Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)

Untitled

This talk page is not a place to argue about Fomenko's ideas. It is a place to discuss this article. If you have specific changes to propose to the article, please propose them.

Brave John Kenney

John - how very convient for the mainstream. You take the blame for wiping out some solid gold pro & contra remarks while openly acknowledging having never read the works of remarkable scientist! Bravo! I would gladly submit changes to this article in hope that damage controllers do not overstep NPOV rules. Naturally, Dr Fomenko (minority view) is not welcome by the mainstream (majority view). But how fare is the article that on one hand indulges into detailed presentations of anti-Fomenko points of view and on the other hand squashes pro-Fomenko suggestions or facts in the bud. Apart from question of gagging Poggio a question of limiting 'power' of John may also be asked, right? Meet you on the article page.18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Poggio - this is not the place for "pro and contra arguments" about Fomenko. It is the place for discussing the content of the article. You have not done this, and so far as I can tell, have never done this. This is not a web forum, nor is it a place to expound on Fomenko's view. john k 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Conservator

To try to set this talk page in the proper light, I find that I have no idea what this means:

The vast majority of archaeologists, conservators, and other experts dispute Fomenko's rejection of scientific dating methods.

What is a "conservator"? john k 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean someone trained in museum work, e.g. preventing corrosion of metal artifacts, and various skills overlapping with archaeological lab work. Jacob Haller 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Conservator (museum) redirects to Curator. I don't think "curator" counts as a proper expert profession, though, does it? john k 18:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I don't have the necessary expertise. However, I'm not sure why their conservatorial expertise, as opposed to the archaeological training many also have, is important here. Since we are talking about dating methods, it's the archaeologists and those physicists involved in the field... Jacob Haller 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Should we say that, then? "Archaeologists, physicists, and other experts"? john k 19:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "Archaeologists, physicists, conservators, and other experts" would be more appropriate. As someone who has worked for museums and has archaeological field experience, I do have relevant experience. Artifact Conservators are more than simply 'artifact :::::::::maintenance workers' as it were. To do their jobs properly they need to become specialists in the physical structure of artifacts - their materials, lifecycles, chemistry, &c. As a result their opinions on the reliability of the various archaeological dating techniques are directly relevant. Put it this way. After an archaeologist digs something out of the ground, it gets cleaned, stored, and eventually (hopefully), makes its way to a museum. After that, unless it's put on display (which most artifacts aren't) the people who spend the most time with/on those artifacts are the material culture specialists/conservators. Hope this helps! --Dunraven 21:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the issue more that conservators are a type of archaeologist? I don't think anyone was suggesting a lack of expertise, simply that the job is a subset of the broader field of archaeology. john k 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They may indeed be what was suggested...it doesn't read that way to me, but I could very well be misinterpreting things. Regardless, it is incorrect to assert that conservators are a 'type' of archaeologist. That simply isn't true. Conservation is it's own field with it's own programs and degrees. The two fields are certainly related in that they work together, but they simply are not the same, either in function or in training.

Archaeologists conduct excavations. Of course, good ones use other lines of evidence (written records, population genetics, and linguistics being the most prominent) in constructing their theories. But what makes an archaeologist an archaeologist is excavating sites - studying the contexts in which material remains (human, animal, artifactual, and other) are found as they are found. To do this they must, of course, study the things they find. But archaeology isn't really about the things, its about the contexts in which they are found - their arrangement w/respect to each other and w/regard to other, similar sites.

Conservators, on the other hand, are all about things. Their job is too preserve material things. These things often come from archaeological sites, but they don't have to. For example, a conservator could work on preserving Medieval documents in a library or Renaissance paintings in a museum, neither of which would be classified as archaeological material.

I don't mean to lecture, I just wanted to clear things up! Hope it helps! --Dunraven 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Field archaeologists conduct excavations. A few other archaeologists need the training and experience, but don't conduct excavations themselves. A lot of archaeology involves working with already-excavated material, examining or cataloging it, or even working with already-published literature, e.g. to complete large-scale surveys of a type of rare item, its variation, distribution, etc. Jacob Haller 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We are starting to drift into a dispute that is not settled within the archaeological community and therefore cannot, should not, and will not be settled by us. Suffice it to say I disagree. Archaeologists certainly do things other than excavation, excavation is the sine qua non of archaeology. Contrary to popular belief, archaeology is not about things. It's about human culture and behavior as examined through sites, contexts - the places/arrangements/relationships in which you find those things.

So...yeah. Like I said, we aren't going to solve this and shouldn't clutter the talk page (yes, I know, I'm a hypocrite). Besides all of this is immaterial to the point that conservators aren't archaeologists, which is really what this was supposed to be about and is directly relevant to the article. The easiest way to keep it straight is to remember that conservators can and do work with things that really don't fall under the purview of archaeology - 18th century paintings, Antique aircraft, anthropology specimens, 15th century manuscripts. Conservators are all about conserving things. In so doing they probably need to know about the history and origins of the things they conserve to do a better job. But that's really not the focus. Keeping things from crumbling into dust is the focus. Archaeologists on the other hand are about past human behavior and culture. In learning about those subjects they have to learn about things, because dead people don't (usually) speak. But things really aren't the focus. Past societies are. --Dunraven 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Brief" Summary

The "brief summary" is no longer very brief, and is not noticeably shorter than the "detailed description." Poggio keeps on adding more and more points here. My feeling is that, probably, the "brief summary" section should be done away with, and the material in it ought to be incorporated into connected paragraphs of text alongside the "detailed description" section, so that Fomenko's ideas are described in paragraphs, rather than disconnected bullet points. john k 18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

John, that'll be fairly unfair. Let the public have concise undiluted picture of NC claims, based on Dr Fomenko's books and not on hearsay on hearsay on hearsay. Each of the claims I've added are 100% sourced, I'll check the rest, the unsourced general bla-bla unconfirmed in v.1,2,3 may as well go. Have nothing against adding paragraphs, but it will triple the length of the article, I fear mainstream will object. BTW, considerable part of statements in 'detailed', 'criticism', etc.. parts find no confirmation in v.1,2,3. Poggio Bracciolini 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Poggio, I'm not saying the content of the "brief summary" section should be deleted, merely that it ought to be formed into paragraphs and that it shouldn't be called a "brief summary" when it's nearly as long as the "detailed description." My view is that we should merge those two parts together to give a "concise, undiluted picture of NC claims based on Dr Fomenko's books." john k 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the "detailed description" looks more like a very brief introduction, while the "brief summary" goes into more detail. Jacob Haller 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's arguably closer to being true, but not really right either. I think the key thing is that the "brief summary" was written largely by Poggio, and consists of brief statements of discrete arguments made by Fomenko, while the "detailed description" is an attempt at a more synthetic account, largely written by people not sympathetic to Fomenko. I think we need a synthetic approach, but that it ought to incorporate the details that Poggio has provided. john k 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, have any of you traditionalists ever heard of Poggio Bracciolini? It is quite obvious who this poster is impersonating! At least to me! So, you guardians of the current chronology should at least, try to understand why this poster used that name! PS, it is not rocket science! 69.92.23.64 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Ronald L. Hughes For the sake of correctness, I shall suggest that the name "Poggio Bracciolini" (shown in red above) should be connected to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gian_Francesco_Poggio_Bracciolini 69.92.23.64 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Hearsay about NC or statements of NC ?

For once I nearly agree with John K. In principle. In case NPOV rules. To start with, the claims of NC theory (views of extreme minority) of prominent and respected mathematician Dr Prof Fomenko and team should be presented in verifiable and sourced manner, as is the case in my "brief summary" presentation. Secondly, the CVH counterclaims (views of extreme majority) of mainstream refuting the NC point by point should be presented in the same verifiable and sourced manner. Hearsay and libel should not be admitted. IMHO, history of science has enough examples of the minority views becoming the majority ones with time. Poggio Bracciolini 11:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fomenko's theories obviously have no place in other articles, but since this article is about Fomenko's theories, we should obviously try to represent them accurately. In terms of the brief summary section, I think the main thing is that it ought to be presented in a connected way. A wikipedia article that largely consists of bullet points isn't a very good one. I might try to hang it all together if I can, once I'm done grading later today. john k 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think that, hopefully, it will be a lot more productive if we discuss how to write this article on this talk page, instead of arguing about Fomenko's theories. Obviously, we're not going to convince you that Fomenko is wrong, and you're not going to convince us that he's right. Continuing to argue about it is simply going to get everybody riled up. Much better to work on something which, in theory, we might be able to agree upon, which is how to present Fomenko's views in this article. Certainly the last couple of days of discussion have, I think, been much more productive in terms of actually improving the article than the past months of argument. john k 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very sound. I bet though that parts of Dr Fomenko theory will inevitably break through to some of the WIKI pages where they rightfully belong, i.e. ones for Almagest and Ptolemy, Egyptian temple zodiacs, textual statistics. One does not have to recognize the 'earth shattering' NC theory as a whole even when faced with some ironclad and verifiable claims thereof. For example, the publisher of v.3 sides with NC and bets $10G that Almagest is compiled basis astral data of ix-xvi cy. Clear advertising jest. Talked about it to a professional astronomer, who's commented a couple weeks later: it's not NC - it's astronomy, stupid! NC theory may look in its present phase as muddy waters, muddied mostly by the Russian and ex-USSR mainstream crowd, but there are very healthy babies bathing in that pool. Moreover, these babes won't let anybody throw them out together with the muddy NC water.

Are you seated comfortably? Poggio is not at all a wholesale buyer of NC; he also had to take some aspirin while digesting Dr Fomenko and team HSF series. Moreover, Poggio also found some deliciously weak points in NC, but here humble Poggio makes place for the learned mainstream to locate same and crucify the heretic Doctor. Frankly, I dislike the idea of dropping bullet points presenting in a concise form the claims of NC theory. The NC theory is regrettably a not too lucid mix of genius insights confirmed by VERIFIABLE ingenious proprietary statistical methods with some conjectures lacking valid support. Therefore synthetic presentation you suggested even when operated with impeccable NPOV may result in producing something unclear. We don't want to drown poor babies, don't we? Specifically in a case of 'fringe' theory, the extreme minority claims should expressed with ultra-clarity. Methinks it may be productive to clarify very briefly in each of the listed bullet points what this point is based on? For example you've struck down in bullet #16 'showing perfect command of human anatomy' part, I've reverted it, because the point of NC is not just saying that museums are full of 'ancient' junk made in Michelangelo factory, but why it may be so. Thank you for time. Poggio Bracciolini 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Poggio, if I understand you correctly, you are stating that Fomenko's theories themselves to some extent consist of disconnected claims, and that, as such, a bullet point list is a better representation of his ideas than rewriting them into connected paragraphs. Is that a correct interpretation of your statement here? We should consider this more closely. In terms of ancient statuary, I think we ought not state points in such a way as to lead the reader to one conclusion or another. I've modified the way you phrased it, since as it was, it implied that "command" of human anatomy really was only attained in the Renaissance, when it fact this is merely a proposition of Fomenko's, rejected by mainstream scholarship. In general, I think we should not try to explain too closely Fomenko's supposed "evidence" for different claims, as that would only lead to wrangling about what is really evidence. BTW, what is your native language, Poggio? john k 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

John, nope. It's a full-blooded theory. Teeny complicated, weeny contradictory in places, claims interconnected, some have clay feet, ones I'll not die for. Dr has other things to research apart of history's sore fingers. Your 'according to F' is OK with me, but will source you 'pefect command of anatomy' later on. Try WIKI <anatomic theater> and especially its corpse stealing predecessors or medieval henchmen in the meantime. Ur in for a suprise. French. Brgds. Poggio Bracciolini 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Distortion warning

I have noticed several attempts to distort what references to critics of Fomenko actually state. The recently added Skeptical Report reference case in point. For something like wikipedia this is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 10:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is the distortion? Jacob Haller 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This was obviously directed at the ramblings of the editor from 83.114.147.98.--205.201.129.126 07:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a closer look at 'ramblings'. Goto to this Skeptic page and see for yourself that the author makes crude data manipulation and demonstartes statistical illiteracy:

Ramblings QUOTE: The critics apply his methods to other places and times, ignoring the rules of statistics. For the first, they forget to compare the comparable, i.e. dynastic flows of the same length. The Danish author of the article compares flows of different length (total duration). One cannot equate sequences of 1340-1588=248 yrs and 1588-1947=359 yrs (44% difference of base) or as Danish 'scholar' trumps up 1250-1588=338yrs and 1440-1947=507yrs (50% difference of base). Thefore everything that follows is just comparing horse apples to apples. For the second, Dr Prof A.Fomenko repeatedely insists that one must use different methods to draw valid conclusions, like calculating dynastic flow proximity ratio. For the third, the chart of two essentially uncertain periods (25% difference of base!) of fictive roman Popes 'dynasties' from non-existant New Tradition site used by the Danish critic is very secondary to Dr Fomenko point (p.271, vol.1, 'History:Fiction or Science?'). Ch.6 thereof is full of clean valid statistical results, including dynastic charts (these ones with bases +-5% difference) supporting New Chronology central paradigm: history was dramatically shorter than generally presumed. Danish data actually shows that Danish dynastic flows of 1340-1588 and 1588-1947 are perfectly INDEPENDENT. UNQUOTE

BTW, for where Dr Fomenko's alleged data massage is concerned the author of technically correct latest remarks on statistics should take into acount that Dr Fomenko results may look somewhat perverse because they are based on chronological sets of data from end of 18 cy, and not of xx cy. Therefore accusations in data manipulation are mostly nul and void. Dr Fomenko does not need to manipulate his data. When his source (J.Blair) allows for blending and merging he may succumb to doing just that to enforce his theory. Here I rest my case. Poggio Bracciolini 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering I am the one who added the Skeptic Review reference I did look at and I can tell you that the last chart is a tongue in cheek at the sloppy way Fomenko does stuff (compare with Miner's "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" article regarding the arrogant way we anthropologist we treating other cultures back when it was written) and Fomenko DOES manipulate data as shown in the example the Danish skeptic pulls from Fomenko's own book! I mean Fomenko combines Anastasius and Innocentius and flips the reigns of Felix I and Eutychianus; I may only have a minor in math but even I know that is something you are not supposed to do in statistics. Also as a master in anthropology I can tell you Fomenko is ignoring the systems theory concept that has been used in my field for nearly 25 years and James Burke made popular to layman with his Connections (TV series) and The Day the Universe Changed series and books. Simply put things are no longer are their own little world but interconnected to each other; if you say dynasty 'b' is actually a copy of dynasty 'a' then by system theory those dynasties and people 'b' interacted with must also be copies those 'a' interacted with and the implications of that causes a lot of problems for Fomenko. Finally as wiki itself points out statistics are very prone to manipulation and misuse.--BruceGrubb 11:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fomenko actually doesn't manipulate data. When he analyses dynastic pairs, as described in "Statistical correlation of dynasties" section, he concludes that certain pairs are similar, and on the basis of that he further conjectures that some rulers might have been flipped or merged during rewriting of texts. But the dynasties are statistically similar even without merging and flipping. Nikola 21:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The above makes no sense. If the dynasties are statistically similar without the flipping and merging then why do it? In statistics this is known as 'cooking' the data and is one of the reasons for the statement "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"-Mark Twain quoting Disraeli. Huff went even further and show just how bad use of statistics can produce totally ludicrous results. Furthermore just because Fomenko is a great mathmatition does not mean he is a great statistician any more than a great general practitioner in medicine would be a great heart or brain surgeon--BruceGrubb 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Forked danish tongue in cheek. The offending chart comes from New Tradition site, not from a Dr Fomenko's book to start with. Fomenko's alleged "data preparation" is (a) a minor and (b) irrelevant pecadillo as the data (history) about (of)the early Roman episcopates is an enigma shrouded in mystery, look it up in Catholic Encylopedia, popish flip-flop aside the strong correlation is very much there even if you disentangle the popes. The original chart (p.270 in v.1, isbn 2913621074) in itself is a minor one, but it confirms a well establshed fact of early church history being very murky muddy. Compared to Dr Fomenko petty data cuisine Dr Pedersen commits MAJOR statistical fallacy of comparing reignal periods of VERY UNEQUAL duration. Your system analysis H-bomb turns into a dud if there were perchance no Danish dynasties prior to xv cy as Fomenko asserts. Poggio Bracciolini 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are forgetting that later on in the article it uses the Jesus (33 years) and Pope Gregory VII (60-65 years) comparison (never mind Fomenko also claims that this is Elijah (no age given) and Saint Basil of Caesarea (46-49 years) as well) (List of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ) At best with regards to Jesus and Pope Gregory VII this is a 81% difference of base making the 44% above trivial. This is ignoring the fact that the bible give little hint as to either Elijah's or Elisha's ages making connecting them to anybody based on their lifespans a 'anything fits' issue.--BruceGrubb 11:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Euclid-Dyonisius-Jesus conjecture. Don't base your conclusions on the present WIKI article statements. For the most part they are unsourced and written basis hearsay upon hearsay about hearsay by the people openly boasting that they have never read Dr Fo et al. Multi-Jesus and all his doppelgangers, reflections,and copies are conjectures founded on simililarities without any statitical value, a kind of topological exercise. Dr Fomenko is a top topologist who could not resist such topological temptation. Actually Dr Fomenko presents better 'evidence' about Euclid and/or Dyonisius being reflections of JC than Pope G7 or prophet Eliah. He indulges there in a fiction of his own. Stats overules it all. Would you please understand that the probabibility of similitude of single events is fairly high, but the probability of similitude of a long series of events is extremely low. Math is about finding patterns. Dr Fo found and measured same such. Poggio Bracciolini 15:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to break this to you but the Pope Gregory VII Christ connection IS in Fomenko's book. You can see this yourself by going to Google books and search for Fomenko. Select History: Fiction of Science? (actually book 2 in this series of nonsense). Now go to page 51 where Chapter 2 starts. The very TITLE makes this claim with Fomenko calling Pope Gregory VII alternately "Pope Gregory Hildedrand" and "Pope Gregory VII Hildedrand". Again Jesus is traditionally 33 years old (thought admittedly the Bible and Early Church fathers debate his age all over the place) and Pope Gregory VII is in the 60-65 year range resulting a comparison a 81% difference of base making the 44% above trivial.--BruceGrubb 11:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By Ommar's Razor alone Fomenko's theories have problems and when when supporters claim he doesn't make these comments when one can provide links showing he does claim nonsensical things like Pope Gregory VII and Jesus Christ being the same person they and he loss all credibility. Thanks heavens for Google books which can prove at a glance what is being said IS true and that Fomenko's sloppy statistics have more in common with a Ouija board than anything scientific.--BruceGrubb 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I must interject that the age of Jesus the Nazerine (not of Nazereth) is very conjectural as is his actual existance. However, regarding Biblical data, if it can be called such, it is not beyond the point of reason to assume that the life of a radical thinker, like Jesus, might not actually have begun until his Baptism / Bar-Mitsva, etc. This act might well have not occured until his actual age was 12 -14 years. Thus the "religious life" of this person might well have lasted for 33 years or so, making his age at death 42-44. Of course this entails one to believe he was actually killed, much rumor suggests that he might well have survived his punishment and went into excile, etc. It is also conjectured that after he became a man, age 12-14 he might well have travelled for a number of years,or become a hermit or monk, etc., only becoming a person of interest to the authorities many years later maybe 10 years or maybe 20, who knows? Thus his actual death could well have been around the age of 54 to 64 since birth maybe longer. As the quotation goes, "It is a mystery wrapped in an enigma!"

Moreover, Fomenko, et al, does not directly identify Jesus / Iesus / Joshua as any real personality but more as a correlation of some personalities from our consensualy agreed upon past. In fact where the Fomenko Group does make an outright statement of identity they use the name Andronicus! A word taken from "Andro" or "Ander", etc. meaning "Man!", I suppose. Actually Fomenko and company place either the birth of Jesus or his death in the 12th century CE., and he is likely a composit person rather than real, much like the Fomenko group considers Muhammed, etc. As a matter of fact, also defacto historical creations are Alexander the Great, just a personification of a great Ottoman ruler, and other personalities that have been artifically cast back in time as well as space on numerous occasions.

You must understand that the Fomenko group has exposed what might be either artifical or deliberate set-backs of time that can be used to connect what are now considered as "ancient" events, with mostly real and more recent events, such as history as recorded from the time of mass printing where fraudulent ideas could not so easily be manufactured since too many copies of these events might have been published. Thus, according to my view of the Fomenko works, everything that is written concerning events that we consenually consider as happening before the 12th -15th century or so CE, is fabrication, either accidental or deliberate. These discovered "setbacks" come in a number of "flavors". In numerical value they are approximately 330-362 years, 720 years, 1053 years, 1,386 years which is a multiple of 333 years plus 1053 years, etc., and 1773 - 1840 years, which is the equivalent of 1053 plus the 720 year setback. Thus so called ancient personages like Plato become a more modern personage called Pletho, etc. You can perform your own tests of this hypothosis by finding some meaningful personage from ancient Rome or some important battle or other events from this period and via the addition of the above setbacks to the ancient date discover meaningful characters much closer to our times than you might imagine. Thus Muhammet the prophet and Muhammed II the Ottoman!

The period of time we now consider as Greece after the conquest of the city of Constantinople by the so called "Crusaders" can be compared to the "ancient Greece" of Meander, Plato, Solon, the Spartans, etc. The problem with such a comparison for us is that (some) the very sources that the Fomenko group depends upon are very rare today and not usually found in English at all. A prime example would be the works of a great historian named Ferdinand Gregorovius, who wrote the "History of the city of Rome during the Middle Ages", as well as the "History of Athens during the Middle Ages", the notation of these sources can be found at source number 195 and 196 in the biblliography of "History; Fiction or Science?, Chronology I. But it appears that access to both of these important sources are not easily accessed. The Athens work is it appears only available in German and possibly Russian, but no English translation has to the best of my knowledge ever been made or published! So, if one of you wanted to refute a lot of the material that Fomenko has used to support the relationship of "ancient" Greece to the "Frankish States" that were found in the same area after the crusader conquest of the Byzantine Empire, and even after the Ottoman conquest of the same years later, you would have first to obtain a copy of said book(s) and then translate them into English, etc. Fortunately Fomenko and company have made their own translation of selected passages of these books. Thus to find any verification of Fomenko's claims you would first have to show your translation is better than his own. You will please note that information concerning "ancient Greece" is prolific in mass whilst information about the times between 1200 CE and 1500 CE in the Greek world are sparce! This very Wikipedia site will prove it to any of you. 69.92.23.64 (talk)Ron hughes69.92.23.64 (talk)

Please folks, let's not use this page to discuss Fomenko, the chronology, etc. And the article isn't a place to 'prove' anything at all. The article should simply report what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about the subject, and this page should only be used to discuss what should be in the article based on those sources, and things such as layout, etc. Definitely not a forum to argue the pros and cons of the hypothesis. dougweller (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller, I do suppose your paragraph above was directed at me? But, I have not really discussed Fomenko, and chronology directly, rather in my first part I merely expanded the thought concerning the age of certain personages mentioned above by Gruce Grubb, as conected to Fomenko.

I then made mention of certain verifiable sources that can be either used to support or refute Fomenko (see Ferdinand Gregorovius!)

I then further made mention of the Fomenko set back theory that I do not think is even considered (or mentioned) within the main article concerning said Doctor and his hypotheses.

I then suggested that anyone wishing to discredit this Fomenko theory merely has to perform the simple arithmetic functions using his published setbacks and see for themselves what happens! This has to be patently "fair" and NOPV, etc.?

So, did you really read my post or did you automatically deride or diminish it?

Did you perform the history mathematical tests? If so, what were the results?

Oh, after reading all of the posts found above mine I did go back and read your introduction where it states; " This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Chronology (Fomenko) article."

I would suggest that my posts above would be "improvements" to the "New Chronology (Fomenko) article."

I certainly contend that any reader could after a few minutes of computer time come up with "reliable and verifiable sources", if one considers their own verification or non-verification of the set back theory as "reliable!"

Regards, Ronald L. Hughes 69.92.23.64 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:OR on what constitutes original research. Any sources used would have to directly to discuss this particular new chronology, and very few scholars take it seriously enough to spend time on it. dougweller (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Doug, I think you have made a serious mistake? Just because "very few scholars take it seriously enough to spend time on it." Your words! Does not mean that it is "meaningless?" You distort every word said by me and anyone who would place before you real evidence, verifiable through some research, that you, in your arrogance, deems "meaningless!" Why don't you open your eyes for a moment, and try it? It won't hurt, at least like sticking a nail through your arm, but it might well awaken your good sense? Do not deny what is or what exist right in front of your eyes!69.92.23.64 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

By the way, Dr. (may I call you that?) Weller, I tend to think that doing the Ostrich (ie, hiding one's head under the sand) is not something you need to be known for? Have you read any, or all, of the Fomenko books currently available?

Have you ever read all of Herr Doctor Jung, or Velikovsky?, etc. Have you ever read anything by Poggio Braccolini?, or do you even know who he might be? Have you ever read anything by Ferdinand Gregorovius?, or Joseph Davidovits?, etc., ad infinitum? You act more like those who defend the "flat earth society" or the "gods from the sky" fraternities, or the Roman Catholic Church,than anything else! Please sir, open your mind befor it explodes?69.92.23.64 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Dear Doug! You wrote above; "Please folks, let's not use this page to discuss Fomenko, the chronology, etc. And the article isn't a place to 'prove' anything at all. The article should simply report what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about the subject, and this page should only be used to discuss what should be in the article based on those sources, and things such as layout, etc. Definitely not a forum to argue the pros and cons of the hypothesis. dougweller (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)"

If Dr. Fomenko uses sources that you or I are not able to evaluate due to the scarcity of books, or due to language difficulties, then are these sources to be considered as "Un-reliable?" or "Non-verifiable?" One example are the works of Gregorovius! Is he considered a "reliable" or "verifiable" source? If not, why not?

And, if any article concerning the "theories" of Fomenko or the "mathematical formulae" used by him is to have any basis, then you must offer the reader access to at least the basis of his major thesis! This whould have to include his "set-back" or "add-on" values, such as mentioned by me on this very site. That way the reader could use his numbers to test his theory themselves! These set-back are listed as consiting of 330-362 years; 720 years; 1053-1078 years; 1386 years; and 1773-1840 years!

That is only fair, and it would be given to anyone who presented to the world another new discovery, especially since his numbers are very easy to follow, etc.? Ronald L. Hughes69.92.23.64 (talk)

Dendrochronology of older Egyptian sequences

I'm not convinced that unconnected Dendrochronological sequences are relative dating at all; they seem more like "floating" absolute dating. Jacob Haller 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wood floats, but in absentia of statistically convincing sequence withh no breaks in it dendrochronological scale all it delivers are isolated timeframes of dating, very precise within given timeframe and irrelevant to dating from one timeframe to another. For example, the boards of the Giza longboat can be dendrochronologically connected to strictly nothing. Idem for the boards of Tut-ankh-amun wooden gilded shrines. These boards could not have been sawn with anything but STEEL saws, therefore this egyptian titanic is medieval. Poggio Bracciolini 10:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that unconnected ("floating") absolute dates aren't useful for refuting Fomenko.

I disagree with the claim that that these are not useful because they are relative dates, and disagree with the two implied corollaries, that these are relative dates, and that relative dates are not useful for such contexts. Jacob Haller 17:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Floating" absolute dates are sometimes called relative dates (including in works by Fomenko) which certainly adds to confusion. Nikola 14:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The steel saw claim reminds me too much of the wild (and later proven false) claims of Erich von Däniken regarding the supposedly alien made non-rusting iron pillar in India, the carved "Mayan" stones showing modern like surgery (actually produced by a local and quite modern stone carver), and all the other nonsense that guy claimed. Then you have the whole Bermuda Triangle thing that Lawrence David Kusche showed to be so much smoke and mirrors that it should have been in a magician's act.--BruceGrubb 12:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole 'ancient Egypt' 'history', pyramids, pharaohs, Cleos & Tuts etc.. fits into AD900-1500 timeframe or else one has to resort to von Däniken hi-stories and UFO from Atlantis for explanation. Poggio Bracciolini 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with ancient Egypt history is that the ancient Egyptian rulers tended to rework monuments of their predecessors and claim them as their own. If a ruler had been a real embarrassment (Hatshepsut, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, and Ay are prime examples) a massive conversion project would ensue to 'wipe' the embarrassment from memory. This of course plays total havoc with the reign durations of the rulers you do mention. A related problem in ancient Roman history is there was no 'emperor' position but rather it was the result of holding many offices at once and the power that come with them. Fomenko's ideas simply require too much to be wrong with the current methods in the context of system theory to be taken seriously. Colavito raises a good point; there seems to be an agenda here--one we have seen before. The 'rewriting' of history so that your nation/people (or a part of it) is the founder of civilization. Such historical revisionism regardless of who it comes from should raise a red flag. Even more so when the methods used have mammoth duplication problems--BruceGrubb 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about rendering Slav's as uber-nation is a problematic (in Russia we joke about Ukraine and Turkmenistan trying to do the same now. Yet however we easily beieve in Great Macedonia and Great Rome). And i don't know what books were published abroad Russia about NC/F. However early NC/F was rather about arguing the reliability of traditional chronology. And that is sti the strong point. Later it drifted into more popular books with less critics and more alter-history, and that point is really much doubtful (and it really is way harder to create than to critisize). I think translated an commercially pubished were that easy t read and most doubtful books. Personally, looking a bit at development of NC/F, i think any NC theory is to be split into two parts - why its proponents feel required to apart from TC and what do they want instead. The reliability of those parts is hardly reated to each other and is to be described and discussed separatey. That maybe that question about baby in muddy bath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.21.18 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone prove, beyond an reasonalble doubt, any connection between trees from the West Coast of North America and any tree from Europe or Asia (Asia Minor) or Africa,or the Levant? 69.92.23.64 (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Fomenko's English language publisher

Although Fomenko's early works in English were published by reputable publishers, the three volumes of his promised seven-volume series History: fiction or science?, were published by a firm called Delamere Resources Ltd. with branches in Douglas, Isle of Man and Bellevue, Washington. Publisher searches using WorldCat and the British Library catalogue indicated that Fomenko's works are the only books published by Delamere.

