Talk:Bimetallism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
High traffic

On 27 March 2010, Bimetallism was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Simpler form[edit]

I think that you should write the article in simplier form so it is easier for tennagers to understand it and be able to write a paper on it and put it in there own words. thank you The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.226.32.202 (talk • contribs) 17 Oct 2005.

Oz[edit]

I'll have to find the source but Baum directly denied using the bimetalism debate in his story. In fact he specificly states it had nothing to do with it and it is just a children's story. He may have used gold and silver, but the current wording implies something very different. I see the OZ article is under multiple disputes. Don't bring that here. - Taxman Talk 22:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As the citations indicate the Economists long ago brought Oz into the debate about bimetallism. They have full length articles in their scholarly journals and even books. That's a reality and the encyclopedia should reflect reality. As for Baum's so-called denial: what did he deny?? better get a citation. Rjensen 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Conversely, you need a citation for "was constructed from elements of the bimetallism debate". This is clearly a controversial claim, even if well-founded, and should be attributed to someone rather than stated as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
OK--good point. Both Dighe and Rockoff make the point (they are econ profs who teach money and have studies the Oz story). Rjensen 06:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, retroactively (and some contemporary I think), lots of people have claimed that the elements of the story were influenced by the bimetallism issue, that is fine to state. But as I said above, Baum stated it had nothing to do with it and it is just a children's story. And yes I'll do what I can to find that citation, but I really have no idea where I read it. - Taxman Talk 13:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
keep looking for the Baum denial--no one else has found it. He wrote editorials on bimetallism in 1890s. Rjensen 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

globalize/USA tag[edit]

I've added the globalize/USA tag to this article as the "Political debate — 1890s U.S" section takes up a large chunk of the article. There might be enough detail on that topic here to make another article devoted to that debate.

I'm not well versed in this topic myself but I'm skeptical about the claims that bimetallism must involve a fixed rate of exchange between the two metals and that the system must necessarily be "very unstable". A bimetallic system that gets no mention here is that of the gold dinar and silver dirham, historically used in Muslim countries (with a fixed rate of exchange as far as I know). The two have been used as on-paper currencies in modern times, and recently there have been actual coins made again in these denominations for monetary use (seeIslamic gold dinar). --Eloil 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the tag, putting "the debate happened inside USA" as a comment to the edit but posting nothing here. I replaced it because I think there should be some debate on this before the tag is removed. The article is supposed to be on "Bimetallism", a topic not limited to the United States in scope (look at the historical Islamic bimetallic system). As I mentioned above, I don't claim to be well versed in the topic, but it seems likely there are other historic examples. With only a few minor changes, the present article could just as easily be called US Bimetallic System or US debate on Bimetallism, and be a thorough treatment of those topics. The US debate on bimetallism certainly deserves mention here, but I think there's a lot more detail on it than is necessary in a general article on bimetallism. What do people think of the idea of splitting the article into two articles, one specific to the US debate? I've posted a couple ideas above for names for a US-specific article. --Eloil 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
perhaps Eloil can do some research and add information. Rjensen 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the tag to the talk page instead of the main article as Rjensen suggested on his(her?) talk page (after reverting my edit again). I will continue to research the topic and will add to the article when I am ready. In the meantime, while the article contains good writing and research, it fails to address bimetallism outside the US in any detail, and can't be said to really have an "worldwide view" until editors add it in.--Eloil 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should Move/rename this page to "Bimetallism in the USA" or add some balancing content re European use as in [1]? Rod57 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Even "bimetallism in the US" wouldn't cover it. This article is a joke. If it really did cover bimetallism in the US, it would mention its importance to international trade (today, we use the USdollar as the standard; back then it was gold. And yes, that means that others were using the bimetallic standard, too), Lincoln illegally enacting laws to enable it in the first place (before that, the US pretty much only used the gold standard), and when was it used (various times). It should probably also link to some article about the gold and silver rushes. The article as written only applies to how politicians used this as a platform for getting elected one season. Furthermore, even that topic is skimmed over. This is just a stub. Can someone who knows how mark it as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.103.26 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking around a little, I found a source that explains bimetallism: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/redish.bimetallism It is a very good article, as best as I could tell. If someone could add a link to it, I'm sure future students will thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.103.26 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Inline citations needed[edit]

This is a well-written and interesting article, and it was refreshing to see so many sources of information cited to support it. However, I tagged it with a {{inline}} to indicate that it needs inline citations. It would be a huge job for somebody other than the original author(s) of this article to find these books and add the inline references for the sentences they support. However, if those people are reading this, I would be willing to help format the citations and get the ball rolling if they are willing to work with me. Thanks, CosineKitty (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)