Talk:Pound sterling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Regional language names used in the infobox[edit]

Can someone please explain to me why all those languages are needed in the infobox title? This is the english language wikipedia we do not need to provide mass translations. Cornish certainly does not belong there considering its only spoken properly by a few thousand people. I also notice that Manx Pound does not even bother to give the Manx spelling of the name pound sterling so i really have no clue why we are. This is the English language wikipedia, not a place to promote minority languages. If there is no debate within the next few days i will be removing all but the English spelling of the name. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Because those are the native languages of Britain and Ireland, where the pound sterling is used or has been used. For someone who supports the unity of the people of the United Kingdom you don't seem to have a problem with excluding their languages. ~Asarlaí 16:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a big problem with the English language wikipedia being used to promote certain causes, such as the promotion of minority regional languages. A few thousand people speak cornish, throughout cornwall is is known as the British pound, or Pound sterling. Not the cornish translation of the term. this is the English language wikipedia.. why is regional language names relevant here? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
United States dollar only has the English spelling. it does not include lots of other languages spoken in the United States. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Belgian franc has the French, Dutch and German names. Many currency articles have the currency name in "regional" languages. The names are there, hidden, so that anyone who's interested can see them. That's not "promoting a cause". ~Asarlaí 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't "Punnd Sasannach" mean "English pound". Surely this is a misnomer? Even if that name is used in Gaelic (and I notice the Gaelic wikipedia does use it) it seems wrong, given that it isn't English, but British. (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Only Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are worth a emntion.SAD to see under DEMOGRAPHIC only Great Britain, rather than UK, or at least Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Suspect because all very American on her and they are using GB to mean UK..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Denier or denarius[edit]

From the present article:

The symbol for the penny was "d.", from the French denier[citation needed], from the Latin denarius (the solidus and denarius were Roman coins).

So is it from the French or the Latin? I guess the writer here was trying to say it was from the Latin by way of the French?

Someone fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free banknote images[edit]

I noticed that permission to display this image expired over a year ago. I haven't checked the others. (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I have all the notes I'll put up tomorrow Philpm930 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sterling Crisis section[edit]

This section relies extensively on the opinion of Sir Alec Cairncross and airbrushes the fact that the slide in value started in Q2 1975 on the back of a large government deficit. It conveys the impression that Callaghan (himself a former Chancellor, and a member of Cabinet as Foreign Secretary since the Labour election win in February, 1974 following the Miners' strike and 3 day week) was unaware of events until he became PM, and ignores the fact that Denis Healey was Chancellor from February 1974 until Labour lost power in 1979. The history of the exchange rate in 1975/76 is here:

The section needs revision to provide a more balanced view of the crisis origins and duration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


A common slang term is quid, which is singular and plural, except in the common phrase "Quids in!" What about "quids worth", as in "fifty quids worth of petrol"? (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 18:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Although "quids' worth" (with or without the apostrophe) is sometimes used, "quid's worth" is more correct; with the singular it's "a quid's worth". Peter James (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd guess that is simply an elision. It ought to be "fifty quid worth" (as in "you owe me fifty quid"), but that is a little awkward for a native speaker so the "s" creeps in to smooth the pronunciation. Bagunceiro (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


"It was customary to specify some prices in guineas". Needs a citation and clarification. Fine art auctions did use to work in guineas and I'm not sure, but it may be that extreme luxury goods were priced that way, but I don't remember anything day to day being priced in guineas. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The rule seemed to be that when it was high price goods (mostly premium quality or luxury) price was in guineas, common cheep gods ( (£) s d ). ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorsag (talkcontribs) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal tender - ambiguous sentence?[edit]

I think this sentence can be read at least two ways:

It is legal for shopkeepers to choose to reject any payment, even if it would be legal tender in that jurisdiction, but not in their interest because no debt exists when the offer of payment is made at the same time as the offer of goods or services.

Either it is not in the shopkeeper's interest because no debt exists, or because the payment is legal tender. Could this be clarified?

Bumface11 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Former, I think it's clear, but you can clarify it if you wish. p.s. I like your name. :) Rob (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It was badly worded and included stuff not pertinent to the discussion. I've removed the excess and, hopefully, made it clearer. Fiddle some more if you think it can be improved. Bazza (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


In the section titled "Names" I put the correct definition of "quid pro quo" as sourced from the American Heritage Dictionary. I also had a second source for the literal meaning (i.e.: "what for what") from: "Classical Latin An Introductory Course by JC McKeown; Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge Copyright © 2010"(see page 26). I only included the dictionary as a reference since it correctly asserts both the literal and figurative meanings of the phrase. I also removed the {Citation needed} tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talkcontribs) 12:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1 million and 100 million pound banknotes displayed[edit],AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&bctid=3122858540001

This video shows the appearance of the 1 million and 100 million (giants and titans). I'm not sure how it would directly relate to the article, but perhaps it could be useful in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChameleonXVX (talkcontribs) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Same vs. different currency[edit]

What establishes that the pounds used in Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man are the same currency as in the UK, but those used in the Falklands, Gibraltar, and Saint Helena are different? -- Beland (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The ones if the British Crown Dependencies use the same 3 digit code as the UK and the ones in the British Overseas Territories have their own unique codes. Ezza1995 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

History of the Guinea[edit]

"In 1663, a new gold coinage was introduced based on the 22 carat fine guinea."

The guinea article says it started in 1663; should the above sentence read: "In 1663, a new gold coinage was introduced called the 22 carat fine guinea."? (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Twobells. I'm currently in a dispute with two IPs who keep reverting edits whom they aren't entirely aware of. The topic is that the UK at the end of WWI became in debt, but they IPs want to put that Britain became in debt with the US, something not entirely proven as far as I'm concerned. And when they provide a source, one of them to be exact, only provide book passages not covering the entire idea of the edits. Here's the current edit history, and this is the edit I'm talking about. Hope I'm not troubling you, just in case they come back, which I'm sure they will. (N0n3up (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC))

Not entirely proven? It is common knowledge. You are acting like you are completely unaware of how much the UK borrowed (and lended), which became a major talking point in the works of Keynes and the political discussions surrounding the writing of the Treaty of Versailles. Literally a ten second search provides evidence. If anything, numbers are what should be getting discussed. At any rate, since you are acting incapable: P. 424: the primary debtor was he US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, you only gave a book passage and doesn't cover the whole concept. (N0n3up (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
And if you keep reading, you'll see that the mentions are that the US was the only one to fund its war deficits and that foreign investment (US) made a significant contribution, nothing of the likes that Britain was in debt with US. And even the investment bit is mentioned as a common misconception. (N0n3up (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
"In 1921 Britain's external debts, primarily to the United States..." I am failing to understand why you seem incapable of understanding the UK owed most of it's money to the United States...
Yet another source (P.15 onwards), and another, and another, another, another, all of whom highlight the UK primarily owed to the US making your ongoing assertion that this isn't the case dubious, and makes one question why you want to censor that it was the US the UK owed? If you read the sources, or study the period, one easily finds that while Britain was owed a lot of money by its allies in Europe they were in financial troubles and couldn't all pay back, the money sent to Russia was lost, and pretty much allied debt and German reparation payments were going to the US to pay off the huge sums of money borrowed until better deals were made a decade later.
Then there is the issue of your edit summaries making no mention of if you even read the sources that were in the article, did they support the material before you claimed it was unsourced and removed it... and you apparent complete lack of understanding of what going on during the period: "keep in mind that Britain mostly traded with the now commonwealth nations, the US was an acting ally in WW" - trading partner and the US being an ally have nothing to do with the simple fact that the US was the nation the UK owed most of its money to. 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk
Please sign your posts, I've done it for you this time. The first one only states the problem as a sole mention. The second one is about WWII, not WWI. The third one only states the loan problem as simply another issue regarding Britain, and although the US benefited from war loans, it wasn't restricted to the UK, France and other European nations also borrowed from the US. The fourth one you provided states as war-debt as a circled problem among US and European post-WWI problems. The fifth one, like the third one states that although the US benefited from loans during the war, it was the result to loan various European nations, not only Britain. None of the sources provided imply that Britain was in heavy debt to the US. Not to mention that in the fifth one, the European allies decided to dismiss the debts to US since they joined the war at latter stage of the war. And in regards to British trading with the commonwealth, Britain had always relied on her colonies for resources, including economically, reducing the war-loan problem of Britain with US, which was only one of many problems for Britain at the time. Since the current topic of argument isn't 100% concise nor accurate, it was better to generalize along the lines of what happened during and after WWI, especially since it made a very small part of the article, being only part of a sentence. (N0n3up (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
So your misreading/completely ignoring sources continues. The second source is called British Policy and European Reconstruction After the First World War and links to a page talking about the issue during the 1920s...
The sources all support the assertion in the article, that US was the primarily holder of Britain's debt following the war. You are just ignoring the evidence because you do not like it.
You have also failed to address the question posed to you: did you read the source in the article before you made your edits with your weak edit summaries of being unsourced...2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 Because I don't like it? That's nice. Before you fruitpick the sources, please read them carefully. I can assure you I did. In regards to the second source, you misread the part where it mentions WWII, something you should've noticed when Churchill was mentioned. Britain wasn't the only one involved. This war-debt became a contributing part to the development of the great depression, and it was various European nations involved. Your sources are right, but Britain's debt was a factor that had the US, Britain and other nations involved, not only the US and Britain. (N0n3up (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC))
I did not misread the source, I provided yet another source that supports what the article stated - that UK owed the US 800 million. Your inability to stay on point is shocking, the accusation of cherrypickibg laughable, and your avoidance of answering questions posed to you notable.2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk)The sources that you provided give a variable image of the situation in discussion and there is much more to the whole image here. Clearly you only wan't to prove you're point right, and you are, to an extent. But the version that you're implying is a bit misleading. And in regards to the last part of your message (the part that's not a borderline personal-attack) I read the sources which you provided and it seems that your only interest lies in being proven right and with a noticeable hint of patriotism in your part (and such a lovely "pathetic" edit summary you provided). But before we can come to a conclusion, please consider the sources that you posted because apart from the fact that Britain was in debt to the US (keep in mind this is "after" WWI), there was a chain of events included in the war-debt, something your intended previous version doesn't cover and thus, like I said, misleading. You said you had another source, can you post it please? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

