text:
Demand Note

A Demand Note is a type of United States paper money that was issued from August 1861 to April 1862 during the American Civil War in denominations of 5, 10, and 20 US$. Demand Notes were the first issue of paper money by the United States that achieved wide circulation. The U.S. government placed Demand Notes into circulation by using them to pay expenses incurred during the Civil War including the salaries of its workers and military personnel.

Because of the distinctive green ink on their reverse, and because state-chartered bank and Confederate notes of the day typically had blank reverses, the Demand Notes were nicknamed "greenbacks", a name later inherited by United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes. The obverse of the Demand Notes contained familiar elements such as the images of a bald eagle, Abraham Lincoln, and Alexander Hamilton, though the portraits used on Demand Notes are different from the ones seen on U.S. currency today.

When Demand Notes were discontinued, their successors, the United States Notes, could not be used to pay import duties, a large part of the U.S. federal tax base at the time, and thus Demand Notes took precedence. As a result, most Demand Notes were redeemed, though the few remaining Demand Notes are the oldest valid currency in the United States today.

Treasury Notes and early United States paper money
Between the adoption of the United States Constitution and the Civil War, the United States government did not issue paper money as it is known today. During wars and recessions it issued short term debt called Treasury Notes, but these were not legal tender. The Demand Notes were a transitional issue connecting these Treasury Notes to modern paper money. They were intended to function as money but were authorized under Congress's borrowing power because the government's authority to issue currency notes was uncertain.

The Continental Congress had issued Continental dollars between 1775 and 1779 to help finance the American Revolution. The paper Continental dollars nominally entitled the bearer to an equivalent amount of Spanish milled dollars but were never redeemed in silver and lost 99% of their value by 1790 despite the American victory. With the fate of the Continentals in mind, the Founding Fathers embedded in the constitution no provision for a paper currency, and the constitution explicitly prohibits states from making anything but gold or silver legal tender. As a result, the pre-Civil War circulation of banknotes in the United States consisted of private issues, including issues by private federally chartered banks such as the First and the Second Bank of the United States.

While the constitution did not explicitly grant the power to issue paper currency, it did grant the power to borrow money. Treasury Notes, as a form of debt, were an innovation to help bridge federal financing gaps when the government encountered difficulty selling a sufficient amount of long term bonds, or loan "stock". Treasury Notes were first employed during the War of 1812 and were issued irregularly up through the Civil War. Characteristically the issues were not extensive and the "polite fiction" was always maintained that Treasury Notes did not serve as money when, in fact, to a limited extent they did. These notes usually bore interest, their value varied with market conditions, and they rapidly disappeared from the financial system after the crisis associated with their issuance had ended.

Among the several issues of Treasury Notes, of special note are the "Small Treasury Notes" of 1815 which, like the Demand Notes, did not bear interest and were intended to circulate as currency – and thus are also candidates for "the first U.S. paper money". However, only $3,392,994 were issued, and these were rapidly exchanged for bonds. An indication of the limited circulation achieved by these notes is that only two issued uncancelled examples of the Small Treasury Notes are known today, vs. almost 1000 examples of the Demand Notes.

Pre-issuance
Federal finances had not yet recovered from the Panic of 1857 when the election of President Lincoln in 1860 made it even more difficult for the federal government to raise money in the bond market due to the increased threat of Southern secession and a possible war. At the outbreak of the Civil War the Union was depending upon hand-to-mouth borrowing to meet expenses and with the beginning of hostilities at Fort Sumter in April 1861 the burden of funding the war effort and paying employees, including soldiers in the field, offered no small challenge.

One response from Congress was the Act of July 17, 1861, which allowed for US$250000000 to be borrowed on the credit of the United States. Of this sum, up to US$50000000 was authorized as non-interest bearing Treasury Notes, payable upon demand, in denominations less than fifty dollars and not less than ten dollars. These were called Demand Notes to distinguish them from the interest-bearing Treasury Notes in existence at the time.

The promise to pay specie "on demand" was a new obligation for Treasury Notes (though common on private banknotes) but would spare the cash-strapped treasury the intermediate step of selling an equivalent amount of debt by allowing it to use the notes as a currency to pay creditors directly. The notes were to be redeemable through the assistant treasurers' offices at Philadelphia, Boston, and New York. They were to be hand signed by the first or second comptroller of currency or the Register of the Treasury; they were also supposed to be counter-signed by any other treasury officials designated by the secretary of the treasury. These signature provisions would later be altered several times. This act also stipulated that prior to December 31, 1862, an individual Demand Note could be re-issued into circulation after it was presented for redemption.

Just before they were to be released, the Act of August 5, 1861, stipulated several changes to the issuance of Demand Notes. It allowed for Demand Notes to be issued in denominations of not less than $5 and be redeemable through the assistant treasurer's office at St. Louis or the bullion depository in Cincinnati. This act also stated that the Treasurer of the United States and Register of the Treasury or any treasury official appointed by the secretary of the treasury should sign the notes. Under this act, Demand Notes did not need to carry the seal of the U.S. Treasury. This act also granted a traditional privilege of Treasury Notes to the Demand Notes in that they were to be receivable in payment of all public dues, a privilege which was to figure prominently in their eventual disposition.

Because the Bureau of Engraving and Printing did not exist at the time, the American Bank Note Company and National Bank Note Company were contracted to create Demand Notes. Both companies were prominent printers of banknotes for private and state-chartered banks throughout the country. Most likely, the American Bank Note Company engraved the printing plates for $5 and $10 notes while the National Bank Note Company engraved the printing plates for the $20 notes. All of the Demand Notes were printed by the American Bank Note Company. As designed, they were of the same size, and in appearance closely resembled banknotes.

Post-issuance
Secretary of the Treasury Chase began distributing the notes to meet Union obligations in August 1861. Initially, various merchants, banks and especially the railroad industry accepted the notes at a discounted rate or did not accept them at all. In order to ease public distrust in the newly issued notes Secretary Chase signed a paper agreeing to accept the notes in payment of his own salary and on September 3, 1861, Union General-in-Chief Winfield Scott issued a circular to his soldiers arguing the convenience of the notes for those wishing to send home a portion of their pay. In mid-September Secretary Chase issued the following circular to the assistant treasurers to remove all doubt about the monetary status of the new notes:

"Under the acts of July 19th and August 5th last, Treasury Notes of the denomination of US$5, US$10, and US$20, have been, and will continue to be issued, redeemable in coin on demand at the offices of the assistant treasurer at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and at the Depository of Cincinnati. These notes are intended to furnish a current medium of payment, exchange, and remittance, being at all times convertible into coin at the option of holder, at the place where made payable, and everywhere receivable for public dues. They must be always equivalent to gold, and often and for many purposes more convenient and valuable.

A sufficient amount of coin to redeem these notes promptly on demand will be kept with the depositaries, by whom they are respectively made payable. And all depositors and collecting officers will receive them, enter them on their books, and pay them to public creditors as money. Large amounts of the notes of small denominations are rapidly being issued and distributed."

These actions also created a willingness on the part of banks to redeem the notes for coin as well. This put Demand Notes on par with the value and purchasing power of gold coins and they circulated widely among the public for private transactions. They could be redeemed for silver coinage as well.

