Talk:Universe Today

Factual errors in article
Tha article claims that the forum of Universe Today allows "discussion" of against the mainstream ideas. This is not accurate. The fact is that the rules of the forum require against the mainstream ideas to be defended by the original poster by himself against any and everone who wishes to dispute, disparage, and dismiss. The moderation of the forum claims that "this is how science works", this is like a 'peer review', this is like defending your thesis before a college review board". This is not true. Legitimate peer boards are composed of experts in the subject matter and who make specific criticisms. Not just anyone in the world with a keyboard. 98.164.98.44 (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim of "millions of viewers per day" is false. At any given time there are as many as 400 unregistered viewers and usually up to 60 registered viewers and as few as 10 registered viewers. this information is on the first page of the forum.

The forum claims to have as many as 60,000 members but this includes all members that have ever registered including banned members, inactive members and spammers. 98.164.98.44 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This page is about discussion of the article, not critique of the website.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --197.208.195.201 (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

... because there is no reason for deleting it.145.97.223.96 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Serious Issues with Neutrality
Earlier versions of this article was clearly strongly oriented POV material from either related parties or Universe Today itself. It clearly violates WP:SPIP Although I have greatly modified it to have a neutral POV, this page still should be considered for deletion unless it can be proven it is not just existing for self-promotion. Anyone associated with this news website should carefully read Autobiography before future editing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss before reversing reverting edits. Is is clear that the statement by Emily Lakdawalla is totally irreverent for an entry because it implies a WP:NPOV. I.e. It just endorses the website. I will remove it again, and would suggest that you discuss this and get consensus rather than opinion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry. Even I know this is not right. The issue is not that it has been around a long time at all, it is just that its isn't neutral because it is just an opinion and an assertion. Also Emily Lakawalla's independence is not is question here, it is simply the neutrality of the statement. You need to read WP:ASSERT Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with much of your wholesale removal of content. Much of it was not "promotional" at all, and your arguments against citing the website itself are spurious. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to cite UniverseToday for their own position on reporting news-embargoed stories. Reyk  YO!  18:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is not how it works. This material has been in the article unchallenged for a long time, so you need to gain consensus for its removal. I think your reasoning is backwards. Emily Lakdawalla is a prominent science reporter without any affiliation to the site, so this is a relevant citation. Reyk  YO!  18:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor who cannot properly indent replies should not explain policies to others. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * VLB. Thanks for the input. Just busy trying to satisfy to fix the content not really the niceties. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)