself both British and American. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's sufficiently ambiguous from a contemporary perspective that either would be acceptable (just like ARW events can be written either way). Slight bias toward American, however, because most of his legacy appears to reside here. Magic♪piano 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Benedict was born in America, grew up in America, and spent a good portion of his career in America. Te article should be in American English. Some Random Whovian (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Benedict Arnold is literally used to call someone a traitor in the US, which is the basis for his notability in the US. Elsewhere he's a footnote of history. "Common topic" logic suggests we use American spellings. That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

weird sentence

Arnold received a commission as a brigadier general in the British Army, an annual pension of £360, and a lump sum of over £6,000.[4] He led British forces on raids in Virginia, and nearly captured Thomas Jefferson, and against New London and Groton, Connecticut, before the war effectively ended with the American victory at Yorktown. In the winter of 1782, Arnold moved to London with his second wife, Margaret "Peggy" Shippen Arnold. He was well received by King George III and the Tories but frowned upon by the Whigs. In 1787, he entered into mercantile business with his sons Richard and Henry in Saint John, New Brunswick, but returned to London to settle permanently in 1791, where he died ten years later.

JKshaw (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, fixed. Magic♪piano 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

wrong the date was wrong  he was born 1741 and died on 1801 so all the dates were wrong.

The surname Arnold should be removed from the Peggy Shippen link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.141.151 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benedict Arnold. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1690079360/Letter-Some-recognize-Gen-Arnold-as-true-hero-of-the-Revolutionary-War
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405211224/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1967/6/1967_6_16.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1967/6/1967_6_16.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201164601/http://www.ushistory.org/Valleyforge/served/arnold.html to http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/arnold.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: 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) 00:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

"eventually died in 1761" would not be in the past tense if "in 1761 he would die". also it would be in natural order since the year you have to be in before you can die in that year. 2605:E000:9161:A500:F8FF:295F:5705:F1CE (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Simpsons Jury of the Damned

It should be noted that Richard Nixon was not dead at the time of that episode's first airing96.3.56.173 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

   ... So the 2nd Southern belle replies, "Well, mah husband really loves me, too, so what he bought ME was etiquette lessons, where they taught me how to say 'My, my, my!' instead of 'Fuck you, bitch!' "
--Jerzy•t 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"The Fifth"????

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the subject was ever known in his own time as "Benedict Arnold V"? I have removed this anachronistic syntax, and I don't think it should be replaced without clear evidence that it is appropriate to Arnold's time. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

   I construe that as a note from a genius-in-one's-own-mind who thinks random others besides King George V deserve a number in their names.
--Jerzy•t 19:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

In the Popular Culture section, please add a reference to the song "Real Niggaz" by N.W.A and No Vaseline by Ice Cube. The gangsta rap group N.W.A. put out a diss track including the line “We started out wit too much cargo, so I’m glad we got rid of Benedict Arnold.” calling Ice Cube (lyricist and rapper) a traitor after he left the group due to financial disagreement and put out solo album AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted. After hearing the track, Ice Cube fired back with the well known diss track, No Vaseline, which included a lyric aimed at Dr Dre, "Ay yo Dre, stick to producin'. Callin' me Arnold, but you Been-a-dick;".

198.232.187.14 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

References

This possibly can be countered with WP:IINFO or WP:UNDUE. The page is watched by 250+ editors; if the edit has not been made, perhaps some folks can quantify. Toggling as answered — Andy W. (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

   While i don't care to grasp what's at issue, i find that the "Taa" response is excessively dismissively jargon. Toggle as a verb is engineering cant, for throwing a 2-position switch. In this case my colleague's opinion is that 198.'s request has gotten all the attention it IHO deserves (regardless of whether or not an objective, rather than subjective change of state, has been made). Without grasping the details, i'm inclined to assume Andy W. was offended by the request, and intended to give offense in return. (I've "got no dog in this fight", but i infer AW intended to give offense over a request AW felt had been unwarranted.)
--Jerzy•t 20:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Siblings

