The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

What is the reliability of Venezuelanalysis?

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

Previous RfC from March 2019 can be viewed here. WMrapids ( talk) 00:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: After reviewing Bolivarian propaganda article, which was riddled with original research and WP:BLP violations, I encountered Venezuelanalysis. At first glance, it is clearly sympathetic to Bolivarianism and, yes, it appears that its creation was assisted by the Venezuelan government. However, it now says that it is funded by individual readers and not from any governments (if we can take their word for it). Many of the !votes in the previous RfC were focused on bias and not on substance. While there is one argument arguing over a recognition map (which was highly contested at the time), other users simply made the charge of "fake news" without evidence.

As Rosguill said in the previous RfC, there does not appear to be blatant disinformation in the articles and the site does openly criticized the government ( reporting protests against police who arrested LGBTQI+ individuals, labor protests against the government [13] [14] [15], a "crackdown" on indigenous protests and criticized policies by the government, including the ineffectiveness of anti-illegal mining policy). So while a clear bias exists, there appears to be some criticism of the Venezuelan government as well. Knowing that consensus can change and context matters, Venezuelanalysis should be used with additional considerations and properly attributed.-- WMrapids ( talk) 00:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, there appears to be editorial oversight and journalists, contrary to the argument that there are only "activists" working for VA.

• Michael Fox, an author, journalist and the former editor of NACLA Report on the Americas, serves on the board of Venezuelanalysis.
• Lucas Koerner, editor and writer of Venezuelanalysis (which Harvard University describes as an "independent news outlet") is a doctoral student at Harvard.
• The Nation ( WP:GREL) describes VA writer José Luis Granados Ceja as " a journalist and political analyst based in Mexico City".
• Jeanette Charles is a grad student at UCLA, where she earned her Master in History degree, and has had an article published by The_Wire_(India) ( WP:GREL)
• Current editor Cira Pascual Marquina is a professor of political science at at the Bolivarian University of Venezuela.
• Political analyst Ricardo Vaz of VA was interviewed in his capacity as VA staff last year regarding Venezuelan topics by The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Also, Venezuelanalysis has been cited in articles by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly journals for nearly two decades, including:

• PRISM of the National Defense University [16]
• Journal of Democracy [17]
• The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs [18]
• Latin American Politics and Society [19]
• Perspectives on Politics [20]
• Qualitative Sociology [21]
• International and Comparative Law Quarterly [22]
• Law and Business Review of the Americas [23] [24] [25] [26]
• Ethics and Information Technology [27]
• Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society [28]
• Dialectical Anthropology [29]
• Social Justice [30]
• Centro [31]

So we have editors and journalists that have reputable academic backgrounds that are recognized by generally reliable sources and we have widespread usage of Venezuelanalysis being cited in scholarly journals. Should make the website suitable for "additional considerations" at a minimum.-- WMrapids ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say "blatant disinformation" would be grounds for option 4 not option 3, so I don't think this is a valid argument against the current consensus.

However, the examples of recent articles more critical of the government are interesting; it may be that there is a shift at the website and it might make sense to review the reliability of recent news articles in the future. However, I checked other recent articles by the same journalists and saw examples of problematic reporting. (For example compare this (essentially a dressed up government PR statement) to this fact based report of the same incident. Or this distorting report to this reliable report.) BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley yes, there has been a shift in chavismo strategy for several reasons. One is the International Criminal Court's looking into the evidence for crimes against humanity; shifting blame for those crimes to lowly peons, and critical reporting of those lowly peons, will help the higher ups escape sanction. Another is a move towards capitalism: see for example this Bloomberg report on the propaganda trend. But more relevant is Biden relaxing sanctions in the hopes of free elections next year. By appearing to allow free elections, while barring the leading candidate from running, Maduro gives the impression of free elections, which provides a win–win for chavismo. The examples of reporting critical of the Maduro administration merely reinforces that Venezuelanalysis is on the same propaganda page and well tuned in to the importance of reporting on certain issues with respect to advancing their overall aim, which is the appearance of free and fair elections and no sanctions for crimes against humanity. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some digging Bobfrombrockley, you show that there is a clear difference in the quality of reporting between VA and Al Jazeera. I agree with what you are saying overall (I think), but there should be additional considerations for Venezuelanalysis instead of outright banning it from Wikipedi since it may be useful in some circumstances. As you can see from my comments below, once a source is labeled "unreliable", even if there is a mention of it being attributed, it is essentially given a death sentence by users. So in a similar manner to the (unclear) decision with La Patilla, I don't think Venezuelanalysis should be considered generally reliable at all, that it should be used in contentious articles/claims or for statements of fact, but I do think that it can be used as a secondary source for some Venezuelan government statements (especially since most Venezuelan government sources are essentially deprecated) and that if it is used, that it is properly attributed. Placing in the RSP list on how it could be used in specific circumstances while explicitly outlining how it should be excluded would be beneficial as it would prevent further disputes and misuse while also preventing future, long-winded discussions on what should be permitted. WMrapids ( talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ WMrapids: Per WP:BLUDGEON and previous related concerns, could you considering collapsing your last additions? I have tried to do the same in the last RfCs when I include a long list of links, and by experience I think we can both agree it would be for the best. Regards, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 00:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather not collapse an addition to my original decision and please don’t do it for me while also labeling it as bludgeoning. You’re casting aspersions. WMrapids ( talk) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC This doesn't appear to be a real issue that merits a new RFC. There are only nine articles in which this site is even mentioned, and it looks like just three in which it is cited as a source for anything at all. [32] Where is it being cited as a source that is controversial and merits a RFC? Banks Irk ( talk) 01:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ Banks Irk: It was previously used at least 252 times and possibly more beforehand, though it has been methodically removed since the last RfC (as recently as July 2023, a user has continued to remove the source). There are some Venezuelan articles where their information may be valuable with proper attribution. WMrapids ( talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Then, withdraw the RFC and ask specific questions about articles where you want to use the source. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article? Banks Irk ( talk) 02:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's legitimate to have an RfC to see if consensus has changed in order that a source might find broader usage. TarnishedPath ^talk 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's true but WP:RFCBEFORE still applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 12:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is not the first time that WMrapids tries to rush into a RfC. WMrapids has created several RfCs in the past two months. Many of those have been retracted or criticized for being rushed.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  How else do you achieve such a consensus when a previous RfC made a decision? Users have been removing many uses of Venezuelanalysis following a previous RfC that didn't have many thorough arguments. Some of these were systematically removed while citing the project essay WP:VENRS as policy. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] In fact, there were over 500 edits that simply blanked sources, edits suggesting that any narrative from the Maduro/Venezuelan government should not be present on Wikipedia. We can simply attribute when needed instead of removing information in its entirety, however, you can see that this is impossible, especially with this edit here where attribution is crystal clear (despite MOS:CLAIM wording), though the Venezuelanalysis source and information was removed anyway. Even more egregious are these edits; the user removes the Venezuelanalysis source for an attributed statement and then in a subsequent edit, the user removes the attributed statement from the article entirely, saying it was "unsourced" (even though they removed the source). This behavior has made any usage or mention of Venezuelanalysis a non-starter, which is why an RfC to determine consensus is necessary. WMrapids ( talk) 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have looked through the edits by NoonIcarus flagged here. I note that they are quite spread out in time, and don't appear to have been done in a systematic way as implied. I find the majority of them to be completely legitimate - e.g. removing when a better source is present - but did see a couple where removal was hasty and it would have been better to add an "unreliable inline" or "better source" tag to enable editors to fix it, rather than leave unsourced material with a "cn" tag. However, this doesn't appear to have been widespread, and could easily be dealt with following the consensus established at the last RfC by simply reinstating with a tag or raising on talk; it does not justify a new RfC. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  As Hedikupa Parepvigi said in a discussion below, per the stale discussions section of WP:RSP, Venezuelanalysis "has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion", so one is correct to ask if consensus did change. WMrapids ( talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• As noted below, that quote is taken out of context. It is not an instruction that it is OK to start a new RFC, it is simply a legend for the symbol used on RSP for 4+ year old consensus discussions. Banks Irk ( talk) 15:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela has been notified.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 18:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RFC/Option 4 RfCs should be for determining the reliability of a source being widely used in Wikipedia or for discussing the reliability for its use in a specific instance. This request for comment is neither of those.

However, if I have to leave some comments: if time has taught us anything about Venezuelanalysis, is that it definitely should not be used. The fact that Venezuelanalysis has been funded by the Venezuelan government should not be in question, because Gregory Wilpert himself (co-founder of VA) admitted in an interview with ZMag receiving money from the Venezuelan Ministry of Culture. It does not have editorial independence, its editorial staff is made up of members from deprecated outlets, and its bias affects its reliability. A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa offers more insight (" Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of Chavista narratives". Please read the full article if you have a chance, since it as informative as it is long):

• In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
• Here the network shows the least visible and at the same time most powerful node: Venezuelanalysis is the one that has the highest levels of coordination and influence with governmental bodies, thanks to the fact that it has in its team former Chavez ministers, former officials of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, former editors of Telesur English and even those accused of corruption in the United States.
• Its staff includes: Andreína Chávez Alava (former editor-in-chief of Telesur Ecuador), Cira Pascual Marquina (professor at Universidad Bolivariana), Rachael Boothroyd (Telesur correspondent and collaborator of Alborada) and Jessica Dos Santos (Actualidad RT and Épale Ccs, with three journalism awards given by the Chávez and Maduro governments) (...) And among its collaborators, the Venezuelan-American Eva Golinger, author of Chávez Code, a book with conspiracy theories on the assassination of Hugo Chávez with nanotechnological weapons, whose ideas are found in a great part of the network studied, thanks to the support especially given by ActualidadRT, Telesur and Sputnik.
• The Venezuelanalysis team also includes former officials such as Reinaldo Iturriza López (former Minister of Culture and former Minister of Communes of Maduro between April 2013 and January 2016 and former director of the official channel Ávila TV) and Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, former director of International Relations of the Presidency of Venezuela, former Venezuelan ambassador to Nicaragua, former general director of the International Relations Office of the Ministry of Culture, columnist in Misión Verdad and usual commentator as international analyst in Sputnik Mundo, which also published an interview recounting his Sandinista guerrilla experience in Nicaragua.

Not only does it have staff from Venezuelan government members, but also from outlets deprecated in the English Wikipedia such as Russia Today, Telesur, Sputnik and others. This includes Misión Verdad as well, whose hoaxes include comparing the Venezuelan Green Cross [ es to Syria's White Helmets, claiming that have also they staged false flags incidents during the 2017 protests ( [40]).

Let's not forget the examples provided in the previous RfC, such as the misleading map about the presidential crisis. Equally important, though, are other examples of false content that has not been retracted, such as the causes of death of Juan Pablo Pernalete (claiming he was killed captive bolt pistol by the opposition instead of a tear gas canister by security forces [41]) and Fernando Albán (saying that he committed suicide, instead of being killed [42]). Both were the versions provided that the Venezuelan government, and that themselves admitted five years later that they were false.

As its name suggests, VA is a website dedicated to analysis, not news. With its lack of neutrality, it means that it is no better than a blog and that it does not belong to Wikipedia. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The three articles you linked don't report any falsehoods. The map is not even "misleading" as it pertains to the latest government recognized by each country. The article that discusses Pernalete discusses in great details the theories the two versions of his death and doesn't take a position either way, and the article on alban merely reports what the authorities are saying, with attribution of these claims to the Venezuelan Attorney General. Mottezen ( talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Funding from GOV: This was 2007 and the context was that this occurred during its founding.
2. Cazadores article: Many of the statements here are guilt by association arguments (i.e. VA staff previously were part of the government/media org). Ok, but why did they leave such organizations and instead join VA? Were they upset with something? Did they not support the direction though still supported certain ideals. This has nothing to do with reliability. You also attempt this guilt by association by making the false equivalence between Misión Verdad and Venezuelanalysis (Venezuelanalysis hasn't made any statements about the "Green Cross")
3. "Misleading map": Some may argue that "silence is complicity", meaning that those who didn't recognize Guaidó (including neutral nations) were instead recognizing Maduro. Others (including Wikipedia) took a more nuanced approach regarding recognition (Guaidó, National Assembly, neutrality, Maduro or no statement). So definitions on recognition (as it was during the entire presidential crisis) may be up to interpretation.
4. Retractions: In their thousands of articles, maybe they overlooked retracting articles on incidents that occurred five years prior to when information was clarified?

As Mottezen said, you have not provided any falsehoods that can be attributed to Venezuelanalysis. WMrapids ( talk) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: I don’t see what is changed since the last RFC. It is reliable for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its close allies, so should not be deprecated. Most of its content is opinion or commentary, which is neither reliable, nor noteworthy. Its news content is largely secondhand, often from unreliable sources; when the original source is reliable, we should use that instead. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [typo corrected 16 Oct]

  @ Bobfrombrockley: What has changed since the last RfC is that virtually all usage of Venezuelanalysis has been removed ( see my edit above). Despite its entry saying that "its claims should be attributed", the attributed claims have been removed as well. If we determine this is "additional conditions" material, we can also note that opinion and commentary should be attributed. It is strange that with the La Patilla RfC you supported "additional considerations" in similar circumstances. Do you see any unreliable information from Venezuelanalysis? Again, all of this is not to illustrate a point, but you made a similar argument in a previous RfC though you have a different decision with this particular case. WMrapids ( talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks WMrapids. Have you got examples of Venezuelanalysis being removed incorrectly? As a result of the last RfC, I looked at some of its usages and found that in some cases it was being used appropriately but in others it wasn't and removed it. For example, it was second hand reporting from either more reliable sources (in which case I replaced with original) or from unreliable sources (in which case I removed and/or tagged). In other cases, opinion pieces were being used as facts, so I removed or added better source tagging. Perhaps other editors were more slapdash in removing a generally unreliable source for material where it might have been appropriate, in which case it would be fine to review those instances or bring them here for discussion, but it doesn't change the basic finding of general unreliability. Re the La Patilla comparison, I don't think they're comparable. La Patilla is staffed by journalists. It reports stuff. It reports stuff that we wouldn't know if we only used government press releases. Whereas Venezuelanalysis is staffed by activists and its original content is not based on actual reporting. Where elements of La Patilla's output are comparable to Venezuelanalysis' (the aggregation), I argued that this should be considered unreliable. Hope this answers your questions. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Bobfrombrockley: I appreciate the thorough response. While you say that they are staffed by "activists", the same could be said by La Patilla due to their extreme bias as well. However, bias does not affect reliability and we have discussed this before. I'm not saying that Venezuelanalysis is generally reliable at all either, just that they may be applicable in certain situations with proper attribution. That is why I chose "additional considerations" since it seems like if it were determined to be anything less, users would simply remove any trace from the project entirely (especially since the WP:RSP entry already suggests use with attribution and it is still being removed). What do you think about this? WMrapids ( talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

When I say "activists" I don't mean "biased"; I mean lacking in any kind of journalistic training or expertise, lacking in normal news-based editorial procedures. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If your position regarding reliability is the same as La Patilla, per the previous RfC, then you should agree that the outlet must be considered unreliable or be deprecated. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: I'm glad this RFC was made. I think the previous RFC missed the mark.

Sure, it has received money from the Venezuelan government in the past. Is that an argument for deprecation? There are an awful lot of outlets cited on Wikipedia that have received money from western governments. Should they be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they are consistently and predictably biased in certain ways. So is every single "reliable source", without exception. CNN is biased in favor of its advertisers, and against those who criticize its advertisers. The WSJ is biased in favor of wealthy people and against things that disproportionately benefit the working class. Bellingcat is biased in the sense that it receives funding from western governments, and then conducts investigations into those governments' adversaries, while never investigating their benefactors. And all three of these outlets are biased in favor of the USA and against the USA's "adversaries". Should those three outlets be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they've released a handful of reports that contained inaccuracies. Find me an outlet that hasn't published misleading information. I'm old enough to remember the Iraq-WMD hoax, which was perpetuated by essentially every mainstream American outlet, due to a combination of pro-US government bias and uncritical credulity. The pro-government disinformation spread, knowingly or unwittingly, by US-based outlets, led to the Iraq invasion, which in turn led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, and will err on the side of their biases when the fog of propaganda gets too thick to parse.

Sure, they employ some people who've worked for the Venezuelan government. Has anyone taken a look at the career backgrounds of many contributors to US-based "reliable sources"? NBC, CBS, CNN, and others have so many FBI, CIA, and DOD employees on their payroll that I can't keep track of them all. Does that mean we should deprecate those outlets? Of course not.

Additional considerations apply, and editors should take care to understand the context and potential bias of this source before using it. The same should be said for literally every other source. Is it the best source out there on Venezuelan issues? No, but when Wikipedia already suffers from rampant systemic bias, and many Latin American political issues are primarily presented on Wikipedia from the perspective of the affluent Anglo-American press, allowing the use of this source is a no brainer. Of course Venezuelanalysis should not be deprecated. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 18:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The source wasn't deprecated in the previous RFC - that would have been #4. The consensus conclusion was #3. Banks Irk ( talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for correcting me. Indeed, the previous conclusion was #3, not #4. I think all of my arguments are substantively the same - and as a previous editor noted, there has been a multi-year move to remove Venezuelanalysis, so it is, in practice, treated as a deprecated source. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your claim about Bellingcat here is easily demonstrably incorrect, as well as whataboutery. The "bias is not unreliability" mantra is a strawman argument as the issue with VA is not bias but distortion. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to this before and other editors already have, but I think it's important that I leave my comment. Unfortunately, this is a false equivalency between Western media as a whole an Venezuelanalysis, something that is actually common when discussing these issues.

Taking as an example the US invasion of Iraq (which has happened over 20 years ago now and sources have corrected their stances), and comparing to an outlet affiliated with the Venezuelan government simply does not hold water. A specific historical event is not the same as a PR campaign that has continued over the years. If you feel that the reliability of any of those sources should be questioned, you're free start a new RfC.

Possibly the best example is the consistent cheerleading of the Bolivarian missions, including but not limited to Robinson ( [43] [44] [45]), Vivienda ( [46] [47]) and Barrio Adentro ( [48] [49] [50]). None of their articles make any mention of their negative aspects, such as corruption, unsustainability and lack of progress. After all the years when they were published, they have not done it and won't either simply because their editorial line is uncritical. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 22:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC; WP:RFCBEFORE Andre 🚐 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I'm coming back here to say that I'll go along with Option 4 or 3 for this source after reading SandyGeorgia's take on it. I believe we have enough good sources that we can afford to be selective when it comes to dicey sources. It doesn't take much for me to see the problem with this source. Given the RFC felt premature but it's proceeding, here is where I am landing. Andre 🚐 23:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, No, the lesson is that they make errors and are susceptible to errors (or intentional lies/propaganda) Andre 🚐 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What you say is also true. They make errors, and are susceptible to unintentionally amplifying lies and propaganda. However, the NYT has never, to my knowledge, used their front page to accidentally push Ugandan state propaganda, or Bolivian state propaganda, or Thai state propaganda. When the NYT (and others, they're a placeholder) publishes propaganda, it just so happens to be propaganda that is supportive of the US and its allies, and critical of the US government's adversaries. That is a demonstration of latent bias.

