Battle of Backbone Mountain

	Demand Note is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted November 6, 2012 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Numismatics: American currency Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American currency task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See my comment on your talk page. Schutz 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 wiktionary:demand_note and [1]. What a large mistake. —Michiel Sikma, 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 10:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Huh huh ;) --Kurt 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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:

Picture of the day

Demand Notes are a type of United States paper money that were issued between August 1861 and April 1862 in denominations of 5, 10, and 20 U.S. dollars. Released during the American Civil War, these notes were used to pay expenses incurred by the Union during the war. They were popularly known as "greenbacks", a name inherited by their successors, the Legal Tender and Federal Reserve Notes.

Shown here is a $20 note, dated 10 August 1861, which features a feminine allegory representing either Liberty, or perhaps America, in the center. The figure has a sword in her right hand and holds a striped shield, featuring a Bald Eagle at the top, in her left. This bill is scanned from the National Numismatic Collection at the National Museum of American History.

See another banknoteBanknote: Bureau of Engraving and Printing (image courtesy of the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History)

Archive – More featured pictures...

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

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)[reply]