Talk:Morton L. Montgomery

Observation about sources

G'day 47thPennVols. I don't want to discourage you from your work, but I looked this over with the intent to assess it for Milhist, but I am having trouble with the sourcing. Most of the sources appear to be the man himself, so don't qualify as reliable as they are not third-party sources. He may be notable per WP:ANYBIO in terms of criteria 2 due to his authorship of several books on a specialist subject, but for basic notability we really need significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. So his actual notability per the WP:GNG isn't clear. Third-party sources, like obituaries and articles mentioning him in newspapers, passages about him in books that he didn't write himself, that sort of thing is needed here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Thanks for taking the time to look over the article and for your thoughts. Montgomery was quite notable in his day and remains notable in present-day American history circles (including with military historians, and particularly with respect to those writing about the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). His work has been cited regularly in history books, academic journals, and newspapers over the years, and continues to be cited in present-day publications which are highly respected. (I provided four examples of this as the citations for the very last sentence of the article, but based on your reaction to the article, it looks like I need to do more to weave this thread into other sections of the article's body.) I'll try to figure out where I can make a few tweaks, and will let you know when I've finished. Again, many thanks for your input. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: One more thought. I just did a quick calculation regarding the number of sources. More than 50% of those that I included were actually not from Montgomery himself as you'd indicated in your message above, but are from respected sources including The Philadelphia Inquirer (one of Philadelphia's major newspapers for many, many years). Additionally, at least two of the newspaper sources described him as a "leading" or "prominent" historian. That being said, I think the largest body of evidence for his prominence as a historian will be found in the numerous works of the multiple historians who have cited his books during the 20th and 21st centuries (including as recently as the 2000s). So, I'll work on trying to build a list of those, and will then figure out how to work that into the article's body. Again, many thanks for getting me thinking about this. 47thPennVols (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are nine footnotes to Historical and Biographical Annals of Berks County, another two from History of Berks County in Pennsylvania, and one from Historical Sketch of Reading Artillerists: Read Upon the Occasion of Their 102d Anniversary in Metropolitan Hall, May 25, 1896 all of which he wrote. They can be cited for the existence of the books and that he wrote them, but not for other things. A further eight citations are to primary sources like census and death records, which are really genealogical material, use of which is uncommon on WP, and in my experience, generally frowned upon. That doesn't leave much from reliable published sources independent of Montgomery himself. If you take away the material where he is talking about himself and what he did, and the essentially genealogical material, there isn't a hell of a lot left. What I'm trying to say is that the information about his life should be coming from other authors who have written about Montgomery (because that is what makes him notable), not from books Montgomery wrote himself. I'd like to see more information about what modern authors have written about his works, what they have said about his importance for the history of Pennsylvania. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: As I mentioned above, I'm currently working on revising. But already, in just the short time since resuming research into his background, I've been able to confirm that Montgomery's works have been accepted as appropriate citations by publishers including the Oxford University Press and the University of Pennsylvania Press. So, more will be coming. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It is good that he is still being cited, but have any of those authors actually written about his work or about Montgomery himself? We don't list in their article every time an author has been cited. You also need a source for the statement that those who have cited him are "respected historians". They may well be, but such statements need to be sourced, otherwise they may be considered "puffery". Again, I'm not trying to beat you down here, these are WP standards I'm imparting, not my own. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, chiming in here: I have a couple of suggestions. Really needs trimming of wording...it reads much like a 19th century "who's who" in our county history than a modern encyclopedia. I can give you some examples....

• • he took his first steps along the path toward becoming a practicing attorney, how did he do that/
  • Patriot Captain John Spohn .... remove Patriot.
  • The paragraph on his siblings is confusing. Punctuation?

I'd really trim these back. Although it reads well, it could read better with fewer words (says the woman who writes some of the longest articles on wikipedia) Make the words count! Second, I do agree with Peacemaker. the number of historians who have cited him is irrelevant. What those historians say about him is more important. Was his work instrumental in the creation of any of this material? Or was it simply a citation to fact? So when they cite him, do they actually say something positive or negative about him? the fact that he is listed in the finding aid at the John Heinz History Center is simply that his book , or part of his book, is there. Why is his work important? How did he contribute to the general understanding of artillery men of the county? So I'd take out that list of where his work has been cited. It really is irrelevant. Finally, I'd not list his name on every publication he did. It's understood because you've titled the section as list of his publications. Just start with the title. auntieruth (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ruth, Thanks so much for your input. I just heard back from one of the archivists. She's out of the state for the next week, but wanted to let me know that she came across several sources to document Montgomery's notability before leaving for a conference. So, I should have something from her before the end of the month. So, I'm holding off on doing more with the article until I see what she has (since it may end up leading me to restructure the content). I'll let you know what I learn when I hear back from her. Again, many thanks. Have a great remainder of the week! 47thPennVols (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)