Talk:Igor Panarin

Comments

I wanted to have a page up since this man is gaining world attention. I hope all of you can expand this much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyledanderson (talk • contribs) 03:46, 31 December 2008

Per some newspaper article (I think it was the WSJ), didn't he also work for the KGB before? Ronewirl (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and edit that in. If anyone objects ... there's always the "revert". But do please explain why. thank you. Ronewirl (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It should stay. The KGB is quite notable. -electricRush | Sign! 05:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a short biographical data, translated from the Russian Wikipedia's article about him. Also, I replaced all occurrences of "by 2010" with "in 2010", except where the English language sources explicitly say "by 2010", albeit their translation may be wrong. I did this because he originally states "in 2010" ("в 2010-м году"), not "by 2010" ("к 2010-м году"), and later he even specified the exact month(s) - end of June - start of July. I added a reference to the radio interview transcript in which he says this date. Лъчезар (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth Date

Does anyone have a source stating Panarin's birthdate? I have looked and found none. -electricRush | Sign! 17:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He was born on 30 October 1958 (see for example http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=669611) --Лъчезар (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it, thank you! I can't read Russian, is there a chance you know where he was born? -electricRush | Sign! 17:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was unable to find this out. Ask him! :) Лъчезар (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images?

To Mr. Johathan Hunder: You removed first his portrait, then his map. Now remove the rest of the page and everybody will be happy. (I know that these images are not free but such images will become more and more valuable in time so they will never be free :) Лъчезар (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I had uploaded those images, and believe they are necessary for the article. -download | sign! 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, Richard Conn Henry has created a free version of his map, so I added it. Feel free to resize and/or move it around. Лъчезар (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it! I've moved and resized it. -download | sign! 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's now used by SkyNews - here Лъчезар (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, all we need is a free portrait or photo of Panarin. -download | sign! 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find one but can ask him. He gets much e-mail but might reply. What do you want to ask him besides his birthplace? Лъчезар (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do send an email to him, maybe just ask for his birthplace and a link to a free image. Thanks for all your help! -download | sign! 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! But when I read about the OTRS, I saw that all this is too complex for both me and him. Sorry, I give up! Лъчезар (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(reset) No problem; I'm sure this information is in some source somewhere. -download | sign! 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just uploaded and added a small (80x60) free-licence image (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0) which is a portrait of his. Hope nobody deletes it as the entire contents of the Mahalo.com site is licensed under this CC licence which permits free copying. Another question is that, obviously, the image is a scaled-down version of an image from the Russia House site, which in turn is a scaled-down version of an image from Panarin's site. But this isn't our concern, is it? :) Лъчезар (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some user from Buffalo doesn't agree with the above - the image was scheduled for deletion on 30 March :( Лъчезар (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if you hadn't come clean about the original versions from which Mahalo.com took its photo, maybe nobody would have realised. Anyway, can you find anything using the sources suggested here?

• ru:Википедия:Источники изображений
• bg:Уикипедия:Интернет ресурси под свободен лиценз

