Talk:Golden billion

Your accusation of vandalism is offensive!

SergeyKurdakov, your privileged attitude is revolting. I saw that the Golden Billion article is worded in a very biased pro-Western manner. So I posted in the talk page my suggestion to make it slightly more neutral. There were no objections so I went ahead.

Your established user, LilianaUwU, reverted my change in an arbitrary manner with no justification, mention or notice on the talk page whatsoever. This action seems more like vandalism or an enlarged sense of entitlement.

What are your definitions of 'neutral' or vandalism'? Do all Wikipedia posts have to agree with the viewpoint of the US CIA?

I have no intention of arguing the merits of the theory with you one way or the other. Do not try to take the theory and put its words in my mouth.

There are plenty of places where the theory is used in a clear manner that is anti-colonial and not dependent on hidden cabals as the current wording implies. Would any such use or reference convince you? You seem committed to an anti-ethnic stance.

Neither of you want to address how to better word the article. Neither of you have even seen the problem nor offered any suggestion about how to fix the problem. I only wanted to make the article more neutral and sound less like an American propaganda piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.184.152 (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

reply to unsigned comment by 42.3.184.152 "Do all Wikipedia posts have to agree with the viewpoint of the US CIA?" you see Xenia Cherkaev which mentions Golden billion as a conspiracy theory is a lecturer in elite Russian University,Eliot Borenstein is Professor of Russian & Slavic Studies and Senior Academic Convenor for the Global Network at New York University - your point of alleged CIA affiliation of sources is not supported by any facts. "more neutral" - no, you try to make article biased according to your feelings and it's against rules. Likely you did not read not only references but also works by Kuzmich (Tsikunov), Sergey Kara Murza: Kuzmich explicitly mentions cabal, Kara Murza does not use the word but instead many times tries to use synonyms, cabal is even more widely used in many derivative texts.You also try to confuse well argued review of theory by academic writers with random mentions by some random authors. Rules recommend to use well argued sources and not to use your own agenda. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

You do not know me, do not dictate to me what my "feelings" are. I can easily produce academic references that do not treat the concept as a conspiracy theory. That many, as you put it random people, use this common concept differently is still valid for the definition of a term. The concept is a lens through which people can judge the behaviour of Western governments. That hardly matters, since a contrary presentation seems not to be allowed. Other topics on Wikipedia solidly support the American hegemony.

However insulting you maybe, at least you are willing to discuss the subject on the article's talk page. So you are an improvement over the established user, LilianaUwU, who was not.

Maybe I should have included a line stating that some people consider it a conspiracy theory and others do not. A great many parts can be edited in a manner allowing the reader to decide for themselves. However I was trying to make the most minimal change to the most slanted language. Is that a mistake, maybe, but it is not vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate act of destruction and I did no such thing! 42.3.184.152 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"I can easily produce academic references that do not treat the concept as a conspiracy theory." sure, the problem that being shallow propagandist concept - those papers will have only passing remarks. It just impossible to make a good case that is is about anticolonialism to which you try to push, it was never been about anticolonialism, it was always about to keep old soviet nomenclatura in controlling russian resources. And such sources as could be compared in open discussion. Consider a paper, which does not consider it as a conspiracy theory but also extensively uses false fabricated data - instead (as it happens since 1990s ) economies and cultures converge it keeps repeating false claims by Kara Murza, that russians are traditional society (which remnants disappeared already by 1950s, russians if anything have similar culture of other eastern european countries) or that developing countries keep getting poorer (while instead - after establishing of WTO and more free trade - growth of developing economies accelerated for past 30 years) while being academic -should be viewed on their merits. Or consider - Sergey Kara Murza always write about submitting to family opinion. Now -his own family went to him asking to stop writing his cheap propaganda. What Sergey Kara Murza did? He pushed his relatives down the stairs. So you might try to bring various academically looking fraudulent articles, but this won't make things any better: the concept was created by propagandists, using distorted and fabricated data, and even you try very hard - you won't whitewash the fact - that this is a conspiracy theory. So you might try to start to make your point in discussion. And I'm sure - in open free discussion you won't be able to push your case. So try to show your references SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

so (basing on similar discussions in Russian wikipedia article) in case some reference uses the concept but does not reveal anything about concept - then just listing it could not say anything useful about concept. That the concept is widely used in Russian speaking world is already in article. If there is a reference, which discusses in details and clearly proves your anticolonial political philosophy claim - then ok, but you cannot by yourself claim that it is a political philosophy basing on some mentions in some articles - because it is then your original research which is prohibited in Wikipedia. Write academic paper with detailed explanations and publish it, then it will be considered for inclusion. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So any response that you disagree with is propaganda or violently insane or original research. How convenient! You in the white Western world have set yourselves up as the arbiters of truth. I always thought the 'golden billion' theory was an overly simplistic way to interpret the corrupt actions of Western governments. There are enough other Wikipedia pages that might be called conspiracy theories about the developing world and I can speak as an eye witness. I have never been to Russia and am not from a developed western country either. Wikipedia is an American website and American views are shown. 42.3.184.152 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, that you are from asia is clear from your Hong Kong ip (maybe you are from mainland China using Hong Kong proxy). And Chinese view has one problem. There is single man - Xi, who thinks, that Marx is still right (while Marx, being great historical figure, is wrong on all accounts) - btw Sergey Kara Murza, being 'left' betrayed Marx by writing dirty condemning book. It's enough a change of just one man - and your opinion will change a lot. It will not be wikipedia, it will be new CCP which will make others comply. It's even more convenient, So - why waste time now. Let's wait for new leaders of CCP SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

conspiracy theory or political philosophy

This concept is not a conspiracy theory as much as a political philosophy. It is a way of analyzing the behaviour of Western governments. There is no sneaky hidden cabal here. Whether on agrees with the concept or not is another matter. I propose changing the wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.184.152 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I will make the change. 42.3.184.152 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My edit was abruptly reverted by LilianaUwU. This privileged user claimed that my edit was not neutral. I claim that the article is not neutral and describes the political concept in unnecessarily negative language. I posted a note on LilianaUwU's own page as requested. There has been no response. A debate about an article's outlook should be done on that article's 'talk page' and not on an individual's private page. I understand that Wikipedia tends to follow the US State department in its outlook and that I am not.

Let me explain my reasons for the edit more thoroughly:

Calling the ideas of others a conspiracy theory is very judgemental and biased. In some cases it is justified. However this concept is not far removed from other political theories. It doesn't depend on a belief in some secret agenda by some unknown cabal. White Western governments are not secret organisations and should be subject to criticism from the developing world. Instead the golden billion theory is a way of seeing the developed world as being selfish and exploitative. (I make no comment on whether or not the theory is justified or correct.) So I posted my suggestion to LilianaUwU's private page and waited. There was no response, so I made the minimal change.

There no suggestion of change to the substance, rather only to what Wikipedia calls the concept. If you have a reason to use the conspiracy label, please explain it to me. Otherwise I will reedit the page to reflect an actual neutral outlook. 42.3.184.152 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There are sources which are attached to definitions. Fact is - it's not your own opinion, which goes into articles, but references which are accepted as reputable sources. And references clearly state, that this is a conspiracy theory. West never had this theory, that were few Russian left propagandists which attached a presumed way of thinking to west. You them mention 'selfish' western governments without any proofs. While those who promote golden billion concept have a sort of justification as if west lacks resources for this it logically follows for them it should be selfish. But west does not lack resources. It's just two guys Kara Mursa and Kuzmich suggested, that if consumption grows then there are immediate problems. These are just private opinions, which a) not common in West (no one really discusses such things), after initial questions of possible lack of resources were asked 50 years ago b) not common due to understanding how really big are resources of metals etc (see references for details).

So, you might have your opinion, but if you provide reliable sources of your statements - it could be considered, but otherwise - no need to vandalize an article. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This is a common concept, an article is needed. Thus it's not a candidate for speedy at all! Paranoid 23:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the speedy--but still think it's biased. Sorry. Terrace4 23:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 06:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Golden billion → The golden billion – to be more consistent with the rules of the English grammar (the term seems to be a direct translation from Russian) Crocodealer 09:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose: no need for "the" in title. Thumbelina 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I'm not completely sure whether the definite article must be used here. I'm not a native English speaker, so native speakers are invited to comment.

See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)

Crocodealer 10:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relative popularity in Russian and English

online search for the terms "gold billion" or "golden billion" suggest that the term is little known in the English-speaking world - a simple comparison of Google searches for "golden billion" and "золотой миллиард" shows that this is not quite true (there are more instances in English). Dimawik (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Golden billion. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070501073906/http://eng.globalaffairs.ru:80/region-ecology/numbers/11/915.html to http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/region-ecology/numbers/11/915.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 04:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Which countries are in the "Golden Billion"?

Presumably the countries in the so-called "Global Billion" are the richest countries in the World - per capita. Let's go through them - Ranked by Population:

European Union - 447 Million;

United States - 334 Million (781 Million Cumulative);

Japan - 125 Million (906 Million);

United Kingdom - 67 Million (973 Million);

Gulf Cooperation Council - 57 Million (1.030 Billion);

South Korea - 51 Million (1.085 Billion);

Canada - 40 Million (1.125 Billion);

Australia - 26 Million (1.151 Billion);

Taiwan - 23 Million (1.174 Billion);

Switzerland - 9 Million (1.183 Billion);

Israel - 10 Million (1.193 Billion);

Singapore - 5 Million (1.198 Billion);

Norway - 5 Million (1.203 Billion);

New Zealand - 5 Million (1.208 Billion).

Essentially it's the Top 50 Countries by GDP Per Capita and it's about 1.2 Billion people now.

When this theory was first posited 30+ years ago it would have been about 1 Billion people.

Some might quibble with including the GCC (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Oman & Kuwait) - but these are amongst the Top 50 Countries in the World Per Capita and they are integral to supplying energy (oil & gas) to the "Golden Billion" - especially Europe, Japan & South Korea. Perhaps that's why there are so many large military bases in the GCC. There are other smaller countries of under 1 million population - mainly in Europe but including Bahamas, Brunei as well that slot into the richest countries as well. They are somewhat more peripheral - but wasn't FTX based in the Bahamas?

As you can see - over 900 Million are based in Europe & North America with about 300 Million spread around the rest of the world - East Asia, Oceania & Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:208F:9135:1D35:166:8F8D:B451 (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Some observation on the history of the term

It should not go into article, but some interesting facts. While Tsikunov/Kuzmich articles did not contain any serious sources (rather invented ones from UN which never existed), Sergey Kara Murza in article http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000698/index.shtml (in Russian) found one author in the west, who indeed, spoke about one billion people. It's David Pimentel. I did not find his exact work from 1987 (because Kara Murza did not provide reference or name of the article and in 1987 Pimentel seems not to write anything about one billion people), but found another work. From 2010 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225689329_Will_Limited_Land_Water_and_Energy_Control_Human_Population_Numbers_in_the_Future where Pimentel 'computes' that optimal population should be 2 billion people. He computes it on the base of available land. And here is a funny part. He states, that each person needs 1 hectare of land to produce energy to live. Let's take American. American consumes 12 kWh of electricity per day. With electrification all other non electric needs could be covered by 40 kWh per day (likely less, probably around 25 kWh). Now, current solar panels on the market produce 1 kWh/m2 per day, due to need to overbuild to compensate solar fluctuation it should be 60 meters of solar panels, but even if one needs 3 times overbuild (with that overbuild one does not need external connections to the world to exchange energy at all) it's 120 meters. But hectare is 10000 meters. So Pimentel just fooled everybody with this article. His trick (which is not in the article, but in his other works) that he intended to produce electricity using old conventional power plants with 30% efficiency from.... biofuels. With that approach - he could get even less 'desired' people. Even assuming his approach 0.5 ha for food and that extra 1 ha for energy we already see - it's not 2 billion people, but 6 billion people. But ... let's take rich Netherlands - they extensively use modern greenhouses. And greenhouse is 5-12 times more efficient depending on crop. In fact it's even possible to grow wheat in vertical farms with 23-49 more efficiency (up to 600 times in one german publication). So figure out - what the possible optimal population might be. is it 5*6 = 30 billion people or 10*6 = 60 billion people, or maybe 600*6=3.6 trillion people?

so even if there was one particular person with calculations which Kara Murza tried to find on the west (there are somewhat more, but again not very many such 'researches') their calculations were bogus from the start. Somehow professor of chemistry (which Kara Murza once was) did not see elementary calculus problems in Pimentel work (otherwise he was extensively criticized for his 'biofuel' calculations) SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not 1 billion elites, it's one billion Westerners

this wikipedia entry is entirely propaganda. Putin is very clear, as are even the cited sources: the Golden Billion refers to the populations of NATO countries (US allies).

It's not some idea about a cabal of a billion elites. Putin knows that the "billion people" include plenty of proletarian and peasant and just regular folks with Western nation citizenship.

Just because NPR et al, in response to the "full scale invasion of Ukraine" calls it a conspiracy theory, doesnt mean that the theory is more absurd/ less plausible than other analyses.

In fact, the golden billion is a conspiracy theory in the way that Dr Michael Parenti (noted anti-imperialist) defends conspiracy theory: its a conspiracy analysis. Specifically, the golden billion is a reference to Western/NATO imperialism and neo-colonialism.

Wikipedia editors should NOT tolerate this website becoming a host for Ukranian and/or NATO war propaganda. Regardless of the fact that the "reputable sources" have completely debased themselves and lost nearly all credibility in their fascistic participation in the New Cold War. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:F553:2707:FA3A:2F2B (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

you are wrong on context of use. Russians do understand what Putin means when he uses the term, you might see it from russian article by Sergey Kara Murza (main author who spread the theory) where he explains Putin's take https://vnnews.ru/istoki-zolotogo-milliarda/?ysclid=lrvost3zmi642926502 (get google translate). Now if it's conspiracy theory it's not only NPR. If it is really good theory? Initially both Tsikunov and Kara Murza used forged sources, or severely altered facts from authors which they used as a base for their conclusions. It's a clear indication. So if you are conspiracy theorist yourself it does not mean that what you try to disseminate is not a conspiracy theory SergeyKurdakov (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

and "It's not some idea about a cabal of a billion elites. Putin knows that the "billion people" include plenty of proletarian and peasant and just regular folks with Western nation citizenship." is your own original 'research'. Both Tsikunov and Sergey Kara Murza included 'western proletariat and peasants" into Golden billion category, for them all citizens of western countries benefit from alleged system. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

US State department paper with details on the Golden Billion

US State department issued paper on Russia with more English language details about Golden Billion conspiracy theory https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/GEC-Special-Report-More-than-a-Century-of-Antisemitism.pdf Probably an article could be extended with this information SergeyKurdakov (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you certain “conspiracy theory” is the correct term?

Who thinks it is a “conspiracy theory” that “the elites” (that is, the people with the most money and power) “pull strings” in an attempt to help the richest & most powerful people (that is, themselves) continue gaining wealth & power, at the expense of the rest of humanity?

This seems to me to be exceedingly obvious. Indeed, such a sentiment is probably one of the few things that both American leftists and American conservatives would agree upon. How is this so different from Bernie Sanders’s railing against the top 1% ?

Are you sure you are not calling it a “conspiracy theory” merely because it is popular in Russia and has been on the lips of Vladimir Putin ? It seems to me, that, only as an outgrowth of intense & even hysterical Russophobia, so entrenched and incuriously accepted as just & righteous in the West, would anybody frame this wholly uncontroversial assessment to be a “conspiracy theory.” It appears that many people, particularly those who have fallen deep into progressivism, have forgotten what “conspiracy theories” are, and now make use of the term at whim as a way to dignify dismissing out-of-hand any idea or viewpoint which they do not like or which has been voiced by someone whom they have deemed to hold the incorrect political opinions (that is, opinions that are not sufficiently progressive). Virtue Rewarded Richardson (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You should start from original authors. It's not about related concepts but the way resource concerns were put down. Tsikunov claimed, that the world would end as a prison for all by early 2000s by apparent exhaustion of resources, and that the plan to make it to happen was in UNESCO documents (which is of cause not true, UNESCO is educational branch of UN and is not concerned with planning to end the free world). so false documents, false accusations of UNESCO to draft plans to end free world. Kara Murza also assembled documents and claimed they constitute a clear plan to end the world, while in no cited documents there was a hint of the actual plan. So related western concepts are their concepts about resources, not that those concerns are real plan to end the world as a prison for all outside 'few chosen' as envisioned by either Tsikunov or Kara Murza SergeyKurdakov (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Online (on reddit) and here in edits appear complains that Tosno factory story and other old stories were deleted

there was an attempt to bring them back, some details could be found on user discussion page after revert User_talk:2A00:1028:96CB:F556:6581:E0BD:5623:85C8 the background is this: before active start of push of this concept to the world by Russian authorities it was known in Russia, that Tsikunov/Kara Murza stories are fabricated, but 'conspiracy theory' is relatively rarely used phrase in Russian, so it was not called as such. Also western auditory did not know much details and there were no major publications. Now they exist and have a clear label for a golden billion - a conspiracy theory. Due to this change in how well known this term in the world, the article also evolved (with a big lag, due to lack of English speaking contributors). Still propaganda efforts (twitter influencers, Russian embassies abroad) is now focused to prove that it's 'commonly used word by russians (actually there are two groups or Russians - one uses Golden Billion as way to joke on 'slow guys' because it's really funny theory (and this group is larger on the internet, based on my searches on twitter/reddit, but it's only personal opinion), another uses in pure conspiratorial way, both use the term infrequently. and that it is a valid theory of 'exploitation'. It would be nice if some major author would cover particular details of the theory, because, as anyone can see here on discussion page - there are a lot of questions, which are valid, given lack of details for public. That the page is relatively empty is sad, and somehow initial text which was written by (I suppose) qualified propagandist with multiple issues was long retained here and still some parts try to resurface. So efforts to either translate more from Russian wikipedia page, and even to write detailed academic texts which could be used in article are important. It's not clear for how long Russian authorities will keep pushing the term onto world public (and their aim is clear - conspiracy theories are easy ways to destroy adversary or the West), but more details will serve to avoid major harm. Anyway, in order not to hide details - there was a discussion about changes to the page. I was not cool enough, but anyway, it's quite possible that demagogic attacks will be happening now, in future if I see the attack, the discussion will be here, not on user page. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

History of use as an ideological weapon

Here are some observations which possibly could be formatted and added to article, because it adds a context - why such and old conspiracy theory is used and is it still popular in Russia? it might also reveal why the related article content had such an uneven road. the Golden billion is not new concept, at had a peak of popularity upon publication by S Kara Murza, but largely had lost any relevance for public by mid 2000s. In 2004 an Orange revolution happened in Ukraine, and russian political technologists started to assemble material to work with as propaganda talking points. The leading candidates in 00s though were theories by Parshev (S Kara Murza colleague in patriotic press), and then again, by mid 10s the concept of the Golden billion was almost forgotten (btw Parshev's theories were also destroyed by counterarguments, so it won't be used later). in 2000s some propagandist added his own research on the concept here and because it was not really dangerous for the public and had a context how russian propagandists write, it largerly remained as it was initially put. Now we come to current times.

The first push of Golden billion in recent times was by Putin at Davos speech in January 2021. The use was in pretty conspiratorial way and not as some try to claim 'population of developed countries' it was an allergedly dark western concept of which Putin is aware and warns against. After that the use of term has skyrocketed by various associates - Patrushev, Lavrov etc (see refs in https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/GEC-Special-Report-More-than-a-Century-of-Antisemitism.pdf ). Russian TV regularly has talk shows where Golden billion is slammed hard (probably on daily basis - I do not watch TV, but at times I passed via working tv - 1/2 of the time the content was about golden billion - so it's pretty intense). at this point a strategy is to both pretend that it's a popular saying (which died two times by natural means) and has a conspiratorial meaning. The part with popular saying allows to push use of the term wider and then to switch to more conspiratorial meaning, when needed. In sum. No - it is not a popular saying, probably it was at some point in late 90s, currently it's purely propaganda phenomenon, initiated by Putin in 2021 SergeyKurdakov (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

On paragraph on application to invasion to Ukraine

Hi Theresius you added back deleted paragraph. As I could understand Heyallkatehere it was deleted due to paragraph contains direct propaganda by Russian officials, while they really did say so, a neutral paragraph might look like it is in https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/GEC-Special-Report-More-than-a-Century-of-Antisemitism.pdf "Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian leaders, including President Vladimir Putin,165 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov,166 Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitri Medvedev,167 the Council’s Secretary Nikolai Patrushev,168 and the Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Sergey Naryshkin,169 consistently170 promoted the so-called “Golden Billion” conspiracy theory attempting to deflect the blame for the war against Ukraine by falsely portraying Russia as the victim of a Western plot." SergeyKurdakov (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I think adding a citation to the state department website is fine – but it's problematic to suggest that wikipedia articles can't cite Russian news sources as example of Russian officials' discursive practices [!]. The cited news items are not presented as objective fact (i.e., the "Golden Billion" really is threatening Russia), but as examples of what highranking Russian officials have said. So it seems reasonable to me to roll back Heyallkatehere's edut.

For balance, I suggest combining the passage to incorporate both Russian media and US state department sources. Theresius (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, in the US State Dep't document, the "Golden Billion" is explicitly marked as an antisemitic theory. As I understand it, this isn't quite right either – the theory is the a billion of the richest people control the world's resources, not that these people are necessarily Jewish. So citing the US State Dep't document also seems biased. Theresius (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks Heyallkatehere and Theresius so, let it be as it is now. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

about conclusion of State Department paper: they mention, that the theory is disseminated in Arab world (true, there are multiple recent publications in Arab countries papers in English and in Arabic), in social web Arabic speaking users directly connect sionizm and the Golden billion, so while it was not true till a new 2021, it has connections to antisemitism as of now SergeyKurdakov (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Heyallkatehere and Theresius I drop my objection to paragraph, that it contains direct propaganda, because it's kind of known discourse now.

So if you both agree we could remove neutrality notice, but probably still retain call for improvement (not necessary though, in my opinion). Also I made some edits to Details section, if any short opinions - if it become better or worse are welcome SergeyKurdakov (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits by me - Talk before reverting, please!

From what I know, I may have accidentally violated wp:synth, if I have, here is the place to tell me, and we can resolve it. Heyallkatehere (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

on the reference to New World Order and connection to antisemitism. Sergey Kara Murza explicitly reference the New World Order the theory in his initial article on the Golden billion. The State department paper (a reliable source, which might have it's own bias, still a reliable source which could be cited) connects the two (via those mentions of the New World order and also Lavrov antisemitic attacks and the use of the Golden billion theory at the same time, also direct efforts to spread the Golden billion theory in arabic world, where consumers of information readily connect the Golden billion and sionism). The connection in Russian review articles of concept is missing except for article by Xenia Cherkaev which places the Golden billion theory along the New World order, but does not say that they are directly connected. The problem here is that the works by Sergey Kara Murza were reviewed in late 90s and early 2000s and most references are gone by now, but it's probable, that antisemitism and the Golden billion were connected in Russian language sources too as Russian antisemites and main proponents of the Golden billion theory are same persons. So there seems no wp:synth error as such, but connection to antisemitism is rather a side feature of the concept of the Golden billion, antisemitism in Russia, after most jews immigrated is rather weak (https://meduza.io/feature/2023/09/12/putin-antisemit) majority of sources point just to the 'West' as a main beneficiary of alleged conspiracy. Because the article is rather short, most sources were gone long ago, probably connection to antisemitism should remain in cited sources, but not in the article itself not because it's incorrect, but rather because even State department report mentions a Golden billion as not as main antisemitic theory, but as accompanying theory to antisemitic efforts of russian propaganda. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

there is also https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1675133/FULLTEXT02 paper which connects old theory of Elders of Zion and major of the new conspiracy theories, then again it is just more in a a way 'theories' which are used together, rather than directly connected.

in Plots Against Russia Conspiracy And Fantasy After Socialism Eliot Borenstein reviews Protocols of Elders of Zion and the Golden billion and shows that many conspiracy theories of the post Soviet period are intermingled and mutated to acquire features of similar theories. They mutation of multiple conspiracy theories in the hands of propagandists is really happening, but then again, the Golden billion theory is mainly about attempts to control resources for the benefit of already developed countries, if those evil elites also include Jews or not - is a side story.

Overall, it looks like it would be right to mention that propagandists intentinally mutate different theories as per Eliot Borenstein, turning 'the Golden billion' in either antisemitic theory or just a vague moniker for 'population of western countries' but as all those mutations are not the main theme of the theory itself, that might not be mentioned as a main feature of the theory itself. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Finally found one example of use of the Golden billion by antisemites from a defunct link http://www.moskvam.ru/2000/03/panarin.htm which is referenced https://idmedina.ru/books/islamic/?933#_ftn4 , "Alexander Panarin (a Russian conservative philosopher) noted: “Today, the role of the “chosen people” is played by the “golden billion”, which has monopolized the right to enter the saving post-industrial future. The archaic principle of chosenness, which continues to weigh heavily on the Jewish consciousness, pushes towards attempts at a separate conspiracy with the American bearers of “victorious globalism” - behind the backs of other nations.”

so connection of antisemitism and the Golden billion has references. Just a choice to mention it is on author of the page. You choose... SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Finally got what you asked about. Sorry for long details on unrelated topic.

So your warning was about reasons why Patrushev announced the details. Yes - there are no details in sources (and no comments from other authoritative sources, anyone could only guess why exactly at this time), second - due to Putin started all the story anew with Golden billion in 2021 (with occasional Lavrov remarks in meanwhile before Patrushev article), the push with golden billion by Patrushev might be response to world reactions or might not be (at least his previous outbursts like "Madeline Albright wanted to separate Siberia from Russia" never had apparent causing reason behind. Anyway it was reverted without discussion by Theresius it's how I got what you were talking about. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also this article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists – https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/the-russian-biological-weapons-program-in-2022/ – about how the Russian bioweapons program is influenced by the dream of creating "genetic weapons" that would selectively target different ethnic populations. (Note btw, not just Jews.)

The Golden Billion comes up here too. The article traces the genetic weapons program in its current instantiation to a 2006 book by Yuri Bobylov, The Genetic bomb: Secret scenarios of bioterrorism, printed by a publishing house allegedly controlled by the Russian military, police, and the FSB. While Russian leadership typically portrays itself as fighting against this conspiracy,

"In Bobylov’s book and subsequent articles, this term [Golden Billion] is turned upside down; he encouraged the use of genetic weapons as the main weapon in world genocidal wars to reach the promised land of "the golden billion." Not surprisingly, Bobylov’s book is full of racist sentiments, admiration for Nazism, and respect for individual Nazis like the renowned zoologist Konrad Lorenz. As Bobylov wrote in 2018: "Military-oriented science reaches the peak of its development when it is the science of life that becomes the science of death and, accordingly, the most important means of war. Civilization on Earth is now in the stage of a deadly crisis. The world urgently needs world genocidal wars for further harmonious development."

What makes Bobylov a remarkable figure is his background and how he was treated. Bobylov had previously worked for several different government agencies and been a staff member of the powerful Military-Industrial Commission (VPK). He knew about the work supervised by Lt. Gen. Valentin Evstigneev, who was the former head of the 15th Directorate of the Soviet General Staff, which was responsible for the Soviet biological weapons program. According to Bobylov, they had a personal conversation in 2007, in which Evstigneev assured him of the superiority of biological warfare, compared to other methods of warfare. Belye Alvy—a publishing house allegedly controlled by the Russian military, police, and the FSB – was responsible for printing Bobylov’s book. It is therefore safe to say that the Russian government tacitly supported Bobylov’s arguments."

Putin and other Russian state leaders quickly pick up these ideas -- insinuating the foreign powers are busy creating genetic weapons, they insist that Russia needs some genetic weapons of its own. In a 2015 speech to the Federation Council Mikhail Kovalchuk, president of the Kurchatov institute and Putin's close personal friend

"essentially repeated several of the key messages from Bobylov’s book, painting a dire picture of humanity’s future due to population growth and dwindling resources. Unless the human race was brought down to a sustainable level ("the golden billion") it was doomed. If the Russian state was to survive, it therefore had to employ new technology, including genetic engineering. He predicted that it would soon be possible to develop targeted medicine, but also genetic weapons that could strike specific ethnic groups as a weapon of mass destruction. Kovalchuk also warned that the global elite, overseen by the United States, was developing a genetically edited caste of laboring “servant people” who would eat little, not think, and only reproduce on command." Theresius (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

oh, apologies! I think I am totally lost on this thread. I thought SergeyKurdakov was writing to me, but were you actually writing to Heyallkatehere?

Yes, I reverted Heyallkatehere's edit because the new source was introduced to replace "Top Russian official blasts Anglo-Saxon doctrine of 'select few entitled to prosperity'". TASS. Retrieved 2024-03-03." was off topic. It dealt with forcibly displaced Ukrainian children, not with Patrushev's claims abut the Golden Billion.

I apologize for my sloppiness here in the comments section, it's my first time here Theresius (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Heyallkatehere

I reverted your edit because the new source that you introduced to replace this one: ["Top Russian official blasts Anglo-Saxon doctrine of 'select few entitled to prosperity'". TASS. Retrieved 2024-03-03."] was off topic. It dealt with forcibly displaced Ukrainian children, not with Patrushev's claims abut the Golden Billion.

Theresius (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Theresius, it appears there's been a misunderstanding. I asked to talk about such revisions first, prior to undoing an edit, thanks! Heyallkatehere (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What's there to talk about? You added a source that had nothing to do with the topic of the article, deleted a source that did. I reverted, end of story. Theresius (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see what the misunderstanding was. I didn't mean to delete any sources, only to add the new one.

What I wrote in regards to forcibly displaced children isn't unrelated, though. He said "hiding their actions behind the human rights, freedom and democracy rhetoric"

I added the context that this came directly after they were accused of human rights violations, and that said quote is a response to that allegation. Heyallkatehere (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

oh, I see. that makes sense.

I support adding the source about human rights violations, that's very reasonable.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding your intention. Theresius (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Some new Golden billion related Putin citations

In interview to Kiselev on Russian TV on Mar 13, 2024 Putin says: (from trascript on unofficial copy of interview on propaganda channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNEFCFkdmF4 )

"Golden billion...they have been accustomed for centuries to fill their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money, but they must understand that the Vampire Ball ends" SergeyKurdakov (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely baseless

From what I've gleaned off this article, it sounds similar to the dependency theory of international relations. It should be analyzed more objectively, its believers more thoroughly studied than just brushing them off as quirky stupid conspiracy theorists who should watch more Western media to know the truth about the world. Shoshin000 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

S Kara Murza (second founder of concept) cites dependency theory in his works multiple times and it's influence is apparent. But the theory in article is different, it is not that there is somehow happening uneven exchange (btw after WW1 Europeans and Americans protected their markets and tried to substitute Latin American goods, so it was natural, that prices of Argentinian wheat/meat was lower (which on of initial author of dependency theory studied) - indeed in 20s there were policies which now would be called anti-competitive practices, after WW2 Europians and US agreed to avoid such practices in Breton Woods accords and later WTO), but about new (but not specified) evil policies which were introduced after Club of Rome report Limits to growth (both Kuzmich and S Kara Murza refer to it) and writings of David Pimentel (S Kara Murza reference). SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Some new publications, discussing use of term by Russian officials

https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifri_laruelle_russia_ideology_march2024.pdf https://sh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1846696/FULLTEXT01.pdf SergeyKurdakov (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Counter arguments

The counter research cititations are not a direct response to the Golden billion thesis, its a personal point of view push from the looks of it. You cant disapprove something by mixing together some stats all who dont address the Russian thesis, it also doesnt proof anything if the technology is there but no political will by Advanced countries and other implications for example.--Crossswords (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote many long replies, but because there were no responses, ok. Deleted all. So the question. Which exactly "some stats all who dont address the Russian thesis"? SergeyKurdakov (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I was too emotional, but it helped me to overcome my aversion to edit main text of the article due to felt to be poor English language skills. Emotions, though, could be explained that the article was for years essentially incorrect and there was a lot of attempted vandalism, somehow I attributed malicious revert (revert of no ref notice on essentially incorrect text in the article which was in the article) to topic starter. My apologizes for any inconveniences, but except for a lot of comment text I seemed to be within rules. Now I think I corrected main theme of the article to what I wanted to look as to be the correct view of the conspiracy theory (from references). If there are any other suggestions, I look forward to listen to them (as seems there are few people who browsed all Kara-Murza books for details and at the same time have skills to edit English wikipedia) SergeyKurdakov (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Due to online references anyone on English wikipedia can launch Google translate and then search for the word 'Golden' in Kara-Murza texts. They could also do the same with Tsikunov texts. Note though: while Tsikunov writes conspiratorial texts they are quite straightforward. Kara-Murza, instead, for some reason, frequently uses indirect speech and confusing phrases (like claiming everywhere that 'Golden billion' is Western concept and not his own) SergeyKurdakov (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I edited issue template to directly lead to the topic of discussion. So this issue is visible on wiki page (other issues do not interfere with visibility of issue). But as it stalled for a while, if no interest will be expressed on this issue for some more time, then the issue will reach stalled status and will be removed. Also it's still unclear which links do not address the thesis of Russian authorsSergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of sources for Tsikunov

To overview thoughts of Tsikunov, because without Tsikunov the coverage would be half complete, I used sources

https://traditio.wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82:%D0%90.%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87:%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B8_%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA and https://kadet.ru/library/public/kuzmich.htm

while these are random links, https://traditio.wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82:%D0%90.%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87:%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B8_%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA link is used as a source in https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/GEC-Special-Report-More-than-a-Century-of-Antisemitism.pdf

I verified the authenticity of text of both links via search for fragments at known Tsikunov book, which assembled all of his articles: https://books.google.ru/books/about/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2.html?id=loPsAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y and both sources match fragments (as all sources just assemble the same few articles by Tsikunov), so I would consider these sources to be reliable in the sense that they actually represent what Tsikunov wrote. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion: On non neutrality status of the page, antisemitic tropes theme remains unsolved, let's close it.

Here Talk:Golden_billion#On_paragraph_on_application_to_invasion_to_Ukraine two issues were raised 1. About citation of Patrushev 2. Not quite substantiated mention of antisemitic tropes in Golden billion thesis

On Patrushev citation in section Application to invasion of Ukraine, due to citation of the phrase by multiple sources elsewhere it's not controversial to include, so I dropped my objection and I think that could be closed.

On antisemitic tropes: the topic is still controversial: on one hand, the theory was supported by antisemites (elsewhere in discussion Talk:Golden_billion#Recent_edits_by_me_-_Talk_before_reverting,_please! Russian antisemitic philosopher Alexander Panarin supported it, Arab proponents of theory frequently mention the Golden billion along with zionism, but as it's clear from current article text, originally Tsikunov had no specifically antisemitic intentions, Kara-Murza just links ideas of Tsikunov to New World Order conspiracy theory, so sources might refer to antisemitic themes in the theory, but it's relation to theory is quite weak. So solution should be found - either retain direct mention of antisemitic tropes in article or remove them. After that the non neutrality header could be removed.

Opinions are requested to resolve the issue.

a ping to Heyallkatehere and Theresius as those who participated in discussion, but I hope issue might be resolved by other editors. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

there is though another issue, objection of Theresius of inclusion of opinion on when Patrushev made his statement, to my current view it's correctly made mention, but other opinions are welcomed. Non neutrality notice could not remain indefinitely SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection. I think it's fine as is. Theresius (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should drop the non-neutrality notice. I looked at the article again, and I think it's fine. I might go through and tweak some of the language to take out the flame (like in such statements as "He also pretends that he knows," etc.) But I have no reservations about the content.

About anti-semitism: the golden billion theory itself is not antisemtic. It is framed in terms of class, not race -- this is one of the things that makes it so powerful. On the other hand, like other theories of the new world order, it does get picked up and read in nationalist/ethnic terms. Perhaps we can add a section about this, it people find it relevant. On the latter point, we can add this academic citation:

Rakopoulos, Theodoros. 2018. “Show Me the Money: Conspiracy Theories and Distant Wealth.” History and Anthropology 29 (3): 376–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2018.1458723. Theresius (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

On pretends that he knows. So Kara-Murza says indirectly "It seems our economists understand the fact, that the population will decline by two thirds due to Western policies, but keep silent on it and also pretend that Russia is coming to Golden billion club". So here Kara-Murza indirectly says, that he knows for sure, that decline would occure. Because I do not know, how to express indirect speech, I used this type of phrase. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

when you are done, please remove main (and probably secondary notice for a lack of discussion there) notice. As Heyallkatehere had not any different objections. And I also have no objections on your attitude to inclusion of antisemitism or any other objections being mentioned previously SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your ever diligent work, Sergey! Heyallkatehere (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and it was your bold removal of misleading content which resulted in improvement of the article. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I fixed all the citations, adding archival links, translating article titles - There was a UN News article I found the english version of. Heyallkatehere (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought to do it later, many thanks for your effort SergeyKurdakov (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)