Even though these outlets got stories like Iraq/WMD catastrophically wrong, with devastating real-world consequences, they are still reliable sources generally speaking. I read the NYT all the time. My only point in bringing this up is that outlets like Venezuelanalysis, which exist outside the mainstream, affluent Anglo-American bubble, are held to an absurdly high standard in comparison to the standards we typically apply to outlets like the NYT, CNN, WSJ, NBC, BBC, PBS, and so on. The criticisms, that Venezuelanalysis has a generally (but not consistently) pro-government bent, has previously received funding from the government, and has made errors, are all criticisms that can be equally applied to outlets held in high esteem by Wikipedians. I'd submit that this is, in part, due to systemic bias. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a reasonable, good faith discussion, but I will use Occam's razor to say that it's much simpler. NYT is obviously reliable, as you say, even though they have occasional errors or latent biases (for the sake of the argument I will grant without getting into whether NYT has ever inadvertently pushed Ugandan propaganda). When it comes to outlets like Venezualanalysis - I don't know if they are reliable or not. But there's a reason why we have high standards for reliability when it comes to state-affiliated media. The bottom line is that we have to determine whether Venezualanalysis has a high standard for editorial oversight, fact-checking, a la WP:NEWSORG. It is not presumed to. While there might be a bit of an equivalency you might seek to make on the question of other outlets are reliable, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the discussion. The question is whether Venezuelanalysis is reliable on its own merits. Andre 🚐 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think the broader point I've made above is relevant, but it's good to refocus the conversation on Venezuelanalysis. Here's my final thoughts on this unless a new avenue of dialogue opens up:

Per WMRapids' comment, citations of Venezuelanalysis have been "methodically removed", from 252 to 9. So it's been, practically speaking, deprecated as a source. I also see other folks voting "option 4". I'm troubled by that.

I'd readily concede to your point that Venezuelanalysis is presumably not a bastion of journalistic rigor. Probably much less rigorous than say, the NYT. But it's not a fake news propaganda outlet as some have suggested, nor is it one of those outlets that "somehow" never takes issue with anything its patron government does, like, say, Bellingcat.

Its aforementioned disagreements with the Venezuelan state suggest a level of ideological independence from the government, and it supposedly no longer takes government funds. Its opinions should always be attributed, and never belong in Wikivoice, I'll say that much. But as you know, I'm not much of a fan of having government-funded political opinions in Wikivoice, period.

I maintain that it includes noteworthy information about the politics of Venezuela and the broader region that might not be presented in other sources. If we had an embarrassment of riches in terms of good, high-quality on-the-ground analysis of Venezuelan politics, perhaps the conversation would be slightly different. But as it stands, I think dismissing the source would be a disservice to our encyclopedic coverage of Venezuela, despite its flaws. That's why I've voted "additional considerations apply", and I hope other editors will join me in that vote. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 01:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat has published plenty of articles about the US. A New Platform Maps US Police Violence Against Protesters, American-Made Bomb Used in Airstrike on Yemen Wedding etc. 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 11:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Philomathes2357: You can see more on how this source and others were systematically removed in my edit above. Again, no sympathy for potential misinformation at all (which is why we are all here), but when readers are prevented from even having access to attributed information, at best it is assuming the reader is ignorant and at worst it is censorship. WMrapids ( talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: Deprecate
  

"Venezuela Analysis" is a highly unreliable source. From its wikipedia page, it is described as a news outlet that supports the Maduro regime and its policies.

A quick glance at that site makes it clear that it is a highly politicized and conspiratorial network, and that its not an outlet that attempts to produce real news. This source should not be used at all, since it is a fake news outlet focused on generating pro-Maduro propaganda. This website is no different from an unreliable, self-published source. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 : No user has yet to provide a single instance of a fabricated claim stated as fact in a VenezuelaAnalysis article. Mottezen ( talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@ Mottezen: The Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) identified Venezuelanalysis as one of the outlets that republished "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" about Israel from Iranian media, especially from HispanTV, since at least 2013 (see WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV for more details).

Since you're the only editor supporting Option 1 for the time being, it would be good if you provided arguments for clasifying VA under said option or that you reconsider your vote. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I’d like to see the said article that were republished. I wouldn’t trust the CAIV for telling me Venezuelanalysis published false information. CAIV is a non-notable organisation that doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, and its website is inactive since the pandemic. Why do you believe they are an authority on what is false or true?

If you read the arguments for option 2, it sounds like they are advocating for option 1, because biased sources can still have a stellar record for reporting facts, and opinion articles need to be attributed either way. Mottezen ( talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If a Jewish association in the country is not relevant for an issue such as Antisemitism in Venezuela, I frankly don't know what is and what you would expect, particularly if you're using the current existance of an article in the English Wikipedia as a factor for notability (at any rate the organization meets WP:GNG, which means an article could be created at any moment regardless). -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Jewish associations vary in their interpretations of antisemitism (case of point: IJV and the Board of Deputies). Coalitions that are inactive tend to be unreliable. Mottezen ( talk) 04:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds more like a personal opinion, but ok. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

New example added at bottom of RFC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 or 4: at least a 3, but there is a solid argument for 4, deprecation, because they routinely reprint content labeled as news from WP:TELESUR, a deprecated source and a chavista propaganda outlet, [51] and they do not retract or correct factual errors as time evolves and more information comes to light (see points 1 and 3 below).

1. Telesur is widely acknowledged as Venezuelan propaganda and rightfully deprecated on Wikipedia for printing false information. Venezuelanalysis reprints Telesur articles as news, not opinion (some of these articles are outright propaganda and misrepresentations, aka lies). A few samples (there is more): [52] [53] [54] In one case, a blatant misrepresentation based on Telesur propaganda, reprinted at Venezuelanalysis.com, was used to introduce a BLP vio into Wikipedia at Nelson Bocaranda (using primary and UNDUE sources [55] to parrot the Telesur lie). [56] Lessening our restrictions on Venezuelanalysis.com means more Telesur propaganda is likely to also be reflected on Wikipedia; it's not surprising they don't indicate editorial oversight or enjoy a reputation for fact-checking, when they parrot Telesur.
2. Nothing has changed since the last RFC. The map issue is misrepresented in some statements above: for example, that Switzerland and other countries were neutral was not "highly contested at the time" (noting also that Switzerland imposed sanctions on Maduro's government while agreeing to represent the US after it closed its Caracas embassy, so some mumbo-jumbo has to occur to represent via a map they support the Maduro government). Where do we draw the line between blatant lies and simple biased slanting? A good example of that is given in their coverage of the ...
3. 2019 Venezuelan blackouts. It's one thing to parrot with bias the chavismo claim that the blackouts were caused by a cyberattack, as they did when the blackouts began in 2019. [57] [58] Presenting only one side's allegations is just bias, which is separate from reliability. But years later, repeating the same bias becomes a matter of absent editorial oversight or fact checking; it's quite another matter to still be parroting the chavismo stance in 2022, with narry a mention of mainstream facts, when not a scintilla of evidence to back the government claims has surfaced, and all unbiased sources acknowledge the causes of the blackouts. Sticking the word "alleged" in front of a blatantly false claim isn't cover for propagating this lie many years after the fact, when more information is known. [59] An entire book on the matter was published by a New York Times journalist.
4. Looking at the about page (and earlier iterations of it at archive.org) is always a first stop when evaluating reliability. Either they have never had a managing editor, or they don't want us to know who it is. Volunteers working around the world do not equate to "editorial oversight", and the current and all historical archives of their about page speak to staff (many of whom have no journalistic credentials), but not editorial oversight. As one example, I noticed multiple news articles written by Paul Dobson, a person with no journalistic training but an interest in Venezuela and seems to be this guy (which that website passes off as a journalist in spite of his Venezuelanalysis bio). I find nothing on their about page which speaks to fact checking or editorial oversight, rather rotating staff who have an interest in promoting chavismo-- that is, the better description of the website is a blog.

So, for now I'm at a 3+; if others produce more examples of spreading Telesur propaganda as news, then please consider me a 4, deprecate. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

1. This can be combatted in a similar conclusion to the La Patilla RfC; simply don't reproduce things source from deprecated sources and attribute properly.
2. There are multiple issues with the map that deserve context. Switzerland could still sanction a government and still recognize it (sanctions from them began in 2018, prior to the presidential crisis).
3. Again, no proof of any mistruths. VA literally writes "The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions." So besides the debatable last portion, VA acknowledges corruption and brain drain in Venezuela's electrical management, something you would hardly hear from a propaganda outlet.
4. Plenty of sources have unclear management. La Patilla, for instance, doesn’t even have an "about" page, yet you quickly overlooked that in their RfC and provided the excuse that it was for "safety".

WMrapids ( talk) 21:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@ SandyGeorgia: Venezuelanalysis has a whole category dedicated to Telesur: TeleSUR Archives. Some of its articles include the following:

This includes but is not limited to the conspiracy theory that the 2019 nationwide blackouts were caused by a sabotage ( [86]), something debunked by journalists and experts alike ( [87]), as well as claims of university enrollment raising 294% ( [88]), something also dismissed by fack checkers. Pinging @ Mottezen:, who also asked for examples of false information. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have similarly found republications from Misión Verdad: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples; this one is incredibly troubliing, as the novice reader is unlikely to understand how that game is played in Venezuela, as it reminds of the sudden naming of people responsible for the murder of Fernando Albán years after the fact; naming some lowly peons responsible after years of denial can help assure the higher-ups in the Maduro administration are not charged with crimes against humanity. I wonder what innocent unnamed person paid the price in the blackout arrest. I wonder if Venezuelanalysis has ever corrected, retracted or restated anything about that arrest report? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@ SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus: And? With La Patilla, you two both overlooked the usage of Breitbart, Epoch Times and other far-right conspiracy articles reposted by La Patilla. If we are going to go about the same way, we can just note not to use reposts of deprecated sources as we have done with La Patilla and to use the original source if VA is performing a repost. Your decisions appear more based on bias/ideology than based on reliability. WMrapids ( talk) 12:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous differences between the reliability analysis of La Patilla and Venezuelanalysis.

One is Venezuelanalysis extensively using Telesur propaganda for its reporting of Venezuelan news (and it does little else) compared to the allegations in the La Patilla RFC about reprints of almost exclusively info unrelated to its Venezuela coverage (eg COVID). The first alleged reprint I checked in that overly long and bludgeoned discussion that was related to Venezuela had been removed by La Patilla within a day or two, demonstrating the presence of editorial oversight. Aggregated coverage from La Patilla is easily separated from its reporting on Venezuela and no instance of their reporting of Venezuela news was unreliable; Venezuelanalysis is Venezuelan news, and even when they don't directly reprint from Telesur, they report the same propaganda (eg the blackouts). Breitbart and Epoch Times aren't focused on Venezuela; Telesur and Venezuelanalysis are, so ignoring their reprints means ... ignoring them almost entirely, eg, unreliable.

The discussion of La Patilla and other outlets censored in Venezuela having no "About Us" page similarly doesn't even apply to Venezuelanalysis, which is not censored in Venezuela, for obvious reasons: it is pro- chavismo by definition from its outset, and its reporters have not been imprisoned or had to flee the country. A potential reason Venezuelanalaysis doesn't mention editorial oversight is because of the connection between Wilpert and his wife's position with chavismo; that is, obfuscating information for reasons unrelated to personal harm likely to come to reporters from other outlets who criticize the government.

Please avoid turning another RFC into another unreadable mess, and don't bludgeon by distorting and misrepresenting what I or anyone else said on a different RFC with entirely different circumstances and then lacing your comments with aspersions; I most certainly did not "overlook" the aggregated issue, rather I addressed it explicitly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The example that you provided is misleading . La Patilla still has the same article posted, though they hid the mention of Breitbart in the headline. Recognizing that this isn’t a discussion about La Patilla, it still doesn't change how you and NoonIcarus have different opinions are similar discussions. NoonIcarus was one of the only users to find La Patilla "generally reliable" and they now want to deprecate Venezuelanalysis after already leading a crusade to remove it from the project entirely (even removing some content against previous consensus suggestions). I won’t comment further on this to avoid blodgeoning, though the behavior of you two should be on the record for other users. WMrapids ( talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should have brought that information forward on that RFC, not this one. (For that matter, maybe you did, and it was lost among your bludgeoning). And no, La Patilla did not hide the Breitbart, as I can see it clearly in the link you provide. Stop the aspersions that serve only to muddy another RFC; focus on content. I retain my view that Venezuelanalysis is only marginally different from Telesur outright propaganda; I remain at 3+ but the false information about increasing university enrollment that NoonIcarus pointed out is also a concern. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please kindly notice that my main argument for this RfC has not been based in the use of deprecated sources (which at this point I think is implicit and already demonstrated), but rather the lack of editorial independence of Venezuelanalysis, as well as several and consistent concerns by editors throughout the years, and I focused in providing only news articles, leaving aside opinion ones that were included in the other RfC. In La Patilla's RfC I commented how many of the examples were uncontroversial and even unrelated (crediting Breitbart for images as an example of republishing content), being an example of WP:SOURCECOUNTING, but there are also important differences between both outlets as Sandy commented.

Now, since you brought it up, I think it is important to reassure the noticeboard that the opening of this RfC is unrelated to the outcome of La Patilla's RfC, which was different to your preferred one, that you disputed, and is about a Venezuelan source too. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The VenezuelaAnalysis link you allege discusses the 2019 blackout is dated from 2017. And the 294% increase in university admissions is over 14 years, so this figure does not strain credulity. China experienced a similar growth in the number of university students over the same period. Plus, you have not provided a link that debunks this claim. Mottezen ( talk) 02:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Separately from what NoonIcarus presents, the article where they repeat the chavista propaganda blackout conspiracy theory that I present is 2022, with an "alleged" stuck on for cover. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You will note that that the same article also says the following 4 paragraphs above: The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions. This is verbatim the main explanation of the 2019 blackouts in our wikipedia article on the subject, presented as a plain hard fact by VenezuelaAnalysis in each of their articles I saw on the subject.

And the full sentence you are referring to is: In early 2019, Venezuela suffered a string of widespread blackouts that covered virtually all of its territory following alleged terrorist attacks. (external links in original, each linking to articles about the governments allegations of the attacks.) Each time the "attacks on electricity generation" claims are relayed by VenezuelaAnalysis, it is always attributed to the government of Venezuela, or simply with an with an "alleged" to differentiate it from the proven facts. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

See BobFromBrockley post above at 11:08, 17 October 2023 demonstrating how reliable sources report compared to Venanalysis; it's the same thing. They repeat the conspiracy theory unnecessarily, for which there is zero credible evidence, but try to dress it up by sticking an alleged on it. This is four years after the fact; everyone knows better by now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s very revealing that there is no answer to my argument m. It’s an admission option 1 is right Mottezen ( talk) 03:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

New example of false information added at the bottom of this RFC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC/Keep previous result (or option 4) this seems like another rushed RfC argued on the basis of misuse of the description of source in a specific article and on a contested (?) result in a different RfC. Per others this source is clearly troubling. It produces or reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources like Correo del Orinoco, Telesur to maintain the government narrative [95] and it is clearly highly opinionated. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is a masterful tour through the interconnected outlets for Venezuelan propaganda, showing the links between Venezuelanalysis and the rest of the propaganda network; what a pity it's not in English. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sandy, NoonIcarus had already posted this "masterful tour" and, as said above, is an article that plainly paints with a brush of guilt by association. We know that VA has former government staff and reposts some Venezuelan government articles. But that doesn't make VA directly unreliable, it makes the specific reposts unreliable and shows a bias, which isn't related to reliability (just using your previous reasoning).

  ReyHahn, whether or not it "reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources" say or is "highly opinionated", it does not make it unreliable. In your "Option 2" choice for La Patilla, you said "some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source". There haven't been any secondary sources providing proof of VA being unreliable (though its reposts may be questionable). You said La Patilla was "independent" even though its founder and leader Alberto Federico Ravell was part of the Juan Guaidó government and it has been widely been described as an opposition outlet. You also said that La Patilla "published many articles about government and opposition scandals". Well, guess what? So has Venezuelanalysis! So your argument that VA is "pro-government" and thus unreliable is hypocritical. WMrapids ( talk) 04:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just if I might drop in, English audiences might be familiar with the criminalization of demonstrators and opposition leaders, with terms such as "fascists" ( [96] [97] [98]) or "terrorists" ( [99]), similar to the tone used by right-wing outlets against groups such as antifa. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Those are opinion articles while the last article clearly attributes the claim to the government. Meanwhile your "Option 1" source La Patilla writes that " The Maduro regime subscribed to the interests of the Hamas terrorist group" after he only mentioned the difficulties faced by Palestinians, misattributing the EFE source. It has promoted the term "terrorist" towards Maduro in multiple instances, especially recently. [100] [101] [102] [103] I'm not here to defend Maduro at all or continue past arguments, but you have some apparent double standards when determining source reliability. WMrapids ( talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: Just another propaganda & fake news outlet serving the interests of a dictatorship. Tradedia ^talk 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per widespread arguments in the La Patilla RfC where editors argued that in instances where La Patilla was aggregating content, editors should not use any aggregated content and should evaluate original sources and use those if reliable. That Venezuelanalysis has reprinted Telesur can be treated in the same manner in this situation. I don’t find any other arguments strong enough for marking the source as unreliable or deprecation. There are accusations of bias towards the Venezuelan government’s perspective due to funding but I don’t see how those currently hold water given that there has been no evidence presented that Venezuela continues to fund Venezuelanalysis. TarnishedPath ^talk 05:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo - a source isn't unreliable because it reposts content that Wikipedians dislike. We could simply use VA's original articles, and treat the articles from deprecated sources as originating from the deprecated source, not VA. There's ample precedent for this. I also don't see how those funding arguments hold water given the fact that we regularly cite news outlets funded in whole or in part by governments, including multiple state-owned media outlets from the west. Philomathes2357 ( talk) 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please take a look above for examples of misleading or false content. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 00:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen them. My response would be that one can find examples of misleading or false content in every reliable source. Especially misleading content. VA is no different. But there is also a lot of useful information published there, that may not be widely available elsewhere in the English language press, and, especially given Wikipedia's ongoing problem with underrepresenting the points of view of people in the Global South, it would be a shame to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and deprecate the source based on some cherry-picked misleading or potentially false stories.

  Imagine if we had deprecated the NYT post-Iraq invasion? We certainly could have listed a lot of misleading and false reports, which had devastating real-life consequences, particularly those by Judith Miller - at least as many misleading reports as have been listed in this RFC. But deprecating NYT would have been a grave mistake, because we would have missed out on all the useful information that they publish. I'm not suggesting that NYT and VA are equivalent, but I am suggesting that the same logic necessitates, at minimum, voting "option 3" instead of "option 4". Philomathes2357 ( talk) 01:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Be careful, the examples of "false content" provided above are not actually false content. In most of the examples, VenezuelaAnalysis was ont reporting statements from government official, and it's true they said those things. Not one false statement found that was reported as fact by VenezuelaAnalysis. Mottezen ( talk) 06:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Again this is the work that we expect editors to do when citing sources. If a sources is quoting a government official, make it clear that the quote that is being used is a quote of a government official and not the article voice. I think this goes back to themes in my bolded vote. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. What's your reaction to Mottezen's assertion here, @ NoonIcarus? Philomathes2357 ( talk) 01:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

My point still stands my point still stands since there are many examples of the publication of false content from an editorial voice, and not only citing government officials: Pernalete's and Albán's killings, the reasons for blackouts, the university enrollment rate, and so on, and that's without going into misleading reporting and omissions, such as labelling the opposition as "fascists" or "terrorists", or offering uncritical comment to government policies, respectively. VA's description by independent sources leaves much to be desired, and this position has been shared by editors in Wikipedia since at least 2010. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Please cite me examples of the publication of false content from an editorial voice published by VenezuelaAnalysis. I have yet to find any such examples. Read above how purported examples misrepresented VA articles. Mottezen ( talk) 03:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a look again at the examples I have provided above, or those provided below by SandyGeorgia. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 00:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• PROPOSAL TO CLOSE Having taking the position that a new RFC was unwarranted given the dearth of actual citations to the source, it is probably inappropriate for me to close. But, after almost two weeks of discussion which has become largely repetitive among a handful of combatants, I would conclude that the consensus among the uninvolved, experienced editors who regularly contribute at RSN is the same as the last RFC: #3 bordering on #4. I'd invite any uninvolved experienced editor to close this RFC. Banks Irk ( talk) 23:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• New (2022) example (when does omission become a lie?):

  From News, Venezuela to ‘Rebuild Fellowship’ with Petro Gov’t in Colombia, August 8, 2022

  The alleged participants included former far-right opposition lawmaker Juan Requesens, who was sentenced to 8 years after confessing to having assisted in bringing in the explosive-laden drones used in the attack.

