Wikipedia in its erroneously titled “pseudohistory” page believes that people who believe that America is a Christian nation is “pseudohistory” is a view not accepted by mainstream academia, even though SOME conservative professors believe otherwise. Are they pseudohistorians? I think not. There are mainstream college professors that believe that America was founded on Christian principles and that Wikipedia’s view that academia says that this is not true, is simply WRONG! As is Wikipedia’s views on the subject.
Wikipedia believes that pseudohistory is any history not dealt with by mainstream historians, even though many of the topics Wikipedia lists as in this category, have been dealt with by mainstream academia, such as Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial has been written extensively by academics as a fraud, which it is most definitely true.
I do not like the subject not support the idiotic views of Holocaust deniers that say for example, that Auschwitz gas chambers are fake, despite the fact that you can visit them any day of the week and that they are very real, and that you’re not some Neo-Nazi jackass that sits in front of a computer. Just visit Auschwitz someday, if you can stomach it.
Wikipedia’s view of academia on this subject is wrong. Many of the topics it claims are “pseudohistory” are dealt with by academics. It presents the view that any topics not dealt with by mainstream historians are pseudohistory, even though mainstream academia deals with them. Then again, by Wikipedia’s own view on the subject, it too is not accepted by mainstream academia or mainstream historians, either. So does that make Wikipedia pseudohistory, the answer is HELL YES it does.
The article is a waste of time and full of erroneous beliefs and falsehoods that you need a historiographic method to be an historian. I have never heard of such a term. Wikipedia believes that academia agrees with what it says, instead of a bunch of shysters who edit articles and write anything that they damn well please to spin it.
History with religious themes is NOT pseudohistory, and neither is the article which it spins as being real. Wikipedia’s article is complete baloney and falsehoods. Ethnic inspired history is not false either, and is the basis of many nations beliefs, because it’s their ethnic group. The article is a bunch of crap that believes that history written by an ethnic group is pseudohistory, which is a load of crap if I have ever seen it. The article is a pile of baloney to hold up the false view that academia supports them. Many mainstream people believe that America is a Christian country. There are mainstream conservative academics that believe that, so it is not as Wikipedia falsely claims that it is. Maybe the history of Poland or Armenia or Serbia or Russia is pseudohistory, even though their ethnic history is based on it.
Wikipedia is loaded with false statements and inaccuracies concerning this subject. Many idiots who write this baloney on Wikipedia should realize that the histories of nations are written from an ethnic point of view and that it is an ACCEPTED view of history, unlike what Wikipedia presents in its wild articles. Wikipedia is quite simply wrong, with its anti-ethnic bias. Mainstream conservative Academics believe that America is Christian. Wikipedia upholding the view that academics are all liberal and all far-left in this way, is totally wrong.
Wikipedia lies on this subject that sounds like a National Enquirer article and not a genuine case of falsification of history, and the blatant outrage that it represents by saying that the whole histories of Serbia, Russia, and Poland. ACCEPTED histories by mainstream academics, are pseudohistory because they have an ethnic bias. This is a load of malarkey. Is a nation’s history false because it does not adhere to the shyster fraud of Wikipedia or because it’s based on an ethnic prespective. This article is a bunch of baloney that they write, to suggest that the whole histories of entire nations are false! This is wrong and totally erronious view. Wikipedia’s erroneous view of academia is completely wrong.
Psychohistory The ill-fated attempt to merge psychology with history, replacing historical method.
Yeah, I’d say this about Wikipedia. This one is rich. Psychology with history. If anything Wikipedia, is psychohistory that says that ethnocentric history is pseudohistory. Is the history of Greece false? The history of Italy false because it does have an ethnocentric view? I think not. Wikipedia has replaced history and become a regular term on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a pile of malarkey and its erronous view
Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1
This is pseudohistory? To understand the psychological motivations of historical events, why Hitler went insane? This is crap! This Wikipedia has hit new and shameful new lows!
Religious history is pseudohistory? This is wrong! IS the history of Islam false or the history of Christianity or the history and chronoglies of certain religions groups that influenced history? The history of the Middle East is written from an Islamic prespective! The history of the Middle East cannot be talked about without a word about Islam or the impact of Islam! This article is an outrage to conventional history to say that Religious history is pseudohistory! This is an outrage to how religious history has had an impact on America or different religions! That is a lie. Is the history of how Islam impacted the Middle East pseudohistory? This Wikipedia article is an outrage to mainstream history with a clear anti-religious bias.
Religions have had an impact on history. Finding Noah’s Ark is not pseudohistory. Wikipedia will spin any outrage that it damn well wants to. Wikipedia is NOT accepted by mainstream historians, either. I got news for you, Wikipedia. You’re not either. Wikipedia is just simply baloney. Many American colleges Christian teach a religious type history, and they’re mainstream colleges. This is NOT pseudohistory. This is normal college. Religious history and its impact on World history is not pseudohistory. Wikipedia is WRONG!
