| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrei Amalrik 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The sentence "He also failed to predict that he himself would not survive 1980" is fairly ridiculous. It seems unfair to call the inability to predict one's own death a "failure" and isn't really relevant to the text, is it?Kilkeel (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Kilkeel[reply]
Problem
That is so weird, I don't know if this is a bug or intentional, here is what happened:
Question
Is wikipedia that intutive? Is this an unintentional bug (a very useful bug, I might add) or was this intended?
Theory
Computer programs (particuarly wikipedia and open source in general) are similar to evolution: Like evoution, in computer programming, some bugs (traits/mutations) are found to be useful, but most traits are discarded, and only the strongest survive.
Occasionally there is a genetic defect which is accidental, but it is so useful, that despite the "defect" being cast away, it survives and florishes.
I am sure there is an acedemic article about this.
Answer? (later)
Is there somekind of template embedded in either the Andrei Amalrik and/or Predictions of Soviet collapse pages? I think there maybe a template in either the Andrei Amalrik and/or Predictions of Soviet collapse pages.
I think I may have actually created this redirect, :) without really knowing the usefulness of this function/power.Odessaukrain 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Andrei Amalrik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is impressively biased against the author. Between citing the guy that called his predictions "accidents" while not including anything other writers have said of his achievements, mentioning a 7-year gap between his predictions and the real thing like that's a failure and not an award-deserving prediction, and the hilarious "failed to predict his own death" part that luckily was spotted and removed by some editors in the first topic above, this article at times feels almost hostile against Amalrik. I have begun adding notes to other sources about him that show different points of view, and i invite more editors to do the same. YuriNikolai (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