This close relationship between publisher and author bypasses the editorial oversight that is a central part of traditional academic publication. It comes very close to the kind of self-publication that is deprecated as a reliable source in Wikipedia. This close connection sheds some light on the publisher's advocacy of Fomenko's theory through a $10,000 challenge to its opponents. Of course, this article is about Fomenko's New Chronology, so the use of such sources is appropriate to describe what Fomenko says. Perhaps, however, it would be worthwhile to spell out this relationship and the limitations of these sources somewhere in the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we are not using any of Fomenko's historical works in our articles about history, the issue of self publication is not all that important in terms of reliable sources. The key questions are a) are they realiable sources about Fomenko's own views (I think the answer is probably "yes" on this one); and b) are these works notable enough to be worth an encyclopedia article. On that one, I'm not really sure. john k (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no publisher who wishes and book contracts with our Educational System, could deign to publish such a scathing attack upon the "consensual account of history and its chronology", why do you think the publisher would be independent? 69.92.23.64 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

It has nothing to do with the Educational System but the totally poor lapses in anything resembling logic in what Fomenko is saying. By Occam's razor his wild ravings (I can't even call them a theory) are nonsense. The fact they cannot be duplicated as Fomenko will not (or cannot) reveal the exact method he used is the first warning bell. The first requirement of any theory is that it be testable and since Fomenko's cannot be tested his claims are useless.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Grubb, in his post above, mentions "logic" or at least the lack of it, in "Fomenko's sayings" (an abbreviated quotation). Logic can exist in this way also Bruce; "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: 'reduction to the absurd') is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications to a logical but absurd consequence." From Wiki! This is exactly what you have preceeded to say. You mention Fomemko's "wild ravings!" I ask you which "Wild ravings?" You state that Fomenko, "will not (or cannot) reveal the exact method he used.."

I beg to differ, he spends a lot of time explaining the processes he uses/used to make his claims. It is obvious that you offer argument and derision based upon hearsay rather than fist hand knowledge. I have even written about the series of verifiable "set backs" or "add ons" (see above on this page) that are used to connect distant historical personages and events with more modern ones, I.E., the Middle Ages and later. Just apply the numbers mentioned to the consensual history and times of the "ancient" Greek we call "Plato" and the most modern version of him which we call "Plethon!" Just substract the dates we now accept for the birth and death of Plato from the dates of birth and death of Pletho(n)? Other examples are to be found within the works of Fomenko, et.al.! All you have to do is read the material and do the math? You are capable of that, are you not? Regards; 69.92.23.64 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

My suggestion would be to pick up any good archeological or Anthropology journal that deals the topics Fomemko cover and see just how wild his claims are. In fact, his dendrochronology claim is totally nonsense by Douglass, A. E.1 (1941) "Crossdating in Dendrochronology" Journal of Forestry, Volume 39, Number 10, 1 October 1941 , pp. 825-831(7) which was written BEFORE radiocarbon dating even existed. "Dendrochronological Investigations in the Aegean and Neighboring Regions", 1983-1986 by Peter Ian Kuniholm and Cecil L. Striker Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Winter, 1987), pp. 385-398, and Schiffera, Michael B. (1984) "Radiocarbon dating and the “old wood” problem: The case of the Hohokam chronology" Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 13, Issue 1, January 1986, Pages 13-30 is just a small sampling of the peer reviewed material that shows Fomemko is talking nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bruce Grubb, It seems that in the case of Fomenko, et.al., that the "proof" is in the pudding, and until one of you smart people ever bend over and read one or more of the currently availabe Fomenko works, that you will never see nor taste the pudding. Sticking you collective heads into the sand, will not help! Regards, 96.19.152.171 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes, Long Beach, MS ref. volumes one thru seven —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

To New Fomenko's damage control manager, welcome!

Bravo McCluskey! New broom sweeps clean! All of Your anti-Fomenko refutations ranging from astronomy (look up vol.iii) to radio & dendro have been refuted by old Dr Prof Fomenko and team long ago. Only you will not let him spoil Your beatyfull Criticism spells. Let us start criticism of the criticism part, shall we? BTW would someone of high WIKI rank move this POV chunk from the beginning of the article: QUOTE These views are entirely rejected by mainstream scholarship. While some mainstream researchers have offered revised chronologies of Classical and Biblical history which do shorten the timeline of ancient history by eliminating various "dark ages," none of these revisionist chronologies are as radical as Fomenko's: the events which are traditionally assumed to have happened in the centuries before AD 1 are still thought to have happened thousands of years ago, not hundreds of years ago as in Fomenko's timeline. UNQUOTE Clear Point of View, right? Kindly move it to the Criticism part where it rightfully belongs. Poggio bracciolini (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting me to damage control manager, but I'm no such thing. I'm just a concerned historian of astronomy who's done my bit to tidy up this article.

As to your suggestion of moving the paragraph on rejection by mainstream scholarship from the intoduction to the criticism section, by the manual of style the "lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The paragraph that offends you summarizes the notable controversies discussed in detail in the criticism section. The points raised there should remain. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

at last someone knowledgeable. Have you read v.iii? I bet $1 you have not. Poggio bracciolini (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr McCluskey, have a glorious idea for you: mail to publisher at history@mithec.com - a preface of your own to v.iii. for there's none.BTW DR Fomenko does take obliquity into account when dissecting Almagest.Poggio bracciolini (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no intention to contribute in any way to Fomenko's pseudoscientific historical revisionism.

As to the technical details, if Fomenko's vol. iii contains explicit reply to the arguments based on the many systematic studies of the date of the Almagest over the past years, to the dating evidence of the Babylonian astronomical diaries, or to Stephenson's extensive systematic studies of ancient timed eclipse observations, feel free to quote them in the article to buttress his arguments.

Incidentally, is User:Poggio bracciolini the same person as User:Poggio Bracciolini? I like to know who I'm talking to.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep my silver dollar - Mr SteveMcCluskey has not read vol.III

Agreed, I'll help You to spare Your precious time. You'll get quotes galore in 2-3 weeks. Volumes I,II and especially Vol.III contain explicit arguments to over 400 years of study of Almagest and most other 'ancient ' star catalogues, refutation of Stephenson's obliquity punt and Babilonian clay tablets eclipses lists. If you don't mind I'll stick them after every single anti-Fomenko 'refutation' or You prefer special 'Refutation of the Criticism' section set up?82.121.5.102 (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC) BTW. I'm small 'b' Poggio.

So, wait, there are two different Poggios? Now I'm really confused. john k (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of whom seem to be SPAs. Hardly.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there are at least three Plato's! Just check it out? Regards, 96.19.152.171 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes, Long Beach, MS —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

How does Fomenko account for Jews?

The Jewish people and religion are not mentioned at all in the article, and there are but passing references to Israel, which seem to suggest that Israel was actually Europe. How do Fomenko's ideas address the existence of the Jewish people, our religion, and our history? Are we supposed to have been in on the conspiracy? Junjk (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember much. As far as i remember NC/F is much more about states than about nations, so nothing about Jews as nation/culture can i recall. About religion: when Great Mongolia splitted into conflicting states, same became with reigion, that split into Christianity (later it split to confessions itself), Islam(later split into shiits an sunnits, AFAIR) and Iudaism. The later new religion split itself from crushing main tree, the less followers it had and had to violently struggle for them and had to claim itself the most ancient, hence the mose pury of all branches. The iudaism was the last, so it needed to claim the most deep roots, that was one of reasons to flip-flop Old and New Testaments (with now-Old Testament later evolve into Tora). The Jews as persons acting in Old Testament - just as most otheer historic personalities, are representations of the events flow of the Great Mongolia history.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.21.18 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC) 

I would refer you to a book entitled "The Medieval Empire of the Israelites" (formerly 'of the Jews')69.92.23.64 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

The Medieval Empire of the Israelites (Paperback) by Vlad Melamed and Robert Grishin (Authors) 69.92.23.64 (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I still keep my silver dollar - Mr SteveMcCluskey has not read vol.IV

Let the the public have a look at what the good Dr Fomenko et al actually say. This is their conjecture. It is actually less contradictory than the schoolbook take. If you don't mind pour Your brim and fire anti-Fomenko 'refutations' in the 'Criticism' section. Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe we should get rid of the criticism section and build it into the main article bit by bit. That might be a better way of dealing with this nonsense.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And looking at the added text, it is not at all clear how much this is Fomenko et al and how much it is an interpretation of what they wrote (eg 'It is vital' -- my guess is that that is opinion). I'm tempted to add {{Original research}} to the section, comments?--Doug Weller (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As John K said above, the Brief summary is increasingly duplicative of the material in the detailed description. I would suggest deleting the Brief summary entirely. The advocates of the F/N Point of view can then integrate whatever might be new in volume 4 into the detailed description, with appropriate specific citations.

Dougweller's suggestion of moving the criticism section, bit by bit, into the main article would then make sense. As it is this article still reads like an advertisement for the Fomenko/Nosovsky books.

By the way, the header of this section comes close to violating WP:NPA. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gag Fomenko, ban him from Wikipedia! Moving criticism section by bits and pieces into the main article will muddle it even more. This machination will simply block the visitors from the grist of the New Chronology theory. Moreover, big criticism section is per se contradictory as world history itself. Why hesitate? Why not delete Fomenko article outright as 'crème de la crème' of mainstream historians have firmly labeled it as nonsense and suggested 'proffessional' help to the cheeky mathematecian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poggio Bracciolini (talk • contribs) 10:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29/Archive_1 -- perhaps the editor who renamed the page will kindly restore the archive, which should have been done with the renaming.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for admin assistance to restore the link to the archive --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged break of dendrochonological scales & Russian only source

The article states "Fomenko specifically points to a break of dendrochronological scales around 1000 AD" with a reference to "^ Fomenko, A. T.. "15.1. Непрерывная шкала дендрохронологического датирования протянута в прошлое не далее десятого века новой эры", Новые эмпирико-статистические методики датирования древних событий и приложения к глобальной хронологии древнего и средневекового мира (краткая справка) (.txt) (in Russian). Retrieved on 2006-09-09." What am I, an English-speaking editor on the English Wikipedia, to make of a source whose name I can't even read? Fomenko has a number of books in English translation. It's my opinion that if an English source can't be given so that the claim can be discussed, the claim shouldn't be in the article. Particularly when it is so non-specific. Doug Weller (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The assertions by Fomenko and follower Fomenkists about dendrochronology and carbon dating are self rebutting to the critically aware reader that scrutinizes Fomenko's publications. In particular, I took care, solely regarding the critiques of the radiocarbon dating method, to do some forensic research, a-la-CSI, of source(s) in English. It was during a series of wiki attacks of the radicoarbon dating method and its results. The criticism was phrased differently from other criticisim. It was. qualitatively different from others and of a lower scientific quality. Essentially it quoted scientific literature from the early 1950s which was fully superceded around the late 1960s and in large part by the original authors of the 1950s. Like a broken record, the, I think, mostly anonymous users, appeared to be recasting assertions that they did not understand from a single source that they did not quote. Asked to submit electronic copies of the 1950s literature that they were referring to, they refused. In fact they had included one or two references in Russian, without volume and issue numbers, of a publication that was not appropriately referred to as to find it in a library. It was kind of Academy of Sciences, 19xx. It plainly showed that those radiocarbon commentators had not even seen the publications they referred to. It appeared to me that they were sort of following a script. Unable to go to the library due to health reasons I undertook a forensic search online. Obscure references in Russian + the term chronology soon took me to the English translation of Fomenko's opus. Accessible online, it showed me, on the screen, a couple of Fomenko's pages, in English translation, which lo and behold, contained the script that I had inferred.

