Talk:Money burning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do notes[edit]

Things to verify:

  • [1] has a comment claiming that 18 U.S.C 333 has been tried; I can't verify either way.
  • The Serge Gainsbourg article claims that that burning was illegal at the time; no citation given.
  • The The Edge (radio station) article claims that burning New Zealand currency is illegal, so they had to convert to Australian; no citation given.
  • The Bears Can't Run Downhill article suggests that burning money is not illegal in the UK, or at least that the book says one way or the other; the index points to page 178; I can't verify.

Shouldn't there be something about the cliché of a preposterously rich person lighting something on fire (traditionally a cigar) with a very high value bank note? Circeus (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? There's a Symbolism section. Melchoir (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this article would benefit from linking to, or talking about, K Foundation Burn a Million Quid. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's already there... and someone's added it again. I'll consolidate. Melchoir (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


This article claimed burning currency is illegal in Canada. It provided a link to "The Canadian Currency Act", saying it "states that no-one may melt, destroy or misuse any money that is legal tender in Canada.[33] Offenders may be sentenced to prison or fined." This appears to be incorrect. The reference should be more specific. Section 11(1) on melting coins is only about coins (and doesn't have the same language as is in this article). I think it should read:

"The Currency Act and The Canadian Criminal Code state that no person shall melt down, break up or use otherwise than as currency any coin that is legal tender in Canada. However, there is no mention of paper currency." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpbl (talkcontribs) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Criminal Code of Canada says in section 456: 456. Defacing current coins Defacing current coins 456. Every one who (a) defaces a current coin, or (b) utters a current coin that has been defaced, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpbl (talkcontribs) 20:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


During the Republic of China hyperinflation bundles of banknotes were weighed rather than counted to save time. The banks could not afford to store cash paid in, so after noting the amounts in their ledgers the money was burnt to save space. (This is all anecdotal, from family members who lived through it). Old Aylesburian (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

burning money as a sign of a mental ilness[edit]

I think this is some Co$-style propaganda. That is to speak, if someone rejects the consumerism that comes with capitalist state, they're subjected to essentially extrajudicial punishment. Sure, it's sourced, but it's a very alarming (and alarmist!) statement to be made in an article about money burning. Drama-kun (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of lead[edit]

I just reverted the removal of the first sentence of the lead, as I feel that it is important to establish clearly in the first sentence what the topic of the article is about. The first sentence should not be about consequences as consequences should be described later in the lead. The appropriate section in the MOS is MOS:BEGIN, where it states, "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." LK (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Media matters[edit]

The Mediamatters article does not violate WP:LINKVIO, and WP:RS/N has discussed media matters several times, and have decided that they are a reliable source. You are being disruptive by systematically removing links to Mediamatters from articles throughout Wikipedia. LK (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's set the LINKVIO issue aside for the moment. Let's address the RS issue.
LK's argument in favor of the MMfA ref used here is 1) "WP:RS/N has discussed media matters several times, and have decided that they are a reliable source" and 2) "You are being disruptive by systematically removing links to Mediamatters from articles throughout Wikipedia". In other words, 1) MMfA refs are always RSs, and 2) I'm always wrong. The former violates the rule that things can change and that refs must be considered in context, and the latter violates WP:AGF. The former is irrelevant to the MMfA ref here that violates RS. The latter is irrelevant to anything. In summary, neither of LK's arguments is relevant to whether the MMfA link used here is not a RS. In fairness, I hereby ask LK to set aside the irrelevant argument and the ad hominem argument and provide specific reasons against the specific MMfA ref as used here in context.
As for me, I will now be specific and address the issues. This is the sentence and refs (which I will make visible) as they existed before my edit:
Certainly people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media — Living Things at South by Southwest,REF1—cite web |title=Living Things burn through dollars, sense |date=23 March 2009 |first=August |last=Brown |url= |work=LA Times music blog |accessdate=1 August 2009— Larry Kudlow on The CallREF2—cite web |title="This is what's happening to our money": CNBC's Kudlow lights dollar bill on fire |author=E.H.H. |date=19 March 2009 |url= |work=Media Matters for America |accessdate=1 August 2009— — without apparent consequence.
When I saw that I added a Citation tag and removed the MMfA ref with the following history comment: "add Citation tag after removing non-WP:RS MMfA ref that may also violate WP:LINKVIO".
So what we have here is the MMfA ref being used as a RS to show "Larry Kudlow on The Call" "publicly burn[ing] small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media...." The specific MMfA ref is .
The MMfA ref says, "SUMMARY: On CNBC's The Call, while purporting to describe 'the value of our money,' Larry Kudlow lit a U.S. dollar bill on fire, destroying part of the bill -- a possible violation of Title 18, Section 333, of the U.S. Code." Then follows many paragraphs on why burning money is illegal. This is followed by a nakedly political statement: "Kudlow has stated that he is considering a run for U.S. Senate." Naturally, that sentence comes with its own link to another MMfA article at . Then follows a transcript of the show. To top it off, the author signs his name as "E.H.H."
Naturally, setting aside the issue of WP:SYN, anyone wanting to provide a RS for Kudlow's burning a dollar on The Call would link to the web site for The Call, no? I mean that's obvious. Instead, the link is made to the MMfA ref that republishes The Call then adds the politically charged statement that Kudlow was running for the Senate. Obviously the take away is that Kudlow is doing something illegal and so should not be a senatorial candidate.
Isn't that nice? To support the statement that Kudlow burned a dollar you get pointed to a reference that, other than LINKVIO, makes the point that Kudlow violates the law and should not be a political candidate. Is this what Wikipedia rules are designed to allow? Of course not. Is this a RS as used in this context? Of course not.
Why else is it not a RS. The author. "E.H.H." Does that sound reliable to anyone here? MMfA articles do include full names of authors sometimes. See, e.g., . The one used to prove Kudlow burned a dollar did not. Look at the ref as used in the article. Who's the author. Right, "author=E.H.H." Except in exceptional circumstances, I suppose, does anyone know any MSM articles that attribute authorship using initials? The New York Times. That's a RS. Does it use initials? The Wall Street Journal. Any initials there? J.Z., maybe? Could it be Jay-Z or Jeff Zaslow. Etc., etc. The NYT and the WSJ, etc., are RSs. "E.H.H." writing on MMfA is not a RS.
Why else is it not a RS. MMfA was formed for the purpose of opposing conservatives, among other things. That's not a problem. It is certainly entitled to do so. The MMfA ref implies Kudlow broke the law and his candidacy for US Senate should be unsuccessful, or at least that's a reasonable inference. That's not a problem. It is certainly entitled to do so. The problem is the use of such a ref in this matter violates WP:RS which says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. .... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." So MMfA, devoted to opposing certain political candidates, opposes Kudlow vis-a-vis his being a political candidate of the kind MMfA opposes, and so it is "promotional in nature". Other concerns in that Wiki requirement apply, but the "promotional in nature" requirement really stands out when MMfA implies Kudlow did something illegal and juxtaposes that with his running for Senate. No, that is not a RS. Had The Call or a real RS been sourced, the promotional comments would not have been present.
Okay, I have provided specific reasons based on specific policy why the specific MMfA ref in context is not a RS source. And we have not even reached the LINKVIO issue.
"Proper sourcing always depends on context", says WP:RS. It also says, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." So the claim that "WP:RS/N has discussed media matters several times, and have decided that they are a reliable source" is irrelevant as it does not discuss context, as I have. In the context of this ref to prove Kudlow burned a dollar, a ref that says what Kudlow did is illegal and he's running for office is not a RS.
The MMfA ref as used here is not a RS. LK, explain why it is. Sadly, instead of waiting for a response from me, he jumped right to ANI to report me. So much for WP:AGF. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
On March 19, 2009, Larry Kudlow lit a dollar bill on fire on TV. This statement is not controversial. The MMfA reference provides evidence supporting the statement. This isn't controversial either. Melchoir (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Correct, but that has nothing to do with whether the MMfA ref as used here is a RS. Please specify why it is or is not a RS as used on this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The reference is used to verify the statement. Melchoir (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that. Please, I am not trying to be argumentative. Yes, the reference is used to verify the statement. But the question is whether or not that use is or is not in compliance with WP:RS. Please explain one way or another. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, if the Wikipedia article said "Kudlow committed a crime", citing MMfA, that would be a problem because MMfA is not an authority in the context of federal criminal procedure. As a matter of fact, I would be the first to disagree. But there is zero interpretation in the statement that Kudlow lit a bill on fire, and MMfA is an authority in the context of recording things people do on TV. Melchoir (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Let's see what others say. If you are correct, MMfA could be used for any and all recorded things, no RSs like The Call are needed, and WP:RS is irrelevant. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── MMfA are generally considered reliable, in contentious areas they should be used with particular attribution as in: according to Media Matters for America .. Unomi (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Unomi. We always attribute when there is disagreement between reliable sources, even the New York Times should be attributed if it disagrees with another RS. I believe the general conclusion at WP:RS/N is that Media Matters is to be treated similar to most news sources.LK (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, perhaps. But specifically here. What about as used on this page, and address the concerns I raised. It's getting tiring that people keep saying MMfA has been proven to be a RS on other pages so it's automatically the same here too. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, posting a thirteen-paragraph message on a talk page is unlikely to result in a discussion you find satisfactory. It results in nobody knowing what your real point is, let alone how to respond to it. Trust me, I used to try such tactics myself. Melchoir (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop it. I explained above, in great detail, exactly why the MMfA ref violates WP:RS. In response, despite my politely asking again and again, no one ever responds substantively. Instead excuses are made like, "It results in nobody knowing what your real point is, let alone how to respond to it." It is beginning to become apparent to me why no one is responding substantively--they support MMfA more than they support WP:RS or WP:LINKVIO. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
My criticism was meant to be constructive. In my experience it's far better to discuss individual points one at a time. Please keep in mind that you are talking to human beings.
I and other editors have already provided substantive, positive arguments for keeping the reference. But since you insist on an itemized rebuttal of your own comments...
  • The Call does not publish transcripts online.
  • reveals that E.H.H. is Eric Hananoki.
  • MMfA's credibility in this context is not in dispute; they did not fabricate the video. The reference is not used to promote a POV.
  • LINKVIO: no, the source is protected by Fair Use.
  • I for one don't care about MMfA.
That's all I can do for you. Melchoir (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You are the first person to give substantive responses.
  • The Call not publishing transcripts online is not an excuse to evade Wikipedia requirements.
  • is nice. Where did you get that? How is that tied into anything, like what did I miss to not see that. Some people there have the same initials, so that is not adequate. Further, look at those people carefully. I am certain they do not meet RS requirements. For example, E.H.H. "previously worked as a researcher, segment producer, and blogger for The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio." Etc. Now WP:RS says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." No way can E.H.H. be considered "reliable". We need MSM sources, not people working for political campaigns. And don't the MMfA authors "read and interpret[] primary source material for themselves"? Of course. That is not reliable.
  • No, MMfA did not create the video, however, the link is definitely being used for POV. Witness what the article contains, as I pointed out. Witness the massive effort to ensure Wikipedia stays chock full of hundreds of inappropriate MMfA refs. Witness the refusal to address the issues, until your last comment, and the vitriolic way I am attacked by, for example, Badger_Boy or whatever his name was. The POV is not directly in the article, but go to the ref and there it is, plain as day. By the way, credibility is not the issue. RS is the issue. The ref fails RS.
  • As to LINKVIO, I do not yet have a full picture of that, but your view of "fair use" is convenient and may not be connected to reality. Let's agree to set that issue aside so this does not get even huger.
  • I agree our personal feelings are irrelevant. What is relevant is WP:RS.
Anyway, thanks for responding substantively. In summary, my response is that a RS not being accessible is not an excuse to use a non-RS, the staff page is nice but exposes MMfA to other problems like having authors who do not meet RS standards, and while MMfA did not make up the video and its views are not embedded in the article a reader still gets them when they view the ref.
Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! Still, I'm done here. Melchoir (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
K, thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Another fault with the MMfA staff list is that is does not disclose everyone. It is not reliable. Here M.F.B. writes an article [2] but M.F.B. is not on that staff list [3] (unless they add it after reading this). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MMfA link about to be removed[edit]

