Talk:Richard Saunders (skeptic)

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

On 9 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Richard Saunders (sceptic). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Richard Saunders (skeptic) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

External links modified[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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080308100202/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqo-dLkyl3o to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqo-dLkyl3o

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk 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)

External links modified[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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914105148/http://www.skepticssa.org.au/conf08.html to http://www.skepticssa.org.au/conf08.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk 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) – Material Works 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 (talk • contribs) 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]

Support per nom. "Sceptic" seems to be the norm outside North America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Skepticism has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 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.