Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)

/Archive 1

Archived

Archiving this talk page was long overdue. Poggio - 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. If not, please stop wasting everybody's time with hundreds of pages of ranting about your favorite fringe theory. john k 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK? WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DELETE EVERYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.200.222 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 13 August 2007

Calm down, and spare us the CAPS. He didn't delete anything, he archived it. See that little link that says 'Archive 1'? Click that, and just like magic it's all there. See, not being a moron is not so hard if you just try a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.47.220 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 September 2007

I knew that already, the point is he should have no right to archive it without asking first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.200.65 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 October 2007

In passing, just what did happen to the archive? I'm seeing a red-link now. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)