Talk:Anatoly Fomenko

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rollback argument 

message: 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)
replies: text: P.S. see here --jno 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Drawings 

message: Added a link to .
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)
thread_title: Added Video Link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History of China Contradicts Fomenko 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pericles wins the Chinese round

message: 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)
thread_title:  It doesn't matter 

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible category

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religious Beliefs 

message: In response to a reversal and comment by Doug Weller:  According to the (authoritative) External Link  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PhD Students 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opening paragraphs and inappropriate source 

message: Not a notable fringe theory, in itself. Our article contains a lot of (correct) OR. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[New chronology (Fomenko)]] into [[Anatoly Fomenko]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "conspiracy theorist" location