User talk:2A00:1028:96CB:F556:6581:E0BD:5623:85C8

You made edits to Golden billion. What are problems?

You returned parts which were not supported by references. Reference to Lenin was original research (no any sources which link directly Lenin and theory). Tosno factory story was an original research which had a mark that statement had no source for many years (besides it was an example of economic illiteracy - one factory does not define productivity of a country). Statements that it's not a conspiracy theory but somehow a term to denote population of developed countries was rejected in related Russian language article and is constantly reverted as vandalism.

so either you support your edits with references or will be removed as an attempt to bring back original research to article SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your input. The idea that countries often act in their national interests even in cases where they go against the interests of another country is not a conspiracy theory and the notion that certain population groups are more benefited than others is common to every communist and shared across the left wing.. Perhaps you need a disambigutation for Golden Billion (conspiracy theory) or you could go on a tour of the internet and add 'conspiracy theory' to every economy article talking about social classes, however I do not believe that would be supported by current usage. The removal of paragraphs which might as well have been ad-libbed as 'Lenin was a communist' or that the concentration of wealth and income equality hasn't been invented in 1990s Russia as contentuous amused me the first time and it strikes me more as maintenance acts of a preconceived narrative rather than supporting a global view of the topic, although you could call that a little 'conspiracy theory' and I do not know enough about the history of the page to understand the exact mechanisms through which it has arrived to this in comparison lamentable state.

In short, the crux of what you removed was that the 'Golden Billion' is a popular saying arising in the context of centuries of social and political history and only barely capable of being attributed to a particular author or philosophy. If you were expecting Lenin or Tertullian to use the exact words 'Golden Billion' in reference to the theory, then it does not surprise me that you'd conclude it to be exclusively a modern phenomenon since it explicitly alludes to a recent demographic change and would not have made any sense in the past, but that does not mean it itself is a novel idea. The actual emergence of the term in the 80s/90s is conjunctural and of secondary importance, but it might belong in more detail in the articles about Tsvikunov and Kara-Murza.

Sincerely, 2A00:1028:96CB:F556:6581:E0BD:5623:85C8 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

>In short, the crux of what you removed was that the 'Golden Billion' is a popular saying arising in the context of centuries of social and political history

no, Golden billion is a theory which was in Tsikunov (propagandist) articles and Kara Murza books.It did not arise in other works.

as for popularity.

are you Russian? In case you are not, here is some context. Talks shows and even politicians (head of security council) speak exactly according to tropes by Tsikunov and Kara Murza - that west wants to steal limited resources, no additional details. And it's true, that the book The Limits to growth was an inspiration (both Tsikunov and Kara Murza use it, wrongly stating that the book amounted to some blueprint for evil action. the book was important contribution but just wrong to omit considerations of reserves, in case they did they would not have tables with gold indicated as already gone by current time and currently we know that gold mining will be with us for hundred of years). So it's not centuries of social and political history. As for popularity, Russians too state it's a conspiracy theory on related russian language page.

And it's conspiracy theory because Tsikunov wrote, that UNESCO made estimation of future reserves and for this very reason a world would be a prison by 2000s.

UNESCO is a cultural and educational branch of UN, which makes it very unlikely that they made major estimations (and they did not according to efforts of many people which tried to find a document). Faking documents to claim extraordinary consequences is a conspiracy theory. Faking documents is not what centuries of scientists strived for.

It's conspiracy theory because Kara Murza failed to mention other estimations (actually for governments) you might find in a book How Many People Can the Earth Support? Cohen, Joel E. Those estimations span many decades, and find 30-130 billion people. So when he speaks that only selected publications affect policy - he just lied. He lied on wide agreement on shortage of resources too. Because since 70s there were Nobel laureates in economics provided reasons, that with unlimited energy from fast reactors - the problems of resources is energy problem. And currently Russia has closed fast reactor cycles. While it's more expensive than fossil fuel plants - it's just one of the road to resolve issues. There are many other.

so it's a conspiracy theory for the fact how and what Tsikunov and Kara Murza wrote, not because your arguments which might be true or false (because US since Truman era has a public policy to support other countries, push for more open trade in 90s led to current economic convergence (it might happened earlier, because developing countries grew well in 60s, but two oil shocks due to Arab countries actions both affected ability to support more from the West and also negatively affected least developed countries)

