From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 March 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Sound right[edit]

"can often make it difficult for mainstream historians to refute the pseudohistorical theories." that doesn't sound right, especially given the "see also" section. Unlike the creation/evolution debate, mainstream historians have no difficulty in refuting these crazy theories with verifiable evidence. Right? Resident vandal

It's fuzzy, from what I've been reading. Occasionally there'll be an argument that actually takes a lot of trouble to refute (although it eventually does). In the meantime, a hundred more crackpot claims spring up while the original claimant (who's now been proven wrong) simply forgets about their earlier argument as if it never existed. Not that much different from crazy ID theories, actually. --Kels 17:39, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
As a YEC, I don't believe that ID is crazy. These theories, yes. They are certainly. I have heard alot of them. In reality, pseudohistory always gets pwned! Resident vandal 17:49, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes and no. What I'm trying to get at is that the opponents often don't accept the evidence as valid. Taking Professor Fomenko as an example, for instance, I could easily produce mounds of historical documents that flat-out contradict his ideas, but he would simply answer that those documents have been forged, and only appear to be contradicting him. Methodologically speaking, that argument is patently absurd, but it's pretty difficult to explain why unless you have a pretty good idea of what a historian actually spends his time doing, and a lot of the people who buy into his ideas probably don't.
There is also sort of a problem with the status of "evidence" as such in history. Many historians, myself included, tend to be pretty uncomfortable with the whole idea that there is such a thing as an objective truth in history, because frankly, that idea has led to some pretty stupid conclusions in the past. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:50, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Pejorative term[edit]

Pseudohistory is not a real term, but an invented, presenting history as though it is a science, when in fact it is not. And history is a democratic process of debate of issues and if we do not debate them, we lose history forever. Pseudohistory is a tar-brush label to describe history that one does not like and the term pseudo historians is used as a smear by Wikipedia and sites like this one to silence debate. If we had the kind of labeling that labels history in this way, we would lose history. Pseudohistory should be a pejorative term for describing history not accepted by academia.

There are plenty of theories not accepted by academia, because academia is agenda-driven and anti-American and far-left that smears anyone who espouses that America was a nation founded on Christian ideals. There is evidence to prove that. The terms are used by sites like this and Wikipedia as if they are real.

Pseudo-studies. What kind of term is that? IS there a study into false history? Pseudohistory is not a real term at all. It should be called revisionist history if anything and implying that history uses a scientific method hypothesis is also wrong. Why should history be a science? History is an educational tool that does not use science to investigate. I think pseudohistory is a term that people throw around as an insult, like calling someone's history false. I have issues with the pseudohistory term because it is used like it is pseudoscience, which is false science, and history does not test for hypotheses like science does.

I have a problem with the pseudoscience, history, etc articles because they are used to insult people and suggest that history is a science that is reliable, when in fact, history is debated as a documented research tool to educate people and science explains how the universe works and history explains man's various acheivements and documented failures and historical events that change our world. History is NOT science and I am tired of it being treated like pseudoscience. This yet again, more agenda-driven nonsense.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It ties in to pseudoarchaelogy and the like. Pseudohistory concerns such things that are not simply transhistoricity, but blatant falsehood.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest looking into the history of Macedonia, as taught in the Republic of Macedonia. I wonder what word would you suggest for it.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
That is still history, it's just modified, incorrect, or biased history. The problem with the term "psuedohistory" is that it really doesn't reflect anything as it's currently understood by historians. part of history is the fact that China invents its history. but the "history" of china, from China's point of view, is still history. we would say it's "psuedo-history". it really doesn't work the way the article is trying to set it up. just my two cents, of course.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


The problem with falsehoods is that sometimes theories about World War II and the war and what not are not always false, but the term pseudohistory has been used by liberals to insult pro-American and pro-Western viewpoints of history. To suggest that America is an evil country and that history about World War II is pseudohistory, but the bias in the History Channel article is alarmingly obvious, when you label it "pseudohistory" and make the hateful comment that its WWII programming is all Hitler all the time, which is an absolute insult to the veterans of World War II and exposing how evil Hitler really was and history that espouses how our men fought and died for freedom in World War II and talking about how the Allied powers nobly saved the world from tyranny. To suggest that it is "All Hitler, all the time" is pejorative and extremely insulting to those of us who love World War II and the History Channel's informative documentaries on World War II. Wikipedia suggests that pseudo history is a term that requires a rewrite of history. Considering that people have theories and different, but correct ways of looking at history, that are still correct, that's insulting.