I'm will soon be removing the MMfA link for reasons I have explained above, pending further response here. Only Melchoir gave substantive reasons why not, I surmounted his response, and he has chosen not to participate further.

Lawrencekhoo began an AN effort to stop my removing MMfA links that violate WP:RS, and that resulted in my having to be sure I discuss the removals clearly in Talk. I have done exactly that, and quite extensively on this page.

Lawrencekhoo has given no substantive response to date that addresses issues raised in WP:RS. Saying "WP:RS/N has discussed media matters several times, and have decided that they are a reliable source" is not substantive as it addresses other pages, not this one, and WP:RS makes that statement irrelevant anyway since each ref must be reviewed in context. Saying, "You are being disruptive by systematically removing links to Mediamatters from articles throughout Wikipedia" is not substantive as it addresses editors, not page improvements—it has nothing to do with whether the MMfA ref on this page violates WP:RS.

I urge everyone to provide substantive reasons why the MMfA ref is a RS as defined by WP:RS. Barring presentation of substantive reasons, I will remove the MMfA in about a week. If substantive reasons are provided, then we'll go from there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Per some of you reasoning above, here's why you need to leave the reference alone.
  • The The Call never said Kudlow committed "a possible violation of Title 18, Section 333, of the U.S. Code." If we said that here, and cited The Call as a source, then it would be synthesis. So, we can't use The Call as a source for this information. But, since MMfA said it, we can say it here and use them as the source.
  • MMfA's credibility is not an issue. We know for a fact that Kudlow burned a bill per The Call, and we know for a fact that burning bills is prohibited per U.S. Code. So, we know that MMfA's claim that Kudlow committed "a possible violation of Title 18, Section 333, of the U.S. Code" is accurate; and is being used in that context here on Wikipedia.
  • WP:LINKVIO also states that if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. If MMfA videos routinely stated "removed due to infringement", then I think that would be a strong case for LINKVIO. Since they do not, LINKVIO is meaningless here.
  • Whether Kudlow is political candidate or not is irrelevant. The source is not being used in that context and it's pointless to even bring it up.
Akerans (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "[S]ince MMfA said it, we can say it here and use them as the source." - I believe you have provided evidence of a violation of WP:UNDUE.
  • "[W]e know that MMfA's claim that Kudlow committed 'a possible violation of Title 18, Section 333, of the U.S. Code' is accurate...." We already cite to the violation of Title 18 with Schoen, John W., "Answer Desk: Is It a Crime to Burn Money?" Besides, the Wikipedia article says, "Certainly people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media — Living Things at South by Southwest,-17- Larry Kudlow on The Call-18- — without apparent consequence." MMfA's claim that Kudlow violated Title 18 may be accurate, but that is not what the ref is being used to support. The support is for "people have publicly burned small amounts of money for political protests that were picked up by the media." So the MMfA ref is not, as you say, "being used in that context here on Wikipedia." Is it not being used to support the Title 18 violation, if any, rather is it being used to support the statement that some people burn money. It is not a RS for that.
  • Regarding LINKVIO, let's set that aside for now since it does not address WP:RS violations and it appears WP:RS will necessitate the removal of the MMfA ref.
  • Regarding Kudlow, let's set that aside for now as well.
While you have raised substantive issues for keeping the ref, they have been proven false.
That said, they were substantive nevertheless, so, in keeping with my previous statement, I will not remove the MMfA ref in a week but rather wait for discussion here to continue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
1) "I believe you have provided evidence of a violation of WP:UNDUE." The issue, which you raised, was about using The Call over MMfA as the source. I don't see how undue addresses which source to use. Or, were you setting aside the original argument and introducing a new one? 2) "Is it not being used to support the Title 18 violation" If "consequence" in that sentence does not refer to violating Title 18, then to what does it refer? Or, are you just ignoring that part of the sentence? In which case, I think the problem is that you're reading the sentence out of context, which is why you think the source is out of context. Akerans (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
1) I think what Wikidemon said may apply. 2) I don't think so. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
1) What Wikidemon said does not apply. 2) I hold the same opinion as Akerans, what he said appears perfectly reasonable to me.
Do not go around removing MMfA links over the objections of others. And, do not especially target MMfA links. This is exactly the behavior that people were objecting to at the ANI thread. LK (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
LK, you need to stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. Ad hominem argument will not persuade anyone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
False accusations are rude. Kindly produce diffs of my 'wikihounding' you or retract your false accusation.
This is an article that I've worked on, that you've come to in order to pursue a POV campaign against a legitimate source. I'm asking you to stop edit warring about an issue that everyone else but you agrees about. LK (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I need not do that here, and it is not a false accusation, as your comment demonstrates a little yet again. I need not yield to yet another demand of yours. If I take action to stop what you are doing, I will do so on the appropriate noticeboard. If you take action in response to this comment, it will further evidence the hounding, and I will produce diffs not only from me but from others who have noticed you may be hounding me. The important point here is that you have yet again addressed me instead of the substantive issues. Boring. Move on.
And you don't WP:OWN this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking you, per No Personal Attacks, not to make accusations that you cannot justify with diffs. If you truly believe that I am WIKIHOUNDING you, and that I WP:OWN this page, make the accusation in the right forum (probably WP:ANI). Do not make spurious accusations on article talk pages. LK (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
1) Agree with LK, Wikidemon's comments don't apply. 1a) If you're arguing undue, then that's a different issue in and of itself. An example of someone burning money for political protest in an article about burning money to communicate a message, either for artistic effect, as a form of protest is in no way undue. That information is highly relevant to the article, and we've not devoted too much space to its inclusion based on its source. 2) If you don't think so, then please explain what "consequence" means to you? Akerans (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)