Talk:Bo Gabriel Montgomery

Removal of Publications list

The publications list on this page has been removed as being OR. This is mere compilation, calling this "research" is questionable. Please explain or replace as there are various list pages here that have been compiled all over wikipeda to my knowledge. I'll add all the books as external links to respectable sources in the meantime. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have a secondary source that lists his works, cite it and use it for making the list. If you yourself compile the list simply based on your own Google Books search, it is Original Research and it doesn't belong. While we are at it, this was commented upon before - quit WP:COATRACKing. This guy is notable for his writings on historical and contemporary politics - the Special Relationship and social/labor relations, and yet you gave precedence in the book list to his non-notable genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You could judge that putting a word together compiled of letters is original research by that silly logic. Compilation is what Wikipedia is all about, there are thousands of pages with lists compiled everywhere. Do you suggest we delete them all? Now put it back please. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Compilation is not what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia has the core principles of Verifiability, Neutrality and No Original Research. If an author's publications are truly notable, such that it wouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to list them in an article, then someone should have already published such a list, and you can use that as your reference. If you compile such a list yourself, you do so in violation of a core principle. Editors should summarize what is said about the subject in reliable secondary sources, not generate content de novo. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is handy to have all the books linked to Google. Thanks for your help getting them in chronological order. That looks nice. If we can just replace the external link to the UK's biggest family history website, I'll get on and we can start talking about Herioldus Brocus. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am having my doubts how useful it is to give a bunch of links to books that are inaccessible due to either copyright restrictions or a paywall. Agricolae (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mainly there is no Google preview because the books are very obscure and out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And hence giving a set of links is simply getting the reader's hopes up when they won't be able to see anything useful. That being said, I still think listing his works without a WP:RS can only be done by violating WP:NOR and it gives UNDUE weight to trivial publications (as defined by 'publications no scholar seems are worth mentioning, but one editor created the whole page as a COATRACK just so that he could mention them). Agricolae (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the notability of this person, but I see nothing wrong with listing publications by an author. That's not WP:OR. Nor is it relevant that the publications are not easily available. I think that you are barking up the wrong tree here. Phiwum (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A list of works is standard in biographies. The question is whether we ought to have links. I think there is no point unless there is an ebook to download or a Google preview. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) There are two separate issues here. 1) The inclusion of a list of his books. What is the reliable source from which this list of books is derived? A notable author worthy of listing their books will have an entry in a reference work such as Current Authors that will list their books. If they are known for one book or one article, but wrote others that nobody cares about, then such a source will not list their books and it is WP:UNDUE to give such a list here, since the secondary sources don't deem the information worth giving. If there is no source giving such a list, then the editor put the list together himself - the very definition of Original Research. 2) (perhaps confusing since this referred not to the list of works as it now appears but to an earlier External Links section) A link doesn't have to be fully accessible to be used as a reference, but it is pointless to have External Links that are entirely inaccessible - the whole point of External Links to to point to further information, and if they don't, they are completely useless decoration. Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a backstory here - this page was created, not to give a biography of a notable writer on social and labor practices, but to create a page about a person non-notable as a genealogist who happens to be notable for having written other unimportant things (social and labor practices) that are only being talked about in order to justify having a page to promote his genealogy. It comes on the back of another such proposal that is being AfDed for want of notability, where again an attempt has been made to establish notability by any means possible in order to justify having a page on which to promote his non-notable fringe genealogy. In this context, we should be very careful in listing books that no WP:RS feel are worth attributing to the author. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, but he still is probably notable as an economist, although I saw a Google preview of a book in Italian that implied Pareto wrote a preface for him rather than co-authoring the book. I also think that with mainstream people who go fringe in retirement we usually just list all the works. It's not something I feel strongly about. I would rather get the publishers and dates right using a library catalogue and not bother to link to any books. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing his notability - the regional Who's Who publications establish that, but that is no reason to let it be a COATRACK for genealogical fringery. We need to do one of three things: 1) List his works in the body without any links; 2) give them, as links to accessible pages, in the External Links section; or 3) not do it at all unless it comes from a secondary source. Let me say as well that my position on including the list of works is not simply based on anti-COATRACKing or this article. I came to this position a few years ago after seeing a page on a British-American author of the late 18th/early 19th century have works added and subtracted from such a list, back and forth, based on nothing but the whims of the individual editors as to which were important and what they found on a web page or card catalog (in some cases mis-attributed), with no effort made to compile a list that was either comprehensive or accurate, until I went out and found a literary source that contained a complete list that I then incorporated fully cited, and the article has had no such problems since. I feel rather strongly that like everything else, a list of works should be supported by secondary references or it will end up as a mess of policy violations, from OR to UNDUE to V to RS to COATRACKing. Agricolae (talk)

I can see your point, but I think the Google links are inappropriate so I've removed them. I've also changed the title and rewritten the lead so we are not claiming he actually was a count. (see the discussion at RSN, & at least one of the comments is not from someone who often agrees with me). Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Widely cited by his peers?

The article creator added this claim which has been removed. Earlier today, before this article had been created, I did a search on the subject and my observation was that he has been basically ignored by his peers. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Look back in the history. I put in lots of cited by peers for you to check. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to referenced by peers. Sorry, I'll improve my language on that one. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the removed references were to published lists of library holdings - not the same thing as citation. When you improve the language be very careful - even if his political writings are widely cited, that is not an excuse to give the impression that his genealogy is by clustering all of the topics, as you did before. Agricolae (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Notablility

This person is notable for what got him into Who's Who. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those publications don't care much about genealogy books. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

His book is widely referenced by thousands of Montgomerys on ancestry.co.uk hence very notable. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

All of which are hobbyists collecting ancestors. All these represent his 'peers' since that is all he is doing, but it is irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. There are millions of people who collect ancestors, and collectively they are going to cite everything that has ever been printed. It is scholarly citation that confers notability in this sense. If we just evaluated him based on his genealogy, he would be entirely non-notable and I would be AfDing this page. Further, you are just proving that your motivation with this article is to create a COATRACK - taking advantage of his notability for other purposes to exaggerate the importance of his irrelevant genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My purpose in this article is to be able to answer your question on the fringe noticeboard, and make a key point there very clear for you due to your previous apparent inability to read anything I write. Now please put the external link to the UK's largest family history site back, you have no reason to delete that and are just bullying. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what question you are making reference to, nor what key point you are trying to make by this COATRACKing. However, you just all but admitted that you created this page just to make a point, another policy violation. As to the external link to ancestry.com you are talking about - it is still there!!!, just in a form that doesn't require the listing of the same book twice. Perhaps you should take a closer look. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it looks really nice now. I'll try to keep from violations of policy, spelling mistakes and leaving too much mess for the WikiGnomes and WikiFairys to clean up. But lets have a think on your logic again. Why would I be making a page about a Scandinavian, Oxford University educated Genealogist Count who has published the most reliable, accurate and well researched monarchical genealogies that I am aware of. One that can fill in all those holes from 3-400 to 800 CE you were possibly wondering about. I'd suggest it is certainly not to fulfil a single point, but probably many points, to lots of people reading this page and getting influenced and educated by it for years to come. I/We made it to make greater mention of Pax Britannica and the Special Relationship and all sorts of reasons as part of some sort of grand plan, that I find fully compatible with Jimmy Wales grand plan - and something that I hope we can meet up and have a laugh and a joke about, in the next life. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, it is not up to you to decide what is and is not reliable, even if you think you know what you are talking about. Rather, your role is to take what has been written about the subject in reliable secondary sources and synthesize that material in a balanced manner. The holes that exist in European genealogy from 300-800 CE exist for a reason - because records that would allow them to be bridged either don't survive or were never compiled, in spite of the fantasy pedigrees compiled by genealogical hacks. For this reason, amateurs who take the approach used by Montgomery tend to be ignored by the community of scholars, making them both fringe and non-notable. One does not become notable by being born in Scandinavia, one does not become notable by being Oxford educated, one does not become notable by being a count (at least not of his type) and one does not become notable by being a genealogist, nor by any combination of these - one becomes notable by having reliable sources make note of you for one of these or any other reason. When significant notice is made of someone, who is thereby notable, then the article should focus on the basis for their notability, rather than doing what you have been trying to do with the Hugh Montgomery article and now this one, using possible notability for other reasons as an excuse to justify having a place to popularize fringe genealogy - COATRACKing. No reliable source gives his pedigrees the time of day, and yet that is what you yourself claim as the most important justification for making this page, repeatedly trying to give it more weight. Agricolae (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that your new source shows that he was not even a count - he just claimed the title. And as 'unique' as his contribution is made out to be, the source itself decides not to follow it when presenting a tree of the family, so that's sort of a mixed message, eh? Agricolae (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really when it's been incorporated into the world's largest family history database at ancestry.co.uk. I deem that source reliable. Who said any of this is fringe anyhow? We don't seem to anymore. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry is a web site. It includes 1) scans of millions of pages of primary documentation (reliable, but primary); 2) extractions of millions of names from primary documentation (less reliable, and primary); 3) hundreds of thousands of personal genealogy files, compiled by individuals with skills ranging from amateur hack to skilled scholar (non-reliable for Wikipedia purposes); 4) one really big master genealogy file, made by combining the information from all the hacks and scholars (nothing more than a convenient finding aid, because they used a computer to match up people who in some cases had nothing more in common than the same name); 5) tens of thousands of message boards - basically chat-rooms for individual families (unreliable); 6) tens of thousands (maybe more) of scans of genealogical books (the reliability of each depending on the care and scholarship with which they were compiled, with Ancestry making no attempt whatsoever to evaluate or vet them based on reliability). Just because Ancestry is really big, and it happens to include the book you are jazzed over among the tens or hundreds of thousands of books that it hosts adds no credibility to that particular book (just the opposite, in fact - the more books they scan and host, the less selective they could possibly be even if they tried to be, which they don't)- to go farther and say it "features there", as you do in the External Link, is nothing less than either a bold-faced lie or self-delusion. Agricolae (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Montgomery (name) book is of little matter, I agree. I've just ordered Ancient Migrations and Royal Houses so we can discuss what I really want to discuss with you at length in the future. I'd love to stay and and chat, but at the moment you won't think that book is very notable, until I tell you all about it's co-author called Beauregard Houston-Montgomery who has made some amazing fashion dolls that I am sure you will find thrilling [1]. See you there for the next installment of Battlestar Montgomery. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who says that Tressy has no social responsibility is not OK in my book. I will set Action Man on her. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and break Wikipedia's naming conventions at your own leisure. Pure blind assumption is ruling here though. Prince claimed to be Prince. I claim to be... well, I won't tell you who I claim to be, it's immaterial. Count Bo Gabriel claimed he was a Count, it's sourced asa primary point of notability, we have no alternative evidence to prove this true or false, just Doug's skepticism, which is nice, but illogical. Replace please. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Count?