Otherwise, do email Panarin and ask for a photo. I'm not sure whether it would be valid in Russia for him to publish it under the GFDL or a Commons licence. So, probably the best thing is to ask him to release it into the public domain, which I gather is ru:Общественное достояние. If he does, then upload it to Commons and use the links on that page to forward his email to OTRS. It's not too hard; I've done it a few times and will help if needed. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When you click on Panarin's photo on Mahalo, it's the Russia House site that appears, so it was obvious that the image was taken from there. But, congratulations for finding the Russian and Bulgarian resources! Unfortunately, I'd hardly be able to find Panarin there. So I agree with you and have already asked him for permission (using the recommended formal declarations in both English and Russian) the same day I saw the template for scheduling for deletion added. By the way, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 (what a cryptic name!) is mentioned in the Russian declaration too, so I guess it's valid for Russia. Лъчезар (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While waiting for his reply, I replaced the image with a better one I just created. Hope at least it won't be questioned. Лъчезар (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did you obtain this new photo from? Jonathunder (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One could hardly guess that it's a cropped freeze-frame of the video recording of his TV interview on 25 March before Russia Today Arabic (see link on his site). Russia Today allows non-commercial use of their material.[1] To avoid deletion of Panarin's portrait for a third time, I claimed that I'm the author. Sorry, I think that putting this small cropped frame into public domain is not a big sin. Alas, I could never understand the copyright paranoia at Wikipedia. I'm sure that neither Russia Today nor Panarin would mind what I've done. Feel free to delete it if your administrator's duty requires so. Лъчезар (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial access is not enough for Wikipedia. And please do not mark an image as your own work, public domain, when that is not the case. Jonathunder (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For me personally, all publicly available information is public domain. But I know that the law says otherwise albeit I'm not competent in it. Anyway, you deleted only the image link at the page, now please delete the image itself so your duty is 100% complete. Being a non-administrator I can't do it myself. Лъчезар (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia users, please accept my apologies if I did something wrong. I just wanted to fulfil your desire to have a photo of Panarin here, but alas, whatever I do is rejected. I haven't got from him the formal (OTRS) declarations I sent him either even after a second reminder. Anyway, there's no point in trying to be what one could never become. Nobody who has lived most of his life in a copyright-free society can adapt to the today's over-copyrighted society, unless he wants to fully forget his past and become a new man. And in any case, I'm the last one who will want to do this! So if someone really wants to have Panarin's picture here, you'd better try to draw it youself, otherwise the Wikipedia administrators will mercilessly erase everything you upload. (I don't understand why the Panarin.jpg file isn't deleted yet, but nobody will obviously be allowed to add a link to it on the article anymore, so I suppose that it's left just as a big red warning against any further attempts by someone else to repeat my failure with it.) In a word - sorry, I was up to here. I'll keep updating the text of the article but please don't expect me to do this OTRS magic that I neither agree with nor understand at all. "Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes". Лъчезар (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(Update) The file Panarin.jpg was deleted at last. Small file - big problem; no file - no problem :) Лъчезар (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken seriously?

Is Panarin taken seriously by educated people in Russia? I was amazed to read, in an AP report, that the Foreign Ministray ("pointedly," as the AP put it) invited foreign media to his March 3 lecture.

Every country has its crackpots, but this guy's so-called "analysis" reads like something from our friends at the Uncyclopedia. Sca (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether he, Moriarty, Todd, Nostradamus, Vanga, etc. are right, we'll see in a short time. Now let's focus on the article. Лъчезар (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sca, and what about Alexander Dugin, the neonazi, communist, orthodox christian and satanist who is taken seriously by Vladimir Putin? Methinks 50 years of Stalinist disinformation completely destroyed Russia's inteligence. 201.21.194.65 (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

At least Joel Garreau's 1981 Nine Nations of North America made some degree of sense as the nations were really social economic regions. Panarin's ideas read like the ravings of an old Russian nationalist with a massive wet dream about the fall of the US. Anyone with even a minimal of knowledge of US social-political dynamics can spot the flaws Panarin's map; heck the fragmentation of the US in the comic book Give me Liberty is more realistic then this and that was clearly not intended to be taken seriously. This is ignoring obvious logic holes like why given there is a pipeline already going through Canada why would Alaska go to Russia? Similarly why would the Hawaiian Islands go to Japan? Also the various countries involved have their own economic problems: China has a financial bubble as big if not bigger than the whole US sub-prime market, Mexico has its own economic issues, the EU is watching as Greece basically goes bankrupt, and Canada has enough on its plate without piling on more.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality check

Panarin never claimed that "Russia would dominate the entire world". The cited source ("Russia must face reality") that allegedly says so says that not Panarin but Vanga said so, and Vanga didn't say so either - she said Russia would rise! Also, there is a "Criticism" section (so far so good) but no section mentioning similar prognoses (e.g. Bob Moriarty, Emmanuel Todd, etc.). The impression is as if Panarin's prognosis is just a curious fact, not supported neither by anyone else nor by any events and is just an info warfare waged by him. Лъчезар (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with these issues, so I removed the POV-check tag. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Alas, I have a lot more to learn in order to be able to edit Wikipedia pages with ease. Лъчезар (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

