Talk:Igor Panarin's prediction of the United States collapse in 2010

Sections moved here
I moved the 2 objectionable sections here (see below). Please do not delete them. Even though they may not deserve to go into the article, some people may still find them interesting. --Лъчезар (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Impact
According to Panarin who was in China in January 2009 and talked to, as he says, the leading Chinese analysts, they started conceptual development of the strategy of China in case of a dollar crash and U.S. collapse.

Shortly after the Wall Street Journal interview with Panarin in December 2008, the users of the SodaHead on-line opinion and review website have created 3 polls about Panarin's prediction, including "Which new Republic will be in the best shape?". About 26% of the roughly 200 respondents think that the prediction will come true.

The Slobodna Srbija.info (Free Serbia) website has added the real-time countdown clock written in JavaScript by Andrew Ferguson which appears at the top right corner of each page of the site and updates every second, showing the months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds till 1 January 2010, under the heading "America's collapse 2010".

On 23 January 2009, the Pan Historia collaborative fiction community started the Panarin's theory "closed novel" whose action takes place in the then former USA six years ahead in the future, after Panarin's predictions have come true. Registration is required for reading the novel, and contributing a character is required before readers can add to the story.

On 1 April 2009, a Russian blogger published an April fool joke that the Russian President proposed to buy back Alaska that was ceded to the U.S. by the Russian Empire in 1867 for $7.2 million ($92 million in 2009 U.S. dollars), paying not in U.S. dollars but in an unspecified amount of oil, gas, timber, and 5 millions of Lada cars due for delivery over the next 3 years, to fill the acute shortage of cars in the U.S. after the collapse of their automotive industry.

Clairvoyance
According to the Russian weekly Argumenty i Fakty and the Turkish daily Milliyet, the blind Bulgarian prophetess Vanga (1911–1996) who is said to have predicted many historic events had predicted that "a black man will become the 44th U.S. President, and this President will be the last one because America will freeze up or go down in the economics; it probably can divide into the North and South states". Milliyet claims she predicted this already in 1990. Panarin was not aware of her prediction when he deduced his conclusions in 1998.

Psychic
Is the section on the Bulgarian psychic really necessary? We have an entire article about a scholarly prediction here, then this little paragraph at the bottom about some prophetic nonsense. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Zogby International poll about Obama's popularity in the "Obama - the American Gorbachev" section
The Zogby poll really needs to be replaced by a reliable poll here. Zogby's internet polling is widely considered the most unreliable and inaccurate polling out there. A more accepted poll, maybe Gallup, CNN, FOX, or better yet, an aggregate of several polls, should be used. Those and just about all the others don't show nearly as big a decline in Obama's approval or job approval as Zogby's. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Perhaps that's precisely why Zogby is considered unreliable? :) Just joking, I'm not an expert. I wouldn't remove the Zogby's data as obviously that's what Panarin commented on. Of course, the results differ between polls, so if you want, add the results of other poll(s) for the same month for comparison. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added information on the aggregate of several polls, and I reworded the paragraph a bit to make it more neutral. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing! I did another couple of edits and finally decided to remove Zogby as it turned out that several other polls gave 56% approval in your aggregate. I also edited and shortened the sentence and widened the limits looking at the aggregate table (it's more detailed than the graphics). --Лъчезар (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination
Just made interview headings more neutral, so I hope your concerns are addressed now. Please let me know if you see other problems like grammar issues. --Лъчезар (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...also fixed some grammar errors now (some may remain: English is the 4th language I've learned :) --Лъчезар (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to this article. :)  Hopefully it'll become a GA like Igor Panarin in the future.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The deletion discussion was closed with "keep", so now we have a green light for GA. Would you please give me a hint what POV and grammar issues remain so I can fix them, and then perhaps you could remove the "hold" comment on the GA nomination page so someone can review it? --Лъчезар (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think it could pass a GA review just yet. I've made some grammar and other corrections to the article, as well as some section heading edits.  The section headings, in my opinion, still need to be trimmed down a bit.   -  down  load  ׀  sign!  22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just trimmed them a bit. Is more trimming needed? I'm afraid it's hard to do it further. Any other issues you see? Thanks! --Лъчезар (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Norris
In the Texas section it says: "He said the separatism of Chuck Norris who claimed that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place[61] has big enough support groups in Texas. In Panarin's view, the global financial crisis stimulates this process. He predicted a 25 million unemployment in the U.S. in the autumn of 2009 and said that unemployment stimulates regional separatism, and the tendency will be developing.[35]" Would someone who speaks Russian mind confirming that Panarin discusses Norris in the article cited? I was curious to read it, but unfortunately I can't read Russian. If it can be confirmed, it would be interesting to note in the Chuck Norris article since it already discusses the Texas secession issue. Narco (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you translate the last but one paragraph of his interview with http://www.online-translator.com (http://translate.google.com is slightly worse in my opinion), you'll get the following text:
 * "''I already many times made comments on disintegration of the USA, including said and that Texas will be a point with which decomposition will begin. From my point of view, it is similar to a situation with the Soviet Baltic. I will remind that on March, 9th the American actor Chak Norris has declared that declares itself the main candidate on a post of the independent president of the state Texas. He has declared that Texas is a part of America illegally. Thus Norris has big enough groups of support in Texas."