To suggest that my history is biased and wrong is just plain insulting and revisionist, because I have evidence to back it up. How about the pseudohistory concerning the Polish cavalry charging into German panzers, which has been proven to be Nazi pseudohistory about World War II. To suggest that history based on political agenda is pseudohistory is also false, because the whole understanding of our ancient Roman history is based on the political agenda of the Ancient Romans and their worldview. This is not pseudohistory at all, but Wikipedia says that it is. There is a clear flaw in the understanding of pseduohistory. Why is history based on religious agendas false? You cannot talk about the whole Middle East without talking about the impact of Islam on Middle Eastern history. Pseudohistory is a false term and invented term as well, that people with certain agendas like to throw around from time to time. (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not like the pseudoarchaeology bit either. Sometimes obejcts that have ancient writing that elude mystery from people, are labeled with this term because Archaeologists pretend to be rational on the subject and only want to see their viewpoint and not someone else's perception of what the stone pyramids might be or a mysterious object laughed off as pseudoarchaeology is fact real and the subject of debate. To tarbrush something with pseudoarchaeology is insulting and violates the whole rule of historical and scientific debate about ancient artifacts. It's all about perception of what's real and what's not. Sometimes what is labeled as pseudoarchaelogy is a mysterious cave drawing of ancient alien-like creatures and people making a mountain out a molehill on the History Channel for example, to find lost and mysterious civilizations and investigate them is not pseudoarchaeology, but rational science. Sometimes what is labeled "pseudoarchaeology" by the mainstream is something REAL that is actually there that draws interest from certain people, because of its mysterious nature, but has a scientific value to it, but is not false. Sometimes theories that were false are made correct by new evidence and mainstream archaeology tends to shun anyone who has new ideas or evidence that could be proven to be correct or might not be. Noah's Ark is not pseudoarchaeology. Again, this is based on your viewpoint or non-religious viewpoint. Biblical archaeology is not pseudohistory or pseudoarchaelogy, because many of them have been proven correct. If you dig and

I am tired of new plausible theories about objects being labele pseduorarchaelogy because such labeling silences scientific debate on a subject and that is not fair at all. The object of science is to debate it, not shoehorn in someone else's point of view, like this article suggests. Sometimes mainstream archaeologists miss vital clues and try to fit in things with their own prejudices, like a theory presented as false, when there is an amplitude of evidence to prove its existance. Sometimes ancient history, alot of the artifacts to prove something are gone and no longer there to begin with. Smearing something as psuedoarchaeology does not help one's case at all because bashing someone else's perception of what an object is and what their history is and what someone else who has no training in archaeology would perceive is just wrong. We must debate issues, not smear people with differing viewpoints. (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Pseudoarchaeology about lost Roman temples. Maybe Indiana Jones is pseudoarchaeology? He beats Nazi pseudoarchaeology and investigating ancient objects like the Holy Grail or Jesus's lost tomb is not pseudohistory because investigating claims and using rational belief to back it up, but these terms are being used to smear people with different perceptions of reality and differing viewpoints and pseudo archaeology is a loaded term I'm afraid, and having evidence to back up the tomb of Jesus or investigating ancient historical claims about myths and legends and spirits to see if there is any basis in fact to them is not false science, because it RATIONALLY proves whether or not they happened. Not putting labeles to something and pretending you know everything. This pseudo stuff is ridiculous and offensive to people who wish to say, that the lost temple of whatever is pseudoarchaeology, BUT NEW EVIDENCE proves otherewise and some stupid and stubborn scientific "skeptic" says otherwise without getting past his own prejudices is wrong also. The language is the articles is full of propaganda and loaded statements. This is nothing more than name-calling to people who have differing and correct theories about the universe BECAUSE THEY HAVE EVIDENCE AND NOT ANECDOTES to prove them and not hearsay, is also plain wrong. Scientific study would label it in this fashion because the academic is too stubborn to get pasted their own conceited prejudices about what they know is wrong. Sometimes, they're too stubborn to admit their own mistakes and they're wrong and this pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology stuff wreaks of arrogance. But insulting people in a hateful manner with these terms stifles debate and does not help one's case or finding lost Biblical treasures that are worth something and calling it "pseudoarchaelogy" is insulting to anyone who believes in something different, that requires to rewrite history because new evidence has been found otherwise to prove its existance. This is insulting to use such a term.

Can anyone stop the pseudo intellectual ramblings on these pages and quit pretending to have validity with academia! These sites are a joke to them and righly so. the Roman view of history is what archaelogists use, but the term pseudoarchaelogy is being used to smear anyone with different viewpoints counter to mainsream archaeology, but HAS REAL evidence to back up their theory, but has a hard time having it accepted because of academic arrogance that calls it pseudoarchaelogy because it was NOT THEIR discovery or something like that, but that people having imagination to believe what they want based in their own minds is pseudoarchaelogy, when history is not absolute and there is evidence to prove differently and come to conclusions based on your own correct analysis or imagination is not pseduoarchaelogy, but this article presents that as such and that is not fair to people who different from academia because of new evidence dug up somewhere by someone who is not a professional archaelogist. This too gets labeled pseudoarchaelogy because it was not found by an academic and there IS EVIDENCE OTHERWISE but has been stifled by academia and its stuffy arrogance and it WAS NOT made up or invented evidence either.

These articles are filled with loaded statements and falsehoods. 03:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you give us some examples of things unfairly branded as pseudoarchaeology or pseudohistory, and maybe that'll help us to understand your point--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfair labeling[edit]

Why don't you give us some examples of things unfairly branded as pseudoarchaeology or pseudohistory, and maybe that'll help us to understand your point--brxbrxbrxbrxbrxbrx-brxbrx 03:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How about labeling discoveries of Stonehenge as pseudoarchaeology, like the article pseudoarchaeology says it is. Discovering Stonehenge is NOT pseudoarchaeology to uncover the meanings and use rational science to debunk them at all. Discovering ancient objects is not pseudoarchaeology, neither is going to find Noah's Ark and use archaeology to find evidence of something to rationally prove something.

History Channel is unfairly labeled "pseuodohistory" because of some bias this writer has against WWII docs being the Hitler Channel and all Hitler all the time, is just derisive and ignorant because World War II, isn't just about Hitler you know, it's about learning how the Allies saved the world from the evil Nazi tyranny and the article is full of bias and expresses ignorant and hateful statements that insult WWII and our veterans and is acclaimed WWII docs, which have won awards and became a standard on TV and such statements insult our veterans that fought and died for our freedom, and a pro-American viewpoint which the History Channel celebrates. It has been unfairly labeled "pseudohistory" by this site and the article is full of loaded statements, ignorant and hateful, and derisive comments about its World War II docs, which are some of the best on TV and really informative about the subject. To suggest that it is all about Hitler as if it glorifies him is ignorant and derisive on the part of the people writing it. Such comments insult our freedom that gave you the freedom to write this stuff. If you have a problem with living in a world free of Nazism, then you are lost. Having World War II being exalted as saving the world from tyranny, which THC does in its pro-American, pro-Allies viewpoint is not wrong. Quit the derisiveness in the article. This is full of bias and unfair labeling and does not take into account its acclaimed WWII programming or Modern Marvels or its otther informative docs. The article is seething with bias against the History Channel, when in fact it made history enjoyable for millions of people worldwide and to call it the Hitler Channel or all Hitler all the time is derisive and ignorant and insulting to peoplw who really love to study WWII to say that WWII is all Hitler all the ignorant is derisive and insulting to those who gave their lives to free the world from that evil madman and those who fought and died to save the world from fascism. Please reconsider some of your derisive comments.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Of course it's a biased article. It's biased towards stuff that is a) interesting and b) relevant. If you want to read about any acclaimed programming on The History Channel, there's Wikipedia. ADK...I'll fill your anything! 11:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
First, please don't open a new section/topic to post a new message. Every section has an "edit" link in the corner.
As far as I could understand, your problem is with some of the contents of the History Channel article. "All Hitler all the time" is not intended to imply that THC glorifies Hitler. It is intended to imply that most of the "history" it used to show was centered on the Second World War, a very short period in the history of the world. The "pseudohistory" label has been used because of sensationalistic shows such as Ancient Aliens. Do have in mind that a lot of the articles in RationalWiki are written in a flippant tone. We are not Wikipedia. See RW:SPOV.
Also do have in mind that not all of the people here are American. Some of us were "liberated" by someone else.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If WWII related programs, historical fiction programs and Antiques Roadshow programs were removed from the Yesterday channel it would virtually disappear.

Differentiate between pseudohistory and 'history from various different and sometimes seemingly incompatible viewpoints.' (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)