Talk:The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

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

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Where are the sources for this article? And where is the source that says their findings are scientific? Noirtist (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The book also hardly seems notable. Noirtist (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Based upon your edit history of trying to censor this book and all other books and sources critical of the lunatic fringe topics you write quite biased content in favor of, your opinion that it doesn't seem notable does not seem to be made in good faith. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reviews edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've found two excerpts from reviews here: http://www.abc-clio.com/products/overview.aspx?productid=108860 They are from "American Reference Books Annual" and "Against the Grain". Verbal chat 08:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cleaning up and expanding this page edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I plan to tidy up and expand this page substantially in the next few weeks. I'll check citations etc and hope that if anyone has material to add that they will leave it here for me. I love a good skeptical dictionary and hope this will eventually promote Micheal's book to wider audience. Cheers all!TedDougal'n'Jack (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have now expanded this but I had a little formatting difficulty at the bottom, where the references don't list under the heading but are beneath the 'Pseudoscience' box. Any help appreciated!TedDougal'n'Jack (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

That little bit of formatting has been fixed now, thanks to another editor. Teamwork: gotta love it!TedDougal'n'Jack (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic