Talk:Ivar Kreuger

message: I believe one should not put lines like the one below on top of pages in articles about persons. This statement is entirely one angry newspaper editors opinion. The line is a serious accusation to someone that cannot defend himself. It looks like he was a swindler his entire life. He was a victime of the circumstanes of the time close to WW2 and may have been swindling to some degree the last couple of years 1931-1932, trying to save the empire due to dramatically negative actions from the bankers, but was definitly not a swindler all his life. All large companies in all times have been "swindling" from time to time. No company is perfect.
From the article:
"He also operated one of the largest pyramid schemes ever, defrauding $400M from his investors. The Economist dubbed him "The World's Greatest Swindler".
:If someone wish to keep the line, put it somewhere else below a headline, something about "media reports..." after his death. Before his death, when everyone that owned Kreuger shares, were increasing their private fortune, no one said anything negative.Lidingo SWE (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could compare the size of Kreuger & Toll Holding relative to other corporations 1930 with the Microsoft corporation today. Lidingo SWE (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to have to contradict you, Lidingo. When he transferred the responsibility for the construction business to Paul Toll and started his financial and match business about 1912, he began swindling and continued until the end. His motives might have been excusable or understandable, but all his business transactions from then on had a fraudulent touch or were outright criminal according to the law. He never had anything even one tenth the size of Microsoft, since he spent all the assets whenever he got them, and had only numbers on pieces of paper, but no money to show. And, yes, the people who got the Kreuger & Toll stock which paid 50% interest a year, after 2 years (in theory) got their money back, and could not really complain of their original stock's total loss of value in 1932, but the much larger portion of people had invested and re-invested their money in more stock (the classical pyramid, or snow-ball scheme) and lost their life's savings in the middle of the depression. So, we better let the introductory sentence stand, as it is the plain truth, and not just the "angry opinion of one person". Finally, he himself chose not to defend himself, since he could have "explained" everything in the courts of law, instead of shooting himself. Kraxler (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kraxler: There are many fact errors in your text, for example K&T didn't pay 50% in interest/per, that's FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt). I suggest you read those two books: "Därför mördades Ivar Kreuger" () and "Kreuger-Mordet: En utredning med nya fakta" (). I also suggest that you read: http://www.dsm.nu/kreuger/mordet.htm, http://www.bankrattsforeningen.org.se/kreuger.html and http://www.politiskamord.com/. Please read those and then we can have a real discussion ;) --Gargamelik (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  I have again removed the Economist articles, it's closer to science fiction than the real story. --Gargamelik (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your conspiracy theories are not supported by the facts. And K&T stock paid 50 % interest, according to Allen Churchill in his book The Incredible Ivar Kreuger. Read this book, and then you will understand what happened. This is an encyclopedia, so if something is doubtful, you have to mention all sources and have the reader decide, you can not favor one or other theory, see Wikipedia:POV. His suicide is not disputed by any official source, but you can mention the conspiracy therories as such in a special paragraph if you like, if you can cite a Wikipedia:reliable source for it. Kraxler (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kraxler, I don't want to come of as rude, but I'm asking you to PLEASE not edit Wikipedia articles that you have no understanding of, don't write on Wikipedia just for the writing's sake. The book you mention as your only source was written in 1957. The whole Kreuger case was classified for 30 years and no documents were available in 1957 at the point the book were written. If you read the books I mentioned, you will find tons of actual facts and documents that were released after the classified documents were made public. "Därför mördades Ivar Kreuger" () (1990) and "Kreuger-Mordet: En utredning med nya fakta" () (2000). And the 50% number is a misconception. 50% of what? The 50% figure you mention is based on the nominal value, while new share issues being between 400-600%, so the actual dividend was a very moderate 5-6%. I've again removed the inaccurate Economist article, but this whole Wikipedia article needs to be re-written. --Gargamelik (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not edit the article, I just reverted POV vandalism. DO NOT PRESS YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON OTHERS! Follow the instructions I gave above. Write your conspiracy theories, giving reliable sources. No hagiography, no whitewash, facts or quotes from reliable sources, please. Besides, you think The Economist does not understand economy? Sounds rather starnge. Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have given reliable sources several times in this article, while you are citing one book from 1957 when no classified documents were available. Why are you giving so much credit to one journalist's sensational writing? If you read the Economist's article it's obvious that they haven't done enough background checking, it's just sensational writing that YOU are now pressing to others. A few questions, how old are you, where do you come from, what's your education and what's your interest in Ivar Kreuger?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargamelik (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have written NOTHING in the article, you have edited only the TALK PAGE, this is not the place to give sources, write a paragraph in the ARTICLE, with the sources named!!!!! I have no interest at all in Ivar Kreuger, my interest is in Wikipedia. As I said, I have not written the article, it was somebody who cited reliable sources. Sorry, but you have not even understood the difference between the article itself and its talk page, and you want me to believe that you understood high finance? Don't vanmdalize the article, rewrite it if you like, with sources, but do not vandalize it. Kraxler (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that I don't use Wikipedia very much and I'm not 100% familiar with how it works, but I can assure you that I understand finance better than you do. I can also speak and read Swedish which is necessary for reading and understanding all documents regarding this case. Someone very irresponsible has started the Ivar Kreuger article with a very controversial quote from The Economist claiming that as "fact" or a "source". I'm of course not trying to vandalize the article, I'm trying to un-vandalizing it and more people than me have reacted to this part of the text. I know quite a bit about Ivar Kreuger, history and economy, but I don't want to write this article myself since I still don't think I know enough. Ideally it should be done by one or several persons with a really deep understanding of economy, history, Ivar Kreuger and the fairly newly revealed documents and facts. I'm under the impression that it is not against Wikipedia's rules to just remove text without adding something if the text you are removing is inaccurate? Am I wrong? It's also hard for me to add a source for the removal if I'm not writing anything new on the page. You come here as a Wikipedia police defending a standpoint that you don't seem to know anything about and that you don't understand. What you do is very dangerous for the truth and real facts and I don't believe this is what Wikipedia is about; if you don't understand something, or have the full story, then you shouldn't act. Might I suggest that in the future you only write and edit articles that you have a very good understanding of and not just Wikipedia-police for the policing's sake? Please think about this for a moment. --Gargamelik (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody with enough understanding of this matter has written the article citing sources. The quote from The Economist is cited as such. Please respect other users' contributions. There is no "absolute truth" that can be stated on a talk page to justify the deletion of parts of articles. That is vandalism. Don't do it anymore! Your personal opinion is not what counts, neither my own, what counts is the consensus about the facts (suicide, swindler), and dissenting views (conspiracy theory), both stated in the article with reliable sources. Just do it in the approved encyclopedic manner, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a teenage-blogspot. Kraxler (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone from San José (69.110.228.48, Revision as of 11:28, 30 December 2007) has unfortunately read the Economist article and without doing any more research than that, quoted them and inserted it into this article and this is now an established "fact" and the "truth"? Is that what you call "someone with enough understanding of this matter"? How would I go about correcting this? Or is it impossible and the Economist is the truth? The Economist article is only quoting sources prior to the classified materials being released. I have already posted several other sources that include actual real documents that used to be classified, information the Economist doesn't have in their article. What do I