  Overlooking that VA consistently refers to opposition figures like Maria Corina Machado as far right, when unbiased sources don't, this News article states without reservation that Requesens confessed; they say he was an "alleged participant" in what is a disputed plot to begin with, but not that he "allegedly" confessed to bringing in the explosives. Please compare evidence of that "confession" to Wikipedia's reliably sourced account of this "confession". (Other Maduro administration coerced "confessions" covered at this article.) This is another example of how the allowance of Venezuelanalysis as a reliable source would impact BLPs. The author of that News item (a former writer for the deprecated Telesur) also writes this recent item, whose misrepresentations are so extensive that an analysis here would be TLDR and bore everyone to tears. This source lies. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  It clearly says "alleged" regarding Requesens and while you do bring up the opposition claiming he was drugged, he did technically confess. Whether that was under duress will probably forever be under debate. Also, taking a look at Maria Corina Machado before her article was recently scrubbed shows that plenty of other reliable sources describe her as "far right", so VA is not too out of line with reliable sources. Finally, more false equivalency between staff of VA and Telesur without a necessary TLDR that would explain any valid concern. WMrapids ( talk) 12:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Requesens shat his pants during that confession. Facts such as that shouldn't be in question at this point. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 10:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure a lot of people would too if they were captured and accused of attempting to kill a sitting president. As much as I disagree with actions by the Venezuelan government, you using the direct accusations by the opposition and presenting them as "facts ... that shouldn't be in question" shows exactly where your head is at. WMrapids ( talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Unless that theory is presented by sources, it is a personal conjecture that has no bearing in the discussion, and even then, I'm sure none of them have this broadcasted in national television. Reliable sources say that Requesens' sphincter loosened after being drugged ( [104] [105] [106]), just to mention a few). VA could have gone with their own theory, but they don't even acknowledge the fact, which fails to provide an accurate picture of the situation and is SandyGeorgia's main point. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here is the real quote (from the old version of the article): The alleged participants included former far-right opposition lawmaker Juan Requesens, who was sentenced to 8 years after confessing to having assisted in bringing in the explosive-laden drones used in the attack.

  See the hyperlink?? It redirects to an article which states that:

  Alleged personal testimony implicates both Borges and Requesens, as well as a series of other citizens allegedly involved.

  So the omission of "alleged" here is a mistake, as stated by TFD. If a wikipedia used this to use this article as a source for Requesens confession, the VenezuelaAnalysis article linked in the same sentence of that fact can be used as a reason for reverting that edit. To paint the source as "generally unreliable" based on this mistake would be blowing things way out of proportion. Mottezen ( talk) 23:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, you provided two examples of how coveraage differs in Venezuelanalysis and rs. Can you point to any differences in the facts reported? Reliability is determined by whether reporting is factual, not which party they happen to endorse. TFD ( talk) 14:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I gave you one just above this; they say Requesens confessed, which is so dubious as to be more akin to a falsehood. The way other sources treat the "confession" is at his article. And I disagree with the statement that the placement of the 'alleged' isn't relevant; they say he was an alleged participant; they clearly don't say he 'allegedly' confessed. They present that as fact. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Closure request; [107] ( The Four Deuces, I did not see your new comment when I added the closure request; please let me know if you think I should withdraw it. I suspect that the closure requests are running so far behind that it won't make a difference, and anyone looking here to close won't do so if new comments are still coming in anyway, so I'm inclined to leave it alone, unless you disagree.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 According to CBC News, "Officials have released a filmed statement of Requesens that they say shows an admission, but he never appears to confess or mention the attack." [108] Venezuelanalysis incorrectly says he confessed,as SandyGeorgia points out.

In order to address the question, we should a reliable source that assesses the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. As some editors have pointed out, errors of this type occur in all media. It's a matter of expert judgment whether this makes the source unreliable.

In the absence of a reliable source that says Venezuelanalysis is reliable, I cannot support option one. However, I wouldn't support Option 4 either, which would preclude using any articles even ones that met rs for self-publication.

TFD ( talk) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the acknowledgement, and understand your hesitancy relative to other reliable sources, but in the interest of assuring the extent of inaccuracies in Venezuelanalysis is adequately reflected in the closing statement of this RFC, I note that scores of instances similar to the misrepresentation of the confession exist.

Here's another example: Venezuelanalysis reported on April 22, 2023 that "Albán, an opposition councilman, fell to his death from a tenth-floor window in October 2018." Note the dates in relation to how other sources reported on his death all along, until early May 2023, when chavismo admitted he had been murdered in custody. There is no "reportedly" attached to that Venezuelanalysis sentence, as there are to other statements in the same report. The rest of the paragraph gives the howevers/disclaimers, but nonetheless, the sentence states as fact that he "fell to his death" years after that was known to be a dubious statement, as reported by reliable sources; you can see our reliably sourced account at Fernando Albán for a good sampling of how other sources handled the account all along.

Samples like this abound; the source should never be used for a BLP, and is equally unreliable in its por-chavismo statistical/economic reporting. When the misrepresentations are frequent, systematic, and never withdrawn, they aren't errors like any news outlet; at some point, the preponderance of misrepresentations accumulate to being part of the chavista propaganda network. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The article you are referencing is titled Venezuela: Attorney General Launches Probe into Corruption Suspect Custody Death. It is about how the Venezuela government is investigating suspicious deaths of suspects in the custody of SEBIN.

The neutral statement you fished at the bottom of that article is in the same paragraph as the following sentences:

Authorities originally ruled [Alban's death] a suicide. However, the investigation was reopened following pressure from multilateral organizations, including the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and two SEBIN officers were charged with involuntary manslaughter.

To me, this article illustrates VenezuelaAnalysis' commitment to covering the news accurately despite its POV. Mottezen ( talk) 23:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Two lowly officers being charged in Venezuela may or may not have any relationship to whoever did whatever really happened, or ordered it done. They don't mention what all reliable sources reported since 2018 (water on his lungs), and they don't mention what chavismo officials claimed it was suicide. Because mentioning those individuals would perhaps not be politic, and maybe Venanalysis cares more about not being censored in Venezuela, like the rest of the press has, than journalistic standards. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe they didn't elaborate more because Alban is not the subject of that article. Mottezen ( talk) 00:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a mention either on how human rights groups, relatives and others criticized that the officers were not indicted with torture or mmurder, but rather with a more lenient charge (involuntary manslaughter). At the end they were sentenced to less than 3 years in prison, contrary to the 10 or 15 years at least they could have faced otherwise, meaning they have already been released. Venezuelanalysis fails to mention any of this, and as such fails to provide an accurate picture of the case. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 00:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I emailed VenezuelaAnalysis about this mistake, and they published a correction immediately:

Editor’s note: This article was amended on Nov. 11, 2023 to correct information concerning Requesens’ imprisonment. A previous version stated that he confessed his involvement in the 2018 assassination attempt against Maduro. However, this was asserted by Venezuelan authorities, not publicly disclosed.

