Talk:Debits and Credits/Credit (accounting)

Ok, I want to know who and when it was decided that credits are reflected as negative numbers and debits as positive. I was always taught that debits and credits must EQUAL, I know it is symantics to an extent, but I find negative numbers to be arguably the most confusing.

When I write a check (payment IE: CREDIT) I do not write a negative amount just the same as when I take out a loan yes I owe the bank but I do not owe them a NEGATIVE number.

An explantion on this would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.90.69.185 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be merged with "Debit (accounting)".

Merging?

In it's current state, debit and credit could be merged. If more detail was added, then a merger would be unnecessary.

Zoop 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This seems to be a mirror image of debit --KSnortum 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the article should be titled "Credits and Debits" so that neither is given more attention. --Jd147703 23:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, these must NOT be merged. They are two distinctly different things, so different that I shall state the obvious that they are, in fact, completely the opposite of each other! To merge them would perpetuate the confusion that surrounds the two terms and the effects they have in the real world. If you must include them on the one page, do so where appropiate i.e. the page for Double Entry Bookkeeping.--Mo Conyeeloch 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is not that the terms aren't different, but the articles as they stand are virtually identical. If more is added to each, then it would make sense for them to be separate entries. Just glancing at it, listings of accounts and whether normal balances are either credit or debit would be useful. --Jd147703 16:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are opposites, but that shows how they are related to each other. Journal entries will have both credits and debits. When talking about this subject it is referred to as debits and credits. Not credits. And not debits. They need to be merged under the title "debits and credits" and expanded. Fineric 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Both articles use exactly the same concepts to describe both. Merging into one article would give an opportunity to compare and contrast using this framework and help define both terms better.Greg Stevens 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Merge as "Debits and Credits" Because Debits are on the left side, and Credits are on the right side of t-accounts 192.150.115.149 14:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is probably a good idea, based mostly on the fact they really do look quite identical... Also thinking that the portion within the article which states "many people who have no formal education..." should be removed. While the statement itself may be true, it carries a condesending tone and can just as easily present the same material without that line. Again, while it does not violate the "impartiality" of the article, there is no need for that patricular speech to be used as a part of that statement. Making the edit to remove the phrase "who have no formal education"... Also going to fix some grammatical errors... 27Sept

DO NOT MERGE: While double-entry accounting requires that every debit have an equal credit to maintain the equality of the accounting equation, the action of debiting, (or charging) an account, (i.e., posting to the left side of the account) is not the same as crediting an account, (i.e., posting to the right side of the account). One should not conflate "left" and "right," or, for that matter "debit" and "credit." Although they are mirror image concepts, they are different; and, therefore deserve separate treatment. To combine the two articles is to invite and foster confusion.--Lance 04:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no to merging, though I'm curious why they just aren't part of the double-entry accounting article, since that's excactly what these two are. Neither are very long in length, and I can only assume that most of the material is already stated in double-entry. Radagast83 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]