Talk:Pseudohistory

Remove this page

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)

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)

Whats stopping me from writing a book and putting anything I want as the title?

Thetalkingheads (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Maybe you need to get WP:VERIFY changed first. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo history written by the opposition

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)

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)

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)

Pseudohistory is a pejorative?

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)

Pre-Columbian Exploration in the New World

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 Smith^Talk 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Tidy up

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)

On further reflection, I have some issues with the article, and judging by the Talk page I'm not alone. I've made quite a number of changes, mostly to amplify and to address some of the Talk issues. Specifically: +

• I've amplified the definition in the lead, and explained why the term is pejorative
• I've changed a section heading to "characteristics". The author quoted has omitted what are IMO some common and important characteristics of pseudohistory, which I've added. This isn't OR but observable from even cursory study of the subject
• I've added some material about what pseudohistory might be thought to be but is not, as this is not immediately clear from the discussion of what it is. This includes a contrast of pseudohistory and revisionism
• I've changed the next heading to Categories & examples. IMO it is clearly impractical to give any sort of complete list of pseudohistorical theories, and it will lead only to contention of the "yes it is ... no it isn't" type, which currently floods the talk page. I've added a caution about misuse of the term to denigrate theories that individuals don't agree with. I've added some categories and pruned and generalised the list of examples a bit; however it needs someone more familiar than I with the individual theories to say whether the examples are reasonable or just demonstrate partisanship.
• on this note, and having read "Holy Blood", I would say that the question of Jesus' marital status is one on which evidence (as opposed to religious doctrine) is lacking (in spite of his being a well-documented life for the period), therefore the book's view is permissible speculation and not pseudohistory. However tracing purported "descendants" via fake genealogies is clearly pseudohistoric.
• I removed the detailed discussion of a specific pseudohistorical theory, as follows:

... which notes that Ariosophism (an esoteric discipline in Germany and Austria, fl. 1890-1930) resemble Nazism in important points (e.g. racism, emphasis on supposed Aryan origins, use of the swastika). However, the only cases where Goodrick-Clarke found evidence of a direct Ariosophic influence on National Socialism were the cases of Rudolf von Sebottendorf (and the Thule Society) and Karl Maria Wiligut. He found that the importance of these cases is often greatly exaggerated by the modern mythology of Nazi occultism. Goodrick-Clarke defines this genre as crypto-history, since its "final point of explanatory reference is an agent which has remained hidden from previous historians." He debunks several books as crypto-historic in Appendix E of his book, writing that they "were typically sensational and under-researched. A complete ignorance of the primary sources was common to most authors and inaccuracies and wild claims were repeated by each newcomer to the genre until an abundant literature existed, based on wholly spurious 'facts' concerning the powerful Thule Society, the Nazi links with the East, and Hitler's occult initiation."... [ENDS] I don't believe any specific theory should be discussed at this length in this article.

If any editor has issues with what I've done, PLEASE don't blindly revert it, but make constructive edits, make constructive comment here, or write to me on my talk page. Chrismorey (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Velikovsky

Was Velikovsky's theory contrary to scientific knowledge at the time he promulgated it, or did the scientific refutation come afterwards? If the latter, it's a disproved theory but not pseudohistory and shouldn't be listed as an example Chrismorey (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)3

I just found this. Sorry for only answering ten years later...

It was extremely crazy, extremely ignorant and extremely stupid from the beginning. Astronomers found V's astronomy full of rookie mistakes, mythologists found V's mythology full of rookie mistakes, historians found V's history full of rookie mistakes, geologists found V's geology full of rookie mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

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)

Point taken about the source. But Tunde Adeleke[1] calls it pseudohistory, as does Mary Lefkowtiz[2] 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)

Pseudohistory is not a pejorative

This article was written in January 2003 without the term "pejorative."[3] It was rewritten in May 2006[4] with that term - and no source citations.[5] 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)

Further, none of these article use the word "pejorative":

• Pseudo-scholarship
  • Pseudoarchaeology
  • Pseudolinguistic
  • Pseudomathematics

Two pseudo-scholarship articles besides this one include the word:

• Pseudophilosophy (unsourced)
• Pseudoscience (poorly/weakly sourced)

--Lightbreather (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pseudohistorians

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)

Good idea. By the nature of historical subjects, not everything is related to archaeology, nor do all subjects need archaeological findings to support them. Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The label 'pseudohistorian' is simply slander

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)

 Not done cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Barton, again

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)

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)

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)

Historical revisionism

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)

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)

Still not historical revision, rather historical falsification.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@Haploidavey: 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)

@Katolophyromai: "the spirit of genuine historical research" makes my point more clearly than I did! Haploidavey (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth, I understand that his work is clearly multifaceted and complicated, but I am content with him in the current "Historical fabrication" section, because, even though there are other elements to his work, I think that it would be more productive to only mention each example once and to put those examples in the sections were they fit the most comfortably, even if there are aspects of them that would fit better in other sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Please put a mention about Nordicism

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)

@TheBr0s: 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)

The Crown

British television series The Crown claims to be a "largely factual" representation of the modern history of the British monarchy, but caveats that some of the plot is partially or entirely fictional. Would this not count as Historical Falsification in the modern era? Jellinator (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jellinator: No. It would not count because The Crown is a historical drama and it does not purport to be completely historically accurate. If we included The Crown here, we would have to also include every other historical drama. It only counts as pseudohistory if it tries to convince people that what it is saying is historically true. In terms of television shows, pseudohistory is more along the lines of Ancient Aliens or Hunting Hitler. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I accept that it is listed as a historical dramatization, but it does claim to be largely historically accurate in reference to the Royal Family where the public has limited access to records to question the claims. Given the large number of search engine hits for people seeking the same answer, there's enough confusion to deceive viewers who would come to Wikipedia seeking the truth. The claims that the creators of The Crown make when the show is presented to the public imply there's no reasonable doubt in the eyes of a reasonable person with access to public records but these have been found to be false, and the need to include similar works in future shouldn't be reasoning for exclusion. Jellinator (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jellinator: I have three points:

1. As I have stated above, in order for it to qualify as "pseudohistory," they would have to claim that their portrayal in the show is historical (i.e. based on the historical method). Claiming that their portrayal is "largely historically accurate" as far as public records are concerned is not the same thing.
2. We report what is written in reliable sources. In order for The Crown to warrant inclusion here, it must be explicitly referred to as "pseudohistory" in at least one reliable source written by a reputable scholar or historian, preferably in a book like Ronald H. Fritze's Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions, which is specifically devoted to analyzing and debunking pseudohistory.
3. The historical accuracy of the show is a matter that would be much better addressed in the article about the show itself, rather than in this article, which really has nothing to do with the show at all. The number of search hits the show receives on Google is irrelevant here, because: 1) WP:RECENTISM, and 2) We are here to write an encyclopedia; we are not here to "right great wrongs." --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Historical fiction in general tends to be a combination of genuine historical material, various fictional tropes, and the ideological agendas of the fiction writers. In several cases, the writers use the story's events in a supposedly remote era to express their views on their present-time conditions or on universal human experiences. Margaret Mitchell, for example, was less interested in the historical setting of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction era, and more interested in depicting how and why people survive at the time of upheavals.:

If Gone with the Wind has a theme it is that of survival. What makes some people come through catastrophes and others, apparently just as able, strong, and brave, go under? It happens in every upheaval. Some people survive; others don't. What qualities are in those who fight their way through triumphantly that are lacking in those that go under? I only know that survivors used to call that quality 'gumption.' So I wrote about people who had gumption and people who didn't.
— Margaret Mitchell, 1936

Dimadick (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• ZECHARIA SITCHIN.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudohistory in India

It's a major problem. See for instance this.[6] Sorry, being called, more later. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

New York Sun as a source for Temple Denial

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)

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)

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)

Anti-Secession Act of 1861

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)

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)

Article on "The Dangers of Pseudohistorical Conspiracy Theories"

[7] Doug Weller talk 07:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering reorganization

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)