Talk:Phys.org

message: See following link which is a reference to the site made by well known scientist Richard Dawkins on his own webpage:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2106,n,n   
I hope this  demonstrates the sites influential use within the scientific community and is sufficient to establish notability.  Lumos3 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This page does not seem notable nor verifiable to me:
* No single independent reliable source in the 8 refs as of today, to substantiate any claims made.
# 
#  Phys.org's Reports Accessed January 2012
# Phys.org's Features Accessed January 2012 
# Whois Record for Phys.org.com Accessed July 2008
# 
# -this nanotech article is written by Physorg as the disclaimer at the bottom of the page mentions.
#Quantcast review of Phys.org website
# Trends Updates Top 25 Technology Blogs for 2008trendsupdates.com is a function of phys.org per physorg website
* Page deletion averted in 2007, only because of spurious reasons voiced by dubious editors.
* website traffic should not be a reason for notability. 
* one scientist referencing physorg is no reason for notability. (besides a  dead link)
* the fact that many wikipedia pages use physorg as a source says NOTHING about its notability, rather than how many editors have not critically examined the site or, more likely, industry-paid editors having used it to support their claims.
* physorg does not report on peer-reviewed scientific papers (as is claimed in the WP article )but "the stories come from leading research institutions and organizations around the world, leading news agencies." ( per 
the company information does not appear to be reliable, trustworthy with its info about itself:
*phyorg.com is not phys.org: it is still physorg.com per domaintool ref - IP is located in New York City and has 1,433 (or 1,629) proxy domains (!), sponsored by various entities/companies/industries.
*it seems to want to look like a non profit (.org), while there is no indication that it is. There are more signs that it is a paid information service like the 1040.com only not honest enough to admit this on its site.
*supposed ownership by Omicron Technology Limited: Omicron Technology Limited was dissolved in 2008 per cpmanycheck.com. no information available on the internet since. the reference for the company's Isle of Man location does not show any location at all.  
*7 staffers and 6 writers publish 75-100 news stories per day per the nanotech.com ref , but they do not "write and edit 100 articles a day", for which  critical evaluation, proper editorial oversight would be needed. using artificial intelligence as the company claims explains the volume, but speaks against critical evaluation of a published article. 
*the American Physical Society does NOT display Physorg's feature article headlines on its home page.
lots of commercial editors of the page:
*1/3 of all edits were made by about 20 IP's- the first 7 I checked are commercial
*74.63.39.117 is an IP belonging to Voxel Dot Net, Inc. 29 Broadway 30th Floor in New York City. in 2006 this company was found to violate copy right. Voxel Dot Net is a
*77.174.159.240 is an IP for Concepts ICT BV Technical Role in teh Netherlands
*174.117.118.180 is an IP for  Rogers Cable Communications Inc. in Toronto, ON
*188.142.32.186 ISP Fabriek FTTH customers, The Netherlands
*74.78.188.110 Time Warner Cable Internet LLC
*85.145.116.205 Euronet Communications B.V., Online ADSL Customers with static addresses in Den Haag, The Netherlands
*84.24.198.44 Ziggo Consumers, in Groningen NL
--Wuerzele (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing notability and verifiability 

message: phys.org is part of sciencex.com, which has a couple of other websites, medicalexpress,com and techxplore,com. They have a staff of 17 "key authors" About Us. Some of their articles are signed, others not. Picking the first article on phys.org : Hormone shows promise as cognition enhancer  I find it reasonably well written: they interviewed the authors and referred to their previous work. This is similar to the way New Scientist operates. I searched for the first sentence "In a study that augurs well for the therapeutic potential of klotho" which goes to two of the sciencex sites, and is picked up by some weird unknown operation newsstand.google.com. I see no reason to disqualify phys.org as a RS -- and will oppose any attempts to do so on wiki. (Note : I came here because one of the editors of this article seems to be on a mission to remove all references to phys.org.) Alanf777 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but your view is worthless, we follow WP:RS for this Project. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see (above) ANY WP:RS supporting the claim that phys.org is "churnalism". Maybe I missed them : please list a few here. Alanf777 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

text: The churnalism article links to <https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/may/27/suddenly-national-newspapers-are-heading-for-that-print-cliff-fall guardian> ... which opines that the ENTIRE industry is changing gear. I see no reason to pick out phys.org any more than (say) New Scientist. They both monitor the (voluminous) "streams" of information,  pick out the ones of interest to their readers, interview the authors (ALWAYS with the token yes-but-dissenter) and publish the results. Alanf777 (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note : I came here because one of the editors of this article seems to be on a mission to remove all references to phys.org.) : that editor determined that in this particular case phys.org WAS not churnalisming, but WAS the original source: the editor restored the REF. Alanf777 (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

text: As was discussed in the DRN, all content need to be properly sourced. There is no reference that states that Medical Xpress is a churnalistic site. Moreover, as the  moderator said "you don't need to push churnalism down the reader's throat by putting it in every statement" Naesco (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Churnalism assesment 

message: Why'd you get rid of the infobox? Natureium (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For a page this short, what is the value?  (real question). I thought about that dealing with the field that said they do "science news" which is not a good summary. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh boy, I've seen that exact question in the infobox wars before. I guess it may not be helpful since this article takes about 25 seconds to read, but I think infoboxes are useful for easily comparing similar topics (i.e. the other science churnalism site articles). Natureium (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: hm. i won't object if you restore it, but please take care with what goes in the description... Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox