Talk:Giesecke+Devrient

Notability

this reads like a company promotional pamphlet

• Not quite as flowery as those tend to be, but at best it asserts its notability very limply, if at all. - Vianello (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I just found and added some stuff from the LA times about US officials not taking action against the firm for supplying banknotes to the Zimbabwe regime. It also says they are the 2nd largest supplier of banknotes in the world. I'd say all that adds up to notability. (FYI I had nothing to do with this article until I stumbled upon it 10 mins ago). Mfield (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm adding some pretty unflattering info (weimar hyperinflation, nazi olympics tickets and franco's spain) sourced from the WSJ article, found a full version available.[1] Siawase (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

G&D and the World Bank

The article includes the following statement: "In delivering banknotes and banknote paper, the company is subject to strict rules defined by the World Bank." The statement is properly sourced with a reference to a link that actually says so. But I challenge the accuracy of that source. It's a blog where everybody can contribute, and I'm always wary of that kind of stuff. On top of that, it's a blog about science, so with allr espect to scientists I'm not too sure about their expertise in banking. I would be very much surprised to hear that the World Bank issues any sort of rules with which banknote printers have to comply. The World Bank has absolutely nothing to do with bank note issuing, neither on a global nor on a local scale; it's usually each central bank which defines its own set of rules governing its banknotes. I'll remove this hughly doubtful statement unless a better source (maybe a libnk to the alleged World Bank guidelines themselves?) comes up. SchnitteUK (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)