Who has ratified his claim for the title of Count? Why is he listed as Count in the book list when the books don't say count? Nor does the patent claim. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Swedish Dictionary of National Biography said it, as do "some" of the books. One of the books is called "Counts of Montgomery".Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear about this source, the Swedish Dictionary has an article on the Swedish Montgomery kindred. In that article, it devotes two sentences to 'the count'. What the source says of the title is that based on his research into the family he "claimed" the title of count. As I pointed out above, as part of the same article a family tree [2] is given that shows the traceable line disappearing into a string of military officers of uncertain relationship to each other as you get into the mid-17th century, with nary a count in sight. Far from ratifying this claim, it outright rejects the descent that serves as its basis. Agricolae (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well good job I found that source to mention his claim. As I've mentioned before though, I'm not the slightest bit interested in the later geneaologies. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And none of this explains why we use the title count for authorship when the books don't, nor does the patent claim. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

And given that he is known for his books (which don't use the title), it doesn't explain why the page name uses this self-adopted non-existent title either. Agricolae (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base naming conventions on blind assumption. It bases them on what the sources say, which is Count, true or false. We have no evidence, to my knowledge to despute the claim. Prince would have been notable in the 80s as Prince, even if he wasn't a Prince. So now plese move the page back and replace all the redirects. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

False - the 'sources' don't say Count. Agricolae (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's use the sources. Do we have one single source for him actually being a count? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Which means a source from a body equivalent to Burke's Peerage. The article says he claimed the title of count, which doesn't make him a count. Wikipedia can't say that he is a count (which the lead claimed before I removed it) without clearcut sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Swedish Dictionary of National Biography. Please read above to avoid me having to repeat myself. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Read it. It says that 'count' is a claim he makes, and the family tree doesn't show it either. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, it says " The study of family history, older led the latter to claim the title of count.". I don't see how that can possibly be seen as the Swedish Dictionary of National Biography calling him Count, which it clearly avoids doing. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest, "The study of the early family history led the latter . . ." but the point remains unchanged - he adopted this title himself and we shouldn't perpetuate the usage. Agricolae (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and break Wikipedia's naming conventions at your own leisure. Pure blind assumption is ruling here though. Prince claimed to be Prince. I claim to be... well, I won't tell you who I claim to be, it's immaterial. Count Bo Gabriel claimed he was a Count, it's sourced as a primary point of notability, we have no alternative evidence to prove this true or false, just Doug's skepticism, which is nice, but illogical. Replace please. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We can't call him a count as we don't have any reliable sources that say he actually was a count. The article makes it clear that this was his claim, as does the Swedish Dictionary of National Biography. So that leaves your complain about naming conventions. Even if he was clearly a legitimate count, we wouldn't necessarily use that in the article title, and he isn't a legitimate count, he is a self-proclaimed count. Our policy says "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." And these don't refer to him as Count Bo Gabriel. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I count him as RS, and the book sleeve of his Royal Houses and Ancient Migrations says "Through reviews in newspapers and scientific journals the British and American public have become well acquainted with Count de Montgomery's publications." It has some of those reviews listed and I suspect I can find more. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A RS for what? He's not a reliable source for stating he is a count, he is a reliable source for the article saying that he claims to be a count. He doesn't count at all for the article's title. Scientific journals? Such as? What are you hoping to use these for? I found one review [3] but it's behind a pay wall and doesn't call him a Count. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I want his Ancient Migrations and Royal Houses book as an RS for history. As a test case, I've created Langfedgetal for your examination. It's triple backed with sources without him, but thought I'd pop the two books he refers to this word in there for your opinion on them. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A non-reliable source does not miraculously become a reliable source simply by virtue of creating an article that cites it. If the page is triple-backed with sources, it is unnecessary to cite a questionable ones too. Using five references to document a simple statement of fact, just to make a source appear more reliable by association with the others, is all rather POINTy. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hold up. Howcome one moment you're arguing against the use of old sources on the Saint Paul in Britain page as unreliable, now you are deleting the modern ones. Why the U-turn unless this is some form of harassment? You have cut out all the sources for the information contained in that page. Please replace them. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never edited nor have I even looked at the page on Saint Paul in Britain so this characterization of my behavior is simply false. Further, the distinction is not old vs new. In the Langfedgetal‎ article I removed the sources I knew to be non-reliable and left the remainder to be dealt with by other editors or by myself once I had time to consult some references. If in removing these two non-RS, it has removed "all of the sources for the information", then the page is without reliable sourcing, and is an appropriate candidate for an AfD - is that what you are saying? Agricolae (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I apologise if that wasn't you. But you're still running around witch hunting Barbie and anything I write in your field that you don't understand and don't have the sources for, which I am beginning to find somewhat time-wasting. You can't delete Langfedgetal because there are enough sources to prove it exists, even if you don't know what it is. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate benchmark for a page on Wikipedia is notability, not existence. Agricolae (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

