Talk:Debasement
Get Talk:Debasement essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:Debasement discussion. Add Talk:Debasement to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Talk:Debasement
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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 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.
 

Citation for the Example of the Denarius?

The Example in this article states: "the value of the denarius in Roman currency gradually decreased over time as the Roman government altered both the size and the silver content of the coin."

There are two claims here, neither of which has an appropriate citation. The first claim is that the size and silver content of the coin changed over time. This is most likely correct, but it would still be good to have a citation for this.

The second claim is that this debasement affected the value of the coin, which is an orthogonal concept. It is well established that the nominal value of Roman coins was typically not directly related to their precious metal content, so there would need to be additional evidence that the debasement of the coin caused a reduction of its value in everyday economic activity. 92.104.74.5 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Citations? Bias?

This article seems to be written by some Ron Paul fanatic. Is this a well-defined economic term? There's only one source for the entire article, and the language is pretty charged. I really don't think this is up to the standards of Wikipedia. Dash1224 (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flagged for POV

I've flagged for POV, which seems pretty blantant with stuff like: "One reason a government will debase its currency is financial gain for the sovereign at the expense of citizens."

During times of increasing production and prosperity the average citizen's purchasing power of most items will often be rising, but certain scarce metals may become more scarse relative to the money supply. Anyway, this article def needs some attention for neutrality. -Helvetica (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how giving one reason a government may debase it's currency as a neutrality POV dispute. There has been no discussion of this in the talk section. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim767676 (talk o contribs) 21:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is ample WP:RS material available on this subject and editors should find and use it in order to avoid error, bias, and confusion. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The claim highlighted by Helvetica amounts to "Rulers will cause debasement to rob their subjects". If there's a source that says that's the reason, as opposed to the more benign economic reasons Helvetica pointed out, please add it to the article. On a more general note, practically all of Jim767676's edits show a similar lack of sources. For example, who considers what happened to the penny in 1982 a good example of debasement? Did the penny change its value of 1/100 dollar? Did the change to the penny coin significantly drive inflation? I somehow doubt that. Huon (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So? Revert them if they're not sourced or balanced. Make it so. SPECIFICO talk 21:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added sources for examples of debasement.Jim767676 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those sources are utterly ridiculus. My favourite is Themarketnews.org: "DISCLAIMER: This is all fake" And yes, it is all fake. The penny source is a self-published blog that doesn't even mention debasement. The dissertation might actually be a good source, but I don't see where it supports the statement it's cited for. In fact, it says: "Chapter 12: An Exclusively Fiat Currency (1935 - 1971)" That sounds as if no particular importance is attached to whatever happened to the coins in 1964. Sorry, we need reliable sources that actually confirm what they're cited for. Huon (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seven years on and the article still reads like an oblique attack on fiat currency from the point of view of someone upset at the fact that they cannot grow their wealth merely by sitting on a stockpile of precious metal forever. WP Ludicer (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debasement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopelessly biased and in desperate need of a rewrite

There is nothing remotely neutral about this article. Not only is there a paucity of sources, but contentious statements are written entirely in Wikipedia's voice without attribution to other parties. If it were up to me, and I had the requisite familiarity with the subject to do so, I would wash away everything currently here and start over from scratch. WP Ludicer (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Talk:Debasement
 



 



 
Music Scenes