Talk:Benedict Arnold/Archive 1

This archive includes threads from Talk:Benedict Arnold from 2003 until December 31st, 2008.

Bias?
The whole treatment of Benedict Arnold in this, as in most other studies, is exceptionally biassed. It assumes, wrongly, that the breach with Britain was the only honorable course open to Americans. It's probable that most people in America wanted to maintain their ties to Britain and were loyal to the King. On that basis, it is the early part of Arnold's life which is regrettable, not his attempts to undo the damage he had done. The great economist Adam Smith was once asked if the United Sates posed a threat to Britain. He replied that it couldn't, because the colonies differ so much that they are obviously ungovernable as a single country. Recent events seem to bear him out.

Eggs Benedict
Hmmm... the "Eggs Benedict" story is at best questionable. The usual story is that the dish was invented at Delmonico's in Manhattan. The Swedish mistress thing could use some verification too, I suspect.... -- Someone else 03:02, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Both in the same edit by an anon IP, I'm guessing it was a joke and took it out. - Hephaestos 03:12, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Good call, I think. A websearch shows that lots of people seem to associate the dish with Mr. Arnold, but best evidence so far suggests it was invented about 1894, when he was long dead, and unearths no evidence that he ever displayed any personal cooking prowess.  Now, if I can get the bonus question ("When was hollandaise sauce invented?").... -- Someone else 03:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Reputation in Canada
I question the legitimacy of Arnold being considered a traitor-turned-patriot in Canada. I reside there and see no evidence of that at all. Oberiko 19:15, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the above. I live in Canada as well, and my generation was taught that in school, that Arnold was a traitor, turned patriot to the British empire.... We were also taught "The sun never sets on the british empire" though.

Please check the history of Arnold in the Beauce area of Quebec where hotel (still existing) is named in his honour. It also the area he resided after the revolution for many years.


 * I have a feeling that's a result of reaching beyond the facts in an attempt to create a NPOV. As another example, the current intro of the article describes Arnold's actions (changing sides for money, selling out his comrades) as "rejoining the British." That's not a NPOV -- that's a euphemism. (And not really accurate, since he was not previously a British officer, so he can't "rejoin" them.) Set aside the American POV, and even by British military standards of the day, in which honor was highly regarded, Arnold's actions were in no way honorable. The British and Canadians may have found Arnold useful, but not respectable. --Kevin Myers 05:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bias 2
Also, this article has a clear american bias.

Referring to the 7 Years War, as it was known internationally, vs. the "French and Indian War" which is the american designation.

Benedict Arnold is not "best known" for plotting to surrender a fort to the british outside of america.
 * The "French and Indian War" and the "7 Years War" are not synonyms. For one thing, the former lasted 9 years (and not just 7). Secondly, it refers specifically to the theater of war in North America - the very theater that is referenced in the article, whereas the latter is a more general term.


 * As to what Benedict Arnold is "best known" for outside the US, I'd say that if people outside the US have heard of him at all it's because of his switching sides during. It's unlikely that people would be familiar with him for other stuff and not that, even if they don't have an opinion about the American Revolution. HowardW Feb 27, 2007.


 * I have to agree with Howard, there is no question that Benedict Arnold is best known for his betrayal. I'm American, and although I personally know of his military success, I know that most people do not, and to be called a Benedict Arnold is an insult not because he was a great military leader...

