Instead of being accused of Wikipedia:Bludgeoning, I want to say it here that I appreciate your "keep" highly on Stephen Hogan. The clear sources are not added after the AfD. They have been there over a period of several months. They just failed to cover him like they cover Tom Cruise. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heyallkatehere. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY22:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
so let's review: the topic is discussed in Washington Post, Financial Times, NPR, The Indian Express, Al Ahram
Now - it there is main author Sergey Kara Murza who spread the theory (original author was not very notable writer). His points were covered and indeed the text cited in the article was in his books.
The main point he tried to promote - that there is urgent lack of resources, so western countries have policies to stop growth of developing countries and Russia (notably it's the same lie which Al Ahram promotes) his point was covered.
Now there were links to statements from respected sources that assertions are not valid: resources are enough for many centuries, Developing countries instead of being remaining in undeveloped state do converge to developed ones.
Now what is the problem due to promotion of this conspiracy theory by Russian authorities worldwide - and articles like in Al Ahram in Egypt https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/502446.aspx , what you left in article is not enough to make reader being informed of what theory is about or what is wrong with it.
So given that the material in article is factually correct: Kara Murza indeed had statements which were attributed to him, and that his accretions are not supported by science and that it is encyclopedia, so people should know details of conspiracy theory why would you withhold relevant information about this theory?
And yes, russian authorities spread this conspiracy theory worldwide which was also covered by deleted text, so many people encounter the term and could fall into russian propaganda efforts without having any details.
the other side - that article needs improvements - but it's quite different topic to eliminating content completely. so I oppose your deletion of bulk content. If you have specific objections let's discuss. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather sleepy, so do pardon any poor wording.
Tagging was done by twinkle, and it's easy to click one before deciding another fits better, while forgetting to uncheck the original.
The article was a total mess that frankly in the state it was in, felt unrecoverable. It had a tag from 2008, for fucks sake.
I agree that it deserves more than a stub, and is worth disseminating real information about, but the article as it was provided such an awful hodge-podge of poor writing choices by editors long gone, and biased language from both sides (some of which I agree with, mind you, but bias is bias.)
I was there because I wanted to remove the phrase "lion's share" because I was doing some copy-editing of wikipedia's words to watch. The longer I read, the more issues started stacking up, and it felt wrong to let that article remain as it was, frankly.
I'm happy to collaborate on a new version, but I do ask that we work from something that is less of a bloated corpse than the version I stumbled across.
I'm not native English language speaker, so forgive me for some russian idioms.
Did Kara Murza wrote that West consumes lion share of world resources? yes. It could be reworded (such as much of world resources is consumed).
So basically this might be reworded:
According to Kara-Murza, the golden billion (population of developed countries) consumes the lion's share of all resources on the planet. If at least half of the global population begins to consume resources to the same extent, these resources wouldn't be sufficient.[1] This is partly based on the ideas of Malthus, in that emphasis is placed on the scarcity of natural resources. However, whereas Malthus was mostly concerned with finite global crop yields, anti-globalists that advocate the idea of a "golden billion" are mostly concerned with finite natural resources such as fossil fuels and metal. According to Kara-Murza, the developed countries, while preserving for their nationals a high level of consumption, endorse political, military and economic measures designed to keep the rest of the world in an industrially undeveloped state and as a raw-material appendage area for the dumping of hazardous waste and as a source of cheap labor.[2]
but it's summary of what Kara Murza wrote
that one paragraph is also from Kara Murza books
