|Benedict Arnold has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 1, 2004, June 1, 2005, June 1, 2006, June 1, 2007, June 1, 2008, September 23, 2011, and September 23, 2014.|
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
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) 12e nov. 2014 11h23 (−4h)
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 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 22.214.171.124 (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)
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:
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. 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.
wrong the date was wrong he was born 1741 and died on 1801 so all the dates were wrong.
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.
- 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."
- You might consider reading the guidelines relevant to your reply: WP:AGF and WP:NPA TEDickey (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2015 (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.
- 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.