The law allowed for the notes to be hand-signed by F. E. Spinner (treasurer) and L. E. Chittenden (register of the Treasury). This proved unfeasible, however, and Congress also authorized the notes to be signed by procurators. Seventy women were hired at an annual salary of US$1200 to sign the notes. A distinction of "for the" was written after a signature to indicate that it was being used in place of treasury officials. Apparently, some skilled women could even imitate the signature of F. E. Spinner. In late August "for the" was added to printing plates to simplify the hand-signing operation. The American Bank Note Company stopped printing notes payable at St. Louis and Cincinnati several days after revising printing plates with "for the".

Suspension of specie payment
The ability of the government to redeem the Demand Notes in specie came under pressure in December 1861. On December 10 Secretary Chase indicated that war expenditures were far exceeding projections while Federal revenues were falling short. Then on the 16th, news of the British reaction to the Trent Affair reached New York and the major banks, which had been supplying gold to the government in exchange for seven-thirties Treasury Notes and bonds which they had been in turn reselling, saw the demand for their offerings of Union securities drop precipitously. By the end of the month the banks had suspended specie payment on their own banknotes. The Demand Notes then began to appear at assistant treasurers' offices in great numbers for redemption, but since the government could not obtain adequate supplies of coin it was forced to follow suit and suspend redeeming the Demand Notes for gold in the first few days of 1862.

The transition to legal tender notes
The inability of the Union government to redeem these notes for specie "on demand" caused great concern to Congress in early 1862. Some banks had pledged to make a US$150 million loan to the government; the final installment was due on 4 February 1862, and these banks continued to accept Demand Notes for eventual use towards fulfilling this obligation. This supported the value of the notes during January. After February 4, Secretary Chase authorized John Cisco, Assistant U.S. Treasurer in New York City, to accept Demand Notes for short term deposits at five percent interest – thus making the Demand Notes as good as interest bearing deposits, but with the credit of the government. New York banks quickly made the certificates of such deposits their clearing standard. The Demand Notes became the unit of account for dollar denominated obligations in place of gold, which had begun to disappear from circulation, having risen to a 1 to 2% premium over paper.

Debate in Congress had turned towards meeting the demand obligation by declaring the notes legal tender – thus obligating all parties to accept them as payment-in-full for contracted debt. While this debate was on-going the cash needs of the government called and the Act of February 12, 1862, authorized an additional US$10000,000 in Demand Notes. This act brought the final possible amount of Demand Notes that could be issued to a sum of US$60000,000 (by April the full US$60000,000 in Demand Notes had been issued).

Eventually Congress decided to authorize US$150000000 of Legal Tender Notes, also known as United States Notes, with the act of February 25, 1862. These were to be a new issue of U.S. currency, part of which were to replace the existing Demand Notes as those were redeemed. The new law, also known as the First Legal Tender Act, granted legal tender status to the new United States Notes except for the purposes of paying duties on imports and interest on U.S. debt. The government promised to continue paying the interest on its debt in coin, and it would accept only coin or Demand Notes in payment of customs duties. The obverse of 1862– and 1863-issue US$5, US$10, and US$20 Legal Tender Notes were very similar in design to the respective Demand Notes, the major changes being the addition of the U.S. Treasury seal and removal of the words "on demand" from the promise to pay.

Some confusion existed over the status of the Demand Notes until the act of March 17, 1862, clarified that these were to enjoy legal tender status as well. Thus, Demand Notes were at least as good as Legal Tender Notes, and clearly superior because only the former could be used to pay duties on imports – a major source of revenue to the Union government. As a result, Assistant Treasurer Cisco announced that he reserved the right to redeem future 5% short term deposits of Demand Notes in the new Legal Tender Notes and speculators, foreseeing the higher value of Demand Notes, removed them from circulation as the new notes began to circulate during April.

Once in circulation the Legal Tender Notes became the unit of account for prices in dollars – both gold and the hoarded Demand Notes were quoted in terms of them. In May the war began to turn against the Union and hopes for a quick end to hostilities were abandoned. As the year progressed the price of gold rose as the hoarding of commodities began in earnest. Eventually silver and even copper coins disappeared from circulation. As early as the second week of May the Demand Notes were being quoted at a premium for sale to importers who used them in place of gold to pay customs duties. The premium commanded by gold and Demand Notes became a political issue, and in June, Secretary Chase drew criticism by selling US$2.25 worth of 7.3% interest bearing Treasury Notes, seven-thirties, for Demand Notes at a three percent premium to par, which were immediately resold by the buyers for a six percent premium in legal tender. While this action allowed Secretary Chase to achieve two important goals, distributing the seven-thirties debt and retiring Demand Notes, it amounted to an official acknowledgement that the new United States Notes had depreciated compared to the Demand Notes. By mid-summer gold dollars were trading for a fifteen percent premium to legal tender while Demand Notes were available for an eight percent premium, and newspapers were reporting the price of Demand Notes under the description "United States Notes for Custom-House Purposes" or "Custom-House Notes". As customs duties averaged $$6 million/month$ the slow drain of outstanding Demand Notes was tracked in the financial columns. By December it was estimated that the supply would soon be exhausted and that importers would have no option but gold for paying import duties. When the supply of Demand Notes had been nearly exhausted they commanded a price at parity with or at only a slight discount to gold dollars despite the fact that the latter continued to command a steep premium to United States Notes through the 1870s.

By June 30, 1863, only US$3300000 of Demand Notes were outstanding versus almost US$400000000 of Legal Tender Notes. By June 30, 1883 just US$58985 remained on the books of the treasury.

Common features among denominations
The obverses of all denominations Demand Notes contained the following common features printed on them:

 * A statement that the United States would pay the bearer the denomination on demand (written uniquely per denomination)
 * A phrase stating the note was payable by the assistant treasurer (written uniquely per denomination)
 * Stated location of payment (redemption):
 * New York
 * Boston
 * Philadelphia (abbreviated as Philad. on $10 and $20 notes)
 * Cincinnati (but $10 and $20 notes were described as payable by the depositary instead of an assistant treasurer)
 * St. Louis
 * "Act of July 17, 1861", the act that first authorized emergency civil war paper money
 * The phrase "RECEIVABLE IN PAYMENT OF ALL PUBLIC DUES" (meaning the notes were a form of monetary exchange for government payment)
 * "AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO., NEW YORK", the company that printed Demand Notes
 * "Washington" and the date "August 10, 1861", printed in a cursive font (the date, however, was written uniquely per denomination)
 * "Patented June 30, 1857.", referring to a patent held by the American Bank Note Company for "Canada" green ink used on the obverse of the note
 * The serial number printed only once in red ink.
 * Face plate letter – A, B, C, or D (indicating the position on the metal plates used to print four notes at a time)
 * Lines above "Register of the Treasury" and "Treasurer of the United States" where the officials' signatures would normally be
 * Lack of a United States Treasury Seal (with the exception of fractional currency, this is unlike any other U.S. federally issued currency)

The reverses of all Demand Notes contained "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", a large numeral of the denomination, and an indication of the denomination (as a small numeral or Roman numeral) repeated many times in a small geometric shape; all of the reverses were printed in green ink.

Common varieties among denominations

 * The various signatures of authorized treasury personnel who signed for L. E. Chittenden and F. E. Spinner
 * "For the" was used to indicate that a person was authorized to sign in place of treasury officials and is either hand written or engraved with the following varieties:
 * Handwritten as either "for the", "For the", or "For The" above the line for the signature
 * Engraved as either "For the" or "for the" next to "Register of the Treasury" and "Treasurer of the United States"
 * Either "SERIES" followed by a number and period or no series indication at all. The first 100,000 notes printed for a given denomination and payment location bore no series identification; for each 100,000 subsequent notes the serial number reset to 1 and the series number advanced by 1.

$5 notes
Five dollar Demand Notes feature a small portrait of Alexander Hamilton at the lower right of the note. On the left is the "Statue of Freedom" that sits atop the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. However, at the time of issue, the "Statue of Freedom" was a work in progress and was not completed until 1862 and was not placed atop the Capitol dome until 1863. The base of the statue reads "E PLURIBUS UNUM", but only "RIBUS UNUM" is visible on the note.

The border of the note features the word "FIVE" printed numerous times horizontally at the top, bottom, and right of the note and vertically on the left of the note. The issuing bank note company was printed in middle of the top border and the phrase "RECEIVABLE IN PAYMENT OF ALL PUBLIC DUES." was printed in the middle of the bottom border.

There are several common features that are formatted uniquely on US$5 Demand Notes. The date, left of Hamilton's portrait, is formatted specifically as "". Also, "ON DEMAND" appears after "FIVE DOLLARS" so that the full statement reads, "THE United States PROMISE TO PAY TO THE BEARER FIVE DOLLARS ON DEMAND". Unlike US$10 and US$20 notes, five dollar Demand Notes have the phrase "Payable by the Assistant Treasurer AT [location]" printed, unbound and in full, in a cursive font. Also unlike the US$10 and US$20 Demand Notes, US$5 notes redeemable at Philadelphia have the location written out in full.

The reverse of the US$5 note contains a small numeral 5 inside of a small oval that is repeated numerous times; this design element surrounded the main design elements of the reverse of the note.

$10 notes
Ten dollar Demand Notes feature a portrait of Abraham Lincoln at left and an allegorical figure representing art to the right. In the top center of the note is a vignette of a bald eagle perched on olive branches with a ribbon stating E PLURIBUS UNUM. Next to the bald eagle is a heraldic stars and stripes shield. Both the portrait of Lincoln and bald eagle vignette were stock elements used on previous banknotes issued by the American Bank Note Company.

The border of the note contains the Roman numeral X around almost the entire note. Like the $5 Demand Notes, the issuing bank note company was printed in middle of the top border and the phrase "RECEIVABLE IN PAYMENT OF ALL PUBLIC DUES." was printed in the middle of the bottom border. The top corners of the note contained two small numeral 10s surrounded by an ornate design. The vertical border design, along with the numeral 10s in the corners were stock elements used on other notes made by the American Bank Note Company. In fact, this stock element along with the portrait of Lincoln were also used on a later $10 bill from the Rutland County Bank of Vermont.

The $10 Demand Note too, has uniquely formatted common features. The date at the top right of the note is formatted as "August 10, 1861." in a cursive font. Unlike the $5 Demand Notes, "ON DEMAND" appears before "UNITED STATES" so that the statement reads, "ON DEMAND, THE UNITED STATES Promises to Pay to the Bearer TEN DOLLARS"; the middle portion of the statement was printed in a cursive font. The phrase stating the location of payment on most notes was abbreviated to "PAYABLE BY THE ASST. TREASURER OF THE U.S. AT [location]", the exception being Cincinnati where "DEPOSITARY" replaced "ASST. TREASURER".

The reverse of the $10 note contains many instances of the small Roman numeral X, each inside of a small square; the main elements of the reverse of the note were superimposed over this.

$20 notes
Twenty dollar Demand Notes, unlike the US$5 and US$10 notes, do not feature a portrait of a person. Instead, they feature a feminine allegory attributed either as representing Liberty, or perhaps America, in the center of the note. The figure has a sword in her right hand and holds a striped shield that features a bald eagle at the top of the shield in her left. A large green numeral 2 and 0 are located respectively to her right and left.

The border of the note features the word "TWENTY" repeated numerous times horizontally on the top and bottom borders and vertically on the left and right borders. Also unlike the US$5 and US$10 notes, "ACT OF JULY 17, 1861" is located in the middle of the top border. The very middle of the bottom border contains the issuing bank note company, while "RECEIVABLE IN PAYMENT" is to the left and "OF ALL PUBLIC DUES" is to the right of this.

The date on the note is formatted as "August 10th 1861" in a cursive font; the A in "August" has a form resembling lower case. The statement of payment is formatted the same and surrounded by the same engraved object as the US$10 Demand Note and is located in the center of the note under the figure of Liberty. The demand statement is printed as "ON DEMAND THE UNITED STATES Promise To Pay Twenty Dollars To the Bearer".

The reverse of the US$20 Demand Note contains a small numeral 20 inside of an oval that is surrounded by an eight-sided star; all of this is located around the shield-shaped object with the numeral 20 in it. The top and bottom borders feature geometrical design elements with "UNITED STATES" printed horizontally in every other geometric shape.

Production figures and collectibility
Demand Notes are no longer found in circulation, but are instead in the hands of collectors. Of the surviving Demand Notes, the vast majority are US$5 and US$10 notes with "For the" engraved on them and from the locations of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. No notes are known with the actual signatures of F. E. Spinner and L. E. Chittenden. Because of their rarity, Demand Notes are mainly collected by acquiring a single example of the US$5 and US$10 denomination. Facsimile reproductions are also available.

The price and value of a Demand Note depends primarily on its rarity (which location and whether "for the" is handwritten or engraved) and secondarily on its condition. The more common five dollar notes usually range in price from US$2000 to US$25000. Ten dollar notes of the more common varieties usually have a value range of US$4000 to US$30000. Price ranges of the twenty dollar notes with "for the" engraved and from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia usually vary from US$40000 up to US$100000. Notes of any denomination with "for the" handwritten change hands at prices between US$30000 and US$60000. Notes from Cincinnati and St. Louis only very rarely change hands. Apart from the more common types, Demand Notes are usually only available for sale at auction. Notes:*: More common is used as a relative term to describe the percentage of notes of the US$5 and US$10 denominations that remain today

†: 3,000 US$10 notes were reissues of redeemed notes thus creating the US$30000 overage of the legislated US$60000000

title: Demand Note


text: Talk:Risqué (album)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Risqué (album)


text:
Talk:Demand Note

older entries
This article is my homage to the deletionists that didn't seem too concerned about helping someone new to Wikipedia but rather deleting for the sake of deleting multiple times. However, whoever it was that eventually did help me, I give my thanks. --Kurt 01:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag?
Isn't there supposed to be a tag on the article page to identify it as a featured article? Ifnord 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comment on your talk page. Schutz 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. But I'm wondering why the article has no star on the top right corner nor does it appear to be in the featured article category. Ifnord 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The talk page is in the category, not the article; as for the FA star, I can see it; it may depend on your skin, though. You should maybe have a look at other featured articles to see if it works for you, or change your configuration. Schutz 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitals
Why is "Demand Note" capitalised? Rich Farmbrough 08:47 26  May 2006 (UTC).

 * Because it is a proper noun --Kurt 09:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think it is a proper noun. "I have in my hand a demand note." "I have in my hand the Star of India." Rich  Farmbrough 09:37 26  May 2006 (UTC).
 * It isn't. See demand_note and . What a large mistake. —Michiel Sikma, 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The demand note that Michiel linked to isn't the same one as this artilce refers to. The article is about the Demand Note, a specific type of paper money used my the US, not just a general notice of debt. Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you meant by that statement, Rich, but I'm assuming it's the matter of two common words becoming a proper noun. E.G., niether "times" nor "square" is a proper noun, but when put together the words describe a specific place, Times Square. In a Demand Note's case, it's a specific, unique object being entitled. --Kurt 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would imply there was only one Demand Note. If there was a single denomination, perhaps the point could be stretched, as per "The design of the Penny Black was unusual.", compared with "I have a penny black in my collection."  But there are several demand notes, the 5$, 10$ etc.. Rich  Farmbrough 13:27 26  May 2006 (UTC).
 * There is no limit, however, on the number of objects,things,etc. that can exist for the word describing it to be considered a proper noun (i.e. Founding Fathers). --Kurt 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * See also here. Rich Farmbrough 11:00 26  May 2006 (UTC).

Shabby pictures, no ext. links
I think that the pictures in this article are ugly. They're edited images of demand notes with text on them. The font that's used is awful, and there are effects on it that I certainly don't agree with. I'd be glad to fix them up a little, but it makes me wonder why an article like this is promoted to featured. Whatever happened to concise and unedited use of images? This is just visual bloat to me. This article also contains no external links. That's not exactly a prerequisite to be a featured article, but I've come to expect featured articles to have lots of tips for further research. —Michiel Sikma, 09:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which pictures are you talking about. The first one? That helps show the different denominations of Demand Notes. The only other one would be the "for the" picture, but that's probably the best way of showing that. All of the other pictures are unedited. As for the external links, you must have missed the reference section, where there is 4 of them. External links don't have to have their own section to be in an article. Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 10:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article got to featured status on the strength of two "support" votes. While I don't challenge the quality of the article, I do think the process seems a bit flawed. Rich  Farmbrough 13:39 26  May 2006 (UTC).
 * The lack of attention to voting this article to a FAC was mainly due to distraction from the war over the lead section picture. However, the main idea of promoting an article is that consensus is reached, not that a certain number of votes are cast.  --Kurt 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be heavily critical of this article, because it is good and interesting, and with some work could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles, but for now it is not IMHO of featured standard. From the FAL it seems only two people actually supported it, so rather than a consensus being reached it looks like the argument over image usage has allowed you to slip through the back door. Well, whatever, but things that I feel need attention are: the use of sub-sectioning in pre-issuance and post-issuance... I don't even understand what's going on there - why aren't they double = subjects? And, as mentioned above, you must provide some external links - Wikipedia should be a vehicle for people to improve their knowledge in a basic way (reading intros), an intermediate way (reading a whole article) or to try to gain thorough knowledge of a subject (by reading an article and then following up via external links). All IMHO of course! SteveRwanda 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * 1. I don't understand what you don't understand (and what do you mean by double = subjects?)
 * 2. Featured articles are either:
 * Supported - a user feels nothing needs to be changed and thus the article is ok to progress to a featured article status
 * Opposed - a user feels there is something that needs to be changed before the article can progress to a featured article status
 * I addressed all of the issues that were brought up against it (thus concensus). It's not based on votes (see: what wikipedia is not: democracy) but rather the quality of the article.
 * 3. Regarding external links, read the 2nd paragraph of this discussion section
 * --Kurt 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Demand Notes
Is it worth a mention in the article that demand notes are/have been used elsewhere in the world (e.g. Scotland)? Andy 11:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It wouldn't be appropriate in this article because it refers specifically to Demand Notes issued by the U.S. gov't. However, it would be worth mentioning them in their own article.  --Kurt 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * A "hat note" might be appropriate. Rich Farmbrough 12:26 26  May 2006 (UTC).

 * Huh huh ;) --Kurt 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Most often, "demand note" refers to any promissory note that is payable on demand. As such, they constitute one of the most frequently-used financial instruments in the world, and are probably worth an article, since there is significant case law concerning tehm. Ultimately either that subject or a dab page should be the article under this name. At that point this article should probably be renamed "Demand note (United States Currency)" or some such. No harm until someone gets around to writing the more general article, though. The term is also used colloquially by LE to refer to a note passed by a bank robber to a teller demanding money. Whether this is dark humor is beyond my knowledge. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Better phrasing
"Demand Notes not of the most common types usually do not have a price affixed to them and sell at auction prices;" - I can see what's being got at here but perhaps something like "Apart from the most common types, Demand Notes usually sell at auction, rather than being offered at a fixed price;" - "rather than being offered at a fixed price" could be removed if it's seen as redundant giving "Apart from the most common types, Demand Notes usually sell at auction;". Perhaps there's a better phrasing? Rich Farmbrough 13:35 26  May 2006 (UTC).

 * Fixed. LondonYoung (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indian Currency
The Indian Currency is a Demand NoteDoctor Bruno 14:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * So too are English banknotes saying I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF and then the value of the note. It does not count for much now, unless you simply want to change a worn note for a clean one. --Henrygb 23:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Main image
The main image used in this article doesn't really seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. More like an advertisement in a philately numismatics magazine.--Theodore Kloba 19:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Another opinion: I think that it is great, as it gives a visual reference of what is being described in the article. I found that I consulted it several times as I read the text.  It also adds color, which is never a bad thing in my view. Sunray 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This has been debated to death. The main reason for the image is that it sumarizes the information of the article without being extremely repetative of the images contained in the body of the article.  Also philately deals with stamp but numismatics deals with money. --Kurt 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sure it was debated, but being a featured article draws in new eyes. I think the content of the image is great, but the graphical style (script lettering, flag background, drop-shadowed vignettes, etc.) just doesn't seem to fit. (Terminology in my previous comment corrected.) --Theodore Kloba 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This image does not fit the visual style of the site. There is no need for a pictorial summary in the article.  - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * When this article was proposed as a Featured Article there was a long debate over this image, here, in addition to the debate in this section and the one above.  Eventually the image remained and the article went on to achieve featured article status.  I am expressing no opinion on the image, and just alerting you to the more extensive debate on another page. --LondonYoung (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony  (talk)  14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Specie Redemption after December 1861?
Several sources indicate that it is a common misconception that these notes were ever paid out in coin by the assistant treasurers after the suspension of specie payment by banks in December of 1861. This article implies otherwise. I am going to do further research and edit the article to correct the false impression if research continues to back this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonYoung (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * OK, so I went ahead. LondonYoung (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerns
Before I start a FAR, some of the paragraphs like "located respectively to her right and left." in the section $20 notes and "authority to issue banknotes at that time" in Treasury Notes and Early United States Paper Money is unreferenced. If anybody needs help, please let me know. I probably check back in the meantime or so. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I contribute to this article. Are the concerns to just increase referencing, or is there a problem with the writing style?  The statement "located respectively to her right and left." is evident from the nearby image of the twenty dollar note.  The debate over authority to issue banknotes is covered extensively in Wesley Mitchell's book (currently reference 9) which is already referenced 7 times, so I don't know if an eight reference would help readers or not.  But I am happy to help make changes if you can provide some more specific guidance.  I have copies of most of the necessary reference books to hand and stand ready to respond to any or all advice ...--LondonYoung (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

High resolution images
I have added high resolution images for each denomination in a tabular format. Is there any objection to removing the lower resolution images for each denomination? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Article to be featured on the main page

 * Hello! This is a note for the editors of this article that Demand Note will feature in the Picture of the Day section on 10 August 2014, with the images File:US-$5-DN-1861-Fr.1.jpg, File:US-$10-DN-1861-Fr.7.jpg, and File:US-$20-DN-1861-Fr.12.jpg. The template will be as follows:

 * Have a nice day! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Size?
I think it would be helpful to indicate the size of the notes; I've heard that the size banknotes and dollars has changed over time. Does anyone have a source for this? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Demand Note


text:
Talk:Rum Runner (nightclub)

Can I just say, from personal recollection, that there was a Rum Runner nightclub on Broad Street long before 1979, going back at least as far as the early 1970s. Probably under different management but needs recording. Cutler 23:08, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe - not sure but the Berrows put it on the map - jazz funk nights were squeezed out by new wave/romatic music. Key players were Nigel (manager) Jimmy (Bar Manager) who later teamed up to open the Tin Can Club (and then managed GBH and a promotion company) Al Beard (front door) Mark (Front Door) and a few others who's names escape me - great club friendly atmosphere also a hang out for bands such as Fashion, Blancmange, and others when in town. A few idiots attended looking to pick a fight but I loved the place on the whole. Liam

 * Cutler, any help on the early history would be welcome! And thanks for your reminiscences, Liam.  Anyone know when the club shut down?  I know the building was eventually torn down and there's a hotel there now, but I don't know when that happened.  — Catherine\talk 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rum Runner (nightclub)


text:
Billet reading

Billet reading, or the envelope trick, is a mentalist effect in which a performer pretends to use clairvoyance to read messages on folded papers or inside sealed envelopes. It is a widely performed "standard" of the mentalist craft since the middle of the 19th century. Billet is the French term for note or letter, referring to the rectangular shape of the paper.

Effect
The mentalist provides paper, pencils and envelopes to the audience, who are asked to write statements on the paper and then seal them in the envelopes. The envelopes are then collected and handed to the mentalist. The mentalist takes the first envelope and magically examines it, typically by holding it to their forehead. After concentrating, they announce what is written on the paper. The envelope is then opened to check that they have read it correctly. The mentalist then selects the next envelope and proceeds to mind-read the contents of the rest, one by one.

History
Billet reading has been a popular trick for mentalists and mediums and spiritualists. It was one of the main acts that brought fame to Charles H. Foster, an American medium who popularized a version using folded slips some time in the 1850s or 60s. In the 1870s he was joined for a time by Bert Reese, who further popularized it. Magician Theodore Annemann talks about several of Reese's variations on the theme in articles in his mentalist's journal The Jinx which were republished after Annemann's death in the book Practical Mental Magic. Reese's work became well known, and was the subject of several explanatory full-page articles in The New York Times.

In his book The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism, Hereward Carrington revealed the tricks of billet reading (with diagrams) that fraudulent mediums would use. The psychical researcher Eric Dingwall observed Reese in New York and claimed to have discovered his cheating methods; according to Dingwall the exploits of Reese were "not worth any serious scientific consideration" and that Reese came into contact with the sealed notes. Martin Gardner wrote that Reese was an expert mentalist no different from stage magicians of the period such as Joseph Dunninger but managed to fool a number of people into believing he was a genuine psychic. Another magician to expose the methods of billet readers was Joseph Rinn.

Many magicians take delight fooling billet readers in any number of ways. When used as a spiritualist act, the simplest method is to write questions to people who are not yet dead or are just made up, and then watch as the spiritualist pretends to contact the fake name. Another method is to write a statement that is so ribald, funny or startling that it trips up the performer when they read it. Exposing billet readers has a long history.

One-ahead
Most billet reading is an example of a generalized class of tricks known as "one ahead" reading. It is accomplished by having the performer know one of the statements beforehand, typically through a plant, or through sleight of hand by opening one of them before starting the act.

To start the act, the mentalist selects the topmost envelope on the stack and pretends to mind-read the contents, typically by holding it to their forehead. Instead of announcing anything related to that envelope, they instead read aloud the memorized statement. The plant in the audience then cries out some variation of "that's mine!" Another variation is to claim to be unable to read the first card due to some problem, perhaps that the audience member's mind is closed or too powerful. In either event, the mentalist then opens the envelope to "make sure they got it right" or perhaps to "see what is so confusing" and is then able to read what a real audience member wrote on their billet.

The trick proceeds to the next envelope. The mentalist pretends to mind read it, but reads aloud the statement from the envelope previously opened. This time a real audience member is impressed and agrees they got it right. The mentalist then reads the contents of the second envelope and repeats this sequence. The trick then continues until the envelopes are exhausted, the last one being empty or the envelope of the plant. Throughout, the mentalist is "one ahead" in the envelope stack, pretending to be reading one while actually reading the next one.

To disguise the reason for opening the envelope, the typical variation used by mentalists has the audience members write questions on their cards, which the magician will answer. The magician then starts by making a statement like "I feel beautiful!", expresses some confusion about why he would say that, and then opens the envelope to read the question, "will the weather be nice tomorrow?" (while actually reading the next card, "what is my shoe size?"). As the questions may be impossible to guess, like a random person's shoe size, comedy or misdirection is often worked into the routine. For instance, "a size larger than last year" makes a reasonable answer to shoe size no matter who asks the question. Mediums may use the question and answer format as well, except that the questions are to be asked of the deceased, or perhaps are simply names of people to be contacted in the spirit world.

Other methods
There are numerous variations on the theme of reading sealed notes which use sleight of hand to achieve the basic effect. Many of these involve quick palming of the billet, substitutions with pre-made billets, and other similar tricks. Annemann describes several such methods in depth, and many hundreds can be found in other works or on the internet.

Parodies
Johnny Carson's "Carnac the Magnificent" sketches parodied the billet reading trick by having Carnac announce the (seemingly normal) answer to an unseen question, then open the envelope and read the question, which revealed the answer to be a pun. No attempt at magic is even suggested; Carson simply used the trappings of the well-known trick as stagecraft for his jokes. The bit was borrowed from similar routines performed by Steve Allen ("The Answer Man") and Ernie Kovacs ("Mr. Question Man").

title: Billet reading


text:
User:Ialdaboth~enwiki

My French Wikipedia account.

title: User:Ialdaboth~enwiki


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 14


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 14

Category:Women in philosophy

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should be Category:Female philosophers, but I should think we are not in the habit of subclassifiying any kind of profession by gender. Delete. Radiant_ >|< 14:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed with Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 17:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Radiant.  Postdlf 07:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed. Buffyg 09:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:LGBT Ancient Greeks

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know all LGBT cats were reinstated, but that discussion did point out that this particular one is rather pointless. It is also empty, and the term 'LGBT' as such is meaningless if applied to the entirely different culture of Ancient Greece. Delete. Radiant_ >|< 14:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, DELETE, because bisexual activity was commonplace, and homosexual relationships were considered the very best kind of relationship possible in ancient Greece. This category might include every single ancient Greek with a WikiPedia entry. 132.205.94.190 20:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the record, I was the one to unpopulate and delete, then undelete and repopulate, these cats, and I didn't touch this one, so... James F. (talk) 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought there wasn't any support for restoring this one, just the LGBT occupation subcats.  Postdlf 07:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imposing current identity category that far back utterly ahistorical. Buffyg 09:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -Seth Mahoney 23:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:TLAs

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that the Three-Letter Acronyms are already covered in such lists as Table of all possible TLAs from EAA to HZZ, and that there are 15767 possible TLAs, this category is ultimately pointless as too unwieldy to be practical. Radiant_ >|< 13:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Content of this category gives almost no useful info. Agreed with Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a difference between the two. Please read the "category description" first (that's the text at Category:TLAs BTW). -- User:Docu
 * Vote withdrawn to enable deletion. -- User:Docu
 * You mean to say that this is a category of pages that disambiguate multiple meanings of a TLA, as opposed to just a single TLA. I understand that it's a difference, but I entirely fail to see its usefulness. Radiant_ >|< 07:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the "category description" describing a difference. Therefore, delete. — Sebastian (talk) 23:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Delete - these pages have nothing substantive in common, only that their names are similar. It is sort of like the people named Harry category we go rid of sometime ago. - SimonP 23:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * IBM is on TLAs from IAA to LZZ, but not in category:TLAs, as it just an article with a TLA as title rather than a list of all possibles TLAs with the letters I B M. Do we need to improve the category description ("pages in this category expand all uses of a given three-letter acronym") or just place those pages with expansions in a differently named category, e.g. Category:Lists of TLAs? -- User:Docu
 * I am sorry. I still don't see what you're trying to say. What difference is there for you if we keep an article named IBM in a category as opposed to a list? — Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * See above. Radiant_ >|< 07:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sebastian, IBM doesn't belong go into the category and it isn't in there BTW. IBM (disambiguation) is included.
 * Got it! Thanks to both of you for the explanation. — Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
 * As everybody here assumes IBM should be included in Category:TLAs, I should probably find a better name for the category. There would indeed not be much of a point of mixing IBM and TCL in the same category.-- User:Docu
 * Are you thinking of a name like "TLA disambiguation pages"? What use do you see for it? — Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

 * Strong delete as overcategorisation. Buffyg 09:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. It's overcategorised and serves no real purpose - how could it be useful? Tiefighter 12:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, although splitting up the disambiguation category might become necessary at some point. -Sean Curtin 00:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lists of Student societies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete, merged with parent cat (since it had only one entry), delete. Radiant_ >|< 13:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Student fraternities

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the below, rename it to indicate these are all based in the United States, since 'fraternity' has a rather different meaning in other parts of the world. Radiant_ >|< 14:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * "United States student fraternities", as below? James F. (talk) 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * These two categories are sub-categories of Category:United States collegial greek life which is in turn a subcategory of Category:United States student societies which is in turn a subcategory of Category:Student societies which is in turn a subcategory of both Category: Student culture and Category:Clubs and societies. A bunch of unneccessary levels, some with only one or two items. NoSeptember (talk)  23:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naraht 03:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not all Fraternities and Sororities are USA based, not even all of the ones that use Greek Letters. The Republic of the Philippines has at least a dozen Social Greek Letter Fraternities of which about half a dozen are National and only one of which has any tie to the USA. The following link is a list -[]
 * True enough, but I think the student society cats could do with splitting by nation anyway, as they're getting overly large. And note that the term 'fraternity' does not refer to a student society in all places in the world (e.g. where I live, it would refer to freemasons, some kind of sect, or an order of priests). Radiant_ >|< 07:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Naraht 13:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Except that the majority of fraternity chapters in Canada are part of Fraternities originally founded in the USA (But not all), see [] and []. The Historically Black Fraternities and Sororities have graduate chapters in many of the nations of the Caribbean and Western Africa and Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines has alumni associations in countries running from Australia to Qatar to Canada. May I suggest "Student Greek Letter Organizations" with a *possible* split into "Student Greek Letter Fraternities" and "Student Greek Letter Sororities". (Greek Letter Organizations is the commonly used term to refer to both Fraternities and Sororities.) In place of Student, Collegiate may be used instead.

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Student Sororities

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the fix capitalization, but also I'd support renaming it to indicate these are all based in the United States, since 'sorority' has a rather different meaning in other parts of the world. Thoughts please? Radiant_ >|< 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * How about "United States sororities"? --Kbdank71 13:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "United States student sororities"? James F. (talk) 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People notable within notable organizations

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extremely redundant. Delete. Radiant_ >|< 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. (note that the first time this came up for CfD there was no conesnsus Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 29 )  --Kbdank71 13:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe that was because it was a CFR? It gets one delete vote by Grutness, and no obvious keep votes. Radiant_ >|< 15:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very little in common among such people. Pavel Vozenilek 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't believe that anyone would find this useful.   — Gwalla | Talk 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 23:15, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 07:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete too broad/vague, would take massive effort to fill it accurately, and to insufficient benefit. Gronky 21:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Delete useless Buffyg 00:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:9/11

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to something like September 11 attack on the World Trade Center or maybe something shorter than that, but 9/11 is systemic bias since it's not a recognizable name in most places outside the USA. Radiant_ >|< 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The name should not include reference to WTC, since there were other locations involved. Maybe use a title similar to the central article: September 11, 2001 attacks NoSeptember (talk)  17:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename as per NoSeptember's suggestion. --Kbdank71 18:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT how about Category:2001 September 11 destructive use of airliners? 132.205.94.190 20:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per NoSeptember. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per NoSeptember. — Sebastian (talk) 23:18, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Rename as per NoSeptember's counter-offer. Buffyg 09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:9/11 hijackers

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to something like Participants in the 9/11 attacks, or otherwise clarify. Radiant_ >|< 13:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * COMMENT It seems to clearly indicate the hijacking suspects aboard the four airliners. Ofcourse, there can only ever be 19 members of this category... 132.205.94.190 20:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as per NoSeptember (i.e., "Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks") - also, more expansive. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to September 11, 2001 hijackers. (As someone pointed out earlier, "participants" reminds of a game.) — Sebastian (talk) 23:21, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * COMMENT for consistency, shouldn't this be: Category:Participants in the 2001 September 11 attacks? 132.205.44.134 23:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Al-Qaida, and also Category:Al-Qaida activities and Category:Al-Qaida members

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main article uses the more frequently used spelling, Al-Qa e da. I suggest renaming the category to match. Grutness...  wha?  13:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename all. --Kbdank71 14:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all. — Sebastian (talk) 23:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Rename all. Buffyg 09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all. --AI 03:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:South African cricket

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty, except for subcat 'south african cricketers'. Delete as such. Radiant_ >|< 11:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not empty except for subcat 'South African cricketers' any more! Keep as such. This category looks to be still in its embryonic stages, but could easily get quite a number of other articles and subcategories. Grutness...  wha?  12:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, nomination withdrawn. Radiant_ >|< 12:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Players who appeared in Australian cricket by team, Category:Players who appeared in English cricket by team, Category:Players who appeared in New Zealand cricket by team

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to Category:Australian cricket teams, etc. (and remove all subsections that aren't teams, unless someone could explain the point thereof) Radiant_ >|< 11:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * And what do you propose doing with articles on, say, New Zealand and Australian players who play in England during the southern off-season? I note several of these (Christopher Cairns and Glenn McGrath, to start with) at a cursory glance. These categories are not for the teams themselves, which would be a completely different form of category organisation and contain completely different articles. Grutness...  wha?  11:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. But I still believe these categories should be renamed for clarification, because what you just explained makes a lot of sense but cannot readily be inferred from the cat names (which, apparently, don't have much to do with teams anyway). Radiant_ >|< 11:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * It obvious to people who are interested in cricket. Please don't interfere further on cricket categories if you don't know the sport. Yes, it is a complex system, but cricket is a complex sport and the cricket category system is generally supported by Wikipedians who know about cricket. CalJW 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be reworded then to be also obvious to people who don't know much about cricket. If one is ignorant about cricket and willing to learn, Wikipedia should be the first place to look. Radiant_ >|< 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about the renaming, but the players are listed according to the teams they play for - perhaps Category:Players in Australian state cricket, Category:Players in English county cricket, Category:Players in New Zealand provincial cricket might be simpler titles, although they're not a lot clearer really... it probably needs a complete reorganisation, with parallel categories (e.g., Category:Australian state cricketers and Category:Overseas players in Australian state cricket). The whole thing's pretty messy. Grutness...  wha?  12:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The current version is far superior to your proposals. All significant players have played in their own countries domestic cricket so the likes of Category:Players in Australian state cricket is pointless. It is much better to categorise say an Indian who has played for Yorkshire with other players who have played with Yorkshire than say with an Australian who has played for Gloucestershire. CalJW 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with shortening the names as originally suggested. If someone from Australia plays in England during the offseason, put him in both Category:Australian cricket teams and Category:English cricket teams.  --Kbdank71 13:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The categories Category:English first class cricket teams, Category:Australian first class cricket teams and so on already exist and are for the teams themselves. We then also have categories for the players in a particular team: Category:Durham cricketers, Category:Surrey cricketers, Category:New South Wales cricketers, etc. It is the parent category of *these* categories that we are discussing: a parent category for categories of players for individual teams, not of the teams themselves. --Ngb 00:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The delete votes are from users who come from countries where cricket is barely played. This is obviously the best way to organise these articles due to the way players move around. CalJW 17:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember that what is obvious to you may not be to others. I don't see how keeping such a clunky name is better than the original rename suggestion.  --Kbdank71 17:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't obvious if it's only understandable to people familiar with the subject area. Just like articles on Quantum physics, articles on Cricket should be understandable and accessible to layman. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. Radiant_ >|< 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do know the game (and was a reasonable right arm off-spinner, for that matter), but I still think the categories should be renamed to something a little less convoluted. There is a use for the categories, but the names need work. Perhaps Category:Players in Australian domestic cricket by team, Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team, Category:Players in New Zealand domestic cricket by team, etc might be an improvement. Grutness...  wha?  10:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support such a renaming, whereas I would strongly oppose the suggested renaming to 'Australian/English/Whatever cricket teams' as that clearly isn't what the category is for. --Ngb 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I should also comment that one of the reasons for the klunky 'Players who have appeared in' nomenclature is probably that we decided, in accordance with cricketing convention, to categorise a player according to *all* the teams he has played for. For a lot of players this is only one, but international-level players (the ones most likely to have articles on Wikipedia) are very mobile and, as has been commented above, may play in the domestic cricket of other countries during their own country's off-season. So, for example, Ian Botham (an extreme example) is categorised by Category:Somerset cricketers, Category:Worcestershire cricketers, Category:Durham cricketers and Category:Queensland cricketers. The nomenclature 'Players in $foo domestic cricket by team' may carry an overtone of 'at the present time' that the current naming doesn't. However, my own opinion is that the current naming is so klunky that Grutness's suggested renaming would be an improvement despite this. --Ngb 00:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Players who appeared in West Indian cricket

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn --Kbdank71 13:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty, except for one subcategory for Jamaica. Suggest delete, and re-cat Jamaica in the parent cat. Radiant_ >|< 11:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, this looks like an embryionic category (as with the South African one above). This could very easily be populated. Most of the best cricketers in the WI team come from Guyana, Barbados, and Antigua, so I suspect those three categories will appear very soon. In fact, I've just looked, and there were three more categories that should have been in here, so it looks a bit more useful now... Grutness...  wha?  12:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, nomination withdrawn. Radiant_ >|< 12:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Homosexual philosophers
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is offensive. What encyclopedic purpose does it have to pigeonhole philosophers by their sexual orientation? Certainly, a list of theorists whose work concerns sexuality is valid, but this is lazy and prurient XmarkX 06:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Not sure if it's offensive, but it's certainly pointless, as for most of them their sexuality has nothing to do with their philosophy. Delete. Radiant_ >|< 10:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I'd have agreed with you both on this, but for the fact that I got beat up over my vote to delete LGBT Ancient Greeks.  Apparently many people do think it is encyclopedic, but they'll all miss this vote, and jump up and down when it does get deleted.  --Kbdank71 13:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, in that case it should be renamed to LGBT philosophers. Radiant_ >|< 14:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Irrelevant clutter. CalJW 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sexual orientation isn't particularly relevant to philosophy. We don't need a subcat for every intersection of two categories; articles can be multi-categorized.   — Gwalla | Talk 17:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT wouldn't this category necessarily include just about all ancient greek philosophers? 132.205.94.190 20:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons given under a different CfD above.
 * Delete, obviously; "Philosophers of homosexuality", OTOH, might be useful. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because Kbdank71 is a chicken ;-p (Seriously, I commend your symbolic step out of the deletionist camp, but you were right about this one originally.) — Sebastian (talk) 23:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of extremely limited interest in the history of philosophy.  In any case, would gender object preference really be suitable to convey the specific sexual orientation of some of these people? Buffyg 09:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove Ludwig Wittgenstein, Richard Montague, and Francesco Algarotti. The remaining philosophers all have done work concerning sexuality and gender issues and are all sufficiently uncontested and 20th century enough for this category to make sense.  Hey, if someone wants to look up philosophers by their sexuality why should we be in the business of preventing that?  -Seth Mahoney 23:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Objection: if people want to run around sniffing sheets, that's their perogatives. Preventing them and obliging them with categories defined by criteria at once arbitrary and overinvested are different matters. If someone wants to say thoughtful things about philosophers and sex, I'd encourage them. Philosophers who are queer in whatever way and writing something philosophically compelling about it are, however, not identical populations, making the former seem far less compelling. Intemperate conclusion: as it is, the concantenation of gender object choice and this particular vocation seems no more important than providing categories for adulterous novelists, monarchs with children out of wedlock, pedophile parliamentarians, and gay Nazis, all of which will find interested parties. Buffyg 00:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object all you want. My vote is still keep.  Here's the deal: I'm fine with creating categories for adulterous novelists, monarchs with children out of wedlock, pedophile parlimentarians, and gay Nazis, so long as there are sufficient articles to populate them and people interested in maintaining the categories.  I've maintained this position through several votes, and I'll maintain it as long as I'm active on Wikipedia.  As far as queer philosophers not constituting identical populations, well, yes, but neither the categories queers nor philosophers constitute identical populations on their own.  Why should you expect this of the category queer philosophers (which, actually, I'd prefer as a title, but I know that's not going to happen)?  As far as reducing sexuality to gender object choice, well, that's a perfectly valid way to look at things, but it is highly reductionist - it leaves a lot of what sexuality is and is not out of the picture.  The fact is that the philosophers that would remain in the category if I had my way write in a way that is clearly affected by their "gender object choice".  -Seth Mahoney 02:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * My point in highlighting the non-identity of philosophers who are queer and those who have written something interesting about sexuality is that you explicitly add predicates that cannot be adduced from the name of the category: "The remaining philosophers all have done work concerning sexuality and gender issues and are all sufficiently uncontested and 20th century enough for this category to make sense." Perhaps the requirements about the 20th century nearly make sense on the theory that sexual identity as we currently try to understand it is a phenomenon of recent vintage, but I tend to think that century boundary arbitrary in the elaboration of such a hypothesis. In any case, I continue to have the sense that, further to arguments about justifying the work to maintain these categories (I've already said that I don't believe it justified), such work is complicated where the criteria defining the category are unclear (not to mention unstated, which together limit their interest and utility to readers) and therefore likely to aggrevate maintenance. Buffyg 12:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that the boundaries of the category are iffy, wiggley, nebulous, or whatever, much like the boundaries of many other categories. I also totally agree that if this category is kept (which it is looking like it wont be) we need to specify those boundaries.  The category page itself is a perfectly fine place to do that.  I think you've overstated your point, though, when you extend the shadiness of the category's boundaries into the realm of reader interest.  I can guarantee that even with the most expansive boundaries (such as those that would include "LGBT ancient Greeks"), there would remain plenty of interest and utility (just look at the gay and lesbian section of any bookstore - the sheer number of books which attempt to "reclaim" some person of historical interest as gay or lesbian should make my point perfectly clear), I just think such a category would be misleading.  So yeah, I think I'm with you in a sense when I say, hey, if by a miracle this category is kept, we will need to strictly define who should and should not be added, and yes, that means imposing artificial boundaries, but we do that with every category, so hey, why not this one?  -Seth Mahoney 19:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, but rename to Category:LGBT philosophers. Jonathunder 00:18, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to LGBT philosophers. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 00:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that rename. Change my vote to rename to Category:LGBT philosophers.  -Seth Mahoney 06:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep but rename to Category:LGBT philosophers as above. Axon 13:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * rename but very definately KEEP. CDThieme 17:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to Category:LGBT philosophers as above. -- Nigosh 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Philosophers by sexuality and gender and Category:Bisexual philosophers
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What encyclopedic purpose does it have to pigeonhole philosophers by their sexual orientation? for most of them their sexuality has nothing to do with their philosophy. Radiant_ >|< 14:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete as above. First time I've ever agreed with Radiant I think. CalJW 16:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay! Radiant_ >|< 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. the same reason as similar categories. Pavel Vozenilek 17:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, yes. James F. (talk) 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 23:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 07:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again, of extremely limited interest in the history of philosophy and seemingly insufficient to be of direct philosophical interest. Buffyg 09:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why don't we keep this to one category at a time, to avoid some of the problems with CfD that have occurred in the past? -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Bisexual philosophers, provided that more people than just Simone de Beauvoir can be added to it. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:Philosophers by sexuality and gender. Sexuality and gender aren't sufficiently closely tied to warrant them being smashed into a single category.  I would say split it into two categories, but no one wants to populate Category:Male philosophers, and with only two subcategories, Category:Philosophers by sexuality isn't especially useful.  -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, Delete Category:Philosophers by sexuality and gender. Merge Homosexual & Bisexual cats to Category:LGBT philosophers, Category:Women in philosophy should stand as is in main cat. -- Nigosh 23:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

 * Keep, but merged with the above entry as Category:LGBT philosophers. Jonathunder 01:51, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with merging Category:Bisexual philosophers with a new Category:LGBT philosophers. Change my vote to merge.  -Seth Mahoney 06:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cricket subcategories
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A 'meta-category', a category listing all categories underneath Category:Cricket. Apparently created because people are too lazy to browse through child categories. I believe a list would be more appropriate in this circumstance, because lists of categories are easier to maintain than normal lists, and also because this would avoid having an extra redundant category on every Cricket article. --bainer (talk) 05:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * List of category of tables of... whatever. Delete. Radiant_ >|< 08:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * A list made as a tree (similar to the stub list used by the stub sorters at WP:WSS/ST) would probably be easier to use than this, as well. This is in active use by the cricket WP though, so this should only be deleted unless it is replaced by a list. And they seem to be keener on using the category, so I'm swayed towards supporting a keep here. Grutness...  wha?  11:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and don't listify. Fix the category structure as it's supposed to be.  --Kbdank71 14:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I already listified it to use as an exhibit in a discussion I was having about this category a few days ago: WikiProject Cricket/Cricket subcategories. I should also point out that there was a CfD for this category about four months ago, immortalized in Category talk:Cricket subcategories, and much argument ensued. I hope this one will be more conclusive. Bryan 15:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is, as previously discussed in a recent CfD for the same category, an invaluable tool for participants in the Cricket Wikiproject. Conversion to a list is unsuitable as the list would need to be manually updated every time a new category was developed. I am also unimpressed with another example of Wikipedians bashing other people's Wikiprojects: apparently all of us on WikiProject Cricket are 'too lazy'. *sigh* --Ngb 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been discussed before. It is useful to readers as well. I haven't contrubuted much to the cricket articles, but I use this. CalJW 16:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm reluctant to vote again in a CfD that repeats a previous one so soon, but I guess my opinion is my opinion. Failing that, I'm still hoping to move this category's tags into the talk pages of the subcategories that are in it, at least taking it out of the main article category tree. Bryan 03:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject cricket categorization. Much of the content belongs in the existing geographic categories and should be moved there (currently, many have no parent geographical cat). Just about all comments in favour of retention identify it as a useful editorial tool, not as a means of making a user's research easier. While it exists as is, there is no impetus on the category contributors to move material out and into useful and meaningful cricket sub cats. -- Nigosh 23:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.