How quick are you to criticize numismatic literature?

[shirohniichan]

I just got back the copy of my latest Numismatist article with the editor's corrections and amendations. What struck me was how many footnotes I needed to explain details. Footnotes do not appear in the printed version, so without them a number of my claims will appear wrong. If I were to include all the footnotes into the text to make the article 100% accurate, it would read poorly (like a legal brief).

 

Is it better to write better prose (with lots of footnotes that will only appear in the online version most won't read) or to write including technicalities into the text? Is there a better solution?

[cpm9ball]

Is it possible that they are concerned about plagiarism, and would prefer that they know the details up front so as not to embarrass themselves?

 

Chris

[RWB]

For publications that don't use footnotes, I try to incorporate the most important things in the body text, even if they are a little off-subject.

 

I also prepare a research version and make a PDF that can be provided to those who question the sources or conclusions.

[michael]

How quick are you to criticize numismatic literature?

 

only when it is wrong/misquoted/out of context/not varifiable sources

 

which is most of the time

[jtryka]

For me, this is still a hobby, so I read for pure enjoyment. There may be errors, and most of the time it doesn't bother me. I think if there are important facets that need explanation in order to make your point then include them in the text, otherwise the footnotes will most often be ignored, even when they are included!

[World Colonial]

I believe the answer to your question depends upon the publication and your audience.

 

To me, it would make more sense to include all the detail you cite in a publication like the one issued by the ANS. For the ANA, perhaps it would be better to simplify the subject if that is possible.

[Hoot]

At the very least, I write with enough detail to over-satisfy the editors of most hobby magazines. Indeed, most of my articles have appeared with significant detail removed. As Roger mentioned, it's best to write two drafts: the first has citations to your sources and all source material listed; the second has the citations removed. With the citations removed, you may find that you'll need to either include more detail or remove it yourself before submission.

 

Good luck Shiro.

 

Hoot

[shirohniichan]

Well, Hoot, it looks like the editor has already helped out by incorporating some of my footnotes into the text.

 

In some ways it is easier to write for the technical crowd because you can include lots of footnotes where you deem it necessary. This is especially important when you have to make a claim that goes against "common knowledge" of the sort introduced by Breen in his encyclopedia. I really don't want to add a few parenthetical asides into the text to explain why the most accepted explanation for a minor point is wrong, and a footnote showing a couple of contemporary sources supporting my point seems better.

 

Overall the editor did a great job in balancing the notes and text out. I just hope she changed the caption and photo she added so I'm not accused of being the guy who thought gold dollars circulated widely in California in the 1870s.

[DWLange]

There definitely are two kinds of writing. For example, the manuscript that became my book History of the U. S. Mint and Its Coinage was originally conceived as an ANA correspondence course and was quite highly detailed. I included excerpts from original documents and extensive citations. Over the ten years and many hands it took to get this published, my scholarly work morphed into a much more reader-friendly publication that the ANA ultimately sold to Whitman for commercial release. I imagine it's had more impact on the hobby in its simplified version, but I've taken some criticism from researchers who don't know the whole story behind this book.

 

If I had known how the whole scenario would play out, I may not have written it as a donation to the ANA. The original intent was on their part was quite honorable, but we all ran afoul of the very foul Cippoletti administration. I believe that the ANA is still getting some return from the book, and that is certainly worthwhile.

[Hoot]

Let us know, Shiro, when the article comes out, where to look for it and what your impression is of the ultimate product. I hope it meets with your satisfaction.

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

Hi Dave - I recall the conversation that you and I had over your work at the ANA seminars. It still makes me cringe a bit to think of what you sacrificed, since I know that you put a ton of work into your book and that it is much more extensive in its original text than what appeared with Whitman. I'm glad that your donation to the ANA has been of good benefit, as we all owe their efforts, for better and worse, a good deal of thanks. My thanks to you (again) for all you've contributed and continue to contribute to this hobby.

 

Hoot

[shirohniichan]

My thanks to you (again) for all you've contributed and continue to contribute to this hobby.

 

Hoot

 

Yea, verily.

 

An in-depth, well-researched work is one I'd like to see with all the notes. My hat goes off to those who have the patience and skill to find the right sources and wade through them to find pertinent bits of information.

[Hoot]

My thanks to you (again) for all you've contributed and continue to contribute to this hobby.

 

Hoot

 

Yea, verily.

 

An in-depth, well-researched work is one I'd like to see with all the notes. My hat goes off to those who have the patience and skill to find the right sources and wade through them to find pertinent bits of information.

 

And another such author to mention who participates on this board is Roger Burdette. A great researcher, that man.