Then I inserted in the Wikipedia article about the New Chronology the link to that online accessible text. It appears that such link has been deleted and replaced by one or more links in Russian.

• TODO: The link with the English translation should be restored. Admittedly, something might be lost in translation, but the references included in the translation as well as the radiocarbon dates quoted are all obsolete and have been superceded about 30 yrs ago. I suggest that you search for that English translation link and restore it. It was introduced in the New Chronology article sometime in the interval Jan to Mar 2007. References to the Fomenkists anti-radiocarbon dating should also be restored in the radiocarbon dating article. Somehow those that I included during the discussions period have been edited out.

Jclerman (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Regarding new [citation needed] tags, and in general: I have no time to reference the article properly, but luckily two Fomenko books are available in full on Google Books: [1] and [2]. This could be used to reference the article, and replace references 15-19 and 21 in Russian I added.

By the way, reference 29 is the best example of pseudoskepticism there is. It would be much better to use [3]. Nikola (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Definition of New Chronology

The current definition is wrong and probably POV. The russian page [4] of New Chronology contains a definition which is both correct and NPOV. Fomenko himslef claims clearly that there are two parts in New Chronology: criticism of existing chronology and reconstruction of a possible "correct" chronology. Reducing the theory to the second, much more speculative and controversial part, is incorrect and possibly POV. DR2006kl (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 16/1/2009

Why would Fomenko's view of what is is be NPOV? I'd say it would be clearly POV. The lead should reflect what other sources say it is, not just the way he wants to project it to the world. dougweller (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good casuistics!! The problem is, however, that there are not that many NPOV sources on Fomenko theories. It is all either critics or supporters. Would you happen to know one? Back to the subject matter, I still maintain it is wrong to reduce New Chronology to reconstruction. For instance, Postnkov's book [5] deals only with critisicm of the traditional chronology but not reconstruction. Besides, even within Fomenko's camp there are several versions of reconstruction DR2006kl (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If I am not correct, this part of Wiki is called "discussion?"? Why is it so oft filled with moderator words containing "thou shalt nots?" How can one discuss while being told "can'st?" Just what does NPOV have to do with a "real" discussion? In a real world of "education", a "moderator" should be the one who starts "neutral" and remains so! Just how does a proponent of the basic outline of Fomenko Et.al, do any "pro" when the moderator has a fixed "non!" opinion?

I have asked the "moderator", I.E. one who is to take a "moderate" or "middle / neutral" line or view of the subject matter to actually apply the suggested set-backs used by the Fomenko Group and hopefully report about his/her results! But, so far at least, no one has either tried it and rejected it because they (the setbacks)do not work, or they have tried it and they did work, but no one had the guts to report their results?

Come on, either follow my suggestions, do your homework, and report the results or let the defenders of this idea speak? Just attempt the Pletho to Plato setback! Then try others! There are literally hundreds to check out! If the details of a period of 70 years or so in the Middle Ages, manages to contain three or so correlations to a period that is now thought to have existed 1,778-1,810 years before the Middle Ages, then it would be cute, but if the same period produces ten or twenty or thirty correlations then it would be called "remarkable!", and as such also "impossible!", under todays intrepretation of our past! But, this is what can happen in numerous identified situations in the Fomenko Volumes!

Either bury the Fomenko Group, Et al, or redeem it?

69.92.23.64 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Personal attack deleted here. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. A few points. Wikipedia doesn't have monitors, it has Administrators who are editors with a few extra tools. It is never the job of any Wikipedia contributor or this page to do research themselves as suggested above with the set-backs - see WP:OR. And finally, we don't ask for NPOV sources, we ask editors to follow WP:NPOV in their use of sources which will almost inevitably have a POV. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and Regards, Ronald L. Hughes69.92.23.64 (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Dr., but you are right and I've removed the comment. I'm giving you permission if you wish to remove your post and this one. (You don't need permission to remove yours of course, but you do to remove mine). Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fomenko's time setbacks

Dear Dr. Weller,

I would respectfully suggest that no article in Wikipedia should delibertly ignore the time set-backs proposed by Dr. Fomenko, etal! Wikipedia's own suggestions state;

"Article policies

No original research
Neutral point of view
Verifiability"

Since the "set backs" are "part and parcel" of the entire Fomenko proposal why should they not be included within the main article. This does not indicate that this is "original research", on the contrary it is part of the theory of the Fomenko Group and part of its "raison d'etre!" With these suggested numerical aids, the Fomenko theory can be tested independently by anyone reading Wikipedia.

I feel this meets the "NPOV" rules! "Verifiability" is either there, or it is not!

Thus a reasonable part of the Fomenko proposal would exist in the period of the past now known as a part of the Classical Greek period, or a little later, let us say from 550 BCE up until 300 BCE or so, and as such encompases about 250 years of history. Fomenko suggests that within this time-line one can pick out certain events and personages that seem to "reappear" as different personages and at differing places (sometimes) if one were to add 1778, or 1800 or 1810 years to the BCE dates.

The Fomenko proposal simply states, that by moving 550 BCE to 1228 CE or 1250 CE or even 1260 CE, and so on down the line to to align 300 BCE with 1475 CE or 1500 CE or 1510 CE, and then one can compare major Greek leaders, philosophers, and events with those events of the BCE comparable times with the CE times, one might well find some correlations.

One example (proposed by the Fomenko Group) is "The Mediaeval Gemisto Plethon / Pletho (c.1355-1452) as the 'Ancient' Plato." Plato, 428-347 BCE, is transferred to approximately 1382 CE -and approximately 1463 CE, the assumed time of Plethon. "A 1810-year shift of dates forward, makes the years of Plato's life instead cover the period between 1382 and 1463 A. D.- the very epoch that Plethon was active in, that is." Source is "History: Fiction or Science, chronology II, pages 270-271. It must be stated that current history appears to know very little about the life and times of Plethon.

In a similar example, the Fomenko Group compares Sparta during the Peloponnesian War, with the Despotate of Mystras after a 1810 year shift.

Regards,69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I think you misunderstand verifiablity, look at WP:Verify - we aren't verifying the idea but checking the source. This is basically an insignificant (eg not taken seriously by academics) fringe view and should only be in articles about Fomenko and his (and associates) ideas. See WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear all! Doug Weller, an excellent defender of the "status quo" wrote, above; "we aren't verifying the idea but checking the source." Besides me, does anyone consider that "defending or verifying" sources is better than ""verifying the idea", then the entire system of historical research is going to "hell!" I would submit that "verification" is the most reliable form of challenging an "allegation!" Verification, in reality, and obviously not here at Wikipedia, means that some "allegation" has been proven (in a court of law) to be correct to the best of the abilities of the authorities to present! So, why in any regards, should Wikipedi obviously deny "verification?" Stupidity comes readily to mind! Ronald L. Hughes69.92.23.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

But we aren't doing historical research here, this is an encyclopedia. If you don't like our fundamental policies you'll never be happy here. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Dear Doug Weller,

I don't really know how to phrase this post?

I just reviewed the on-line article concerning Fomenko, et al, and proceeded to investigate what NOPV views were expressed in the "NOTES" section. (Actually anti Fomenko information exists upon almost every line of the entire article)

"Surprise, surprise Sgt. Carter", this section is almost all nothing but "anti-Fomenko" and as such has a pejorative point of view! This section actually uses a "Doctorial Thesus" for a number of its sources! This is from a Russian student who is trying to get his doctorate here in the United States! What a wonderful NOPV source! You should be ashamed! He is obviously a "anti-Fomenko source." Where are any "Pro-Fomenko" sorces?, or as it is written "NOTES!"

It is just out right anti-Fomenko propaganda! And you should obviously know it is so if you were really being NEUTRAL on the subject!

Unless you really wish to ban me from any other remarks, I would ask you to really look deep within your self and see if you are really being "NEUTRAL" when you allow such information (which is "PREJUDICED" in its creation) to become a part of a "NEUTRAL" review of a controversial theory! The consistant use of "Pseudo" is pejorative in its own way!

You deny to present to the general public a rendition or review of the Fomenko "Setbacks" or "Set forwards" that the Fomenko Group regularly uses to support its view! I have presented these "Setbacks" in an abbreviated form in this "discussion" section a couple of times, but it is not yet found its way into the general publics view! Why?

Why should the general reader be kept in the dark about something almost any of them could check for their / them selves? Certainly if two or so sources in the past, whose lives are not really known, had "reportedly" written aricles about the "ancient" Plato, stating that he (Plato) also expoused such a series of "setback", your Wikipedia article (concerning the ideas of Plato) would have certainly mentioned them! But, of course these tidbits of information from personages about which little is really known have been turned into "reliable sources" since hundreds and even thousands of Doctorial Thesuss have been written using them as "source material" concerning the life of Plato. Whether or not the sources are correct or not is not questioned, these sources have "weight" because of the "weight" of paper that has been written about them and their reported works.

Your refusal to use any supporting examples automatically biases the article since the only easy way for anyone to verify or reject the Fomenko Theory is not available to them on the pages or Wikipedia!

NOPV or POV, something YOU must think about?

By the way "Link 14" at the main article is not available! I would suggest this link; http://revisedhistory.org/real-jesus.htm 69.92.23.64 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I checked the link you suggested, and it has the same title and author as the present link, but doesn't discuss "Yoros Castle", "Joshua's Hill", or even "Calvary". I'll delete the dead link. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative! adj. "1.Tending to make or become worse. 2.Disparaging; belittling. n. A disparaging or belittling word or expression.

pejoratively pe·jor'a·tive·ly adv."

For an example of "misrepresentation" Doug, in this section of the Wikipedia Fomenko article, we find these words;

"Detailed description Fomenko's theory claims that the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the "true" chronology, which lasted 350 years, shifted back in time by significant intervals (integer multiples of 350 years), with some further revisions. All events and characters conventionally dated earlier than 11th century are fictional, and represent "phantom reflections" of actual Middle Ages events and characters, brought about by intentional or accidental mis-datings of historical documents."

I guess I have not read any of the Fomenko books? Since I have never seen any word or suggestion that there exists a series of "350 year intergers" within this groups works! Whilst that may seem reasonable to some anti-Fomekoian casual reviewer that does not exist (as far as I know) within the works of Fomeko, et al! Yes there does exist numerous setback which have to be taken into account in any review of ancient history! But using a number like "750" as a basic component of Fomenkian thought is a dis-service both to Wikipedia and to Fomenko, et al!

Accuracy should be a component of all Wikipeida articles, and until we / you agree then a lot of "experts" will tend to treat Wikipedia as a "second rate" source!

Regards as always,

69.92.23.64 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Fomenko's "theory" is as FRINGE as it gets, and will not be treated as if it is a credible historical theory, because it isn't. So do not expect what you consider "neutrality" in this article. You won't see Young earth creationism given credibility on the Age of the Earth article, so don't expect this one to mislead the reader to think that Fomenko's ideas are in any way legitimate. Auntie E (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So, Auntie EM! Was the theory that "germs" were contained within material that could not be seen by the human eye also not considered as "Fringe?", how about the "Atom?" how about "heavier than air flight?", how about a thousand other things that we today consider as "NON- FRINGE?" Yeah, how about that? LOL

Auntie Em, we might well consider Wikipeida's rules concerning "Reliable Sources?" It will astound you that no or almost no sources which tend to confirm or validate the theories of the Fomenko Group are considered as "Reliable!" But, in the Wikipedia article concerning "Reliable Sources" we can read these words; "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." You see Auntie Em, Wikipedia itself promotes a "Non-Neutral" position towards "Tiny-minority views" and "fringe theories!" And, the Fomenko theories are considered as "fringe!" So Wikipedia does not seek "neutrality" in its position concerning Fopmenko! It allows itself the leeway to be as biased as it considers necessary to keep "fringe" or "Tiny-Minority" views as nothing more than poor science fiction!

And, it seems they continue that view even when offered plain (in your face examples) of repetitious historical figures and events that can be viewed by any and all interested parties. One example already mentioned is Plato as Pletho / Plethon!

Regards,(The Wizard of Oz!)

Ronald L. Hughes69.92.23.64 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT "Auntie Em." I am Aunt Entropy, or Auntie E, or just Auntie. To compare Fomenko's "theories" with germ theory or atomic theory is laughable, I agree with you there. And yes, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia will not ever be fair to fringe-promoters, and complaining on this page will not help. So please stop, because you are not helping the development of this page with your ranting. Auntie E (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Aunt Entropy! Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your last post, and sorry my attempt at humor was considered as a slight! I do apologize. But, concerning my statements concerning, as you wrote "germ theory or atomic theory." I used those as well as "heavier than air flight" to make what I thought was an obvious connection! IE, all three ideas were considered as "crackpot", "fringe", or "Tiny-minority views" at one time. Dr.'s scoffed at any idea which connected infection to microscopic organisms, that is until it was proven! The same thing applies to "atomics" and "air-craft!" The "experts" scoffed, and laughed, and derided those men / women who had other ideas which did not fit within the then "currently accepted view of the world!" That these attitudes existed then cannot be denied, but you and the comfortable "majority" of today, see no reason to give any "objective" concern about the theory of the Fomenko Group! That is, not one of you, it seems, has actually tried to perform the "set-back" tests that Fomenko, etal, and I have promoted. If, indeed any of you actually tried to test it, then either you failed to mention your results, or you found out some major flaw with them! I neither case, it seems, have any of you actually mentioned the results either "pro" or "con!" You see the Fomenko Group has presented us with a hypothesis that is simple and testable! One can read the Fomenko material and actually see the step by step methodology used, and then make one's own results as well as one's own opinion as regards the valadity of the claim(s) available to this discussion page. That would be "fair" and objective at the same time, I would think? Regards, as always; 69.92.23.64 (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

But this is Wikipedia, and as editors that's not our role. Articles should not contain editor's own experiences or even experiments or research, but should be based on what reliable sources have to say about a subject. And this discussion page is definitely not a venue for discussion of whether Fomenko et al are right or wrong, it is here solely to discuss the article itself. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Doug, I really do understand your point made above! I must also apologize for some of my remarks since anger does sometimes cloud my typing fingers! Laugh! But, I would have thought that the ability of anyone to accurately investigate a theory such as Fomenko, etal, have made, would to include the "set-back" theory (that is used through out these works) for any reader to at least have within his/her scope the ability to at least know that it exists, and the methodology that can be used to access any revelations thus revealed. I would compare it to the Wikipedia article concerning "relativity", and especially "Special relativity", whereby step number two, under this catagory, is not revealed to the reader! Thus the reader would basically be left with "1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity)", point number "2" would be hidden, Viz. "2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light." Do you think that any reader could come to a resonable understanding of "Special relativity", using only number 1.? I would contend that the body of the "article" itself should contain the "set-back" information, since it is just as important to the theory that point number 2. is to "Special relativity!" Merely showing this information in this Wikipedia article, would not violate any of your rules, since it is "part and parcel" of the theory itself! Please give this some consideration? Regards,69.92.23.64 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Ronald l. Hughes

Dear Auntie,

The non-editable phrase: <Most Russian scientists considered the New Chronology to be pseudoscientific.[3][4]> really smells POV of a `traditional` historian. Who counted votes of the russian scientists? Dr Fomenko asks a simple question: is history (as it is now) actually a science? Rest assured, most of of the exact sciences and/or engeeneering crowd worldwide DOES NOT recognise the history as a science. Kindly edit as follows: <Mainstream historians, especially the Russian ones, reject the New Chronology outright.[3][4]> It is true though that poor Dr Fomenko is being grilled alive.

Kisses, ~~Poggio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poggio bracciolini (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Doug, and/or very dear Auntie, I have looked closely at the contents of links <Most Russian scientists considered the New Chronology to be pseudoscientific.[3][4]>. Conclusion: In 3-4 instances reference is made to: a) hearsay and/or complaints of historians (true)about Dr Fomenko et al theories per se, b) hearsay and/or complaints of historians that circulation of couple of millions of copies in Russia of Dr Fomenko's his-story books, making him dirt rich (untrue); Kindly note that Dr Fomenko has produced 100% valid and verifiable counter refutations to the professional refutations of ONE russian , Dr Zwiagentsev and ONE english, Dr Stephenson, astronomer. Dr Fomenko can't produce valid refutation to 100feet high Dr Billington, because the latter is a historian who produced nothing but a libel. Idem, from the very beginning Dr Fomenko has warned his readers that conslusions and conjectures based on his linguistic endeavours are just that, i.e. conjectures. Actually, every time when good Dr Fomenko cloaked himself as historian, his product became about as reliable as 'classical' history. Hunting without a license on foreign property, ah? That does not cancel though his clean irrefutable propriatory statistical methods that do confirm innumerable instances of falsification of history, and point to its inconsistancie's. Look, surgery heals, even if there is blood and pain, organs and limbs cut. The 'perfect' body of the World History is both cancerous and gangrenous. Dr Fomenko's theory is a bistouri. Help and heal yourself, History! Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I make issue with your "Note number 45", E.g. http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id13.html This is an obvious use of POV violations since the author takes the time to say; "The English edition of the book was published in September 2003, under the title History: Fiction or Science?, with a lurid cover featuring the crucified Christ, but it is not necessary to buy the book to learn about Fomenko's theories." Thus a source that you guys as editors chose to list, openly presents his derisive attitude towards the Fomenko works, even to the point of suggesting that no one even needs to read them! Naughty, naughty!69.92.23.64 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Duke on Almagest

The article currently states that Fomenko "argues that the star catalog in the Almagest, ascribed to the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, was compiled in 15th to 16th centuries AD, with this objective in sight develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and proves that Almagest is based on the data collected between 600 and 1300 AD, whereby the telluric obliquity is well taken into account. The dating method was tested unambiguously on 736 8-star combinations (Prof Dennis Duke, State University of Florida)."

The implication that Duke somehow supports Fomenko's dates (or at least his dating method) is suspect. Duke's, "Dating the Almagest Star Catalogue Using Proper Motions: A Reconsideration" JHA 33 (2002): 45-55 dates the Almagest to the astronomical year -142 (i.e., 143 BC) ± 195, combining celestial latitude and celestial longitude data.

Please provide an exact citation to support the claim that Duke supports the calculations used by Fomenko. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here goes a requested citation by Dr Duke

SteveMcCluskey, kindly read the article You quote carefully. Dr Duke DOES NOT date Almagest, he critisizes the date cooked by Efremov et al. It happens that Dr Duke dissects Efremov's anti-Fomenko article and concludes his article so:

QUOTE This paper, and the paper of Dambis and Efremov, looks only at using proper motions to try and distinguish the epoch of the star coordinate measurements. Other methods, such as looking at the pattern of fractional endings of the coordinates (16), the pattern of systematic errors in the catalogue (17), or the correlation between a star’s magnitude and its inclusion or omission from the catalogue18, are all independent and must be judged on their own merits. ... I thank A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky for introducing me to the subject and patiently answering my questions. UNQUOTE

Thank you SteveMcCluskey, PS: read also this: R. R. Newton, The crime of Claudius Ptolemy, (Baltimore, 1977). Poggio Bracciolini (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Poggio

Contrary to your first point, Duke does in fact provide dates of the Almagest, comparing his with those of Efremov et al., to quote (p. 48):

"Least squares fits are preformed for the latitudes and longitudes alone, and with both coordinates together, assuming N = 40 and N = 6, and T₀ = 0, with the results:

T_β = -81 ±147

T_λ = -109 ±226

T_λβ = -89 ±122

According to Dambis and Efremov, and

T_β = -80 ±121

T_λ = -74 ±174

T_λβ = -77 ±102

when I repeat their analysis as closely as I can."

