Talk:LifeSiteNews
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Campaign Life Coalition was split to LifeSiteNews on 23:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC) from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Campaign Life Coalition. |
some typical complaining about bias
[edit]
Biased presentation presented as fact[edit]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)
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)
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)
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)
A political article not factual[edit]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)
|
Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- 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...) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute
[edit]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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:51, 8 September 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)
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)
- C-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- C-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- C-Class Abortion articles
- Unknown-importance Abortion articles
- WikiProject Abortion articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles