Talk:Cheque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Finance, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Finance. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] (moved from Talk:Check)

The stuff about order checks doesn't make sense to me. My understanding is that a 'bearer cheque' is one explicitly made out to 'bearer' or 'cash', and which can therefore be exchanged by anyone who has posession of it. A cheque made out to a specific person can be exchanged for cash only by the person it is made out to. Whoever cashes it can of course be more or less vigilant in demanding proof of identity. A 'crossed cheque' can only be paid into a bank account of the payee. In Britain at least most cheques are 'crossed' at the time of printing.

Anyone have any more details, and whether other European countries work differently? DJ Clayworth 22:47, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No need for ()

We don't need the (finance) if we just spell "cheque" correctly. Chamaeleon 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe someone should do a cut and paste move and mark this for Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. We will need an admin to copy the history though. —UTSRelativity 02:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the 'give me' a ding dong is the best one, if you ask me.

[edit] Page move

As pointed out above, moving to Cheque meand there is no need for additional disambiguation. Jooler 12:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support, though I do have BE bias. violet/riga (t) 18:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Support. I admit a BE bias, too, but "cheque" is also used in the US (at least by AmEx), apparently, and alternative-word-spelling-disambiguation, when widely understandable, is greatly prefereable to paranthetic disambiguation. James F. (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. My reply is belated, but I'm posting to provide an American perspective. While relatively uncommon in the US, the "cheque" spelling is fairly familiar to Americans and far less ambiguous than "check." —Lifeisunfair 10:13, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling consistency

This article currently has a dizzying mishmash of spellings, in some cases using both "check" and "cheque" in the same paragraph (if not the same sentence). This looks very ragged and should be fixed. Most of the text describes US usage, so those grafs at least should probably spell it consistently as "check". 18.26.0.18 02:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed it to match the title. violet/riga (t) 12:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's cheque btw, not check. 202.191.106.29 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's Check btw, not cheque.

[ WP:RPA by 68.39.174.238 05:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) ]. They are both correct in their respective regions.Cameron Nedland 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the OED, they are both correct in both regions. But different spellings do dominate.65.87.181.2 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem created by the spelling change.

It seems ridiculous that parts of this article say flatly untrue things such as "cheque has, in the US, come to mean any of these items." There's got to be a better way to put that. Twin Bird 13:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling history

I have added a paragraph that explains the history of 'check' vs 'cheque'.

Atyphoon 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This history, presumably as provided by the text cited, disagrees completely with the word's usage history as provided by the OED2. Most importantly, the history here suggests that the spelling 'cheque' was invented in 1828, while the OED2 finds extensive usage of 'cheque' and 'checque' throughout the 1700s. I am compelled to assume that the etymology provided is fallacious and that the OED is not simply making up usage including

1708 Act 7 Anne c. 7 Such part of the said Cheques, Indents, or Counterfoils as shall relate to the Bills...

1717 Minutes of Court of Bank of Eng. 24 Oct., Ordered..that Mr. Woolhead desire all persons who keep accounts by Drawn Notes to use cheques, who do not at present.

As I consider the OED to be the obvious authority in this area (that is, English etymology) and as its content contradicts the present article, I'm going to pursue some revision to eliminate this disagreement. --Yst 13:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Empire 1 century CE?

Um, Mohammed was born only in the 6th century CE. This needs to be corrected.

[edit] American version?