He then goes on to make his own revised calculation, which yields slightly different dates for the Almagest (p. 50), obtaining:

"T_β = -188 ±243

T_λ = -82 ±317

T_λβ = -142 ±195

for the fits to the latitude, longitude, and combined data respectively."

Note that Efremov and Dambis's results fall within the error range of Duke's results. Duke's problem with the analysis of Efremov and Dambis is not that their dates are wrong, but that their method leads to an excessive value of precision. From Duke's analysis there is no way to tell whether the Almagest star catalog was based on observations made at the time of Hipparchus or that of Ptolemy. None of the dates he computes for the Almagest offer any support for Fomenko's chronology.

Your second point about the different methods of computation that have been used by different analysts adds nothing to the discussion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

summary of nc

Can anyone provide the actual timeline of the new chronology that Fomenko proposed. I've looked everywhere and cannot seem to find it. It needs to have dates, geographies and identities provided on the timeline. I think this would guide this overall discussion much better as there seems to be much confusion about what Fomenko is claiming about the "correct" temporal ordering and geographic location of events from 1040 on. It isn't clear to me, either. If the Egyptians are part of the European history, for example, who built the pyramids and why? If the Western Roman Empire was rolled into English history, or was a myth, then who built all the junk in Rome? We need some clarity on the timeline and how it fits obvious known artifacts, geography, languages etc. Until that is done this whole discussion is inherently divisive because everyone has a different view of what this timeline implies. Oh yea, please do it in correct English. Somebody produced an English translation of one of Fomenko's works that butchered the English language as badly as conventional history. It was very hard to follow. Apologies to all that I don't speak Russian or any other source language. offline discussion: jtkm@jtkm.org Wilson Van Houten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.5.205 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir,

Since at least two of the Fomenko volumes are available on-line, I can only refer you to them, the address is somewhere listed in the above "discussion / dismissal" of the entire theory! But, to let you know, there are a number of overlapping time-lines! It mostly depends upon the "setback" or "setforward?" number used, since all of these are in someway(s) inter-connected! Thus Muhammad II, the Conqueror and his direct followers, become the "guideline" for the "questionable" or even "fabricated" history of Alexander the Great. For an example, just why would Alexander cross into Asia Minor at the point mentioned in our "consensual" history? Why cross at a point that is so wide? Why is the real power centre of the channel that connects the Black Sea to the reast of Western History, not even mentioned in Alexander's conquests? That city could be named "Byzant?", or as it is later known as "Byzantium!" This entire part of Western Asia Minor is not, at least to my knowledge, even mentioned in the area of his conquests! The question is "why not?"

One might well want to compare the proposed area of conquest of Alexander and his army, with the expansion of the Ottoman Empire under numerous Sultans, starting with the one called "the conqueror!", and his lineage, etc. None of this is, of course, "Rocket Science!", it is an easily accessed point to point comparison! One might well understand that any history of Asia Minor and Greece, following the conquests of the Othman Empire, is considered as an analogy to the words "dark age!" That is very little information has reportedly made its way to our day!

But, of course my words are POV, and not really allowed to be considered!

My regards, 69.92.23.64 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Religion

I was just wondering if there is any information on what religion, if any Anatoly Fomeko subscribes to. Is this listed somewhere in his writing or any other location? I'm extremely curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.3.253 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I am guessing that most probably he is either an Eastern Orthodox Christian or an atheist.

But I'm almost certain that he criticizes the Catholic Church a lot in his writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.3.253 (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re; Your main page section, entitled;

"History and its revision according to A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky"

Since I only read accounts in English, I wonder where your writers of the above named section, are from? That is, as of today, there are only four volumes of the seven volume set actually published in English, and "broken English" would be a better explanation! So, as an avid reader of Fomenko, etal, I have no resources written in English to face against the words your "approved" sources have provided in the above section! Could your "sources" please provide their "sources?" Unless so then there must be some problem? In other areas you do not approve of sources from within the source! So, just what are the sources for the words now found in the section entitled "History and its revision according to A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky"???? Perhaps these "sources" that have to be from "sources" that are "reliable" and "neutral", etc., must be removed! 69.92.23.64 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Why is this site kept to strict standards of Wikipedia conduct, while other sites are not?

And example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_ibn_al-Khatt%C4%81b Any of you can read the aformentioned Wiki site! Can any of you state that it follows the same guidelines that are strictly enforced here? In essence it seems that there is exhibited some hypocritical enforcement of the rules! The afore mentioned site is literally full of POV statements, and no one questions them! It is biased, and nothing critical is exhibited! Does Wikipedia only allow Muslims to control said site? Are only Mormans allowed to control the site concerning the CHJCLDS movement? Are only Roman Catholics allowed to cover all of Christianity? Is there any justification of the rampant loss of control that appears on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_ibn_al-Khatt%C4%81b and others, I am sure! If so, maybe it can be addressed here?

I think that everything I have expressed above follows the NPOV rule!

Look, you guys, I.e. Kennedy, Grubb, etc., if it is allowed at one site, then maybe it should be allowed at all sites? But, I would guess that "fear" rules the site I have called into question? But, of course, as usual, I could well be wrong? 69.92.23.64 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

That is not how it works. Omar ibn al-Khattāb is not a fringe theory; this is. Per WP:FRINGE "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." Fomenko's theory is like the supposed coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy--it requires distorting or ignoring historic facts to make the thing work. This article accurately reflect that fact and before you bring up Christ Myth Theory, that fringe theory has different problems--largely definitional issue as not all the reliable sources are on the same page as to just that the thing even is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Americas in the picture

As said before by other editors, I believe we lack a clear sketch of Fomenko's proposed chronology. For example, I've read the whole article and all I came up with about the Americas is that it was governed by the Russian Horde... so the whole discover of the Americas is not true? All continents where in touch since when...? Againme (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Againme, was in in possession of information that is not available (in English) to me or anyone else when the above was wrtitten! But, have any of you been to Barcelona, Spain? In the harbor of Barcelona is a great statue of the "great navigator Colombo" who has his arm raised and pointed "Due East!" Is this a mistake or a suggestion? Perhaps it is merely a mistake?69.92.23.64 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I have not been to Barcelona, because, of course, Barcelona does not exist. It is a fiction foisted upon us by the geographers, who have sought to convince the world that there is a major city in Spain called Barcelona when, in fact, no such city exists. Good try, though. john k (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A reply to both of you! In fact, the Fomenko Group, only considers the far Western regions of both Canada and the USA, as under the control of "Horde Russia!" Every student of American history already basically knows this! As it concerns the specifics, these can only be found in "Chron 6" of the series, which has not yet been translated and published in English! It is really funny how many of you have made corrections, negations, etc., and who will readily admit that they have read little or any of the four books already published in English! That is, in my opinion, poor scholarship! Regards,96.19.147.40 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Picture Makes it Look Like an Infomercial

Hi. I just happened by this page, and, while I've no dog in the fight over the subject matter, the initial picture of the box set, while it may be apposite, gives the impression to the initial reader that they are about to read an infomercial. Could I respectfully suggest that either an alternative picture is found, or that the picture is removed? It adds nothing to the article, and makes it look decidedly un-encyclopedic. Shady18n (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact the picture is absolutely in its place. The New Chronology of Fomenko now is a commercial publishing project (more than 100 books published in Russia) and should be treated in this way. It looks however that the attempt to hit other markets failed. --MLGorodetsky (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha, are you saying the marketing of the theory is more notable than the theory itself? —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Detailed description" page, is incorrect!

Dear, whomever is now in charge of defending this site!

In this section, copied and pasted from the Wikipedia site, is the following;

"Detailed description According to New Chronology, the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the "true" chronology, which lasted 350 years, shifted back in time by significant intervals (integer multiples of 350 years), with some further revisions. All events and characters conventionally dated earlier than 11th century are fictional, and represent "phantom reflections" of actual Middle Ages events and characters, brought about by intentional or accidental mis-datings of historical documents. Before the invention of printing, accounts of the same events by different eyewitnesses were sometimes retold several times before being written down, then often went through multiple rounds of translating and copyediting. Names were translated, mispronounced and misspelled to the point where they bore little resemblance to originals. According to Fomenko, this led early chronologists to believe or choose to believe that those accounts described different events and even different countries and time periods. Fomenko justifies this approach by the fact that, in many cases, the original documents are simply not available: Fomenko claims that all the history of the ancient world is known to us from manuscripts that date from the 15th century to the 18th century, but describe events that allegedly happened thousands of years before, the originals regrettably and conveniently lost. For example, the oldest extant manuscripts of monumental treatises on Ancient Roman and Greek history, such as Annals and Histories, are conventionally dated ca. 1100 AD, more than a full millennium after the events they describe, and they did not come to scholars' attention until the 15th century.[citation needed] According to Fomenko, the 15th century is probably when these documents were first written."

I feel really sorry that I have to again detail the problems that lay/lie? within the above statement! Such as: "According to New Chronology, the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the "true" chronology, which lasted 350 years, shifted back in time by significant intervals (integer multiples of 350 years), with some further revisions."

Since I have actually read some of the books, I must ask you just where in the hell did you come up with these "350 year" intergers? (if that is the correct word?) Since I have some knowledge, then I can specifically state that your source has "Lied!" There does not exist any quote from the books that mentions at any time the numbers "350 years" and of course "multible intervals!" That is CORRECT! There exists no mention of any "intervals of exactly 350 years!" Yet, your site continues to "promote" such lies! Yes there are "intervals" promoted that mention "330 years" or "360 years" but, as far as I know, no mention is made of the interval your site continues to promote concerning "350 years!" If it does exist within the material, then I would like you to quote it in your segment entitiled "Detailed description"!

Failure to do so would, indeed, invoke your sites own words of "verifibility!" or "Verfiable!"