To help form your opinion, here is the text of the book sleeve, written in the third party and published by Mitre Press - "Through reviews in newspapers and scientific journals the British and American public have become well acquainted with Count de Montgomery's publications. British and Continental Labour policy (thesis for his Oxford degree, 1922), Issues of European statesmanship, 1925 (American edition 1926)' Issues of European statesmanship, 1925 (American edition 1926); "Pax Britannica", 1928; "Versailles, a Breach of Agreement" and "Origin and History of the Montgomerys", 1948. His first book was published in Switzerland, to which country he proceeded early in 1918, having passed his examination at Stockholm University College. By the end of that year his opus "Politique Financière d'Aujourd hui" was published, the great economist Profesor Vilfredo Pareto writing the preface. This fact caused much jealousy and bitter comments in the author's own country. He then turned to Oxford and was received in a most friendly way by Professor F.Y. Edgeworth (Editor of the Economic Journal and a great friend of Marquis Pareto), Professor W.G.S. Adams, Mr. Herbert Penson and many other leading men at Oxford. The well known scholar L.L. Price wrote a very fair and honest review of the book in the Economic Journal, June 1920. On the other hand the same could not be said of Professor Bertil Ohlin's review in the Swedish journal Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, which the Count de Montgomery dealt with in an article deposited in the Library of the Riksdag. In the course of time the author turned from modern to ancient history, and his book on the Montgomerys was published by Blackwoods in 1948. This involved a great deal of work bringing him into contact with problems of a more general scope which required reconsideration on a large scale. The present work is the product of these studies." Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely unclear what opinion this is supposed to help form. The most pedestrian book will say on the sleeve that it is the best thing since sliced bread, written by an author of rare talent. A sleeve is nothing less than a glorified advertisement, trying to convince customers to buy the book, and not a dispassionate evaluation of the worth of the work or of its scribe. Agricolae (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It notes other works he has written reliably with other highly reliable sources such as Vilfredo Pareto writing the preface to his earlier work. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

His status as a source should discussed on RSN, not here, and in relation to specifics. I wil look at the article you've linked. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that sensible advice Judith, and for looking into this. I'll raise it in the appropriate place. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Two issues: 1) again, it is an advertisement for the book, so of course it is going to make the author sound grand - have you ever seen a book jacket that said "the previous writing by this author has been dismissed by scholars as worthless, but this book is really good" even when that would be accurate? I don't think so. 2) one can be an expert in one area of study and a novice or hack in another. There is a Nobel laureate who (at least for a long time) denied that HIV causes AIDS. There was an eminent astronomer who argued that every example of Archaeopterix was faked. When they talked about their areas of expertise, they were reliable, but when they pretended it made them experts at everything, they were just cranks. Agricolae (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have studied and worked in Marketing extensively Agricolae and even obtained a first in a Strategic International Marketing course from Coventry University, so you don't need to tell me any of this. Thanks tho. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet this marketing pap keeps being put forward as somehow meaningful. Agricolae (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)