Talk:Healthline

Yahoo! ?
For some reason the Yahoo! template links here, can anyone explain why? as the article claims nothing of Yahoo!. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

COI
This article is among several under discussion at WP:COIN, per a major contributor's general declaration of paid editing, which has not been disclosed for this article in particular. I have tagged the article for COI. The tag should only be removed by an independent editor after he or she has reviewed the article for NPOV, sourcing, and NOTABILITY; who ever does that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not removing the template because I'm not satisfied the article meets NPOV or NOTABILITY yet, but I deleted some stuff that read like advertising material. Flowernerd (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure
I am a paid contributor and updated part of this page for the company as the information was inaccurate. Djhuff (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making that disclosure. Please do not directly edit the article going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
I would like to suggested edits to the page that will provide a more complete and accurate company overview.

I suggest adding a new paragraph in the Overview section as follows:

On October 5, 2015, Healthline formed Talix, a wholly owned subsidiary that provides risk management solutions to help physicians, health insurers and accountable care organizations address the challenges of value-based healthcare and risk-based contracts. Talix’s SaaS applications use patient data analytics to turn structured and unstructured health data into actionable insights that improve medical coding accuracy and efficiency for more accurate risk adjustment.

In the next paragraph, immediately following the second sentence that begins with "Under the terms of the agreement", I suggest adding the following:

Talix was spun off from Healthline as an independent, standalone company headed by Dean Stephens, former Healthline CEO, and funded by $14 million in capital from former Healthline investors.

Kjita72 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Kjita72, and thank you for your proposed changes. The problem is that the first paragraph you suggested appears to be copied or closely paraphrased from boilerplate text used by Talix in their press releases. Wikipedia is an open-source project: we are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which permits our readers to reuse our text for whatever purpose they desire. As a result, copyrighted text for which we lack permission to reuse is incompatible with our free license, and cannot be included in our articles except under extremely limited circumstances as detailed in the Non-free content policy. If you still wish to have this paragraph added to the article, you must rewrite it in your own words. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure
I am a paid consultant for Talix and understand I could not make these edits myself. Kjita72 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the disclosure. Best to put this on your user page aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Healthline article IS biased, almost gushing.
In its description of the Healthline page as a major source for wellness information, the article neglects to mention that their "wellness" information is very controversial. Healthline is not an evenhanded source of information, and neither is the Wikipedia article ABOUT Healthline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.87.121 (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A casual review of the edit history of this article shows what appear to be repeated (sometimes relentless) edits on behalf of the company (often by anonymous posters), in direct contravention of basic Wikipedia norms, including: WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:PRIMARY, and others.  Despite the few "Disclosure" comments added here, the extent to which this corporate promotional editing of this Wikipedia article apparently occurs -- by Healthline and its operatives -- approaches the level of criminal corporate vandalism of Wikipedia.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And even now there is no mention of their promotion of anti-vaxxers such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Healthline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219015135/http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/technology/technology-fast500/index.htm to http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/technology/technology-fast500/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Article about alkaline diet/acidic foods
Just wanted to notify you about an article I read on Healthline about acidic foods: (06/04/18)

After reading Wikipedia's article on Alkaline diet, I've come to understand that the information on Healthline is anti-science. From Wikipedia article: "The idea that these diets can materially affect blood pH for the purpose of treating a range of diseases is not supported by scientific research and makes incorrect assumptions about how alkaline diets function that are contrary to human physiology." 06/04/18

It is problematic that Healthline promotes disinformatative views on diet and nutrition and that should be addressed.

This is my only example as I haven't investigated further for more questionable articles.

37.191.218.242 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to the article as it is relevant to the question of how reliable Healthline is, a topic which should very much be (and is) discussed in the article. It is not a form-post-type question.
 * I think the IP made a valid point. Fortunately, at least today they provide an "analysis" of the diet before going into details, which reads:
 * "The Alkaline Diet is said to fight disease and cancer, but its claims aren’t backed by science. Although it may aid your health by restricting junk foods and promoting more plant foods, this has nothing to do with your body’s pH levels."


 * better than nothing. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism is too prominent and article sourcing needs vetting
Being new to Wikipedia, I'm staying away from making major edits, but I'd like to flag serious issues with this article. The way it is structured is unusual: the "History" section is below the "Accuracy" section, which would be better titled "Criticism." If a reader comes to the page for information about Healthline, they won't read much about the publication itself. Instead, most of the page is filled with the opinions of critics about individual Healthline articles, which (warranted or not) would be better suited lower down in the article.

There are also phrases like "there are questions about the quality and neutrality of their content" throughout, which should be sourced or attributed to critics. It needs a careful edit for editorializing or overly casual language, such as "Healthline Media CEO David Kopp claimed that his site had received, out of 40,000 comments, 'a few hundred' critiques" and "Healthline was losing money." Those are both sourced from the same AdExchanger.com story, so it's unclear to me why one is stated as a claim and the other as fact when both likely originated from Kopp.

I suggest the editors learn from how other articles about publications are written, such as the page for The New York Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times. There is a lengthy "Controversies" section, but it begins with a description of the newspaper and a section about its history. If that can be done for a much more controversial publication, it should be easily done for Healthline.

Disclosure, since this page has had issues with conflicts of interest: I have no connection to Healthline nor with anyone who has worked there, but do have experience in the world of publishing and journalism, which could bias me towards a more charitable approach. But that's what a rigorous group edit is for, and this article has swung way too far in the other direction. Hungryforbook (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Hungryforbook thanks for your comments. I took a look at the article (previously I just reverted some vandalism) and agree it was in terrible shape. It's way out of date, other than funding and acquisitions which of course generate news hits. I reorganized a bit, changed accuracy to criticism, and tried to provide some WP:BALANCE.
 * The criticism was too prominent, and all comes from a single health news blogger two health news blogs (one blog generated two cites, but the Annenberg article just cites back to the blog). One is quite critical - I have no reason to doubt her opinion, but it's not enough to make a meal out of. Unfortunately a lot of the citations to Healthline are paywalled, or are just citations. I think it's fair to say that it gets a "somewhat reliable" from the health community but that's based on Google Scholar snippets and I'm not going to cite those.
 * And just to be complete, I have absolutely no WP:COI here. Oblivy (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is greatly improved, thank you. Hungryforbook (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)