Should an article about American checks be created? Or at least have some redirect so as to avoid spelling confusion? Also, I'd like to see articles about bounced checks, protesting a check, etc.--D-Day 17:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Just learn to live the the confusion, like we do when we read about pavement, sidewalk, cilantro, zucchini and a million and one other things. Jooler

I don't think a separate article is warranted, but an entire section devoted to cheques in the US banking system would be very useful. This may result in a disproportionate percentage of the article being about the US, but given that the US is one of the few developed countries still using cheques (instead of more modern payment methods such as bank-to-bank transfers), I don't think this would make the article unjustly US-centric. There are plenty of useful things to say about cheques in the US, for example the fact that an online banking payment typically results in a cheque being sent in the mail, the fact that account holders may choose a third party to print their cheques, and why account holders like to get back their cancelled cheques. Facts such as these and others may seem obvious to Americans, but are very surprising to outsiders, and are therefore worth explaining in this article. Nfh 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that banks in the US recently (2004?) stopped sending back cancelled cheques. I've been told that (for legal reasons) they still photograph those checks and keep microfiche copies for several years, but then original checks are shredded. See [1], [2], Check 21 Act.

[edit] Writing a Cheque/Check

Why is there no area that explains the full use of a check and how to write one? I heard a check can be used as a deposit slip, though I forget how this process is done. Davethewave83

It's a good idea to endorse your checks "Pay to the order of BANK, for deposit only, account #NUMBER, NAME, where BANK, NUMBER and NAME are your Bank's name, your account number, and your name (duh). With that endorsement, nobody but BANK can do anything with the check, and BANK can only deposit it in your account.

A little off topic, Something I liked to do when my landlord pretended she didn't get paid on time was to write the checks payable to the order of "The Extortionist Witch" or something a little more obscene.

An interesting case (Ok, almost completely off topic) I heard about was when a guy deposited one of the "This Money Could Be Yours" supposedly fake checks that come with advertisements. Apparantly, these clowns copied one of their actual checks and simply wrote "Void" on the face of the check. The guy checked his account balance a couple days later, and had quite a large sum available, and a company threatening to sue him. Rival 07:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a little more information on "writing a check" and "endorsing a check". I've been getting conflicting advice on whether I should always use a black ink pen, or always use a colored pen. Also conflicting advice on whether I should always use a (oil-based ink) ballpoint pen, or a (water-based ink) rollerball/gel pen, or a (?) fountain pen. Since my checks make carbon copyes as I write them, I'm not too worried. (But of course I'm not going to use pencil or eraseable ink). --70.189.75.148 07:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some 'how to fill out a cheque' info would be good, eg. how to avoid fraud by making sure you write the cheque so no one can add extra numbers. Also some more info about crossing cheques would be good. As mentioned above, cheques in England come precrossed, I assume this is/are the two vertical lines printed across the 'pay' and 'the sum of' lines. However, as this is taken for granted English people may not know about this at all and get caught out if they go to America. (Cynthia Voigt wrote a story where a characther started her own business and failed to cross a cheque for a huge order. The resulting theft meant that she lost her busines).

Hmmm, I'm not so sure that this type of information should be included in a Wikipedia article. See point 4 ("Instruction manuals") in WP:NOT#IINFO. Adw2000 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, the cheque books printed by banks are simply for your convenience and if you write out a 'pay the bearer' note on a napkin, that is legally binding and a bank would have to process it. Hmm but I can't imagine the bank WOULD process it. Any more info on this? ChristineD 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happens if a check bounces?

Also, what happens if a check made out to "bearer" or "cash" bounces? Who's fault is it and who gets the blame? ;) Davethewave83

The last person to endorse the check is the first person responsible, but ultimately the original maker is responsible for payment of the check. If: Able cuts Baker a check in exchange for a lawn sprinkler. Baker signs the check over to Charles, in exchange for a hamburger. Charles signs the check over to Diane for a large order of fries, and diane finally deposits it in the bank. When the check bounces, Diane has to go back to Charles to get payment for the large fries, Charles has to go back to Baker to get payment for the hamburger, and Baker has to go back to Able to get payment for the lawn sprinkler.

Of course, Baker and Charles could have endorsed the check "No Recourse, Baker" and "No Recourse, Charles" when they signed it over, in which case Diane would have to go all the way back to Able directly for her payment.

Rival 07:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reference for Finland

Didn't know where to put a reference in Finnish to back up Finnish info, so i'll put it here: http://www.turunsanomat.fi/kotimaa/?ts=1,3:1002:0:0,4:2:0:1:2004-01-07,104:2:196120,1:0:0:0:0:0: --Espoo 13:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checks the size of beach towels

What about those really big checks? Can you actually get/deposit those? Presumably it's a US thing.

There's a well known historic case of somebody in the UK writing a cheque on the side of a live cow. NFH 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope the cow didn't bounce. Potosino 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it'd splat. :( --Tyrfing (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheque v. Check

If most of the information in this article is related to the United States, then why is the title of this article British English. I think someone should change the title to the American version, or at least add more British stuff. → JARED ^(t) 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The original title was Check (finance). The page was moved to Cheque to eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguation. ("Check" can refer to numerous things, but "cheque" refers strictly to the article's subject.)

Indeed, additional information pertaining to other countries would be welcome. —David Levy 13:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

"When sending a payment by online banking in the United States, the sending bank usually mails a cheque to the payee's bank rather than sending the funds electronically." If that's true, I'd like to see some supporting reference. I've used online banking in the US at various institutions since the 1980s, and this runs contrary to my experience. It also makes little sense, since it is cheaper for both parties to make the exchange electronically.

"Despite being one of the world's most developed countries, the United States still relies heavily on cheques, caused by the absence of a high volume system for low value electronic payments." Since every credit card company, utility, mortgage grantor, and even local homeowner association I've dealt with in the past decade has something in place to allow automated electronic transfer of regular payments, whether the amount be small or large, I'd like to know the basis of this claim. Even American Express, which was among the last to offer such services, now allows its cardholders to pay bills online electronically, or by signing up for an automatic direct debit. Even over a decade ago, almost all of these institutions that I deal with have had such capability, so I can't see the basis for the claim that there is an absence of such a system. It's possible that this practice is used less than common sense would dictate, but that certainly does not mean that there is nothing in place to allow it. --Hagrinas 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheque expirations

When is the last day a British cheque can be cashed after being written?

The article says "a cheque is generally valid for six months after the date of issue". I think this covers the UK. Adw2000 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date on example British Cheque

The date on the example Canadian Cheque is 1 August 2006. I presume the British Cheque was meant to have the same date as an example? However, the date on the cheque is written "08/01/06", which in British format is 8 January 2006. Can the example be updated so that it reads "01/08/06" or "1 August 2006" (my preferred date format when writing cheques)? Adw2000 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not real you know, it's an "example". 83.70.28.138 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The opening sentence says:

thought to have developed from Persian چك chek

whereas the history section says:

The cheque was originally titled such (variously spelled check, checque and cheque) in reference to the counterfoil used to check against forgery and alterations.

These statements can't both be true. (Also, the opening sentence is a disaster area of obfuscation, and needs rewriting in plainer English.) -dmmaus 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I could find no evidence to support the statement thought to have developed from Persian چك chek, so I removed it. I also separated out the History section (about precursors of checks/cheques, as used in the Roman and other early empires) from the Etymology and Spelling section (about the well-documented etymology of the English word from the game of chess -- which, by the way, does derive etymologically from the Persian word shah) and the non-controversy about the "proper" spelling of the word in the U.S. vs other English-speaking countries. --Potosino 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


The English word cheque or check is one of many meanings that derive ultimately from the action of putting a king in [[Check (Chess)|check]] in the game
 of chess<ref>''Check'' and ''Cheque, check'', Oxford English Dictionary Online, 2007</ref>; derived from the [[Persian language|Persian]] ''Shah'' 
(king).  When the king is in check, his choices are limited.  The term was originally used in its financial sense in the late 1600s in reference to the 
counterfoil of a draft that was used to "check" (prevent, forestall) forgery and alterations.  The word has been used in its modern sense since the late
 1700s.  The Arabic term ''[[sukuk|ṣakk]]'' has been used to refer to promissory notes in the Middle East since the 4th century.

I just checked the OED and could find no sign of this explanation there, so I've removed it pending further confirmation. Could someone give a full citation, or extract before re-inserting. - Francis Tyers · 09:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger from Bounced check

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- Nazgul533 ^talk ^contribs 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A merger from Bounced check to Cheque has been proposed since September 2006.

Merge. The article on bounced checks is a one-liner, I recommend a merge&redirect. -- Emana 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge seconded for same reasons SGGH 19:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge. AirOdyssey (Talk) 06:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge. Dreaded Walrus ^t _c 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Question on terminology

Any explanation of where the very unusually term "to cut a check" comes from? 68.39.174.238 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 10:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheque → Check — User:Smack moved the article without discussion, which was highly unnecessary, as Wikipedia clearly mandates keeping the Original article name spelling (in the case of United Kingdom English versus United States English.) In this instance, Smack moved the article out of his own POV as evident by the history page ([3]), which clearly is unacceptable, and, as stated before, it is mandatory to keep the article names Original spellings. 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)-- Hrödberäht (gespräch)
- Your entire proposal is based on incorrect assumptions. Smack didn't move the article to Cheque, he moved it to Check (finance). Later, in 2005, there was a discussion where the consensus was to name this article Cheque, for sensible reasons. As this move proposal goes against that consensus, it certainly isn't uncontroversial. Masaruemoto 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose based on previous explanation, article history. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per above, despite my BE bias. - PeeJay 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. As noted above, this request is based on a misunderstanding of what occurred. The article was moved to Check (finance) to differentiate it from the other meanings of the word "check," and it was moved to Cheque to eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguation. —David Levy 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. As above -- request is based on a misinterpretation of what happened. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - due to chech's ambiguity. Reginmund 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special Presentation (UK)

Before the introduction of this standard, the only way to know the 'fate' of a cheque has been 'Special Presentation', which would probably involve a fee, where the drawee bank contacts the payee bank to see if the payee has that money at that time. Maybe I'm being slow here, but aren't drawee and payee the wrong way round in this sentence? (Most of this sentence was here before I made the changes regarding the new standards. I merely added Before the introduction of this standard) --PeterR 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Per policy, this article sould surely be written with one spelling of "Cheque/Check". In its current format, the article is very messy, and policy doesn't allow for american related sections of an article to have a different spelling; the consistancy must be there throughout the article. As the article is actually named "Cheque", then this should be the only variation used (excepting of course explaining the differences etc.). Look at the article Zucchini. While the British usage is Courgette, only Zucchini is used. -Toon⁰⁵ 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the zucchini article presumably has no text about specifically British zucchini. References to "cheques in the United States" look very odd. I think this should be an exception to the usual rule about keeping a consistent spelling in an article. (By the way, that rule is a "guideline" and not "policy", IIRC.) --Trovatore 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a few uses of "check" that had crept in. There are several I've left, however, as they refer to specific legal wording as used in the U.S. (In those cases, it seems best to use "check", and I have italicized them so as to make the point that it is a specific term.) I've also made a minor tweak to some text about security checks so as to avoid confusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz, I think that your edits have probably sorted it, the remaining "checks" are legal terms and should stay. Trovatore, thankyou for pointing out to me that it is "guideline" not "policy", I'm sure it changed the meaning of what I said completely. -Toon⁰⁵ 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that guidelines allow for exceptions when circumstances justify. They do justify it here. Some of the "cheque" instances should go back to "check". --Trovatore 02:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point that the guidelines allow for exceptions. However, in this case, the only appropriate exceptions would be the legal spellings. Having mixed spellings for the general references to "cheque" wouldn't be encyclopedic. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The clearest example is the external link to the FTC site, where you actually substituted "cheque" within a direct quote. The link seems to be broken anyway, though, and should probably just be removed.

