Jump to content

Talk:Richard Saunders (skeptic)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Saunders (skeptic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Saunders (skeptic)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'm confused by the "low" rating of the Australian skeptics. If a skeptic movement isn't the humans that are part of it, well what is the most important. Richard Saunders is a hero to many and admired by both skeptics and "beleivers" alike. His popularity and work goes beyond mere borders. The article is well written and researched. I learned a lot about him through this article, and his varied interests and interesting life give a new face to the stereotype of the skeptic. I would never rate Richard Saunders bio "low". He's of utmost importance to skeptics all over the world. randigal

Last edited at 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Saunders (skeptic). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus found even after a relist. (closed by non-admin page mover)MaterialWorks 15:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Richard Saunders (skeptic)Richard Saunders (sceptic) – I believe "sceptic" (and "sceptical") is the Australian spelling, and so this should be moved. I know Australian Skeptics exists, so I am somewhat wary of this move: however this is a common name, as with the Australian Labor Party (despite the fact that "labour" is standard Australian English).

However, I wanted to get community consensus that "sceptic" is an accurate descriptor of this person (as opposed to Richard Saunders (podcaster), for example) as this is not my area of expertise. I also may be getting some nuances of Australian English wrong (being a Brit), so just wanted to double-check with the community first. – GnocchiFan (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources use both versions. So why not just create a redirect from Richard Saunders (sceptic) - this would allow the reader to find it no matter which spelling they use, and is hardly likely to ever clash.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Skepticism has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - According to his wiki page, Saunders is a member of Australian Skeptics (with a "k"); his website is "The Skeptic Zone" https://skepticzone.tv/ (both with a "k"); and "he initiated The Skeptic Tank radio show" (also with a "k"). If you look at Australian Skeptics, you'll find the sceptic spelling 5 times, but the skeptic spelling 456 times. That, to me, is a very strong indication that the field of "scientific skepticism" in Australia uses the "k" style, not the "c". And then I did a little searching and found that the "field of scientific skepticism" tends to use the "k" even in Britain.[1] [2] So there you have it. Grorp (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.