Talk:Currency

Crowns

If krona/krone are to be merged (which I support), then the Czech koruna and Estonian kroon should also join the family. Jpatokal 13:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

disagree as this edit looses information, ie what currency applies to which country (and v.v.). Yes they are a 'family' of Crowns but the individual names and relevance (ie country of origin) must be retained across that edit - the primary point of having a reference work like WP imho! List them in a tree, but don't 'merge'. --Vamp:Willow 15:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not proposing that country names be removed, I'm proposing that we move all the crowns under the same heading, and then list the exact name and country under the heading. Jpatokal 03:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Independence vs. Private Corporation

To preempt a revert war, I think we should settle whether the Fed is an independent agency or a private corporation. The case law cited refers to Tort liablity rather than monetary independence. The relevant staute stating that Congress can dissolve Fed Reserve is here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00000341----000-.html. The text: "To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law."

In an article on currency, the relevant axis on analysis is monetary policy. The Fed's power in this area is clearly given by Congress, and what Congress gives, it can take away. The Fed's status as a private corporation in regards to Tort law is much less relevant in a currency article.

Also, we don't want to bog down on the US Fed's status in the intro paragraphs that should give general overview to all users from all countries. No US-only focus. Feco 03:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further, refer to Federal_Reserve#Who_owns_the_Federal_Reserve on this. Discussion about the Fed's status belongs on the Fed' wiki page to begin with.

I'll also refrain that a court ruling about tort liablity of Federal government for the Federal Reserve's actions DOES NOT apply to monetary policy. Feco 03:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Governments don't rule central banks, central banks rule governments. If you want to just give the "public relations" perspective on things then remove my editings and replace them with a link to the FED's website. But if you want to provide something which accurately depicts the reality of currency, what it is and how it functions in society and how it is manipulated in ways not beneficial to citizenry of soverign nations, then at the very least you it should just MENTION that ultimate *OWNERSHIP* of central bank *SHARES* lie with *PRIVATE* entities (namely the banking families of Europe who have been around for quite some time now).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve

Yes, the criticism article is linked to from the Fed wiki article. It is NOT linked to from the Currency article, because there is no place for it here. The generic overview of monetary authority and how it relates to currency is sufficient. People looking for more in-depth research will go to the Fed article.

FYI- in the US, shares of Fed Reserve branches are held by member banks. This is by law. The shares are non-tradable, carry no voting authorty, and pay a paltry dividend (which is partial compensation for the fact that Fed pays no interest on member banks' deposits). The "owners" of CBanks have no authority over the exercise of monetary policy, since the authority to exercise policy is explicitly granted to monetary authorites by legislative bodies. That authority can easily be revoked if the Bank oversteps its bounds (say, by promoting the interest of its shadowy 'owners').

Per your post above, I'm going to "just give the PR perspective" and revert your edits. Feco 18:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Money

• The below category should be added.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Money

Kenixkil (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article isn't protected, so you can proceed by adding the category on your own. Vgbyp (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

List of example currencies in the opening paragraph

The current list of examples currencies in the opening paragraph (pound sterling, euro, yen, and US dollar) often gets edited to add some other currency that the editor believes should be there. I cannot blame them, but, logically, we don't need a list of all currencies there to provide an example. Perhaps, it would make sense to find an RS that we could cite that would provide a list of example currencies? Vgbyp (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

To expand the illustrative examples

Modern fiat currencies now routinely exist not only as physical notes and coins but also as electronic account balances and, increasingly, as central bank digital currencies. Several reliable sources explicitly describe fiat currency as existing in digital form as electronic balances in bank accounts, and describe CBDCs as a digital form of central bank money or even as a “digital banknote” or “digital version of cash”.<refs>…</refs> On that basis I propose to expand the illustrative examples in the lead from “banknotes and coins” to “banknotes, coins, electronic balances in bank accounts, and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)”. Accusermanager (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

And they make money changer in Thailand

Broad money to 2023

~2026-36712-70 (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Recent changes by User:Sascho Jovanoski 70329

On December 25, User:Sascho Jovanoski 70329 added quite a few citations to the article's text. It appears that it has been done with the use of some LLM or a similar tool, which resulted in the addition of multiple sources that are either irrelevant, no longer exist (redirects or error 404), or might be irrelevant and are difficult to verify (books). I believe it is best to restore the article's version to the one before those changes to avoid listing tens of citations that don't actually support the statements they are provided for. What is your opinion on it? Vgbyp (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I only had time to glance at them on mobile (and remove flag cruft). I came here to look in more detail because my suspicions were raised. To have added new content with invalid citations is not acceptable.

So now I'm invoking WP:Bold, revert, discuss to revert the changes and invite @Sascho Jovanoski 70329 to argue the case here for their inclusion, section by section. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)