Talk:Benedict Arnold

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)

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)

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)

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)