Talk:LifeZette

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fake News accusation

There is a difference between "Fake News" and inaccurate or false reporting. As noted, Vox.com has been criticized many times for inaccurate reporting or false stories http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/christopher-harper-vox-news-website-needs-to-take-/ http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked-up-a-story-1673835447 yet we don't put "fake news" in the intro. It is WP:UNDUE to put POV accusations like that in the intro, and nearly every single news outlet from Huffington Post to Vox to The Daily Caller has been criticized for inaccurate reports like that.

"Fake News" is a very loaded accusatory word and per WP:NPOV, I am changing, "The story, which was proved to be fake news" to "the story proved to be false" and providing relevant context to the story, as is done on nearly every Wikipedia article about media organizations and inaccurate reports.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources (WT and whatever the hey the other one is). And the text you're trying to remove is cited to the Chicago Tribune and the Business Insider. In fact vox is not used in the article so I have no idea why you're bringing it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wider sourcing

There is some sketchy sourcing going on for the Cinton body count item-- namely it is self-sourced by Lifezette. Here's an additional source that could be added. Not great, but better.104.163.150.250 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019===

Whoever reverted the article to the initial source did a grave disservice. There are inaccurate claims in this article -- the former CEO is the former CEO, not the current CEO -- which is not surprising given the left-wing tilt of Wikipedia editors. The Spicer claim is demonstrably false. The New York Post got the first question at the second; LifeZette got the first at the third. Spicer did not take questions at the first.

You guys literally have no clue how to write about or follow the conservative media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCEditor1 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]