Talk:United States twenty-dollar bill

RFID

Maybe we could mention something about the RFID urban legend that surrounds this new bill?

• www.prisonplanet.com/022904rfidtagsexplode.html]
• [1]

Dario 19:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

George Washington $20 bill

Various Internet sites talk about a really old $20 bill with George Washington. When was it printed?? I believe it was out of the history range on this page by at least a decade. User 66.32.64.190

I have one. Its a 1922 $20 Gold Certificate. See the gold certificate article. --RThompson82 (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

From 'needs attention' (fixed AFAIC)

• U.S. twenty dollar bill -- Does anyone know the name of the design on the back of the Series 1914 large-sized note $20 bill?? You may use [2] as a reference tool. 66.32.142.216 23:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Finally it has been done. Can anyone do a similar thing to the other bill articles?? The portraits were mostly the same, with 3 exceptions, the $10, the $20, and the $1000, which had the same portraits, only in a different order, the $10 had Andrew Jackson, the $20 had Grover Cleveland, and the $1000 had Alexander Hamilton, All other bills from $5 to $10,000 had the same portraits. But how about the designs on the back?? They must ALL be something totally different. Remember the Internet site to use as a refrence tool. What does AFAIC stand for?? 66.32.247.11 14:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Page move??

How come Canadian twenty dollar bill was moved to a hypenated form but this article was not?? Georgia guy 01:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Standard formatting, to match with Canadian five-dollar bill and Canadian ten-dollar bill. Radagast 17:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

I am 1/18th Cherokee, certainly not alot by quantum, but enough to know about the Trail of tears from the family stories that were told to me by my father, grandmother, and great-grandmother. Sure, I'll pick up a $20.00 bill if I should find one laying on the ground cuz I'm greedy, but, if given a $20 bill (US) as change or in a bank withdrawl I will certainly request for other denominations instead(ex. 2 10's - or ask outright for no $20's). but what he did to my ancestors (and fairly recent at that in family memory) is unforgivable but is certainly unforgetable; therefore, I would prefer to see President Jackson's evil image removed from the US $20 bill and replaced by another President (personally, I think it would be cool if the image on the bills would change every five years or so- it would be good for counterfeit deterance, a good history lesson for the general public, an honor for the Presidents, and interesting overall- I mean really- other than the $1 and $5 dollar bill a surprising amount of people aren't be able to accurately name the President and the corresponding bill and identify the bill by the denomination amount number found in the corners- maybe I'll forward that idea to the US Treasury). As I said, President Jackson may not be forgiven, and his deed to our people is not forgotten. And, as I understand, not accepting US $20 bills is common among Cherokee, Chactaw, and other anti-american Native American people and their decendants, so, this fact should be included in this article as it is directly relevent to the circulation of the bill (and circulation is a pretty important aspect of currency). Has anyone (Native Americans, for instance) complained about Jackson being featured on the bill? He's awfully controversial and should not be commemorated on money. Brutannica 00:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't being 1/18th something impossible? One is 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, etc, the latter number always doubles, right? Also, why do so many white people think they're Native American? --RThompson82 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been a year and I still wonder about this. I just learned about how he destabilized the currency, too. Why is he on the bill? Brutannica 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this relevant to the entry on the $20 bill. Talk of Andrew Jackson's presidency belongs on his entry, not on the $20 bill entry. Idle speculation on Jackson's conduct is not appropriate for this page. References to the trail of tears should be removed. Florfina 16:17 20 November 2006 (EST)

I think it is worthwhile to discuss it here, since I do not see addressed in this article at all why Jackson was picked. Was it a compromise with the South or something like that? He doesn't seem to have much to do with the treasury, and his legacy as a president is debatable. So why him? What was the decision making process? This might inform people's decisions about whether they want to keep him on it. Moment in time 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'll point out that the articles for the $1, $2, $5, $10, $50, and $100 bills don't discuss the reasons those bills feature Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Grant, and Franklin. The legacy of any of those persons is "debatable". Washington, Jefferson, and Grant owned slaves. Grant's administration was infamous for corruption among its members. Etc., etc. I'm sure you can find someone to condemn every person currently featured on United States currency.

My point is that we shouldn't add our criticisms of things to Wikipedia, or introduce our own discussion of "whether we should keep Jackson on the $20 bill". Wikipedia is a compendium of existing knowledge, not a blog or discussion board.

If you can find some research explaining why in particular Jackson was chosen for the $20, go ahead and add it. But let's not add our own criticisms. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for explain what Wikipedia is (no discussion can be truly complete without this "trump card") I was never arguing for a debate on Jackson, I just agreed with the other poster that this article doesn't explain why Jackson was chosen, which is solid historical fact. Look at an article on the US flag -- I bet it explains why colors and symbols were chosen. Moment in time 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Your comment said "I think it is worthwhile to discuss it here" [my emphasis]. I assumed "it" referred to the topic of the post above yours: Jackson's conduct. As I said above, I think it is perfectly appropriate to explain why Jackson was chosen for the twenty. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading my post over, I realized it sounds a bit snarky. Moment in time, I apologize for my tone in my original post; I shouldn't have talked down to you. I was partly responding to an edit on Jan 14, in which an anon added back a statement that the choice of Jackson was "controversial". I think I lumped you in with that. I didn't think that addition about Jackson being controversial was legitimate: for a controversy to be notable, it should be the subject of more than just a few web pages. I also have a problem with the implication that Jackson is so inadequate that only the article on the twenty, and not the articles on the other denominations, should have a special section discussing why this bill uses this particular person. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I agree, that a "controversy" section would only be warranted if it grows in prominence. I do think the topic of why they were picked is appropriate and very interesting. The Treasury's lack of transparency notwithstanding, maybe there are some historians who might know what went into such a decision. Moment in time 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, being Native American myself, I don't think Andrew Jackson should be on the $20 anymore... I have no idea why, I don't care why... I'm not mentioning having a Native American on a bill because we already have Sakajowia (sp?) On the newest Dollar piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.141.133 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 May 2007

This page is for discussion of changes made to the article about twenty-dollar bills, not about twenty-dollar bills in particular. You might find posting on a web forum or Usenet group more appropriate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that there is a good deal of discussion and activism around Jackson and his enshrinement on the $20, more than any other bill or coin as far as I can tell, some mention of this in the main article (and, obviously, debate about it here on the talk page) is quite justified, I think. I toned down the language added by Dsegal58 on 8/8/08 and later deleted, and I will add a few citations when I can find them.--Dupea (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't add anything until it is referenced from a reliable source or it will be reverted for also violating NPOV. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dupea (why hide behind a pseudonym??) claims that my language (I am d. segal -- and as a historian publish under my own name, daniel segal) was less than toned down. I find this to be surprising. A calm thing to say about Jackson is that he was a racist and mass murderer. Has anyone toned down the language about Goebbels? Why do white American racists like Jackson deserve any different treatment than German Nazis? Why does NPOV mean a pro-mainstream US bias?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.117.111 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency about rules here. Not citing courses is one problem. (See, oh, about a million and a half wikipedia articles for examples.) NPOV is another one, a different one. Surely it doesn't violate NPOV or "encyclopedic language" to point out the existence of significant controversy on a topic. The Wikipedia article on Jackson gives plenty of authoritative sources about controversy about Jackson himself. Whether the debate over Jackson on the $20 bill is "notable" enough for Wikipedia is yet to be resolved...--Dupea (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

-As an European that is very interested in the USA. (I've been there about 20 times) I find this very interesting. On my personal website about the USA I added a small note on the Columbus day page (of the USA Holidays section) were is mentioned that he and his people are responsible for the deaths of millions of original natives in search for gold etc, according to historians. So would it still be OK to have a Columbus Day? I own a funny fake quarter with Bill Clinton on it having sex with M. Lewinski. So I guess not a Bill Clinton bill too. To come back to the $ 20,- bill, I can understand Native Americans and I guess a lot of other Americans too not wanting Jackson on the bill. Untill this moment I didn't know about this issue, so I find it OK that there's at least a note or link mentioning this issue. I don't think it's fair to "hide" these issues of such a large proportion. Ofcourse this is my personal opinion. So I will add a note to this issue too on my currency and money section. Theo

- This argument against Jackson on the US $20 bill has to be one of the most trivial wastes of time I've seen in a while. It's up there with Native Americans complaining about professional sport teams using certain mascots. This is the same politically correct B.S. that plagues us. It's another attempt at pulling straws to whine and complain how one ethnic background or another is being "offended" by something. There are better battles to fight for in life, people, so stop taking old traditions and icons that have no meaning in today's society and tagging them as racial hatred or "racially offensive". Anyone can be "offended" by anything, but if you make a big fuss over something benign, people are going to either ignore you or tell you to take it elsewhere. That's my "two cents", no sources needed. cipher_nemo (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cipher, you are an uneducated, self-righteous moron. Tell me how trivial you think it would be if we had "The Oakland Niggers", "The New Jersey WOPs" or "The New York Kikes" as sports teams? "Red Skins" is an EXTREMELY insulting term, created and used to marginalize and degrade my people. I am sure that if they also had a white man, in black face for a mascot, that would be fine too, right? You dumbass. The MAJORITY of my people REFUSE 20 dollar bills. It is HATED and well known among ALL OF US. It has been in documentaries and cited in Newspapers an untold amount of times.

Flag reversed on back

Does anyone have any insight as to why the flag has changed directions on the top of the white house in the new series of $20 bills? It is now blowing to the left when it used to blow to the right.

Another insidious lefty plot! Mwah-ha-ha! Brian Schlosser42 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of the flag on the back of the TEN dollar bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.248.7 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 June 2007

The flag direction has not changed. Neither the $10 bill nor the $20 bill. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at a 1963 double sawbuck that just came in to my store an the flag on the white houes is waiving to the right ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.213.134 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Flag direction changed with the 1999 series. You can look at samples on the treasury website. Why is a deeper question. 75.137.121.149 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The wind was blowing the other direction. Seriously, thinking it's a "deeper question" than that is just trying to look for something that isn't there.Almostfm (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Lost elm

Is there any truth the rumor floating around that the current note will be withdrawn and replaced with one without the elm that was toppled earlier this year. it doesn't seem right. after all whats cheaper, replacing a tree or replacing the largest denomination of american back note. i'm from europe so for all i know the tree is already replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.70.96 (talk • contribs)

Old U.S. currency is never withdrawn from circulation (except for the $500 bill and higher). A design change like this would be highly unlikely due to the steps and money involved in changing a design. --Kurt 06:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at a 1963 double sawbuck that just came in to my store an the flag on the white houes is waiving to the right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.213.134 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of older bills

Is it possible to get pictures of older $20 bills on the page? Particularly the pre-1998 "small-head" bill with the opposite side of the White House on the reverse side of the bill?

A few old bills were added recently by me to this page. Anyone have more pictures of old $20 bills to add to this page?? Georgia guy 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I could scan the back of the Series 1995 bill shown on the page. Other than that all I have are Series 1996 and what's in my wallet :P—Scott5114↗ 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of cheques

I thought that the word check in it's plural was checks. Maybe I was wrong. Are you sure that its spelled that way? GlassDesk 18:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Cheque" is the British spelling. Since this article is about a purely U.S. topic, I've reverted to the U.S. spelling, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 21:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so it is British. I did not want to change it for fear that it was correct, but now I know. Thanks GlassDesk 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

$20 "coin certificate"

Should this article feature the Coin Certificate the mint is selling on Silver Leaf? I am the Tape! (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Tapeisback

That's not anything the U.S. Mint is doing; it's a "collectible" with almost no actual metal content, created by a private merchant (using the misleading name "National Collectors Mint") which is nominally "legal tender" in Liberia, but is being manufactured and sold in the U.S. It's like some of the more notorious postage stamps that are ground out by various contract printers for sale to philatelists, but see little or no circulation in the countries whose names they bear. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Could someone please explain how the neutraliy of the design controversy section could be questioned. As I judge it, the dispute over the neutrality of this section shows a right-wing bias---in which patriotism blinds people to being being objective about genocide. Or is someone suggesting that we should be not just objective about genocide but neutral about genocide? Should there be a neutral article about Hitler? I see the value of an objective article about Hitler and an objective article about commemorating Jackson, but is Wikipedia really committed to having a neutral point of view on genocide? -- dan segal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsegal58 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, to go in-depth as to why the prose as-written needs revision: mostly, it spews vitriol in Jackson's direction, which is pretty much irrelevant to the subject of this article other than to support the reasons why some people support the removal of Jackson from the bill. However, that could easily be achieved in a single sentence, briefly and neutrally summarizing why Jackson is considered by some to be unsuitable for depiction. Also, reference ten goes to a personal website—yours—and websites of this nature do not meet WP:RS and so cannot be used. Furthermore, a good, solid reference is needed to show that replacing Jackson isn't merely a fringe cause advocated by a small group of people—something like a newspaper article or TV broadcast documenting the controversy. Simply linking to a website which advocates this isn't enough—a slick-looking website can easily be put up by one person championing any sort of cause. I will attempt to rewrite the disputed section in a more neutral manner, but if references can't be found to show that this is actually a widespread campaign, the section will have to go.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The History channels' episode of the American Presidents on Jackson included comments from an ethnic Native American U.S. history professor at a prominent university who tells of Native Americans still refusing the $20 and always asking for 2 $10's instead. Of course I am unable to find a transcript or other source online to back this up. I'll have to order the DVD and post the details later. Alatari (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I love it. The fact that the $20 bill celebrates one of America's greatest proponents of genocide is a non-issue because its not "a widespread campaign" and "one of the most trivial wastes of time I've seen in a while." The purpose of this section is not to slander Jackson or use it as a platform to advocate for his removal. It is to acknowledge that there are groups of people who are fundamentally opposed to using this denomination because it glorifies a man responsible for mass murder, and to inform people that this issue does exist. I understand that some people don't care what marginalized groups have to say on the issue. And I understand that maybe you personally don't understand why the general public needs to be aware that America's very own Hitler has his face circulated every day. Regardless of how you perceive the issue, there is controversy over having Jackson on the $20 bill. It is offensive to see the "neutrality warning" on the controversy section, as though simply stating on Wikipedia that there is an issue is some how unfair or defamatory.
Here's an idea: Remove the warning. There is absolutely no excuse for it. If you need "sources" try, I don't know.. Google. There is plenty of information on this subject. Before you challenge the validity of a controversy, shouldn't you have some other defense besides marginalizing affected parties as an excuse?
Jackson off the $20
Jackson: A Symbol of Injustice
173.48.38.63 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The story about Native Americans declining $20 bills because of Jackson's presence on them is interesting and if a source on that can be found, it deserves mention in the article. Period. --RThompson82 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jackson Right eye

Is there a reason there is a closeup of the right eye on this page? I understand it looks like his left eye, but the section the picture is in doesn't mention it at all... I had to look at the image description to see why it was on there? Is there any value in keeping this image? Robert Beck (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see any reason to include that particular image. I had to click it as well to find out why it would be included. I also don't really see the right vs. left eye disparity. It just looks like a close-up of an eye. Even if it does look like the wrong eye, that's still a trivia/fun fact kind of thing that doesn't really belong here.Some kind of scientist (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cat on the Roof

Do somebody know the story behind the cat sitting on the roof of the White House on the previous version of the bill - with south side view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.232.85.82 (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a demon cat according to Ukrainian finance news online. In 2017 Ph.D. in economics Zinchenko A. from Ukraine , connected a 20 dollar (1993) bill's reverse cat silhouette on White House Washingtton D.C. with a legendary White House Demon Cat. 217.77.212.192 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fluorescent glow of security thread

Every online resource I've found only talks of the security thread (aka strip) on a $20 glowing green under a black light (series 1996 and later, I think). I have seen several 2001, 2004, and 2004 A series that glow barely or not-at-all, and are kinda peach color. Note that the thread is in the green part of the bill, not the peach part. Failing to find any information on the web, I called my local Secret Service field office, and didn't get a real answer. The person I spoke with wasn't familiar with the fluorescence of the security threads, and said I should just look at the other security features to determine if the bill was counterfeit. Anyone know more about this? ElApuesto (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Each denomination glows a different color. Twenties are green. (You can see a photo of what it's supposed to look like on this article.) It is possible that the bills you have were a different denomination (perhaps tens, which glow orange) and were bleached and reprinted as twenties. What does the text on the security strips say? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is outdated

Most of the links cited are no longer up. This page needs some updating.

Hi! I just joined, so please forgive my inability to grasp the coding. I flagged this article as having inaccuracies since many of the sources lead to dead links. Not sure how this process works to notify the original editor. Thanks.Meagh (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)meagh

Hi, Meagh. There is no "original editor". There may be hundreds and you can find them listed here. The ones who have contributed the most and in recent weeks or months may be the ones most interested in getting the problems fixed. Thanks for your help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Size

The sizes of present US currency were stated in an info box in metric terms to six digits of precision. I doubted that the printing bureau ever stated such a precision, or that they regulated the cutters to slice the printed sheets into notes down to +/- .00005 mm for the height and .0005 mm for the width. I found the US government site https://uscurrency.gov/history-american-currency which states the dimensions as 6.14 inches by 2.61 inches, an achievable 3 digits of precision. I suggest that the dimensions of US currency in the infobox should be given in US units rather than metric units. This is not a science article, so metric units being standard for science is not convincing. I have no serious problem with leaving currency measurements metric, but I strongly object to implying the measurements are specified to 6 digits of precision, which is an artifact of mindlessly using a unit conversion program. Edison (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States twenty-dollar bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051206012921/http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/2230 to http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/2230

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced archive

This talk page has an archive which is at the previous title. Talk:U.S. twenty dollar bill/Archive 1. Ideally when the page is moved, the talk page and all subpages also get moved. This did not happen for some reason, and it has to be done. Jay ^(Talk) 18:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Jay  Done - ZLEA _T\^C 02:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Tubman $20

I'm not opposed to this change, per se, but I have an issue with the aesthetics of the design of this bill. All of the current portraits on US currency have the subject of the portraiture somewhat coked to the right, where this is a full frontal portrait of Tubman. If they would bring the design of the Tubman portrait into parity with the rest of the bills I could get on board with this. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It's not a place to voice opinions about changes to the banknote itself. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)