New lectures of Panarin

Panarin has also spoken in the Philippines - see [2]. Please add this information too (alas, I'd better not do it as I'm too biased and haven't mastered the Wikipedia style of writing). Thanks in advance! Лъчезар (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks for finding the source! -download | sign! 18:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It was easy to search for the title of the article. I just read his site (I know Russian). You can do so too - see [3] Лъчезар (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it isn't better to move the text about his lecture in the Philippines after the text about his lecture in Moscow - that is, to order them chronologically. Also, perhaps they can be united in a separate section called "Public Lectures" or something like that. What do you think? Лъчезар (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As too many interviews and lectures have already accumulated, I moved all of them to a new dedicated section. Hope nobody minds that. Лъчезар (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Countdown Clock

Perhaps this article would benefit from a Countdown Clock. A clock that end s at Midnight January 1st, 2010. This way when his prediction doesn't come true, we will all know he was wrong.--Subman758 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He predicted that the disintegration would happen in the end of June - start of July 2010 (this information is in Russian only and is available on his site). So I propose that the count-down clock, if added, is set to 1st of July 2010. Лъчезар (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Such content is not encyclopedic and should not be added to the article. -download | sign! 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I just searched for such a feature but couldn't find one available through the Wikipedia language. In other words, we couldn't do it even if we wanted. It'd be better if Panarin added a countdown clock to his site instead :) Лъчезар (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tic Toc Tic Toc 28 days until this theory is proven WRONG--Subman758 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

T - 10 days and counting Igor--Subman758 (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ho ho, very droll. Please use this page for discussions on improving the article, not discussion of his theories. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is how we can improve the article, DELETE IT There is no need for a STUPID ARTICLE, ABOUT A STUPID PERSON, WHO MADE A STUPID PREDICTION!! A prediction that was WRONG mind you. Happy 4th of July--Subman758 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I know a lot of people who predict things like this tend to move their prediction dates ever farther into the future as the events don't come to pass. Has Panarin proposed a new date now that the US made it to August 2010 intact? 207.171.251.74 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Crystal" or "Probabilistic" template

Should we add a "crystal" template? The problem in this case would be that half of the article would need to be removed because the template suggests removal of all speculative contents... What to do to leave "both the wolf satiated and the lamb intact"? :( Лъчезар (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Solved by creating and using a new, "Probabilistic" template without mentioning of anything that should be removed. But the template isn't included in any categories yet, although I've specified some in its documentation. If this means that it must be done by some administrator, then hopefully it will be done. Otherwise please tell me how to do this. Editing the categories pages didn't work for me. Thanks! Лъчезар (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatically or not, it's now included in its categories. The Wikipedia:Current and future event templates page doesn't mention it but that's a job for the policy makers... Лъчезар (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make the categories work. However, on reflection, I don't think the template belongs here at all. The "Crystal" template is for an article that makes predictions, and the template highlights and categorises the article as one that breaches Wikipedia policy. I this case, the article makes no predictions; it just reports some predictions made by a notable figure, based on reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with this article and therefore it should not have any such template. I recommend you to remove the template from the article, and to add {{db-author}} on the template itself to get it deleted. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, now I understand better the role of templates and the "nowiki" attribute. I hope to learn the "wiki" language better. Лъчезар (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Date format?

I don't know whether there is a consensus regarding the date format. The article has both "date first" (e.g. 25 March 2009) and "month first" (e.g. March 25, 2009) formats. I'd like to make this uniform. I see Wikipedia signs the posts here with the "date first" format (e.g. 25 March 2009). Do you mind converting all dates to it? Лъчезар (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Panarin.jpg" and "Gorbama.jpg"

After my violation of the Wikimedia rules with my upload of the image "Panarin.jpg" whose commercial use was not permitted (the non-profit organisation Wikipedia Foundation insists on commercial use?!), I decided to illustrate Panarin's point that Obama is the American Gorbachev by adding the image Gorbama.jpg. But just 5 minutes after I uploaded that image, it was deleted by our friend User:Jonathunder because of the as much as 7 (seven!) different violations I have done with it that he pointed out, namely:

• violation of the Wikimedia rules
• violation of the copyright of the creator of the collage
• violation of the copyright of the Obama's photo used by him
• violation of the copyright of the Gorbachev's photo used by him
• violation of the personal rights of Obama
• violation of the personal rights of Gorbachev
• violation of the trademark of the Mark of Cain on the latter's forehead!

