User talk:Mmacd

Welcome!
Hi Mmacd! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources?
I note that the article Banknotes of Ireland which you have extensively edited relies on the self-published writings of one person, Mártan Mac Devitt. A Google search shows Mac Devitt to be an avid numismatist, but I find no evidence of him being a particular expert, and no evidence that either his books or his website have received any degree of editorial oversight. For this reason, Wikipedia would not consider any of these to be reliable sources. As the person who has most recently edited his article, can I ask that you provide more diverse sources? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your message. I am not sure how to send a reply, but I will give it a go.

I was endeavouring to update some of the outdated content of this page. It is based on the knowledge as it was around 20 years ago.

The 1994 edition of the Standard Catalog of World Paper Money is well out of date, and SCWM has been extensively revised since then. I suggest that you use a more up to date edition, incidentally, Mac Devitt is named in later editions of that book as a contributor.

The website irishpapermoney.com has many images of Irish banknotes which demonstrate the inaccuracy of the content of the second paragraph in the ‘Pound Sterling’ section on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_Ireland

Images of actual banknotes cannot be discounted as a reliable source. I suggest that you update this section so that it is accurate when you have a moment if you are unable to allow others to do so. I think that wikipedia should try to be accurate when it can be so.

There is almost no peer-reviewed academic work on the subject of Irish banknotes with the exception of a recent paper by Kenny and Turner.

Mac Devitt cites much of the known Irish banknote reference sources on irishpapermoney.com Pages on that website contain references to original source material used for the page, much of it in paper form. It also contains pictures of many Irish notes, which are the core of research on the topic, and links to resources on the web: https://www.irishpapermoney.com/offsitelinks/numismatic-links-irish-paper-money.html

Anyway as my edits have been summarily deleted I shall refrain from making future edits and leave it to others more familiar with the wiki editing process. It was an interesting exercise.


 * Your edits at Banknotes of Ireland have not been deleted. I'm not sure what gave your that impression. I have marked the sole source referenced in the article as an unreliable source, and marked the entire article for needing better references, but the text as you last edited the article is intact as of this writing. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine (the page had reverted to the original on my browser, so I thought my edits had been deleted - a case of user error there then). I will add more precise references. I have improved references 4 and 6 to show the actual banknotes referred to rather than the page they are on - wasn't sure if this would work, was hoping for a pop-up image.

Why is reference 8 not marked as unreliable?


 * Reference 8 not marked as unreliable simply because I missed it. And images are not inherently reliable images, since a) we have no way of knowing whether these are images of authentic Irish banknotes, other than Mac Devitt's word, which, again, can only be trusted so far since there is no editorial oversight and no indication that Mac Devitt is a recognized authority in the field; and b) raw images can be manipulated, so unless they are found in the context of a reliable source, they are no more reliable than the source they were taken from. This is not to say that I am accusing Mac Devitt of any purposeful effort to mislead, just to explain why the images themselves are no more reliable than the website they came from. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Published authors Your google search missed the fact that MacDevitt authored 20 Articles on Irish Banknotes in Coin News magazine since 2015, and is the editor for Republic of Ireland banknotes in the Banknote Yearbook (Token Publishing). He also wrote Irish Banknotes, Irish Government Papermoney (1999) which was peer reviewed prior to publication. It was then published by Whytes, Dublin. Something else your google search evidently missed. Much of the information that you are denigrating on the Irishpapermoney website (by means of dismissing references to the website, and images therein) was in those magazine articles prior to being added on the website, or in his 1999 Irish Banknotes book, or the other two books referenced at the bottom of the ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ wikipedia page I have made edits on. Some of the Coin News articles are also on the website.

I consider your comments on my edits to this ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ wikipedia page to be a peer review, which is quite right.

However, your approach shows a lack of thoroughness on your part in that you your research on the validity of the references did not reveal that MacDevitt has published in third party publications. Your asertation of the unreliability of MacDevitt hinges on your phrase ‘self published’.

At the very least you ought to have found the book ‘Irish Banknotes (1999)’ in your google search, I found it in mine: google search for “irish banknotes book” on google.com: second hit is a listing on Amazon.co.uk, third hit waterstones.com, fourth hit abebooks.co.uk. (The first hit is irishpapermoney.com, for a paperback ‘self published’ book)

When I googled Mártan Mac Devitt, I also found ‘Irish Banknotes’ (1999): waterstones first hit; amazon.co.uk, second hit; amazon.com, third hit; adverts.ie, fourth hit; fifth hit is ‘The Banknote Yearbook’, galata.co.uk - the strapline under the link is: “John W Mussell (editor), with Barry Boswell and Martin Mac Devitt. Published by Token Publishing, Honiton, Devon, 8th 2013. HB (pictorial printed boards).” The book has had several editions since then.

Your google search should have found these two books.

Wikipedia reliability The material contained in Wikipedia entries is not always of the highest quality, according to the view of some in the scientific community. https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2010/12/wikipedia-change

There only way to change this is for knowledgable people to edit it.

We either want wikipedia to be accurate, or we don’t. My intention with my edits was to clean up a wikipedia page which was very inaccurate, having essentially been abandoned, and worse than useless for that reason. I edited it because I am knowledgeable on the topic, and the ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ page was by far the poorest wikpiedia page on Irish banknotes.

Reviewer: On the ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ wikipedia page reference [8], the diagram, has been an accepted reference on this wikipedia page since it was created, I think you did not mark it as unreliable as I had not added it, you merely have marked it as unacceptable now to plug a hole in your previous argument. It is slightly inaccurate anyway, and needs to be improved now to include the private banks.

Do you have any knowledge about the subject matter of this ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ wikipedia page that I have edited? What qualifications do you have to decide what is accurate or inaccurate in the edits I have made?

Unless you are well-studied in the very tiny subject of Irish banknote collecting, you are not qualified to decide on what is or is not a relevant reference. I suggest that you find someone among your wiki-editing community who is, and consult them.

Images. Regarding your comments on images of banknotes sourced from the web, one could extrapolate that any image on the web is an unreliable image that could have been tampered with, unless it is for example on a University or museum website, or a government website.

By this logic, you should then also flag the picture of the Gibbons and Williams banknote which has been on this page for many years as unreliable, as it is a digital image. By extension, other images on wikipedia should also likely be flagged as unreliable for the same reasons. Incidentally, the Gibbons and Williams note pictured was not actually relevant to the 'Banknotes of Ireland' wikipedia page prior to my edits on it, as the copy on the 'Banknotes of Ireland' page made no mention of the Irish private banks. Gibbons and Williams was a private bank.

There are two people currently researching new material on Irish banknotes and publishing hard copy: Callaway and MacDevitt. Both publish in Coin News and have written at least one book published by a third party publisher which financed the publication. Irish numismatics Magazine from the 1960s-1990s is also a good early reference for Irish coins and banknotes. You either allow the authors to be referred to or you don’t. If you don’t, then there are no references for pre-1928 Irish banknotes, except for the very old editions of the SCWPM.

I have spent my time today on this response to you instead of looking up page numbers in the reference books for this ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ wikipedia page. Time well-spent. I will make no further edits to the ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ wikipedia page until the wiki community decides to accept my additions, which as you have chosen to be my reviewer means you. When the [unreliable source?] flags have been removed by you I will again edit the ‘Banknotes of Ireland’ wikipedia page. If they are not removed, I will leave it to others to edit as I will consider that my edits have failed the peer review process.

Although still incomplete, the page is at least an improvement on what was there previously.

Anyway, no worries, you have a good day, and happy editing.