Talk:Montgomery C. Meigs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NRHP works[edit]

The following NRHP-listed places are works Meigs is associated as architect, engineer, or builder:

Beverly National Cemetery, Bridgeboro Rd., jct. of Mt. Holly, and Bridgeboro Rds. Edgewater Park Township, NJ Meigs, Montgomery C.

--doncram 01:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Arlington National Cemetery[edit]

The section on Arlington National Cemetery seems to contain a good deal of detailed information that belongs more properly in the dedicated article on the cemetery, where much of it is not represented. I think it should be transferred, and only a summary of it left in the Meigs article. Valetude (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Then do it. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Tim, I think it ought to be done by someone with specialist knowledge of Arlington. And I'm not sure I need the short, sharp word of command. Valetude (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems merely a simple editing change. I don't see why it needs specialist knowledge of the ANC article to make the change. Asking "someone" to do it usually means no one does it. I agree with your suggestion: So go ahead, make the change. It's not a word of command; it's encouragement to do it. - Tim1965 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Descendants[edit]

[Moving/transcribed from User Talk:GenQuest#Montgomery C. Meigs Infobox deletion

From where did you get the unique construct "Not everything belongs in an Infobox: third and fourth generation descendants included."? The descriptor for the inclusion of Relatives in an Infobox is "Names of siblings or other relatives; include only if independently notable or particularly relevant.". The so-called 4th gen relative was commanding General of the U.S. Army in Europe, a Professor and Graduate of West Point and has his own WP entry. The third generation, his father, is suffering from some disambiguation exigencies at the moment, but is notable in his own right, and will have that issue sorted out once we resolve how to disambiguate 4 relatives with the same name. I have added Monty's other son, John Rodgers Meigs who was every bit as notable as his sibling Montgomery C. Meigs, Jr. who is listed in the Infobox. The proposed additions were all career military commissioned officers as was Montgomery C. Meigs (2 of whom died in the service to their country, and one of which was buried in Arlington National Cemetary that his father created). I will add back the other notable relatives unless you have a reasonable rationale. Thanks. NotaBene 00:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Because not everything belongs in an infobox, especially descendants that had no influence on the article subject at all.
First off: Infoboxes are designed as a summary of Key Information of an article; and their templates contain many fields to cover the many diverse articles into which they may be placed. That said, however, a field may be key information for the subject of one article as opposed to another — ALL the fields are not, and should not, be filled in for ALL the articles. Note: The very fact that an article should even warrant an infobox is not standard in Wikipedia.
Secondly: the inclusion of far-descendants of an individual in an infobox (or even an article) amounts to adding mere trivia. This is because the article's subject, in most cases, has no knowledge of such individuals and their later existence has no impact/influence on the subjects' lives (although the reverse is possibly true, as the life of an ancestor can influence and inspire descendants). Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Less distant descendants (children, grandchildren) are fine for the same reason.
How you reliably source the inclusion of just a mention of these descendants in the article is itself problematical. But raising the existence of these descendants to Key Information is a stretch. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy only talks of ancestor table inclusions — not descendants. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 02:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
By that extremely convoluted "logic", no descendant, i.e. his two sons, should be in the infobox at all. Your construct is entirely your own invention. I doubt anyone other than you would consider notable military members of the family of a person known primarily for their military service, from a family with military service going back to the Continental Army, as mere "trivia", although you seem to have taken ownership of this article and created your own set of rules. At one point, you state that Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, then point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy as your rationale. The descendants added were added for their military ties. That's your own opinion what belongs and what does not belong in an infobox, which does not comport with the infobox definition quoted in the first sentence.NotaBene 03:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The "logic" is not mine, its Wikipedia's. You asked me to explain my reasoning for the edit, which I have, backed with policy and style guidelines, as requested. Did you even read the link to the infobox project I included above? You would have also read at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. (Because not everything belongs in an infobox.)
I specifically stated above that the inclusion of the sons is proper, why would you misconstrue that statement into the opposite. Did you not read "...Less distant descendants (children, grandchildren) are fine for the same reason..." just four paragraphs above?
I rationally addressed far-distant descendants, a point you seem to want to gloss over, and seem to be purposely misunderstanding as "my construct". Again, these descendants, having been born well past the life span of the article subject, have had no influence on that subject's life whatsoever, so please explain how their inclusion rises to Key Information regarding an article on Montgomery Meigs? Common sense tells you that is impossible. For example, Queen Victoria's great grandson is a king – yet, you will not find him listed in her infobox.
You have also recklessly accused me of taking ownership of the article. So much for good faith. I have made three edits to the article, the first of which was removing serial vandalism from a blocked user, so that comment/accusation doesn't hold water. I respectfully ask that you strike that comment. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Include family It is very common to include family members in articles. A person's family is part of who s/he is. I don't think they need to be in the info box unless they are notable, i.e., a blue link Carptrash (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

INCLUDE - as per the points raised by the OTHER 2 USERS who support inclusion. consensus is include. DO NOT CARE whether the info is put in the infobox or not, but it belongs in the article. Lx 121 (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

family of subject[edit]

There is a clear consensus to keep the information about the subject's family.

Cunard (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user genquest is persistently attempting to remove sourced information about the family>offspring of the subject. the conent is hardly "extensive" nor is it "off-topic". no valid reason to delete.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There could be a separate article about his family if there are the sources to support one, but this article is about this individual, not his family. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


2 problems with your position here
1. it is COMMON for wiki biographies to include basic information about immediate family members.
2. notability; the children of the subject are primarily notable in the context of the SUBJECT. that does not automatically quality them for standalone articles. as you WELL know.
unless you are suggested a SUB-ARTICLE for the main subject along the lines of "list of family members & descendents of M.C.Meigs?
Lx 121 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

AND i notice that you have "discussed" the SAME THING (inclusion of family members) in the above section.

& your opinion WAS NOT SHARED by the other participants. time for you to respect concensus.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Two people does not a consensus make(or at least a hard consensus) on a website used by hundreds of thousands every day. As I told you personally I have little interest in the content of this page, however I will report any continued edit warring, no matter who does it. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • keep (Summoned by bot) While the RfC is not exactly the clearest, I agree that basic information regarding immediate children is alright. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Common practice permits inclusion of immediate descendants, especially where descendants are notable in some way. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think what the op is saying (or shouting really) is that the family section should contain more than just the two notable sons. See [1] for the edit warred version. I am happy to include all the children in that section (just the notable ones in the infobox though). However, I believe it should be presented in prose form and without the birth and death dates. Also the extended family tree of Mary's looks like name dropping and should not be included. Just need to mention the non-notable ones in a quick sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (bot summoned) - it would be an incomplete biography without a reasonable amount of family background. Atsme📞📧 04:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • comment. I cannot see why it is even in contention, immediate family members are almost always 'on topic'. especially as they are not living personages.Α Guy into Bοοks § (Message) -  12:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I restored the family information and references, in accordance with these talk page comments. If anyone has ideas for improvement, please feel free.
Billmckern (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and agree with changes by User:Billmckern as reported immediately above. I see no reason why dates should be excluded, since they help to identify the individuals mentioned. Such a brief list does not in my opinion violate WP:DIRECTORY #2. IMHO, the subject would be better served by this information presented in paragraph form, especially if entries were edited to include information about the descendants' lives in the context of the page subject's chronology. BusterD (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (Summoned by bot) While the RfC is not very clear, I also agree that basic information regarding immediate children is alright and is not intrusive in the form in the edit history. In fact the total number of children (if known) would be a useful addition, possibly in text. Pincrete (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (Summoned by bot) Ditto ditto about this RfC not being a model of clarity. However, the issue is plain enough. No reason to exclude. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note The "source" is essentially self-published, at a time when many genealogies did not undergo rigorous examination. I suggest that, unless a source not published at the behest of the family is found, that the section carefully note that the information has not been verified by any outside sources. Collect (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Collect: I added additional references, which should address this concern.
Billmckern (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
No problem - I am just making sure the source is valid - I have seen a few bad genealogies from the late nineteenth century. Collect (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.