The theory, which holds that the wealth of the West, including that of the lower classes, is mostly based on exploitation of the former colonies in the third world, is not new in Russia, where it was first popularized by Vladimir Lenin, in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin described the relationship between capitalism and imperialism, wherein the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capital. The final, imperialist stage of capitalism, originates in the financial function of generating greater profits than the home market can yield; thus, business exports (excess) capital, which, in due course, leads to the economic division of the world among international business monopolies, and imperial European states colonising large portions of the world to generate investment profits.Whereas Lenin and other Marxist anti-imperialists such as Immanuel Wallerstein called for an end to the domination of developed nations through international communism, Kara-Murza and his contemporaries in Russia believe that a restriction of free trade (especially with the West), and various methods of state intervention in the economy is the best solution. This economic rationale for protectionism dates back to the early United States and is known as the infant industry argument. The crux of the argument is that nascent industries often do not have the economies of scale that their older competitors from other countries may have, and thus need to be protected until they can attain similar economies of scale. The argument was first explicated by Alexander Hamilton in his 1790 Report on Manufactures, was systematically developed by Daniel Raymond, and was later picked up by Friedrich List in his 1841 work The National System of Political Economy, following his exposure to the idea during his residence in the United States in the 1820s. According to proponents of the theory, differences in incomes in first-world countries and third-world countries cannot be explained by differences in individual productivity. For example, the Caterpillar (CAT) factory in Tosno, Russia has the highest productivity of all CAT factories in Europe, but the workers are paid about an order of magnitude less. The difference is even more startling when comparing the wages of textile workers in United States factories and in China sweatshops. This means that the multinational corporations appropriate a disproportionally high share of the surplus value in "developing" countries. The argument usually holds that the continuation of this exploitation retards the development and prosperity of the developing nations. Hence, globalization and modern capitalism benefit mostly the golden billion, while people in the so-called "developing" countries are getting the short end of the stick.
that might be cleaned from references to List or Daniel Raymond references as they are not relevant though entire paragraphs is what was discussed on russian web
concerning this theory.
so - paragraphs are about what was Kara Murza point that there are no resources for all, and west exploits developing countries and prevents further use of resources.
now are their some objections to basic assertions?
they were provided.
I somehow do not know - how it's possible to both cover points of Kara Murza version of conspiracy theory and avoid mentioning deficiencies in his assertions.
as for tag in 2008 the tag was placed when only Kara Murza theory was covered - but which is covered correctly and in fact all those assertions are in his books (including in books translated to English), those who placed the tag might not read those books, but still - the whole description is what theory was about.
when tag was placed someone asked in discussion section to make some counter arguments. And see above - somehow they were in the article later.
so basically - there is need to clean wording, but the mess is due to what this theory was about: it's convoluted discussion about guilt of west basing on few wrong assumptions. The text needs better wording and removal of irrelevant theories by List etc supporting Kara Murza argument, but otherwise being the mess it's what the topic is about: there is a convoluted theory which was tagged in 2008 but it is what Kara Murza and supporter wrote, there was request to clarify if assertions are supported by science - there are sources which dispute assertions. Then there is use by Russian authorities (and the use of theory is massive including in worldwide russian news outlets) so this probably should also go into article.
1. Are you aware what Kara Murza wrote or what Kuzmich wrote? If not, then it is unwise to delete information which is not known to you even if there is tag, because the information if poorly written is correct. If you are aware - you might correct text which was in the article to make it better.
2. If you have objections to inclusion the mention of articles which state, that resources are available for several centuries - then provide reason why you'd like to remove information published in scientific magazines.
3. If you object inclusion of information about use of term by Russian authorities - provide rationality.
Hello, as you were involved in writing Golden billion article, could you please say your opinion Talk:Golden billion#Counter arguments? My opinion that issue being raised is without merit. due to mess of how the theory was put by authors (in vague conspiratorial style), some readers fall victims to wrong paths of reasoning, in case you have questions or I need to provide additional information on the problem, ask on the discussion page. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
somehow some user placed POV notice on legitimate text and do not engage in a conversation. So for me it's unclear how to proceed. Making more explanations does not help and does not help to remove wrong POV notice. Because you are in context of the history of article, know exact procedures how to deal with non engaging trolling , I think you are right person to address in this case. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
.svg){kind=small}