But in my opinion it would also be justifiable to use "check" consistently in the US section, given that that section is specifically about US checks. The image caption about the "US dollar cheque" is correct because it's drawn on a Canadian bank. If it were drawn on a US bank it should be "check". When I lived in Canada I distinguished between my cheques (drawn on TD) and my checks (drawn on a US bank). --Trovatore 05:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops - thanks for catching the quotation marks. I've reverted myself for that one example. However, I still disagree with you about mixing the two - it would look unprofessional, and is contrary to Wikipedia custom. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should remain "Cheques in America", as they are the same item as in other parts of the world, and it would be like using US:En in the "LA Galaxy Era" section of David Beckham, calling it "soccer" in that section only, while the rest of the article is written in British English. Whether a Cheque is drawn on a British, American or Canadian bank, it is the same thing and should be written in the same style, there's no exceptional circumstance there. -Toon⁰⁵ 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think it would be like that; the section is specifically about United States checks, not checks that just happen to be in the United States. If the football (soccer) article has a section about United States soccer specifically (say, differences in rules, or the fortunes of Major League Soccer), then I think it would be justifiable to use "soccer" in that section. --Trovatore 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is any different; if a "check" is something different in the U.S. to the rest of the world, it should have its own article and that can be written in US:En, but if it's the same thing, then there is no reason for the language to be different. Either way, there is only one spelling used in general description. I don't argue with the spelling in "order check" and "bearer check", as that's quoting specific examples which aren't used in the UK. However, the title refers to types of "cheque" (as used in the UK), so should be spelled "Cheque". -Toon⁰⁵ 17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The section is specifically about the ways in which checks are something different in the US than in the rest of the world. That's the precise burden of the text of that section. If they weren't something different, then there would be no need for the section at all. --Trovatore 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about types of "something we have all over the world" is different to saying the name of a specific something in just the US. -Toon⁰⁵ 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheques in United States

This article has a section specifically for cheques in United States but not for other countries. I am wondering the reason for this bias? 213.114.118.44 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The bias is systemic. Feel free to help correct it. —David Levy 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about bias; it's simply because nobody who actually knows anything about british, or elsewhere's cheques has contributed. Please help if you can! -Toon⁰⁵ 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cashier's cheque/Banker's Draft

A small point but one that I think ought to be discussed, not all banks in the UK print their drafts. Agreed that the majority of Banks/Building Societies in the UK print theirs but the big High Street Bank that I work for all of ours are hand written on a blank template. I'm not keen on just changing it as I don't want to start an 'editwar', besides in other counties it may be true. I just think that this sweeping statement ought to be revised slightly. 193.108.78.10 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Any reason for not having a check issued by a US Bank (a fake one actually) instead of the second Canadian one? Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negotiable?

What's the deal with banks charging a fee for cashing checks drawn on their accounts? Is that legal? And if so, doesn't that contradict the claim that checks are negotiable?Heqwm (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to clear

How long does it take, on average, for a bank to post the payment and determine whether the check clears or bounces? And what would be a reasonable worst-case amount of time? Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amount of currency

Can you include two "and"s in the description of the amount of currency, on the cheque?

I don't, I always limit to one "and", whatever the amount. So, for the amount of £173.34, I would write it on the cheque as One Hundred Seventy Three Pounds and 34p________ rather than One Hundred and Seventy Three Pounds and 34p_____. Does it matter, am I worrying about nothing?

[edit] Diagram and Description

The page needs a diagram denoting where on a sample hand-written check the various parts are listed and what they are called. For example, there is a lot of confusion as to the "check number." Many people list it as the sequential identifier of the order of checks in a checkbook (usually in the upper right corner), but as far as I know it is the bank check number just below that is in smaller type and often contains a forward-slash in it. Other things useful in the diagram would be date, name, issuing bank, place where you should handwrite the spelled out amount of the check, etc. -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crossed cheque?

Is it true that these cannot be cashed? One part of the description implies that it simply means that it can't be endorsed to a third party - not that the person named on the payee line can't get cash for him/herself, yet another place it says you can't get cash - which is it? --Random832 (contribs) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)