Talk:Pseudohistory

message: Seriously, the example given and the context that the whole article is written in is illogical. All the article states is historical things, ideas, whatever you want to call them, that don't adhere to mainstream history, archaeology etc. are considered a "pseudohistory" which mind, isn't even a real word.
Thetalkingheads (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a real word? Tell the authors and publishers of The Historian's Lincoln: Pseudohistory, Psychohistory, and History that, or all the other academics who have used the word and written about it. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

text: You become a well known history professor, we might listen to you. Meanwhile if reliable sources, including mainstream academics, write about pseuodhistory, not only is it clearly a real word, we can have an article on it. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a real word but this article does not deal with it properly. It seems to be a word used by Eurocentric historian to dismiss their detractors. And the examples given are not NPOV. What is Mainstream ?  The references for Afrocentricity are terribly lopsided. I can understand someone denying the entire Holocaust, but to say Egypt was Black well most African historians (who are mainstream) do not agree. Little green reptiles is one thing but academic disputes is another thing.--41.177.75.185 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you need to get WP:VERIFY changed first. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove this page 

message: Some one has a disagreement over the race of Egyptians, so what do they do? The people with the upper hand, the writers of history the publishers of books (despite not making their case - no more so than the other guys) go and classify the people they disagree with as pseudo history. Very very convenient. I disagree with your argument and your research so you are a pseudo historian-- I guess that is one way to settle an academic debate. TO NO surprise Eurocentrism is NOWHERE on this page because I guess that is just called history. --41.177.75.185 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source calling some Eurocentric theory pseudohistory, then it can surely be added here.  It can't be that hard, can it?  Does the story that Jesus visited Britain count as pseudohistory, or is it more a part of religion than history?  (I personally have no opinion on the Egyptian race dispute, since I know nothing of it.) Phiwum (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  if the story of Jesus visiting Britain is published, it's pseudohistory by the article's own definition.  However there seems little need to provide an exhaustive list of pseudohistorical "facts" (i.e. claims).  The listing of categories of pseudohistory is adequate. Chrismorey (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo history written by the opposition

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Giorgio A. Tsoukalos#Pseudohistorian is a pejorative? concerning whether Tsoukalos should be categorized as a Pseudohistorian, which (at least according to this article) is a pejorative term.  Please participate in the discussion there.  Thanks, Justin W Smith (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudohistory is a pejorative? 

message: Reading down through this talk page, it's pretty clear that "pseudohistory" is being defined according to the editors' personal biases. I personally don't give a flying fortune cookie about arguments over the "historical Jesus" or similar non-history (my own bias there), but I seriously have to question the inclusion of what's being called pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts. This is a valid historical field, the subject of some thousands of legitimate academic purblished works over the past two centuries, not to mention archaeological discoveries (e.g., the Norse settlement at L'Anse-aux-Meadows). Whoever included this as "pseudohistory" really should take a look at a few volumes of Terrae Incognitae, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society for the History of Discoveries. --Michael K SmithTalk  02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Columbian Exploration in the New World 

message: I came upon this article by accident, and have clarified some of the rather murky English, also placed the long section on Goodrich-Clarke (apparently written by a fan of his) in its correct place as an example of pseudohistory rather than a derfinition Chrismorey (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up 

message: The cited reference does not support the idea that most afrocentrist theories are pseudohistorical. The notion that all Ancient Egyptians were "black" (as the term is currently understood) is certainly ahistorical. But not all Afrocentrists make that claim. Some emphasize the (historically indisputable) role of Nubians in Egypt, including the Nubian pharaohs. And they argue that the role of sub-Saharan Africans in Egypt is systematically overstated, as part of an (imo, pseudohistorical) attempt to paint Ancient Egypt as white. This theory is plausible. More importantly, it is not contradicted by the cited source, which just speaks to the most extreme and untenable 'all Egyptians were black' form of Afrocentrism. Steeletrap (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken about the source. But Tunde Adeleke calls it pseudohistory, as does Mary Lefkowtiz who is also mentioned as calling it pseudohistory in other author's works. As does Todd Carroll. Do you want to suggest something better? Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Afrocentrism

message: This article was written in January 2003 without the term "pejorative." It was rewritten in May 2006 with that term - and no source citations. There are no definitions outside Wikipedia - only here on Wikipedia, writings that cite Wikipedia, and Wikipedia "books" - that include the word "pejorative." Lightbreather (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudohistory is not a pejorative 

message: I removed :Category:Pseudohistorians as a subcategory of :Category:Pseudoarchaeology, on the grounds that pseudohistory is not necessarily pseudoarchaeology, tho’ the subjects two overlap heavily. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Pseudohistorians]] 

message: Who is usually the one to label someone a 'pseudohistorian'? Their enemies! Regardless of whether what a historian wrote is disputed or not they are still a historian, labelling them a 'pseudohistorian' is a pathetic excuse of not constructing an argument of your own. If you disagree with what someone has said, argue against it, don't resort to hysterics and name calling. The only sense in which the term is used is derogatory and the very basis of the term if flawed. Beyond the fact that the article's POV is completely biased this is grounds for it to be removed or perhaps significantly reduced and merged with the article on Historians. Manifest Truth (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The label 'pseudohistorian' is simply slander

message: There is a very old thread discussing whether to remove David Barton from this article. The discussion was leaning to remove, but it's still here. There is no doubt that Barton's work has been called pseudohistory, but most are unreliable, politically-based sources. Of those in the article, we should discount the PFAW source. The Baltimore Chronicle article is clearly indicating that this is the opinion of one particular person (Chris Rodda). The Arlen Specter article looks better (published in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy) but I am not able to access it. One the other hand, when CNN published an opinion piece criticising the work as pseudohistory, they followed it up with another one defending it against the charge. Moreover, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction (Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), which is a comprehensive book on the subject, does not mention "pseudohistory" at all. Hence, there is not enough for us to call Barton's work "pseudohistory" in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Randall J. Stephens's book The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age published by Harvard University Press calls his work pop pseudohistory. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. But it's hard to see why we should consider that more than an opinion: (a) the word is only used once in a whole chapter on Barton, (b) there is no definition of pseudohistory or argument as to why Barton fits the criteria. There doesn't seem to be a general acceptance that his work is pseudohistory, the way there is, say, about Gavin Menzies' work. The fact that Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? has been published about the issue shows that Barton (fringe and sloppy though he may be) is taken much more seriously than Menzies. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barton, again 

message: How can early historians be considered Historical revisionism? Surely Historical revisionism is "the re-interpretation of the historical record", which people like Geoffrey of Monmouth were not doing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about Geoffrey of Monmouth is talking about how he claimed that his book was a work of genuine history, when, in reality, the events he describes are entirely imaginary. Most them he just made up himself; others were made up by his predecessors and incorporated into his book. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Still not historical revision, rather historical falsification.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now split the section into two different ones: one entitled "Historical falsification" and one entitled "Historical revisionism". Hopefully this will work better. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Katolophyromai: I just noticed your removal and subsequent restitutions. I'm not at all sure that Geoffrey belongs under one single category. He deliberately revised existing histories, and inserted outright falsehoods into them, to create imaginary lineages that reflected well on royal (imperialist, rather) claims and ambitions. I don't think Herodotus belongs here at all. He's more than a little tendentious in some respects; but he's also methodical. When he's confronted with what seems to him a patently unreliable or fantastical claim, or several contradictory claims, he presents the material along with his own analysis, comment and reservations. He isn't responsible for accuracy (or otherwise) of the sources themselves. Haploidavey (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now removed the paragraph about Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History. I was not sure if I wanted to keep that passage anyway. The source I was using for it reports on a number of academics who apparently argue that Herodotus never actually travelled beyond Greece and that he completely fabricated most of the material in his Histories on his own, simply for the sake of holding his patrons' interest. (He is, after all, also known as the "Father of Lies.") The source, however, does not ultimately seem to agree with those historians and I do not think that their views are an accurate reflection of the academic consensus. Furthermore, the source does not actually apply the word "pseudohistory" to Herodotus either and its assessment regarding the historicity of the Deuteronomistic History is rather similar: that it relies heavily on legends and that much of the material in it is clearly fabricated, but that it is at least written in the spirit of genuine historical research. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Katolophyromai: "the spirit of genuine historical research" makes my point more clearly than I did! Haploidavey (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

text: That seems a fair and balanced approach. We need not - or indeed should not - overburden this article with all that could be said about dear Geoffrey and his Bad Habits. After all, we have an article on him. Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical revisionism 

message: Please put a mention about Nordicist theories claiming that all civilizations such as those of the Mediterranean, Mesoamerica, China etc was founded by "Nordic Aryans". Arthur de Gobineau is one who created these pseudo-histories.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBr0s (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. Do you have any reliable sources saying that Nordicism is pseudohistory? (It seems like a very obvious case of it, but everything on Wikipedia requires citations for verifiability. I had not heard of it until now, so I do not know of any such sources.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put a mention about Nordicism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: It's a major problem. See for instance this. Sorry, being called, more later. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudohistory in India 

message: I don't know anything about this myself, but the sentence "Many Muslims deny the Jewish history of Jerusalem and in particular deny the existence of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount." is clearly controversial, and is currently poorly sourced. The New York Sun is not a reliable source. For inclusion in this article, we should find a (couple of) reliable source(s) that claim that 1.) temple denial is pseudohistory and 2.) many Muslims engage in this form of pseudohistory.
I have deleted the aforementioned sentence, but was reverted, so I hereby bring it to the talk page. 2A02:A210:2D00:3D80:4DC0:DD27:E60A:9D86 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: here Temple denial is the main article we link to, the Sun source is just there as a cite for the sake of it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you've also added a new source, thank you. 2A02:A210:2D00:3D80:4DC0:DD27:E60A:9D86 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Sun as a source for Temple Denial 

message: I removed Anti-Secession Act of 1861 from "See also" because that section is a list of similar concepts, whereas the Anti-Secession Act is an example of pseudohistory, although I'm a bit at a loss to decide which section it belongs in. Adding examples to "See also" seems like a slippery slope that could rapidly lead to the section becoming needlessly long and controversial. Carguychris (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opposition. I linked it at the see also section because the article is an orphan page. --Beta Lohman※Office box 02:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Secession Act of 1861 

message: Doug Weller talk 07:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on "The Dangers of Pseudohistorical Conspiracy Theories" 

message: This is a great and detailed page, props to all contributers. one thiing i would like to change is perhaps the beginning half could be about the different sub categories (revisionism, denialism ) etc, second half of page is the specific wrong claims (tartaria, matriarchy, etc) Philipbrochard (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering reorganization