N0n3up's initial edit removed reference that the British debt of 850 million dollars was owed largely to the United States. In this edit he claims that this information is unsourced. He additionally changed reference to British debt being 40 per cent of Government spending to "a considerable amount", claiming that the figure was "Unsourced and uncertain". During his subsequent edits on this article and on Twobells talkpage (1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert) he does not acknowledge if he read the source used in the article thus unable to support his initial claim that the material was unsourced. This point has yet been addressed!

As the edit summaries show, his further edits include ignoring evidence that supports the initial claim in the article and making ill-informed comments such as "keep in mind that Britain mostly traded with the now commonwealth nations, the US was an acting ally in WW" (irrelevant, not an excuse to revert, and has nothing to do with the discussion) and a false claim to further investigate: "please stand by till I find sources that do". As the above talkpage log, and his further edits show, no such attempt was made to further investigate the subject other than poor attempts to rubbish sources that contradict his position.

As noted in my own edits, what the article states it is not an unsourced statement it is fact. What more than likely should be argued about is the figures.

Then there is the whole issue of if Britain did not owe the US large amounts of money, what was the point of the Balfour Note?

Of course, highlighting this can apparently only be done with "a noticeable hint of patriotism in your part", well is that Britain patriotism or American? Am both, and facts negate ethnic or national ties: the UK owed the US a lot of money due to taking on war loans, and according to some sources the US was pretty much the only country it borrowed from therefore the article was correct and this edit war could have been avoided had N0n3up read the sources provided to him. I would also like to highlight that despite the patronizing "keep in mind this is "after" WWI", the whole discussions centers around the change to the following sentence: "However, by the end of the war the country owed £850 million (£NaN as of 2016),[1] mostly to the United States". It is not about being right persobally, it is making the article follow what the sources say; The sources are relevant, and cannot just be ignored.2600:1015:B12D:C684:AE0D:B95E:401F:C23A (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Made few modifications per this source provided by some IP. The one who started to continue to argue about the content. [1]. And why do you keep saying "gah" in your edit summaries? Are you panting from an over-patriotic overdose. (N0n3up (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

