This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
La Patilla article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
What is the reliability of La Patilla?
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)
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.
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.
La Patilla is one of the main digital news outlet in Venezuela.
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
Regarding The New York Times investigation ... "images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America"
Speaking of Breitbart, the examples provided are articles about Venezuela, and in some cases general facts that are not disputed
the fourth one actually quotes World Tribune
Likewise, the fact that Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered.
With a twelve years history, is only natural that these flaws will be found.
La Patilla is a valuable source for content about Venezuela that in the current landscape is badly needed
"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)
"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)
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
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.
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)
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:
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:
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:
Then there's PanAm Post:
Here's another helping, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES and The Gateway Pundit:
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)
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:
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."
"updates about world and local news. ... Notably, many of them are trivia"
"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 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."
"I should also point out to WP:RSOPINION, regarding the opinion articles, as well as interviews."
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) |
"These reliability RfCs operate largely on users who have experience with a source giving their opinion"
"A lot of the excessive links both above and below is fairly unnecessary and out of scope"
"A partisan political stance does not automatically make them unreliable"
"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"
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Breitbart news website, where Milo Yiannopoulos worked until he resigned over pedophilic comments.
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'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.
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.
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.
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 ... This is quite different from a website that would often replicate the website's conspiracy theories and fabrications.
site:lapatilla.com AND "Gran Epoca"and
site:lapatilla.com AND "Epoch Times").
While I'm here, why is this original research in the article?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Similar problem here; this doesn't belong in the article:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
La Patilla article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
What is the reliability of La Patilla?
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)
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.
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.
La Patilla is one of the main digital news outlet in Venezuela.
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
Regarding The New York Times investigation ... "images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America"
Speaking of Breitbart, the examples provided are articles about Venezuela, and in some cases general facts that are not disputed
the fourth one actually quotes World Tribune
Likewise, the fact that Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered.
With a twelve years history, is only natural that these flaws will be found.
La Patilla is a valuable source for content about Venezuela that in the current landscape is badly needed
"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)
"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)
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
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.
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)
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:
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:
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:
Then there's PanAm Post:
Here's another helping, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES and The Gateway Pundit:
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)
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:
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."
"updates about world and local news. ... Notably, many of them are trivia"
"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 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."
"I should also point out to WP:RSOPINION, regarding the opinion articles, as well as interviews."
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) |
"These reliability RfCs operate largely on users who have experience with a source giving their opinion"
"A lot of the excessive links both above and below is fairly unnecessary and out of scope"
"A partisan political stance does not automatically make them unreliable"
"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"
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Breitbart news website, where Milo Yiannopoulos worked until he resigned over pedophilic comments.
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'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.
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.
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.
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 ... This is quite different from a website that would often replicate the website's conspiracy theories and fabrications.
site:lapatilla.com AND "Gran Epoca"and
site:lapatilla.com AND "Epoch Times").
While I'm here, why is this original research in the article?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Similar problem here; this doesn't belong in the article:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)