If any thing I have mentioned above is incorrect, then please mention my mistake here? My best regards as always;69.92.23.64 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

So I guess "350" should be adjusted to "about 350". That doesn't surprise me; if the four copies are "overlapping" then they can't be offset by "integer multiples" of their length. —Tamfang (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove unsourced sections!

The article is full of unsourced sections. Many of them look like undue weight especially considering it's fringe nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've just seen this article (and heard of Fromenko) for the first time, & my reaction was that it only had about two lines explaining what Fromenko's theories were, and several lengthy sections covering why what he said (whatever that was) is wrong. I then discover that the article did contain such material but it has recently been removed, mostly by IRWolfie. The second sentence in his comment above is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on a WP talk page. The subject of this article is Fromenko's theories, and setting out what those are cannot be WP:UNDUE in an article on that very subject. That the subject of the article is a fringe theory is no reason to cripple it by removing all explanation of that theory! That is WP:CENSORSHIP. However we now have a WP:UNDUE situation as the article does not cover its subject adequately, but only criticism of its subject. Nor will objections as to WP:PRIMARY stick here. I'm very tempted to revert all these removals as clearly POV. Some of the material was referenced to the original Russian, which IRWolfie's edit summary says he can't understand, but he just removed it anyway. That won't do. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • agree, the article looks like a propaganda piece by the committee of Russian Academy against pseudoscience. MerryTaliban (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The content was over the top, especially considering its fringe/pseudoscience nature and is unsourced/primary sourced. There is even duplicate sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I cut one at random William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally pseudoscientific

OK, gents, I can see 4 references for NC to be considered pseudoscientific generally. One reference does not work, the other three to various official Russian Academy of Sciences pubications. Thus, you cannot say it is generally considered pseudoscientific, unless, off course, you are on a crusade for your POV opinion. MerryTaliban (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Several references for pseudohistory - [6] and some here [7] Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Half of the references are irrelevant only mentioning NC as some sort of example, the other half are some papers in Cultural or Literary Studies, including a PhD thesis in Cultural Studies from a provincial Australian University. MerryTaliban (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not a joke. I'm not saying all of them are good, but mentioning NC as an example is the sort of reference that we are looking for, and you can argue at RSN if you don't think we can use references from papers in cultural or literary sources. In fact, that makes it even more 'general'. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it, do it? NC claims to be Applied Mathematics, so Cultural Studies references are as useful as H. Kissinger's opinion on Quantum Gravity. Given the lack of interest of applied mathematicians to NC, it can be safely called Fringe Science but not Pseudoscience. 86.176.239.62 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They still refer to it as pseudoscience, and in any case it would be naive to say it's just a work of mathematics whatever it may claim. Then there are the other half that mention it as an example of pseudoscience. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is considered to be pseudoscience by whom? By Russian Academy of Sciences! Which is what you are supposed to write if it is encyclopedeaMerryTaliban1 (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not write in English, but I want to ask something. Where in this article intereses from novices to behave like a collective mind, and in any way trying to correct the preamble? Especially in light of holivara in Russian Wikipedia. Especially since you also have reiterated that there are no Russian sources. Why do you keep repeating the same thing as a mantra? Mistery Spectre (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That sums it up well: you do not write in English but you are still an editor of an English encyclopedia. BTW, neither do you check your references: your reference [3] is empty. MerryTaliban1 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

only you can answer my remarks, this is my spelling? :) Mistery Spectre (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is questioned theory not 'Generally pseudoscientific'

There is no consensus whether New Chronology is true or wrong so it wrong to state that this theory Generally pseudoscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelUstinovich (talk • contribs) 08:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus that it is wrong as can be seen by the vast vast majority of history books. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Right or wrong is too simplistic a question. Certainly, many parts of NH are "wrong" but they probably picked several holes in the traditional chronology... MerryTaliban1 (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ah "probably", do you have some reliable sources to back that assertion up? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If authoritative scientific sources that recognize the new chronology of scientific? Pseudo-yes, there is. And where is recognized scientific? There is no consensus and no need to, you do not require consensus on the fact that the earth is round Mistery Spectre (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Zinoviev is a distinguished philospher who recognized it and acclaimed it highly. Kasparov's reference is also relevant since you insisted on "generally considered to be pseudoscientific" and Kasparov is a good example of "general" intellectual who is highly supprtive. MerryTaliban1 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, philosophers and intellectuals' chess - the authority in the field of history? In any case, your two references to people with no history of education, excellent balance a bunch of professional historians? Mistery Spectre (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot write but at least try to read what you are writing! You use the word "scientists", I am giving an example of "a scientist", and you revert me asking for "historians", knowing well enough that academic history is rejecting NHMerryTaliban1 (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

According to your if you have one, his opponents are no longer the majority?). Well Well, until I replaced the historians, I hope now you have no pritenzy? By the comma, for example?) Mistery Spectre (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not spelling, it is your utter inablity to make a coherent sentence in English. The one you wrote makes no sense whatsoever! Just write anything that makes sense or it has to be reverted, and keep my reference to Zinoviev! He is a bloody scientist, at the end of the day!!MerryTaliban1 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A correct spelling difficult? Or if there is no reason to roll back? Zinoviev was not a historian, not a linguist, not an archaeologist, he philosopher. How it relates to history and can serve as a source of support for historical theories? Mistery Spectre (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And how do you, guys, keep quoting the cultural studies PhD thesis from a provincial Ozzies university as a disproof? Anyway, I moved Zinoviev down to reception and moved and edited your statement to its most logical place towards the end of introduction MerryTaliban1 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And most importantly, that would not be in this sentence, you still need to put it as far as possible. Thanks, at least now you do not carry the full Mistery Spectre (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand a word you are saying: I am putting a sentence where it logically belongs. MerryTaliban1 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why is that and how I did not write, it is always "logical" goes in the end? Or even removed, weird huh? Mistery Spectre (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask your English teacher. Both sentences you just wrote are not written in English. MerryTaliban1 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Astronomical Evidence, mistakes

In the section of the main article, there is a part that consists of these words;

"In his final analysis of an eclipse triad described by the ancient Greek Thucydides in History of the Peloponnesian War, Fomenko dates the eclipses to AD 1039, 1046 and 1057. Because of the layered structure of the manuscript, he concludes that Thucydides actually lived in medieval times and in describing the Peloponnesian War between the Spartans and Athenians he was actually describing the conflict between the medieval Navarrans and Catalans in Spain from AD 1374 to 1387."

Whilst I have not read all of the Fomenko volumes, I can suggest that the author of the above words has, to me at least, misrepresented the works of Fomenko, etal. As far as I know, Fomenko, nor any of his collaborators, have moved the conflict from the area of modern Greece directly to the area of modern Spain. That is, it was Spain who provided a lot of the troops/mercenaries who fought each other in the Greek world during the period of Western control of the area. Thus the Catalans became the Athenians and the Navarresse became the Spartans. Of course there could be some overlap in the accounts of each group since records from the period are sparse to say the least.

If you can supply supporting material from Fomenko and company to suppport the above mentioned material, then please do so? Otherwise I would respectfully suggest a correction!

Oh! by the way I do recognize that the possibility does exist.Regards96.19.156.227 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Detailed description section is incorrect, I.e. "350 year intergers"

In the following section of the main article are these words;

"Detailed description

According to New Chronology, the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the "true" chronology, which lasted 350 years, shifted back in time by significant intervals (integer multiples of 350 years), with some further revisions....."

Having actually read three of the four volumes of the works of Fomenko and company, I can honestly state that such information concerning a "series of 350 years intergers" is a misstatement of the works, whether deliberte of accidental. Thate exist no mention of any "350 year" setbacks anywhere in the works with which I am familar. I have even mentioned this same mistake in an earlier post in this discussion area. But, if you are able to show me a reliable souce which supports the content displayed in quotation marks above in any of the Fomenko works, then I will accept it, but if you are not able to show such information then I would hope you would correct the above mis-information? I would admit that there exists a setback of approximately 333 years as well as one of approximately 360 years. Regards96.19.156.227 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Fomenko wrote[8] "But the most surprising fact is that these four chronicles are represented by practically the same series of letters and symbols. The four duplicate pieces differ from one another only by their position on the time axis. Thus, the second chronicle differs from the first one only by a backward shift in lime of about 333 years, the third by a shift of already 1,053 years, and the fourth by an approximately l,778-year-long shift. Admitting a certain liberty, we can say that the "modern textbook" of the ancient and medieval history of Europe, the Mediterranean region, Egypt, and the Near East is a composite chronicle obtained by gluing together four practically identical replicas of the abridged chronicle Cj. Three other chronicles are derived from it by redating and renaming the events described, while the whole of C\ is lowered (i.e., shifted back in time) by about 333, 1.053, and 1,778 years, respectively. Thus, the entire GCD can be restored from its part C\." Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology

Anatoly Fomenko pretty much have to deny the reliability of archaeological dating. This because properly dated archaeological finds verifies the broad outlines of conventional history. For example traces of civilisations in the New World are limited to four areas. These are Dixie, a region reaching from Central Mexico down to Costa Rica, the widest parts of the Andes and Amazonia. All of these were technologically several millennia out of pace with the Old Wold civilisations. Also, New Wold civilisations show no signs of having any contact with Old Wold ones until about 500 years ago. This verifies conventional history of contact and subsequent conquest. Another example is Australia which completely lack signs of ancient civilisations. In fact, there are no traces of even agriculture before the late 18th century. Written history tells that Britons then stated to settle there. In addition to archaeological dating are immense regional differences in the styles of objects. Anatoly is either unaware of these or intentionally ignores them. I think the later alternative is the less likely one.

2013-08-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Eurocentrism

I find Anatoly Fomenkos work pathetically Eurocentric. (Or should we call it “Graecocentric”?) He seems to only care about texts written in the three European alphabets: Greek, Latin and Cyrillic. If you know something about how cultures develop (Anatoly evidently don’t) then they obviously could not have appeared out of nowhere. Writing is thought have been independently invented three times. The first was in Iraq 5,300 years ago. The second was in the northern part of central China 4,000 years ago. The third was in southern Mexico and/or adjusting areas 2,600 years ago. The writing systems of the latest origin never spread beyond parts of Mexico and Central America. They probably ceased to be used more than 400 years ago. Instead the two other ones have given rise to all the writing systems used today. There are probably dozens of them yet Anatoly only considers three.

2013-08-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.