Talk:Nationalist historiography

Wikipedia Open wikipedia design.

WikiProject History (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I have been arguing with a couple of Persian nationalists who are sure that the Elamite empire was Iranian. I collected material that wasn't related to Iran, but did speak to a general problem. So I started an article. This could probably be considerably expanded. I'm still exploring the topic myself. Zora 09:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (political) which touches on this. There is also Universal History and a number of other "philosophy of history" articles which all need to be tied together in some way, probably under Historiography. Interestingly, historiography articles are usually broken down by nation, so youd have Historiography of England etc.. Stbalbach 14:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As it is, I think this article could well be subsumed into a a subsectoin of historiography.
If folks want to merge it, I'm OK with that. Zora 23:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this is an important article that should be preserved as a valuable antidote to the various nationalist debates one finds scattered around Wikipedia: e.g., was Copernicus a Pole or a German; was al-Biruni Persian or Arab or Turkish. I understand the motives of national pride that lie behind those debates, but the fact that there can be such real debates indicates that national identities can be much more fluid than modern nationalists assume. --SteveMcCluskey 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

This article has problems and it makes claims about "Chinese, Persians, Russians" that are not backed up with anything. Reads like a bad term paper from an ultraradical leftist. It is just original research and either doesn't belong in the Wikipedia or needs to get rid of all the junk info that has nothing to back it up. ZamfirsGhost 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the article and I don't think I'm a leftist. I'm definitely an anti-nationalist, but I tried to keep the article neutral. How about refraining from calling me names? I'll dig up more refs. Zora 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a "leftist" is not an insult. But I think you're right since examining your edit history you seem nothing like a liberal but the exact opposite, which I think is even worse. My mistake. I think you should read about what Wikipedia thinks about original research and this article is a fabulous example. If the article is anti-nationalist like you, then it's not neutral is it now? And if you are anti-nationalist I think you should leave Hawaii since whites don't belong there and in fact you should leave America, the most nationalist country on earth! And leave the rest of the world alone. ZamfirsGhost 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm a leftist. I'm definitely an anti-nationalist, but I tried to keep the article neutral. The minor point is that anti-nationalism is a default common sense among progressives (I'm one, and I'm doing research into this at the moment). The more substantial point is that your anti-nationalist disposition is very evident throughout the article. You cite Geary a lot (for such a brief article) and there is also an implicit bias toward the modernists (Gellner, Hobsbawm, Anderson) and against the 'perennialists' (e.g. Smith). I'd recommend a substantial re-write and will get onto this myself as soon as I find the time - it's a promising initial structure and I applaud your enterprise in getting this article off the ground! -RLM 7pm AEST, 21 September 2009

It's not original research; I cited many academics and even an academic conference. Please stop calling me names and insulting me. I'm not going to report you to an admin, in case you don't realize that you're doing wrong, but if you do this again, I will. You can be blocked from editing if you can't remain civil (WP:CIVIL) to other editors. Zora 22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Sometime ago, after making some major changes, I removed the Original Research template. I have just removed the NPOV template. If anyone still thinks this article is biased, please reopen the discussion. --SteveMcCluskey 15:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Things to do and Sources[edit]

I've added a lot of material based on Geary's recent book. There's a lot more material out there that can be added. I know there are discussions of the rise of Celtic and Slavic nationalism in the nineteenth century, and I presume there are discussions of nationalism in the many former colonial states of Africa and Asia.

Please help. --SteveMcCluskey 15:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could. Did you know that I have a cubic yard of books to be read sitting by my bed? That I have hundreds of books queued in my Questia account? That I have hundreds of books on my gimmee lists at Powells and Amazon? I think my head is going to explode. Zora 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Europeans claiming Greeks as their own[edit]

I've removed the following discussion from the section where it was:

Europeans claiming as their origin Acient Greece (and marginalizing any non-Greek or non-Indo-European influences on Ancient Greece)<ref>Arvidsson 2006:50-52</ref>,

That section is concerned with cultures claiming ancestry in a vaguely defined mythological past; the passage derived from Arvidsson dealt with Europeans claiming descent from a well defined historical culture. The issue of possible Asian and African influences on Greek culture is another matter, which perhaps could be written up to fit this discussion of nationalism. --SteveMcCluskey 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

indeed, this is completely offtopic. Europeans claiming Greek cultural roots can do so independently of what might be, in turn, the roots of Greek culture. Oriental and Egyptian influence on Greek culture are widely accepted, it is just usually implied that these elements were essentially refined, acquiring a new "European" quality, in Greece itself. dab (𒁳) 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Books in footnotes.[edit]

I recently changed the Google Books reference to Geary, p. 15, because it didn't work properly. I suspect such links may not be permanent but may be tied to each individual search. That may be why Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Guidelines deprecates using links to specific pages.

Would someone check whether that link goes directly to p. 15; if it doesn't feel free to remove it. --SteveMcCluskey 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Zora just reformatted the reference for Marc Ferro's book, removing a link to the Google Books entry, stating in her edit summary "We don't do links to google book searches". A Google Books link has been left standing further down. If you click on the title of Patrick Geary's book, it takes you to a Google Books link, and I believe that one is useful. It takes you to Google's own 'About this book' page, which offers a reasonable summary of the book. That should benefit our readers, though I admit the Google Book links do take up space.
In the case of the Geary reference, SteveMcCluskey has provided two different GB links, one that takes you to the 'About this Book' page, and a second link that takes you to page 15, which is where the main Geary quote (included at the top of this article) comes from. I did not find that the links were tied to each individual search (which was a concern of Steve's); I found that they took you consistently to the right place. So on balance I'm in favor of including the GB link, though maybe one link per book rather than two because of the space issue. EdJohnston 04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dang, I simply didn't notice those. It's not me inventing this, I've seen this repeated elsewhere. Basically, we don't want to link to search results. They're not necessarily stable links. Zora 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken in calling these 'links to search results'. Here is the full text of one of the Google Books links:
Notice that this pointer includes the ISBN of the book. This is just as stable as a Worldcat pointer, and probably more stable than a link to a Wikipedia article. No search is involved in returning the result to you. The only uncertainty is whether Google will change its 'About this book' writeup over time. But we already include many links to web sites where the linked-to words are not 100% certain to stay fixed over time. What this is giving you is something like a link to the dust-jacket copy of the book, possibly a little better quality, because it doesn't sound like marketing (at least, not in this case). EdJohnston 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
More background: the rule that I believe Zora has in mind is this one (from WP:EL, under 'Links normally to be avoided': #9. Links to search engine results pages. As noted above I'm arguing that a fully-qualified GB reference does not return a 'search engine results page'. EdJohnston 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Further, it's a commercial book. Just use the normal ISBN link (ISBN 0691114811)- that will direct the user to an internal Wikipedia page where they have the option to find the book from multiple external sites, including Google Books, Amazon, etc.. -- Stbalbach 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, if using in a footnote, then Google Books is fine since it can be used for verification. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Google Books is fine if you know what you're doing. See related discussion. Ekantik talk 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


The eighteenth and nineteenth century saw the resurgence of national ideologies. During the French revolution a national identity was crafted, identifying the common people with the Gauls.

Really? What about England and Scotland. It seems that nationalism was alive an kicking long before the French thought of it.

for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.(Declaration of Arbroath 1320)
This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England, (Shakespeare Richard II 1595)

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you criticise does state 'resurgence'. It is certainly the case that nationalism has been utilised as a political tool (a noble lie so to speak) long before the French revolution and in places far off from France but the very fact that you associated the political communities that produced these two documents with current geo-political entities show the extent of the historiographical problem. Rykalski (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Is it perhaps worth mentioning recent afrocentric claims over Eygptian and Native American ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What was essentially invisible?[edit]

"Nationalism was so much taken for granted as the "proper" way to organize states and view history that it was essentially invisible to historians until fairly recently (the 1980s or 1990s)."