need to do more? And for your information, France keeps a record of the names of all people committing suicide and Ivar Kreuger's name is not in that list. It has also been proven that he didn't buy the gun he "shot himself" with, it was bought by another person in Ivar Kreuger's name (Source: "Därför mördades Ivar Kreuger" ()). So the suicide, swindler theory should really be the dissenting view and conspiracy theory. --Gargamelik (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Addition: actually when reading the references, reference #1 is directly supporting my sources and directly contradicting the Economist article reference #2. I suggest that you very throughly go through the information found at the site of reference #1, all pages exist in english. Who has the most trustworthy references, the Economist or the site at reference #1? --Gargamelik (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The site at ref nr 1 is not "reliable" according to the rules of Wikipedia, it is maintained by somebody with a certain point of view (Wikipedia:POV). Nevertheless, it might be as much the truth as anything else. I will see what to do next week, I'm really busy now. Kraxler (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, I'm not sure if the author of that homepage has read all the sources he mentions on his homepage (http://www.qikrux.com/kreuger/sources.htm) but I recognize quite a bit of his text from several of the books. --Gargamelik (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've mentioned earlier the Ecomonist article contains a lot of fact errors and for example one source they use themselves are, quote: "One of the best, “Kreuger, Genius and Swindler” was written in 1961 by an American crime reporter, Robert Shaplen.". Claiming that this book is one of the best Kreuger books is simply a joke. 1961 is also the incorrect year, it was written earlier, but even if it would have been written in 1961, Kreuger documents were still classified in Sweden. The classification is unfortunately the biggest joke, why classify a bankruptcy? Simple, to cover up for the unnecessary bankruptcy and plundering of the companies that followed, which has been PROVEN (it has been proven that extremely valuable companies and assets were taken over for a fraction of the real value or simply for free, which must be considered plundering) after the de-classification. If they hadn't classified the material, the truth would have gotten out right away and they would never have been able to make Kreuger a "swindler" and steal his "worthless" companies and assets, which happens to still be among Sweden's largest companies and have been extremely valuable for Sweden's growth! K&T could also have avoided bankruptcy, but the people with money and power didn't want that, they wanted to make a huge profit themselves of course. In fact, despite the enormous and completely unnecessary write-downs of the assets (done by Kreuger's competitors so they could buy the assets super cheap!), K&T were able to pay -excluding pariticipating debentures- 91.5% of their debts! (see books I've mentioned on this page). In any case, for the strongest statements the Ecomonist article makes, it doesn't give any sources at all! After doing some research, The Ecomonist article is most likely a paid article/publication, hence the really extreme angle. It has possibly been paid by the publisher of Frank Partnoy who will release a new Kreuger book this autumn. Anyone willing to bet if Partnoy's book when released will have similarities to the Economist article? Which also begs the question, who inserted the Economist link to Wikipedia to begin with? A lot of people have also tried to contact The Ecomonist about this article to get the article removed or corrected, but of course without any answers at all. Because of all this, I'm petitioning that the Economist article is completely removed as a "source" from this Wikipedia article, it's as unreliable as "sources" come. --Gargamelik (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frank Partnoy's book has now been released and "surprise surprise" it has the exact same angle as the Economist article, which I predicted before the book was released, so I think it's safe to say that this wasn't a coincidence and the Economist article is a paid fiction article that should be removed asap. I'm 99% certain Frank Partnoy has also been compensated in one way or the other (although I can't prove this of course) for writing this book, by people who don't want the truth to come out, because people still want to hide what happend to Kreuger's assets. --Gargamelik (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a powerful assertion, which should not be made without evidence to back it up.  You seem to dismiss Partnoy's work and attack his character simply because you don't agree with his conclusions.--Ff11 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Economist article 