Why do my summaries include gah? Simple, despite spoon feeding you, you still ignore the sources and seem incapable of understanding that you are the one editing agaisnt guidelines and wiki policy while engaging in a policy of trollish attacks upon my nationalist ty, who h has no bearing on what the sources say.2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) I knew it, this is patriotically motivated, you don't really care about the information provided, you only care about yourself and being patriotically right. And for your information, the recent tweaks do go according to sources, it says what you and sources imply with added info. I'm not "attacking" your country like you imply, just added more information. And before you accuse me of patriotism, please read my message not what they say, but the grammar used and ask yourself if it's British like you think it is. (N0n3up (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC))
Do you care to back up your personal attacks with evidence? How are my edits (reverting the vandalism you made to this article, and reverting your unsourced assertions) patriotically motivated (I note you failed to read my above edit where I stated I am Anglo-American, and have - from the very beginning - based my comments on what the sources state)? How is following what the sources say, inserting a nationalist tendency into the discussion?
The sources DID NOT say, as you claimed in the article before your edit was reverted and despite the fact that it was unsupported reinserted, that war debts resulted in the Great Depression. It is a weak reading of the sources to even claim that complications arose from war debts leading to the Great Depression. You are not reading the sources, you are misinterpreting them woefully that it is in breach of wiki guidelines and should be considered vandalism. You have demonstrated an inability to correctly use the sources, not bring any sources to the table, and only engage in personal attacks. Admins will be contacted. (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC) (talk)Sigh, I did not at any moment, misread your post. I assumed your anglo-american excuse was to rid of said accusation. Anyways, if you read up to page 82 in here, you will read the following up to the great depression, and keep in mind that the war-debt dilema wasn't the cause, this is an additional fact placed there to shed some light on the topic. And there is nothing about the 40% you keep posting on your edits. And stop changing you IP address, if we're going to talk about this, we might as well if you don't make yourself elusive to contact. May I suggest creating an account? (N0n3up (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

"40 per cent"[edit]

If the promised 'further investigation' had of taken place, a quick google search finds at least two sources that engage in the subject: source 1, and source 2. I would imagine further effort would bring about further evidence and more detail. (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC) (talk) Then why did you keep reverting me instead of providing the source first? (N0n3up (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
Never mind, already put the first one there. (N0n3up (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pound sterling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Brexit clarity[edit]

Anstoyanov's edit at 12:23, 24 October 2016‎ is either unclear or untrue. The effect of Brexit weakened the Sterling against Euro with 5% for just 1 night. The night before the vote 1 GBP was trading for 1.5USD, the morning next day when the results was clear, 1 GBP was trading for 1.34USD.

1. The edit begins with an assertion about sterling against the euro but then continues by referring to the sterling - dollar exchange; I suggest this lacks clarity. Would it not make more sense to say: The effect of Brexit weakened the Sterling against Euro by 5%. The night before the vote 1 GBP was trading for €1.30; on the day following the referendum, when the result was clear, 1 GBP was trading at €1.23.

2. Since sterling is now trading at c.€1.12 (14% down since 22/06/16), how can it be true to say Brexit weakened the pound for just 1 night? Here we are (four months later) and the pound is still lower against the euro than it was on the morning following the referendum, let alone the night before; hardly just 1 night.

3. The figures against the dollar are equally misleading if intended to refer to just 1 night. On 22nd June (the night before the referendum) the pound was trading at $1.466; on 24th June (the morning after the referendum) it closed at $1.3694 which is a 6% fall. As I write, it's trading at $1.2232 - a fall of 16.5% since the night before the referendum. Again, that's hardly weaker for just 1 night.

4. The article cited ("What next for businesses seeking to protect against Sterling Volatility Post Brexit? - Transfermate News". ) doesn't suggest that Sterling fell 5% against Euro for just 1 night", but rather that it weakened sterling against the euro in just one night, which is not the same thing at all (and is probably why the article cited as a reference doesn't use the phrase just 1 night at all.) The article cited also notes that there was further weakness expected over the coming weeks. - a prophesy that turned out to be true but which the edit doesn't mention at all.

As this edit stands, it seems to me, it's misleading - not through its being factually inaccurate but in its relying on half the facts and concealing the rest (which is probably worse than being wholly inaccurate!)

Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey TeekeeyMisha, you are right. Just tried to include the information I thought it was missing. Tried to be as accurate as possible, but maybe haven't been able to explain it well. If you can help with this, it'll be great. If not, you can remove this sentence or change it as you think it'll be best for the wiki readers.--Anstoyanov (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right - the information was missing and does need to be included. I've tried to make it a little clearer. See what you think; doubtless someone will come along and change it if I've made a poor job of it!

Misha An interested observer of this and that 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Gregory Clark (2016), "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)" MeasuringWorth.