This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs) at 16:20, 30 December 2014 (→Serious Issues with Neutrality: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:20, 30 December 2014 by Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs) (→Serious Issues with Neutrality: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universe Today article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
Resolved- 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 Misplaced Pages:Autobiography before future editing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Astronomy articles
- Bottom-importance Astronomy articles
- Start-Class Astronomy articles of Bottom-importance
- Start-Class Websites articles
- Unknown-importance Websites articles
- Start-Class Websites articles of Unknown-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- Start-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles