Talk:La Patilla

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on La Patilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.lapatilla.com
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries;0/VE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on La Patilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20170416023713/http%3A//www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/VE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150222195213/http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries%3B0/VE to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries%3B0/VE
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/02/11/pol_ava_alberto-federico-rav_11A3421293.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries%3B0/VE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617064636/http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.lapatilla.com to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.lapatilla.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of La Patilla

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

WMrapids (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: While reviewing WP:VENRS, La Patilla was listed as "generally reliable" by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. However, the members themselves glossed over controversial issues surrounding La Patilla. Its founder and head worked directly for Juan Guaido, though this was ignored. This is controversial because La Patilla would push the false narrative that Maduro troops set fire to aid with tear gas, though The New York Times would later publish detailed information that a protester started the fire with a molotov cocktail. Guaido would continue to say the fire was started by Maduro forces, arguing "That was a point of view of an investigative report by the newspaper."

Users of the project also casually mentioned in passing that La Patilla would republish articles by Breitbart ([1][2][3]), which has been blacklisted per WP:BREITBART. A Google search of site:lapatilla.com AND "Breitbart" can show that La Patilla has done this multiple times, as recently as September 2022, so this is something persistent.

This is concerning, so this is why an RfC has been placed. Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: See possible WP:POINT issues regarding the opening of this request at RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1: La Patilla is one of the main digital news outlet in Venezuela. In 2017 it was the seventh most visited website in the country, and some years before, in 2015 it held the fifth position, only behind YouTube, Amazon, Google and Facebook, which can be interpreted as a sign of its trustworthiness as a source. Founded in 2010, it would be the pioneer of the online outlets that would come in the future, such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, El Estímulo, and so on. The classification was put in place first for a reason.

While discussing his latest appointment, Alberto Federico Ravell's career, the outlet's director, should be remembered: he served as director of Globovisión, one of the main television channels in the country at the moment, for over 15 years, and before that he was also appointed in the 80s as the director for the state-run television channel Venezolana de Televisión, showing his long trajectory as a journalist. When discussing a possible conflict of interest, the issue at hand is editorial independence. As such, La Patilla has actually covered and published news about scandals related to Guaidó, including the allegations of embezzlement of humanitarian aid:[4][5][6][7] Regarding The New York Times investigation, it should be noted that, at the time, many outlets also originally published the aid as being set on fire by Maduro sources. This is reflect in the own's article introduction: The narrative seemed to fit Venezuela’s authoritarian rule (...) Venezuela’s opposition held up the images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America, as evidence of Mr. Maduro’s cruelty. It's the reason why the report was so revealing at the time.

Speaking of Breitbart, the examples provided are articles about Venezuela, and in some cases general facts that are not disputed: the first article talks about the currency's devaluation and the second one about demotions and expulsions in the military, both of which are commonplace in Venezuela and not really in dispute. Interestingly, in the case of the first article one of the most salacious statements by Breitbart is removed: "People reduced to eating household pets to survive are generally quite cynical." Both articles also use references deemed reliable by Wikipedia, including Reuters ([8][9]), AFP, Bloomberg, Telegraph and BBC. The third article was retracted by La Patilla, and the fourth one actually quotes World Tribune. All of these three cases are understandable knowing that La Patilla functions mostly as a news aggregator. Likewise, the fact that Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered.

News outlets are prone to be just as fallible as humans. We can take Trump's Fake News Awards as an example of this: several reliable sources have been vilified in the past for mistakes, retracted stories or comments made by journalists. With a twelve years history, is only natural that these flaws will be found. However, the "generally" classification in "generally reliable" exists for a reason, and La Patilla is a valuable source for content about Venezuela that in the current landscape is badly needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: With you being a member of WikiProject Venezuela, thank you for you quick response.

I will address your statements:

• La Patilla is one of the main digital news outlet in Venezuela.
  • Ok. We understand that this may be one of the main outlets, but there are plenty of prominent outlets that have been determined by consensus as being unreliable or needing additional considerations (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, WP:NEWSWEEK). Just because it may be one of the main outlets in Venezuela does not mean that it is accurate.
• Alberto Federico Ravell's career, the outlet's director, should be remembered: he served as director of Globovisión, one of the main television channels in the country at the moment, for over 15 years
  • Yes. And Globovision was pretty anti-government.
• Regarding The New York Times investigation ... "images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America"
  • Ok, but this has nothing to do with reliability. This shows possible yellow journalism through sensational journalism or narrative-building at worse.
• Speaking of Breitbart, the examples provided are articles about Venezuela, and in some cases general facts that are not disputed
  • If this is a main Venezuelan outlet, why would they need to republish Breitbart articles about discussing "general facts" about Venezuela?!?
• the fourth one actually quotes World Tribune
  • Yes, La Patilla republished a little-known "World Tribune" outlet that is citing Breitbart, with the "World Tribune" writing "The Venezuelans who were part of the caravans include those convicted of murder and rape, according to Breitbart Texas, which reviewed the report." So, this could be even worse.
• Likewise, the fact that Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered.
  • If La Patilla does not know that Breitbart is unreliable, why should we think it's reliable? Few Spanish-language outlets are republishing Breitbart articles...
• With a twelve years history, is only natural that these flaws will be found.
  • Of course, but they continue to make the same mistakes, like a Venezuelan outlet citing Breitbart for "general facts" about their own country.
• La Patilla is a valuable source for content about Venezuela that in the current landscape is badly needed
  • Media pluralism is important, yes, but it does not mean that we should find one side (opposition media) reliable while labeling the other side (the government) unreliable in a way that WP:VENRS does.

