Talk:John Joseph Montgomery

Untitled

there is a third elementry school named after John J Montgomery, John J Montgomery elementry School in San Jose CA

1883 flight.

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)

Recent additions

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 If I read the cites correctly this is all unpublished material, citing of which is original research.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Chanute as primary source on Montgomery

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)

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)

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)

TheLongTone (talk · contribs) 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)

Since you (TheLongTone) have repeatedly deleted any statements made that suggest that Montgomery made anything more than one glide in the 1880's it appears we have reached a stalemate on this particular issue. I am trying to understand the logic involved. Are you making these edits/deletions because 1) you believe that a single (secondary) source provides the definitive version of events they never had any first hand knowledge of, or 2) the timing (point in time) when a secondary source publishes their interpretations on another's work (i.e., Chanute on Montgomery) makes it definitive and makes all subsequent statements by the experimenter (i.e., Montgomery on Montgomery) so irrelevant that their subsequent (in terms of point in time) published comments are to be summarily ignored? Additionally, how do the other sources I cited come into play here? Why have you singled out Zahm and Lougheed and what does their attitude toward the Wright Brothers (post 1909) have anything to do with any of this? Historianav8shon (talk)Historianav8shonHistorianav8shon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary mainstream historians...for instance the Smithsonian... do not credit these claims. This is why I have amended your edits to make clear that they are claims which are not generally credited.TheLongTone (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my failure to breach the loggerhead on the specific topic of Montgomery's earliest flight experiments comes from the fact that I am new to Wikipedia and not well familiar with the guidelines. Just as I was grappling with your previous justifications for your edits (which i admit perplexed me) I am offered a new justification (stated broadly; "Contemporary mainstream historians do not support these claims") and you offer one example coming out of that apparent consensus; The Smithsonian. Has the Smithsonian engaged is a survey of historians (not just Wright Brother's biographers)? The link that you provide as a reference in support of that claim (on the main Wiki page) goes to a Smithsonian webpage that discusses Montgomery briefly but says nothing at all about the early Montgomery flight experiments. Over the last 25 or so years i have surveyed a large number and variety of sources on aviation history including those on Montgomery and while I am aware of a distinct bias coming from the various Wright Brothers' biographers on Montgomery, I am not aware of the consensus you refer to. I know what Montgomery claims actually were and am quite aware of how he has been perceived and presented in the literature both in the period and more recently. Inform me please. Historianav8shon (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Historianav8shonHistorianav8shon (talk)

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)] is hard to meet - such exaggerated claims were rife and many reported "flights" of that era were no more than hop 'n' flops. Another point, that "The article is not based primarily on such sources," effectively means that we cannot give them undue screen space. So if these claims are mentioned, then it needs to be brief and their status as uncorroborated claims needs to be made clear. So far so good. But in the absence of any more reliable source stating words to the effect that "these claims have not been accepted", we should not say so as such - that is WP:SYNTH. My own suggestion would be simply to remove the bit about "mainstream historians" and leave the comment on Chanute to express the negative side. But would that be acceptable to others here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

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)

Contemporary Historians opinions

The Smithsonian reference that has been inserted twice to support a broad claim (how contemporary historians view Montgomery's claims about the 1880's....) is actually a link to a page that does touch on Montgomery pre-1900 activities at all. Historianav8shon (talk)Historianav8shonHistorianav8shon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

TheLongTone writes "Contemporary mainstream historians...for instance the Smithsonian... do not credit these claims. This is why I have amended your edits to make clear that they are claims which are not generally credited.TheLongTone (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)" However, the Smithsonian Air and Space web page devoted to JJM in fact DOES credit the 1884 glider experiment (http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19470028000) Carroll F. Gray (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

In that context 'these claims' meant claims subsequent to the 1884 flightTheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for bringing this up again TheLongTalk but offering a statement about the conclusions of "contemporary historians" is comprehensive and suggests a series of references will be provided but instead a single source is provided. I believe that is what the guidelines suggest. Otherwise i should think that you would refrain from the broad statement and state what you have the references for. By the way, the reference webpage you provided (the Smithsonian NASM) has him flying up to 630 feet in the 1880's (Montgomery said 600, Chanute said 100) and extends his experiments with the tandem wing back to the 1890s (Montgomery said 1904, Chanute said 1904 in his 1905 article). Given that the Wright Brothers biographers and the Smithsonian NASM have traditionally only allowed Chanute as authority on Montgomery it would seem that contemporary historians at the Smithsonian have engaged in new research. 68.170.182.138 (talk)Historianav8shon68.170.182.138 (talk)

