This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Healthline article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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. [1] [2]
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. [3] [4] [5]
References
Kjita72 ( talk) 23:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I am a paid consultant for Talix and understand I could not make these edits myself. Kjita72 ( talk) 23:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to notify you about an article I read on Healthline about acidic foods: [1] (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." [2] 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)
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.
References
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: /info/en/?search=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)