Editing Talk:1672: Women on 20s

One (potentially) legitimate concern I have seen expressed regarding the proposed rollout date for the redesigned $20s is that we may not be using paper money anymore by then!
[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 13:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The weird creepy looking eye thing is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence Eye of Providence].  And now that Randall mentioned it, I somehow have an intense emotional need to see a series of US currency with the Eye of Providence as the featured portrait on every bill....

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.23|108.162.217.23]] 14:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

:I think the humor of the Eye of Providence reference (which is on the US$1 banknote BTW) is that it's often referred to as a sign of the Illuminati. The Illuminati is often used in conspiracy theories, so replacing all of the faces with that sign specifically would not so much enrage people as much as people would be calling Illuminati takeovers. Ergo to not trigger the conspiracy theorist paranoia in our country (i'm US American, BTW) that would likely never happen. Also our $1 bill, which is the only bill to have the Eye of Providence(& no building on the back side) hasn't been changed since like the 1960s, because of vending machine lobbyists. So the anachronisms of that IMO is really annoying.
[[User:Siv3nIvy|Siv3nIvy]] ([[User talk:Siv3nIvy|talk]]) 09:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


The real question: why can't the Treasury leave the $10 bill alone, redesign the $20 bill (with Harriet Tubman on both sides), and release that redesign in the 2020s as planned? There is no rush here, so long as it is done.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.61|173.245.50.61]] 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There's been a furor over here in the UK about (losing) a woman from our paper money. (Not the Queen, at least not just yet, although having just turned 90...) Only the other day, though, they announced the [http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/pages/characters/nexttwenty.aspx new £20 note] (JMW Turner, the painter) set for release (as a polymer note) in 2020... And I couldn't help feeling that the fallout from the referendum, if not other events,  might easily make this matter moot.  One way or another ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.137|141.101.98.137]] 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the "Security" issue referred to in the title text? {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.75}}

I'd assume he's referring to security features meant to prevent/deter counterfeiting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.214.209|108.162.214.209]] 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't get what all the fuss is about what picture is on the money. I don't even know what picture is on any of the euro bills. *Grabs a 10, 20 and 50 from wallet.* I still don't know. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 23:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

:Luckily, someone explained it on wikipedia: {{w|Euro banknotes}}: the 5 euro note has a generic rendition of Classical architecture, the 10 euro note of Romanesque architecture, the 20 euro note of Gothic architecture, the 50 euro note of the Renaissance, the 100 euro note of Baroque and Rococo, the 200 euro note of Art Nouveau and the 500 euro note of modern architecture. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

::Though now they are no longer entirely generic, as one guy in the Netherlands decided to build the generic bridges that are depicted on the euro notes, and now the structures depicted on the notes actually exist. (See the references in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_banknotes#Bridges .) -- [[User:Pne|Pne]] ([[User talk:Pne|talk]]) 12:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The explanation claims "The current rule about changing the $10 next before they can change the $20 comes from Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Treasurer is powerless to work against it." However, I've just read through the text of that Section of that Act several times, and I can't find any wording to justify this claim. If this is a valid claim, could someone point more explicitly to where the Act restricts the order in which bills can be redesigned? [[User:Rhwentworth|Rhwentworth]] ([[User talk:Rhwentworth|talk]]) 02:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This just in - Treasury decides to print a new $9 bill with Andrew Jackson on it. -[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.16|162.158.255.16]] 04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This whole controversy is one reason why there are no real objects on the Euro notes. The individual nation's currencies did have real persons (including women - at least in Germany) or real "things" in a wider sense on them and changing them was often as complicated as depicted here. The current pictures on the Euro notes represent specific architectural styles (e.g. Gothic or Baroque), but the buildings and facades shown don't exist. I don't know if this should be part of the explanation as a side note or something, but I felt it would be nice to know, that other states or organisiations had similar struggles and actually found a compromise. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
::How I long back for the old Dutch NLG 50 note with the yellow sunflower on it! One of the most beautiful banknotes I've ever seen. [[User:Palmpje|Palmpje]] ([[User talk:Palmpje|talk]]) 12:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we add a category about Comics Featuring Steve? [[User:GizmoDude|GizmoDude]] ([[User talk:GizmoDude|talk]]) 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:I think that three examples (where it is just a name, for someone not shown) is too little for a new category. If you can find other places where it is similarly used then maybe. But be careful when searching since a "Steve" search will find real people like Steve Jobs and Seven Spielberg for instance... And please do not make a page out of it like you did (deleted the square brackets). If there would be a category it would also not take that form. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we add a category about Comics Which Make Absolutely No Sense To People Outside the USA? [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
:Since Randall is American I think those of us not from the US should just accept that he will make local oriented comics from time to time, and then just enjoy that we can find the explanations here ;-) [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have very little information as to which parts of this comic are true or false. This page could seriously do with citations. (E.g. what broadway musical? I have no idea.) {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.110}}

:Hamilton is a real Broadway musical featuring a race-bent Andrew Hamilton, completely done in the style of modern hip-hop. It's considered to be groundbreaking if suffering from some severe historical inaccuracies (the most obvious being the titular character's race). [[user:Riomhaire|Riomhaire]]

::Ok, that’s just racist. It’s a stage play, nobody should care if the race of the actor doesn’t match that of the character. Furthermore, there were intentional choices made that the three US presidents who appeared (Washington, Jefferson, and Madison) would be played in the original cast by black men, as a statement about equality and patriotism (which is not to say that Chris Jackson, Daveed Diggs, and the guy who played Madison I forgot the name of were selected not because of their acting skills and fitness for the role otherwise.) And if you’re talking about Hamilton being described as an immigrant, he was. He was, in fact, born in the Caribbean, and emigrated to the then 13 Colonies in order to study at college. I know, I read historical book Lin Manuel Miranda read in order to research for the musical. (You are correct, however, on the fact that there are several inaccuracies in the play, but that doesn’t make it any less of a good experience.) [[User:AirPrime|AirPrime]] ([[User talk:AirPrime|talk]]) 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

::Plus his name is Alexander, not Andrew, Hamilton. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.84|172.70.211.84]] 19:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Plus PLUS, most of the inaccuracies are only for simplicity sake (such as the meeting of Laffette, Mulligan, Lorrens and Hamilton, or Hamilton and Washingtons falling out during the revolution).[[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 22:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

One thing I feel the need to add here is that the Trail of Tears was a human rights violation due to the chiefs, not due to Andrew Jackson. While it still wasn't exactly the morally right thing to do, relocating the tribes along the Trail, the chiefs did not include their slaves in the "census" they gave to the army, resulting in a huge supply shortage. Had the chiefs considered their tribes' slaves people and counted them in the number that was given to Jackson and the army, the Trail of Tears would have been a Trail of Discomfort and Frustration instead. [[user:Riomhaire|Riomhaire]]
:The humans rights violation was the forced relocation of people off their own land by people who want to take it? With no compensation (At the time) and plenty of violence throughout? Also, while that is the bad thing he was known for, Jackson was insane in many other ways, too. I’m not even going to go into the last part. It still would’ve been a trail of tears if they were given heaps of gold and fed well. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 13:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely part of the humour here is the reporters being totally unconcerned about something as important as the security of currency and instead making a massive fuss over something largely irrelevant (i.e. what picture is printed on the notes)? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.226|172.70.110.226]] 18:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

:The press conference wasn't about security features. It was about the design of the notes. Why would putting Tubman on a bill make it less secure? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 14:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)