I just reverted a change in the birth and death dates in the sentence "His siblings were, in order of birth: Benedict (August 15, 1738 – April 30, 1739), Hannah (December 9, 1742 – August 11, 1803), Mary (June 4, 1745 – September 10, 1753), Absolom (April 4, 1747 – July 22, 1750), and Elizabeth (November 19, 1749 – September 29, 1755)." Lwoodiii had amended the dates for the first of these to Arnold's own birth and death dates. Since parents sometimes named subsequent children after a sibling that had already died (e.g. Salvadore Dali) I wonder if this was also the case here? A discussion here (though not a reliable source, which I'm the first to admit) suggests that this was not an entirely uncommon practice. (My apologies if I made a mistaken assumption!) JezGrove (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

   Kudos for what sounds like an admirable catch! Would anyone who learns whether we discuss, underanother topic, instances of such a practice, make note of that both here and at a more longterm-suitable place, please? (Shift of topic, but loving P. D. Q. Bach is not the only reason for attention to J. S. Bach and his many brothers also named Johann.)
--Jerzy•t 21:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the PDQ reply! JezGrove (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This Link Should be Allowed (www.benedictarnold.info)

I keep posting links to www.benedictarnold.info because I believe it's at least as informative as 90% of the Arnold sites on the web. For example, the ushistory.org link is allowed, yet that page looks like a fan site, is hosted by the "Independence Hall Association" which doesn't guarantee a lack of bias and takes advertising money, and doesn't provide more or better information. Yes, www.benedictarnold.info is a pro-Arnold site, but why should that disqualify it as a *link*? I'm not trying to post any of the actual material from the site--just a link. What is so horrible about a link with a different point of view?

Although one editor who deleted my link reached out to me, four other editors deleted without comment, and until now I didn't know how to plead my case. Deleting the link simply because of the sub-head "The Story You Were Never Taught in School" is unfair. The fact is: all that is taught about Arnold in high school and lower grades is his treason. People are largely ignorant of his important contributions to the American revolution. Without him, it would have failed. It's that simple, but never taught, and www.benedictarnold.info is the result of many months of research. I've read every book on www.benedictarnold.info's "Books" page (which I could have listed as a bibliography), and many articles. If you'd read all the books on the "Books" page, I'd bet you'd allow the link.

www.benedictarnold.info is not a fan site.

Thank you. MrPal1 (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Independence Hall Association, which operates ushistory.org, is non-profit organization affiliated with Independence Hall in Philadelphia, so it's not just a fan site some random person set up. A better extant link to attack would have been usahistory.info, which (like your site) has no obvious affiliation. I have scrubbed that and a number of other unsuitable and/or stale links from the list.

Your link is not being rejected because you're a supporter of Arnold, or because it has a "different" point of view; it's being rejected because it is editorially inappropriate (as you notice, in the opinion of several regular editors here), and doesn't (in my opinion) add something new and distinctive of value that isn't already here. Wikipedia has (largely because of me) a fairly thorough treatment of Arnold's positive contributions to the war effort. (And yes, I've read most of the non-fiction books on your book list, plus some that aren't on it.) Magic♪piano 18:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I thought that since "Wikipedia's articles provide links designed to guide the user to related pages with additional information," you would include mine as a matter of integrity. Then, too, Wikipedia claims that "anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism." Intriguing that you consider my contribution "disruptive."

MrPal1 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You might consider reading the guidelines relevant to your reply: WP:AGF and WP:NPA --TEDickey (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC) & Jerzy•t 21:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

   Not all WP conventions are as well thot thru as the --~~~~ one for sigs, but right now, i can't recall a situation that cried out for my tampering with a defective sig, as i just did above. Hubristically compensating for your hubris, i remain --Jerzy•t 21:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to shout. I did not call your edits disruptive, User:North Shoreman did. I happen to disagree with him on that (snarky yes, disruptive no), but it's also off my point. Everyone is allowed to edit, but this does not mean that all material added is retained (see Wikipedia discussion pages and edit histories on any moderately controversial subject; what you're doing his hardly unique). External links are a recurring problem, because lots of them are added for promotional purposes. Since you have not yet made a case that your site is somehow distinctive per the external links guidelines, or that "the author" (you are this anonymous author claiming copyright on the site, yes?) is some recognized authority, there is no particular reason to include it. Magic♪piano 14:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Your www.ushistory.org link has about a tenth of the material of www.benedictarnold.info. Where ushistory.org has a paragraph, benedictarnold.info has ten, and they are just as well-researched. So, which is more "distinctive"? The answer is obvious, and the ushistory.org link should be replaced by the benedictarnold.info link.

MrPal1 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Volume of content doesn't enter into it. There is also no evidence of the research that went into your site, since you don't actually credit your sources. (For example, I was unable to find even a statement saying that the books listed on the book page were used in preparation of the site.) For all we know, you may have just rewritten and repackaged much of the content of the site from Wikipedia. Magic♪piano 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A kingdom ruled by little tin gods will not last.

MrPal1 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

In the first sentence of the fourth para in the lede, pls change

"Arnold mingled with Loyalist sympathizers in Philadelphia and married into one such family, to vivacious young Peggy Shippen"

to

"Arnold mingled with Loyalist sympathizers in Philadelphia and married into one such family by marrying Peggy Shippen."

"Vivacious" is a dubious and subjective characterisation. "Young" is an unnecessary term when the point being made relates to Arnold's changing allegience not his proclivities. It seems to be little more than an attempt to color the reader's judgement. She was two months shy of her 19th birthday when she married, certainly not young by the prevailing standards of the society in which she lived.

Similarly, in the section "Plotting to change sides", pls change

"The Shippen family was one of them, and he married their vivacious young daughter Peggy"

to

"The Shippen family was one of them, and he married their daughter Peggy"

Same reasoning as above.

Thx 121.44.184.234 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Happy to help. 121.44.184.234 (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Confusing name

so, his fathers name is Benedict Arnold but he’s named after his great grandfather, also Benedict Arnold? The Time to Llama is Now (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

I understand Arnold will be a touchy subject for Americans, but the introduction here is somewhat lacking in neutrality. Before Arnold was a traitor to the American Revolution he was a hero of the American Revolution, but you wouldn’t know that from the lead sentence. And before the was a Brigadier-General in the British Army he was a Major General in the American, so (per MILHIST#Biographies) the lead should convey the highest rank (in his case, both of them) that he achieved. The lead was changed from a fairly stable (and pretty neutral) version in May; I've changed it back, and added some detail to round it out. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

In the first paragraph "General George Washington had given him his fullest trust and placed him in command of the West Point, New York", the "the" is superfluous, or "West Point" requires further elaboration, e.g. "the West Point Fort, New York". Zumbruk (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. If someone wants to change the wording to elaborate on the fort, feel free to do so. For now I just removed the superfluous "the". PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section

I feel that the "Popular Culture" section could be heavily pruned and folded into the "Infamy in the United States" section. "The Cruel Boy" could be condensed to a sentence. While Benet's short story, "The Devil and Daniel Webster" is worth a sentence, I have a hard time seeing that episodes of The Brady Bunch, Scooby Doo, and Fairly Oddparents rise to the level of notability. As for the Simpson's Tree House episode, it's a parody of Benet's story, not an independent evoking of Arnold; it therefore reads as derivative and repetitive. The whole thing reads like a disguised trivia section, and most of it is unsourced.

I suggest that we remove everything that does not have a secondary source which establishes its significance, in accord with the Wikipedia:In Popular Culture essay. As the resultant section would be quite brief, I further suggest that it be incorporated into the "Infamy in the United States" section, since that is what these pop culture references illustrate. Schoolmann (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, maybe you can find more positive examples (or less "infamous" ones...) and sources for them... Drmies (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe the person who thought a Pop Culture section was necessary could do that. Personally, I think that "Infamy in the United States" is the pop culture position on Benedict Arnold. Maybe few notable examples could be found because Arnold hasn't been that much of a pop culture figure for a long time.Schoolmann (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You’d be surprised. Remember the sports figure who changed teams a few years ago? Several aggrieved fans sent him $17.41, that being the date of Arnold’s birth(in most accounts). Also, see a few posts above for dueling diss tracks by N.W.A. and Ice Cube involving Arnold. And I have seen visiting families from the US stop at Major Andre’s memorial in Westminster Abbey, where the kids get an explanation of the difference between a man who did his duty as he saw it, and someone like Arnold. The thing lives. 2600:1010:B045:92A9:BCEA:2714:4CB5:DBAB (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Defected ?

How could Arnold defect to the British Army when Arnold was infact a British citizen born in colonial America ? Britain did not recognize the United States until 1783 after the Revolutionary War ended. One could argue that Arnold regained his British citizenship by joining the British military after defecting to the Continental Army. Weren't American's in actuality rebelling against the British government ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, to defect is to "abandon one cause, party, or nation for another". Regardless of one's opinion on the citizenship status of the American Patriots (and, after 4 July 1776, Britain wasn't the only country that got a say in that), that's exactly what Arnold did. Also Britain didn't have citizens in the eighteenth century; she had subjects. Binabik80 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Arnold defected from England when he sided with the Americans, for that matter so did Washington. Since Arnold repatriated back to being an English subject, how can he then be said to have defected from the Americans ? I suppose one could say Arnold defected from Britian to America and then defected from America to Britain. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is another view. Washington could be considered a traitor to King George or committing treason against King George. And so could Arnold when he was in Washington's Army. One could say rather then defection that Arnold stopped committing treason. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

One could say that, yes. But the important question here is, do reliable sources say it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicpiano (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think what is objected to is his mercenary attitude to treason. However it is defined, no one likes that. In addition to Burke’s remarks, noted in the article, it would be good to put in the attempt by some to have him address Parliament. It failed, because many members threatened to walk out if Arnold appeared in the House. Properly sourced, this could improve the article. 2600:1010:B045:92A9:BCEA:2714:4CB5:DBAB (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal out of this. I put in the article a sourced edit that Arnold was born a British subject. I did think it was worth discussion. I was trying to make the article neutral. I am not condoning Arnold's defection of Washingtion or the Revolutionary cause. I don't even know if historians have even discussed whether the colonists were "rebels", "traitors", or "revolutionaries". There were no birth certificates back then and so nationality seemed to be only determined by where you were born and who your parents were. Cromwell probably started the first "revolution". Washington started the second "revolution". This is only for discussion. Yes. Any edits in the article need to be sourced. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a 2016 book out by Nathaniel Philbrick, Valiant Ambition George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution This might be a good source addition to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Components

Severfal choices of words seem to reflect a negative attitude towards Arnold that is decidedly inappropriate. I have removed the word "cunning" and replaced it wiht th emore neutral "intelligent". Also Arnold was first recommended for command at West Point before his negotiations with Clinton, so it seems NPOV to suggest that treason was his only reason for wanting commmand at West Point. Imersion (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Arnold opened communication with Clinton in June 1779. The discussion in which Schuyler mentions the idea of giving Arnold West Point takes place in April 1780, well after Clinton's interest is established. Is there some other discussion of it (not mentioned here) that you are referring to? Magic♪piano 19:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Further to this, the article still refers to Arnold's "plot", "scheme" etc — language that, in describing a less controversial figure, might be reasonably regarded as fair, but here smacks of editorialisation. — Muckapedia (talk) 12^e nov. 2014 11h23 (−4h)

Must be researched. What did Arnold have in mind when he sought the command of West Point? Source, and describe. 2600:1010:B045:92A9:BCEA:2714:4CB5:DBAB (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Old Style?

The change to the Gregorian Calendar jumped the year ahead eleven days. If Arnold’s birthday is now 14 January 1741, th Old Style version should be 03 January 1741. It appears here as 03 January 1740. Why 1740? Is this a mistake, or was it set down so in the record cited and later found to be incorrect, or what? Clarity needed. 2600:1010:B045:92A9:BCEA:2714:4CB5:DBAB (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a footnote explaining why. (The new year started in March in the Old Style.) Magic♪piano 02:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So 1740 in the Julian calendar used in the colonies overlapped the 1741 in the Gregarian for three months? –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's why you sometimes see dates written with two years ("1740/41") in period works, because Britain was comparatively late in getting on the Gregorian bandwagon as compared to other European countries (although not as late as Russia...), and it needed to be clear which year it really was. Magic♪piano 23:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Williams, Paulding and Van Wert

These three captured Andre, foiling Arnold's plot and were quite celebrated at the time. Several accounts of their actions, contrasting them to Arnold, exist, and citations from them could add to the article. Indirectly, it all shows how important Arnold's plot was to contemporaries. Another example is that by Act of Congress three counties in the new (1803) State of Ohio were named after them. This was a generation later. 2600:1010:B01D:F356:986A:7E14:7226:E89B (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance

Is the statement that Arnold was present for the first Oath of Allegiance relevant? He was one of many who did so, and it probably wouldn't warrant mention for many of the others. If his later defection is ignored, would that sentence belong in the article? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The information is factual and cited. It would be perfectly appropriate for any biographical article. I would find it strange if, for example, George Washington took part in the oath, but it were omitted from his article. There is simply no reason to exclude this sentence. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Synonymous?

I'd never heard of him before an episode of Big Bang Theory.

I suggest the words

"after which his name became synonymous with treason and betrayal."

Be removed.

The thesaurus referred to here does not support this florid idea. 2A02:A455:19AE:1:E8D3:5DA0:4199:ADCC (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)dutchdavey.

2A02:A455:19AE:1:E8D3:5DA0:4199:ADCC (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

he's in all the history books but only a few TV shows. Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The commenter might also read the entire article, rather than just the lead, particularly the Legacy section, which expounds in detail on the idea. Magic♪piano 20:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

In the "In Popular Culture" section to add the following:

Benedict Arnold has been referrenceed in the novel, Peace Like a River, as being a triator. TaylorBurke444 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that the novel in question is Peace Like a River, this is a trivial mention at most. The book has nothing to do with Arnold or his life(time). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

Benedict Arnold is the main character in the short story written by Louis , L’Amour, “Meeting at Falmouth” published in the collected short stories of Louis L’Amour, Volume 4, Bantam books 2006 2601:483:480:98D0:0:0:0:25AD (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

To add to ‘in popular culture’: Roger Sterling refers to Joan Harris as ‘Benedict Joan’ in S7(A)E7 of ‘Mad Men’, as a reference to Benedict Arnold due to his perception of betrayal in her voting to remove Don Draper from the board 2A00:23EE:1509:7DD5:10A9:E862:B20B:28D6 (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide secondary sourcing for this to demonstrate that it is a noteworthy example in popular culture. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold was a traitor

Reliable sources say Arnold is a traitor, and only a small minority of sources dispute that assertion. This minority opinion is already proportionately represented in the article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 07:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Consider this: if Arnold had been captured, he probably would have suffered the same fate as his co-conspirator, John André. By your argument, André was also not a traitor. Whether or not *you* think Arnold was or was not a traitor is actually irrelevant -- he understood what he had done, and what its consequences could be, which is why he fled. (And the United States considered itself a country well before the current constitution was ratified.) Magic♪piano 17:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"Article 3 sec 3 of the Constitution" Which constitution? It is unclear from the context. Dimadick (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold wasn't the traitor, it was the Rebels who were the traitors, they were British subjects only a few generations removed from living in England and they considered themselves British and instead of supporting their native country, Great Britain, they betrayed the British and fought to give the United States independence when it didn't even belong to them. The United States belongs to the Native Americans not the Europeans. 95.151.194.14 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Treason is a point of view, I suppose. Was Quisling a traitor? Not all points of view are equally valuable, though. Such as the one about the Indians owning America, when they lived outside it. In any case, this unbalanced person will not change the view that Arnold was a traitor. Nor that he was an unsavory, mercenary traitor, not even much liked in Britain.2601:647:5800:9120:E906:CA7:BE06:F16D (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

Popular Culture addition

Major General Benedict Arnold was portrayed by Rod Hallett in the 'Outlander' TV series on Starz (Season 7, Episode 8, "Turning Points"). 72.207.38.188 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, for the last paragraph, please remove the words “he was extremely unpopular there” as there are no sources to back this up. 2600:100C:A205:743B:6D76:E1D7:3DC5:3420 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Statements in the lead do not require citation if they are adequately supported in the body of the article, and not particularly controversial. In this case, the body of the article states that he was involved in multiple lawsuits, and that he was burned in effigy (all with suitable citations). If that's not unpopular, I'm not sure what is. I've restored the offending text. If someone really thinks it still needs citation, they can insert references to the existing citations in the body. Magic♪piano 15:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)