Talk:John Joseph Montgomery

message: A reliable source for this date seem to be entirely lacking in all the print sources I have & does not seem to be in any of the online references either. Some of which are highly suspect.TheLongTone (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1883 flight. 

message: A lot of material has recently beein added by User:Historianav8shon. If I read the cites correctly this is all unpublished material, citing of which is original research.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: On the subject of the Chanute book that keeps coming up. In the "Progress in Flying Machine" article Chanute is speaking as an interpreter of another person's work (Montgomery) and at no point in his article does he use quotations or use the term "I". I have preferred to use primary sources in divulging Montgomery's story as it removed the possibility of introducing errors that can come in relying on secondary sources. If you absolutely insist on inserting content that comes out of secondary sources, then you should (i believe) acknowledge the various other authors who also wrote articles or sections based on material provided directly to them by Montgomery. As examples, there is Kavanagh (1905a, 1905b), several newspaper interviews in 1905, Ernest L. Jones (1909, 1910, 1911), John H. Ledeboer (1910), Lougheed (1909, 1910, 1911, 1912) or Albert Zahm (1923 based on his exposure to JJ's speech at the 1893 conference). You will note that Chanute was the only one of those secondary sources who implied there was but one flight accomplished and the two subsequent craft were failures. The rest of these sources are in line with the primary source when they stated otr in some cases implied that a plurality of flights were made with each craft. Chaunte had the least interaction with Montgomery compared with the others and was writing compiling his interpretations of over 100 other experiments. For this reason he was willing to admit to one correspondent "If it will be of any satisfaction to you to criticize some of my mistakes in print, you can do so; I dare say you can find plenty of them"...(OC to A. De Bausset, 11/13/1900). I note his being frequently corrected by the wrights in their correspondence. I personally am willing to explore the narrative through review of the primary sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historianav8shon (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chanute book recurs because it is the earliest written source for Mongomeries claims. Chanute's account is based on what montgomery told him. No claims to any subsequent flights are taken seriously by mainstream sources.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also characteris both Loughheed and Zahm is thoroughly unreliable sources in this case, with an agenda of discrediting the Wright Brothers in which Montgomery's heirs were pawns. Rememberr that the court case was lost.TheLongTone (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

text: is quite right to focus on secondary sources wherever possible, although this does not rule out primary sources. Wikipedia is more concerned that the content is verifiable than that we editors believe it to be correct, and it is more difficult to establish the reliability of primary sources. Many of us do not have ready access even to secondary sources such as Ledeboer's piece in Aeronautics, so direct quotations of the salient material can help the rest of us appreciate its relevance. Such a quotation may be placed directly in the article in a citation tag, or if overlong then on here so that we can all agree how it fits in. I don't know if this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi, thank you for pointing this out - and thank you too for doing so in cordial manner! I agree that the Smithsonian's lack of anything useful to say does not provide verification that no mainstream historians have anything useful to say. However Chanute's silence after having communicated with Montgomery suggests that there is nothing of great significance to say. Whether claims made by family and close friends are reliable is moot. WP:SELFSOURCE gives some guidelines on how to treat his own claims. One key point, that "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim," [updated to correct quote 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanute as primary source on Montgomery 

message: I've been reading the discussion and it might be well for all to remember that a neutral tone in the presentation of the referenced material is what Wiki expects. I would not like to see the discussion degenerate into a grudge match between two biased and opinionated camps. For instance, perhaps TheLongTone could share why V. Loughead is characterized as a "thoroughly unreliable" source... on what basis is that judgement made ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to be corrected if I am mistaken, but I believe that as editors we are not supposed to be deciding whether a source is "right" or "wrong" but we are to cite the sources, whether or not we agree with them, since it is our readers who are the ones who get to decide whether a source is "right" or "wrong" - we are not instructors to our readers, we are presenters. I note several comments which appear to be focused on whether or not a source is correct, while we, as editors, are only to consider whether or not a source is reliable. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This article has missing some information and citations about the California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County, which includes the landmark: Montgomery Hill. Please use the Template:Infobox historic site or just update the article with the following additions: citation #1, citation #2, and citation #3. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add well-sourced info to the article. DonFB (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I see that there's a reason my simple suggestion won't be productive. DonFB (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you already have some information about this landmark on the John Montgomery article. Another place for these citations and landmark information is with the Evergreen, San Jose article. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, don't know anything about it. A shame you're not able to contribute yourself. DonFB (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just waiting for the partial block to be lifted. There is a section on John Joseph Montgomery article title: Two California Historical Landmarks are associated with Montgomery, which includes the landmark and a picture of the landmark with the caption: "The plaque placed at Montgomery Grove." Greg Henderson (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Landmark