From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Questioning of the definition of Pseudohistory[edit]

People have views of history that aren't accepted by mainstream history and they're not wrong and they sometimes have evidence to back them up.

As long as you have evidence to back it up. Again, with academic intolerance of those who have differing viewpoints of history. Mainstream historians aren't always right about everything, you know. And I see bias in this article against people who actually have evidence to back up their claims, that's not pseudohistory. I don't see what's going on here. This article is intolerant of people with differing viewpoints of history. Mainstream historians have been proven wrong by new evidence.

Why doesn't the article address this?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

America Christian Nation[edit]

This discussion was moved to Forum:America as a Christian Nation.

Move it[edit]

Can someone please move the "discussion" to a more suitable venue, such as RationalWiki:Forum, or at least the talk page of The United States as a Christian nation?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

brxbrxbrxbrxbrxbrx- (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Danfly (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


There is 'creative history' (reconstructing the past as it might have been), fictional history, 'strange theories intended to start a discussion', 'misconstrued history arising from lack of knowledge' (the theory of cultural diffusion) and pseudohistory. The first three categories are legitimate, the next is 'some of our fiction now will be in the same boat' and the last is explotative/moneymaking at best and potentially actually dangerous at worst (some nationalist presentations). (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is also 'my pet theory' (possibly born of knowing enough about a subject to recognise gaps, anomalies and other aspects requiring analysis) which turns out to be right or which proves productive (the discovery of Troy), and 'at least it was an interesting diversion': the original theory may be wrong or offbeat, but the proposer is willing to abide by the customary academic rules. Then there are 'my opponent Professor X's totally misguided interpretations of events...' (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The tag[edit]

... is a reasonably accurate description of what pseudohistory is. (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Which tag? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This presumably -

Warning icon orange.svg 'This page contains too many unsourced statements, and needs to be improved. Pseudohistory could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.' (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The ideal pseudohistory[edit]

Look on my work, ye mighty, and despair Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato Can't...breath...laughing...too...hard... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)