Talk:The Skeptic's Dictionary

Web site maintenance

As far as I can tell, the web site skepdic.com has not been updated since 2016. Is there a way to verify this? Rapidrater (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

I think the term pseudoskeptical its misleading and not NPOV itself.

I agree, and so does the pseudoskeptical entry, so its NPOC to call it pseudoskeptical. Salsb 21:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A Source for Wikipedia articles?

Editors are urged to use caution with regards to the use of The Skeptic's Dictionary as a source of information for Wikipedia articles. In this Wikipedian's humble opinion, The Skeptic's Dictionary contains numerous assertions which are not supported by references or citations, and which, in this Wikipedian's opinion are not supported by a consensus of researchers in the fields to which the topics belong. Better sources exist for almost all topics for which one might be tempted to use The Skeptic's Dictionary. If better sources cannot be found, the assertions made in this work should, in this Wikipedian's opinion, be treated as dubious. --BostonMA 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And those are only your opinions and ones that run counter to what our policy on sources has to say. 'This is far and away an extremely reliable source, as demonstrated time and time again. Your personal POV against what the book has to say means nothing. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

TSD cherry picks its citations. For example, the entry on Lucid Dreaming contains few mentions of balanced discussions by neuroscientists, rather mostly citations from popularizers such as Gackenbach and LaBerge. In this regard, the author of TSD is a cheerleader for scientism. He is a known numerologist, subscribing to celebration of integral numbers of revolutions around the earth, e.g. anniversaries, especially when they are multiples of 5. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_10/table_10_1_a_definitions_of_some_types_of_reporting_biases.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C400:A1E3:193E:1E38:FF8:C758 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an important guideline: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply: There are over 400 references listed in the bibliography of the printed text and more than 25,000 external links on the website pages of The Skeptic's Dictionary. A few of those might even be references or citations! BostonMA seems to have a bee in his bonnet about my work. 64.160.119.83 00:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Robert T. Carroll

Hi again, I know there are lots of things to digest, but I will add a few more things to your list. There are Wikipedia guidelines called WP:Civil and No Personal Attacks. I try not to let little pin pricks bother me. There are quite a few individuals who write in a rather uncivil tone. But you should be aware that there are people who may take offense at comments directed at them, and further there are administrators who may block you from editting for a time in the event that personal attacks come to their attention. That being said, I want to reiterate that your comment doesn't particularly bother me.

I cannot say what is the best way to deal with editors in general, but I suggest that the best way to deal with me is to just express your opinions directly. Something obviously bothers you about things that I have written. Alas, there are a few more policies which might help to explain my position, starting with Verifiability and No Original Research. After you have read these, I would be happy to explain why I have written as I have in this talk page. Sincerely, --BostonMA 01:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I inserted a couple of clarifying phrases to remove POV and attribute opinions without changing any substance in the article. -THB 05:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you have once again added your POV. You also fasely tagged this article as a violation of copyright. WITHOUT IDENTIFYING WHAT TEXT IS VIOLATING ANY COPYRIGHT or explaining why you think it's a copyright violation. There is NOTHING in this article that lies outside the U.S. Copyright law regarding "Fair Use." I'm reverting most of your changes. Askolnick 15:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I'm having a more experienced editor rule against my inclusion of material sourced in The Skeptics Dictionary, on the grounds that it is WP:NOTRELIABLE -- a 'questionable source'. Her position seems to be that the material in Skeptics Dictionary is 'opinion' and is inadequately fact-checked. And yet, The Skeptics Dictionary seems to have been published by Wiley and Sons, a very reputable publisher.... Any thoughts as to how I should proceed? Joesonyx (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@Joesonyx: To see whether Skeptic's dictionary is a reliable source, see Reliable sources noticeboard/Skeptic's dictionary. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

importance

This is clearly an important article. Click on "what links here" and there are dozens of articles that link to this one. As far as it reading like an advertisement, to me it reads "encyclopedic" and factual, and that is what WP is about. Bubba73 (talk), 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to remove the {{importance}} tag that 24.55.47.135 (talk · contribs) added, as I did for Robert Todd Carroll, but I have to agree with him/her on this one. Skeptic's Dictionary, in both its web and book forms, is indeed quite notable, but I don't think the sourced information currently provided in this article is adequate to demonstrate that. (WP links are a useful guideline to the truth of notability, but not for proof of it.) And I have to confess it does read a bit like an advertisement, when I compare it with some other website articles I've seen. I'm sure this can be fixed, though. (I wish I had the time to do it myself. Sorry.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tags as it was kinda silly for them to be on there. It is an often cited webpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FGT2 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not silly for an editor to demand reliable sources for statements made in Wikipedia articles, and for the implicit claim of notability that comes with the existence of such an article. And please sign your talk page posts, FGT2. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the importance tag back on . It no longer reads like an advert since Bubba73 worked on it yesterday, but the article makes no assertion of importance nor does it give evidence of importance. I'm not saying it's not important, just that the reader has no reason to think so. Furthermore, an unsigned statement (or a signed one, for that matter) on the talk page doesn't make it so.

