Talk:History and Pseudohistory(index)
From SkepticWiki
[edit] Artefacts / artifacts
My dictionary gives "artifacts" as an alternative. However, spellcheck autocorrects it to "artefacts".
[edit] Pseudo-history?
There's a lot of stuff on this list that doesn't really seem history-related, pseudo- or otherwise, except that it happened in the past. "Protocols", for example, while historically significant, does not actually purport to contain any relevance to history in itself.
There's a lot of "artifacts" listed here also, about which the current controversy is what they are, not what they were. Crystal skulls, for example, do not really reflect upon history or pseudohistory.
I propose the following as going under the heading of "pseudohistory":
- Afrocentric history
- Ecological ancestors
- Holocaust [denial]
- ... etc.
And the following under something like "misunderdstood ancient cultures":
- Druids
- Egypt
- Tibet
- ...etc,
And the following under "relics and artifacts":
- Shroud of Turin
- Crystal Skulls
- Stonehenge
- ...etc,
And the following under "historical myths":
- Protocols of the Elders of Zion
- Knights Templar
- Atlantis
- ...etc,
- Qui tacet consentit. User:Phildonnia
- There's just no single way to categorize all this. I tried to stick to the categories outlined in the intro.
- I removed "Freemasons". The pseudo-history surrounding freemasonry would probably be covered by "Illuminati", and any current silliness could be a link off of "Conspiracy theories", possibly with a link back to "Illuminati".
________________________
The categories in the into are classifications more or less by [i]motive[/i]. I was trying to explain how come pseudohistory exists in the first place.
I think a lot of the classes you've given could and should be merged.
There doesn't seem to be much of a consistent plan. How come Afrocentric history goes in one place and Eurocentric history in another? In order to carry out a classification you need to define your classes.
I would definitely put fakes (Protocols, Ica stones, Turin Shroud, crystal skulls etc) in a section of their own, as distinct from things like the pyramids and Stonehenge, which really go along with misunderstood ancient cultures.
Filing "Popular errors" under "Popular Misconceptions" seems odd. It was meant to be a subsection in itself.
Illuminati and FReemasons are different things. I don't know if you've seen any of the woowoo about Freemasons on the Internet, but I have and it most definitely needs an article.
--- Dr A.
