text:
Bant's Carn

Bant's Carn is a Bronze Age entrance grave located on a steep slope on the island of St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly, England. The tomb is one of the best examples of a Scillonian entrance grave. Below Bant's Carn, lies the remains of the Iron Age village of Halangy Down.

Description
Bant's Carn is situated on a steep slope on the island of St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly. Below the burial monument, lies the remains of the Iron Age village of Halangy Down. The tomb measures around 8 m in diameter and stands on a low platform 12 m across. The entrance is 4.5 m long and 1 m high, with no roof. It is separated from the burial chamber by a jamb. The chamber itself measures around 5 m in length and 1.5 m in width and height, with four large capstones serving as a roof. The carn is partially encircled by the remains of the platform, through which the passage leads indirectly to the chamber entrance.

History
The Isles of Scilly were originally settled during the Neolithic era, circa 2500 BC. Burials on the islands range in date from the later Neolithic period to the Middle Bronze Age (2500-1000 BC). Over eighty entrance graves have been discovered on the Isles of Scilly; The majority of graves were built in the middle Bronze Age (1500 to 1000 BC). Bant's Carn is an excellent example of a Scillonian entrance grave. Excavated entrance graves typically contain human remains, cremation urns, and pottery fragments. The tomb was excavated in 1900 by archaeologist, George Bonsor. Bonsor found the tomb empty except for cremated human remains at the back of the chamber, along with sherds of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery. Later restoration work in 1970, led by P. Ashbee, included re-setting the tomb's eastern capstone and southern portal stone. This work uncovered 140 decorated prehistoric pottery fragments from around the portal stone as well as two worked flints which were given to the Isles of Scily Museum in December 1976.

Bonsor never published the results of his excavations on Scilly. In 1926 his friend and fellow archaeologist, Thomas Kendrick, then Assistant Keeper in the Department of British and Medieval Antiquities at the British Museum, visited Bonsor at his castle in Seville, Spain. He discovered that Bonsor had kept his notes, drawings and finds from his excavations on Scilly. Kendrick convinced Bonsor to send several of the excavation finds to the British Museum. After Bonsor's death, his excavation plans and drawings were obtained for the museum. The plans played an important part in the restoration of Bant's Carn in 1970.

The Bant's Carn site also includes remains of post-medieval field systems and other settlements. It, together with the nearby late Iron Age/Romano-British village of Halangy Down is now in the guardianship of English Heritage. A military battery built in 1905 also stands nearby.

title: Bant's Carn


text:
Specially Meritorious Service Medal

The Specially Meritorious Service Medal was a military decoration of the United States Navy which was created by Joint Resolution of Congress No. 18 of 3 March 1901. The medal was intended to recognize acts of non-combat meritorious service accomplished during the Spanish–American War.

Description and symbolism
The ribbon to the Specially Meritorious Service Medal, 1898, is dark red and stands for sacrifice. Awarded to any member of the U.S. Navy, or United States Marines, the Specially Meritorious Service Medal was presented for acts of gallantry or heroism, not involving armed combat with an enemy, while operating in the territorial waters of Cuba in the year 1898. The medal was primarily awarded to those who had rescued sailors (both U.S. and Spanish) from burning ships following the Battle of Santiago de Cuba at Santiago, Cuba.

By 1935, the Specially Meritorious Service Medal had adopted the status of a commemorative medal; as late as 1942 it still appeared on official US Navy award precedence charts, between the Purple Heart and Presidential Unit Citation. An actual order from the Navy, declaring the decoration obsolete, was never published.

Obverse
In the center of a dark bronze cross pattée one and three-sixteenths inches wide, a medallion seven-eighths of an inch in diameter. The outer eighth-inch of the medallion, which is raised and forms a circle around the medallion, contains the raised inscription, U.S. NAVAL CAMPAIGN WEST INDIES. A small five-pointed star appears at the base between the words U.S. and INDIES, and an identical star appears between the words CAMPAIGN and WEST. The other words are separated by a bullet. In the center of the medallion there is a fouled anchor canted to the right and surrounded by a wreath of oak bearing nine acorns (to the right) and laurel (to the left). The wreath is tied at the bottom by a bow. The arms of the cross bear the following words: left arm, SPECIALLY; upper arm, MERITORIOUS; right arm, SERVICE; and lower arm, .1898. The edge of each arm is raised and contains a decorative border on the inside.

The anchor denotes naval service, and the wreath represents strength (oak) and victory (laurel). The inscription denotes the purpose of the medal. The small five pointed star represents military service.

Reverse
The reverse is blank and was used to inscribe the recipient's name along with a brief citation.

Ribbon
The ribbon to the Specially Meritorious Service Medal, 1898, is dark red and stands for sacrifice. The ribbon is nearly identical to that worn for the Navy Good Conduct Medal, and there were recorded instances of Navy enlisted personnel, who received both the Specially Meritorious Service Medal and the Navy Good Conduct Medal, wearing two identical ribbons for separate decorations.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Specially Meritorious Service Medal


text:
Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Chronology (Fomenko). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928043524/http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/2004/FALSCI.HTM to http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/2004/FALSCI.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060911155951/http://www.radikalkritik.de/AntiquaMater1.pdf to http://www.radikalkritik.de/AntiquaMater1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413014454/http://www.chronologia.org/car/04cs1.html to http://chronologia.org/car/04cs1.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120716020131/sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/rotation.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/rotation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see more work being done, two other sources
War and Memory in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus compares the NC with new-Stalinist literature and discusses why it is popular.

Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe "At the onset of the twenty-first century, the activity of the young radical right from the People's National Party, the Clan of Nav', the National Liberation Movement of Russia, and the Russian National Socialist Party grew. Even though these activists avoid public politics, they do not hesitate to use force against their enemies. They effectively combine Russian Orthodoxy with Neopaganism, although referring more often to the German than to the Slavic Pagan tradition. They admire pseudo-scientific books that present the “new chronology” of Anatolii Fomenko, the “Aryan-Vedic” fantasies of Aleksandr Asov, and introductions into “the history of the Rus’” of Yurii Petukhov. They identify themselves as the “warrior caste” and are eager to cruelly punish the “traders’ caste.”"p,68 "Rodnovers use social networks to discuss a wide range of topics. A relatively large amount of discussion is focused on the history of the pre-Christian and Medieval Rus. Topics that tend to raise quarrels and kholivar (a Russification of the English phrase “holy war”) include themes connected to relations with Christianity. Discussions about different conspiracy theories and alternative theories of history (such as the “theory of the Hyperborea” and Fomenko's “new chronology”) are conducted regularly." p,324 Doug Weller  talk 12:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the link Doug Weller. I am starting to think that creating an article solely devoted to the Russian Horde (currently a redirect) may be worth given the richness of literature concerning it and the many exquisite details there is no room to mention in this article. Any thoughts? Lappspira (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 * It looks like we have one. "Nationalist Imaginings of the Russian Past: Anatolii Fomenko and the ....https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=3898219151 Konstantin Sheiko, Dr. Stephen Brown - 2009 - Snippet view -"Some of that inconvenient information related to what Fomenko calls the Russian Horde and what the West knew as the Golden Horde or Grand Tartaria. Fomenko argues that this mysterious Eurasian empire began in the 1300s when the person whom we currently know as lvan Kalita, founded not Moscow, as conventional historians believe, but the Russian Horde dynasty." At least we have Golden Horde so we'd either need a different name or a section in it. But maybe start a section here? Then spin it off? Doug Weller  talk 14:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Fomenkos methods are somewhat well described in the article, now what is somewhat missing is how he fills the void. I suggest we add a section title somewhat like World history as proposed by.. with two subsections Russian Horde and Notable duplicates. Then when the Russian Horde section has grown enough we can split it to a separate article. Lappspira (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Lunar Anomaly
He says the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D" ("a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon"[31]) between the years AD 700–1300, which the American astronomer Robert Newton had explained in terms of "non-gravitational" (i.e., tidal) forces.[31] By eliminating those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D" beginning around AD 1000.[32]

If Newton explained this drop why is it 'mysterious'? Since Fomenko's explanation have any others been offered for this drop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.29.57 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the late reply. I'm glad I'm not the only one finding this paragraph preposterous and contradictory. The fact is that R.R. *COULD NOT* explain (and nobody after him, because this force seems to not exist at all)

 * Actually, the word 'mysterious' reflects the state of the matter according to own author R.R. Newton from his own words in the referred paper:

 * -"We are apparently forced to conclude that there was something like a 'square wave' in the non-gravitational forces that began about 700 CE and that lasted until about 1300 CE"
 * -"We are seriously lacking in mechanisms to explain the non-gravitational forces"
 * -"Forces of non-tidal origin, which are of the same order as the tidal forces, may be due largely to core-mantle interactions. There are no quantitative theories of these interactions"
 * -"we know of no mechanisms that can explain either the magnitude or the time behavior of the forces."
 * -"There are NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATIONS of the accelerations." (emphasis added by me)

 * So, effectively "misterious" is the word.

 * Now: The redaction in the wikipedia article is made so as to appear the he resolved a *pre-existent mistery*, putting an end to it with an explanation involving "non-gravitational forces". But the fact is that he *discovered the mistery and could not explain it*, and that is the reason *he wrote the paper in the first place".

 * Also, as of 14-March-2020 it seems to be absolutely de-facto FORBIDDEN (check history of changes, this talk page, my previous contributions, etc.) to correct this FACT in the article page even in his *simplest form* (changing "Robert Newton had explained" to "Robert Newton had not explained"). I fear that when this inevitably happens, this data will be considered irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

 * BTW, this paper includes this interesting remark:

 * "It is interesting that the astronomer Abu Sahl al-Kuhi, working in Baghdad around 990, said that, after a 'thorough investigation' based upon measurements of solar altitudes, he found the obliquity to be 'identical with what Ptolemy had found', namely 23°51'20""

 * (This question is resolved by assuming that Ptolomy did not make any observation about obliquity at all)

Cjbaiget (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

"Navarrans vs Catalans" as the "Peloponessian War".
Dear Wikipedists,

I've been invited for the first time in this page by user "Ymblanter", after a rejection of one of my corrections to the article. First and formemost, I want to express my gratitude for this offering to dialogue.

Regarding the article, it seems to me that contains at least two errors of subjective nature and some other that could be named as subjective, but I will mention later for you to discuss.

Objective Error #1: (Fomenko's Methods - Astronomical Evidence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbaiget (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 * thanks. My guess is that "he was actually describing the conflict between the medieval Navarrans and Catalans in Spain" should be "he was actually describing a conflict between the medieval Navarrans and Catalans in Greece". As that is weird, to say the least, I thought the change was an error, especially as it preserved the word "the" and of course there was no conflict between the Navarrans and Catalans in Greece. I have checked and I agree, that's what he says. However, I'm not at all clear why we should mention this. Have we got mainstream sources concerning his ideas about this? Without them I don't see why we should include it. Doug Weller  talk 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry I sent this unfinished post by error, I think we should discuss the complete one below. I'm also not sure if we should mention this, but from my point of view as a newcomer, this question on whether or not is worth mentioning only appears after a false statement has been corrected... If it was worth before despite being wrong, shouldn't maintain or increase its value after being corrected?

Regarding mainstream (should I understand 'consensual'-'orthodox'?) about this, I think that mainstream doesn't feel it worth to even refute claimings like this. Logically, attending only to the radical time span about the two events 'Peloponnessian War' to 'Catalan War' of +1500 years, any opinion must be fully polarized.

I don't see this particular association more remarkable than others inside 'New Chronology', however it served myself to even know about the real medieval Navarran-Catalan conflict in Athens which I ignored previously. At the same, if its going to be stated in the article, it has to correctly represent an actual claim from Fomenko, and that's why I considered editing the article in the first place.

"Navarrans vs Catalans" as the "Peloponessian War", and suggestions.
Dear Wikipedists,

I've been invited for the first time in this page by user "Ymblanter", after a rejection of one of my corrections to the article. First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude for this offering to dialogue.

Regarding the article, it seems to me that contains at least two errors of objective nature and some other that could be named as subjective, that I will mention later for you to discuss.

Objective Error #1: (Fomenko's Methods - Astronomical Evidence)

Actual wording with remarks: "He says the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D" ("a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon"[31]) between the years AD 700–1300, which the American astronomer Robert Newton _had explained_(??) in terms of "non-gravitational" forces.By _eliminating_(?) those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D" beginning around AD 1000."

Critique: 1. Redaction is confusing, not explicit about what Fomenko claims. 2. The fact is, Robert R. Newton *could not explain* parameter D" variation: Summary of his research says literally: "There are no satisfactory explanations of the accelerations. Existing theories of tidal friction are quite inadequate.". It's worth mentioning that the lack of a rational explanation for this observation led to a discussion organized by The Royal Society of London and the British Academy of Sciences in 1972 which "failed to elucidate the situation in any way". This circumstance leads to R.R. Newton to "suggest to attribute the leap to *certain mysterious extra-gravitational forces* in the Earth-Moon system.". i.e. The drop in lunar acceleration parameter D" and its later increase to normal levels *remains unexplained* nowadays (2019), if consensual chronology isn't to be questioned by any means.

However, changing the date of the ancient eclipses with those dates obtained for them by *Morozov* (not by Fomenko), to recompute parameter D" using R.R. Newton's *own method* had the effect to make this "mysterious extra-gravitational force" disappear, because parameter D" variation is consistent with current astronomical observations. That is, about the 'early eclipses', Fomenko did not 'eliminate' them, but *substituted its date* (more info as follows)

Proposed alternative wording: "The mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D" ("a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon"[31]) between the years AD 700–1300, whose discoverer American astronomer Robert Newton and colleagues could not explain and attributed to "certain mysterious extra-gravitional forces in the Earth-Moon system", could be made non-existent by replacing the consensual date of the eclipses used by R.R.Newton to the date for those eclipses as computed by Morozov, nearly a century before him."

This explanation makes the matter less ludicrous, but exposes better the reality of the events involving: ancient eclipses - R.R.Newton - parameter D"- Fomenko - Morozov.

Objective Error #2: (Fomenko's Methods - Astronomical Evidence)

Actual wording with remarks: "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 claims 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."

Critique: 1. There was no war between Navarrans and Catalans in Spain from AD 1374 to 1387. 2. There was a conflict between medieval Navarrans and medieval Catalans in *Athens, Greece* from AD 1374 to 1387. Belligerents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarrese_Company, conflict description: control of Duchy of Athens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company#Duchies_of_Athens_and_Neopatras

This conflict is what Fomenko identifies as "Peloponessian War" of 430 B.C. Proof/Reference: "14.3. The mediaeval Navarrans as the “ancient” Spartans. The mediaeval *Catalan state in Athens* as the “ancient” Athenian state" http://chronologia.org/en/seven/2N031a-EN.pdf

Wikipedia explaining "conflict between medieval Navarrans and Catalans _in Spain_" is also *contradictory* with Fomenko's own elaboration on the matter, as it associates *actual and tangible Peloponessian War archaeological findings* on *Greek soil* to the Navarrans-Catalans conflict over Duchy of Athens *in Athens*. (Please read 'Commentary' of page 280 of above link)

Proposed alternative wording: Simply replace "In Spain" with "In Greece" (or "In Athens"): "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 claims 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 Greece from AD 1374 to 1387."

Now I will talk about personal, perceived subjective errors of the article for discussion. I think this elements taint the article with parciality, as if it were more aimed to 'prevent' interested readers on the theory than to expose the matter at hand.

Subjective Error #1: Attribution of "pseudohistorical theory" tag.

Critique: "Historical reconstruction" from New Chronology is a "tentative" and "hypotetical" *byproduct* of its main findings. New Chronology just disputes current Chronology, and that forces "Historical Revisionism", which can be legitimate: "legitimate historical revisionism is a common and not especially controversial process of developing and refining the writing of history". "Not disputing" chronology is, de facto, a main attribute of pseudohistory, as seen in wikipedia's own article on the matter. Most "New Chronology" refutations fall under "ad consequentiam" fallacies, seldom relative to the statistical, astronomical and mathematic methods that serve as a foundation to the whole construct. It's not a regular and familiar "pseudoscience" like many others after the fact that, should by any means be proven right, then another accepted, orthodox full established science (orthodox chronology,history) will occupy its place as pseudoscience. Verifiable fact: Proving wrong the historical reconstruction of "New Chronology" doesn't prove wrong the chronological reconstruction of New Chronology. But the opposite is true, proving wrong the chronological reconstruction of N.C. proves wrong also it's historical reconstruction. New Chronology is not 'New History', but rather 'implies' it.

Proposed Alternative wording: Attribution of "tentative orthodox chronology refutation using statistical, mathematical, and astronomic methods which would imply radical and global historical revisionism" tag.

Subjective Error #2: "Derived" vs "Related"

Critique: Article says "The central concepts of the New Chronology are _derived_ from the ideas of Russian scholar...".

Fomenko, Morozov, Harduin, Newton, etc.. are not "continuing" the works of their predecessors. The subject "Criticism of orthodox chronology" is what *relates* them. Morozov made use of eclipse redating, Harduin motives are unknown, Newton used exegetic methods, Fomenko uses math, statistical, astronomical methods... Their work is *related* not *derived*.

Proposed Alternative wording: replace "derived" with "related": "The central concepts of the New Chronology are related to the ideas of Russian scholar..."

---Subjective sugerence #1: Mentioning "The Crime of Cladius Ptolomy" while explaining Fomenko's refutation of the Almagest.

---Motives: It can be of interest to the reader to know that, while researching ancient astronomical events to compute D" parameter, above mentioned R.R. Newton came to the conclusion the Almagest was not only an unreliable account of astronomical observations, but moreover, a blatant forgery. He wrote a book about that called "The Crime of Claudius Ptolomy". That was the motivation for Fomenko and its group to do their own research on the matter.

---Proposed modification: "He argues that the star catalog in the Almagest, ascribed to the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (which incidentally R.R. Newton accused of being a forgery in his book "The Crime of Claudius Ptolomy"), was compiled in the 15th to 16th centuries AD. With this objective in sight he develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and claims that the Almagest is based on data collected between AD 600 and 1300, whereby the telluric obliquity[clarification needed] is well taken into account."

---Subjective sugerence #2: Mentioning Fomenko's dating on the Round Denderah Zodiac.

---Motives: As both the Denderah Zodiac and the byzantine emperor Andronikos Komenos as Jesus are mentioned, can be of interest (both for further research or further mockering) that the former is dated by Fomento precisely to the date of 20 - March - 1185, or the passover of Christ following its own reconstruction.

---Proposed modification: "He refines and completes Morozov's analysis of some ancient horoscopes, most notably, the so-called Dendera Zodiacs—two horoscopes drawn on the ceiling of the temple of Hathor—and comes to the conclusion that they correspond to either the 11th or the 13th century AD. Moreover, in his History: Fiction or Science series finale, he makes computer-aided dating of all 37 Egyptian horoscopes that contain sufficient astronomical data, and claims they all fit into 11th to 19th century timeframe.[clarification needed] Traditional history usually either interprets these horoscopes as belonging to the 1st century BC or suggests that they weren't meant to match any date at all. Round Zodiac of Dendera would reflect the passover of Christ under its own reconstrucion: 20 - March - 1185, the date when Andronikos (persona of Jesus inside Fomenko's paradigm) was crucified."

