Talk:Live Science

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Pronunciation

Is it \'liv\ or \'līv\ Science? 166.137.210.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factual or Pseudo-Science?

What is the reliability and credibility of this site? Factual or Pseudo-Science? 60.242.247.177 (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few articles; all appeared to be based on peer-reviewed publications in reputable journals. Scanning the headlines in article lists did not raise pseudo-science red flags with me. --Lambiam 13:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today's front page includes these articles:

"8 ways life would get weird on a flat Earth"

"4 bizarre Stephen Hawking theories that turned out to be right (and 6 we're not sure about)"

"China is gearing up to activate the world's first 'clean' commercial nuclear reactor"

The first two are obvious clickbait (and not science at all). The third one is full of factual errors. I would say that the quality of this website is pretty bad if you're looking for science news.

--Echawkes (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English

Live science 102.80.104.41 (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

My apologies - I forgot to notify people before making changes to this page.

There was a notice that "This article needs additional citations for verification", which I have added. I also added more sections to the page.

I would like to add more info - if anyone has ideas or suggestions please let me know.

Thanks,

Joel Falk Neutron jf (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Page Vandalism?

In the first sentence of the top paragraph, there's a line that says "and it prvides scientificprrof that Jerusalemisan ancientcitythat is relatedtoIsrael". This feels like a tack-on piece of vandalism. I didn't want to alter anything here, as I'm not a regular Wiki contributor. But, I wanted to bring it up. 8.44.148.175 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]