Talk:Boot Monument

Gibbet quote
I really think the gibbet quote is extraneous and belongs only in the B. Arnold article. Anyone think otherwise? If so, why? The quote deals with Arnold and his treason, not the monument.


 * The gibbet quote was in wiki land when I started editing. I found a reference on print google] doing a search for benedict+arnold+gibbet.  Yes, I agree it's probably apocryphal but there is a reference to do it and it should be cited in that context.  Americasroof 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if the incident didn't happen, it seems to have been a widespread "urban legend" during the early 19th century, and is somewhat connected to the monument. AnonMoos 16:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No name
In the A&E Biography of Arnold, a historian says that near the monument is a wooden sign pointing to it that mentions Arnold's name, but that the monument itself does not refer to him because a law was passed by Congress that made it illegal to chisel or engrave Benedict Arnold's name. Anyone have any more info on this? Jimpoz (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * there are 5 monuments in the northeast which explicitly state his name, so i doubt there is a specific law against so doing. 2601:19C:527F:A660:885F:5C4B:CCA0:E796 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Assessment; Suggestion
I have assessed the article as B. I think the criteria are met. I suggest moving the last paragraph of Aftermath to the next section on betrayal. It seems to me to be repetitive where it is now but could be either an introduction to betrayal, or maybe omitted altogether. The section on betrayal seems to be a full explanation of the reason for the odd figure on the monument. I think it can be viewed as satisfactory from that viewpoint. Otherwise, there is a separate in-depth article. Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Moved. Thank you ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍  ‍  21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Off topic content
I saw this listed for a peer review, but there's one significant issue that needs to be addressed before anything else about the article can be evaluated. Currently, it goes WP:OFFTOPIC by giving more coverage to Arnold than the monument itself. The background section should really only be one or two paragraphs to give the basic context of who Arnold was and what action led to the monument. A good rule to follow is that the information in the article should be found in sources about the monument itself. If something in the article uses a source that has no mention of the monument, the info is probably out of scope. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging as the one who requested the peer review.  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien Thanks. When I have a significant chunk of time I'll shorten it. ‍ Relativity  23:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, shortened. Thanks for your advice. ‍ Relativity  23:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)