|WikiProject Physics / Publications||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
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 :126.96.36.199 (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.
- 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.
- --188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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.
- 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.
- "Phys.org Site Info". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2015-04-07.
- Phys.org's Reports Accessed January 2012
- Phys.org's Features Accessed January 2012
- Whois Record for Phys.org.com Accessed July 2008
- "About PhysOrg.com". help/about-us. Physorg. 2010. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
- "At PhysOrg.com Science News Website, Users Determine Site Organization". Nanotechnology Now. 7th Wave, Inc. July 19, 2008. Retrieved 26 March 2010.-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
- 184.108.40.206 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
- 220.127.116.11 is an IP for Concepts ICT BV Technical Role in teh Netherlands
- 18.104.22.168 is an IP for Rogers Cable Communications Inc. in Toronto, ON
- 22.214.171.124 ISP Fabriek FTTH customers, The Netherlands
- 126.96.36.199 Time Warner Cable Internet LLC
- 188.8.131.52 Euronet Communications B.V., Online ADSL Customers with static addresses in Den Haag, The Netherlands
- 184.108.40.206 Ziggo Consumers, in Groningen NL