 * The name "Chak" (Russian: "Чак") obviously means "Chuck" here, as "Чак" ("Chak") is the Russian transcription for Chuck :) --Лъчезар (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chuck Norris is going to lead a revolution in Texas? Chuck Norris? This guy has been watching too many American movies. Please tell me someone doesn't actually take this guy seriously. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what other actors does Panarin think are going to lead the various revolutions? Ahnold in California would be a given. What about the eastern shore? I'm thinking Ben Affleck, since he's not real busy these days. Come on. This article is fringe stuff combined with wishful thinking. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This guy should probably be classified with the 911 "truthers", Obama "birthers" and the "moon landing landing was an elaborate hoax" people. The countries which are supposedly going to divide up the US have much stronger secesionist populations. Canada has Qebequoi, Mexico has Chiapas province, Russia has Chechnia, China has the Uigurs, and several European Union countries such as the UK and Spain have had recuring problems with terrorism from cessesionist groups. So these countries are going to divide up a country that has had not internal conflict for well over 100 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.168.26 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tags
I've added a set of cleanup tags. I believe the justification for these tags is obvious(1 eg, use of 'his "boss"', but please bring any points here for discussion. It might be quicker to say what is good here than all the problems. Verbal chat  22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this to only the "copy edit" tag as this was the only reason noted by the reviewer for not becoming a "good article". If you think you can help, you can do this copy editing (with British English, please). If not, please don't impede. --Лъчезар ☭ 共产主义万岁 ★ 06:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In my review I found all of the problems noted by the tags I added. This article is a poorly written mess that relies on poor sources and is unduly credulous. Verbal chat  07:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be based in part on a gross mis-reading of America's pluralistic, ethnically diverse society. He could be right, but I doubt it. Come next summer, if this article turns out to be right, it will be elevated in status... and if it's wrong, it's a candidate for speedy deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's highly doubtful that a review of yours can be objective given your bad personal attitude to the main author of this article (that is, me) which is obvious from your previous behaviour against me (sorry, no "good faith" can be assumed in your case, as much as one tries) for the last month, and hence the same attitude to anything I've written. I reverted your changes the same way as you reverted mine in the other article (the pro-NASA one, you know), and now I invite you to open a discussion about each of them and try to reach a consensus about them before applying them. --Лъчезар ☭ 共产主义万岁 ★ 06:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't resort to personal attacks and incivility. Each is rather self explanatory. The text needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications, it is mostly based on primary or other unreliable sources. This leads to neutrality problems - the tone is over accepting and unencyclopedic, and the language is informal in places ("his boss"), and needlessly fawning in others - justifying several other tags. It is full of peacocking and puffery. The article is almost entirely OR and SYNTH of unreliable and primary sources. The cleanup you agree with, an is similarly trivially justified. Verbal chat  10:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't attack you, it's you who that do what you do. I don't agree with your arguments. There are more than enough secondary sources, as has already been concluded. There are also many people who have contributed constructively to the article, but unfortunately you're not among them. As so the phrase "his boss", I'm open to suggestions how to replace it, but Panov is really a boss of Panarin. No "original" research exists here at all, so your accusation is purely speculative. (I don't like acronyms like "OR" or the strange "SYNTH" which means "synthesizer".) --Лъчезар ☭ 共产主义万岁 ★ 06:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, comparing this stuff with the well-documented space program is ridiculous. This is an article based on one guy's speculation, a guy who seemingly understands nothing about American society. The fact that such a looney crystal-ball article is even allowed to exist is really generous on the part of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You can ask your questions directly to Igor Panarin at Twitter now
