Talk:Iraqi dinar/Archives/2015

Update on Speculation section

I am deleting the recent addition mentioning the sub-culture of Dinar investors. My reasoning is that this sub-culture consists of nothing more than the victims of a scam that is perpetrated by the propaganda generated by "dealers".

With reasoned discussion here I would not stand in the way of re-including the deleted text. The subject of the page is the Dinar and a section on speculation seems fair. But how encyclopedic is it to give the speculation a sub-section on the cult of victims? That said, if someone is up to the task, why not have a separate page on Dinar speculation and all that goes with that? Personally, I don't thing such a page is needed but I don't think the speculation stuff deserves too much weight here either. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

ANSWER:

it was me who inserted the deleted passage...

I thought and I still think that such an increadible hype is worth being mentioned. What a case for future ethnographic studies!

I observe it for quite a while and I think it is highly paradigmatic for a certain internet culture. I don't know another case like this.

You are of course right that the 'investors' are victims; they are buying worthless paper and making the dealers (and probably the central bank of Iraq too...) happy. But why do you consider this a reason not to mention it?

The 'culture' these victims are building up for years now is astounishing and increadible. I follow it with a certain morbid fascination for quite some time. It is not a simple, straight case of a scam. The core is a scam of course, but the victims began to get creative themselves to keep the faith up, and so the whole american esoterism, offspring of european theosophy, kicked in, and so the 'Ascended Masters' in agreement with 'Archangels' via their 'channels' are continuously predicting the 'Reval', which is thought of as God given blessing for 'lightworkers'...

For a critical analysis this is a very interesting case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbaye de Bellevaux (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely share the fascination and disbelief about the phenomenon. My concern is that article will have undo weight on something that is tangential to the main topic. Also, the inclusion represents a point of view and can be challenged on the basis of neutrality. If not challenged directly, I expect the inclusion will be responded to by someone (probably several) who feel the evidence in support of the "re-eval bonanza" deserves to be included as well. Plenty of that stuff has been removed from the article in the past and when I added the latter part of the speculation text to the article I was careful to remain neutral about it and add citations for each and every claim. Lastly, I agree that this scam has some unique aspects to it but it also has a lot in common with other scams. One of those that comes to mind is equities "pump and dump". Another is Glen Beck telling the viewers/listeners of/to his show that to be safe they need to buy gold at the same time he was a spokesman for a gold dealer who sponsored his show. Both are examples of a quasi-guru offering advice that is merely marketing in disguise. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point of view, and I understand that you want to avoid that the article is going to be a 'battleground' ;-).

In the future we could insert an article 'the iraqi dinar revaluation scam' – after the moment it finally blows up. Imho this fascinating phenomenon will probably soon approach the end of its livespan. Either the whole country of Iraq will explode, and all the bills under american materasses will be obsolete. Or the bills are going to be replaced, and the 'investors' have to book a flight to Baghdad to get the new bills... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbaye de Bellevaux (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point that you mention about waiting for the whole thing to fall apart. My assumption is that it will go on forever with new reasons the re-eval has not happened yet and new pseudo-information that indicates that the big day is just beyond the horizon (in other words, this is your last chance to buy more Dinar). I have been asking myself if there is enough information already present to create a page about the speculation but after a little searching just now I think this is more suitable for inclusion within List of Confidence Tricks. If it has not been added in a few weeks (when I finish other work) I will add a new section myself. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I just added a corresponding section to the page List of Confidence Tricks and updated the speculation section of this article to link to it. Feel free to elaborate while staying within the bounds of the other entries on that page. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

GREAT and thank you! I didn't know the article List of Confidence Tricks!

And yes, with your assumption "My assumption is that it will go on forever..." you are probably right. This is probably the better guess than mine... These circles can suck up A LOT... The predictions of their 'gurus' and 'channelers' always and inevitably fail, but their victims don't bother and make up the excuses and explanations themselves.

I already mentioned that this whole "Dinar Reval" thing could be stuff for a fascinating study. But at the same time unfortunately I doubt it. I followed it for quite some time and I think that I understood a few things, but I still am unable to retrace its history: Who started it, who exactly profits... This is the very volatile side of the internet. A few years ago for a conference/an article I retraced the origins of a 'legend' which was 'constructed' in the 1920ies and 1930ies. I think that I succeded, but it was A LOT of work and solving the mystery was only possible because I could retrace the story in printed books. I doubt if our present subject could be studied in this way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbaye de Bellevaux (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection?

In the past seven days there have been 10 edits by the same (nearly) single-purpose username. The edits have been mostly spam or spam-related and maybe some accidental vandalism. What is the most appropriate way to deal with this? Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)