Anyway - if you publish your thoughts in scientific magazine about connections of Golden billion to world's scientific thought, I think editors would consider inclusions. Otherwise - without references it's all an ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is prohibited at wikipedia irrespective if original research is clever or not. Just forbidden to make wide ranging conclusions (like again that Lenin inspired Tsikunov) without academic reference. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. We are talking about two different things - while both the English and Russian articles have been rewritten by you to focus on the merits of, as you say, statements made by some politicians from Russia in talk shows which may or may not mention a conspiracy as the underlying cause while the previous versions of those articles dealt with the well-documented fact that there exist certain advantaged populations whose prosperity comes to the cost of others. It would be perhaps more fitting to cite Eduardo Galeano as a source on that claim before Kara-Murza but it is likely you could go even further back - Platon's Republic speaks about the unequal division of labour between exporting and importing countries, and it is already plenty associated in scientific magazines, so I do not see why you would deny the history of this theory which is demonstrably the same theory just coloured by zeitgeist.

If you want, I can go to talk show tomorrow and say the speed of light is very fast because there is Bill Clinton yelling at it to go quick and making fake measurements. Will you help me add information about my conspiracy theory to the front page of the relevant wikipedia articles? We can remove other content about speed of light, there is no proof anywhere in scientific magazines that it is related to my theory.

ps. open market is good example of what you would call a 'conspiracy' that benefits countries with already strong industries because it is a catalyst for primitive accumulation and import dependence, which have been written about since the first economist. What you say regarding US interventionism is funny, maybe true purpose of sanctions was to help Russia develop good domestic industry, for more convergence.

I wish you a calm weekend 2A00:1028:96CB:F556:6581:E0BD:5623:85C8 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

>while both the English and Russian articles have been rewritten by you

it's a false accusation 1. I did not rewrote Russian article 2. I did not rewrote English language article. My contribution to English article was addition to papers on actual state of resources. References to conspiracy theory were not added by me.

>fact that there exist certain advantaged populations whose prosperity comes to the cost of others.

it's debatable issue. There was deleted link http://chronicle.com/article/China-as-the-Antidote-to/10788/ which has "Yet generations of research by economic historians – David Landes, Deirdre McCloskey, and Joel Mokyr, among others – show that the wealth of the West was homegrown, the result of a stream of Western technological advances since the Industrial Revolution.

The mentioned authors reviewed available data and while there were instances of exploitation in the past, the main source was invention of steam engine, railroads etc. Without inventions the world won't be as rich as now.

so again, while your erudite fantasies are wide, but sorry - unlike you, who writes under vague ip adress I write openly and that you failed to see, that it were not my efforts to rewrite articles speaks about your way to construct sentences and the way is deeply flawed and in effect wrong.

Then again - if there are sientific publications with sufficient material on your connections between Tsikunov Golden billion theory and your attempts to somehow attach all available grievances against capitalism being published - it will be considered for inclusion. Otherwise vandalizing article you'd spend a lot of time in arbitrage, because I'd contact editors, who made other edits to the article and bring it higher the ladder. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW checked finally your link to russian wikipedia. So it leads to revert of vandalism of ip which is now blocked. If you mean, that I revert absolutely obvious vandalism, that is true, that's why your edit was also reverted - it is also vandalism, just a little bit more subtle. But your inability to see a difference between 'reverting vandalism' and a 'rewrote' article is welcome, self identification of vandals sometimes is helpful for future blocks SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

objections formulated in formal way

As informal talk gave no much result, here is a formal

1. removal of conspiracy theory label.

That the Golden billion is a conspiracy is established by scientific publication , book and government report and multiple periodicals.

the paragraph about conspiracy theory was edited by multiple editors (and not by me), so there is wide consensus about it.

2. paragraphs with 'lion share' wording was altered because it does not meet common English language use, returning jargon language (including naming propagandist Kara Murza just as an anti-globalist) ( is wrong

3. While reference to Lenin is possibly true by itself but without proper citation is an original research, see also US government report, they see more connections to the Protocols of Elders of Zion than to Lenin, so the reference is arbitrary. For that matter government documents are preferred citation source, not arbitrary 'truth'

All the below paragraphs were removed (not by me) but by User:Heyallkatehere as a propaganda from both sides, also see additional problems

4. Paragraph about Wallenstein and Friedrich List is an original research and hardly relevant to conspiracy theory.

5. Paragraph about Tosno factory is original research by person who does not know that one factory productivity does not define wage costs. The combination of "exploitation prevents the development and prosperity" and the reference to China and the fact that China experienced the best growth in the world in past decades amounts to bad anecdote

6. Paragraph of linking Tertullian is original research which has weak connection to conspiracy theory.

7. Paragraph for opponents of the concept often invoke the theory of to argue that free trade and capitalism will make everybody wealthy has weak reference (which has no detailed support of the words of paragraph)

so that is why the article looks like it looks today. It removed original research, added established name for the term, improved wording. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

and why all this bureaucracy instead of your mentioned common knowledge? As in case of question what to use as a base for introduction the Protocols of Zion or Lenin - both are common knowledge, both preceded and both presumably inspired Tsikunov, but for Protocols of Zion there is a preferred by Wikipedia source - a government publication. The selection criteria to be placed on wikipedia is a publication which has support for the statement. Why most removed paragraphs are 'original research' because the connection to conspiracy theory is weak and there is no serious publication which connects the two - the Golden billion and particular assertion. (the connections could be found in propagandist speeches, like lectures for Nashi movement, but in this case Golden billion might not even mentioned in lecture, so a connection between writings by List and Golden billion is via similar listening auditory. And also propaganda is not allowed on Wikipedia).

So that's why there is 'conspiracy theory' - because it clearly has a publication support (while popularity in Russia is more like popularity among officials, if you try to search twitter - then you find that most mentions of Golden billion by average user is in context of 'stupid theory', 'conspiracy theory'. Without ways to establish what is really popular and what is a propaganda, the published variant is used. And more - it's not just randomly chosen name in publication, the way the theory was put down - it's a conspiracy theory (as I tried to explain in informal way).

And exactly that is why a connection between 'Golden billion' and aspirations of socialism (btw socialist idea in Russia has almost died and used exclusively by old persons like Sergey Kara-Murza, russian propaganda does not refer to socialism for obvious reasons - it has no socialist aspirations) requires a publication before being included into article. There are rules, which need to be followed. Not all 'common knowledge' which you personally find suitable (and for which it's possible to find objections) are about to be included. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone!

I was asked for WP:MEDIATE. I will try to explain my opinion in simple English because it isn't my native language.

Dear anonymous 2A00:1028:96CB:F556:6581:E0BD:5623:85C8,

I agree to SergeyKurdakov while he is talking about original research WP:NOR. You can disagree with the content of the article. However, you should use reliable and published sources as the basis for editing. You should rewrite citates from reliable sources in your words retaining the substance without adding any own analysis or theories. You cannot delete text, if the meaning can be found in the given source. You can deny reliability of the source. However, the text must remain in the article until your claim is accepted. You are not allowed to delete any sources without claiming their reliability. This is the basic rule of Wikipedia. Please make small changes in the article so that it makes easier for commenting it.

To your edition:

1. You deleted many sources without any claims to their reliability.

2. You added huge pieces of text without giving any sources. E.g about Lenin etc. It is the original research.

3. Neurath, Paul in his work said nothing about ‘golden billion’. I couldn't find it by quick research. Could you give us the original sentece from his book as reference? Thanks!

In the Russian article, there are many reliable sources explaining the term 'golden billion' and its origin. All sources are talking about conspiracy theory. This is consensus in the scientific world without doubt. However, the term was used by few femous people in Russia without conspiratorially meaning in case it was told about wealthy countries without any link to the ‘exploitation of the former colonies’. You can add this information to the article.

Cheers, Mandorakatiki (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: I requested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Third_opinion Third opinion on our dispute. In case we could not come to conclusion, a third party would help us to end the dispute SergeyKurdakov (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

---