Talk:Pecunia non olet

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

Physiology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the kidneys and renal physiology.

This wouldn't be used as an argument against regulations to stop money laundering, would it? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; money laundering is about evading taxation and tracking of money. This might be used as an argument for charities to accept tainted donations, for example. --Gwern (contribs) 13:15 22 August 2009 (GMT)

In fact, it's been quoted in court to explain why immoral / etc earnings should be taxed. --86.178.194.184 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: " This phrase is still used today to show that money is all equally filthy (or clean)"

Since the phrase is about how money does NOT smell I think this would be better as "This phrase is still used today to show that the value of money is not tainted by its origins"

in literature, it is referenced in Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men around page 350 or so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.176.67 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since "pecunia" is plural, shouldn't it be "olent"?

I027614 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that "pecunia" is plural? It's singular. The plural would be "pecuniae". 217.233.200.24 (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the page is "Pecunia non olent" but the phrase is "Pecunia non olet". One of them is wrong, apparently the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.56.18 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title was wrong - I moved it--Sajoch (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]