I think that this sentence is not totally clear. It was not that nationalism was invisible, but it was nationalistic perspective in viewing and writing history works that was invisible to historians. Such nationalistic perspective in viewing and writing history works is often reffered to as nationalization of history. Therefore I am going to add this term to the above sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd go a bit slower on this. The term "nationalization of history" appears in Wikipedia in a new article, to which Antidiskriminator is the only significant contributor to date. I wonder whether it would be wiser to introduce that new material into this article rather than continue to develop what looks suspiciously like a content fork. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationalization of history is not nationalistic history, but national history, that only in some cases can be nationalistic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti nationalist bias and insulting comments[edit]

Anti-nationalist screed. Why should history based on nationalism be called pseudohistory considering that nationalism and the identity of nations has always been a part of the history of nations for over 200 years or so it is part of a nation's identity because history that loves a nation and espouses a nationalist ideal to call Slavic nationalism and history that espouses national freedom for other nations is not pseudo history, but the regular history for many nations across the globe throughout the world. Wikipedia has an anti-nationalist bias and nationalism that espouses a nation's viewpoint is not pseudohistory at all. Serbia in Kosovo in 1389 is well-documented event and Kosovo is the heart of the Serbian nation with many missions and churches that dot the landscape. To call a nation's history based on nationalism pseduohistory is insulting to the people who worked so hard to build that very nation and how many textbooks in foreign country talk about nationalists gaining freedom to free themselves from the oppressors of another country, to where nationalists worked hard to found a country to create revolution to found it and improve it. The article's anti-Slavic bias disturbs me and suggests that history based on nationalism is false, when in fact it is not and is the cornerstone and love of identity of many countries in Eastern Europe and your assertion that it is pseudohistory is simply wrong. Wikipedia the anti-nationalist bias that insults many nations traditional love of national pride, that gave their lives for the freedom to have an indepedent country and Wikipedia spits on all by saying it's pseudohistory, which is just simply wrong. The article's blatant anti-nationalist bias should be corrected to not insult people's culture that place an emphasis on national identity, like Serbia and to suggest that historography based on nationalism, which is a national standard for many nations, as it is their soul and identity, is just plain wrong and other Wikipedia articles support nationalist views on foreign countries and their history. This is just simply wrong to insult the nationalistic identity of a foreign country and to insult Slavic people everywhere, by saying that Slavic countries that worked hard to establish freedom for themselves and to create a nationalist identity to free themselves is pseudohistory is wrong because that is people's culture and identity and insulting that is like insulting another country. The nationalist bias that created many nations is part of their freedom. This article should be better revised to include that the nationalist identity of people working in their own SlavoCentric history to work for a better world to better stand out and have an identity should not be labeled "pseudohistory' this article is just simply flawed to say the least. Please do not insult the ethnic identity of countries that worked to free themselves through nationalism and freedom. This is a slap in the face to patriots and free peoples throughout the world and this anti-nationalist agenda in the article is just simply flawed and wrong to practice pseudohistory by saying that a country that works to free itself through a beloved nationalist indepedence movement that is THE HISTORY of many nations is wrong. Nationalism is the history of many nations and to say it's not, is just plain wrong and insults cultures who base their whole existence on nationalism and national identity. Please fix the anti-nationalist bias in this article.

03:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The anti-nationalist bias is a problem that insults people who different nationalities that worked so hard to establish an identity. You are insulting their cultures with this kind of anti-nationlist propaganda of nations that worked so hard for freedom in the entire world to insult their identity and their hard won culture and their own language and culture to assert themselves is just plain wrong. This article lacks a factual basis and insults Slavic people by saying that their hard-won identity to make themselves stand out is pseudohistory is just plain wrong and insulting to nations that pride themselves on wanting to be indepedent and stand out to achieve freedom in the world, to make themselves an indepedent people. Slavic nationalism is not pseudohistory to have the Slavs freedom and indentity insulted in such a fashion is just a violation to their hard won freedom and wanting to have an identity that they hold precious and love to death and wish to be free and saying a whole culture is pseudohistory is like saying that all knowledge is pseudoknowledge. You're gonna have to admit that history based on nationalism is a standard is MANY COUNTRIES BECAUSE IT IS THEIR IDENTITY THAT THEY WORKED SO HARD TO ESTABLISH AND IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED history that the Slavs wanted to join together and be free. This article is a slap in the face to traditional history and people's identies and freedom and whole cultures that wished to be free and to be someone and to have a place in the world and be staunchly independent so that their people could have a voice. This article is insulting and offensive to all people who wish to have a free and loving nation based on nationalist history that stands for freedom. The whole nation of Serbia's history is based on nationalism because it is their identity that they cherish and to suggest that an identity does not exist is insulting to those people who wished to establish themselves as free and sovereign nations. Why not just insult a nation's sovreign history and call it pseudohistory? This article has an anti-nationalist bias and is full of anti-nationalist baloney that insults people's proud identities and should be fixed to include Nazi nationalism as pseudohistory. HISTORY BASED ON NATIONALISM IS NOT PSEUDOHISTORY BECAUSE IT IS THE WORLD STANDARD OF NATIONS WORLDWIDE TO HAVE HISTORY THAT REFLECTS THEIR OWN WORLDVIEW AND WHAT NOT, NOT TO HAVE someone else tell it for them. Stop this culturally-offensive and ethnically-offensive nonsense that insults someone else's country, culture, and proud identity that they made for themselves. This article is full of agenda-driven snake oil that hates national identities. Maybe having an identity at all is pseudohistory, even though nationalist history has been written into the histories of many nations INCLUDING FRANCE BECAUSE IT THE BASE OF their whole culture. Let's just insult the basis of all people's cultures and call them nonsense and lies and pretend that they do not exist. History based on nationalism is history and you cannot change or insult a country's national identity by calling it pseudohistory. This article written as is is nonsense. Thank you very much.

Having a personal identity, like having an ethnic identity is now pseudohistory and we'll just pretend that people's cultures do not exist or that ethnic groups do not exist even thought ALL ARE BASED ON NATIONALISM AND WANTING AN IDENTITY. I'M SORRY wikipedia, but that's the way history is written and you cannot change it. Period. Please stop this anti-cultural, anti-freedom, anti-nationalist hate agenda being passed of as history in this anti nationalist screed on Wikipedia. This article is politically incorrect and offensive to other cultures to insult their whole identity as pseudohistory is just plain wrong. This is agenda-driven anti-nationalist tripe being peddled as history and it is just wrong to insult whole cultures and nationalities based on nationalism. Nationalism is a fact of life, and it is not PSEUDOHISTORY AND IS ACCEPTED by many universites and academic institutions and wiki is not. Stop this anti-nationalist nonsense that profanely insults and is a profane insult to the freedom of whole nations based on nationalism that they sought to have freedom for. This is article is full of loaded statements, name calling, and is a pack of lies that insults Poland. Poland is a nation proud of its centuries long identity that it made a Polish-centric history that made a history carved out through war and wished to maintain a free nation, hoping that Poland would be revived and you are insulting the whole basis in identity that Poland and other countries sought to maintain through freedom. This article is insulting, wrong, and biased against people's tradtional histories that they sought to create for themselves. Please reconsider the loaded statements in this article. Historiography based on nationalism is the basis for many countries national identies and is the heart of their nation that fought so hard to win and calling it pseudohistory is just plain wrong, like this article with its anti-nationalist bias is. Please reconsider. Many countries article are based on nationalism LIKE OTHER articles in Wikipedia such a Poland, espouse historiography through nationalism as found out in other Wikipedia articles. Please reconsider this nonsense before posting. This article is inflammatory and insulting to other people's cultures that are nationalist and wish to remain indepedent and have a strong national identity through a nationalist character built up over centuries. LET'S JUST INSULT CENTURIES OF DOCUMENTED history and call it pseudohistory. This article is insulting to Poland and other Slavic countires that fought to maitain and any freedom from oppression at all and have an identity to have for themselves as pseudohistory and worked so hard to carve out a whole country. This article's factuality is flawed and should be checked for bias so as not to insult other people's cultures that they worked so hard just to have to maintain freedom to insult people's desire for freedom and indepdence from oppresors through nationalism is flawed and wrong and insults people's proud ethnic identites and nationalities that sought to have a Polish identity or have a nation to call their own and nationalism gave them that. This article is flawed and wrong and insulting to Slavic people everywhere and insult the historiography of centuries, hundred of years of well-documented history found in archives throughout their whole history. LET'S JUST INSULT AND WHOLE RECORDED HISTORY OF AN ENTIRE PEOPLE AND CALL IT PSEUDOHISTORY! Brilliant move Wikipedia, I'm sure people in foreign countries who worked for hundres of years to carve out an identity and have a ssperate Slavic languages, identity, and culture will love this piece of tripe called an article. Thank you Wikipedia for this insulting and poorly-written article that insults a whole people and whole identity that sought to make a name for itself. This article is flawed and distorts a whole history of a whole people that calls it pseudohistory is wrong and should be reconsidered. Thanks for insulting other cultures with this anti-nationalist nonsense. I guess acheiving freedom and working to have an identity is pseudohistory. Brilliant move Wikipedia for loaded statements and insulting whole peoples. Thank you Wikipedia for this wonderful piece of unsourced and insulting propaganda that says that history based on nationalism is pseudohistory. This article is biased and wrong and insult ethnic identites and stuides departments hhat wished to carve out a land and language and culture. Wikipedia, destroying history one article at a time. Thanks Wikipedia!

Thank you for insulting all of the recorded history of Europe, Africa, and Eastern Europe with your biased comments. I'm sure they appreciate it, because I certainly will. good job Wikipedia for insulting all of recorded history and the desires of nations to be free of foreign bondage with this article. I feel so insulted by this biased and inaccurate article. Please reconsider that you are offending other people's cultures in the process with this article. Makes no mention of the Nazi Aryan race or anything like that. History based on nationalism and identity is THE standard for world cultures and geography. That's just the way it is. Let's just rewrite the whole basis of history based on freedom loving peoples and carving an ethnic identity and call it pseudohistory. This article is just plain insulting to suggest that Slavic nationalism is pseudohistory is just plain wrong and insultes the seperate languages, indetites, cultures, and freedom that they wished to have just to maintain a free people and identity. The whole basis of ethnic studies is nationalism and national indentites and other langauges and this article insults accepted academic worldviews by suggesting that history based on nationalism is pseudohistory is wrong and insults identites people worked so hard TO FIGHT AND DIE FOR! IS FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND CARVING A SEPERATE POLISH IDENTITY PSEUDOHISTORY? This article says it is and whole ethnic studies are based on nationalism and wishing to have an identity. This article insults the very basis of ethnic studies and wishing to have an ethnic identity by unfairly labeling it as pseudohistory. Insulting other cultures is not cool and this article is hateful, biased, offensive, void of facts, fails to take in Hitler's Sudetenland conquest based on spurrious nationalism. To suggest that other culture's identites and wishing to be free and maintain freedom is pseudohistory is plain wrong.

Please reconsider this hateful and biased article as the whole basis of nations in Eastern Europe is based on Slavic nationalism and wishing to carve an identity is not pseudohistory, it the standard and accepted definition of history to have a national and ethnic identity protected by human rights, which was carved out of nationalism. This article needs rewritten as is just plain insulting to people's desires for freedom. To call that pseudohistory and false history is just plain and fundamentally wrong, to insult the whole basis of ethnic studies departmens, Russian history, and whole histories carved out of nationalism. I smell anti-nationalist bias and weaseled in words and insulting words to say that a country based on nationalism is pseudohistory is wrong. Ukraine made a proud living trying to maintian a national identity to be from oppressive Russian rule and wishing to be free from Russia as psuedohistory is wrong and this article insults the whole basis of nationalities, and languages, and cultures throughout the world and it is just plain offensive and ignorant to do this. More agenda-driven bias as usual. This is agenda-driven anti-nationalist screed and just ignorantly insults whole cultures by saying that their whole basis of history and freedom is pseudohistory. This article is a piece of garbage and smells like a rotten garbage heap from a mile away. This article insults whole ethnic groups and ethnic nationalism that carved out whole countries and the traditional and accepted view of world history for centuries. The whole of world history is based on nationalism and historiography and to say this is pseudohistory insults and mocks the freedoms people in Eastern Europe enjoy today and love for themselves and this bias wreaks in this article. Please reconsider some of the statements written in this factually-flawed article so as not to insult the whole basis of culture and identity and national patriotism and freedom by suggesting that it is pseudohistory, which it is MOST CERTAINLY not. This article insults whole peoples right to even exist at all and their whole reason of existence and the traditional and nationalist and accepted view of cultures that people have a voice and identity and a life and language.

The whole basis on linguistic history is insulted to suggest that languages based on a nationalism and national identity of wanting to be free and insults the whole wanting another culture and another language and identity as pseudohistory is fundamentally flawed and insults the whole reason why people have foreign langauges to stake out and identity and be free. This article insults people who are proud of their ethnic heritage by calling it pseudohistory and the whole history of wanting to be a free people based on wanting to preserve linguistic rights and carve out a free nation free for foreign oppression is not pseudohistory as Wikipedia suggests. The whole basis of languages, the Polish ethnic identity, and fighting to achieve freedom from the Russians is labeled pseudohistory. This article insults histories. Statues are dedicated to nationalists of many countries throughout Europe and calling their history pseudohistory that is wrong. I guess that they fought for pseudohistory instead of wanting to be a proud and fair people and wanting to carve out a nation and fighting and dying for freedom as pseudohistory is now labeled that. This article is a bunch of baloney that insults people like Josip Broz Tito, who wanted a united Yugoslavia and a free Yugoslavia is pseudohistory or Jan Paderewski or Josef Pilsudski or the Polish leaders that worked so hard for a free Poland. Their history is not pseudohistory. Do you think that statues dedicated to people in Eastern Europe that fought for nationalist ideals to be free and having whole airports and placed named after them is pseudohistory? Think again. This whole historiography and nationalism IS WRONG and fundamentally flaws and insults the whole basis of European nations wanting to be free peoples and history substansiated by historians since the 19th Century is pseudohistory, this article is fundamentally flawed and terribly wrong and loaded with false statements and inaccuracies and insults the whole tradtional view of world history, generally accepted by mainstream histories and not this screed and diatribe against nationalism. This article is filled with falsehoods and lies to suggest that people's struggles for national identity and freedom is pseudohistory is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong and insults the whole basis of recorded history of many European nations. Slavic nationalism is not pseudohistory. Nationalism and carving out a sepreate language and identity is not pseudohistory as it the basis of many cultures throughout the global world and is generally recognized by the United Nations and the CIA Factbook and other non-biased sources, other sources generally accept that histories of foreign countries based on nationalism is accepted histories because their histories are recognized by world bodies throughout the whole world and Wikipedia has once again poked the whole face of traditional history right in the eye with this blatant nonsense called pseudohistory. History based on nationalism and historiography based on nationalism is the accepted worldwide history worldwide and generally accepted by mainstream historians and defacing other cultures in this fashion is fundamentally wrong to the whole basis of modern history and the histories of modern nations that wished to become free and indepedent peoples. Gavrilo Princip is not pseudohistory, but his ideals and what he fought for to acheive a united Slavic Kingdom of Yugoslavia is now pseudohistory according to Wikipedia. This article is factually wrong and insults the very basis of their free identites of wanting to be free and insults the tradtionally accepted worldview of modern history and ethnic studies departments in most universites are now pseudohistory according to this article. Please reconsider the baseless lies and half-truths and falsehoods that characterize this article and correct them.

Thank you and pleasse do not insult traditional history and whole basis and existance of free people's throughout the world by suggesting that nationalism does not exist in people's history, which it is a vital part of people's national identities and free peoples. This agenda-driven bias may as well call history itself as pseudohistory because that is what you are doing right here with this piece of tripe called Historiography and nationalism and insulting the traditional and accepted worldview of modern history and wishing to acheive freedom. People in these countries got their freedom, by Guess what? NATIONALISM and to call that pseudohistory is ridiculous, profane, and insulting to the peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia and all other peoples wish to carve out a seperate ethnic identity and whole peoples are not and is not pseudohistory or pseudohistories as whole cities, statues, parks, and Russia dedicates statues to their national identity to be free from German tyranny is not pseudohistory. Why should a whole country's history because Wikipedia says that it is pseudohistory? This is an outright falsehood and completely wrong and completely insulting to say that a country's whole history and what they fought for is pseudohistory is wrong and insults the traditional view of world history that has been taught for centuries. Nationalism is a part of a country's identity and calling it pseudohistory is wrong and is a profane, and insulting, and asinine, and ignorant, racist, fascistic, igorant, attack on their cultures and languages. These people did not fight for pseudohistory you know. This article is baloney, pure and simple. Please reconsider your insultic and racist attacks against people's cultures and identies. This article is racist and insulting to people who fought and to died for freedom to suggest that the whole basis of their beliefs and freedom is pseudohistory is ridiculous and absurd. This article is filled with falsehoods, lies, absurdies, and an outright zealous anti-nationalist bias. Wikipedia accepted history based on nationalism is other articles on site, but here it is pseudohistory, which is wrong.