message: It has been stated on this page that Ivar Kreuger's brother is biased (although by someone who hasn't read his books), which implies that Torsten's book "The Truth about Ivar Kreuger" is not a reliable source. Of course Torsten was biased since it was his brother, but all serious, objective and independent research backup Torsten's claims and tons of experts put their good names on stake supporting him. In fact, after classified documents had been made available, "The Society for Debenture Owners of AB Kreuger & Toll" supports Torsten Kreuger to 100% with a 42-pages long summary in 1964, which conclusion can be summarized as "murder-robbery". And this comes from the society that should be the most critical towards Ivar Kreuger's "fake companies" and having been "cheated" by Ivar Kreuger! Torsten himself uses mostly actual documents and facts in his own book to backup his claims and he tried for over 40 years to clear his brothers name. Here are a few news papers that after Torsten's book was published in 1966, state that Ivar Kreuger's name has been cleared and that a scandal of enormous proportions has occured: Västerbottens-Kuriren, Borlänge Tidning, Stockholms-Tidningen, Handelstjänstemannen, Morgenposten, Nordvästra Skånes Tidningar, Borås Tidning, Karlstads-Tidningen, Berlingske Aftenavis, Berlingske Tidende, Farmand, Västerbottens Folkblad, Dagen, Norges handels og Sjöfartstidende, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Norddeutsche Rundschau, Deutsche Hochschullehrer-Zeitung. Welt am Sonntag (Germany's largest Sunday news paper) published 5 full-page articles about the book "The Truth about Ivar Kreuger", saying, quote: "The gigantic slander campain on Ivar Kreuger, the claim about the false Italian bonds, has been revealed as a lie". Notable is that all those news papers are Swedish, Norwegian and German news papers, not controlled by Kreuger's competitors. News papers controlled by Kreuger's competitors were completely silent. They were also completely silent when Lars-Jonas Ångström published the most comprehensive work about Ivar Kreuger ever made, (where he also came to the conclusion murder-robbery). Swedish media has to 90% been controlled/owned by Kreuger's competitors before Kreuger's death and even up to this date and it's still today practically impossible to publish a positive book about Ivar Kreuger in Sweden. It's very unfortunate that Kreuger's competitors were able to smear Kreuger by controlling media and spreading their own version to other parts of the world and make that the "de facto truth" to a lot of people and thus be able to steal the assets themselves, claiming they "saved the worthless companies"! --Gargamelik (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Torsten Kreuger owned the Berlingske Tidende, not "Kreuger's enemies"! Certainly he launched these (possibly invented) clearing stories which were than re-printed by syndicated newspapers. Kreuger operated (that is the historical consensus) a very large Ponzi scheme. All this new whitewash campaign is based on national pride, hearsay and "now released classified documents". Nothing really substantial. We should call only uncontroversial things a fact, and all the rest are theories. Just to begin with: If he was murdered, what was the motive for it? Business people (especially financiers) do not get murdered by their competitors. A suicide after the collapse of the scheme is at least plausible. Kraxler (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sanningen om Ivar Kreuger" ("The Truth about Ivar Kreuger") by Torsten Kreuger published 1966