So, go for the violator-recidivist, and... Happy April Fools' Day! :) Лъчезар (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Using photos from "flikr.com", the well-known free photo hosting site

When I search the flikr.com site for the word "Panarin", I get two almost equal photos with his portrait. But, "once bitten, twice shy", I don't know neither their licence nor whether they can be uploaded in Wikipedia. Would please someone more experienced with these things answer these questions? (Ideally, that would be the administrator User:Jonathunder, since he will most probably be the one who will delete the image if it breaks the rules, but other experienced Wikipedia editors are welcome to answer too. Лъчезар (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When using the Flickr Advanced Search, select "Find content to use commercially" and "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". Any image that matches this criteria can be used on Wikipedia. -download | sign! 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The advanced search with these criteria results in only 2 images; his portrait is not among them. Лъчезар (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately, nothing that could be used as his portrait has been uploaded under that criteria. I'll keep a look out for one. -download | sign! 17:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Good Article"?

The article is more or less complete now. Of course, significant new proposals and interviews will be added, but I don't expect them to cause a significant grow in size. So, I think that this is the right time to ask ourselves (or rather, for me to ask the more experienced Wikipedia editors here) the following question: Is it worth to pursue a "Good Article" status, and won't the eventual sacrifices which will have to be made in order to achieve it cause more damage than good? Also, do you think such a goal is worth your time? Because the fine editing that needs to be made to avoid all words in the huge list of Wikipedia:words to avoid is considerable and a non-native English speaker (or rather "writer/reader" as my pronunciation is awful!) could hardly cope with this. Or would such a goal be "an end in itself"? If so, it's better not to pursue it. What do you think on all this? Лъчезар (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at this article earlier, and thinking whether it would make good article status. I think it is very close, and we should pursue this. -download | sign! 22:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, tomorrow I will try to clean it up by substitution of any words in the list of Wikipedia:Words to avoid I find. But after I do that, please re-read it and clean up any suspected residuals you notice. The struggle will be hard. If our friend User:Jonathunder is the reviewer, our chance for approval is exactly zero! :( Лъчезар (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't be a reviewer on this article as I have edited it. I have nothing against promoting it to GA status. I have been involved here in making sure the article is free from copyright violations, which is one of the first things any review would check. Having no photo of the subject does not preclude promotion--there are even featured articles without one. Having a non-free image would be a problem. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Jonathan! My apologies for my copyright ignorance (in the sense that I ignore it because I can't understand things I don't approve and can't approve things I don't understand). I do respect your efforts and will not cause you or anyone else problems here anymore. Sorry once again. Лъчезар (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did a clean up, replacing the words found in the list of the Wikipedia:words to avoid, except for the following words: "only", "terrorist", "scandal", "gate" and "affair". I think that the latter 3 are OK because they're related to Monicagate, "terrorist" is also OK because the subject on which Panarin wrote there is terrorism, but "only" is used by him many times and I think that it can't be avoided without distorting his point. Perhaps the names of some sub-sub-titles may raise questions (although I've thought much on each of them and like them as they are now) and there are other problems? Please take a look. Лъчезар (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another question is the right category for nomination. What about "Social sciences and society -> Education -> Educators"? Лъчезар (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Igor Panarin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has met the requirements, and is now a good article.

• The article includes a large number of reliable citations, which are well placed within the article.
• The article is accurate, and there are very little grammatical errors. Those that I found, I corrected.
• There are relevant pictures, with good captions, but there are not too many pictures
• It meets the requirements for Manual of style
  • The lead section is a very good summary and introduction to the article
  • The layout of the article fits the Wikipedia criteria
  • It has used an acceptable amount of jargon, and has done well at avoiding the words to avoid
• The article is broad enough, and addresses the main aspects of the topic, but doesn't go into too much detail
• This article is suitable unbiased. It includes suitable arguments from both sides.
• It is my opinion that the article is stable enough

However, no article is perfect, and I do have some suggestions for improving the article.

