This category is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
What is a pseudo-historian - someone who studies the history of pseudo-topics or someone who pretends to do that? It is so ambiguous and I don't believe WP should be using words that are not in conventional encyclopedic practice.
If verifiable references to authoritive sources exist to show that this is a legitimate term, can someone provide them? (Bearing in mind that we are not here to create world standards, but report on them) -- ZacΔtalk! 00:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Dictionaries are terrible sources for many things. But I don't know what the point is here. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 5 resulted in a clear keep. You seem to be trying to revive the debate here, but that isn't appropriate. The fact is that it is a real word and if you looked outside of dictionaries you'd find it. Here is one example from the Britannica: " An example of this is the Historia regum Britanniae (1135–38) of Geoffrey of Monmouth (died 1155), a pseudo-historian who compounded stories from Celtic mythology and classical and biblical sources into a fictitious history of ancient Britain." That's just to show you that it's used by reliable sources, I'm not going to debate it here as if you want to get the category deleted you need to do it by process, and that failed last year. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you let us know the criteria for this page? One person's pseudohistorian may be another person's Gallileo.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I just read the discussion you linked. The consensus seems to be that if someone is labeled as a "pseudohistorian" by a reliable source, then they can be placed on this page. Why are there no references?Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
No one can be 'placed' on this page. Their articles are placed in the category and thus show up on this page. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Giorgio A. Tsoukalos#Pseudohistorian is a pejorative? is a pejorative? concerning whether Tsoukalos should be categorized as a Pseudohistorian, which (at least according to the article pseudohistory) is a pejorative term. (IMO, the question is whether this category can be used in a BLP w/o a citation from a WP:RS. If not, this category might need to be removed from a few articles.) Please participate in the discussion there. Thanks, Justin W Smith (talk) 12:00 pm, Today (UTC−4)
In my opinion he deserves to be in this category. Whether he and others like him find it insulting should not be our concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)