Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudohistory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, nom withdrawn. Kusma (討論) 03:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pseudohistory

Firstly, pseudohistory isn't, even on the face of the article, a movement or abstract philosophical concept, but merely a pejorative label applied to something one thinks is shoddy. It's a word, not a concept. So, technically, it would be a suitable only for a dictionary entry, not an encyclopaedia entry. (well, consider: who would call themselves a pseudohistorian?).

Secondly, nevertheless it's linked from other articles as if it were some sort of movement - for example, the currently vogue Holy Blood, Holy Grail described as being "a conspirational work of Pseudohistory" as if it were some sort of academic discipline, and cross-referenced to the article (but not for long!). That is clearly an unequivocally pejorative reference - as it isn't sourced, it's a non-neutral point of view (though if some notable writer has accused HBHG of being pseudohistory then that's a different thing - but this should be listed in a criticism section, not in the introduction).

Thirdly, it's a snipey, bitchy article, which amounts to little more than original research, wherein editors have just taken potshots at theories they don't like. Now I should put my cards on the table here: I'm a card carrying skeptic, and I think these theories (and books like HBHG) are a pile of rubbish too, but that doesn't mean there is any justification whatsoever for this article.

Consider the following statements from the article, which make up the core of the article, none of which are sourced:

• Pseudohistory does not do justice to mainstream interpretations. Pseudohistory involves the inappropriate treatment of source material. It typically reflects the effort to justify a foregone conclusion. Pseudohistory often inflates the importance of a few unreliable sources while ignoring mountains of contradictory evidence. Pseudohistory may pull irrelevant facts out of context. Pseudohistory may distort the meaning of legitimate source material. Pseudohistory sometimes manufactures fraudulent evidence. It may blend real history with myth, legend, or rumor.
• Many people who engage in pseudohistory are sincere in their beliefs. They may believe the surviving body of evidence gives a false picture of the truth. They may have drawn their views from a body of fringe literature. They may be ignorant of proper historical method. They may understand academic standards but regard certain events as exempt from that analysis. Conspiracy theories are a popular theme for pseudohistory. Pseudohistory sometimes serves a political, nationalist, or religious agenda.

Note that, regardless of sourcing, this in no way distinguishes "pseudohistory" from "real" history that one doesn't agree with - each one of these qualities could be attributed to pretty much any disputed work of history, so it's not even a good dictonary definition.

The remainder of the article is "examples of pseudohistory" - none of them carry any citations for someone notable even accusing them of being pseudohistory, and many of the examnples don't meet even the loose criteria set out above, being not controversial published works but "urban legends" or just plain myths (like Atlantis).

In short, this pseudohistory article is rubbish on stilts - pseudo-encyclopaedic, if you will - and it has to go. ElectricRay 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As far as I know, an AfD does not decide whether the article is a good article; it decides whether the topic of the article is one we need. So most of your comment is irrelevant. While one can accuse any author of manufacturing fradulent evidence and depending on rumor and myth, that doesn't mean that it's true; one can check whether the evidence is from good sources or not. Likewise with whether or not they regard certain events exempt from normal historial anaylsis. So the definition is solid. Atlantis is covered in a number of controversial published works; it's far more than just a "myth".
• Just as importantly, a concept that is seen only from the outside is still valid. The fact that few people would call themselves terrorists or pedophiles does not make those people not terrorists or pedophiles.--Prosfilaes 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but whether you think it's a "useful" article, it isn't an encyclopaedia article - it's just a definition, and a poor one at that. Definitions belong in dictionaries. If I were to hack it back to only the sorts of things which are suitable for an encyclopaedia and not a dictionary, there would be nothing left. Ergo, it should be deleted. ElectricRay 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not only a definition; it's a field of human activity that has a history and bibliography, among other non-definition things.--Prosfilaes 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for seeming uncivil, but that's utter codswallop. Some Wikipedia users just added some random things they think are stupid. That doesn't give it a "history" (other than - ha! - a pseudohistory) or a "bibliography". Has anyone actually written a book on it? None show up on Amazon (well, it's mentioned in two articles and one out-of-print book, none of them purport to be about pseudohistory per se. I note you have some intellectual investment in the article, since you contributed to it. ElectricRay 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. So it has POV issues. Fix it. Aplomado ^talk 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It can only be "fixed" by being blanked entirely. And it's just a dictionary definition! ElectricRay 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not according to the external links section. It looks like a perfectly legitimate article subject to me, although it does need NPOV cleaning. Aplomado ^talk 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite. A notable subject. Falphin 23:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be rewritten though. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Keep Lots of Google Scholar, Google Book and Google Web hits. Even one Google News hit, which no other AfD I've looked at tonight had. I added the NPOV template to the article. GRBerry 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs a major re-write. Robertsteadman 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK - you win. ElectricRay in the tiny minority yet again. I'll work on a re-write. I will, however, say pseudo-history seems to amount to nothing more than a label, though, and there is no consistent or externally sourced consensus as to the criteria for something to qualify as pseudo-history. At the end of the day, the concept's value as an formal operator on the sum total of human knowledge is pretty slight (the concept of "history" is slippery enough, so the idea of "pretends to be history but isn't" is slipperier - like I say, the only thing that instances of pseudo-history have in common mentioned in the article as it currently stands are that they have all been labelled as pseudo-history by someone. ElectricRay 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now completed the re-write. ElectricRay 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The original nominator has withdrawn their nomination (and removed the AfD box from the article, and no other non-keep commentary is above. The next admin along might as well close this as a keep. GRBerry 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.