• Wikipedia policy prefers that there isn't a criticism section, although many good article do include one, it would be preferable if the information in the criticism section was spread through the appropriate sections of the article.
• If the criticism section is to stay, the head of the section needs a source
• When I went through it, I found very few grammatical errors, and those I did find I fixed, but I recommend that someone who has been involved in the article do an extra thorough check.
• It would be nice to have a pronunciation guide in the lead section, using the International Phonetic Alphabet.

Keep up the good work! --Sauronjim (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I tried to address some of your recommendations by adding pronunciation for his name, and references for the head of the "Criticism" section. The remaining issues are the possiblle grammar errors which could best be checked by a native English speaker (I'm a Bulgarian) and the very presence of the "Criticism" section. I find it very difficult if not impossible to spread the latter through the respective relevant sections. At best, this can be done just for 10-20% of it. The rest of the critics is too broad in scope (most just applying his prediction to his own country) so I think that their best place is in a separate section as they are now. (Just saw that the ultimate authority here - the Wikipedia founder J. Wales - thinks that in many cases the "Criticism" section is necessary and I think that this is just one of these cases.) Лъчезар (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If the criticism section can't be moved, then that's fine. There are a number of other good articles and even featured articles which contain a cricism section, which is why I chose to overlook this. Probably one of the most notable of these is Microsoft. --Sauronjim (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What follows after "Good Article"?

I'd like to thank all contributors to this article – without your efforts, reaching the "Good Article" status wouldn't have been possibe! Now, what follows? Has any of you managed to reach a higher status, what is it – "A" class or "Featured Article", could this article be enhanced enough to deserve it, and what can we do to achieve it? --Лъчезар (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The next best that you can get if featured article. The order goes featured article, good article, A-class, B-class etc., so the only room for measured improvement now is to get this promoted to a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauronjim (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So it skipped over the "A" and jumped directly to "GA", right? :) But before nominating for "FA", a peer review would be a good idea. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Initiatives

In beginning my review of this article, I was immediately concerned about the long section entitled "Initiatives". There seems to be too much detail here of little encyclopedic value. After all, these were just proposals. Anyone can make proposals. Which ones were actually approved and acted upon? What impact did these proposals have upon the government and politics of Russia? Why should we care?

It might improve the article to rewrite this entire section as a numbered or bulleted series of single-sentence items. Or, if these proposals were actually adopted or led to important reforms of Russian government, then tell us about it.

Finally, does this section really belong in this prominent position within the article? If Panarin is primarily famous for his predictions about the United States, then that should come first. —Aetheling (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestions! We tried to address them, please look at the article again. So far, indeed, only one of his initiatives (that the the ruble-denominated oil exchange) has been realised, but obviously the Russian elite listens to him and more of his initiatives will be realised in the future. They also reflect his views on the respective issues much better than if we had tried to do a summary of these views, for which we could be criticised for subjectivism :) Лъчезар (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Style or tone?

The "style" template has been added but no specifics has been given. Please elaborate what elements of style need improvement and where, and this could be achieved. If a native English speaker can help me here, this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Лъчезар (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The template you placed says that the tone of the article is inappropriate. But there are many elements of "tone". What exactly is wrong? Is it not formal enough? Does it use jargon or double-talk? Is "first person" used? Are exclamation marks used? I think that the answer of all these questions is NO. Then what is wrong?! It's easy to just place a template of this kind without any explanation and leave the other side clueless. Please don't do that. Perhaps if I had 200 years of experience with Wikipedia I would immediately understand what you mean, but my experience is just a couple of months. Note also that as a non-native English speaker, I am deaf to many possible subtle points of this foreign to me language. Thanks for understanding. Лъчезар (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As User:Download has noted, the problem was with some subjectively-named (by me) section titles ("And what about Russia" and "Reflections"). He and I addressed this by changing these titles to "Russia" and "Impact", respectively. Therefore, I think that the template can be removed, which I just did. If there are more sections whose names can be improved, feel free to do it, of course :) Лъчезар (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSAL – split section "Prediction of the USA's collapse in 2010" to Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010

