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 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 in based on 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)