Issuing corrections is a signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy, per WP:NEWSORG. Mottezen ( talk) 02:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Very nice work, and I'm glad that you got them to correct one error, but there are scores to hundreds more just like it. It's a systematic issue, and while picking out the blatant like this one is fairly easy for those who follow reliable sources, it's not necessarily easy for average readers, who may be misled, and getting the less apparent corrected could comprise an entire career.

Since Wikipedia is so high profile, might they have made such a speedy correction to satisfy this discussion and increase their chances at having their reliability viewed more favorably on Wikipedia?

1. Would you be willing to also ask them why "Alban ... fell to this death", rather than adding the persons who "reported that Alban ... fell to his death"? Or why they left out entirely the mention that other/most sources reported there was water in his lungs when he "fell"?
2. Would you be willing to ask them to explain in full Venezuelanalysis detail their characterization in this article of Jose Brito ? The Official Journal of the European Union provides some helpful starting places for their research.
3. If I can also ask you to do the favor of getting them to correct the errors here, that would be helpful.

There's scores more; correcting one error doesn't convince they will do more of same, or continue doing same if they can get more of their "work" spread across Wikipedia. But if you are also successful at getting them to address those three, for starters, I'd be willing to upgrade my previous declaration (3 or 4). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not enough to just assert there are "scores to hundreds more just like it". You must explain what they get wrong with reliable sources instead of just re-asserting previous arguments. Point 1 and 3 deal with issues discussed earlier in the RfC. For 2, it's unclear what you object to in the characterization of José Brito in that article. In any case, you should email them yourself. Mottezen ( talk) 00:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel a lot will be accomplished on this thread by me adding scores of examples, when I've already been shown correct on several, to the extent of a surprisingly speedy correction when you wrote them. Because of Wikipedia's prominence, it's likely that Venezuelanalysis staff is following this thread. Even if you don't see the problem with the second example, by reading the European Parliament source (which I provide even though it's a primary source, because it's in English and most secondary sources are in Spanish, but say the same thing), that's OK, because Venezuelanalysis editors will know what's wrong with it, and do know how to correct all three of these examples. I'm not changing my stance on VA based on you getting them to correct one blatant error that never should have been written to begin with. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

A small amendment made more than a year after the article's publication cannot be proof of editorial oversight, unlike other outlets whose corrections are issued in days (or either minutes or hours, in the best cases). Furthermore, the current version still refers to Requesens inaccurately as "far-right". -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 00:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this particular example is something that was very well known a very long time ago, and they did nothing until a Wikipedian wrote to them: odd, that. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ The Four Deuces:. I was meaning to provide descriptions by reliable sources but forgot, too many irons in the fire.

The first thing that I noticed is that barely any reliable sources cite VA, which should be a red flag per WP:USEBYOTHERS. When it was, it has been consistently described as "pro-Chávez" (such as by Financial Times). One of the most interesting ones that I found was at a New York Times critical review of Oliver Stone's South of the Border, where it criticizes that outlet's conflicts of interests where not disclosed when discussing the Llaguno Overpass events, stating that it was set up with donations from the Venezuelan government, affiliations that Mr. Stone does not disclose.

However, I found several descriptions offered by Caracas Chronicles:

• In its early days, back in 2004 and possibly one of its first post, the editors address this comment directly to Gregory Wilpert: So Greg, please, if you want to have a discussion of income inequality, social exclusion, and privilege, let's have it. I think I can show Chavez has deepened each of those, not with rhetoric, but with statistics. But please don't falsify Venezuela's reality by making claims about race relations that are not only wrong, but destructive.
• Weeks later, it offers a rather sarcastic description, questioning the site's financement and editorial independence: Venezuelanalysis.com is an editorially independent website produced by individuals who are dedicated to disseminating news and analysis about Venezuela. It is financially dependent upon donations and advertising. Hmmm. I wonder what that means exactly. Who are these donors? Who are these advertisers? are there any advertisers? How much does a Google sponsored link cost anyway? Who pays? And how come an “editorially independent website” has a links section with seven pro-Chavez links and not a single voice on the other side?
• Again, months later the same year, VA is described as being part of Chávez' "delusional servants" when criticizing the presidency's political detentions, saying: You can find some by lifting the rocks in haunts such as Venezuelanalysis.com or Le Monde Diplomatique. How about the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)? [...] They are all are marked by a common denominator: an inability, or unwillingness, to conduct solid, quantititative analysis to support their ideals. And so these princes and princesses of the proletariat market and sell their flim-flam dreams from far away, with no concept of practical realities inherent in an economy they completely disregard. While the poor, whose numbers have escalated in the past five years of the Chavez administration, are left with no option but to buy in, in exchange for dole. And tears when hunger is at the doorstep.
• Years later, in 2010, Caracas Chronicles describes VA and Wilpert as "government apologists", pointing out to false claims about the Llaguno Overpass events: But Wilpert is misinformed. Not only were there plenty of National Guard troops around Miraflores that day, but they were actually deployed, en masse, on Baralt Avenue. They sat there all afternoon, watching a four-hour gun battle and did nothing to stop it. Which brings new credence to reports that Chávez and his cabinet had discussed deploying the Bolivarian Circles in conjunction with the National Guard four days before the march.

We should bear in mind that Caracas Chronicles, specially in its early years, has had a left-wing, albeit critical, editorial line.

Last but not least, we have the Portales de la mentira report, republished by media outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Estímulo, and Alberto News. As mentioned above, it puts VA's reliability into question.

Please let us know if these descriptions would make you reconsider your vote. Kind regards and best wishes, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Political bias and reliability are two separate issues. There is nothing in policy that says sources written by people who do not support U.S. foreign policy or capitalism are unacceptable. Ownership or support of a publication is also irrelevant. The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, al Jazeera is supported by @atar and NBC was owned by a defence contractor.

Also, analysis in news media is unreliable per policy.

I don't think the sources you provided qualify as experts.

I checked one of the complaints in the article by Effecto Cocuyo you provided. It accuses South Front of spreading Russian disinformation by falsely claiming that the U.S. diverted $601 million of Venezuelan funds to the border wall with Mexico. In fact, the article in South Front did not make this claim: it reported what a Univision article had claimed. Univision actually made this claim in an article written by its senior editor, David C. Adams. [109]

Univision is a respected source. [110] But if you think running this type of story merits banning a publication, you should start with Univision, which it probably used in Wikipedia far more frequently.

I will however change my vote to unreliable. That means that the only articles we should use are ones that would be considered reliable if they were self-published. TFD ( talk) 21:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what you're saying. I wanted to bring the attention both to the issue of editorial independence and of reliability (in this case, regarding the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt). -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 02:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)