Hoping not having wasted our time, I wait for your comments. Carlos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbaiget (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

time of theory emergence
Hello again,

I would like to reflect on the following sentence stated in the article:

"The theory emerged alongside other alternate histories and conspiracy literature in the period of increased freedom of speech that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union."

Really? How it comes that it didn't emerge *before* freedom of speech in the Soviet Union?? I think, that someone has bitten truly deep the hook of "correlation as causality" this time.

What have we just read three paragraphs above? "The *central concepts* of the New Chronology are derived(sic) from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov."(1854–1946). i.e. The exact time of *least freedom of speech* is the true time frame when the theory "chronological inconsistency" emerged (he spent 25 years in prison for political reasons). How could it be? Only with the help of *important figures in the scientific sphere of the epoch*, (including the great Mendeleyev, but that's another, very interesting story).

The truth is just the opposite of what is told in this article with that sentence. Btw, the conclusion comes from a person who is an historian. What does that mean? Isn't an successful historian an enough qualified person to refute New Chronology claims? From my point of view, no, because *historians are a party in this trial*. (metaphor: If Fomenko is "innocent", then Historians are "guilty").

Refutation *must* come from mathematicians and astronomers for one part, and/or physicists for other part (as designers of absolute dating methods-equipment).

Conclusion: I honestly think that this remark fits the very definition of tautology: "a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.", and deserves just to be ommited, or framed as what it is: one party's argument about New Chronology *causes*, not New Chronology *claims*.

Let's trace the single "cause" of New Chronology (Fomenko's branch), the *purportedly 'sociological' phenomenon* addressed by the historian critic mentioned (btw, link to the article is broken): Verifiable fact: In that epoch ("the period of increased freedom of speech"), Fomenko works as mathematician and tries to solve famous Parameter D" anomaly from colleague R.R. Newton. That's what opens this 'Pandora's Box', not any other thing. The attribution of 'conspiracy' to the *motives* or *explanations* of how this theory came to be, instantly appears as a "conspiracy theory" in itself, as is evidenced to any critical and sceptical mind that makes his own research on the matter.

p.d.: Although a proposer of the modification, I will not take the action to modify it, hoping that my argument is solid enough for another person consider it.

Carlos Cjbaiget (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter
On 10-March-2020, it has been very disappointing to me to make some research in order to bring some objectivity to this article and providing the subsequent modifications and explanations in the changes page, only to be dismissed by an abusive 'administrator' after the commentary "sure, Fomenko can explain anything".

So I'm going to enumerate the current LIES about "New Chronology - Fomenko" stated in this article a how to verify them. All this corrections were made by me and reverted without explanation by this user, so I thing he deserves the responsibility and the shame for the prevalence of all this LIES in the article.

LIE 1. (4. Fomenko's Methods - Astronomical Evidence) Current LIE: "American astronomer Robert Newton had explained in terms of "non-gravitational" forces.[31]2

VERIFIABLE TRUTH: In the SAME PAPER referred we can check the actual words from R.R. Newton on that matter:

"We are *seriously lacking in mechanisms to explain the non-gravitational forces*" "*we know of no mechanisms that can explain either the magnitude or the time behaviour of the forces.*" "*we need to extend research into new areas in order to understand the situation*, a little speculation is in order".

Meaning: Robert Newton HAD NOT explained.

LIE 2. (4. Fomenko's Methods - Astronomical Evidence) Current LIE: By eliminating those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D" beginning around AD 1000. Anatoly T. Fomenko, History: Fiction or Science vol.I, Chronology, 2nd. ed. (Paris, London, New York: Delamere Publishing, 2006), pp.93-94, 105-6.

VERIFIABLE TRUTH: In the SAME BOOK referred we can check that early eclipses are not ELIMINATED but its date COMPUTED to a *better matching occurrence* of its description.*

LIE 3. (4. Fomenko¡s Methods - Astronomical Evidence) Current LIE: "Fomenko does not explain (???) his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and effectively making this whole theory an ad hoc hypothesis."

VERIFIABLE TRUTH: "Data alterations" is thoroughly *EXPLAINED* BY FOMENKO in chapter 5-4. THE METHOD FOR THE RECOGNITION AND DATING OF THE DYNASTIES OF RULERS of his book Chronology 1. http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N05-EN-186-224.pdf)

LIE 4. (4. Fomenko¡s Methods - Astronomical Evidence) Current LIE: "He argues that the star catalog in the Almagest, ascribed to the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, was compiled in the 15th to 16th centuries AD. With this objective in sight he develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and claims that the Almagest is based on data collected between AD 600 and 1300, whereby the telluric obliquity is well taken into account.

VERIFIABLE TRUTH: "With this objective in sight" ?? CITATION NEEDED!! R.Newton had already accussed both Ptolomy AND Almagest of FRAUD, that is FOMENKO'S STATED MOTIVATION, see also: "The Crime of Claudius Ptolomy". Moreover: Fomenko's method of dating stellar catalogues is INDEPENDENT of BOTH age of catalogue AND ANY TELLURIC PROPERTY, meaning that both remarks regarding 'old? stellar catalogues' and 'telluric obliquity' are WEASEL WORDS.

I will continue denouncing misconduct on the management of this article and more lies stated within.

Carlos

21-March-2020 UPDATE: Editors Carlstak and Lebob also take responsibility for this article telling LIES. Changes reverted on the basis that I'm not giving new sources although I've explained TWICE that I'm relying ON ALREADY CITED SOURCES, which actually are telling the OPPOSITE of what the article says about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbaiget (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 * I've warned this editor about personal attacks and WP:AGF, hopefully they'll calm down. Doug Weller  talk 09:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. They are also at three reverts now, if they revert again I am going to report then at WP:3RRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 * So I understand that you are the ones that are assuming WP:AGF on me, and also don't consider *sarcasm and silence* about my contributions as being a personal attack?. I simply don't understand. I've made a WORK that you are cancelling because it diverges from your point of view on this matter. I ask only for a thing: objectivity and *administrators actually reading the sources validated by them*.

Didn't want to offend anyone, but the title of this topic is just true. I just want to bring *objectivity* to this article, because I KNOW the matter in question, after having STUDIED it in a scientific manner, that is, not allowing my own *personal beliefs* to interfere. I'm willing to answer questions, dialogue, and update this article with IMPARTIALITY, because in its current form, it seems just FEAR to someone making his own research, and that's not good for Wikipedia.

There's hardly any dialogue on this article and it's actually working more as a 'New Chronology preventive' rather than its purported mission of INFORMING. That's why I'm here, some time ago I came here as a starting point to learn about NC, and later I felt BETRAYED from wikipedia when making my own research. This article is full of misconceptions, inaccuracies, and false statements that *boost New Chronology credibility* after being contrasted.

BTW, I'm calmed but *indignant*. I will try to appear more calmed down if necessary, but I feel that my indignation is fully justified.

For the time being, and considering the 'notice' received from 'an administrator' of being BLOCKED for my reverts on FALSE and CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE statements on this article, and myself being denied of both *respect and consideration* and WP:AGF by receiving *sarcasm and dismissal* of my contributions, I DESIST on correcting the following immediately verifiable facts:

1. R.R. Newton COULDN'T EXPLAIN accelerations. Quote: "There are NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATIONS of the accelerations." (R.R. Newton) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00642733

2. A.T. Fomenko DOES EXPLAIN IN WRITTEN FORM his 'altering the data' (sic), regarding Dinastic Parallelisms on: 5-4. THE METHOD FOR THE RECOGNITION AND DATING OF THE DYNASTIES OF RULERS of his book Chronology 1. http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N05-EN-186-224.pdf. Referred 'critic' is simply UNAWARE OF THIS.

3. A.T. Fomenko method of dating stellar catalogues being based solely on the PROPER MOTION of the stars, is completely INDEPENDENT of 1. the age of the catalog studied, and 2. telluric geometry, so this remarks in the article are just WEASEL WORDS. Method based on the proper motion of the stars accessible and open to discussion in: http://chronologia.org/en/seven/chronology3.html

4. A.T. Fomenko 'objetive in sight' (btw, citation needed) when developing a method to date stellar catalogs IS NOT proving that it belongs to 15-16 centuries, BUT R.R. Newton ALREADY HAVING ACCUSED both Ptolomy and ALMAGEST of SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. Quote: "Robert Newton argues in his book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, that despite his skill as an astronomer, Ptolemy was simply an astronomical fraud." source: https://www.newscientist.com/people/claudius-ptolemy/

The arrogance, irrationality and disrespect of the 'block threats' to me while *not even commenting* the evidence given is also the reason why I'm cancelling my humble monthly economic support to wikimedia right now.
 * No, we are assuming that you are pushing fringe theory which has no place on Wikipedia. To prever]nt this material to appear in the articles, we have policies, WP:RS and WP:OR. What you write, and what you are trying to add to the article, absolutely contradicts to these policies. If you have studied the subject, then you should try to publish your results in an academic peer-reviewed journal, which complies with our definition of WP:RS. Before this happened, nobody is going to discuss these conclusions seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Please tell me when exactly I've tried to push any fringe theory. I have just pointed actual contradictions between *already existing statements* and their corresponding *already existing references* in the *already published article*. "I've studied the subject" doesn't imply that I've actually discovered anything worth of any publication, only that I can point where's this or that stated, or what exactly is stated. I don't have any interest in pushing any fringe theory, just reinforce wikipedia's objectivity. Sorry, I don't need to publish anything in peer-reviewed journals just to point *simple incoherences* in wikipedia.

 * For example, please tell me how do you allow the phrase "there are no satisfactory explanations for the accelerations" (R.R. Newton) being translated to "R.R. Newton had explained in terms of Non-gravitational forces" in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbaiget (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Please tell me when exactly I've tried to push any fringe theory": as a matter of fact it started end of February last year (or maybe a little bit earlier under IP) and it still goes on. --Lebob (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I feel very sorry for you now. You have quoted precisely the one contribution I made which *HAD TO BE ACCEPTED IN THE END AFTER A MONTH OF DIALECTICAL FIGHT* because, *I WAS RIGHT* just for actually having *READ* what New Chronology is about, and *that's why nowadays the article is correct when saying where the war took place*. Sorry again. Cjbaiget (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cjbaiget, you won't get anywhere by flinging accusations of "lies" and calling an administrator "abusive", much less by adding walls of difficult to penetrate text to this page. The only reason the reference to the Peloponnesian War is correct now is because Doug Weller changed the wording to make it so. Your version was not correct. Carlstak (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Carlstak, I think that you must be joking now. The only reason the reference to the Peloponnesian War is correct now is because *I CHANGED* the word "Greece" for "Spain" in the first place, something that was inmediately rejected by DougWeller, but later accepted after *THE PROOFS CONTRIBUTED BY ME IS THIS VERY SAME TALK PAGE* and later he reflected *THIS FACT* in the article in his own words, because *I refrained myself of doing it after knowing that this was perceived as a controversial topic*. Dougweller himself can corroborate this version, and if he doesn't want to, just check article history. BTW FYI: *I didn't propose any wrong or right version*, I just changed the word "Greece" for "Spain". Check article history. Do your duties as an administrator. I'm very sorry for the unfortunate and false remark you have made, that adds walls of difficult to penetrate text to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbaiget (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: to clarify: my change was putting "Greece" where "Spain" was mentioned, and not the other way round, as anyone can verify in the article history.Cjbaiget (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are quite confused, and I am not an administrator. Please do your due diligence if you're going to comment here, and do your homework if you want to edit the article. I've reverted your last edit, because it's incorrect. We have a secondary source to support the information, and now a primary one as well. Carlstak (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean anything to me except that from now on, the responsibility of this article stating this verifiable lie (not a simple error as before my edit), has a well defined name. See: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation" Cjbaiget (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Dispute of "Rome foundation according Fomenko"

Hello all,

 * Currently*, article says, from my point of view erroneously:

"Also according to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas"

But I can't find anywhere that claim by Fomenko, but another date from a primary source. (that I find valid after WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are *supporting a direct quotation*")

The dates I propose in my rejected edit are:

"According to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded in the end of the 13th Century-beginning of the 14th"

The source I'm referring is http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N06-EN-326-372.pdf page 356

User @Carlstak maintains the validity of year 1380 and the mention of Aeneas citing this url as "source": http://web.archive.org/web/20191006004104/http://chronologia.org/en/index.html (I somehow can't find any reference of Rome foundation in it, btw)

I don't want to be accused of any 'Edit War", so I ask to page administrators: Which contribution is more accurate and should prevail in the article?

Thanks, Carlos Cjbaiget (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a secondary source which says 1380 --Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see... however, the date of 1380 as the foundation of Rome according Fomenko is reflected in the wikipedia article *BEFORE* that article was written. So is it possible that our own wikipedia article was being used to obtain this erroneus data for the article provided, *given the fact that it is not found in any primary source?* Why not use the primary source after the fact that is the best source according to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbaiget (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I provide more background on this issue in the form of a brief summary, that I include both to help administrators resolve this issue, and illustrate the absurd situation this article is creating with lots of false data contained within.

This situation becomes even more absurd taking into account that I have been accused of trying to push pseudoscience and fringe theories in wikipedia for raising this issues, and *instead being appraised and wellcomed to continue the cleaning the article and increase its robustness, I now have pseudoscience warnings and tags *permanently attached to my profile in wikipedia.*

Summary:

1. Wrong date about *Fomenko's own claim* in Wikipedia contradicts *Fomenko's own claim" regarding "Foundation of Rome" for *FIFTEEN YEARS* now, after an *UNSOURCED EDIT* made on March 2, 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29&type=revision&diff=10715590&oldid=10708874

2. For *FIFTEEN YEARS NOW* this data has been used blindly by different publications *based on wikipedia reputation*, and now, as of MARCH 202O, *we are beggining to use those publications to validate the wrong date they took from us*.(see discussion above)

3. Fomenko's own claim regarding "Date of Rome Foundation" is directly accessible in plain english from HIS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE FIRST BOOK*, but instead, we are referrering to an *archived version of his homepage that doesn't mention this fact*. Wikipedias own recommendation to use PRIMARY SOURCES TO VALIDATE QUOTES WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, is being used to ACTUALLY REVERT EDITS BASED ON PRIMARY SOURCES TO SUPPORT QUOTATIONS.

Cjbaiget (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the 2020 edition of a Fomenko's book, where it is clearly said "according to our new data, Rome was founded in approximately 1380 AD". When I have more time, I will take you to the arbtration enforcement to get you topic-banned from the New Chronology. Or may be somebody else has more time now to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Somehow I added the wrong url for the source I used when I generated the cite, and consequently the archive copy was incorrect too. The correct url targets the page entitled A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy HOW IT WAS IN REALITY Chapter 4.THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY4. THE EXPANTION |sic| OF THE EMPIRE. As you can see, it says, "The third kingdom of Rome of Romulus and Remus (i.e. the famous 'ancient' Royal Rome, described by Titus Livy) was founded by Aeneas and his descendants in Russia-Horde of the XIII century [НОР] The Italian Rome was founded circa 1380." I've corrected the citation in the article. Apologies for the error. I realize that the article didn't need more cites of primary sources, but I wanted to show Cjbaiget that he is very mistaken. Carlstak (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Carlstak, thanks for taking your time to amend the article with your redaction. I'm somewhat sorry that the primary source is precisely the one that says in its preface that "We do not substantiate our point of view in this book. This would in fact lead to an actual repetition of everything said before. That is why we are presenting just a summary of the reconstruction. *To see the evidence please refer to our previous main books*". But I suspect that is because is the only one that portrays me as 'very mistaken'.

 * I was also writing an brief apology to justify my posture but after a second though, probably you are not interested at all on anything related with me, and I also think that it can be perceived as some kind of pushing of NC ideas here. But I've saved it, and can paste it on request.

 * PS: To clarify: As the opener of this dispute, I consider it closed and the date defended by Carlstak as its correspondent sources as valid as the ones I was proposing. I think this debate hasn't been in vane, as the quoting now has valid source for anyone to check.

 * @Ymblanter: Will this banning prevent me for participating also on this talk page or only in the Article page? If you review my history in this talk page, I proposed changes that I didn't commit myself and waited for another person to comment-debate... that didn't happen and thats why I turned to editions. The truth is, I don't like to edit the page, I prefer to point errors and explain my view here from the beggining.Cjbaiget (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC) And also: You recommended me to open this disputes in this page about my concerns. I've opened a dispute a presented my views and references *which are still valid*, although not preferred, so I lose. Losing the dispute leads me to being banned? I think I should had been warned about that.Cjbaiget (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cjbaiget, your insinuation "But I suspect that is because is the only one that portrays me as 'very mistaken" is uncalled for, does not assume good faith, and not even true, as Ymblanter has presented a primary source in the original Russian that contains the date 1380, which you have disputed. May I point out that you left the citation originally given in the article to support the text "around AD 1380 by Aeneas" which you removed. Unfortunately, I can't access the source, "Post-Imperial Third Romes: Resurrections of a Russian Orthodox Geopolitical Metaphor", at Taylor & Francis to see if it supports the text, even though I have been granted access, as not all their content is available through WP Library. Carlstak (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Carlstak, thanks for continuing the dialogue. I just going to summarize the course of events in this dispute *from my point of view*:

 * 1. I find an unsourced date in the article, search for a source, don't find one.
 * 2. I find a primary source which is a main book of NC, it says Rome Foundation in Italy in the end of 13th Century / Beggining of the 14th (btw, this discrepancy can be explained, see below)
 * 3. I submit my change with GOOD FAITH and a SOURCE for this data *the first time in fifteen years*
 * 4. My change is reverted on the grounds that I've submitted a primary source.
 * 5. A book which the author recommends no to get the facts out of it is chosen to support *more or less* the previous date (Rome in Italy and Rome in Moscow where founded very near in time according NC)
 * 6. This equally imprecise date is accepted and given a primary source which is OK (point 4.)

 * Both dates are valid because according to NC, Rome was founded at the end of the 14th century (near 1380) *on a previously existing city in Italy*, founded at the end of the 13th / beggining of the 14th.
 * PS: The date provided by @Ymblanter refers to foundation of Rome in Moscow according Fomenko, (so exactly 1380 and no 'circa' or 'near', but *I didn't want to elaborate on this due to having fears of being accused of NC propaganda*)

Cjbaiget (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS2: @Carlstak, Sorry I forgot to attend this remark made by you: "May I point out that you left the citation originally given in the article to support the text "around AD 1380 by Aeneas" which you removed." I think the word is not 'removed' but 'substituted', because I, like you say it happened to you, couldn't access it, so I substituted it with an accessible one.

Cjbaiget (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

'Romes' according NC/Fomenko
I think that we can improve this section on the article belonging to "Fomenko's claims" greatly, as the supposed relation between them is quite incomprehensible for the reader and incomplete now.

