This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Igor Panarin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Igor Panarin was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Igor Panarin was split to Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010 on 22 May 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
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
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)
Does anyone have a source stating Panarin's birthdate? I have looked and found none. - electric Rush | 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)
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)
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)
(reset) No problem; I'm sure this information is in some source somewhere. - down load | sign! 22:48, 10 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
So, go for the violator-recidivist, and... Happy April Fools' Day! :) Лъчезар ( talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
This article has met the requirements, and is now a good article.
However, no article is perfect, and I do have some suggestions for improving the article.
Keep up the good work! -- Sauronjim ( talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Igor Panarin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Igor Panarin was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Igor Panarin was split to Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010 on 22 May 2009. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
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
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)
Does anyone have a source stating Panarin's birthdate? I have looked and found none. - electric Rush | 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)
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)
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)
(reset) No problem; I'm sure this information is in some source somewhere. - down load | sign! 22:48, 10 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
So, go for the violator-recidivist, and... Happy April Fools' Day! :) Лъчезар ( talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
This article has met the requirements, and is now a good article.
However, no article is perfect, and I do have some suggestions for improving the article.
Keep up the good work! -- Sauronjim ( talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)