The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to abortion. 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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to COVID-19. 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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. 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.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion 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.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Material from Campaign Life Coalition was split out into 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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Agree with the removal of the neutrality tag. Fair summary of the sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Per AndyTheGrump below, and "news sites can and have been wrong" is not a valid argument; does that mean all sources from CNN, BBC, etc. should not be trusted? GoldRomean (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. i sincerely apologise for writing in caps, i was not aware that typing in caps is considered as rants in wikipedia. i usually type in caps to make notice important points in my requests and explanations.but i am sorry for my ignorance regarding wikipedia policy about typing many long sentences in caps. following is my edit request: lifesite news is not a """fake news publication"""".kindly remove "fake news publication" phrase from the description in the begining and the instances of "lifesite news being described as fake news publication" from the whole article. NOTE: Secondly, i have given you some links Below. The articles linked to these website links are "NOT FAKE NEWS". The Articles in these links talk about fake and false news circulated by mainstream medias and apologies made by various mainstream medias and their fall-out. many mainstream medias do sometimes and many times have circulated fake news and misleading news and especially misrepresenting news intentionally published to cause confusion and chaos" for a short time and then apologising for the same.sometimes news considered as fake news might be a mistake or a unintentionally wrongly described articles or articles hastely published without properly investigating the cases by confused reporters with the intentions to get credits for reporting the news first. "but you still do not call them fake news publication".i believe that you cannot call a website or media fake news publication for errors,mistakes and wrong news published. i believe you should cross check the credibility of news published if it is genuinely fake news before judging a news publication as fake news publication. you should also check that whether the news publication has the regular habit of apologising and then removing fake news and false news and removing all the links of fake news and false news like cnn and bbc which is a good character of the international mainstream media and national and state mainstream medias of various nations. mainstream medias might later publicly apologise when their are confronted by good people and when their news are proven to be absolutely wrong or fake or false by authentic sources and credible people. some examples of News Reports about fake /false/misrepresented news circulated by Mainstream Medias at international/national/state levels: https://www.jns.org/cnns-fareed-zakaria-issues-on-air-apology-to-jcpa-head-dore-gold-for-erroneous-report/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html https://www.politico.eu/article/bbc-says-sorry-to-israel-after-reporting-it-targeted-medical-staff/ https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/kerala-dailies-print-news-on-end-to-paper-currency-readers-fooled-by-ad {NOTE: The articles linked to the ""ABOVE"" website links are "NOT FAKE NEWS". The """Articles"" in ""the ""ABOVE"" links REPORTS about fake and false news circulated by mainstream medias and apologies made by various mainstream medias and their fall-out.} i think you understand my point. if you still think that lifesite news is fake news publication,then kindly give some evidence and credible and authentic arguments to support your claim. but, i repeat, life site news is not "fake news publication" Repentance-craving-man (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC) }}[reply]

This is still not an edit request. Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Contributors' personal opinions regarding the 'mass media' etc are irrelevant, as are suggestions that Wikipedia should engage in its own endless (presumably recursive) independent analysis of the reliability of specific statements before including content. And frankly, if you are going to dismiss the BBC or CCN as 'fake news and false news' you are going to find yourself entirely at odds with the community that has been maintaining this website for decades - a website that seems to have little issue attracting a readership that presumably doesn't overly object to such citations. You don't have to agree with core Wikipedia policies, but if you want to contribute , you will have to comply with said policies, like everyone else. Please do not create any more 'edit requests' that consist of anything other than direct proposals to change specific article wording, citing the sources (meeting Wikipedia reliability criteria) required to do so. They will not be actioned, and repeatedly misusing the talk page like this may be seen as disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Sir,"you shouldknow that i am a new user and i am in a learning phase of editing wikipedia in the most appropriate. if there is any mistake or irregularities in my edits,kindly mention those specific mistake that i have comitted and how ineed to correct. in these way,you can mentor me in editing wikipedia in the most appropriate and fruitful ways. NOTE: Secondly, i have given you some links Below. The articles linked to these website links are "NOT FAKE NEWS". The Articles in these links talk about fake and false news circulated by mainstream medias and apologies made by various mainstream medias and their fall-out. i sincerely apologise for writing in caps, i was not aware that typing in caps is considered as rants in wikipedia. i usually type in caps to make notice important points in my requests and explanations.but i am sorry for my ignorance regarding wikipedia policy about typing many long sentences in caps . following is my edit request: lifesite news is not a """fake news publication"""".kindly remove "fake news publication" phrase from the description in the begining and the instances of "lifesite news being described as fake news publication" from the whole article. many mainstream medias do sometimes and many times have circulated fake news and misleading news and especially misrepresenting news intentionally published to cause confusion and chaos" for a short time and then apologising for the same.sometimes news considered as fake news might be a mistake or a unintentionally wrongly described articles or articles hastely published without properly investigating the cases by confused reporters with the intentions to get credits for reporting the news first. "but you still do not call them fake news publication".i believe that you cannot call a website or media fake news publication for errors,mistakes and wrong news published. i believe you should cross check the credibility of news published if it is genuinely fake news before judging a news publication as fake news publication. you should also check that whether the news publication has the regular habit of apologising and then removing fake news and false news and removing all the links of fake news and false news like cnn and bbc which is a good character of the international mainstream media and national and state mainstream medias of various nations. mainstream medias might later publicly apologise when their are confronted by good people and when their news are proven to be absolutely wrong or fake or false by authentic sources and credible people. some examples of News Reports about fake /false/misrepresented news circulated by Mainstream Medias at international/national/state levels: https://www.jns.org/cnns-fareed-zakaria-issues-on-air-apology-to-jcpa-head-dore-gold-for-erroneous-report/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html https://www.politico.eu/article/bbc-says-sorry-to-israel-after-reporting-it-targeted-medical-staff/ https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/kerala-dailies-print-news-on-end-to-paper-currency-readers-fooled-by-ad {NOTE: The articles linked to the ""ABOVE"" website links are "NOT FAKE NEWS". The """Articles"" in ""the ""ABOVE"" links REPORTS about fake and false news circulated by mainstream medias and apologies made by various mainstream medias and their fall-out.} i think you understand my point. if you still think that lifesite news is fake news publication,then kindly give some evidence and credible and authentic arguments to support your claim. but, i repeat, life site news is not "fake news publication" Repentance-craving-man (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sir/madam, i was curious to know, what do you mean by the below statement in quotes. i think you have misunderstood me?

your response/reply to my edit:

"""if you are going to dismiss the BBC or CNN as 'fake news and false news' you are going to find yourself entirely at odds with the community that has been maintaining this website for decades - a website that seems to have little issue attracting a readership that presumably doesn't overly object to such citations."""

sir, in my edit i was not saying CNN/BBC are fake news.

but what i was coming to say is that you ""cannot""" call lifesite news fake news publication in ""the same way"" you ""cannot"" call cnn and bbc fake news publication for publishing false news or even if because bbc and cnn rarely publishes some fake news or rarely misrepresented news maybe for some reasons to suit their interests because majority of their news reports are mostly facts.

in case,you think that my views are absolutely wrong,kindly have the pleasure to prove it wrong with some concrete evidence and truthful argument.

and if you do not mind,kindly suggest me some ways to improve my edit requests.

actually, i wanted to remove the phrase "fake news publication" from the article about ""lifesite news"".how should i properly give this edit request.

sir/madam,kindly help me.

is a simple sentence.... "remove the phrase"fake new publication" from the article......is enough edit request.

i am waiting for your reply. Repentance-craving-man (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to write concisely and coherently, and you will not be misunderstood. But before you do that, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING EDIT REQUESTS. And stop spamming this page with your own personal opinions. They are of no relevance whatsoever to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"remove the phrase"fake new publication" from the article"s first line.

then, replace the phrase ""far-right advocacy"" with the phrase """conservative and traditional catholic faith advocacy"" from the article"s first line..."LifeSiteNews, or simply LifeSite, is a Canadian far-right advocacy website and fake news publication.""

so that after editing, the first line of the article ""will become"" as follows:

"LifeSiteNews, or simply LifeSite, is a Canadian conservative and traditional catholic faith advocacy website." Repentance-craving-man (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is based on published reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy. You cite no sources whatsoever. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE ARTICLE BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS. Please stop wasting out time with pointless requests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For your kind knowledge and information, the phrase "Fake news publication"""" was added very recently as Latest revision as on 02:09, 10 June 2025.

and also you vehemently say that """Our article is based on published reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy.""

can you cite at the least two published reliable sources which claims that lifesitenews is ""fake news publication"" with concrete and credible evidences so that you can convince """anyone who read this article"" including me that LIFESITENEWS is fake news publication.

i sincerely inform you that i do not have any intention to endorse my personal views and opinions on this article about lifesitenews.

But i would like Wikipedia to be truthful and reliable resource for anyone to read and understand various topics in various fields and areas and do have a good-will for wikipedia.

if you do not mind, i would like you to read an article by Jana M. Bennett.Perhaps that will help you understand the importance of being """sincerely desirous of being truthful to the very best.""

https://jmt.scholasticahq.com/article/66248-a-call-to-truth-telling.pdf

another probable reason why human-beings like me and others are constantly searching for and in intense pursuit of the ultimate truth is because:

the great Master had once said that , """the truth will make you free."(John 8:32)(NRSV-CE HOLY BIBLE)"""

also st.John says that,"I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and you know that no lie comes from the truth." (1 John 2:21)(NRSV-CE HOLY BIBLE). Repentance-craving-man (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy has been explained. You have given no Wikipedia-policy based justification for changing the article. Whether you personally are convinced or otherwise by the sources cited is of no concern to us, since your personal opinions are of no relevance to article content. Likewise articles by theologians on the abortion debate are irrelevant, as are verses from the bible, since neither remotely involves the topic of this article. Stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologise for wasting your time. Repentance-craving-man (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't quote bible verses at us. They're irrelevant. LifeSiteNews is well known for publishing fake news. See WP:RS/P and look at the archived debates about it for plenty of evidence. It's been deprecated as a source on Wikipedia, which isn't done lightly or all that frequently. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sir/madam, thank you for your kindness in pointing out certain important elements of wikipedia to me and for helping me by giving some idea about what are relevant and reliable sources. thank you,once again. Repentance-craving-man (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is heavily biased, especially the introduction with unsourced label "far right" and fake news publications. --Týnajger (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As repeatedly discussed before, this article cites several reliable sources that support the description of this website as "far-right". I have modified the lead to remove the somewhat less precise term fake news, as there are several interpretations of this phrase and it is redundant to other portions of the lead. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LEADCITE. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The website routinely publishes misleading information and conspiracy theories, and in 2021 was banned from some social media platforms for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. SOURCE? OTHERWISE APPEARS INFLAMMATORY AND JUDGEMENTAL INSTEAD OF FACT-BASED 47.223.139.109 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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.LizardJr8 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites multiple sources for all of that. Per Wikipedia policy, we don't require everything in the lede to cite a source directly, as long as there are citations supporting it in the article body. Which you'd probably have figured out, if you'd bothered to actually read the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]