Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMoney was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
June 27, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 31, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 27, 2023.
Current status: Former good article nominee
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
B checklist
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information:
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Social sciences and society.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.
Taskforce icon
This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Money is provably "an in-process promise to complete a trade over time and space."[edit]

Money is provably "an in-process promise to complete a trade over time and space."

And whoever is deleting this comment should at least disprove the proof forwarded. Whoever is deleting this comment would have found fault with Copernicus as well. WithGLEE (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Copernicus tried to edit Wikipedia without publishing his work elsewhere first, I would remove it too. Do you have any references other than your own genius for these claims? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who are you to remove anyone's work? Re-references: I have written or annotated more than 200 articles that prove my points. See:

WithGLEE (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not a reliable source by Wikipedia’s definition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does Wikipedia deal with the obvious? There is a first source for everything...even what Copernicus was saying. No "first" source is "reliable". And many so-called reliable sources are incestuous...witness the so-called global warming emails that reveal the playbook of that charade. That's why we should value the "talk" facility of Wikipedia. We didn't have that with Encyclopedias like Britannica and and Americana where nonsense went unchallenged and provable concepts could be censored. Show me any instance of the origination of money and I will show you a "trader"...or a "counterfeiter". Dropping money from helicopters (e.g. government stimulus checks) is not money is counterfeiting. Banks 10x reserve privilege (yielding 10x profit to them...doubling their so-called "capital" in two years) is not money doesn't happen without a trader "begging" the bank to do it. And you won't find this "obvious" fact in any "reliable source"...period! WithGLEE (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you publish your opinions in a reliable source such as an academic journal they can be considered as sources for this article. If you read the link above about reliable sources, and the links left on your talk page about the use of article talk pages, you’ll see that if you persist in talking about your own opinions instead of discussing how to improve the article using reliable sources you are likely to find your contributions removed, and if you’re sufficiently disruptive you may be blocked from editing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Block away. You a doing a great disservice...whoever you are. WithGLEE (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedians cannot be expected to peer review original research. Wikipedia was never designed to fulfil that function. Instead wikipedians are looking out for evidence that the research has been reviewed already. This could mean that the work has been published in a peer reviewed journal or that at the very least there is evidence that the author has gained a reputation in their field. Reissgo (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested improvements on the origins of money[edit]

2nd paragraph of Money#History doesn't offer a solid origin of money beyond hints. And "something like 160 grains" (10 grams or a shekel) of barley is rather misinformed and absurd for Sumerians counting only until 360. We propose here to replace this by words from a solid JSTOR article on how commodity money began (inside blockquotes). Suggested rewrites and/or approvals helps explain money's origins on more solid ground.

If so endorsed / desired exactly the same text be also grafted in History_of_money#Overview which suffers the same issues. Thanks.

Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. The Mesopotamian shekel was a unit of weight, and relied on the mass of something like 160 grains of barley.[1] The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC.Establishing the origins of commodity money requires written records on which historical commodities served the various functions of money. In ancient Mesopotamia silver and barley were known to have served as basic monies from 2500 BC or earlier, with their monetary uses well-attested to in documents of nearly all periods and areas.[2]: 227 Gold's monetary use was limited by its rarity, and served more as commodity than money before c 1400 BC.[2]: 230 

Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Kramer, History Begins at Sumer, pp. 52–55.
  2. ^ a b Powell (1996). Money in Mesopotamia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 1996, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 224-242.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022[edit]

"Some places do maintain two or currencies" under Locality, should be changed. Luckytech42 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page archives[edit]

Would anyone mind if I renamed (with redirects) the first two talk archive pages to their standard names (Talk:Money/Archive 1 and Talk:Money/Archive 2) and re-start archiving? GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review citations on this page[edit]

Citations here are citing very poor sources and the material on this page lacks because of it. Citation 14 is of particular issue. Blatant misinformation on the Wikipedia page for money. I can’t put it past the propaganda machines though, they obviously do a very good job. Language needs to be reworked too. “Many civilizations “”EVENTUALLY”” developed a form of commodity currency” as if currency is a necessity in every civilization, even had a guaranteed chance of forming? This is purposefully poor work to trick people into believing money is essential to human society. 2600:6C48:6F7F:B7E6:69D9:C544:11CA:29F6 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


While I like the picture, I figured one that shows more recent coins and banknotes (instead of ones dating to the mid-1930s) would be more appropriate. MightyArms (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding store of value[edit]

"Some have argued that inflation, by reducing the value of money, diminishes the ability of the money to function as a store of value."

How can one argue about this one? Inflation reduces the value of money, that's a fact and nothing to argue about in my opinion. Elyos92 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked the cited source, and it says nothing about money as a store of value. It talks about GDP and CPI. Maybe this should be removed. GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, it appears to me, it is common sense that inflation reduces the value of money. Maybe one should say consumer price inflation reduces the value. Although asset price inflation reduces the value of money as well, if you plan on buying something, not if you own something, obviously. But then again, you usually talk about consumer price inflation, if you say inflation. Plus, most people don't own a lot of assets and inflation (whether CPI or API) isn't good for them. Elyos92 (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Elon Musks recent definition of money? Should it be added somewhere?[edit]

Elon recently talked a little bit about money, i.e.: "central banks basically have an editing privilege on the database"

"money is essentially a database"

"In my opinion, it is most useful to think about money with information theory"

"money is just information"


"Money is actually a set of heterogeneous databases with vast amounts of legacy code still using COBOL on mainframes in batch mode." regarding the USD fiat money, obviously.

I feel like those are some good points and understandings regarding money. Elyos92 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not suitable -- it is one person's non-expert opinion. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with SPECIFICO, not suitable. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]