Talk:Phys.org

Deletion
I Oppose deletion of this article. I count 61 Wikipedia articles citing this as a a source on scientific subjects See Lumos3 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, oppose the deletion of this article, not just for the reason Lumos3 cited, but also because I have found, and this is purely anecdotal, that it is a fairly well-known site elsewhere on the Internet. As such, and also considering some of the other articles and stubs here on Wikipedia, I personally see no reason for this article to be deleted. --Aldor (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the deletion of this article. I'm not watching it, as I have a lot of other more controversial stuff to watch, but if someone nominates it, I request that I be notified. OptimistBen (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete this article as it is all right wing pseudo science with right wing political ideology in tune with current Republican political dogma, whole site is full of lies and misinformation without any real scientific backing. Example - http://www.physorg.com/news186236813.html   — Preceding unsigned comment added by :2.27.86.142 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In your example, it was trivial to access the real British Medical Journal paper on which they based their article, so criticize the British Medical Journal if you believe that their study had not « any real scientific backing. »
 * True that their articles and titles often are misleading or have mistakes, but probably not on purpose because it happens with any topic, perhaps by oversimplifying just to be more accessible to the general public. BUT they always makes the details easily verifiable, and you should real the real paper if you really care.
 * A free website will never be as reliable as a paid scientific website that can afford to pay professional journalists. So you got to check them by yourself, pay for a website that review for you their articles by professionals journalists, or assume that you are too lazy to do neither (there is no such thing as a free lunch, not even gmail).
 * Anyway, KCNA and FoxNews fully deserve to be there, and not for their reliability or credibility (nor should it have be) : it is their notoriety that matter, and Phys.org is well known. It may be frustrating, but stronger you feel against Phys.org, more likely it should be kept.  If it was not notable at all, few would strongly care about deleting/supporting it.
 * Conclusion
 * It may seems odd to you, but someone that sincerely believe that Phys.org is not noticeable likely won't care much about Phys.org reliability or neutrality, except when used as sources. That some articles are not reliable is irrelevant as long those used as source are accurate, but that is a different discussion.  Even if every articles were wrong (and they are not), at best you would just prove that Phys.org is noticeable for being wrong, and thus still deserve a Wikipedia article.
 * But I have absolutely no problem if someone want to add a section that criticize Phys.org inaccuracies. It respect the WP neutrality as long it is clear that the section is a critic of Phys.org that balance the rest of the article (or that it is followed by section that also give the good points, like easy access to verifiable references and bad articles being strongly criticized in comments — even if there is also crackpot among them).  The bad thing is that you have to check the references if there is controversy in the comment section or that the reliability of the information matters to you, but you got a large selection of overview of scientific papers or discoverie for free.
 * --184.163.78.39 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Conclusion
 * It may seems odd to you, but someone that sincerely believe that Phys.org is not noticeable likely won't care much about Phys.org reliability or neutrality, except when used as sources. That some articles are not reliable is irrelevant as long those used as source are accurate, but that is a different discussion.  Even if every articles were wrong (and they are not), at best you would just prove that Phys.org is noticeable for being wrong, and thus still deserve a Wikipedia article.
 * But I have absolutely no problem if someone want to add a section that criticize Phys.org inaccuracies. It respect the WP neutrality as long it is clear that the section is a critic of Phys.org that balance the rest of the article (or that it is followed by section that also give the good points, like easy access to verifiable references and bad articles being strongly criticized in comments — even if there is also crackpot among them).  The bad thing is that you have to check the references if there is controversy in the comment section or that the reliability of the information matters to you, but you got a large selection of overview of scientific papers or discoverie for free.
 * --184.163.78.39 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But I have absolutely no problem if someone want to add a section that criticize Phys.org inaccuracies. It respect the WP neutrality as long it is clear that the section is a critic of Phys.org that balance the rest of the article (or that it is followed by section that also give the good points, like easy access to verifiable references and bad articles being strongly criticized in comments — even if there is also crackpot among them).  The bad thing is that you have to check the references if there is controversy in the comment section or that the reliability of the information matters to you, but you got a large selection of overview of scientific papers or discoverie for free.
 * --184.163.78.39 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability
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)

Pseudo science reference
That such discussions take place is a matter of record. That such topics qualify as pseudo science is no more an opinion than the definition of commonly accepted words. Scientific consensus defines what is and isn't pseudoscience, and scientific consensus is that topics mentioned in the previous edit are pseudoscientific.Bigdumbweirdo (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * These are single instances and do not justify the use of the term "Many". Nor does it demonstrate that Physorg is worse in this respect than other un-moderated science forums. You are conducting original research (WP:OR) and expressing a personal opinion about the Physorg forums. (See WP:NPOV). You need an independant published source ( see WP:RS) who holds the opinion that many discussions on Physorg are pseudoscience, and if possible that it attracts more discussion of this nature than comperable open sites. Lumos3 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim was never made on this page that physorg is worse than any other un-moderated science forums. As to the state of the given examples as pseudo-science, referencing the wikipedia page or any other source on the topic can easily verify this. I chose the instances given because they were each individually mentioned on the wiki topic. Scientific consensus on those subjects is quite clear, and it is by no means an opinion that such subjects constitute pseudo-science, although the claim that they are NOT pseudo-scientific is quite patently an opinion. By the standard you set forth, the pseudoscience page here itself does not hold a neutral point of view, as it classifies several areas as pseudoscientific. It would be impossible to even have an article on psuedoscience by that standard. As to the validity of the sources, I have seen many many pages here which reference the original page to very that a certain claim was made on that page, with no issues or arguments resulting. Finally, the number of such examples given alone qualifies the use of the word "many" as there are in fact, many such discussions. Your claim that I am conducting original research is patently false, the information is a matter of record, and is referenced appropriately. See Verifiability The sources given are relevant to their notability, are not contentious by wiki standards, are not unduly self serving when taken as a source for the claim that such discussions actually take place, do not involve claims about third parties in that capacity, do not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject in that capacity, authorship is irrelevant and the article is not based primarily on them, only a single claim made by the article: That dicussions of psuedoscience are commonplace.

Bigdumbweirdo (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have undid your recent change, but modified the text to be more neutral ("pseudoscientific topics" became "topics generally considered to be pseudoscientific" and "many discussions" became "several discussions"). I intend to edit it again soon to show references to sources showing that said topics are pseudoscientific to avoid any more disagreement. Expect the changes to be visible quite soon.Bigdumbweirdo (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole piece on pseudo science in Phyorg forums is an opinion of yours. That is not to say its not true, but using Wikipedia as a way to promote your own opinion is not allowed. You have to find someone, not you , who has published this opinion of Physorg in a notable way and cite them. Lumos3 (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, let me start by asking you to carefully re-read my last edit as well as this one, and to bring up specific points if you intend to continue arguing the issue, rather than repeating your claim that this is an opinion.
 * Simply repeating your claim over and over that it is an opinion does not make it so. Your threat to delete the section is nothing more than pettiness. I have given ample proof that 1: Such discussions take place, and 2: Such subjects are pseudoscientific in nature. I have provided links to areas of the site which discuss the topics in question, as well as links to wiki articles and others showing that such subjects are clearly considered to be pseudoscientific. I have cited wiki policy which specifically allows for such sources without requiring a notable third-party source repeating the claim, applicable to situations such as this: where the subject is not present in public consiousness to a degree which would lend itself to commentary by outside sources. On your side of the argument, you have done nothing to make your case except to repeat yourself, and set up straw men claims of original research (I am not the originator of the idea that these subjects are pseudo-scientific, nor have I 'uncovered previously unknown information' revealing that such subjects are discussed there. Scientific consensus holds that these subjects are pseudoscience, and publicly available information proves that discussions of them take place on the physorg forums.) Another straw man is that physorg is worse than other unmoderated forums, a claim I NEVER made, nor even implied. Your implication that I did make such a claim is dishonest in the extreme. That such discussions take place is a FACT, not an opinion, and that the topics are pseudo-scientific is a FACT, not an opinion.
 * Arguing with me over this is rather ridiculous, to boot. It only serves to cause multiple changes to an article and forment dissent, as well as being indicative of your own opinions, namely that said subjects do not constitute pseudoscientific topics. If that is not your opinion, then I fail to understand why you are even engaged in this argument, as I have clearly demonstrated this claim to be true. If your goal is to bring AIDS denialism, Intelligent Design or the idea that 0.9...!=1 into mainstream, you would be better served to work in the appropriate fields than to argue the issue over a relativly minor article on wikipedia.
 * My only interest here is to give accurate information on the subject of this article, and this argument -as I have just stated- has done nothing to further that goal, resulting only in multiple, pointless changes and the PC-ing of the phrasing, which can -from where I sit- accomplish nothing but to avoid offending those who mistakenly believe the subjects in question to be valid areas of scientific interest. I think the best thing here would be to end the issue and let the article stand as it is, except to expand it. In that interest, I will leave the phrase you added "like many popular forums" intact, despite the fact that it is untrue, as a perusal of the Terms of Service of several of the most popular science forums will show. However, I would advise you to cite your source for this claim. Bigdumbweirdo (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing notability and verifiability
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.
 * 1)  Phys.org's Reports Accessed January 2012
 * 2) Phys.org's Features Accessed January 2012
 * 3) Whois Record for Phys.org.com Accessed July 2008
 * 4) -this nanotech article is written by Physorg as the disclaimer at the bottom of the page mentions.
 * 5) Quantcast review of Phys.org website
 * 6) 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 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: --Wuerzele (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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

Edits today
User:83.54.140.34 this edit today a) added unsourced content; b) added WP:SPS-sourced promotional content; and c) mushified the very clear consensus among science journalists that phys.org is churnalism. These edits violated almost every policy we have.  If you want to propose independently sourced, neutral content I will be glad to review it. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Statement about churnalism does not give the right to delete other info. Comparison with Eurekalert is not accurate, because it is a paid PR distribution service and not a news website. Claim about churnalism is not 100% accurate either, because Phys.org also publishes self-written content . Your sources include links to personal blogs expressing personal opinions of the authors. Removed content included links to editorials info and visitors stats and ranking. The content was deleted (twice: rev 17 July 2017 and rev 7 June 2017 ) without engaging in any discussions, you simply reverted to your own version (Edit_warring)


 * --83.54.140.34 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC) SP
 * Please propose content that is actually supported by independent refs and I will be glad to review it. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to propose and why you will review it? I don't agree with your edit and will request WP:3 83.54.140.34 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC) SP
 * If you want to make changes, you have to support those changes with reliable sources. See WP:BURDEN. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All the references were there. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC) SP
 * Nope, there was unsourced content, and what was sourced, was mostly sourced to phys.org. This is my last reply until you propose content that is all sourced, and sourced to independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again, the " need to include some of the material from the Phys Org website" is completely wrong. "Can", not "need to". Oy veh. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As I mention on ScienceDaily:Talk: I totally agree that the jargon term `churnalism` shouldn't be in the first sentence. It is opinion based fact and should better be placed in the Controversies section. Comparison with Eurekalert is incorrect because it is a PR distirbution site and not a news outlet. Secondly, I also agree that self-published sources as information are fine if they adhere to WP:ABOUTSELF guidelines. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mark, thank you for the 3o. I've edited the page as you suggested in your opinion including information contributed by Jytdog. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't: you inserted a huge wall of promotion again. The idea that we "certainly need to include some of the material from the Phys Org website" [my bold] seems remarkable. Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the current version. Read the references, comparision with Eurekalert is incorect, they are PR service, not a news website. Secondly, Phys.org has a portion of staff written content unlike Science Daily. Finally, churnalism is a slang, it is not widely used on WP . Infobox may be improved with WP:ABOUTSELF. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RS says it's churnalism, and it obviously is. So it's an apt word. Anyway I've added a little bit in line with the 3O suggestion, so I think we're good now. Alexbrn (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3O also suggests that jargon term churnalism in the first sentence isn't particularly helpful. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did yo delete referenced information from my last edit? 83.54.140.34 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it was excessively self-sourced and downplaying the churnalism. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't agree with you. It was properly self-sourced in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE. And churnalism or not - it is still an opinion based fact. I'll revert to my version, at least it is in agreement with the 3O. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're edit warring - this will lead to you getting blocked and/or the page getting locked. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that your edit contains false statement. And as I mentioned before -- Deleting all information and only leaving the churnalism statement make these articles biased and non-neutral. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've contributed something and modified information based on all feedback with my every version. You simply reverted. If you disagree - open a dispute resolution. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:EW. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please follow the formal protocol. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to attract attention of Wiki community to the following quote "alexbrn and a few others always magically appear to back [ Jytdog ] up and template bomb his opponents' talk pages". Could this be considered as unbiased editing? 83.54.140.34 (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Some people see cabals everywhere too. Some editors have acquired a certain reputation and some of them are often right.  Standard warning templates are routine and procedural and it's normal for multiple editors who detect issues to react.  Moreover, this topic is also medicine-related; seeing multiple WikiProject Medicine editors participate is not surprising...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 15:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So i just blew another 45 minutes of my life looking through the web and my library's website for independent sources about phys.org -- the same thing I did the first time I revised this article (and each of the others).  I found nothing additional.  I urge folks who are interested in this topic (and related ones) to go look!  Especially you, IP editor.  If you are actually here to build an encyclopedia, please do the work of finding and presenting independent refs on these topics.    Complaining bitterly that this and other articles don't contain unsourced and badly sourced content, is not a winning strategy in Wikipedia.   Doing the work of finding high quality, independent sources and crafting content that summarizes them, is. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree on your statement on independent sources, I just don't agree how you look for them. I won't consider any article on the web as a trusted source. A bit unrelated here, but on Science Daily you quoted a story from infotoday. In my opinion, this was unverifiable and shouldn't be used. Where are we supposed to find info on non-public company. I think WP:ABOUTSELF is fine for that and is in accordance with WP guidelines.  Also, we sometimes need to use common sense self-explanatory information -- if a company sells apples, we don't need to look for New York times to confirm that fact. I believe that my latest edits on Science_Daily and phys.org are non-promotional, neutral, non-biased and well sourced. I also urge you to remove churnalism statement from the eurekalert 83.54.140.34 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are apparently starting to read policies and guidelines which is great; you are starting unfortunately to wikilawyer with them. See WP:CLUE and please keep in mind that our mission is to present the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, as described in WP:NOT.  We find that in independent, reliable sources (per NPOV, V, and NOR).  We do not regurgitate and spew what people or companies say about themselves; we are not a vehicle for promotion.
 * If you actually read NPOV, it says that we describe things the way that independent reliable sources describe them. This is absolutely fundamental to what we do here.
 * If you want to argue that phys.org is not churnalism but something else, find independent reliable sources that describe it as something else. I am not wasting more time on this until you invest time looking for and then presenting independent reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * the latest revert reason is ridiculous: quantified and non-quantified data is clearly visible, just like alexa may also provide you with the certified metrics. I'm not going to argue with you here, because you are not following the formal protocol and simply revert every time to your own edit. I'll request a dispute resolution. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I did some research and here are some independent reliable sources (per your request) that I found: Lifehacker states that both sciencedaily and phys.org are science news websites and both sites are useful. The other links to a feature article on the research, that is not a reworked PR. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True
 * GIST Excellence: Phys.org online science news website reports on Professor Kwanghee Lee"s research
 * Thanks for doing some work!! It is hard to find stuff, right?  The first is mildly interesting. The 2nd is abysmal.  So PNAS paper publishes in November  GIST puts out a press release in December.  Phys.org picks it up in January (same pictures as the press release)  and writes a completely uncritical, woo-pushing puffpiece  (not science journalism).   GIST brags about it (your link).  A circle jerk.  That is exactly what I mean about the churnalism, so thanks for that.  Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked for independent reliable sources that describe it as something else - I found some. You are now saying that it 'is mildly interesting'. Even if you don't agree with what the reference says - it is still an independent reliable source that describes it as something else. Your second statement just proves my point that you are biased: 'woo-pushing puffpiece'? . I didn't get any wow-effect. Uncritical? The science journalism page never claims that science journalism should always include criticism. In fact that piece is exactly what science journalism is - reporting  science to the public. It is fact (evidence) based, not opinion based. If the story does not meet your personal expectations on quality, it does not make it non-journalism. Based on PR tip? That is what Eurekalert and other PR distribution sites are for. In most cases journalists get story ideas from press releases. That brings us to my last point -- remove churnalism statement from the Eurekalert page. To sum things up: your edits are not NPOV, I suggest my revisions of phys.org, sciencedaily(with the new references) as neutral non-biased versions. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say, if you cannot see that the GIST PR page is not independent here, and if you cannot see the academic PR machine at work. That is perhaps the key underlying issue here.  public relations and science journalism are not the same thing.  The refs cited in the article talk about this difference extensively. You do not appear to have actually read the sources provided.   I do understand that you don't like the content; you have made that clear.  Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My first reference clearly states that these are 'science news sites', and it is independent. Here are 3 more references that go beyond that and state that Phys.org/ScienceDaily is the top website for science news: What Are the Best Websites for Science News? We Have Your List., The Best Websites for Expanding Your Scientific Knowledge, The top 10 best science websites. Again, these are independent. This describes Phys.org as news organizations that focus entirely on summarizing science findings from peer-reviewed articles for the public in a format that grabs attention. If you don't agree with my revisions, pls include all these references in your edit. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The current refs are by science journalists - thoughtful pieces talking about the state of the art. Against that you are actually proposing listicles?   And one of them from a company that does PR for biotech companies?  For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In this respect, your references are not better. They are written by journalists with direct COI. Charles Q. Choi, Ed Yong, John Timmer work for competitor science news sites. The references are published by the same competitor sites. Interestingly, you reject the reference that is hosted on the same Scientific American Blog Network, as yours. Your ref criticizes Phys.org, mine ref describes Phys.org "as news organizations that focus entirely on summarizing science findings from peer-reviewed articles for the public in a format that grabs attention." All in all, once again, I'm not suggesting to remove churnalism statement, but re-write according to WP:NPOV with due amount of weight to every significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since our most reliable source by a zillion miles (Shipman, published by Chicago UP) flat-out calls it churnalism, we must too. Anthing else would not be neutral. Anyway, I thought this was meant to be at dispute resolution: either sort it there or withdraw - this is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Churnalism assesment
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)
 * Yeah but your view is worthless, we follow WP:RS for this Project. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The churnalism article links to  ... 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)
 * (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)

The sources are cited in the article. This has been done to death. Read this very Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Infobox
Why'd you get rid of the infobox? Natureium (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)