Islam created modern Middle Eastern history and Islam created the whole conquests of the Ottoman Empire. YOu cannot write a single sentence about the conquests of the Ottoman Empire without writing about Islam! Religious history is not pseudohistory! Religious history and its impact on world events cannot be called pseudohistory. This article is a waste of time. Wikipedia does not know anything about real history. The Catholic Church in Poland helped bring down the Soviet Union. Religious history and history of religions is not pseudohistory. Wikipedia is simply wrong! This outrage called an article is quite simply baloney. Middle Eastern Studies courses always talk about Islam! Wikipedia is very wrong on this subject.
This is a bunch of opinionated nonsense and biased sources and weasel words. Islam helped create the Middle East. Islam was spread by the sword and by violent conquest and that is NOT pseudohistory, not matter what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia’s article is wrong. This article is a bunch of crap! Finding evidence of Noah’s Ark is not pseudorachaeology. Science dictates that finding evidence of a myth is not pseudoarchaeology. Wikipedia is an outrage and an attack on religion and religions that impacted history, such an Islam.
Islam played a critical role and continues to play a critical role in Middle Eastern history. The persecution of Christians in my countries involves religious history. Wikipedia is an outrage. Christianity played a role in the Roman Empire and played a role in the downfall of the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Mainstream historians don’t even agree with Wikipedia.
IS THIS pseudohistory? According to Wikipedia it is, but in reality it’s not. Wikipedia has once again pulled off a significant outrage. The content of Wikipedia is quite simply, where anyone can edit anything and write a bunch of crap like what this implies? Wikipedia is a waste of time. Islam HAS HAD a huge impact of politics. To say it’s pseudohistory is wrong. The article is wrong. The article is an outrageous insult that is an insult to real history. The history of the Catholic Church in America is pseudohistory according to Wikipedia, but it’s not. Wikipedia is a joke. I would trust a pseudo encyclopedia to tell me about pseudo topics, which is what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia IS pseudohistory! Plain and simple. By its own definition, of not being accepted by mainstream academia, Wikipedia is PSEUDOHISTORY!
Wikipedia is a bunch of baloney and the article reads like a National Enquirer article instead of a genuine study of false history. Wikipedia smears whole religious histories by saying that they’re false. The Orthodox Church had an impact on Russia and played an early role in the history of Russia and that cannot be disputed. Wikipedia is a joke, simply put. The Orthodox Church helped found modern Russia and played a significant role with the Czars, especially with Rasputin.
But according to Wiki, The Orthodox Church having an impact on Russian history is “pseudohistory” and this is because it uses religious history. Many histories have their own histories and how they impacted world history and how they help found whole nations and whole institutions and were the dominant religions of many nations. This is NOT pseudohistory. No matter what Wikipedia says. This is simply a bunch of crapola, if ever there was one. The Catholic Church helped to repel a Muslim invasion in the 700s in Poitiers, France. The Catholic Church played a huge role in the Middle Ages. Wiki labels this as pseudohistory! Wikipedia is not favored by academics at all. The history of many nations is written by nationalists and nationalists spilled their blood to have a free country. This is not pseudohistory. This is well-documented fact. This whole article flies in the face of regular adopted history and Wikipedia should NEVER be used as a reference source.
Wikipedia should be laughed at because of this article and its pretenses that it writes that smacks of ethnically and religiously offensive statements that are quite simply, WRONG! I am tired of writing about Wikipedia’s outrages. Poland’s history is based on history from a Polish ethnic prespetice. Does Wikipedia think that other peoples and other ethnic groups write the Poles’ history for them? I think not. This article, like so much on Wikipedia, IS A JOKE!
Is Poland’s history written with the sacrifices of Polish nationalists that fought and died for freedom “pseudohistory” or Jan Paderewski or Pilsudski or the role of Polish nationalists fighting for freedom and spilling their blood against the Nazis and Communists, “pseudohistory” or the Armenian fight against the Turks, “pseudohistory” or the statues dedicated to many people in Armenia and Poland and Russia with nationalist leaders having statues Pseudohistory?
NO! NO! NO! It’s not! Wikipedia is a bunch of biased baloney. No matter, we’ll spin a bunch of crap and call ourselves legitimate!
Do you think that these people died for Pseudohistory to be remembered as “pseudohistory?” Do they think that Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo in 1914 is Pseudohistory? That’s what Wikipedia thinks when history based on ethnocentric history is pseudohistory! Does the United States write China’s history? Does Greece writes Germany’s history? NO! NO! It does not. It would be outrage to revise and rewrite someone else’s history written for their non-prespective and call it “pseudohistory” No, no! History written from an ethnocentric presepective is NOT pseudohistory and it is the normal history for many nations worldwide and the history of nations is written from an ETHNOCENTRIC prespective, BECAUSE IT IS THEIR HISTORY! NO one else is going to write it for them. This article is a bunch of laughably bad and crap!
Wikipedia errounesly believes that academia all thinks the same way it does, that anything that