To suggest Arnold was not a traitor ('one country's traitor is another country's hero') is a patently ludicrous attempt at revisionist history, and is nothing short of claiming that the very concept of treason is illegitimate. That a leftist ideological POV that traitors cleave to, as it gives them the notion that their nefarious treachery is somehow honorable, when it is in fact despicable and dishonorable and always has been. Treason is and always has been one of the lowest, most ignoble pursuits - despite the ardent desire of those who wish to refashion it into the new definition of "patriotism." IT IS NOT WIKI's MISSION TO REVISE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE to soothe the bothered consciences of leftist ideologues. VanBrigglePottery 06:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Benedict Arnold was a traitor, not because he fought for the British, but because he did so after having joined the United States military. Had he resigned from the US military, this would have lessened to some extent his treachery, but he did not, instead, he betrayed his oath while serving as a general. But there is nothing "leftist" about not seeing him as a traitor, what it is is a British perspective.--RLent (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet it is quite true. One side's patriot is annother side's traitor. The important thing to note is that either way he committed treason, he betrayed the British in joining the colonials and the colonials in joining the British. That he is ultimatly a traitor can never be doubted, whether he is somewhat of a 'redeemed traitor' to one side could be debated. Narson 08:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think VanBrigglePottery's point was something else. I turned to this page because I was surprised to discover that Arnold's name did not so much as appear in my son's otherwise exhaustive private school curriculum. I suspect it's no accident. Here in San Francisco, nationalism and patriotism are widely unpopular, regarded as excuses for war. Arnold's case reawakens both feelings and accepts them as good. The familiar phrase, "a Benedict Arnold" is an uncomfortable one for people who, on principle, can always see it the enemy's way; people who feel patriotism is almost akin to racism, just snobbery about one's self.(Don't agree, myself.) It would be interesting to discover if Benedict Arnold is being removed from the curriculum elsewhere. Profhum (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that you can run the arguement that Benedict Arnold was a traitor because he violated his oath to the Continental Army. Many of the leading lights of the Revolution had sworn oaths as members of colonial assemblies to uphold the laws of the King. This was a revolution, which by its very nature includes the breaking of pre-existing oaths. The thing that sets Arnold aside is that he broke the oath of the side that a) won, and b) were the oringal oath-breakers. It is the fact that he changed his mind on account of his treatment by his political enemies that has earned him the epithet of 'traitor'. The founding fathers were traitors in the strict sense, but engaged on this course for good reasons - taxation without representation etc. Arnold shifted his loyalty not through a wave of love for his monarch, but because he was being treated very badly by his political enemies. Thus, despite being a British historian of the American Revolution, I think he deserves the title of traitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockfall (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Was Shippen loyalist?
My understanding is that Shippen herself was probably non-political (though she had a prior relationship with Major Andre). I believe that the Shippen family was considered "neutral" and that she pushed Arnold to treason not out of convinction but ambition.

Also, with respect to Arnold's treatment in England, he was somewhat shunned by the establishment there. --Amcalabrese 16:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since i'm supposedly directly related to Arnold i've read quite a bit about him and all i have read suggests that she was a loyalist, though the family wasn't all that involved in the war. So i seems like your half-right, but so is the article

Query
I've left a query with the recent (IP) editor regarding copyright, as the added text seems similar to - Nunh-huh 03:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just plowed through a history channel documentary on Arnold, and decided to drop on by to enlighten myself a little more. I thought I'd note that Benedict Arnold's grave was (and still is) marked. I also question the suggestion that the British and Canadian colonists regarded him as a patriot after his defection to the British side. His fellow officers in the British army reportedly regarded him with contempt, which is partly why he didn't experience the military success that he had while fighting on the side of the American colonists. Even after the war, when he returned to England, people remained suspicious of him. He recieved a pension from the king for his "efforts", but never really fully integrated into English society (certainly not to the degree he had in the colonies). -- Kyle 09:00, 02/23/05

Battle of Valcour Island
The article says that General Arnold defeated the British at Valcour Island. Unless he fought there on two occasions, I'm fairly sure he suffered a tactical defeat in that battle, being forced to beach his surviving ships in shallow water and strip them of their guns and stores. It could be considered a strategic victory though because the battle and the necessary preperation beforehand delayed the British forces from their planned offensive on Fort Ticonderoga until the next spring, when the Continentals were better prepared to face them. I'll find a cite for it when I can get a hold of the textbook for my friend's naval history class if anyone feels it's needed. -- Phil 10:48, 03/23/05

Invasion of Canada
The invasion of Canada in 1775 should hardly be described as a successful campaign, considering that Benedict Arnold lost most of his army (mostly taken prisoner) was himself wounded, and then lay an unsuccessful siege to Quebec city for a year before having to retreat. -- Another Phil 8:55, 08/03/07

Categorization
This article was previously in dire need of categorizing. Although I'm certain that more can be done in this regard, I have gotten things started by breaking things down a little bit. On that subject, the article also seems somewhat fragmented, in that it tends to jump back and forth when discussing Benedict Arnold's personal life and wartime career. The article should be rewritten so that it has one section devoted to his personal life, while having another that discusses his wartime career and anything particularly relevent to that end. At a later date, if someone doesn't get to it first, I may take the time to restructure the content so that it better maintains its focus. - Ridan Krad 4/2/2005 @ 11:50 PM PST.
 * Looks good - but there's a limit to how much personal & miltary life can be separated with Arnold. Widowed soon after an important military battle & political & personal dispute... met & married a loyalist (while in command) who then connected him with Andre... upset about being passed over for promotion... in debt & wanting to impress his new wife... --JimWae 08:03, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Confused about the Picture
What does a picture of a capybara (or whatever that thing is) have to do with Benedict Arnold? I do not really care per say, it just seems odd to have this random picture go with this article. Especially with the caption reading "Benedict Arnold". I think someone is trying to be clever, I hope they got a laugh out of it but that undermines what Wikipedia is all about. How can people take this seriously when stuff like this happens, it destroys the crediblity of this whole organization. I could be mistaken however, maybe this picture is appropriate, can someone confirm?

Ambiguous wording
His horse was shot while he was rallying troops and it fell on his bad leg, becoming partially crippled.

Taken literally, this says the horse was crippled after falling on Arnold's bad leg. If that really was the intended meaning, my apologies, but I'm guessing it wasn't ;-) --Calair 05:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer another interpretation of that pronoun-riddled sentence: that the horse was rallying the troops. Mister Ed to the rescue! --Kevin Myers 13:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

good one, lol

Mowst peepul on hear rite real gud, but othurs aint got noe klew abowt gud ritun.

His father - III or IV?
I read here earlier that BA IV was an earlier son (of Arnold's parents) who died young - making BA V's father BA III. Someone has made changes that BA V's father was BA IV.--JimWae 17:56, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Saratoga Campaign
JimWae, The table started out offline. I was trying to sort out dates and people for the various battles of Saratoga and created the table on excel to help me get it clear in my own mind. When I was done I just transposed it into the article. I think its useful for anyone who ends up here studying the Saratoga campaign. It gives a handy link to all the wiki articles about Saratoga. Xtrump 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be relevant then to put it in the Saratoga Campaign article & link to it - but it does not all belong in the article on Arnold --JimWae 00:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Arnold at Saratoga
This article is currently blissfully unaware of the historical debate about Arnold's role at Saratoga. Here's what the article says:


 * Historians agree that Arnold played an instrumental role in the outcome of the Saratoga campaign, showing courage, initiative and military brilliance. He is said to have almost singlehandedly cut off Burgoyne's attempt to escape in the decisive Battle of Bemis Heights.

Here's what Mark M. Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution says:


 * It is amusing, however, that while some writers credit Arnold with winning the two battles of Saratoga almost singlehanded, others question whether he even was on the field in the first battle and maintain that the second was won before he charged in to lead a costly, useless attack. (p. 31-2)

Our article goes on to say that "neither can there be doubt as to his crucial role in the Battle of Saratoga...", but of course, as Boatner's article indicates, there's been a lot of doubt about it. Ward's The War of the Revolution has an appendix devoted to the topic, and like most historians, he concludes that Arnold was present at the battle. But a number of historians in the past doubted it.

Boatner also regards the story of Arnold being buried in his Continental Army uniform as "improbable".

Hopefully someone familiar with the historiography will someday write a well-informed article on this guy, covering the way Arnold's actions have been debated over the years. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus still seems to be he was instrumental. But of course thers those that disagree, and that should be in there. But either way, Arnold was instrumental in the colonies defeating Britain even if he later defected. 12.220.94.199 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT VIOLATION?
This passage:


 * By then Arnold was an embittered man, disdainful of his fellow officers and resentful toward Congress for not promoting him more quickly and to even higher rank. A widower, he threw himself into the social life of the city, holding grand parties, courting and marrying Margaret Shippen, "a talented young woman of good family, who at nineteen, was half his age" and failing deeply into debt. Arnold's extravagance drew him into shady financial schemes and into disrepute with Congress, which investigated his accounts and recommended a court-martial. "Having ... become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to meet [such] ungrateful returns," he complained to Washington.

appears in: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall97/arnold.html

In the wikipedia article we have:


 * By then, Arnold was an embittered man, resentful toward Congress for not approving his wartime expenses and bypassing him for promotion. A widower, he threw himself into the social life of the city, hosting grand parties, and falling deeply into debt. Arnold's extravagance drew him into shady financial schemes and into further disrepute with Congress, which investigated his accounts. On June 1, 1779, he was court-martialed for malfeasance. "Having ... become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to meet (such) ungrateful returns," he complained to Washington.


 * At the end of March, 1779, he met Peggy Shippen, the boisterous 18 year old daughter of Judge Edward Shippen. [8] Arnold and Shippen wed quickly on April 8, 1779. It is interesting to note that Peggy had previously been courted by British Major John André during the British occupation of Philadelphia.

Plainly there's a common source or something at the bottom of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk)


 * If you are aware of a copyright violation in Wikipedia, follow these instructions. --Kbh3rd talk 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a copyright lawyer. Hence the question mark after the word "VIOLATION", above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk)

IS there a lawyer in the house? Seriously guys just put a footnote and call it a night.Fheo 17:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ARLEN SPECTER!?
Can anyone explain why a search for Arlen Specter (Senior Senator from Pennsylvania) redirects here? I'd fix it myself, but I do not know how. Any suggestions? Sixtus LXVI 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem has righted itself/someone has fixed it. Disregard question.  Sixtus LXVI 19:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was most likely vandalism. Probably a neoconservative republican that feels specter has betrayed the party or something. 74.137.230.39 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the Alterate History paragraph really belong in an article about a historical person?
I think there should be a clear wall between history and alterate history. Jon 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it does not.

QUOTATION ACCURACY?
I don't believe the quotation "love to my country actuates my present conduct, however it may appear inconsistent to the world, who very seldom judge right of any man's actions" comes from Arnold's "Letter to the Inhabitants of America". http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=885

Turncoat

 * A request has been made to support use of "turncoat". Most dictionaries should suffice, it being used NPOV for anyone who switches sides during a conflict --JimWae 00:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe "many" instead of "most" http://www.onelook.com/?w=turncoat&ls=a "Turncoat", though still often derogatory, is not entirely synonymous with traitor. Most sources say that Arnold was never entirely trusted by the British - likely because of uncertainty about how long he'd stay on that side. Is he now held up as a hero in the UK? --JimWae 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair to say that most people in the UK couldnt care less about him. Most of the younger generations haven't heard of him. Just wasn't important really.


 * I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this subject, but in terms of society at large I'd say that most people here in the UK have never heard of him. The great majority of Britons who don't study this period would need the expression "He's a Benedict Arnold" explained. Loganberry (Talk) 11:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's dangerous to use the "general ignorance" of the public as a defence of anything, because the public is generally ignorant of virtually everything of any worth. Jooler

Clearly untrue. Few members of the public are ignorant of Madonna or Michael Jackson.


 * As the article has long stood, it says the British never "really trusted him". Is this true? If so, were there any other reasons than his having been a "turncoat"? --JimWae 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Townshend Acts
I'm not an historian, but shouldn't that be the Townshend Acts, which taxed imports, rather than the Stamp Act which taxed transactions, that Arnold as a seamerchant defied by smuggling? Unless he resented paying taxes to insure his ships and cargo. Or both Acts?

Fighting For Britain
I've noticed that this paragraph starts in mid flow and has done for some time. Having hardly any knowledge of the subject I have restored the first part of the paragraph solely to draw the attention of someone who knows more about it than I do and will hopefully edit it properly (if any editing is needed). Britmax 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could this be deleted?
"Arnold was know to kill some 100,000 men in his time and just so he could see the death of one more person he shot one rught in the eye"

Um. This is barely english and placed in an incredibly unusual place. Could someone please delete it?


 * Tthanks for catching that. This article receives an unusual amount of vandalism. -Will Beback · † · 11:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Killed by a poisoned banana?
Is this serious? I have never heard of such a thing. Ill health yes, poisoned banana no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.107.56.222 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

George Washington Drops By West Point
Excellent article in my opinion.