 

Hoot

[DaveG]

If I were to include all the footnotes into the text to make the article 100% accurate, it would read poorly (like a legal brief).

 

Part of my problem is that I like the footnoted material - Either I want to put it in the main text (in which case I get so many tangents going at the same time that I can lose the main thread of what I'm trying to say), or I get a lot of really long footnotes!

[RWB]

Geeez, Hoot....that's embarrassing! But thanks for the compliment! Or should I say "Dr. Hoot."

[BillJones]

As a casual reader, footnotes tend to be something that I ignore. The trouble with most of them is that they don't further my knowledge. I might read something in the text and say, “Hey, I’d like to know more about that.” But when I go to the trouble of reading the footnote I’m usually disappointed with some obscure source reference that doesn’t tell me a darn thing.

 

When I have written articles for collector periodicals I have almost never used footnotes. I’m mainly interested in providing the reader with some information about a collectable item. Since I’m not writing for an academic purpose, I don’t see the need to go into all of that.

 

I understand your concerns about breaking the reader’s concentration. Unless you are having fits about covering you butt over plagiarism, the best thing footnotes can do is to provide and expanded discussion of something in the text that the interested reader might like to know without breaking the flow of the text.

 

To date I’ve had two articles published in The Numismatist. I didn't get such feedback with either of them.

[cpm9ball]

Bill, if you've ever read The Crime of 1873 - The Comstock Connection you'll know how easily one's train of thought can be broken. In the back of the book, there are almost 20-1/2 pages devoted to footnotes, and the entire story is less than 250 pages. I'll leave it to someone else to figure how many there are per page.

 

Chris

[RWB]

Footnotes and other references have a place in most articles. If the material is available from published sources, then a short bibliography is all that’s needed. But when an article contains newly discovered information, or correlates existing information in a new, insightful way, then reference notes should be provided. The purpose is to give the reader the opportunity to investigate for themselves by stating exactly where primary materials were found. (From a research standpoint, it is incredibly frustrating to find an excellent AJN or other article, say on coinage dies, only to have the citations say “National Archives.”)

 

Likewise, a footnote or sidebar can be used to present material indirectly related to the main text. That preserves the document flow yet gives readers additional information if they care to access it. In effect, this is like embedded links in web and networked articles.

 

The Numismatist could easily put a page of end notes for their articles, but they elect not to.

 

[shirohniichan]

I like to make footnotes to explain my methodology in coming up with claims. For example, to get the price of greenbacks in gold as used by Californians before Specie Resumption, I looked through the July 1873 issues of a certain newspaper and took the average quote.

 

I ended up incorporating into the text what should have been an explanatory footnote, and the result was less than satisfactory. The way it reads now one may assume I looked at only one issue and took that day's quote. It's a small point, but it could lead a discerning reader to question my methodology.

 

I also like to explain how I handle exceptions. I make conclusions based on the weight of the best contemporary source materials. One can usually find an exception, and if I don't acknowledge it a reader may assume I didn't know about it.

[DC Dawg]

When I used to write technical articles, the venues where I was published only allowed a limited number of footnotes. I would incorporate as much of the information into the article as possible, including creating sidebars for further explanation. You should ask if sidebars are allowed. Then as Roger said, I would have a separate version with the footnotes that I would send to anyone interested.

 

Technology is a bit different than numismatics. If I write something out of context, I would be providing incorrect technical advice. Sometimes, I would omit certain esoteric facts to make the information fit the article. Those esoteric facts would be in the version that I would hand out to others interested. In those cases, I used to prepare a copy using MS Word's change tracking to show the difference between the original and the edited version that was published.

 

I have not done this in about 10 years because my current job restricts what I can publish, but if I was doing this today, I would create the marked up version as a PDF for distribution.

 

Scott

[shirohniichan]

I'm reading The Principled Politician: The Story of Ralph Carr , and I'm finding it hard to finish. The narrative is so packed with quotations of source material (mostly newspaper articles and letters) that it makes for painfully slow reading. I can appreciate the writer's desire to stay true to history, but I don't like reading the book any more.

 

Relying too heavily on quoting sources is a good way to kill an interesting story.

[cpm9ball]

The Crime of 1873 is the same way. Plod! Trudge! Plod! Trudge!

 

Chris

[coinman23885-migration]

It depends on the source of the literature and the credentials of the author; I am highly skeptical of many common periodicals, and I prefer stories that rely on primary resources to validate the points made when available. I do know from past experience, that some of the top periodicals allow submissions from anyone. Although the submissions undergo a review, I wonder how thorough such a review really is.