As the article gradually and almost unnoticeably became rather long, what about separating it into two parts: Igor Panarin and Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010? Thus, only a summary of the prediction will be left in the main article about Panarin, which will become rather modest in size, and all the details of the prediction will be in their dedicated article. Are there objections to this? I think I can do it relatively easily. A few references would need to be duplicated in both articles, and that's it. Лъчезар (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Hope this makes reading easier. Now I'd like to ask: when an article is split, which part of it inherits its status (in our case, GA)? Лъчезар (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Having a separate section on Panarin's predictions violates wp:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any split, as it would be giving undue weight to one persons WP:FRINGE opinion, especially considering the paucity of WP:RS. It has more than enough coverage in the article, as does Panarin. If it turns out to be correct I'm sure a lot of RS will be written about it. Let's just wait and see. Verbal chat 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are simply not enough reliable independent sources for a separate article. There are only a few, and they were almost certainly drawn in by the lure of a shocking headline like "Scholar predicts total disintegration of the United States!" and a cool map showing the division. After that, each basically says the same thing, and it's not enough to support an entire article on the subject. Wknight94 ^talk 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Section should never be more than a stub.Fifelfoo (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How to fix this article

Fire and lots of it! However barring pyrotechnics I think a serious look at WP:DUE and WP:NPoV would be a good place to start.Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This person may be notable, but I don't see why we have to give so much attention to what is clearly a fringe theory, only of interest to those who believe in it. The 'views' section of this article should probably be cut down to a brief summary. Robofish (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Igor Panarin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• I will start a GA reassessment shortly. Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article falls significantly short of the GA standards in its current form. Let me list some of the issues:

• There are problems with the lede. The opening sentence lists so many descriptives that it leaves the reader rather confused as to what this guy really does.
• The list in "Other ideas" section does not appear to conform to WP:EMBED.
• There are significant problems with the breadth of coverage:
  • No info is given about his early life and family background (not even where he was born);
  • No info at all is given about his personal life (marriage, children, etc)
  • The section "Prediction of the USA's collapse in 2010" seems too short and insufficiently detailed, given that that prediction appears to be his most visible claim to notability. There are no details given in this section regarding how the prediction was received in Russia and abroad, and no information about updates in relation to that prediction. As I understand it, since some of the key dates related to the prediction have already passed, there was some recent relevant coverage not included in the article.
  • In general, there is very little info in the article about how various ideas of Panarin are regarded in Russia and in the West. Rather, the article simply provides a fairly long list of his views on various topics. This represents WP:balance as well as a breadth of coverage problem.

I do not believe that these problems can be quickly remedied and I think that the article should be de-listed from GA. Nsk92 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has come forward indicating intent to work on improving the article, I am closing the GA reassessment as "de-listed". Nsk92 (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I love how such a crazy-ass like Panarin gets so much objective and serious coverage in Wikipedia - ultimately quite touching proof of how seriously people take this site. Panarin is actually a good representative of a certain class of Russian officialdom - xenophobic, with a massive inferiority complex, unendingly bitter about the collapse of the USSR, passive-aggressive to the extreme, and congenitally incapable of understanding even a few of the basic factors that drive world events but unconcerned by the fact that reality doesn't match up with their ideologically driven "analysis". These are the same people who thought that the Chechen war was a CIA plot, or who dumped their dollars in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in the expectation that the US was going to collapse within hours. Alas, they are a dying (self-extinguishing) breed - in just a few years they will be gone, and with their passage the last flickering light of Brezhnevism will die... Drinkingbreaker (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Prediction of collapse of the United States in 2010

Would it be original research to say 'this did not take place'? I guess so, but it seems worth mentioning somewhere. :) Robofish (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, most people are aware that the United States didn't collapse in 2010. But if we can find a secondary source that points this out, it should be added.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

smh. 98.82.130.177 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Igor Panarin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130918115547/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3sayDZz.QKc&refer=us to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3sayDZz.QKc&refer=us
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090314062656/http://business.inquirer.net:80/money/breakingnews/view/20090311-193488/Russian-sees-end-of-American-Dream to http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20090311-193488/Russian-sees-end-of-American-Dream
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090404024513/http://www.izvestia.ru:80/economic/article3126921/ to http://www.izvestia.ru/economic/article3126921/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090312072054/http://www.techbook.ru:80/panarin2.html to http://www.techbook.ru/panarin2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)