Talk:Simon Sebag Montefiore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simon Sebag Montefiore is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Simon Sebag Montefiore article.

Article policies

[edit] Relation to other Montefiores?

What is the relation between Simon Sebag Montefiore and Hugh William Montefiore, Bishop of Birmingham? DFH 12:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nauseating self-promotion

"Montefiore's writing style and choice of content distinguish him as a new breed of biographer who seeks to engage and appeal to the reader, rather than just tell a factual narrative."

[vomits all over keyboard]

If you're going to include this self-promoting nonsense, it might be worth including a 'criticisms' section which would question whether SMM ought to be described as a historian at all. As I understand it, a 'historian' is a professional academic. Montefiore is a writer; I would not even stoop to call him a writer of history ('popular fiction' might be more accurate).

Historian is defined as, "a writer of history" and "a person learned in or studying history"; history is defined as, "the study of past events" (Oxford Pocket American Dictionary of Current English, OUP, New York, 2002).
Of SSM's works I have only read "Stalin - The Court of the Red Tsar" (2003) which was very well received by such eminent historians as Antony Beevor, Andrew Roberts, Robert Service, Anne Applebaum and my old teacher Richard Overy. That work, which is fully referenced and noted with a comprehensive index and bibliography, appears fully to qualify as history. Regrettably the Wikipedia article on SSM is not one of the best.
I am wondering if you would care to elaborate on your comment, "I would not even stoop to call him a writer of history ('popular fiction' might be more accurate)."
Marktunstill (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)