One problem with Montgomery is that many histories of fligh don't actually mention him at all. I'm pretty sure that if Gibbs-Smith mentions him he repeats what Chanute said. I'll hav a look in Richard Hallion's Taking Flight & nee if there's nything there. Thje only other sources I recall are biographies of the Wright Brothers (such as Fred Kelly's) which might be thought to be biased.TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

M.J.B Davy makes a passing mention to Montgomery in the 1937 "Interpretive History of Flight" - Professor John J. Montgomery of Santa Clara College in California also undertook experiments with gliders - his first experiments, with ornithopters, began in 1883 - and he appears actually to have been the first to practise gliding in America, but without marked success. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallion indexes only the fact that Montgomery contributed to a conference in Chicago, along with other illustrious figures. I'd have liked to suggest that this supports the idea that Montgomery's contribution to the field was significant, however Wragg, in Flight Before Flying (Osprey 1974) Page 116, is more dismissive. He writes, "John J. Montgomery ... built his first monoplane glider in 1883. This crashed on take-off, and a second glider in 1885, and a third in 1886, also proved to be failures. A number of devices were fitted to the Montgomery gliders to assist with control in flight, but no real significance can be attached to Montgomery's work even though this came on the eve of significant strides forward by American aeronauts." Ouch! So, contrary to an earlier suggestion of mine, I now think that the dismissal by mainstream historians does need to stay, though I'd suggest that Wragg provides a more direct citation for it than does the mere absence of comment on one museum web site. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Those quotes by Wragg are significant enough that I think that they should be included in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, David Wragg's books on aviation and flight all suffer to one degree or another from the overly broad brush he uses. For instance, his book "Bombers From the First World War to Kosovo" doesn't include the Handley Page 0-400 in the section on WWI, and only offers the briefest of comments on the Gotha series. There are more such lapses in this book and in others he has written. He writes in a very agreeable style but his lack of depth of knowledge shows. Mr. Wragg erroneously cites 1883 as the year of JJM's first monoplane glider and his source for stating the successful glide of JJM "... crashed on take-off..." eludes me, and as we know, the Smithsonian NASM site credits JJM with a significant glide that first time, making no mention of some supposed "crash" "on take-off" - I would certainly shy away from using any comments and conclusions about Montgomery from Mr. Wragg. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, TheLongTone, will you please enlighten me on your summary dismissal of V. Lougheed as a reliable source ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that Wragg needs treating with care. However a blind spot is one thing, an overt negative remark is quite another. Whether his remark is justified or not, it does support the statement that these claims are "discounted by mainstream historians". I notice that statement has been removed and replaced with the utterly pointless "The Smithsonian has nothing to say" (in fact technically, that is WP:OR - the Smithsonian does not explicitly state that it has nothing to say about these claims). The attitude of mainstream historians is however verifiable via Wragg. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Smithsonian site (it you click on the full description tag... I hate these urls that lead to a page that need more clicks) says "The most significant was a monoplane glider spanning slightly more than 6 m (20 ft), and with it he made a glide between 100-200 m (325-650 ft) at Otay Mesa, California, in the summer of 1884. The glider had little means of control and was not flown again". If the most significant glider flew once, I would have thought that ints a very reasonable inference that the others didn't. Again, technically OR??. I'd agree with the assessment of Wragg, but as commented mhatever his merits as ahistorian he is in all probability reflecting the gerneral consensus. And regarding Victor Loughhead, what I meant was that he is unreliable in some matters because fram what I've read... largely in biographies of the Wright Brothers but also elsewhere suggest that he had an agenda of boosting Montgomery's significance in order to belittle the Wright Brothers.TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a safe inference would be only that the subsequent gliders would not have flown anywhere near 100 m (325 ft), if at all. Other than that, I agree entirely. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider, again, this from the NASM site narrative on JJM (the "Long Description" tab) "In the 1884-1886, he built three full-sized gliders. The most significant was a monoplane glider spanning slightly more than 6 m (20 ft), and with it he made a glide between 100-200 m (325-650 ft) at Otay Mesa, California, in the summer of 1884." The wording is clear in its meaning - "the most significant" means the other gliders were also significant and the 1884 glider was "the most significant." It does not say "the only significant" as some people apparently believe. So, we have NASM stating that the 1884 glider was "the most significant" of the three JJM built during the 1880's, and therefore that all three were "significant" - which is not to say all three were successful - they were, however, in the assessment of NASM, "significant."

