Talk:Jason Colavito

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent sources mentioning Colavito

SPLC, a brief recommendation, live.science.com link to an article by him [1] a review of a documentary discussing Colavito's review of it in some depth]. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That first one is usable but a blog. That second one is a forbes contributor so not usable. Not sure what we can add from Live Science. We already use the Winick blog post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His book on the Mound Builder Myth has a positive review in the Journal of Southern History [2], as does The Western Historical Quarterly [3]

The International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts#Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts reviews The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science Review Essay: The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science Knowing Fear: Science, Knowledge and the Development of the Horror Genre by Jason Colavito Review by: D. Harlan Wilson Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, Vol. 20, No. 1 (75) (2009), pp. 109-116 in a long review concluding "Academia aside, this is among the finest introductions to the horror genre I have read."

Science Fiction Studies gives him a positive review of "The Cult of Alien Gods:H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture" Wilson, D. Harlan. Review of Review Essay: The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science, by Jason Colavito. Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 20, no. 1 (75) (2009): 109–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24352317.

Same journal, another positive review of ""A Hideous Bit of Morbidity": An Anthology of Horror Criticism from the Enlightenment to World War" concluding "I recommend "A Hideous Bit of Morbidity" to those interested in the history and development of the horror genre and I hope that a companion volume covering the more recent era will be forth" Ransom, Amy J. Review of Delightful Horrors, by Jason Colavito. Science Fiction Studies 37, no. 1 (2010): 115–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40649592.

It would be a show of good faith if you'd add these. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do shows of good faith, I'm not a performing monkey and if anybody doubts my good faith (I'm sure you don't) they can bring that up at a relevant noticeboard. Please don't insult me like that again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back it wasn't meant to be an insult. But I'm struggling to edit at all due to my chemo. So I hoped you'd be willing to do it. But I see you aren't. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a favor of me and I will move a mountain for you. Demand or threaten it of me and not a grain of sand will be moved. Of course I can do it for you, are we thinking just adding them to the book section or breaking out blurbs for each reviewed book? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back sorry, I was having dinner. I thought break them out. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do when I have a free moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews

I've removed these from the external link section per WP:ELMAYBE#1 (see also WP:ELNO#1 and WP:NOTEVERYTHING). I place them here for potential future article development. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty they need their own section. WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't apply, I have no idea why you bring it up. Adding reviews from peer reviewed journals is hardly unusual. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm finished with chemotherapy and will have the energy to fix this. I'll know today. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janicker, Rebecca (November 2006). "Myth Maker". Science Fiction Studies. 33 (3): 553–554. JSTOR 4241482.
Kattelman, Beth A. (1 December 2008). "Knowing Fear: Science, Knowledge and the Development of the Horror Genre". The Journal of Popular Culture. 41 (6): 1087–1088. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2008.00565_10.x.
Harlan, Wilson D. (January 2009). "The Science of Horror, the Horror of Science". Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts. 20 (1): 109–116.
Janicker, Rebecca (March 2009). "What We Don't Know Won't Hurt Us". Science Fiction Studies. 36 (1): 155–157. JSTOR 25475216.
Ransom, Amy J. (March 2010). "Delightful Horrors". Science Fiction Studies. 37 (1): 115–117. JSTOR 40649592.
Sturgis, Amy H. (August/September 2020). "Indians and Aliens." Reason.

Noting recent article in The New Republic

[4]. Just to reinforce the fact that he's an RS. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]