Overall, the whole concept of WP:VENRS, though with good intentions, seems concerning. WMrapids (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The "main digital news outlet in Venezuela" red herring

As said above, La Patilla may be the "main digital news outlet in Venezuela", but that does not make it accurate. After doing research on the media in Venezuela, I discovered a great publication by the Andrés Bello Catholic University discussing disinformation, titled "Conversaciones sobre la desinformación: Tiempos de pandemia por la COVID-19" ("Conversations about disinformation: Times of pandemic by COVID-19"). While discussing disinformation in Venezuela, the authors state on p33 "La Patilla (lapatilla.com), that is, it is one of the main information references, mainly used by the opposition segment. This online medium, whose base and operation are outside of Venezuela, also has a particularity: its owner and editor is also the head of the political communication center of the government of Juan Guaidó, so that the news coverage also tends to have a clear political bias" while later on p36-38, they say "[Online platforms] can also become quite biased. Many times La Patilla accompanies the complaint with a clear political bias. This situation is different in much lesser-known online media, or with less traffic, such as El Pitazo or Efecto Cocuyo, which have much less reach than La Patilla, but have a much more rigorous treatment of the news". In other words, while La Patilla may be the "main digital news outlet in Venezuela", it is not recognized as being as reliable as other Venezuelan online outlets like El Pitazo or Efecto Cocuyo. Why should Wikipedia use La Patilla as a source when it packages partisan news, parrots unreliable outlets and is not recognized as being as reliable as smaller media ventures in Venezuela? WMrapids (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: After some research, our generally reliable source BBC News has provided some important help. In a recent article from April 2023, BBC lists prominent independent media outlets in Venezuela, stating "Key independent media include Radio Fe y Alegría, Efecto Cocuyo, Unión Radio, El Estímulo, El Pitazo and El Diario", though La Patilla is missing (funny enough, La Patilla is placed all the way at the bottom of the article as a "news website"). So the argument that La Patilla is a "key" pillar of Venezuelan media is lacking here.

BBC would also write in 2019 about La Patilla: "La Patilla ... churns out a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items. It has a penchant for dramatic headlines, such as "Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight", published on 27 March." BBC describes La Patilla, comparatively, as "rabidly anti-government". This information, in addition to La Patilla republishing content from questionable entities, such as Breitbart and obscure websites, shows that the website solely exists for political reasons and its main purpose is not to provide reliable information to readers.--WMrapids (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

A quick search easily proves my point. The figures that I gave are from its former Alexa's ranking, currently unavailable but quoted by other references. Both the Committee to Protect Journalists and VESinFiltro have referred to La Patilla as the most visited news portal in Venezuela.

I should also point out to the mentions of La Patilla as an independent news outlet:

• "Rights experts 'deeply disturbed' at erosion of media freedom in Venezuela – UN human rights office". UN News. 2016-08-04. - We are deeply disturbed by the recent reports of attacks against journalists and independent media groups, escalating the pressure over the Venezuelan media, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose report includes a order against La Patilla to not publish videos
• Jerreat, Jessica (2019-06-07). "Venezuela's Supreme Court orders La Patilla to pay US$5m in damages to Cabello". Committee to Protect Journalists. Retrieved 2023-06-06. - The Committee to Protect Journalists today condemned a decision by the Venezuelan Supreme Court, which according to news reports ordered the independent news site La Patilla to pay US$5 million damages to a former vice-president as part of a civil defamation lawsuit.
• "Press Release —Venezuela: HRF Condemns $365 Million Lawsuit Against Independent Media". Human Rights Foundation. 2015-08-19. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And Fox News is "the most-watched cable network in the U.S.". Big whoop. Fox News, WP:INFOWARS and WP:BREITBART are also independent media organizations. So, can you explain to me how popularity and independence relate to reliability? WMrapids (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The very concept of reliability for Wikipedia is independence: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, per WP:REPUTABLE. I really doubt that the United Nations, the Committee to Protect Journalists or the Human Rights Foundation were thinking about Fox News when describing La Patilla as "independent", much less Breitbart or Infowars. States that WP:GUNREL Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. It has not been snown that this is a characteristic for La Patilla. Even in the cases where Breitbart was cited, I showed the articles that were factually correct, even removing questionable statements from the original sources or retracting the article entirely. Continue the discussion until it is pages long just like Fox News (23, last time I checked WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), providing repeated instances of factual errors, and perhaps I'll concede that the analogy holds water. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the dates of two articles you cited (2015 and 2016), their statements were prior to the use of Breitbart (among other questionable sources) and before La Patilla's head worked directly for Guaidó. Also, the Human Rights Foundation that you cite is led by Thor Halvorssen (human rights activist), the cousin of opposition leader Leopoldo López. WMrapids (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Breitbart, Epoch Times and RT connection
Well you asked for it. Here is a list of La Patilla articles publishing material from WP:BREITBART directly or indirectly:

1. Pence: Honduran President informed me that the migrant caravan is financed by Venezuela to "challenge our sovereignty" (By: Breitbart - October 2018)
2. Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border (By Breitbart - September 2022)
3. More than 700 Venezuelans crossed the border from Mexico to Texas in the last seven days (By: Breitbart - April 2021)
4. Report: Venezuela’s worst and darkest head North for destinations like Martha’s Vineyard (By: World Tribune, citing Breitbart - September 2022)
5. A huge U.S. hydroelectric plant closes due to the drought (Using images provided by Breitbart - August 2021)
6. Venezuela occupies the last place in the 2015 Rule of Law Index (By: Breitbart - June 2015)
7. Dignity! PSUV threatened to starve those who did not vote and still abstained 80% (Survey) (By: Breitbart - December 2020)
8. Gloomy Christmas in Venezuela, families go hungry (By: Breitbart - December 2018)
9. The governor of South Dakota defends the "unconventional" decision to keep the state open (By: New York Post, citing Breitbart - April 2020)
10. North Korea expresses its firm support and solidarity with the Maduro regime (By: Breitbart - March 2018)
11. The president of Warner Bros leaves office due to a relationship with a young actress (Using images provided by Breitbart - March 2019)
12. At least 21 million mobile phone accounts disappeared in China in three months of the pandemic (By: Breitbart - March 2020)
13. Donald Trump gains ground against Joe Biden in a new national poll (By Inquisitr, citing Breitbart - July 2020)

It seems that La Patilla is parroting the Breitbart narrative that the Venezuelan refugee crisis is sending criminals to the United States. There has been a similar narrative by far-right groups in Chile and Peru.

But wait, here comes WP:RT.COM:

1. Lavrov's plugs were blown up at the UN: "Zelenski is our son of a bitch." (By: RT News - September 2022)
2. Russia published a video of the British destroyer who violated the Russian border in the Black Sea (By: RT News - June 2021)
3. Putin warns the West that he will "regret" any provocation against Russia (By: RT News - April 2021)
4. Russia expects to register the world's first vaccine against Covid-19 within 10 days (By: RT News - 2020)
5. The test launch of the American Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile fails (By: RT News - May 2021)
6. Putin announces the creation of a new control center for nuclear forces in Russia (By: RT News - November 2020)
7. A German scientist proposes a new version of the origin of the coronavirus (By RT News - November 2020)
8. Joe Biden on his life in the White House: "It looks like a golden cage" (By: RT News - February 2021)
9. Putin boasts of a military muscle in the midst of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (By: RT News - 2022)
10. Two children mistakenly receive Covid-19 vaccines instead of flu vaccines in the US (By: RT News - October 2021)
11. Pompeo accuses Biden of sacrificing US leadership in the world (By: RT News - October 2021)
12. VIDEO: Fire in Syria caused by an attack on a gas pipeline (By: RT News - February 2021)
13. That's how realistic this news presenter created by artificial intelligence in South Korea is (VIDEO) (By: RT News - November 2020)
14. Russia plans to test a prototype of the "digital ruble" in 2022 (By: RT News - November 2021)
15. What happens when a media tries to tell only good news? (By: RT News - 2014)
16. Actor of 'Friends' sets date and place for the filming of the special reunion of the series (By: RT News - 2021)
17. A US couple mistakenly receives $50 billion in their bank account (By: RT News - 2021)
18. Vaccinated with Sputnik V maintain high levels of antibodies a year later, according to a study (By: RT News - 2022)
19. Canada puts the wrong symbol on its banknotes (By: RT News - January 2013)
20. Russia says that a new meeting between Putin and Biden in the rest of the year is "quite real" (By: RT News- October 2021)
21. The longest-lived in the world: Woman from India became a mother for the first time at the age of 70 (By: RT news - 2021)
22. Actor Alec Baldwin deletes his Twitter account after his first interview since the 'Rust' accident (By: RT News - 2021)
23. They warn that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will not publish their election results tonight (By: RT News - November 2020)
24. Facebook's shares rose after announcing its name change (By: RT News - 2021)
25. Two people die in a knife attack in a church in California (By: RT News - 2020)

So La Patilla also republishes WP:RT.COM articles as well. Funny enough, La Patilla reproduced an article condemning the republishing of RT News in Latin America, condemning its use by WP:TELESUR.

Lets not forget WP:EPOCHTIMES:

1. This is the documentary censored on social networks that denounced that the coronavirus had leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan (Republished video about lab leak theory from The Epoch Times)
2. Scientists assure that the soul can leave the body and see what happens around it (Video) (By: RT News, citing The Epoch Times, a 2 for 1! - December 2014)
3. Joshua Philipp: Orwell explains how socialists manipulate language to change history (By: The Epoch Times - August 2020)
4. Mark Hendrickson: Marxism in the United States, the culmination of a decades-long movement - (By: The Epoch Times - August 2021)
5. Ching Cheong: The first communist-style elections are about to be held in Hong Kong (By: The Epoch Times - December 2021)
6. In VIDEO: Trump criticized the release of the narco-nephews and Biden's policies with Maduro (By: The Epoch Times - 2022)
7. When could the world be free of coronavirus? What some experts say (By: FayerWayer?, citing The Epoch Times - February 2021)
8. They affirm that American companies are empowering the Chinese Communist Party (By: The Epoch Times - January 2022)
9. Some Afghans have been allowed to enter the United States without a visa, says a Security Department official (By The Epoch Times - August 2021)
10. John Mac Ghlionn: The influential Westerners who help the Chinese regime (By: The Epoch Times - 2021)
11. Faith and freedom: How a Shen Yun dancer escaped from China (By: The Epoch Times - July 2021)
12. Governor of Florida criticized Joe Biden for authorizing flights to Cuba (By: The Epoch Times - July 202)
13. This US airline will fire 593 workers who refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19 (By: The Epoch Times - September 2021)
14. Republican Mitch McConnell warns of the return to confinement in the United States if people do not get vaccinated against Covid-19 (By: The Epoch Times - July 2021)
15. Trump seals his "biggest and most complex agreement," according to oil expert (By: The Epoch Times - 2020)
16. The accident of China's most modern military helicopter caused 11 deaths (By: The Epoch Times - 2019)
17. Wang Youqun: Why did I give up my membership in the Chinese Communist Party? (By: The Epoch Times - May 2021)
18. Texas Governor declares disaster on the southern border with Mexico in response to the humanitarian crisis (By: The Epoch Times - June 2021)
19. US Marines will expel those who reject the Covid-19 vaccine (By: The Epoch Times - October 2021)
20. Chinese cities issue more blockades and cancel public events due to Covid-19 outbreaks (By: The Epoch Times - 2021)

Then there's PanAm Post:

1. Iran's revenge on the United States after Soleimani's death could come through Venezuela (By: The PanAm Post - January 2020)
2. Fear of a more massive exodus stops the tightening of sanctions against Maduro (By: The PanAm Post - March 2018)
3. José I. Hernández: "By January 10, a new president must be appointed in Venezuela" (interview) (By: The PanAm Post - December 2018)
4. More than a hundred Venezuelan personalities thank the United States and other countries that recognize Guaidó (manifesto) (By: The PanAm Post - February 2019)
5. Diego Arria: Neither China nor Russia will intervene for Venezuela (By: The PanAm Post - September 2018)
6. Almagro says it would be a mistake to include Moreno and Padrino in a democratic transition (By: The PanAm Post - 2019)
7. The new owner of PanAm Post speaks (+ Communiqué) (By: The PanAm Post - August 2020)
8. PanAm Post: A State Department spokesman pressured us for an article about Abrams (By: The PanAm Post - April 2019)
9. President of the TSJ in exile: It's time for the brave (By: The PanAm Post - September 2018)

Here's another helping, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES and The Gateway Pundit:

1. Map of the world's financial weaknesses (By: Zero Hedge - 2019)
2. Venezuelan teenagers escape socialism by selling their body, hair and breast milk (By: Zero Hedge - December 2018)
3. Venezuela liquidates its gold reserves to pay off external financial debt (By: Zero Hedge - 2016)
4. Will Geopolitical Pressure Push Biden To Lift Sanctions On Venezuela? (By International Business Times - May 2023)
5. Venezuela’s Economic Needs May Push Opposition To Support Maduro’s Debt Restructuring Plans (By: International Business Times - April 2023)
6. Scandal in the United States: Former "Democratic" candidate was captured trying to have sex with a minor (VIDEO) (By: The Gateway Pundit - 2020)

As you can see, the republishing of information from unreliable sources has been present in La Patilla's "reporting" nearly since its inception. This includes Russian propaganda, anti-China propaganda, controversial COVID-19 stories (pushing the lab leak theory) and anti-immigrant articles from far-right publications. La Patilla could use any other sites for much of this news, but they lazily (or intentionally) use poor sources. This just further proves that La Patilla, is unreliable at best.--WMrapids (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Briefing (TL;DR)

Most of the links listed don't use said outlets as the main source and are quite misleading. Reading each of the titles will also give an idea on how non-controversial these articles are. Let's break down the sources by categories. For simplicity and convenience, I'll use "B" for Breitbart, "E" Epoch Times, "R" for RT and "O" for the last category, others:

• B1, B9, B10, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R10, R11, R14, R18, R20, R23, E6, E9, E12, E14, E18, E19, P6, P7, P8 are statements by foreign authorities or entities. These include declarations covered in dozens of other international outlets and can easily be contrasted, and when this is not the case, WP:ABOUTSELF applies. This is particularly the case with Russia Today, which offers the declarations and positions by Russia, with the benefit of having an independent publisher as the middleman.
• B5, B11, R10, R13, R14, R15, R17, R19, R21, R22, R24, R25, E15, E16, P2, O1, O3 are updates about world and local news. They cite both international and local outlets that are not among the deprecated sources listed. Notably, many of them are trivia: "A US couple mistakenly receives $50 billion in their bank account", "The longest-lived in the world: Woman from India became a mother for the first time at the age of 70", "Canada puts the wrong symbol on its banknotes". Not really the kind stuff you'd be worried to be material for conspiracy theories or fabrications. E15, O1, O3 and P2 look more like analysis articles, and in the case of the first one its original source is not the Epoch Times.
• B2, B6, B8, P4, O2, O3 are updates about the crisis in Venezuela. Once again, they usually cite international reliable outlets, such as EFE and AFP.
• E3, E4, E5, E10 and E17 are opinion articles and clearly labeled as such.
• E11, P3, P5 and P9 are interviews. From what I understand, WP:ABOUTSELF applies, but they're primary sources and can be evaluated on their own merits, including their use with attribution if needed.
• B7 and B13 are just citing pollsters.
• It should be noted that B5 and B11, besides citing sources different from Breitbart, have ass tthe only text match for Breitbart in the article as the source of the images. I can go on to make a comparison with Ruptly and discuss the use of media with free licenses, but it should be very clear that is totally unrelated to the content.

All in all, this list summarizes non-controversial world events that are covered by reliable sources, are picked up likewise by questionable sources, and includes the latter versions published by La Patilla. Despite this, it is only but a small sample of the thousands of articles that La Patilla has published, and listing only mentions highlights that the reliability of La Patilla is not really being put into question, compared to the discussions where the mentioned references were deprecated.

After all of this digging, if this is the closest one can get to showing La Patilla's unreliability, it really shows that the problematic content only happens with a minority of cases, different from the definition of WP:GUNREL. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• "This is particularly the case with Russia Today, which offers the declarations and positions by Russia, with the benefit of having an independent publisher as the middleman."
  • If they were to be a "middleman" they wouldn't broadly repost articles by WP:GUNREL sources. They would create their own stories and attribute properly (we do a better job with that ourselves). So, again, La Patilla is being lazy or republishing articles that follow their partisanship.
• "updates about world and local news. ... Notably, many of them are trivia"
  • Why would they use such controversial sources for "world and local news" if they had many other reputable outlets to pick from? Again, this is laziness.
• "are opinion articles and clearly labeled as such"
  • Why is La Patilla parroting Epoch Times opinion articles?!?!?
• E11, P3, P5 and P9 are interviews. From what I understand, WP:ABOUTSELF applies, but they're primary sources and can be evaluated on their own merits, including their use with attribution if needed.
  • Why does La Patilla need to have a close relationship with PanAm Post and republish their progress?
• "B7 and B13 are just citing pollsters."
  • Again, they can use any other source to cite pollsters. Heck, if they had an editorial backbone present, they could even report it themselves.

You are clearly minimizing the editorial laziness of La Patilla. You say "it is only but a small sample of the thousands of articles that La Patilla has published", but we shouldn't even have a sample like this to begin with. The "thousands of articles" only proves the point that La Patilla is quantity over quality at best and pushing an agenda at worse, especially with those Epoch Times opinion articles and promoting the lab leak theory... WMrapids (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Laziness" is not the same as unreliability, which is the subject of the discussion here. The content in these articles come originally from, taking Breitbart and the US as an example, outlets such as The Washington Post, the American Bar Association, Hollywood Reporter and The Hill, so strictly speaking about reliability if doesn't matter that Breitbart or unreliable sources are only mentioned, even if we can all agree that it is not optimal. Arguably the most problematic story was the one about the Venezuelan migrants, which has been retracted at least once.

A quick browse through the discussion that deprecated Breitbart reminds us of the reasons for the decision: fake news about George Soros, the US Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood, climate change denial, transphobia, and so on, to name a few ([10]). None of this is near to be seen among La Patilla's news. Instead, the articles listed include how Friends cast would reencounter or how Alec Baldwin deleted his Twitter account as examples of the concerning content.

For a source to be deemed generally unreliable, it must be shown that this is the case with most of its content, which is not the case, as it happens with other sources. For instance, La Patilla is originally citing Infobae as the publisher of The Epoch Times' documentary, one of the main newspapers in Argentina. Just because Infobae has published this documentary (and again, while agreeing on The Epoch Times' unreliability) doesn't mean that we will dismiss its reliability entirely and as whole.

I should also point out to WP:RSOPINION, regarding the opinion articles, as well as interviews. Last but not least, I'll comment that having thousands of articles for an outlet that publishes news daily is just normal, just like if it was Vice, Reuters or The New York Times, even if they were founded earlier. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• "'Laziness' is not the same as unreliability, which is the subject of the discussion here."
  • If they are lazy with the material they decide to reproduce, which includes content for sources desginated unreliable and deprecated by Wikipedia consensus, then it is obviously related to La Patilla's reliability.
• "I should also point out to WP:RSOPINION, regarding the opinion articles, as well as interviews."
  • Why else would La Patilla publish WP:EPOCHTIMES opinion pieces unless it was targeted towards their audience? Why is La Patilla disseminating Rudy Giuliani opinion pieces about the "CCP virus" from the Epoch Times? Why is La Patilla disseminating opinion pieces from the Epoch Times defending the conspiracy allegations of Sidney Powell? Why would La Patilla, a Venezuelan outlet, disseminate the Epoch Times article "Thanksgiving was the triumph of capitalism over collectivism" that states that for the Pilgrims, "Their objective was the communism", something that historians told The New York Times was "wildly inaccurate"? Someone at La Patilla has to be looking at the metrics and saying "Yeah, these Epoch Times pieces are bringing in some readers". What other justification is there? This is a clearly very biased site that has poor editorial oversight.

WMrapids (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: Additional considerations (summoned by bot). Based on the helpful discussion here, there seems to be ample reason to be wary of using La Patilla as a source. In most cases for which it is an adequate source there is likely to be a better one. (To clarify the issues and stakes here, it might be helpful to have some examples of situations where La Patilla is the best available source and is claimed to be reliable.) -- Visviva (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: @Visviva: Maybe a good compromise between Option 2 and Option 3 would be similar to WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS?

Something like this:

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
La Patilla (news excluding politics and science)	No consensus	(insert RfC)	(insert RfC)	La Patilla may be reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science, though in-text attribution should be used for opinions.	(insert uses)
La Patilla (politics and science)	Generally unreliable	(insert RfC)	(insert RfC)	There is consensus La Patilla is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics and science. Sources say the site has a clear pro-Venezuelan opposition bias and its leadership was allied with Juan Guaidó. Editors note that La Patilla republishes articles from deprecated and blacklisted sources while also recognizing that other high-quality Venezuelan sources exist. As a result, La Patilla is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive La Patilla to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions.	(insert uses)

This is just an example of a proposed option and the wording can be modified.--WMrapids (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That would make a lot of sense to me. But FWIW I don't really have an objection to option 3 either. I went with the more cautious choice mostly just out of concern that there might be some valuable use of this source that hasn't come to light given the limited participation in this particular discussion. -- Visviva (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I could have sworn that I left this some weeks back, but anyways: unlike an article, where the published content can be gradually reworded between participants, the outcome of an RfC is made up by the arguments provided by a majority of the community. Suggesting a description for the source before the RfC has been closed is choosing an description before the community has made up its mind about it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: La Patilla acts as a propaganda outfit against the Venezuelan government and its extreme bias means we can't rely on it to provide accurate reporting. WMrapids has provided extensive documentation of its many editorial failings. Burrobert (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Since this discussion hasn't really progressed for some time, pinging users involved in recent discussions surrounding WP:VENRS: @LokiTheLiar, JML1148, Kingsif, SandyGeorgia, Number 57, Novem Linguae, MarioGom, Casra, ActivelyDisinterested, Red-tailed hawk, Boynamedsue, Bobfrombrockley, and ReyHahn:. Sorry if these pings are bothersome, but this should be the last one regarding WP:RS concerns.--WMrapids (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be honest: this seems like a huge mess that I don't feel like getting into. I won't comment here, or further down the track in later discussions unless I am asked a question that I am needed to answer. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  @JML1148: I appreciate the honest reply. Thank you for your previous help! WMrapids (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  This RfC is a mess, that has to be said upfront. These reliability RfCs operate largely on users who have experience with a source giving their opinion, and an overall opinion being decided from the comments. A lot of the excessive links both above and below is fairly unnecessary and out of scope; I suppose it provides background (though partisan...) for users who are unfamiliar with the source, but they shouldn't really be !voting - a big issue with sources in this area, I hope you'll appreciate. Basically, if you could improve your RfC behaviour, that would do everyone good.

  Anyway, I find that La Patilla was generally reliable before 2019. If their editorial practices have changed, there should be a delineation in time period. If there are issues with how they cover the United States, this can also be noted. A partisan political stance does not automatically make them unreliable; we can certainly discuss if a stance or connections have led to misinformation. If they repost articles from other sources, those articles should be considered as coming from the other source and assessed for reliability per the other source. I do not think their headlines are particularly more scandalous than other decent sources, I do not think it is worth noting to take caution with headlines. Kingsif (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  • "These reliability RfCs operate largely on users who have experience with a source giving their opinion"
    • A user familiar with the source casually mentioned that it republished Breitbart articles
  • "A lot of the excessive links both above and below is fairly unnecessary and out of scope"
    • Unfortunately, a user downplayed the usage of Breitbart and other questionable material by La Patilla, so some examples were provided.
  • "A partisan political stance does not automatically make them unreliable"
    • Of course, but repackaging material from deprecated and blacklisted outlets does. Their extreme bias does also open questions about reliability. For instance, the entry for California Globe in WP:RSP stated "Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability".
  • "If they repost articles from other sources, those articles should be considered as coming from the other source and assessed for reliability per the other source"
    • Why do we have WP:RS in the first place? So Wikipedia doesn't "repost" poorly sourced information! If La Patilla is reposting poorly sourced information, then it is unreliable.

  WMrapids (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. This is an article talk page, which is supposed to be used for making changes to the article. If we want to have community discussion of the reliability of a website as a source for facts on Wikipedia, the proper venue is WP:RSN, not here. This RfC is doomed to run into WP:CONLEVEL issues because it is here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: When reading WP:RFCOPEN, it said “Open a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in”, so that’s why it was placed here, so apologies. Should I close this RfC and open a separate one? WMrapids (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• You are giving the VENRS page more respect than it deserves. It was created at the height of the US regime change operation in Venezuela. It is similar to a talk page where a small group of editors have written down their opinions on some media sources related to Venezuela, often without attempting to justify their opinion. You don’t need to conduct an RfC to override anything written on the VENRS page. The content of the page "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints". The main classifying criteria used on the VENRS page appears to be the editors’ opinion of the media outlet's attitude towards the Venezuelan government. Compare that with how sources are assessed at the perennial sources noticeboard.
• Regarding La Patilla, it appears to be a biased right-wing source which ran some flattering articles about Juan Guaidó during the failed US regime change operation to install Guaidó as President. Seventeen La Patilla articles are cited on the Venezuelan presidential crisis page and fifteen on the [Guaidó page. The articles are generally supportive of, and sometimes encouraged, the attempted regime-change operation. One of the articles exhorted its readers to "Follow the example that Caracas gave: They confirm nightly protests against Maduro in 30 capital communities". Another is titled "Support for Maduro's departure continues to grow: 85.4% of Venezuelans want the Chavista nightmare to end now". It is among a number of private media outlets in Venezuela which are hostile to Maduro's government. I would suggest attributing any controversial statements that are sourced to this outlet. Burrobert (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Burrobert: So it seems you would support "Option 2: Additional considerations"? If you do support an option, please provide that above. WMrapids (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me think about that and wait for more editors to provide their input. Burrobert (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Do you have any suggestions based on the updates? WMrapids (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Please remind WP:NOTFORUM. WP:VENRS works such as other similar essays, such as WikiProject Korea's list of sources, any other editor can participate when they wish, and its list is complemented by the main discussions in the reliable sources noticeboard, as if often quotes the perennial sources' list. Plenty of the rationale for the listing is also explained in the essay's talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources), and the discussions take place in a similar way that a RfC would. It's only natural that after the start of the Venezuelan presidential crisis, and with its international coverage, that more activity in related articles and among editors would follow, along with interest. Take a look at the pageviews in 2019 of articles such as "Venezuela", "Nicolás Maduro", "Crisis in Venezuela" and "Juan Guaidó". During the same time, several outlets were subject to scrutiny and their RfCs evaluated their reliability, including WP:TELESUR, Venezuelanalysis. The fact that editors have focused on discussing sources individually, specially about a complex topic such as Venezuela, should not be a reason for its dismissal.

La Patilla's potential bias has been acknowledged in its entry, but this discussion is regarding reliability. I don't see in any way how the fact that said protests took places, or that amount or places for that matter, as is quotes Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict, arguably the best source for the topic. Likewise, La Patilla is just quoting pollster Meganálisis. It's also equally important to address the fallacy that media that criticizes the government is pro-opposition. That's what a free press does. Only because The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, all deemed reliable by Wikipedia, repeatedly criticized or questioned Donald Trump, it does not mean that there are pro-Democrats, Trump opponents. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be a false equivalence fallacy right there. The difference between the media situation in the United States and Venezuela is that the government has nearly complete control of the narrative within Venezuela. That is not the case here on Wikipedia. Reading through the catalog of international WP:GREL sources, they also directly cite Venezuelan NGOs and people on the ground. So then, explain why do we need a Venezuelan source that cites the US-based Breitbart to publish "general facts" about Venezuela? This just shows La Patilla's hyper-partisanship and lack of experience. In fact, WP:GREL don't seem to need La Patilla; quick Google searches of site:nytimes.com AND "La Patilla", site:reuters.com AND "La Patilla", site:bbc.com AND "La Patilla", site:Aljazeera.com AND "La Patilla" show less than ten usages of La Patilla as a source in their articles during the site's 12-year existence. And when used as a source, its partisanship is usually attributed. Funny enough, BBC News describes La Patilla as a "satirical website". That hardly brings confidence for the La Patilla's reliability... WMrapids (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The use in said articles do not reflect the reliability of thousands of articles that the outlets has published ever since. I have already provided a rationale regarding the situation. It looks currently more as a red herring, particularly when one of the most controversial articles was later retracted (as an outlet with editorial oversight does), and WP:VENRS already acknowledged the situation, providing the same articles that you are sharing here. A passing mention as a "satirical website", when the article in question is precisely about humor regarding hyperinflation, is not a sample of the website's reliability as a whole either. Unreliability means systematic and persistent issues, which is not the case here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Using Breitbart over a period of years clearly checks the box for "systematic and persistent issues". WMrapids (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And how many times was it used during all that time, again? Three, four times at most? Alright. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the Google search shows La Patilla using Breitbart close to 50 times... I can provide the links if you'd like, since you are dramatically asking for 23 pages of discussion above. WMrapids (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Would you look at that, you're right. My results are closer to 80, but the thing is that the vast majority seems to be coverage about the United States, including Trump and Steve Bannon, where Breitbart is inevitably mentioned. It does not mean that La Patilla is using Breitbart as a source. These links actually provide critical descriptions that are quite telling, thanks for the heads up:

• "Social networks, the weapons with which Trump fired his message". 2016-11-11.: The New York magnate also relied on many conservative information sites, especially Breitbart News, a highly editorialized platform that became a reference for the Republican electorate.
• "Trump sparks controversy after naming far-right figure within his future administration". 2016-11-14.: On the opposite side, Trump appointed as his main strategist and advisor Steve Bannon, who led his campaign and owns the Breitbart News portal, a sounding board for the most right-wing sectors of the Republican Party and a fierce critic of that party's leadership.
• "Trump designa a Fiscal General, a asesor de seguridad y a jefe de la CIA". 2016-11-18.: These new nominations were celebrated by Republicans, but alarmed Democrats, who are still digesting Sunday's appointment of far-right Steve Bannon - head of the far-right portal Breitbart - as Trump's chief strategist and adviser.
• "Trump strategist Steve Bannon removed from the National Security Council". 2017-04-05.: Bannon's appointment as President Donald Trump's chief strategist had sparked a spectacular controversy over his relationship with the far-right website Breitbart and accusations of advocating ideas close to white supremacists.
• "Here's what Donald Trump had to say about the Oscars". 2017-02-27.: Breitbart news website, where Milo Yiannopoulos worked until he resigned over pedophilic comments.
• "Steve Bannon, controversial Trump advisor, leaves White House". 2017-08-18.: Bannon, 63, former head of the ultra-conservative website Breitbart News, has been branded a white supremacist and his presence in the White House generated controversy from the beginning.
• "Trump accuses Steve Bannon of losing his mind, distances himself from him". 2018-01-03.: Trump's statement marks an abrupt break with Bannon, who was his last campaign manager and became his chief strategist from January 2017 until August, when he was fired without further explanation and returned to the ultra-conservative publication Breitbart News.
• "Trump sparks war fears with Bolton and Pompeo picks". 2018-03-24.: Last August, Bolton told the far-right portal Breitbart that Venezuela was a threat to the United States and urged Washington not to be "timid" about the "dictatorship" of Nicolás Maduro, calling for more support for the opposition seeking to "restore" a representative government.
• "No "political bias" at Google, says CEO in front of US Congress". 2018-12-11.: The far-right U.S. website Breitbart released an internal Google video in September, where many of its managers and employees bitterly regret Trump's election in 2016.
• "Over 65 years olds share more fake news on Facebook". 2019-01-10.: The study authors also removed partisan and hyper-partisan domains, such as Breitbart News, to focus only on sites that intentionally or systematically produced fake news.

These all look like pretty critical statements that would never be published by Breitbart, but more importantly: accurate and reliable descriptions of the website and associates. This is quite different from a website that would often replicate the website's conspiracy theories and fabrications. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: See above. WMrapids (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

See briefing above, likewise. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• "These all look like pretty critical statements that would never be published by Breitbart ... This is quite different from a website that would often replicate the website's conspiracy theories and fabrications.
  • It was already shown how La Patilla republished a Deutsche Welle article warning about Latin American outlets republishing RT articles, yet continued to republish RT articles. So the argument that "La Patilla criticizes such sources so it doesn't have the same voice" doesn't hold water when they continue to republish unreliable sources. Recognizing the clear bias of La Patilla, WP:RT.COM, WP:Breitbart, WP:EPOCHTIMES and other questionable content may be republished by the site specifically when it fits their bias. Want to fear monger readers that big bad Maduro is unleashing Venezuelan criminals into other countries? La Patilla has an anti-immigrant Breitbart article for that (at least four times). Why would a Venezuelan media outlet republish an Epoch Times opinion article titled "Thanksgiving was the triumph of capitalism over collectivism" that shows how Pilgrims turned away from "communism"? It is because La Patilla wants to share the opinion of Epoch Times columnists with its audience. If it didn't bring in a receptive audience and readership, La Patilla wouldn't have published dozens of Epoch Times opinion articles (see: Google search of site:lapatilla.com AND "Gran Epoca" and site:lapatilla.com AND "Epoch Times").

WMrapids (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I was pinged here. I have no intention of weighing in on or reading the discussion above until/unless WMrapids learns to formulate correct RFCs (as mentioned multiple times elsewhere). I have noticed that WM seems to equate the editorial stance of a publication with its reliability. If that were how we determined reliability, neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post nor The Wall Street Journal would be reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: What did I do incorrectly regarding the creation of the RfC? It was created in a similar manner to a separate RfC you participated in. You raised no concerns there and were against the source, describing it as "advocacy" and "propaganda".WMrapids (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That RFC was at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, which by design generates broader and hopefully more neutral feedback, along with more participation from editors well versed in how reliability is determined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A link was provided on the noticeboard to this discussion. WMrapids (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That's nice. What I see here is a) the usual people opining, and b) no one else. I suggest confining such RFCs to the proper place; that will also help you avoid pinging people to discussions in less optimal places (eg, people like me, who dislike pings). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope you can see from the next two sections (#Reporte de la economia and #Original research) why I don't enjoy being drug in to this via ping. An editor only has to cast their eyes briefly over a few sections to start finding issues, and it's always a time sink. RFCs at the RS noticeboard will bring in more knowledgeable editors, who are less likely to tolerate such or engage in lengthy and futile discussions. An unsuspecting editor can't even read the article for an accurate description of the news source, and everywhere one looks there is POV that needs to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Original research

While I'm here, why is this original research in the article?

• In 2019, Alexa ranked La Patilla as the 16th most popular website in Venezuela.[2]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure you could describe it as research since it only required typing in a web address and transcribing the result. It didn't even involve counting since the number 16 appeared beside LP's name. Similar to when we take something from any other web address. The text originally said LP was the 5th most visited site in 2015 and I updated the figure a while ago. Alexa doesn't operate any more so that is the last available reading. Alexa is used quite a lot on Wikipedia. E.g. it is used on the Runrunes page to say "Runrunes' main visitors are from Venezuela, the United States and Spain". Alexa may perhaps be considered a primary source which means that we need to be careful not to misinterpret its data. Burrobert (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This is original research from a primary source; what Alexa shows or does not in a country with censorship is irrelevant, and secondary-sourced comment should be used instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Similar problem here; this doesn't belong in the article:

• By 2018, according to Alexa, visitors were primarily college educated or in graduate school, with homes and work places becoming the main browsing locations while visits from schools declined.[13]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable use of a source that has been cited hundreds of thousands of times on Wikipedia. It has been used as a source on this page since the article was created in 2014. Burrobert (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reporte de la economia

How does this source conform with WP:RS? I find nothing on their website to indicate any of the standard ways we measure reliability. Further, it is used to cite text that contradicts a better source, BBC Monitoring.

It should also be note that Alberto Federico Ravell is a living person and WP:BLP applies; we can't use low quality sources to refute higher quality ones, so I am next correcting that problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Done, pls take greater care to use high quality sources when discussing living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

What are the statements from each source that contradict each other? Burrobert (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

See the edit linked above.

The text I removed, per BLP, from our article, and sourced to the non-RS Reporte de la economia, stated that Ravell resigned under pressure from a majority of partners of the television network (En el 2010, socios mayoritarios de la planta televisiva le pidieron la renuncia de la directiva de Globovisión, la cual acepta debido a las fuertes presiones.)

BBC Monitoring makes no such claim, and instead notes that Leading [this group] is the top-ranking private news website La Patilla ... [group referring to the previous statement] ... media critics of the government who had been forced to leave their previous journalist jobs because of government pressure and harassment.

BBC states the pressure and harassment was from the government; the non-RS recasts that to be majority shareholders and never mentions government activities during that time (pls review human rights organizations reports from that time period if you need a memory refresher) and take greater care to avoid introducing POV via marginal sources when there are scores of high quality sources that cover freedom of press issues in Venezuela, and from that time period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)