This is article is a racist attack on national identies and promotes racism by suggesting that their cultures and languages that they fought so hard for is now pseudohistory and all that nonsense. Why should the whole basis of modern history be pseudohistory? This is a racist attack to say that thousands who fought and died for freedom to make a Slavic identity or an Albanian identity is pseudohistory! This article is laughably bad and shows the baseless falsehoods that are written in this article that insults a whole culture by suggesting it's "pseudohistory" Wikipedia's zealous and agenda-driven quest to label tradtional and accepted history as pseudohistory is the reason why it is not accepted by most historians. This article is a pack of lies and igorantly insults whole cultures by suggesting that bravely fighting fighting for indepedence is pseudohistory. Can it get more absurd than this? Honestly?

Come on! Whole libraries throughout the world have history based on nationalism and IT IS TRADTIONAL AND ACCEPTED WORLD HISTORY and not pseudohistory and millions of volumes of information of whole archives are not pseudohistory and whole basis of accepted world history for over several centuries is not pseudohistory. This is a pile of BS, pure and simple.

I am sorry if I am repeating myself over and over again. I am trying to reiterate the point over and over again to make a point that history based on nationalism is NOT pseudohistory and to say so and to deny other people's right to have an ethnic identity and a history based on nationalism is an insult to the UN Charter of 1948 and Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations whole basis of existance. This is pure falsehood to suggest that history based on nationalism is pseudohistory is just plain wrong and stupid and a racist attack.

Stop this asinine nonsense masquerading as an article. You are insulting the whole basis of modern history and accepted academic history since the 19th Century.

Real nationalist history that carved out whole nations is not pseudohistory and is the whole basis of modern history, accepted by mainstream historians since the 19th Century. To call it pseudohistory is a form of denialism practiced by Wikipedia that denies the whole existance of people's cultures and languages and identites that people worked so hard to build with the blood of millions of brave souls who fought and died to build that freedom. And Wikipedia practices denialism with this article to suggest that people's histories of whole nations are false and wrong. Let's just rewrite history some more with this revisionist screed called a Wikipedia article, why don't we? Real cool Wikipedia! Real FING COOL TO DO THIS TO INSULT MY HERITAGE AND CALL IT PSEUDOHISTORY EVEN THOUGH MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS AND ARCHIVES THROUHGOUT THE WORLD WOULD REFUTE the view that it is pseudohistory, when in fact it is most certainly not. Did Armenians die to have their culture labeled as pseudohistory? Did Armenians because of their nationalism and aggressive fight to preseve an indepedent Armenia that was the basis of the Armenian Genocide, the fact the Turks slaughterd the Armenian because they wanted freedom and were dying for it is no pseudohistory? is it now pseudohistory? No IT IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE! DENYING THE WHOLE BASIS OF CULTURES IS WRONG AND IT IS A FORM OD DENIALISM AND THIS PSEUDO crap known as an article is totally offensive and wrong and should be revised to be more inclusive of other people's cultures. I vote to delete it all together!

Thank you very much!

basing history on nationalism and ethnic identity is the basis for many cultures worldwide and it is certainly 'NOT psuedohistory and never will be. Please I beg of you. DO not insult other people's cultures and other identities because you are spouting out hatred by suggesting that they are "pseudohistory" when in fact they are not. Italy celebrated 150 years of indepedence this year becuase of nationalists. Is that pseudohistory? I think not and we'll insult Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and many European nations that sought freedom through national liberation and freedom movements worldwide as "pseudohistory" Their history is most certainly not false. This is the basis of people's cultures and identies since the 15h Century or more, to call it pseudohistory is wrong and insulting any you cannot deny the fact that nationalism played a key role in the freedom and independence of many nations worldwide in Africa, Asia, North America, and Europe. Calling is "pseudohistory" is wrong and factually flawed and insults the whole basis of accepted national identities worldwide. I guess we don't exist now. Thank you Wikipedia!

' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC) (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


I think that we need a cite for "nationalization of history was essentially invisible to historians," particularly given the social history movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I added that assertion based on the source that I need some time to remember and find.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historiography and nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.