In addition, I must admit a little discomfort because of sentences like this:

Most hauntings occur in old buildings, which tend to be drafty.

from the sample entry. It does not appear to be a rigorously scientific work. Of course, everyone knows old buildings are drafty, don't they? Quite often, when you hear someone screaming about how scientific something is, it isn't really scientific at all. The cover with the little green space man and the foot of a rabbit isn't very reassuring, either. The book appears to be more of a humorous or entertaining work. -THB 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely entertaining, but it's also a very useful resource for the skeptical community (and the world at large). The problem is that we need to show this, not just claim it. I was hoping to source the website hits statement with Alexa data, but their ranking format doesn't follow the better understood concept of "hits per month", and translating it would be original research, so I just fact-tagged it for now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that data give a ranking? That would be good to have there. I counted over 700 references in the bibliography - is that original research? Bubba73 (talk), 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Current Alexa rank is 27,617. (Citation: ""Skeptic's Dictionary"". Alexa.com. 2006-11-23. Retrieved 2006-11-29.) I was concentrating on getting a web-hits number and forgot to mention the useful Alexa rank. This Alexa permalink provides details that can be cited as of 2006-11-23, including a daily, 1-month, and 3-month ranking among all (ranked) websites. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Under "about the author" this says "over 500,000". But that is taken from the back cover of the book. Will the back cover of the book suffice as a reference for the number of hits? Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you write it as "on the back cover of the book it says......", there should be no problem. -- Fyslee 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The basis for importance should not be claims by the author or publisher. -THB 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Content

I don't mind having a sample entry posted but it should be obvious that the entire entry should be posted and not just the first few lines. The entry on ghosts goes beyond the excerpt to explain how a belief can be affected by a cognitive bias (confirmation bias, in this case). A key feature of my writing is to try to understand why people believe what they do and to get the reader to see how our beliefs are affected by emotional, cognitive, and perceptual biases.

I think it would be inappropriate for me to edit the content of an article about my work, except to correct minor errors (spelling, grammar, facts), so I would appreciate it if someone would either remove the sample entry or post the entire entry, including the references and links to further reading, which I consider a significant part of the entries in The Skeptic's Dictionary. Skepdic 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)R.T. Carroll

Yes, it's willfully misleading to announce that something is a sample entry but to give only its first part. Reproducing the entire article would be problematic in various ways (and pretty pointless, as skepdic.com exists and can be linked to), so I removed it.

Although we have to remember the risk that any username here can claim to be anyone, I'm inclined to believe that you are indeed R. T. Carroll. And if you are, then yes, your candor about being R. T. Carroll is commendable, as are your self-imposed limits on your editing. I'd like to thank you (or him) for happy hours spent browsing through the Dictionary, which I think is rather let down by this indifferent article. -- Hoary 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Skepdic 04:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)R.T. Carroll

Source and wording of the lead

Specifically, it currently reads " The website has continued to grow after the publication of the book and contains, as of July 18, 2010, more than 612 entries. ". The source linked states " In addition to The Skeptic's Dictionary, which  now includes more than 500 entries". I see several issues with this:

• Firstly, the un-encyclopedic wording "more than 612 entries" can leave one wondering are there 613, 615 or 7,613 entries. It should read (if not for the third issue below) either "over 600 entries" or "612 entries" (or the exact number, whatever it be).
• Secondly, the specific date is (IMO) overdoing it, suffice to give the month and year, I would think.
• Thirdly, the source says nothing about "612" or more. It clearly says "more than 500". If someone counted them and came up with (roughly?) 612, that is clearly original research.
• Fourthly, "The website continued to grow after the publication of the book" sounds promotional.

"As of January 2011 the website has over 500 entries" is more concise, hence this edit. Davesmith au (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the second paragraph repeats the first, "nearly four hundred entries" (which for all intents and purposes, is the same as "nearly 400 entries") and "one of the most comprehensive" is a subjective opinion (and also sounds promotional), and should only be allowed if an independent source describes it as such. Davesmith au (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Added information to the Reception section

Hi all. I added some reviews of the book although they are relatively weak given some of the reviews by The Times and The Guardian visible on Amazon. If anybody can find links to these orginal reviews, I'd be happy if you want to change my entry. Cheers. --Gapcarey (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)