Talk:Anatoly Fomenko

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rollback argument

I've reverted insertion of this chapter:

However, having formal education in history has nothing to do with validity of theories proposed. Also, astronomic evidence, provided by Fomenko, failed to be contested by defenders of classic chronology, as well as statistic similiarities in historic timelines for the time before XVII century with each other were not disputed. One of Fomenko's arguments was that documented and genuine history of rulers of XVII-XX centuries never shows anyhow close correlation, comparing to history of prior centuries, for which Fomenko insists history was multiplied and thus outstratched with additional centuries. Also, the most important method of dating of subjects, radiocorbon, was strictly proven to have error, valued in an order a thousand years, back in 1950s, which was obviously independent research, confirmed later by many other physics. Independently on believability of Fomenko's "recontruction" part of his works, all those facts keep the question of validy of classic chonology very firmly.

Because of following arguments:

• The merits of his new chronology are to be explained in New Chronology (Fomenko)
• having formal education in history has nothing to do with validity of theories proposed is only a comment
• No sources were given

Pjacobi July 3, 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Then having no "credible training in history" would also be only a comment... GregorB 23:45, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Pjacobi and GregorB. I recommend to cite sources as much as possible to minimize such "comments" from leaking into the article as facts. I am an outsider to this article coming from the RfC page. - Gauge 04:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Drawings

It'd be great to have his drawings here. They are actually exellent! Do anybody know the legal status of artwork created/published in USSR in 1980s? --jno 12:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. see here --jno 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

His art is rather good. However, I wish he wasn't such a lunatic and ultra-amateur historian. The guy should have just stuck to what he did best, mathematics.--PericlesofAthens 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I imagine most of his art is copyrighted. It's always copyrighted when I've seen it in his books anyways. Which is too bad: his drawings are really the best math art peices I've seen. 24.5.174.153 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Plateau's Problem Solution

I would recommend deleting or changing the language around the solution to Plateau's Problem, as one could infer from the text here that Fomenko was the first to solve the famous problem, which he was not (the Field's medal was awarded to Douglas in 1936 for his solution to the problem).whitfieldblount September 24, 2006

Redirect

We need a redirect to this article for the query "A.T. Fomenko", under which his works are published.

Added Video Link

Added a link to [1]. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a policy on Youtube videos, and I'm aware that the link could be considered pro-this guy's POV as well as of a commercial nature, but honestly, as a total sceptic of this guy's work I think the clip speaks louder than words. In my opinion, the clip shows the prof making his best case and failing miserably. Nicolasdz 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The video is a promotion for selling the book and cannot be seen as a valid reference or debunking source. I have not read the book but from what I have seen so far it seems to be full of “what if” which is a good approach in analysing mathematical puzzles but not the history! Kiumars

• Re: Television Preview of "History: Fiction or Science?" Which Television has broadcasted this video? YouTube is not a television! Anyone can post anything there! Kiumars

History of China Contradicts Fomenko

Hello everyone, if you look at my list of contributions to wikipedia (minor edits here), you can tell right away that I'm a Chinese history nut, and I leave no rock unturned when it comes to Chinese history. It's bad enough that he asserts ancient Egypt, Sumer, Assyria, classical Greece, Rome, Persia, and India did not exist, but I get quite a kick out of reading anything Mr. Fomenko has to say about Chinese history (or any history for that matter). This website says it best:

The Phantom Time interval closely approximates the Tang Dynasty of China, a high point of Chinese culture and political power. So there's a neat conspiratorial interpretation. The Tang Dynasty is an invention, a classic "golden age" myth. The only thing lacking is some explanation of how someone from medieval Europe convinced the Chinese to create a fake dynasty complete with bogus archives.

Not only that, when could they have? In another one of Anatoly's phantom time intervals perhaps? I wonder if the brilliant Fomenko tackles that quagmire. For being a supposed great mathematician, Anatoly Fomenko really sucks at doing math. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So Anatoly pretty much asserts that Chinese history began with the Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD), to fit neatly in with when Russian history truly began. My ultimate question to Anatoly Fomenko would be how was the Technology of the Song Dynasty so advanced if there was no technological basis before it for the Chinese to build upon? That's called technological evolution, my friend (kind of like cultural evolution, art evolution, language evolution, written character evolution, literary evolution, societal evolution, and every other type of human-based evolution that contradicts Fomenko).--PericlesofAthens 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically Anatoly Fomenko believes everyone (including the Chinese) was running around as cavemen who just discovered fire and the wheel in the 8th and 9th centuries and had no writing. Then suddenly, out of the blue, by the 10th and 11th centuries the Chinese had horse collars, trebuchet catapults, papermaking, hydraulic powered trip hammers, armillary spheres, gnomons, inflow clepsydra clocks, magnetic compasses, woodblock printing, movable type printing, paper printed money, written gunpowder solutions in the Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD, flamethrowers and fire lances, blast furnaces, hydraulic powered bellows, bituminous coal replacing charcoal in the 11th century Chinese iron industry, the clockwork escapement mechanism, the differential gear of the South Pointing Chariot, the chain drive, the belt drive, enormous Chinese ships with separate bulkhead hull compartments, paddle-wheel ships, wind mills, winnowing machines, rotary fans, manufactured toilet paper, experimentation with camera obscura, etc. etc. etc.? Add to that the developing Chinese literary fields in the 11th century of historiography, poetry, zoology, botany, mineralogy, geology, astronomy, mathematics, pharmacology, meteorology, metaphysics, climatology, geography, cartography, ethnography, physics, metaphysics, economic science, military strategy, etc. etc. etc. The Song Dynasty encyclopedia of the Prime Tortoise of the Record Bureau published in 1013 AD was divided into 1000 volumes of 9.4 million written Chinese characters, and you don't have that many words in a written language over just a century or two of a civilization's development. And people wonder why I call Anatoly a complete idiot, scam-artist, fleeting book-seller.--PericlesofAthens 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, how did China, virtually overnight, spawn a total population of 100 million people from the 10th century until the 11th century? Try to wrap your head around that and explain, Fomenko fans. And if 17th century European Jesuits convinced the Chinese that the Tang Dynasty existed, then how was it possible that Chancellor Sima Guang (1019-1086 AD) covered the entire history of the Tang Dynasty in his universal history of the Zizhi Tongjian published in 1084 AD? Which, by the way, covered Chinese history from the beginning of the Warring States in 403 BC until 960 AD when the Song period began.--PericlesofAthens 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fomenko's bed-time fairy tales about ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome being Middle Ages parallels are amusing at best, but he got really lazy when it came to the history of China and Arabia. I'd love to hear what he has to say about Chinese art, architecture, and mountains of literary records produced before the 10th century, but I've probably already wasted too much time on this idiot. I give Fomenko two thumbs down, and if I was a mutant with three thumbs, I would probably put that thumb down too. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I really tore him apart there with China (without even mentioning Shen Kuo or Su Song once), but I haven't even touched how advanced the Islamic world was in the 11th century. If there was no precedent for science in the 8th and 9th centuries, then how do you explain all the 11th century giants of science and technology such as Ibn al-Haytham, Avicenna, Abu al-Qasim, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Abu Nasr Mansur, etc.? Simple answer, you can't, and neither can Fomenko.--PericlesofAthens 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pericles wins the Chinese round

Yes, Pericles is a true China crack. No, Jesuits did not falsify, replicate, distort glorious Chinese history. The grown up Chinese have done it themselves. All the jesuits did was to supply abundant European propaganda leaflets, books, etc..for further creative chinese cuisine. Look closer at the chinese history you know so well, you may discover repeating patterns. Don't study Fomenko, you risk to turn into another NC zealot. Mea culpa, actually there are only two instances of jesuits in v.1: Dionysius Petavius, - the pupil of Scaliger, and Jean Hardouin, chief librarian of Louis XIV. Poggio Bracciolini 11:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Antoine Gaubil, Joseph–Anna–Marie de Moyria de Mailla, Matteo Ricci, etc. 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.160.109 (talk)

It doesn't matter

Why are you trying to disprove his theories here? I imagine that the huge majority of editors that happen across this page recognize how ridiculous Anatoly's claims are, but it doesn't matter. He makes them, and they're notable, so they're here to stay. I think most of Christ's assertions are ridiculous too, but I don't go on His talkpage trying to give an argument from evil against a benevolent God.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It does matter. The problem is that if history is made of documents or records, and we have no documents or records we can reliably date as existing before the age invention of printing / the revival of letters, then we have no history before that date. Obviously events happened, we just have no record of them. This is not controversial or refutable. What is controversial is - what documents are reliable and how can we date them? So how do we find out what if any records are reliable? Where are those explanations? Admikkelsen (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the American branch of the Fomenko books be linked?

I have some unfortunate news about the American branch of Mr. Fomenkos New Chronology books (http://www.revisedhistory.org/forum/). I found the forum on the American site a couple years ago where a famous internet grouch named "Ron" created a massive exodus of regulars due to his constant arguing. I tried passionately to "kiss the asses" of the "intellects" of this forum only to find out the head administrator deleted hundreds of random posts by forum members he disliked simply "for fun". I encountered one forum poster who called Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "evil" whom also used foul language and condesended but then when I put forth defensive arguments to "clear up the bs" I was moderator abused (deleted) I theorize merely because the simpleton moderator is either an athiest or just a very sad and jealous individual. I was also now banned (the pathetic admin said it would be a week buts its now the 4th week *sigh) because the sad moderator loves conspiracy topics(mostly the evil jews and the evil United States etc. and he's a Canadian lol) and it seems I disputed one too many of these topics and so he cried and thus instead of freedom of opinion on the forum he just resorted to his usual censorship and moderator abuse and now I'm still banned. I made this post in this discussion wondering if the link for the American forum should be added to Mr. Fomenkos wiki page? I also hoped that maybe there was a chance Mr. Fomenko himself would finally notice that his forum for his book he sells HAS ONLY 2 REGULAR POSTERS (LOL) DUE TO THE INEPT ADMIN AND MODERATOR. He really should do something about it but then maybe he doesnt care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G2thef (talk • contribs) 12:36, 18 July 2007

Chronology paradigm section

I have removed this entire section because of its flagrantly pro-Fomenko POV. If anyone wishes to restore it, please discuss its content here first. It cannot be reinstated without heavy editing. --Plumbago 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wish to restore it. The problem with actual text of article is that it is inevitably biased, moreover by the people who won't condescend to reading his books. Let us see what the heretic says. All NPOV editing welcome. BTW I strongly disagree with resinstating jesuits as A.F. own statement. That's simply not true, check it for yourself with 'Search Inside' in vol.1,2,3 of 'History:..'

I'll go through the text paragraph by paragraph to try to illustrate what's wrong with each. --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here goes Dr Fomenko take on new chronology vs consensual history:

The British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) as the founder of the consensual chronology we live with. Scaliger had considered himself a great mathematician and boasted to have solved the classical “ancient” mathematical ‘Quadrature of Circle’ problem that was subsequently proven insoluble.

This is neither here nor there - the vast edifice of conventional chronology is not supported simply by the work of this one person. He may have been the first to document it, but just because he's fallible that doesn't help Fomenko's argument. As such, this is irrelevant. --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

His principal works Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606) represent a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. Numerology was considered a major science then and J.J.Scaliger was a prominent cabbalist of his time.

Again, Fomenko may indeed show that one historian gets it wrong, but that's hardly a great way to build a case that they whole of academic history and modern science is built on sand. It might be better to reword to something like:

"A key strand of Fomenko's argument against conventional chronologies is that one of the first historians to construct a history of the world made both a number of mistakes and included numerological reasoning in doing so."

However, it would then be reasonable to follow on by adding:

"However, modern chronologies of Earth history (both human and geological) make use of a wide range of independent techniques to estimate age and the dates of historical events."

See what I mean? --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no! It's damn relevant. Scaliger was not a historian to start with, but a numerologist-mathematician. He's taken dates from ecclesiastical sources, arranged and 'improved' them with his numerological voodoo, and the chronology of Atiquity was born. His chronology stayed basically the same to our day, with some 'improvements' made by his pupil and follower Dionysius Petavius. Well, how would you call an edifice which has such doubtful provenance, be it so vast and majestic?

Don't label Dr Prof A.T.Fomenko as creationist, please. In his book: Earth>4.5 bln, humanoids>5 mln yrs. Sapiens<150.000 yrs old, civilization (state+army+ideology+writing) goes only as far back as AD 800, very scarce information from 8-10 cy AD events, most historical events took place in 10-15th cy AD. Jesus 1153-1186 AD. Old Testament compiled in 12-16 cy AD, AFTER New One, it renders events of that period. All methods of dating of artefacts, including c14 are non-exact and contradictory, there are no written ORIGINALS datable earlier than the XI century.

Too bad, but the "wide range of independent techniques" is NOT INDEPENDENT- they all have consensual chronology simply built in (calibrated on). Do you know that not a single lab will take a sample for for a blind dating test.

A number of points here. Firstly, the argument that Joseph Justus Scaliger is the sole root of modern chronology appears to have no strong evidence supporting it. And, even if this were true, it has very limited bearing on the accuracy of modern chronology - neither historians nor natural scientists would long stand for a chronology if it were found to be in disagreement with evidence. Anyway, you're clearly sold on the idea of a vast conspiracy of academics who only read (and publish) evidence that points one way. As for the article, as per Wikipedia rules (WP:WEIGHT), Fomenko's views should be presented for what they are - a minority view that stands in opposition to the majority view.

Secondly, I don't believe I did call Fomenko a creationist. From what I've been able to gather, he isn't one. His work does attract creationists because it denies well-established dating techniques, but it isn't obviously creationist in nature.

Thirdly, unfortunately, I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with the fact that the scientific community views objective dating methods as valid is the majority view. By all means report that Fomenko disagrees with them but, frankly, he hasn't a leg to stand on here. For the purposes of a neutral article, his disagreement with entirely conventional methods, while reportable, needs to be qualified with a note about its minority status. --Plumbago 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This begs the question. "neither historians nor natural scientists would long stand for a chronology if it were found to be in disagreement with evidence." The evidence is spotty making it hard to find anything corroborating or disagreeing with much of it. In fact the head of my history department in college, and this is before I heard of Fomenko, stated that ancient history was not real history because there weren't enough records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admikkelsen (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The English philosopher William Ockham (allegedly 1225-1279 AD) said: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". `Ockham’s razor` applied to history leaves us with a vision of humankind where civilization comes into being in the VIII- X centuries at the earliest, if civilization is understood as a hierarchical system consisting of state, army, ideology, religion, communication and writing.

Ockham's philosophy does not "[leave] us with a vision of humankind where civilization comes into being in the VIII- X centuries". This is the POV of Fomenko (in opposition to virtually the whole of the rest of the world; a minority view if ever there was one). It also isn't a good use of Ockham's razor (which would cut Fomenko's work to ribbons in the blink of an eye). I would suggest dropping this paragraph entirely - I can't see how to salvage it without making Fomenko look silly. --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither J.J.Scaliger nor his followers, clergy or humanists have paid much attention to Ockham’s law when they crafted Roman and Greek Antiquity. Their clients were condottieri upstarts who were seeking legitimacy in days of yore in order to become Popes, Cardinals or to found regal dynasties such as the Medici. They paid exceedingly well for a glorious but fictitious past.

Clear POV here: "They paid exceedingly well for a glorious but fictitious past". There is almost certainly something in the point about people wanting certain chronologies to be true but, again, this is badly written and expresses a clear POV. That it's not strong evidence for Fomeko's work is secondary. --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thorough research shows that there is literally no reliably datable information about events before the VIII century, and that there is only very scarce information originating from the VIII to the X century. As a matter of fact, most events of “Ancient” History took place from the XI to the XVI century, were replicated on paper in 1400-1600 AD, and positioned under different labels in an imaginary past.

Quite simply POV nonsense: "Thorough research shows that there is literally no reliably datable information about events before the VIII century". The reference to "imaginary past" especially so. The paragraph could, however, be rewritten to something like:

"Fomenko argues that there is no reliable information about dates ... and that most events conventionally classified as 'ancient history' ..."

--Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We have cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendro-chronological, paleo-graphical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. We found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because they are based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology.

Again, grade-A POV. As well as being written entirely from the POV of Fomenko, it makes a number of simply false statements concerning objective dating methods. It could be written to try to articulate Fomenko's disputes with these, but would need to be balanced by the majority view that he's talking through his hat. --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

C14 is a subservant rubberstamp as long as it does not stand blind tests, there referring to it is POV. It though correct to state that our heretic does not recognize radiocarbon in ts actual state, Nobel prize or not.

Having never sent a radiocarbon sample off for dating, I've no idea if this is actually true. However, you appear to be attributing to conspiracy that which is more reasonably ascribed to quality control. For ¹⁴C measurements to be accurate it's important that they are calibrated correctly. There's a section and a plot in the radiocarbon dating article that explains this. Accusations about conspiracies among professional isotope analysis experts, while reportable as Fomenko's views, should (again) be qualified by the majority view. That's what we do here. --Plumbago 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable as it may seem, there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies made in the XV-XVII centuries of 'unfortunately lost' originals.

Our theory simply returns the Chronology of World History to the realm of applied mathematics from which it was sequestrated by the clergy in the XVI-XVII centuries. We have developed a valid and verifiable method of historical research based on statistics, astronomy and logic.

For example, computer assisted recalculation of eclipses with detailed descriptions allegedly belonging to Antiquity shows that they either occurred in the Middle Ages or didn't occur at all. A simple application of computational astronomy to the rules of calculation of Easter according to the Easter Book introduced by the Nicean council of alleged 325 AD shows that it definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD.

Same criticisms as before: flagrant POV; written entirely from the perspective of Fomenko (it's not lifted from a source is it?); and undeniably a minority view that needs balancing with the majority view. It needs to be rewritten so that it's clear the article is describing Fomenko's views and so that the majority opposing view is presented. --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This time it is your POV. Nowadays even amateur astronomical software like 'The Starry Night'

has the backwards recalculation feature. These recalculations do confirm that eclipses with detailed descriptions allegedly belonging to Antiquity shows that they either occurred in the Middle Ages or didn't occur at all. As a punt the publisher of v.3 of History:Fiction or Science?Italic text places a bet of $10.000 that 'Almagest'Italic text (considered as the cornerstone of chronology) of Ptolemy allegedly written in AD 150 is actually compiled with astronomical data of ix-xvi cy! You won't find a single professional astronomer who will accept this bet. Same goes for Easter book calculation, it does contain data that proves that the dating of the Nicean council with AD 784 is simply wrong. Anatoly's stament is verifiable.

Erm, my POV is neither here nor there. And note that I said the text needs rewriting for balance, not hacking out. We are not seeking "the truth" at Wikipedia, we are merely reporting on estimates of it by other people. Reporting Fomenko's work is part of this, but his is only one view. Perhaps his view will come to be the majority view, but at this point in time it is very much the minority view. At one level, Fomenko should be grateful that Wikipedia, by its very nature, grants space for his views. More conventional encyclopedia's are unlikely to extend this courtesy. --Plumbago 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some related questions may arise: when and where was Jesus Christ born, when was He crucified? Was The Old Testament compiled before or after the New One, etc..? No, the New Chronology theory does not cancel events, artefacts, Pyramids, Great Walls, etc..etc, but points to their more probable positions on the time axis.

NPOV editing is more than welcome. Poggio Bracciolini 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you try editing it in a sandbox in your userspace. If you wish comments, please let me know. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking some of my rems into account. I'll build smth in the sandbox for your scrutiny. Brgds. Poggio Bracciolini 11:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It's not easy writing something that balances a POV against your own, but it's an important skill to develop at Wikipedia (and useful in RL too). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible category

Can we put this guy in the Russian theologian category? I don't want to make anyone mad, I just think it might make him easier to find. Would he dispute that he delves into these issues? Probably, but I figured it would be worth asking. Category:Russian theologians --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Fomenko is a theologian

I agree with Heyitspeter because I have a strong feeling that one day we will all realize how correct Fomenko was in his overall basis for New Chronology since its also reflective of Isaac Newtons ideas on New Chronology and is very mathematical/fractal/embedding/structured/quantum/algebraic/entropic etc. etc. He may be incorrect on some dating of dynastys but overall even finding just one false history results in a timeshift from anywheres of 100 - 1000 years so ...

Its a frustrating topic and I did appreciate a Mormon video on youtube they use to explain Jesus as some extra-terrestrial(meaning not from Earth) son of a family and has a brother and its basic mythology and I just simply replace any sinister/reptile metaphor with simply just a different hair or skin color. All myths are about race/genetics and different colors and we know we have all the resources enough to comprehend a good idea on what happened in mans past.

Religion is really just mans interpretation of the stars and its constellations and it is very esoteric(mythological,mysterious).

People try to become these gods/CAESARS (CHON - Carbon,Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen which is our human dna, CAIN,KHAN, YAH/JAH, JOHN, KHAZAR) whom we find in god names like Khonsu, Chnoubis,Chiron, Charon,Chronus etc. etc. and they always have a brother as in examples Castor and Pollox, Cain and Abel ( Kabil and Habil in Islam), Ahriman and Ahura Mazda, Rome's Romulus and Remus, Isaac and Ishmael or even male and female gods/lords like Frey and Freya, the serpent humans Yama and Maya of Egypt or the greek Apollo and Artemis.

So, Fomenko (like Newton) knows that history may very well be cyclical and repetitive or fractal and so somewhere must exist a "false tangent" that confuses the true order of what man thinks is his history . .. and these sick confused meglomaniacs change a word or two here and a date or two there and thus our modern day confusion! They all want to be Caesar who was both ruler and god and therefore the Fomenko system identifies THREE ROMES because those dynastys were in control of our records of historys. Did you know the zodiac constellation of the ram falls over Rome??? Hmmmm, the Hindus call the zodiac RAMA ... so we have AbRAhAM, RAMA, YAMA, YHVH ... hmmmm a pattern seems to show doesn't it?

Anyways, at some point in our past one side lied about how much it achieved and hid the accomplishments of another. I'm not referring to any race or color because thats pointless and relative since theres MANY races. I am saying that Mr. Fomenko is a theologian and supporting his ideas is logical since once we realize a dynasty did not exist (was just a falsified parallel) we must see where it was placed and remove it and adjust our chronology accordingly.

G2thef (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs

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 68.186.136.190 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why this would be an object of interest in this talk page. If you really are that interested in knowing about a religious affiliation of an individual, there are many ways to find out such things, up to and including asking the individual, when they are currently alive. Have you ever considered corresponding with Mr Fomenko? He would be the best source of such information. Once you find out, you can share what you find with others here in an appropriate section. Also, it might be the best idea to log in when making requests such as this. You will find that others will do more for you when they can see that you're at least serious enough to create a login and use it. The more secretive you are, the less credible you seem. People will tend to doubt your seriousness when you do the minimum to get by. As it is, you never followed up after this single edit over 10 years ago. Religious affiliation won't necessarily tell you anything about a person anyway. People (like some politicians) will feign a religious affiliation to have support a mechanism rather than to develop themselves into better persons. That's the difference between contributors and hypocrites. The focus of true religion is to reduce hypocrisy to zero in the human condition. As you imply, religion has a certain importance, but not all religions pay proper heed to the object of worship and what he, she, or it, will accomplish in their lives and what impact it will have on others around them. If you are still interested in A. Fomenko's religious affiliation, I am willing to do what I can to find any information that may exist. Otherwise, I will work on editing this article to quality in other areas. BRealAlways (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

He defines himself as an agnostic in this interview (min. 43:15) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHCGLW2zrpM Cjbaiget (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

PhD Students

In response to a reversal and comment by Doug Weller: According to the (authoritative) External Link Anatoly Fomenko at the Mathematics Genealogy Project at the bottom of the page, Fomenko did indeed supervise 38 PhD students over the course of his career at Moscow State University. Of course, I cannot vouch he was the sole supervisor of each and every of these students (since, e.g., he jointly supervised the PhD thesis of Sergei Tabachnikov with Dmitry Fuchs), but I am puzzled why would that be grounds for questioning said number, let alone reverting my good faith edit. Turgidson (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because something can be verified is never a reason to include it. This is an encyclopedia, not his website or Facebook page. It should contain significant biographical events, and it's not clear why this is important enough. Isn't this part of a professor's day to day job? We can say that "jointly supervised the PhD thesis of Sergei Tabachnikov with Dmitry Fuchs)" (with of course a source) because Tabachniov has his own article (although I'm not clear how he actually meets our criteria of notability, there aren't any sources backing that). Doug Weller talk 17:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Having 38 PhD students is highly-nontrivial in any scientific field, especially in mathematics; even a cursory look at the Mathematics Genealogy Project will reveal that. And Sergei Tabachnikov (not Tabachniov) is indeed notable; if that was in any kind of doubt before, my additional edits to that article should make it clear by now. Turgidson (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Supervising Ph.D students is actually not part of the day-to-day responsibilities of university faculty. In fact, most university math instructors will probably never supervise anyone in their whole career. And for those who do have experience supervising Ph.D students, 38 is an unusually high number. It is fairly common, in my experience, for information pertaining to involvement in Ph.D committees to be included in biographical and encyclopedic information on notable mathematicians. 2601:603:4C7F:9A40:14BE:8052:96E3:A4EE (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Анатолий Фоменко.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs and inappropriate source

Has anyone else noticed that this articles opens with a single reference that has nothing to do with Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov, even though he is mentioned in paragraph 2? The source being used is an archive from a news publication website. This is not what I would call a scholarly source, and because of this, is suspect and should be removed. This would require a rewrite of the opening paragraphs, but it needs to be done. If such sources are admissible for articles, then anyone could write their interpretation of something and have it used as a source to forward their agenda.

The article mentions that N. Morozov was a mason, but gives no details about his rank or position in the organization. It clearly lacks supporting evidence. The given source doesn't mention him at all. BRealAlways (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of New chronology (Fomenko) into Anatoly Fomenko

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that both the author and the fringe theory are independently notable and sufficiently developed to warrant distinct discussion. Klbrain (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Not a notable fringe theory, in itself. Our article contains a lot of (correct) OR. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how you come to the conclusion that this is not a notable fringe theory. Way more people know Fomenko as the creator of the New chronology than as mathematician.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Much of New chronology (Fomenko) is an in-universe presentation mostly relying on the primary source. I doubt that little will be left after a thorough cleanup based on gold standard secondary sources. And the fact that "way more people know Fomenko as the creator of the New chronology than as mathematician" in fact calls for a merger. If "New chronology" had developed a life of its own, or produced a wider circle of notable exponents, things would be different. As long as the crackpot and the brainchild are generally mentioned in one breath (as is witnessed in the very page title disambiguator of New chronology (Fomenko)), we only need one article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support as fringe theories go, this is fairly notable and the main reason that Fomenko is known in the West. I agree that there shouldn't be a lot to merge once we get rid of the OR/in-universe stuff. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The theory and author seem to be independently notable. Fomenko appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC, independently of his theory. And the theory has other authors than Fomenko, e.g. Gleb Nosovsky, and was popularized by Garry Kasparov. Tim Smith (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is notable, belongs in Category: Alternative chronologies alongside other examples, and is quite distinct from his mathematical work.--Pharos (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This conspiracy theory has numerous adherents and is sufficient to generate numerous peer-reviewed articles on scholar. Furthermore, the detail here is sufficient to the point that Formenko's article would no longer be sufficiently about him. --157.182.253.236 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is notable, and belongs in Category: Alternative chronologies alongside other examples, moreover I suggest to add by Garry Kasparov, I add this text to Talk2A01:E0A:511:6520:D4C9:9E9C:E778:49F4 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"conspiracy theorist" location

Even if we accept that the "conspiracy theorist" characterization is necessary for anyone that proposes an alternative explanation for something even against "consensus"(by shutting down everyone that disagrees you get a certain "consensus") and "official data", I don't think that the term should be preceding biographical data like that he was a mathematician, in that way the article could start like " Conspiracy theorist Anatoly....", it would be more relevant and accurate to refer to "conspiracy" after finishing with the biographical data and then continue in a way like "who is mostly known for..." or something like this. 37.6.1.2 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)