Despite the growing pace of pseudohistory there really isn't a lot out there addressing it in the same way that scientists and science-supporters have taken on the mantle of modern scepticism to do battle with pseudoscience. However, here are some good links:

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudohs.html - The Skeptic Dictionary offers a far better definition of pseudohistory than Wikipedia does. It is far from perfect. For example, I distinguish faction (overt and honest intentional mixture of fact and fiction for entertainment purposes only) from pseudohistory.

http://www.cfar.umd.edu/~waksman/fantek/bios/rocky-pseudohist.html - Here is a great piece I found from just googling the term.

How about a pseudohistory red flags article or even just aselection of the best red flags for us philistines jamie?

Den.

Hi Den,

Yes, I think it needs at least one article. I don't want to get obsessive, but what started out as fun turned into an annoyance and now I think it is a genuine threat. It just shocks me the way historical "hacks" don't consult their sources properly or even stop to consider the logic.

Cheers,
Jamie