Jump to content

Talk:Superdollar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is this hoax in Wikipedia?

[edit]

This is a Roswell-style conspiracy theory. Why is is presented as a fact? I have no problem in covering this in Wikipedia, but there is no evidence that these things even exist. The statements that these notes have such and such a name within the Secret Service: BS. 222.144.62.132 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the US would take action if it were true

[edit]

This story looks like bogus. Just think about it. If the USA knows the commies have the press factory in Pyeongseong, they would send in AC-130s and choppers with Delta Force or SEAL to capture the equipment. Big scandal. Uncle Sam could then convene the UN Security Council and press through a resolution against North Korea and start an internationally backed war to unite the peninsula. Chinese communists would be powerless to protect Kim-Yong Il in the face of such a scandal. Most certainly Dubya and neocons are very keen to get rid of those stalinist bastards. Why would he miss this opportunity?

the offense is not worth the cost of taking action

[edit]
Same reason there has been a DMZ for about fifty years. The human costs of intervention would be too high. If this is going on (and I see no reason to doubt its plausibility) it seems unlikely to me that the US would take it that seriously because the scale is so small--according to the story North Korean officials abroad (how many of those would there be?) are distributing the notes at a rate of 50/50. This is extremely unlikely to have a serious effect on the US economy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perfect counterfeit for 70%? Nonsense

[edit]
Among the many parts of the North Korea story that is hard to swallow is the claim that one could buy a perfect counterfeit $100 bill for $70 from a North Korean diplomat. Given the very high quality of these notes, why such a big discount? That only makes sense for low fidelity counterfeits. The argument that clandestine operations of the USA might be responsible for these notes is just as credible as the notion of some super secret foreign facility. Given the lack of transparency in government, it is impossible to know either way. Planetaryjim (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no special knowledge about this, but I would imagine that it might make good sense to sell $100 perfect counterfeit bills for $70s because the N. Korean government would find spending them directly a risky proposition given the scrutiny they would attract, and if they could be printed for nearly nothing, it might be more than worth it to channel them through trusted third parties. N0thingbetter (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent

[edit]

There are confliting passages in this article: Have people been arested, or haven't they?

where?

[edit]
What passages do you think conflict?--ThreeAnswers 23:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The extremely certain-sounding statement about the bills being "produced at the Pyongsong Trademark Printing Factory" seems to be in conflict with the tone of the rest of the article.--Cromas (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I edited the first line in this article because it reported NK's involvement as fact, and as far as I'm aware this isn't the case (it is an allegation as of now).

The Garland section is /very/ NPOV. Garland's position as Chief of Staff of the Official IRA, for example, is an allegation reported directly by one newspaper, which is hardly proof. More importantly, the way the article is written suggests that the goings-on are factual, rather than allegations in a US DoJ indictment.

dahamsta 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

nytimes.com is a paysite. They get your information, and for "free" they give you the first paragraph. This should be removed or at least warned of. 66.114.93.6 08:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA involvement

[edit]

Maybe the idea of CIA involvement should be considered in more detail (and not only as a North Korean lie) since many western specialists do not assume that a country like north corea would be able to afford or maintain such a machine - and even if this would be the case would not gain an economical advantage (since operations including the experts, sumggeling the material eg.) would be too expensive

compare the book "Moneymakers. The Secret World of Banknote Printing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.90.160 (talk • contribs)

  • I feel there is a lot of mis-guided information on this Supernote page. The most mis-lead is the CIA Involvement section. If you review the translated news article, you will be left with a huge sense of doubt as to the importance of such unsubstantiated claims, in such a short news article. It makes me question how much weight we should put on this section of the Supernote article on our dearest 'just-the-facts mam' ,Wikipedia. I question the intentions of the closing statement in this section "Presently, there has not been an official response by the U.S. government to these accusations". -- ViaBest 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists almost completely of rumours, the one accusing CIA is by no means different to that. The article seems to know better what the North Koreans are doing than they probably know themselves, and that without providing any explanations for the sources of the information. Indeed the style of the article is to say at most "North Korea is accused of...", but never to tell by whom are they actually accused, by everyone ranging from the United Nations to the Pope? Or rather just by the current US cabinet? -84.169.79.157 10:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea called the accusations "sheer lies" and accused the U.S. of using the issue as a pretext to war.[2][3] On January 6, 2007 reports surfaced suggesting the counterfeiting was the work of the CIA - a statement corroborated by anonymous U.S. government sources.[4]

I clicked through and read the article at globalresearch... it does not say anything about US government sources confirming anything, anonymous or otherwise. The investigation was a german newspaper, the 'Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung' of Frankfurt, which interviewed "counterfeit money experts and leading representatives of the high-security publishing industry".

The statement re corroboration by US government sources has been removed.


The argument that you're making about "everything" being an uncorroborated rumor is what lets wikipedia become the conspiracy theory repository. The premise of the article accusing the CIA is that a) the CIA is so wholly lacking in oversight and that it is somehow funding secret activities in foreign countries by undermining its own economy, and b) that North Korea, a country that just built an atomic bomb in secret, "doesn't have the technology". Further, its an especially uncorroborated claim if it comes from a conspiracy theory website, and the original article is about half a page and in German. Can we come to a consensus over removing this unless some more persuasive evidence comes to light? Sus4 01:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One source in a foreign (to the US) paper of dubious credibility does not inspire confidence. It may be worth mentioning the theory, but the prominence of the theorizing makes one believe the solid allegations against North Korea vs. the loose allegations against the CIA are of equal merit. It's exactly like putting the theory of intelligent design on the evolution page. Can we please move the German paper's CIA allegation to the footnotes, until it can be corroborated?

I was interested in this thread about the veracity of allegations that the CIA are involved in the manufacture of the notes, so I checked the source of the information. It turns out that the link at the bottom of the page is incorrect. The correct original article is here. A translation of the article into English is provided here. I think people should read this article again, because some of the comments in this discussion are incorrect.

Reading the article myself, I think it contains interesting information which casts some doubt on US claims that North Korea is behind the manufacture of the supernotes, however, the allegation against the CIA appears to be based upon a "rumour" circulating around "representatives of the security printing industry and counterfeiting investigators". I really don't think that this standard of proof is high enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia and so I agree that references to allegations of CIA involvement should probably be removed. It is possible that there is other, more substantiated, information in this article which might be of interest and worth including. Dox96 10:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA reference

[edit]

Please note the disclaimer at the bottom of the page: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

If this is the only source, and it could have been written by some guy with no sources himself, it should be removed. The hosting site does not assume responsibility for the content and with no actual sources for the content, it seems as reliable as any unresearched and biased personal website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.188.153.194 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 May 2007

The theory that the CIA is making the notes is strictly fringe and shouldn't be in the lead. This story makes a convincing case that the notes are from North Korea. Kauffner (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign bank account NPOV problem

[edit]

I'm concerned that the statement: "Later in August 2006, the Sankei Shimbun reported that North Korea had opened 23 bank accounts in 10 countries, with the likely intent of laundering more superbills.[24]" has an NPOV problem. The linked article contains no allegation about using these accounts for laundering, and is speculation anyway. The relevance of this whole statement to the topic at hand is questionable anyway. I suggest deletion. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Dox96 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article confusing and contradictory

[edit]

This article is confusing. It seems to be saying that superdollars are a myth, but then goes on to describe various properties of "the notes" without qualification that these are alleged properties of non-existent notes. And then there's the statement that US officials have arrested and charged people with distributing the notes! It's completely unclear from this article whether superdollars are real and of mysterious origin, or whether they are simply an urban legend with a preponderance of fictional stories about them. -dmmaus (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaping Logic Hole

[edit]

How are these "unidentifiable" superdollars identified in the first place? This is a reference site - how about we provide some factual information about the actual dollar's properties rather than just dance around the mystery of where they're coming from? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unidentifiable" as in not capable of being identified unless put under specific, detailed scrutiny. Which the basic checks and balance system for currency doesn't do. These notes have been found out through random tests that are carried out on US returning currency for this exact type of situation. They know they exist, you moron. The government has officially stated they exist. They just don't know exactly where they are coming from or how many are out there. 58.7.254.99 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

Also, once bills make it back to a federal reserve, the bills, especially the $100, are run through a battery of different tests up to 50 (many classified). Then the bill is identified, and now a counter for $199 is able to sniff out the Superbill by reading the magnetic signature of the ink. 76.106.2.110 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

[edit]

I'm concerned about the blatant speculation that makes up this article. Wikipedia relies on solid facts, so an article on a conspiracy theory doesn't seem like it should be here, unless perhaps its one such as aleins or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.198.156 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of speculation and is incoherent. Delete it already or give it a full rewrite. --98.151.55.145 (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

[edit]

"Before the 1979 Iranian Revolution Iran used the intaglio machines to print its currency, as did the United States and other governments. There has been some speculation that Iran has used these to print superdollars.[8][27]"

Any nation printing it's own currency uses intaglio printing - the first sentence is no proof whatsoever. "There has been some speculation" pretty much summarises this section! May I add speculation that it is part of a Martian plot to destabilise the world economy. Shoddy sections like this only serve to detract from the detailed effort & facts that went into the section on North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.8.219 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intaglio Printing, North Korea & The History Channel.

[edit]

Since intaglio printing is used, the amount of man power is immense. You need multiple people engraving different parts of the plates and this takes better part of a year. Then the microprinting takes experts and lots of time. This is a massive operation (try to hide part of the US mint) employing hundreds in a place where the US is unable to diplomatically and/or sabotage the factory. The Mossad has killed many scientists in Iran, but no master engravers have gone missing.

I highly doubt gangs in asia or elsewhere, because Mexican cartels with much more money and human resources would be (literally) making money instead smuggling drugs and then the money back to Mexico with gross profit of ~10%. Plus the host country would be on good terms with the US with any sort of investigation and arrests.

The History Channel- Modern Marvels. Couldn't to find a place for transcript orders.

The US Secret Service- Updated for the Superbill SS Agent Claims: -North Korea through a front company was able to buy the same color change ink from the same european company as the US mint. -North Korea bought magnetic inks matching those in the US $100. -North Korea was able to buy the same non-cellulosic paper from the same supplier as the US -NK was the only location outside of US reach and able to produce bills of such quality through forced labor and pays high price for international engraving experts -NK bought multiple intaglio printing presses -Mentions the many shell companies and a profit of about $100M YTD -Something about security strip and watermark technologies -Mentions Superbills showed up shortly after NK diplomats went shopping in the US.

Ill see about a transcript. 76.106.2.110 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K, but there's absolutely no way they could get the paper from the original company, that company ONLY does business with the Treasury Department. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Superdollar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Superdollar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Superdollar. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Superdollar. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superdollar&oldid=1207625566"