This is the current text that I'm going to comment:

He claims: the "First Rome" or "Ancient Rome" or "Mizraim" is an ancient Egyptian kingdom in the delta of the Nile with its capital in Alexandria, that the second and most famous "New Rome" is Constantinople, and that the third "Rome" is constituted by three different cities: Constantinople (again), Rome in Italy, and Moscow. Also according to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas and Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great "Russian Horde".[22][23]

According to NC-Fomenko, there are not *three* but *five* Romes, and actual Italian Rome is none of them, but 'pretends' to be third. This fact is not stated anywhere in the current paragraph. Moreover, the paragraph above mixes two counting systems: the short (three Romes), and the long (five Romes) which explains the confusion the reader experiments when trying to understand the text even from the mere semantic point of view.

quote from the the *already referred primary source on the previous paragraph*:

 * "To summarise,

 * 1st Rome: the Nile Valley (Alexandria, Cairo);
 * 2nd Rome: Yoros = Jerusalem = Troy;
 * 3rd Rome: Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' = Veliky Novgorod (Yaroslavl, Vladimir) = Rome of Enei-Rurik;
 * 4th Rome; Constantinople;
 * 5th Rome: Moscow.

 * But when in the XVI century Romes were counted, where Moscow was numbered as the Third Rome (and not the Fifth), they have clearly started counting not from the deep antiquity of African Egypt, but from Rome of Enei-Rurik, i.e. from Yaroslavl, from the Empire of the great conquest epoch: Veliky Novgorod – First Rome, Constantinople – Second Rome, Moscow – Third Rome. Hereafter the historians replaced Veliky Novgorod with Rome in Italy and the present picture panned was formed."

Moreover, Fomenko maintains that the 5th Rome in Moscow was founded in 1380 just after the battle of Kulikovo, very near in time to his proposed date of foundation of the City of Rome in Italy near 1380.

So I propose the following rewriting on the paragraph "Rome according Fomenko":

 * "On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word "Rome" is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms, but not being actual Rome in Italy any of the true historical five Romes.

 * He claims the "First Rome" (historical Ancient Rome) or "Mizraim" is actually the ancient Egyptian kingdom in the Nile Delta with its capital in Alexandria, Cairo. The "Second Rome" or "New Rome" would have been located near Istambul, in the actual ruins of Yoros Castle, and having passed to history as the city of Jerusalem (not being the actual Jerusalem in Middle East the true place the chronicles talk about).
 * The third Rome would have been located in Vladimir-Suzdal (the actual Veliky Novgorod in Yaroslavl, Vladimir), its history would be the one told on Aeneid (Aeneas being a duplicate of Rurik according Fomenko)
 * The fourth Rome would have been Constantinople, in the same place of the actual Istambul
 * The fifth Rome would have been Moscow (founded in 1380 just after the Battle of Kulikovo)

 * According Fomenko, after some errors when counting "Romes" in the 14th century they omitted the first two, leaving Moscow as the third. Then later historians replaced Veliki-Novgorod (Fomenko's 3rd Rome) with Rome in Italy which would have been founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas, forming the "present picture". Also according to his claims, Moscow (as the 3rd Rome) was the capital of the great "Russian Horde".[22][23]

Cjbaiget (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Geographical scope of the theory
Hello all,

I few days ago I was surprised by this reject: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29&type=revision&diff=945154146&oldid=945061240, not only because it dismissed my contribution without any suggestion on how to improve it, but also because it seems to imply that the geographical scope of the theory HAS to be anchored as it was in 1996 for some unknown reason. I think that this makes no sense, and I know of no event that made this year more relevant than any other in this regard.

Reflecting on this, I think that the problem may stem from the fact that I began the sentence of my update using "By 2020....".

Although I just wanted to keep the previous style to not force my own one, now I think that it was perceived as if I wanted to suggest that NC/Fomenko is an ongoing succesful research, or not being already settled by science, etc., consideration which seems to bear his own controversy, that I was not aware of previously.

This is not the case: I just couldn't anticipate the possibility of this valoration from a reader. I intepreted the previous date as a guarantee of the article being maintained in its date, and thought that replacing with 2020 would transmit the same sensation to current readers. But nowadays, the "1996" mention makes the impression of the article being abandoned and far behind many other places making their own exposition of the same subject as us.

All this probably was aggravated by the mention of the museum in the same edit, which probably was not welcomed for the same reason. Regarding this, I'm not taking part on if this museum is relevant news or not, but I think is relevant in this article, and already has a well defined context where to put it. On this, I will not insist anymore. I will mention it here again only if the museum closes, a second one opens, or any other destacable event around it happens that I get to know.

Anyway, no less than 24 years have passed since the current readaction and, at some time, the theory certainly expanded his scope to include the regions I placed in the edit, which, as far as I know, reflect quite accurately the state of the matter in the publications.

So I suggest to just remove the "By XXXX..." (year) part and just detail the current geographical scope of the theory. We can also benefit from the very low probability of further expansions (Africa, Oceania, Antarctica, etc.) in the future.

So, this is my new proposal to update this circumstance with a reading free of any ongoing research connotations, subject whose valoration and relevance can be discussed elsewhere.

PROPOSAL:

an edit that replaces "By 1996 his theory had grown to cover Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, and Egypt."

with "His theory covers Russia, Turkey, China, Japan, Europe, Egypt, and America."

Cjbaiget (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that in 1996 his theory had grown to cover Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, and Egypt is sourced. If you America is now covered as well then you need to get a source that would allow you to write "in [year] his theory was extended to America" or "in 2020 his theory also includes America". --Lebob (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I cannot see which circumstance made invalid the source that I already proposed in the rejected edit. Btw and to clarify, I'm not particularly interested in specifying any year at all, or remarks about it having being "extended" or similar terms (neither I'm against those remarks)Cjbaiget (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Errors or worse in section "Selectivity in reference to astronomical phenomena"
In this section, Wikipedia raises erroneous misconceptions from Yu. N. Efremov as its own voice regarding supposed arbitrary selection of data.

Current assertion in the wikipedia article: "For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than 1000 stars in the catalog, one of which (Arcturus) has a large systematic error. This star has a dominant effect on Fomenko's dating".

Relevant quotes around this matter from "Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs" (the work Efremov refers to):

 * Chapter 7.4 "Dating the Almagest catalogue by the expanded informative kernel", P. 181:

"Corollary: Thus, the Almagest catalogue can be dated by the proper movement of a configuration of roughly 20 stars. The  most  possible  dating  interval falls  on  the  same  epoch  as  above, namely, 600-1200a.d."

Meaning: Dating by 'arbitrary selection of 8 stars' is not a requisite, just an Efremov's misconception.

 * Chapter 7.5. "Dating the Almagest calogue by a variety of 8-star configurations consisting of bright stars", P. 182:

"Fig 7.24. Frequency distribution histogram for the “dating interval” centres of 736 bright Almagest star configurations of 8. One can see the peak manifest at the interval of 600-900 a.d."

Meaning: Any 8-star group that can be made from the 736 bright stars (mag < 3) is most likely to give dates post-400 A.D., so "Fomenko's selection" is just a sample of the most common case, not an anomaly as implied by Yu. N. Efremov misconception.

 * Chapter 7.6.4. "The exclusion of Arcturus does no affect the dating of the Almagest catalogue substantially", P.185:

"even with the fastest star of the informative  kernel  (Arcturus)  absent, the  10-minute  area  does  not  go  further  back  in  time  than 300 a.d.(t=16) at the trust level of 1 – ε= 0.95 or lower. It is only if we are to extend the confidence strip to 1 – ε= 0.99, or 99%, that this area begins to cover 200 a.d., which is to say that the Scaligerian epoch of Ptolemy  is  not  included  into  the  dating  interval, let alone the even more ancient Scaligerian epoch of Hipparchus."

Meaning: On the contrary of what wikipedia asserts right now and for a long time, this star (Arcturus) HAS NOT a dominant effect on Fomenko's dating, as follows only from Yu. N. Efremov misconception.

So on the basis of verifiable concerns regarding this claim, and for the sake of wikipedia's own credibility and objectivity, I propose the elimination of it, or better yet, a thoroughly explanation based on an actual understanding of the subject.

Cjbaiget (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

New section proposal: "New Chronology according to historians Marlène Laruelle and Charles J. Halpering"
Hello all,

As it has been said somewhere else, "wikipedia can't state any other person controversials views as facts as its own voice". But it seems that current edition of the article is a paradigmatic example of this flaw, for which I propose an amendment.

The fact is that statements from just two sources from just two authors, historians (not mathematicians) whose historical research integrity and published books would stay ridiculed and seriously damaged from Fomenko's own research on the same historical matters, are populating more than 50% of sourced claims in section "Central Concepts" (meaning that in this wikipedia article, central concepts of New Chronology are actually being 'explained' by its most obstinate enemies), and full 100% of the contents from "Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory", section that would become perfectly empty if the proposed section is considered.

Wikipedia asserts as verified truths (without even using quotes) the following thoughts of Halperin and Laruelle from sources "Halperin2011" and "Laruelle" respectively :

A. In section "Central Concepts":

1. Academic interest in the theory stems mainly from its popularity which has compelled historians and other scientists to argue against its methods and proposed world history.(Halperin)

2. A second point of interest from the mainstream academic community is to understand why it has become so popular as to perhaps have the sympathy of 30 percent of Russians.(Halperin)

3. Nor are there reliable statistics on who the readers are.(Halperin)

4. While other authors have written on new chronology theory, such as Fomenko's junior partner. (Halperin)

5. The theory emerged alongside other alternate histories and conspiracy literature in the period of increased freedom of speech that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union.(Laruelle)

6. While other authors have written on new chronology theory, such as Fomenko's junior partner Gleb Nosovsky and Bulgarian mathematician Yordan Tabov who expanded the theory in regards to the Balkans, the theory is mostly discussed in reference to Fomenko's writings.(Halperin & Laruelle)

B. In section "Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory":

(Whole section, all assertions reflect verbatim opinions of Fomenko's most fervent opponents Halperin & Laruelle).

From these facts, and for the sake of wikipedia's own credibility and objectivity, I propose:

Renaming "Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory" to "Fomenko's New Chronology according to historians Marlène Laruelle and Charles J. Halpering", and moving there statements here numbered 1 to 6 from "Central Concepts" to this new section.

Cjbaiget (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We can do that if you find other historians who disagree with those statements. Are they in any way controversial?
 * A common problem with fringe bullshit like this is that the experts rarely say anything about it because they are more interested in actual scholarship. We should be happy that Halperin and Laruelle actually looked into this. Ascribing the statements to those two would give the false impression that they are idiosyncratic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 * First of all, thanks for answering. Ok, so if I have understood it correctly, It has to be *me* who has to take the task of researching disagreements between historians so *you* can meanwhile continue pretending that "Conspiracy" section of the current article is nothing more than a *ten year-old* verbatim copy of the reaction of *just two historians*, as already proven? How is that two persons with two 10 year-old papers can certify a "Conspiracy Theory", and two other persons' coherent and diligent research for 50 years cannot aspire to their theory be regarded as an "Scientific Theory" on wikipedia? Only one reason justifies this: prejudices.

 * From what I understand regarding wikipedia openness, *I am* included in what you refer as *we*, so please don't place on just me the charge of the task needed for this article being objective. Truth is, "Conspiracy" section is nothing more than the point of view of just two *natural enemies* (historians), impossible impartial judges of Fomenko's reconstruction.

 * Please let me use your flawed argument to prove the opposite: "A common problem with wrong bullshit like orthodox chronology is that the experts rarely say anything about it because they are more interested in actual scholarship. We should be happy that Fomenko and Nosovsky actually looke into this. Ascribing the statements to those two would give the false impression that they are idiosyncratic."

 * I will take your question of "Are they in any way controversial?" as an honest concern and not as rhetoric. In fact, lack of controversy is an indicator of dogma and corporativism. This carries obvious similarities with any religion, inside of which controversy cannot take place. Comparing historians stances on New Chronology with those from Scientists, we can check that the latter DO engage in controversial arguments regarding New Chronology, *arguments that contradict Historians' reasons.*

 * Having said that, it's worth mentioning that most Scientists attending chronology problems, even those critic with New Chronology, prove wrong the main points of Historians against New Chronology. I will only mention just three:

 * -Florin Diacu, mathematician and astronomer, devoted a whole book (see "The Lost Millenium") considering the mathematical and astronomical basis of New Chronology. Not a single flaw detected. Main conclusion, considering only a subset of the then available (2005, *15 years ago*) data: Fomenko's results are right but non-conclusive.

 * -Albert Shiryaev, president of the International Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory in 1989-1991: "[Fomenko's book] is written in conformance to the most demanding scientific standards and is an unprecedented phenomenon in the area of international scientific literature on applied mathematical statistics, so no reader shall be left indifferent."

 * -B. Lukács. President, Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Co-president of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Member of the Astronomical Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: "It seems that the present best Lunar Theory is incompatible with Orthodox Chronology"

 * Meaning that: Purported (false and not proven) uniformity of Historians denying New Chronology is *just the result of its inherent and rampant Scientific Nihilism and Illiteracy*, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Scientific ,and comes from the FALSE DICHOTOMY of Orthodox Chronology being right if somehow Fomenko's Chronology is wrong. Sorry, but dissenting historians acting like the paradigm on which they works are based is correct, are contradicting NON IDIOSYNCRATIC proofs from several scientists that *have proved that Orthodox Chronology is FALSE*, and hence, any historical reconstruction based on it.

 * Attending to this phenomenon, History's apparent consensus has to be contrasted with *SCIENCE lacking it*. There's no point in constructing conspiracy theories to explain that *a great number of mathematicians and astronomers continue to pay serious attention* to Fomenko's mathematical and astronomical bases, impolitely *discarding Historian's invalid reasons on why there's no sense in doing it*, because there's a more simple, Ockham-compatible explanation for this: you are wrong and this is not, it has never been, a "fringe shit".

 * So at the end, I propose two new sections: "Reception of Historians VS. SCIENTISTS regarding New Chronology methods and findings", explaining *their incompatible stances*. I will be more than pleased to expand the small list given above with more links and quotes, from more figures of the Scientific world. Also, I dispute your belief that we should be grateful to Halperin and Laruelle. They are not motivated by altruism, but to defend their whole literary production, whose content becomes preposterous and irrelevant if Fomenko's research is not to be dismissed scientifically (which is the true field of debate, not humanities).

 * Having said that, I think that Historians' attitude to a *legitimate contender* should make them unfit to represent their opponent's view like it happens in this tendentious article, which is seriously lacking competent and adult *scientific supervision* to the point of urgency.

 * I'm just trying my best to upgrade this article to the maximum achievable objectivity and reliability regarding "New-Chronology_(Fomenko)". I'm very sorry if, as a byproduct of this process, the subject matter ceases to appear as the "fringe bullshit" it is now framed as a result of false wikipedism, but I also don't care, because I'm on the side of Science.

 * That's why, If my suggestions are not found worth enough to make their way to the final article, an artificially stalled article which refuses to pay attention to the *continuous developments* and *increasing social awareness* of an important research which current editors seem or pretend to ignore, a research that has already been tagged by *not fringe, but current and mainstream media* and by *current, active major political figures* as valid and more crucial than nuclear weapons, which is already *proposed as a the basis for a new economic era and the implication of academia* in Russia, they will at least document the arrogance and negligence betraying wikipedia's own spirit, when verifiable and relevant facts are being ignored systematically on behalf of unreliable and non-scientific (in this case, historical) paradigms.

 * So please, and excuse me for using the colloquial language you have offered me to employ, let's not talk about this being a "fringe shit" anymore, because it's already just a *big shit* not only on the academic field but also on the *current geopolitical field*, a shit apparently destined to be eaten by those who feel the least likely to do it. Let's not forget that according to this *already 50 years old paradigm*, which not only refuses to die but continues to increase its influence day by day, implies that great past achievements of humankind usually attributed to occidental historical actors are not only false, but were *directly plagiarized and stolen* from their oriental counterparts. Who is naive enough to think that this implication is not going to be exploited politically?, moreover if this conclusion *seems to be RIGHT* from the scientific, mathematical, astronomical, point of view?

 * The question is: will wikipedia stand to its own standards when explaining this dilemma to interested international readers looking for objective, contrastable information?Cjbaiget (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Too long, didn't read beyond the first half-sentence. Yes, it has to be you because nobody else believes that such sources exist, so only you are motivated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your brief self-portrait and your pseudonym-enabled honesty. Obviously enough, I was not answering to you but to future scientists trying to understand this great wikipedia failure.Cjbaiget (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are not actually giving other editors a task nobody wants, you are just pretending to give other editors a task nobody wants, for the benefit of the historians who you think will write your biography one day, so they can shake their heads in disbelief about the obstinate rejection of your ingenious ideas back in the days. Not only that, it is "obvious" that that is your purpose.
 * Weellll, that is not what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. This thread can be archived, it does not belong here. Does anybody know which template to use for that? I could not find any execpt "archivenow". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Wrong: I was asking other editors how they would accept the job done. The answer clearly was: this job must not be done in any way.
 * 2. Wrong: I have never talked about myself here or at any other place, so as to make writing my biography simply impossible. The "obstinate rejection" of *NOT MY* ideas (I've never said they belong to me) is, as of 2021, circumscribed to this obsolete article, not a broader scientific consensus you seem to feel in agreement with for some unjustified reason. Moreover: You thinking that those "ideas" are mine, prove that you don't have the most basic background on the matters you are judging without feeling any embarrassment.
 * 3. Wrong: Wikipedia was not meant to obfuscate debate by archiving it. Archiving it out of schedule will probably just prove some fear about its contents. Like it happens with previous dissenting discussions which are 'archived' now.Cjbaiget (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read that contribution, and it was a waste of time. Still nothing which would be relevant for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with Hob Gadling. Bluntly, the very strong consensus of non-Russian (and no doubt many Russian) scholars is that the New Chronology is a steaming pile of bullshit, so this is what we reflect. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Carlstak (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for answering. Again: I was not representing NC, just treated as if I was. I was also not disputing here your stated conclusion about it being a steaming pile of bullshit, but raising a warning, that if it is, is not for the alleged "reasons" contained in this article, which are both wrong and deceiving. And I say this because Wikipedia is the first place I came to learn about them, but some time after that, I also checked the sources. It's very easy to prove that NC is misrepresented in this article. That's why I tried first, and motivated only by WP:AGF to edit as an *anonymous* the already proven misconception about Greece and Spain regarding the Peloponessian War, as I didn't know back then that the article was just about reflecting NC as a steaming pile of shit. Only after being rejected, I registered with a real username once again as a proof of WP:AGF, not a as way of reclaiming notoriety, as it has been suggested later. I've been attacked by presumption of my intentions, which were, and still are, pure and altruist. If I'm talking in past tense is because I don't have faith in editing Wikipedia anymore, but having used my real name here, feel compelled to answer yet.
 * I just give and example, of the tens plaging this article: "Statistical Correlation of Dynasties" section. Method is not described, but an easy to laugh at parody. As any other reader can, I've also just checked (again) the stated source for the following claim: "An important property is the length of the rule, especially as they receive higher points, they are considered to be a more illustrious ruler of their nation.". I've been unable to find this assertion on the source, the only remark about the length of the rule I've found is that the longer it is, the more prone to errors. I believe that this is just an "scholar opinion" not taken from the source, but attributed to it. I believe that this is a plain *lie* acting as an *informative remark* within the article for years. But moreover, Wikipedia readers *are lead to believe* that such method involves the creation of "survey codes", which is a verifiable, big steaming pile of shit, because "survey codes" are part of *another method* of comparing biographies, that of course, is also applicable to rulers. It's very uncomfortable for some "scholars" to learn that both methods don't contradict each other and they can't make their own to create a counterexample. All this happens because this section, as any other, *is written by a complete illiterate of the subject matter only wanting to reflect NC as a steaming pile of shit.*, betraying Wikipedia's stated mission.
 * But anyway, said method is described in formal mathematical terms in the source. And after having read several "scholars" *opinions* about it being bullshit, I've never seen an actual *scientific analysis* from an *actual scientist* concluding that it is an erroneous development. On the other hand, I can actually quote A. N. Shiryaev, President of the *International* Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory in 1989-1991, praising its robustness and "conformance to the most demanding scientific standards". Please provide a mathematical analysis of the method that characterizes it as the "steaming pile of bullshit" the historian scholars *just need* it to be, a proof that I've been searching to no avail for years now. This document is not easy to find, because contrary to the popular opinion here and between "scholars", said method, besides in the source given, appeared previously in several scientific peer-reviewed publications, and also on the 3rd International Vilnius Conference on Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics without any opposition, then and until now, as far as I know. There's a known problem with this method though: it's perfectly *reproducible* by any interested *scientist*, and obtain the *same exact results*.
 * "New Chronology is a steaming pile of bullshit, so this is what we reflect.". About this stated attitude, I can only say that it's not coherent with Wikipedia's own reflections of other topics considered pseudoscience, as it happens e.g. with the much more objective and informative article of Chakra.
 * pd:Sorry for the "wall of text", this is not some kind of "return of Cjbaiget": I was replied, so I reply. No future mentions will mean no future contributions.
 * And once more, please refrain from trying to portray again what is really an attack on the lack of the objectivity of this article as if it were a promotion of the subject matter wikipedia blunderly fails to inform on. Cjbaiget (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This user is blocked from editing the main page, as a result of an arbitration enforcement request. Whereas it is unfortunate they have not been blocked from editing the talk page as well, the safest is just to ignore them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm not blocked from editing the talk page is because the jury in my trial found that "comments indicate that at least some additions have the potential to be turned into usable content". That means that ignoring them have the potential of preventing adding usable content to the article. Depending on personal preferences, this can be checked or ignored in just my previous contribution to this page. About the suggestion of continuing ignoring me as being the safest to someone, I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjbaiget (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Article move and broken archive links
The article was moved from New Chronology (Fomenko) to New chronology (Fomenko) on 22 July, without discussion, "per MOSCAPS' guidance on theories". Now, I don't particularly care which capitalization is correct, but the talk page archives (there are two of them, by the way) didn't get moved, so the links are now broken. Please fix. 80.225.163.154 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done March 2021 apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Opening
Has anyone else noticed that this article opens with unsourced statements?BRealAlways (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , that is not uncommon. See WP:LEADCITE. The lead should summarize the main points of the body, and that information should be sourced in the body. Whether the citations should be included in the lead as well is determined by editors on a case-by-case basis. If you feel there are specific statements in this lead that need references, you can add them or raise those for discussion. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Architectural off-shoot conspiracy theory
Note Tartary, not sure if that content might make more sense here, or as an independent article.--Pharos (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)


text:
Armstrong Whitworth Siskin

The Armstrong Whitworth Siskin was a sesquiplane single-seat fighter aircraft developed and produced by the British aircraft manufacturer Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft. It was also the first all-metal fighter to be operated by the Royal Air Force (RAF), as well as being one of the first new fighters to enter service following the end of the First World War.

Development of the Siskin was heavily influenced by RAF Specification Type I, including its initial use of the ABC Dragonfly radial engine. Making its first flight in May 1919, the Siskin possessed good qualities in spite of the Dragonfly's poor performance. In the following year, the much better Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar was installed and flight with this powerplant was made on 20 March 1921. In response to Air Ministry Specification 14/22, the aircraft was redesigned with an all-metal structure, and orders were placed in 1922.

In May 1924, the first of the RAF's Siskin IIIs were delivered to No. 41 Squadron at RAF Northolt. Eleven squadrons would operate the type. Relatively popular with pilots, it served for over eight years before the last of them were replaced by Bristol Bulldogs during October 1932. In addition to the RAF, various other nations evaluated the Siskin and several placed orders. The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) introduced the type in the late 1920s and operated its Siskins until shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War. Several Siskins were also entered in various air races.

Background
The Armstrong Whitworth Siskin was a development of the Siddeley-Deasy S.R.2 Siskin designed by Major F. M. Green (formerly chief engineer of the Royal Aircraft Factory) of the Siddeley-Deasy Motor Car Company. A major impetus for the aircraft's development was the Air Ministry's issuing of RAF Specification Type I, which called for a single-seat fighter that was powered by the ABC Dragonfly radial engine. The Dragonfly would prove to be a disappointment as it failed to meet its anticipated performance.

The SR.2 Siskin was a single-bay biplane of wood and fabric construction. It angular in form, with little attention paid to obvious avenues for drag reduction. Perhaps its most distinctive feature was its fixed conventional landing gear, which had relatively lengthy oleo strut shock absorbers carrying the axle, which was in turn connected by radius rods to a pair of V-struts situated behind the axle. Its wings were of unequal span. It was powered by a single ABC Dragonfly radial engine, which was installed on the nose in a streamlined cowling. To regulate the engine's temperature, each individual cylinder had its own cooling channel. Armament consisted of a pair of Vickers machine guns mounted directly in front of the pilot.

The Siskin made its first flight in May 1919. While the initial aircraft was powered by the intended Dragonfly engine, it would only deliver 270 hp rather than the expected 320 hp. Despite early promise, the Dragonfly was disastrous, being less powerful, unreliable, and prone to overheating while excessive vibration resulted in crankshaft failures after only a few hours of use. Despite the engine, the Siskin displayed generally good properties, possessing favourable stability and handling characteristics, along with performance that could outmatch its direct rivals for RAF orders.

Redesign
In 1919, Siddeley-Deasy merged with Armstrong Whitworth, with the aviation interests becoming Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft. Siddeley-Deasy had inherited the design of the RAF 8 fourteen-cylinder radial engine and its designer Sam D. Heron. By 1920, this engine, as the Jaguar, had been developed sufficiently to replace the Dragonfly. A prototype Siskin fitted with a Jaguar flew on 20 March 1921. Air Ministry officials were impressed but urged Armstrong Whitworth to continue developing the aircraft as only an all-metal design would be acceptable to the Royal Air Force (RAF).

During 1922, Air Ministry Specification 14/22 was issued for an all-metal single-seat high performance landplane. The Siskin was submitted leading to an order for a single Jaguar-powered prototype. Aside from the engine change, Major Green redesigned it with an all-metal structure, as the Siskin III. The all-metal Siskin was the start of the British transition to metal for military aircraft.

Into production
On 13 October 1922, an initial contract for three production aircraft was placed, and a follow-on order for a further six followed on 26 January 1923, including a single two-seat variant. The Siskin III made its first flight on 7 May 1923. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted, during which the ailerons were tapered to prevent them jamming, as happened during one test flight. Shortly thereafter, Armstrong Whitworth commenced construction of the production standard Siskin, the first of which were delivered to the Royal Air Force (RAF) in January 1924 for flight trials on No. 41 Squadron. The fighter was constructed with a composite wood and aluminium frame, covered in doped linen fabric.

Following the orders from the RAF, Armstrong Whitworth worked on securing export sales for the Siskin. Siskin sales played a major role in the company's fortunes for a time. Romania ordered 65 aircraft, but cancelled the order following a fatal accident at Whitley Abbey, Coventry on 18 February 1925 when a Romanian pilot died in a crash on take off, during acceptance tests. Political pressure by France may have also contributed to the order's cancellation however.

The Siskin IIIA was the main production version, which was first ordered during 1926, and was the first all-metal framed aircraft to be procured in quantity for the RAF. This variant was to have been powered with a Jaguar IV, but was given a supercharged Jaguar IVA engine instead. The supercharger had little effect on performance below 10000 ft, but greatly improved speed and climb above that height. The Royal Canadian Air Force received 12 IIIAs between 1926 and 1931 after evaluating two Siskin IIIs.

Early production examples were built by Armstrong Whitworth but due to production demands for the Atlas, some Siskin IIIA production was subcontracted out to Blackburn, Bristol, Gloster, and Vickers.

Royal Air Force

During May 1924, the RAF's first Siskin IIIs were delivered to No. 41 Squadron at RAF Northolt. Shortly thereafter, No. 111 Squadron also received the model; its adoption enabled No. 111 to become the RAF's first high-altitude fighter squadron. The Siskin III was relatively popular amongst its pilots, being a highly manoeuvrable aircraft, although slightly underpowered. Between 1925 and 1931, Siskins were frequently presented at RAF exhibitions of flying; one particular feat performed was the linking of three aircraft by cords between their interplane struts, necessitating careful formation flying to not break these cords until the finishing manoeuvre was performed.

During September 1926, the first deliveries of the improved Siskin IIIA variant were made to No. 111 Squadron. In total, the Siskin was operated by eleven RAF squadrons. By 1931, the type was showing its age, leading to the Air Ministry considering either to recondition them or to procure new-built fighters to replace them. During October 1932, the final Siskins in RAF service were withdrawn, the type having been replaced by the newer and more capable Bristol Bulldog.

Sweden
The second Siskin II aircraft was sold to the Royal Swedish Air Force in 1925. It was equipped with skis and flown in an experimental capacity for a time.

Canada
Between 1926 and 1939, Canada operated a sizable fleet of Siskins. During 1926, the British Air Ministry had dispatched a pair of Siskin IIIs to Canada, where they underwent testing by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) under winter flying conditions by test pilot Clennell H. Dickins. The Siskin was considered a modern type at the time of its acquisition by the RCAF, which opted to purchase the Mark IIIA. The Canadian procurement involved both new-built aircraft and second-hand RAF Siskins being supplied to numerous RCAF squadrons.

The Siskin equipped the Fighter Flight at Camp Borden and Trenton. During 1937, the Flight became No. I (Fighter) Squadron, and was transferred from Trenton to Calgary in August 1938. RCAF Siskins were also frequently used in aerial displays and long distance tours around North America.

The unit continued to operate the Siskin up until the outbreak of the Second World War, shortly after which the type was rapidly retired and replaced by Hawker Hurricane monoplane fighters. Following the Siskin's withdrawal by the RCAF, the airframes were turned over to various technical establishments for use as instructional airframes.

Like its RAF counterparts, in 1929, a three-plane Siskin air demonstration team was formed at Camp Borden, Ontario – the RCAF's first official flight demonstration team. The aerobatic team put on popular solo and formation displays from coast to coast.

Air racing
The Siskin frequently participated in air racing, often triumphing in such events. Multiple examples were entered into the 1924 King's Cup air race, one of which achieving the fastest course time despite arriving fourth. In the 1925 King's Cup, a Siskin V flown by Flight Lieutenant Barnard emerged as the winner, having reportedly achieved a speed in excess of 151 mph.

Variants

 * Siddeley Deasy S.R.2 Siskin – Prototype fighter aircraft built by Siddeley-Deasy and powered by Dragonfly engine. Three built.
 * Siskin II – fabric covered steel-tube fuselage and wooden wings. Two built, one two-seater and one single-seater.
 * Siskin III – all-metal production version (64 built for RAF )
 * Siskin IIIA – main production variant ordered in 1926 (Total 348 built, 340 for RAF, eight for RCAF )
 * Siskin IIIB – prototype with improved engine. Single example converted from Siskin IIIA.
 * Siskin IIIDC – two-seat dual control version (Total 53 built, 47 for RAF, two for RCAF, two for AST, two for Estonia ) a further 32 were converted from Siskin IIIs.
 * Siskin IV – civil racing version (one built )
 * Siskin V – single-seat fighter for Romania. 65 ordered and at least 10 completed before order cancelled. Two used for racing.

Military operators

 * 🇨🇦 Canada
 * Royal Canadian Air Force
 * Fighter Flight
 * No. 1 Squadron (1937–1939)
 * Siskins Aerobatic team (1929–1932)
 * Estonian Air Force - operated two Siskin IIIDCs from 1930 to 1940.
 * Royal Swedish Air Force
 * Royal Air Force
 * No. 1 Squadron
 * No. 17 Squadron
 * No. 19 Squadron
 * No. 25 Squadron
 * No. 29 Squadron
 * No. 32 Squadron
 * No. 41 Squadron
 * No. 43 Squadron
 * No. 54 Squadron
 * No. 56 Squadron
 * No. 111 Squadron
 * No. 54 Squadron
 * No. 56 Squadron
 * No. 111 Squadron

Civil operators

 * Air Service Training
 * Air Service Training

title: Armstrong Whitworth Siskin


text:
Porth Hellick Down

Porth Hellick Down is a Neolithic and Bronze Age archeological site located on the island of St Mary's, in the Isles of Scilly in Great Britain. The ancient burial monument encompasses a large cairn cemetery that includes at least six entrance graves, other unchambered cairns, and a prehistoric field system. The site is notable for having the largest assembly of surviving entrance graves.

Site description
Porth Hellick Down is located on the island of St Mary's in the Isles of Scilly, overlooking Porth Hellick Bay. The Neolithic and Bronze Age monument encompasses a large cairn cemetery containing several burial cairns, including at least six entrance graves. It also includes an ancient linear boundary and a prehistoric field system, which stretches across the northern and north western section of the Down. It is the largest surviving group of entrance graves in the world.

The Great Tomb
The largest and best preserved entrance grave on the ancient site is a Bronze Age grave (2000-1500 BC) located on the northwestern slope of Porth Hellick Down. The burial monument is situated close to the boundary of a prehistoric field system. The site was excavated by the antiquarian, George Bonsor in 1899. He named the entrance grave, "The Great Tomb". Earlier unrecorded excavations at the site had left the burial chamber empty, except for a piece of pumice and a few remnants of late Bronze Age pottery fragments. Bonsor's excavation is the first excavation in Scilly to be recorded in detail.

The entrance grave sits on a low, circular platform. It consists of a mound that is 12.25m in diameter and up to 1.6m in height. The mound is retained by a kerb of large slabs. The burial chamber measures 3.5m by 1.5m wide and is 1m high. The grave is roofed by four capstones, 2.5m long and 1.25m wide. The burial chamber is D-shaped with two sides that incline westwards to intersect the inner end of the passage. The entrance passage is uncovered. The Great Tomb was restored by the Ministry of Works, which included protecting the burial chamber with new turf. The restoration project damaged the tomb when they removed the grave's outer kerb. It is now in the care of English Heritage.

Selected monuments
The entrance grave that is positioned the furthest west on Porth Hellick Down is the grave known as the "coffin grave". The remains of the burial monument include part of the stone kerb and four capstones covering a coffin-shaped chamber. The mound contains a kerb of large stones, measuring 8.3m by 8m. The burial chamber is oriented east-west, with the entrance facing east. The chamber interior measures 7m by almost 1.5m wide across the middle, with a boat or coffin-shaped layout, the sides curving in slightly to 1m wide at the western end and 0.65m wide at the entrance. The entrance is partially blocked. The chamber walls are lined with stone slabs. Four capstones make up the chamber roof. The chamber of this entrance grave is considered to be an excellent example of a coffin or boat-shaped chamber.

One of the entrance graves on Porth Hellick Down has a burial chamber that is constructed along a massive rock outcrop. The rock is integrated into the grave's structure. The burial chamber consists of a circular mound of stacked rubble, 13m in diameter and 1m high. The southern end of the chamber is lined with large slabs on its west side and a large boulder on the east side. Another large slab sits on the slab walls and provides a roof for the chamber. This grave has survived mostly intact, retaining its original form and layout. It has lost one of its capstones. The incorporation of natural rock outcropping into the grave's structure is an unusual feature of a Scillonian entrance grave.

Porth Hellick Down is the site of a prehistoric linear boundary which traverses its eastern slope. The linear boundary progresses as a nearly straight line of small upright stones, up to 0.5m high and 1.5m to 6m apart. Beginning at the eastern edge of the Down, the linear boundary stretches southeast to northwest for 17m, and then continues for another 23m. The boundary measures up to 1m wide, 0.1 m high and is mainly covered by heather turf. Not typically found in prehistoric Britain, The Isles of Scilly is the setting for a number of linear boundaries that are directly associated with groupings of prehistoric burial monuments.

title: Porth Hellick Down


text:
User talk:Jimaltieri

oberwiki
Hi there, you mentioned you're an Oberlin alum. I don't know if you've come across this but a little while ago I started a wiki site for Oberlin. The next time you're bored, visit http://oberwiki.net/ -- any contributions you feel like making would be greatly appreciated. —alxndr  (t) 01:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jimaltieri


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatch gereftani

Gatch gereftani was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Some horrible method of execution. I am hoping this is not real. No google hits. Thue | talk 21:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * This has got to be the delusion of a warped mind. Delete as nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 22:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless corroborated delete, or move to List of sanctions to be applied against worthless vanity page producers. Ianb 22:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It could be real, but the article itself sounds wishy-washy on the fact claim. A real article on the subject would be bold and referenced.  Delete, unless evidence is offered. Geogre 01:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds suspicious. Exploding Boy 02:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's real (and I have no idea whether this is the case), keep and put it in Category:Death penalty, just like Crushing by elephant. But it needs reworking if we choose to keep it; the level of detail the article goes into is as morbid as it is unencyclopedic.  --Ardonik 04:22, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * A bit of Googling around for the individual words suggests a loose translation of "Plaster (Gatch) to take (gereftan)", which seems to fit the content. So if it's a hoax, someone has gone to some effort to make up a plausible name. Are there any Iranian Wikipedians who could check this? -- The Anome 08:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a hoax and have documented my reasons on the talkpage. Delete unless authoritatively confirmed. Rossami 13:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * After reading Rosammi's comments, I vote to delete. --Ardonik 21:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * After reading Rosammi's comments, I also vote to delete. -- The Anome 09:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, delete, absolutely. Fire Star 13:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I echo Rossami's statements about the properties of cement. Delete probable nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text: Category:Khanty

title: Category:Khanty


text: Category:Closed Melbourne railway lines

title: Category:Closed Melbourne railway lines


text: Category:Elections in East Timor

title: Category:Elections in East Timor


text: Category:Elections in Egypt

title: Category:Elections in Egypt


text: Category:Elections in Equatorial Guinea

title: Category:Elections in Equatorial Guinea


text: Category:Elections in Eritrea

title: Category:Elections in Eritrea


text: Category:Elections in Estonia

title: Category:Elections in Estonia


text: Category:Elections in Ethiopia

title: Category:Elections in Ethiopia