The day before yesterday, Igor Panarin has opened a Twitter account (removed per BLP - he can join wikipedia and post this if he wishes) so you can now ask him directly in English (and he will answer you in English) your favourite questions, e.g. about Chinese being 53% of the population of San Francisco, on the U.S. breakup, the 11 September 2001 events, and even the NASA Apollo Moon landings, if you prefer ;-) --Лъчезар ☭ 共产主义万岁 ★ 06:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this is the contact information of a living person, and should be removed/deleted. It either violates the G11 in speedy delete (if authorized by that particular person) or personal info of undefined (if not authorized to present the info).  Also, it obviously falls into not being a reliable source if it is twitter, since it is self published thought without any checking.  We don't even know if it is the real person or someone (anyone) imposing him.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  08:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's he saying, that 53 percent of San Franciscans were born in China? Of course not. Maybe 53 percent of them have Chinese family names. But they're Americans. The idea that they would bear loyalty to China rather than to the U.S. shows how naive that author is (or how stupid he thinks his audience is). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I have raised the question of the appropriateness of this crystal-ball article, at ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for a merge
A redirect will be just fine. A WP:DUE appropriate entry on these speculations already exists on the destination article.Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary, I'll start the discussion. For the record, I third the call of The Anome and Simonm223 to merge an abbreviated version of this article into Igor Panarin, the article for its author. How many supporters are you looking for before it is simply merged? Wknight94 talk  18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I already did the redirect once. If there is a clear indication of consensus I will do so again.Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh...? Wknight94: This is not a poll or a majority vote. Simonm, the sheer number of sources and the large reception of the prediction mean that it is appropriate for it to have an article of its own. But also the fact that their is so much information in the article, much of that would be lost in a redirect WP:DUE is not a good reason to redirect or delete an article, its a good reason to improve it SpitfireTally-ho! 18:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is essentially a condensed version of the book itself. Is this Wikipedia or is it Reader's Digest? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'd like to see someone compile a list of third-party references to the subject of this article.  (I don't have time at the moment).  My guess is there are few.   Wknight94  talk  18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just telling someone else that articles should be about what other people (rs, etc) have to say about a subject. As it stands I think it should be a redirect with an abbreviated version in Panarin's article. As Bugs says, this isn't Reader's Digest. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So we redirect the article because no one has the time to find third party sources? There are already some in the article anyway, but I don't think its very constructive to redirect simply because no one has the time to improve it. Dougweller, this article is what someone else has to say on the subject, namely, Igor Panarin, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor who has made this his pet project has had plenty of time to find sources. There are a lot of footnotes, but a cursory glance suggests that many of them are intended to justify specific facts in the book, rather than talking about the book itself. Such as supporting the bogus claim that 53 percent of San Franciscans are "Chinese", based on counting names in the phone directory. Most of them are Americans with Chinese ancestry, which is not the same thing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

{Undent} So, to be clear, one user disagrees with redirect and everybody else agrees? Seems like consensus to me. Restoring redirect.Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Ideally, achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus." SpitfireTally-ho! 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in starting an edit war, so I'll let your edit stand for now, but the discussion should continue. So, Baseball Bugs: I'm seeing your point, but what I'm saying is that that's not a reason to redirect an entire article. If I went and vandalised an article you wouldn't delete the article, you'd undo my edit, likewise instead of redirecting this article someone needs to take the time to improve it. For sure, the article is currently biased, and it contains far to much information, but in my opinion these are reason to improve it, at the very least a good quality merge is in order, not a simple redirect, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the pet project of that one Bulgarian user, so the burden of improvement should be on him. No reason for anyone else to try to look for support for this wacky, fringe theory. If I have time this evening, I'll look through the 80-some citations and see how many of them actually refer to the book vs. merely being used by the editor to justify specific facts in the book. If it's the latter, it's junk. It's not wikipedia's job to do an author's footnoting for him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I found three so far: . And actually, is it even a book or just a web page?   Wknight94  talk  19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion for deletion and the decision was "keep". The article was split from the Igor Panarin article as it has become too long. To merge it back would be a bad idea. --Лъчезар ☭ 共产主义万岁 ★ 05:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. Cut section back due to UNDUE; horrible structure. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the article to at least reflect that it is one guy's prediction. I got overwhelmed trying to scale the article back though.  This article should be about two paragraphs long IMHO.  Maybe a full rewrite needs to be done in a subpage somewhere so we can all agree on it.  The ridiculous amount of primary source information is a blatant violation of WP:FRINGE.  And the balance is terrible.  The Wall Street Journal article mentions right in the second paragraph that the theory got little attention for its first 10 years - but this article doesn't mention anything about criticism until you're about 75% of the way to the bottom!  A perfect example: search for "Pozner" in the Wall Street Journal article - in the second mention, he dismisses Panarin's prediction.  Now search for the same name in this article - the only mention is him saying there is more anti-American sentiment now in Russia than in Soviet Russia.  What happened to Pozner's dismissal?!  There is Rogov's statement about Panarin's "crazy idea" but it doesn't even get a paragraph to itself - Panarin's defense takes up the whole second half of that paragraph.  Read WP:FRINGE folks - this article is a blatant "forum" for Panarin to not only give his theory but defend every bit of criticism presented in actual neutral sources like the WSJ.   Wknight94  talk  12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I put quotes around the "Chinese" stuff, because Igor is stating falsehoods and it needs to be made clear that it's his viewpoint, not to be confused with actual facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect per the consensus here and elsewhere. Verbal chat  12:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. And don't do that redirection vandalism anymore, please. Merge is one thing, loss of the entire contents (what your redirection actually does) is another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.141.25.26 06:54, 17 September 2009 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't accuse those you disagree with of committing vandalism. And sign your posts, whoever you are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that's the usual guy, operating from an IP, as it's in Bulgaria where he is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This means that you assume that there is only one Bulgarian who is interested in Igor Panarin! :) And what else the effective deletion of an article contents is? Note that that action was against your version – how can you agree with it then?! --Лъчезар ☭ 共产主义万岁 ★ 09:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is only one user, with a possible WP:COI and definite WP:OWN issues, against the redirect, and several for. I will therefore restore the redirect and request it be protected. Verbal chat  07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm, just a couple of points: firstly, one against many is not a consensus in favour of the many, and I also said that the redirect shouldn't be implemented, secondly, it seems a shame to keep on redirecting the page just when people start to work on it, at least give everyone a chance to improve the article before you confine it, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 07:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Everyone" is apparently me, and I actually prefer the redirect. But, anytime it is not a redirect, I am going to try to balance it per WP:NPOV and reduce the use of "unduly serving" self-published sources per WP:SELFPUB.  But of course, even that effort was reverted.  Лъчезар and 194.141.25.26, you can't expect people to work with you and help make the article palatable by insisting on the exact version that you want.  It's possible that helping me make the article less self-serving could save it, but WP:OWN violations make people want to take the easy way out and redirect it.  I don't blame them a bit.   Wknight94  talk  11:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
The redirect has now been protected. To remove the protection a consensus should be produced here. I would suggest that anyone that wants to restore the article please work on it in userspace, and then propose a move here once it has been fixed. Verbal</b> chat  08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, any further material for merging should be proposed at the other article talk page. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the owner of the article, of course. There is no owner. I was only the maintainer before you fired me from this role so brutally. But you aren't the owner either! Are you now the maintainer? Does you maintenance consist of deleting the entire contents? I agree with the other user that it's a shame that you did so so many times. But of course, I now flatter with fear that I will be banned from Wikipedia, forever, because your influence is so powerful here. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Do I need to knee before you begging for mercy? (P.S. My IP address is not the one you think it is.) --Лъчезар ☭ 共产主义万岁 ★ 10:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete?
The user who created this page and nurtured it left in a huff and has been inactive for nearly a year. Since this guy's prediction is obviously silly, and its notability was always questionable, does the article still need to exist? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article currently redirects to the Igor page, and the talk page can probably be deleted since it is no longer useful. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)