message: The article about Kreuger's death needs to be rewritten. It says that the French police came to the conclusion that he shot himself. The truth is that the French police came to the conclusion that Kreuger had been murdered. Although the gun and most of the other evidence and reports "disappeared" after the murder (and Kreuger's body was very quickly burnt without an autopsy - against the family's wishes), there are official statements where high French police officers states that Kreuger was murdered. The only expert who had an opportunity to make a superficial autopsy (when preparing for the real autopsy) of Kreuger's body was Dr. Karlmark who said "This is not a suicide. This is a murder". And as I've mentioned earlier, Kreuger was also never recorded in any suicide reports. It has also been proven that the gun wasn't bought by Ivar Kreuger because he was busy at a meeting at the time the gun was bought in "his name". There were also reports of Ivar Kreuger's "suicide" before the body was officially found. Evidence and Kreuger's diaries and documents "disappeared" and in Sweden they classified everything for 30 years to cover up for the company-robberies that followed. There are so many facts that support murder, I've previously mentioned a few books about this and Torsten Kreuger's book "Sanningen om Ivar Kreuger" (The truth about Ivar Kreuger) is also an interesting read. Kreuger & Toll was solid at the time, the Italian loan was also real, it just hadn't been made official yet, if Kreuger had lived another few weeks it would have been made official. Kreuger's "worthless" companies also still happen to be among Sweden's most valued companies to this date. Simply put: this is the world's largest murder-robbery of all time, unfortunately a well executed one. --Gargamelik (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually all of the most respected Ivar Kreuger sites online and the ones who have done the most research, states that it was a murder: http://www.politiskamord.com/, http://www.dsm.nu/ivar_kreuger.html, http://www.qikrux.com/kreuger/, http://www.bankrattsforeningen.org.se/ledaren25.html (approximate translation "The Bank Society"). How come Wikipedia has a dissenting view? --Gargamelik (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kreuger sites" are unreliable because they are Kreuger sites! See WP:POV. The suicide was quite uncontroversial until a short time ago. Sensational books are certainly sources, but facts should be called facts, and theories should be called theories. It is not a question of what somebody believes, if something must be believed, it can not be called a fact, it's a theory!!!!! First of all: Post the finding of the French police here, to see if they said suicide or murder. All sources used to state that the official finding was suicide! Unless you post the official finding which says murder here, please refrain from saying otherwise. Scan the document and upload .jpg file. (Just a little story about the French police: Over decades the death of Jim Morrison {The Doors) in Paris was shrouded in mystery, because the death certificate could not be found. Murder, suicide, accident, voluntary disappearance, abduction - a lot of theories were put forward and earnestly defended and attacked, believed or not. After 30 years, somebody searched under D instead of M (like Morrison) and found the death certificate with photoes filed under his middle name "Douglas". It had always been there, the French police thinking that Douglas Morrison was a double surname...) Kraxler (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one more little detail: Under French law, autopsies are forbidden if there is no indication of "foul play"! Since the police found not a single trace of murder, the suicide being evident and obvious (including the motive), the French police could not make an autopsy even if they wanted. People in other countries, without knowing the circumstances, ask: "Why didn't they make an autopsy? Did they try to hide something?" and hang a whole conspiracy theory on this peg.... Sad, very sad.... Kraxler (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Lets put an end to this discussions about Kreugers death. Too many people have already earned too much money on speculations. The offical cause is suicide, End of story. Lidingo SWE (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kraxler has now inserted "Ponzi scheme" into the top of the article, which in the current form seems to "summarize" Ivar Kreuger. Many of IK's companies are still among the largest in Sweden to this day, which I think goes completely against the "ponzi scheme" (which quote probably comes from Frank Partnoy whose interest in IK I have described earlier). I have read books from both sides, where one says IK was a fraud and the other says IK was legit, but since Kraxler and others seem to refuse to read "none-fraud" books which have support from actual documents, it's impossible to discuss and keep this article balanced. Starting- and summarizing the article by saying that IK's empire was a "ponzi scheme" and that he shot himself, is a disgrace. I have no idea what Kraxler's agenda is, but it's certainly not unbiased and objective. If Wikipedia was a serious organization, there is no way that people who aren't knowledgable about the subject -and aren't willing to study the subject deeper- would be allowed to write their own views in this manner. In any case, I've made my last edit in this article and discussion. Thank you and bye. --Gargamelik (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kreuger's death

