Talk:England Winners stamp
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Copied from the talk page of Philafrenzy:
Where is there any evidence that the England Winners stamp is known as a forgery or fake which would give you a reason for linking it in Philatelic fakes and forgeries where you readded a wikilink to the article with this edit? Show me why it should be there. I don't see it. Besides which the England Winners stamp hardly seems notable enough to have an article of its own. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- (Philafrenzy) I've emailed you a couple of matching newspaper articles to consider that might help demonstrate the England Winner stamp had suitable impact for the general notability guideline to apply if they are referenced. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have misunderstood ww2censor. I didn't say it was a fake it was already there and the reference above (7) by Mackay was the source for the information. I don't have that book to hand but will be able to check it within the next day and confirm the reference is correct. I just linked it. As for notability, I think the article explains what happened and why it is notable. How many stamps end up being listed on the stock exchange? I will check that too when I have a chance but it is notable anyway for the public frenzy it created at the time. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed it was not you who said it was a fake but I only noticed the entry for the stamp when you linked it to the new article, so I thought it was you; sorry for the accusation. It was added by Ekam with this edit back in April 2008 but I did not notice it nor questioned its inclusion since then. There does not appear to be any evidence this stamp was eve forged or fakes made, so it should be removed, unless when you review the Mackay book, which I don't have here, says otherwise. Assuming there is no evidenve then it should be removed completely from Philatelic fakes and forgeries. The stamps own article does not support the fake statement either. This webpage also does not suggest any unofficial printing of any kind. Regarding the notability, I am rather doubtful the stamp itself was actually quoted on the London Stock Exchange but additional information on that is needed from some verifiable source. I await your investigations. ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Worth looking at are Stamp statistics, Evening Times, 13 September 1966 and Stamp column, The Phoenix, 8 July 1967 as they are easy to view online, and it is worth noting this entry in Hansard. Fæ (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed it was not you who said it was a fake but I only noticed the entry for the stamp when you linked it to the new article, so I thought it was you; sorry for the accusation. It was added by Ekam with this edit back in April 2008 but I did not notice it nor questioned its inclusion since then. There does not appear to be any evidence this stamp was eve forged or fakes made, so it should be removed, unless when you review the Mackay book, which I don't have here, says otherwise. Assuming there is no evidenve then it should be removed completely from Philatelic fakes and forgeries. The stamps own article does not support the fake statement either. This webpage also does not suggest any unofficial printing of any kind. Regarding the notability, I am rather doubtful the stamp itself was actually quoted on the London Stock Exchange but additional information on that is needed from some verifiable source. I await your investigations. ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your comments which have been included. I have checked the Mackay book and the reference is correct. I would think this was a forgery made to deceive speculators, not the post office. I have no other source for the information but will look out for one. I toned down the price information and removed the stock exchange quotation information from the England Winners stamp, but will put it back in if I can find evidence. I also included Fæ's sources which were exactly what was required. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on England Winners stamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913081935/http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2010/june/1970-world-cup-stamp to http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2010/june/1970-world-cup-stamp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)