As for Mr. Wragg, if the basis for his negative comments is a faulty premise (such as Mr. Wragg's unsupported statement that the 1884 glider "crashed on take-off"), how can anyone reasonably credit his opinion as reflecting a "mainstream view" ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

TheLongTone, are you meaning to state that since V. Lougheed opposed the Wright Patent and worked against it being upheld in court, that means he is "thoroughly unreliable" as a source ? The corollary of that view is that anyone who supported the Wright Patent during the Patent Wars was "thoroughly reliable" - do you truly mean to be saying that ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What I obviously mean is that since Loughhead was using Mongomery as a stick to beat the Wright Brothers with hi is, in the matter of Mongomery's significant, not reliable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do not read the comment by TheLongTone (talk · contribs) in this light. I read it as a comment about a man who may have elevated the claims of Montgomery for some purpose incidental to this discussion. The elevation of a claim is often based on irrational or even unconscious belief and may be deeply sincere, but that does not make it any the less unreliable. TheLongTone questions this reliability, not the originator's state of mind. On another point, thank you for highlighting that, "It does not say 'the only significant' as some people apparently believe." While we obviously need to bear in mind that "significant" and "capable of flight" are not the same thing, the contradiction with Wragg is clear. I am inclined to accept your assessment of him (though IMHO all too many mainstream views have been based on fallacies, and there may also be degrees of significance to consider), and - feeling much like a ping-pong ball - I accept that citing him on this occasion is insufficient without corroboration from other sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the discussion of presentations by published historians something that is very important to keep in mind is that Montgomery and the Wrights were adversaries. No Wright Brother's biographer, and very few other authors has ever established that context for their readers. Few authors have noted that Montgomery actually described his own experiments to his peers either in lectures or publications (including prominent newspapers, aeronautical journals and books) that fall within the mainstream of aviation literature (excepting for the New York, Chicago and San Francisco newspapers). This is relevant. The Montgomery/Wright adversarial relationship stems from Montgomery's public criticisms and challenges in 1909-1910 to the Wrights' claims and his Heirs' later legal cases (of which Orville was a key witness for the opposition-defendants).

In 1912 Orville reviewed the manuscript of the proposed book "Practical Aeronautics" and in correspondence with the author (Hayward) he objected to a mention of Montgomery and an early use of a form of wing warping, however within that same passage in the text was a paraphrased description of JJM's early gliding flights based on one of Montgomery's published accounts - not Chanute's. Orville did not object to that content and the book was subsequently published with Orville's introduction. Orville was repeatedly exposed to Montgomery's own descriptions of his earliest flights, but it wasn't until 1944 that the notion of Chanute as providing the authentic account was finally asserted by Orville. The stream of anti-Montgomery articles by Wright advocates in the period 1944-1951, and all subsequent Wright biographies with mention of Montgomery from from that period forward placed Montgomery in a new context (dismissively, and with creative logic) based on talking points identical to Orville's, all the while failing to mention that Montgomery had offered his own account. Note that Chanute published his discussion (stated consistently in the 2nd person narrative) about Montgomery's flight experiments in the December, 1893 issue of Aeronautics and then that same article the following year was included in the compilation (his book) "Progress in Flying Machines (1894). Personal correspondence between Chanute and Montgomery in 1895 (after Chanute's article/book) shows that Montgomery assumed Chanute would publish his (2nd) Chicago (1893) lecture on the 1880's machines/experiments but Chanute instead withheld the transcript of the speech from publication because he thought that Montgomery had intended to apply for patent protection (i.e., "you did, at my request give me an account of your experiments, but i thought that I understood distinctly that you did not want them published"). Hence Chanute's passages in Progress in Flying Machines were Chanute's own and were made while under the impression that Montgomery intended to seek patent protection. His passages are neither definitive nor are they complete. Thus we have the perplexing situation of Mr. Chanute as an absolute second-hand authority on experiments described to him, and providing an account that should be precisely followed. Many authors have written about Montgomery (on the order of at least a few hundred by last count) and many have credited Montgomery with having made gliding flights in the 1880's. Historianav8shon (talk)Historianav8shonHistorianav8shon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems a very plausible explanation of why Chanute's account differs, & imo ought to be included in the article is of course it can be relably referenced.TheLongTone (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical Landmark

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)

Please feel free to add well-sourced info to the article. DonFB (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that there's a reason my simple suggestion won't be productive. DonFB (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Nope, don't know anything about it. A shame you're not able to contribute yourself. DonFB (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)