Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!

Talk:Historical forgery

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon ancient aliens.svg

This Pseudohistory related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Jellybrain.png
This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • Needs a lot more sources and expansion

Name Change[edit]

I think the article should be renamed "Forgery" or "Historical forgery" and cover not just old forgeries, but also modern forgeries (of old items). Stuff like Hitler's Diaries and numerous "new-found" (read: recently forged) Christian relics. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but should we even bother covering the conspiracies about supposed forged documents, e.g. Obama's birth certificate? CheeseburgerFace (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we should make a cutoff point for forgeries that were made before 1900. Makes it easier to avoid flame wars and also limits the number considerably. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 22:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
What? I don't agree with that at all. Tons of forgeries are being made today, and will continue being made in the future, all of them claiming to be newly-unearthed ancient stuff! In fact, the most regular type of forgery today (that gets past the first scrutiny that is) are genuinely old objects that have been recently vandalized with the addition of forgery. E.g. an old urn that someone has recently scratched in some pseudo-ancient-hebrew that says "Ashes of Jesus the Messiah" or something. So I don't agree with that at all. Also, 1900 is a very arbitrary date. Almost 120 years ago. I don't support any cut-off date, sorry. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes forgeries made in the last century (and this one) are much more common and much more debated. Which is why they should have their own article, maybe modern forgeries or modern archeological forgeries or modern archeological and paleontological forgeries. What do you mean arguing for the sake of argument? 22:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Page moved[edit]

There, I retitled it. Might as well get the right title brewin' from day one. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the edit history was obliterated. Is there any way to fix this? Bongolian (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I should've relocated instead of copypasted. My bad. Was there anything particular you were looking for? Also, as far as edit history is concerned, we'll have plenty of opportunity to grow a new one here. The article's but a day or two old, so it's not like I obliterated years of fossil records by moving it. (Was there a way to keep the history in the move, I would've done so, however). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it is possible to do that. At least I have seen it at other wikis. I am not the Ombud's man 02:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

More types of historical forgery[edit]

  • Holy relics (which multiply to satisfy the needs and wants of those involved)
  • What can be described as useful back-formation - the towns, markets, or monasteries etc which 'just developed' and then created the charters to justify their current existence.
  • Things which 'become associated' with famous people and events but are just representative examples.

Any more? 31.49.137.205 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)