Talk:Test report forgery
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Test report forgery. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Sourcing of the forgery-pattern material
The list of internal signals draws on individual submitted documents rather than on any published analysis of forgery patterns. That is primary sourcing and the article should carry the tag until a secondary source exists. — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, and I have added the tag rather than removing the list — the list is useful and honestly labelled is better than absent. — ForgeryFinder (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
That is the right resolution. The banner is a statement about our sourcing, not about any supplier, and readers should understand it that way. — CitationChaser (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Absence of signals establishes nothingResolved
Important that the article says a competent fabrication is internally consistent by construction. Without that sentence the list reads as a detection method. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
It closes the section deliberately for that reason. ✓ Done — ForgeryFinder (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Naming suppliersDone
Confirming that this article names no organisation. Given the subject, that should stay the case unless a finding is independently published. — CoI_Corin (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Agreed and recorded. An article about a failure mode is not a place for allegations against named parties. ✓ Done — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)