Talk:LifeSiteNews

Biased presentation presented as fact
This article is completely littered with left wing talking points. After editing it to make it unbiased, it was reverted back and then locked. Leftists given power have never changed throughout the history of mankind. Tyrants all LightTea (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is up to you, as the one who wants the content changed, to make the case for changing it. I very well could have protected the WRONGVERSION, but as the previous version was the status quo a consensus will be needed to change it. Primefac (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Pro-life" is literally just a marketing term. It's not remotely neutral. The same applies to "pro-choice". The terms used on Wikipedia are those used by reputable reliable sources. – bradv  🍁  23:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. LifeSiteNews is NOT remotely far right. Wiki is litered with biased articles with terms like anti choice or prochoice Aerchasúr (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Primefac's comment above. You might also find User:GorillaWarfare/Primer to be useful as well. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would just make the case that it is not far right. It a conservative prolife group, not skin heads and Jew or immigrant bashing. This is easy to verify. Aerchasúr (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just explained to you how you would need to go about supporting that argument. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the personal views of editors, and reliable sources describe the group as far-right. There are a handful of sources that also describe LifeSiteNews as "conservative", but that is not a contradiction with "far-right"—far-right groups are by definition also conservative. If you have sources that contradict the statement that the group is far-right, feel free to present them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well the claim of it being far right isnt based on reliable sources. It is based on three columnists, possibly tabloids, not academic evidence. Conservativism can be a bit of a vague term but normally the term refers to concepts such as burkean conservatism which is contradicting with far rightism Aerchasúr (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are tabloids, and all three of them meet our reliable sources criteria. We do not require academic sourcing for encyclopedia articles—if we did, we would not have articles on many topics including this one. Vanity Fair is generally reliable; the other two sources do not have RSP entries but feel free to begin a discussion about them if you so desire. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A political article not factual
This entire article needs to be rewritten in its entirwty. This is an op-ed piece written from a very slanted political position. Joseph L. Moore (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There are 31 references for the approximately 35 sentences in the article, and nothing in it appears to be undue. Is there anything here that isn't factual? If you have specific concerns, please list them. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the references are taken entirely from extreme left wing sources that are against what LifeSite News stands for. This article is not balanced. It is a political screed. Joseph L. Moore (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * (Please don't put your signature on a separate line - this isn't a letter.) Just to be clear, you're saying that media outlets such as AP, Reuters, The Washington Times, Religion News Service, and Catholic News Agency are extreme left wing sources? Whether or not a site is "against what LifeSite News stands for" is entirely irrelevant, as we report what the sources say. Our Reliable Sources Noticeboard can be used if you feel any of the sources used are not up to par. Again - second time to ask - is there anything here that isn't factual? If you have specific concerns, please list them. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022
I noticed how edits were made completely changing the meaning of what was said to reflect the opposition's viewpoint instead of the pro sides view. This is a form of censorship. I dont care what side someone is on I am 100% against censorship. It is illegal to censor someone in the US. A crime as we have the right to free speech. I can’t speak to everything they are posting but the one thing that I saw on a post of theirs about the reported deaths to VAERS I checked myself and they were correct. What I would like to see done Is to have both sides of viewpoints included unless specific documentation from original sources can be shown that statements are false changing or disallow in someone’s viewpoint is not only criminal but unethical and immoral. Please fix this I’d hate to see Wikipedia brought in to the indictments for these crimes that are going to happen. Thank you much respect have a nice day 2601:643:C100:9C10:54B5:AA73:F06E:4A6D (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See WP:RS. Also see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS Cannolis (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP editor may also want to read a primer on the first amendment to their country's constitution, because it does not say what they think it says. The amendment applies only to state actors - it does not prohibit anyone else from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities. In other words, no, you do not have a "right to free speech" on Wikipedia (or facebook, or Twitter, or Gab...) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
Regarding this proposed edit, there are many WP:WTW being restored by @Avatar317, in contravention of project-wide policy on neutrality. For example: "claimed", "allegedly". And Avatar317 has rejected my attempts to simplify the attribution: for example, the Facebook spokesperson released a direct statement; why do we need to launder that statement through what LSN wrote? Elizium23 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Your single change of "claimed" to "said" is appropriate. What I am reverting was your removal of multiple sourced qualifiers/statements, like your removal of "persistently" and your change of -rules "against spreading" to -rules "on", and other trimming of the specifics of negative publicity.  When sources use those terms to characterize this organization, then we should also be using them.  You also REMOVED the statement by the Facebook spokesperson, in addition to your other change there.  We can use the Facebook spokesperson's statement to RNS: "A Facebook spokesperson confirmed the removal of LifeSiteNews’ page to Religion News Service on Wednesday, saying, “we have removed this page for repeatedly violating our COVID-19 policies.”"  I'd be fine with that.  But note their use of the word "repeatedly". --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avatar317. In every case I can see, the sources cited are being summarized fairly in the current version of the article. I think that the neutrality tag was added in haste. As it stands, there's no justification for keeping it over such a minor quibble. Tikisim (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isi96 attempted to remove the POV tag and yet completely failed to address or even weigh in on the dispute active on this talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elizium23 I was under the impression that this discussion was done, my bad. Also, why remove the cites to Health Feedback? Isi96 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removal of the neutrality tag. Fair summary of the sources. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the content re publishing false claims about Covid/Covid vaccines. It's clearly well sourced, and frankly MEDRS doesn't apply to, for example, a report pointing out that LSN claimed "These nuns caught Covid after being vaccinated" when it turns out they already had it before being vaccinated. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the POV tag probably ought to be removed—this conversation had been inactive for a month and a half and it's not clear what the outstanding concern is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there is no obvious outstanding concern. The disputed neutrality tag should be removed. Jno.skinner (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)