The Arnold plot began to unravel just as George Washington, his Commander in Chief, friend and rival, decided to "drop in" on the Arnolds! He found a nearly hysterical Peggy Arnold, whom Arnold had left to fend for herself, trying desparately to keep herself from being hung yet trying to "buy time" for Benedict to get away! Few people seem to mention Washington's appearance. It's so incredible even if not 100% germane.Student7 01:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Gorton Heights external link
This link: Information on Arnold's Return to New London and the Battle of Groton Heights and Burning of New London was added to the article a week ago. It is a link that the IP address and another user account appear to have been promoting on Wikipedia along with a couple of connected sites and I wanted to check whether it was appropriate for this article in keeping with our guidelines. The site mentions Arnold only 5 times, but since this article does seem to mention the Battle of Groton Heights it seems like it might useful. However, a simple wikilink to our own article may be more appropriate.

I cannot ascertain the provenance of the information well from the website, it may be the NLC Historical Society, but that is not clear. I also think that if the link is kept the home page with the donation request should be skipped and the link point directly to the New London & Groton page (in keeping with our guidelines). My own opinion is that a wikilink to the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Groton Heights would be most appropriate, but I'm not a regular editor of this article and do not know how important that battle is in Arnold's career. Other thoughts? -- Siobhan Hansa 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did his Revolutionary War career go?
The article as it stands today skips directly from "Pre-revolutionary activities" to "West Point", and makes no mention of anything between the death of his first wife in 1775 and his obtaining command of West Point in 1780 - a fairly crucial 5-year gap. I understand there is controversy regarding his role at Saratoga (according to the discussion above); the document history shows large passages regarding this period of his career being added and then deleted, in between frequent episodes of vandalism and reversion. My knowledge here is spotty (I came to read about Benedict Arnold, not to edit). I make the humble suggestion that someone work up a section on Arnold between 1775 (or 1770) and 1780, and that this article be semi-protected on account of the frequent vandalism. --Davecampbell 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Death
I added a few sentences on Arnold's last years. Someone may want to find a better location. -- Astrochemist 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought Benedict Arnold was hung.Fheo 13:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needed some editing,
There was nothing in the article about Arnold's important Valcour Island campaign. I added a description based on the Wikipedia article.

There were some serious style problems. A lot of run-on sentences, too much use of passive voice, and wordy phrasings. I corrected many of these.

The initial summary paragraph went off into excessive details. I moved these details down into the body of the article, and rewrote the summary to be concise.

I made no substantive changes whatever.

--Rich Rostrom 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the first part of the article, the early years, is really confusing to read. it says something about other family members that isn't mentioned anywhere else (people dieing, etc.). that really needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Most famous traitor?
Is he the most famous traiter in the history of the United States? Surely George Washington is more famous..... he was just a traitor to the other side. Epeeist smudge 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, brother. That reminds me.... I think the cuckoo clock entry needs updating..... VanBrigglePottery 06:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unverified claims
There seems to be a lot of unverified claims here, I think this article needs serious referencing; there are none until the end of the French-Indian War section. 58.178.117.100 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are five non-footnoted, "general" reference listed, the information may be from those, but I would agree that footnotes would be preferred. If you have access to the references, feel free to fix the article. Cheers! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous text on legacy & family missing
Surely some mention of his own writing attempting to justify his actions is warranted - as is a plaque at West Point. http://historictraveler.away.com/primedia/military/plebes_along_hudson_1.adp For family - at least becoming a widower soon after a military disappointment AND perhaps wanting to provide for his new bride in the manner she had become accustomed --JimWae 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also missing now ?? --JimWae 00:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * how Washington defended him against early charges & granted protection to Shippen after WP
 * how he used his leg injury to maneuver the comission to West Point

Benedict Arnold Military Academy, New York?
Finally at least we have a source for:

Had he died at Saratoga, he would never have been commander of West Point - and so naming the academy after him would have had to have been because WP is not very far from Saratoga (though a 2.5 to 3 hour drive is NOT close). But he was not particularly well-regarded even in his time - not even for his actions at Saratoga, for which he was somewhat criticized

We need more than "it has been believed". We need to know this is not some speculative rhetorical question asked during the show. Do any historians give this speculation any currency? An unattributed line from a show - even a History Channel show - is not enough basis to keep something this speculative in an encyclopedia. Even TV shows such as those on the History Channel are subject to a temptation to become entertainment - and not necessarily encyclopedic.

I cannot find anything online from History Channel that suggests this is even what is said in the program. Even if something CLOSE to this is stated in the show, the entry is too vague to keep in an encyclopedia. --JimWae 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Canada successful??
This quote seems outright wrong:

"His many successful campaigns included ... the Invasion of Canada (1775)"

Even a cursory glance at the page in question, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%281775%29 tells you this invasion was unsuccessful, with "Two separate expeditions were launched, which joined forces but were defeated at the Battle of Quebec in December 1775."

85.227.226.243 08:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it was successful, only that it occurred.Tedickey 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow... why doesn't it matter whether a campaign was successful when we're discussing listing it in a sentence that begins "His many successful campaigns included..."? It seems to me either the Invasion of Canada needs to be removed, or the word 'successsful' does. --Clubjuggle T / C  11:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some adjustment is needed, but the last foray there trashed the paragraph. Something like moving the unsuccessful invasion to a second sentence, which leads into the topic without implying that all campaigns are either successful or unsuccessful.  Reading now, I also see that the section in this topic is different (in places contradicts) than the related Invasion of Canada (1775).  The reasonable thing to do would be to move (research/qualify/etc) this article's invasion-content to the other topic.Tedickey 11:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Childhood
There is little or no information on Benedict Arnold's childhood in this article. As long as this article lacks such information would recommend it be demoted to start class. Fheo 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

About Abreviations
I find it very obnoxious that Benedit Arnold is always be reffered to as "BA", just call him by his name you lazy bums!Fheo 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Betrayal at West Point
The following text in the section should be removed:

"Had the plot succeeded the British forces, already in control of New York City, could have taken control of the entire Hudson River Valley, effectively dividing the northern and southern American forces."

1. It doesn't have any references. 2. It says that the British forces "could have taken control". I find this claim to be a very exceptional one, and according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." 3. The British forces "could" have done a great many things, but such speculations would only be what-if speculations, e.g. "Had the Germans stopped the Allied invasion at Normandy, they could have won the war". 130.241.18.31 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In just a minute I found several hits with google that gave the same information; rather than remove every sentence which has no footnote, a more productive approach would be to supply a suitable reference Tedickey 13:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove every sentence which doesn't have a footnote, just something that is pure speculation and that can never be verified. Had it said that the British forces had plans to take control of the Hudson River Valley after his betrayl, than that would be something that probably could be verified in documents etc, but to speculate to what could have happened, I just don't see how that this could be verified nor its relevance to the rest of the section text.130.241.18.31 14:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * However, as noted, the comment is not original (that's trivial to verify), is widely accepted, and there are other comments in the article which could be objected to on the basis of personal disagreement also which have no footnotes. An example of "original research" would be making up some comment such as finding that the British had no intention of exploiting the control over the Hudson that would result from capturing West Point 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedickey (talk • contribs)

Dont Feel Bad!
Parents' deaths Arnold's mother, to whom he was very close, died in 1759. The youth took on the responsibility of supporting his ailing father and younger sister. His father's alcoholism worsened after the death of his wife; he was arrested on several occasions for public drunkenness and was even refused communion by his church; he died in 1761. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.182.48 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Payment
An equivalent figure of the £6,315 was given (£615,000). This is always somewhat arbitrary; saying that the lump sum was about 17 times a good pension seems more meaningful. £360 was quite a large pension (probably standard for his rank?); I do know that £500 was a good salary in 1871 (Maxwell's salary as a professor at Cambridge). Pol098 (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And what sources are there for what constitutes a good pension in the period? My only concern there. Narson (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added in the appropriate section (not the intro): "At the time the pay of a colonel in active service was 24 shillings per day (£438/annum), of which 18 shillings were deducted for subsistence (£328/annum)." The reference states the full pay of a colonel to be £1/4/- per day, from which subsistence of 18/- was deducted leaving 6/- per day, if I understand the reference correctly. It's probably very difficult to give meaningful figures for military officers' pay, as officers purchased their commissions, were expected to have independent means, and sold their commissions on retiring in lieu of a pension as such. It might help of someone could give the annual pay of someone reasonably well off without private means at the time. I think this is better than guessing the equivalent today of a sum of money.Pol098 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)