Talk:Healthline

relevancy

hey User:Mr Pollo I saw the edit summary and would like to discuss. my primary drive for writing the article was the cookies incident. but for inclusion to the wiki I had to justify its existence. and as I had nothing better I put it off for a while. till I stumbled onto Wikipedia's article where they mention the site being banned for the publishing of missinfo. I then read through the discussion and hence deemed it worthy for inclusion to the wiki. I have some medical knowledge but its all just amateur. hence leaving it up for more knowledgable people to fill up the misinfo section. but based on said knowledge I deemed Healthline to be publishing perhaps not misinfo but certainly misleading stuff.

there is no such thing as a super food as they quite often have stated. yes some foods have beneficial qualities and people seeking such qualities may find it useful. but outright glazing them is not beneficial. example: in the weight loss article they state, "It’s also one of the most effective teas for weight loss. There is substantial evidence linking green tea to decreases in both weight and body fat." a regular person might just take that statement and just run with it. drinking green tea while undertaking a weight loss regiment might boost it, but this shit ain't ozempic. mb tea's not the absolute worst offender to your health but people might treat other charged statements with the same regard and end up with devestating results.

their sources may be credible but at the end of the day Healthline are the ones writing the article. if they're quoting from the studies that's another thing but they are actively reporting on it. they tout that their articles are vetted by real doctors but the medical field is very complicated. a generalized "recommendation" cannot be made when the topic of health varies from individual to individual. one cannot make a statement like "green tea good! we have sound proof" and not expect people to take their word for it. Healthline in this case imo is kinda acting like sellout influencers. they used to perhaps hold a crux of truth in their starting but have since devolved into regurgetating whatever they can for clicks.

if CRW isn't the place for such reporting I understand. but I think the rest of the incidents deserve to stay. rejecting cookies is discussed here and so are AI hallucinations (which are significantly worse i the medical context).

p.s. I had to write this shit twice cuz elec knocked out my PC and all the sacred text with it. SinexTitan (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The main thing here is that we shouldn't be proffering original interpretation, or covering issues that no-one else has covered.

With regards to the AI stuff, are there actually any reported/sourced examples of their site providing fully AI-generated answers/inaccurate answers in an AI-generated way? There are several ways that AI could be used legitimately in article creation (e.g. to comb through and highlight relevant sections of a medical textbook, or correct grammatical errors) so we'd need more than just a 'they say they sometimes use AI in their writing process' to justify its inclusion. The cookies thing is fine to mention, though I don't know if it's enough to warrant an article on its own, if it's the only thing. probably fine as a stub with that.

with regards to misinformation, we need to be citing experts who are calling them out for being inaccurate, not joining those dots ourselves.

but yeah, i'd say that the main issue here is a lack of secondary sources, rather than a relevance issue. Keith (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)