message: Why is the neutrality of this section disputed and where is the evidence for it?
It does not mention the Italian bonds about which there seems to be a dispute.
I suggest if no evidence is forthcoming to remove the 'neutrality is disputed' label.
Gatorinvancouver (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kreuger group loans to foreign states from 1925-1930 

message: "with the basic intention of preventing a new war breaking out"
This cannot stand because nobody but those were directly involved know what the intentions were. Or it has to be rephrased to "with the stated intention of preventing a new war breaking out"
"To what extent the governments in both Sweden and the USA were behind the deals is not clear, but they were probably involved in some way"
Where is the evidence for this? There is no reference for it and should be deleted if a reference cannot be provided.
I cannot see any reason why the 'neutrality disputed' label is there? I suggest it should be removed.
Please have a look above entitled "The Economist Article". I wrote three paragraphs of what I think are pertinent observations. The section doesn't have a 'neutrality disputed label' (is that what people denote as POV?) but the acrimony (e.g. angry editor; Partnoy being paid for making false statemnts; etc.) is not on sound footing IMO.
Gatorinvancouver (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other business 

message: Long time readers of this article should notice that POSITIVE external Kreuger links have now been completely removed from the article and only NEGATIVE external links have been inserted. This article is in NO WAY OBJECTIVE and there are definitely persons editing this article with no intention to keep it objective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.103.24 (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Very few outside Sweden know how to read Swedish and chances of obtaining the books are almost nil for those not in Sweden.
There is a Swedish Wikipedia page and the sources would be more appropriate there. (But I do not edit in Swedish)
Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of Swedish sources at the bottom 

message: I'd remove all of them except the BBC link but might suggest others.
http://runeberg.org/authors/kreugiva.html Project Runeberg "bibliography" can't even present it in alphabetical order?
http://www.ivarkreuger.com/kreuger.htm leads to some very dead links and others that may, or may not, be useful.
http://www.qikrux.com/kreuger/ has some very questionable links. (I only took a sample.) It's also the source of the unsourced claim made here some time ago and still made on the Swedish page about him being the 'first prince of global finance'. (Shouldn't that be J.P, Morgan?)
Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. For example http://www.qikrux.com/kreuger/ is well-written, has many sources and has an interesting view on Ivar Kreuger. It also ranks in the top results for "ivar kreuger" in Google, so Google deem it highly relevant. Again you want to remove everything not supporting your own view. --Factsarea-z (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead, Gatorinvancouver. Do not worry about the objection by a non-editing nonsensical sockpuppet-user. Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Factsarea-z http://www.qikrux.com/kreuger/Bakgrund.htm It doesn't even "know" that the the loan under the Young Plan was the one listed under Germany and then with a wrong amount as Young loan. May I suggest it turns up near the top of Google because its name sounds like an "official" site
Gatorinvancouver (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of questionable "external links" 

message: Somebody else will have to do the needed improvements as I've had it. I will add a few details eventually but otherwise I am giving up this thankless task.
In the footnotes the link to Called To Account at Google books does not work and I do not know how to fix it. (The link is there and my guess is that there is something wrong with the spacing. It appears several times.)
Gatorinvancouver (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the problem with the spacing. Ulner (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a lot more work and the links to Called To Account in the footnotes do not work 

message: The section titled "The building contractor and his innovations" has this sentence:
"In 1917 the company was split into two separate companies: Kreuger & Toll Construction AB, with the majority of shares owned by Paul Toll." 
As you can see, this names only one company. There is another company named a couple of sentences later on, but one cannot assume that the next-named company is the other one split off from the original company. The names of BOTH off-shoot companines should be included in the sentence I quote above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.19.254 (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titled "The building contractor and his innovations" -- nonsequitur 

message: Not sure where to put this congrats but here since so many are deeply involved in what is frankly, an awesome article about a sheer phenomenon. Hope my cleanup hasn't hurt any, Manytexts (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tks, for directions. Will do when have time again - will have a go esp if you can use my efforts after, cheers Manytexts (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here should be the place 

message: Substituted at 19:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ivar Kreuger. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821010514/http://svtplay.se/v/1370334/oppet_arkiv/pickford_och_fairbanks_pa_besok_i_stockholm__utan_ljud to http://svtplay.se/v/1370334/oppet_arkiv/pickford_och_fairbanks_pa_besok_i_stockholm__utan_ljud
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821012430/http://www.jordahl.de/de/kontakt/ueberuns.html to http://www.jordahl.de/de/kontakt/ueberuns.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ivar Kreuger. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622110717/http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dualcontrol.asp to http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dualcontrol.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624013749/http://stocks.about.com/od/advancedtrading/a/Googleshares.htm to http://stocks.about.com/od/advancedtrading/a/Googleshares.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107092503/http://www.qikrux.com/kreuger/ to http://www.qikrux.com/kreuger/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified