Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources

La Patilla

For any of those interested, an RfC regarding La Patilla's reliability has been started. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Latest changes

I'm concerned to see a series of changes that seem to follow a prevailing fallacy established by chavismo: that if media is critical to the government, it means that they are pro-opposition. There are plenty of examples El Nacional has historically criticized Acción Democrática and COPEI equally, RCTV would grow even more critical of President Luis Herrera Campins after he outlawed alcohol and tobacco commercials in the 80s, and President Jaime Lusinchi would go on to use paper distribution as pressure because newspapers were critical of him. That never meant these outlets were affiliated to a party, a group or another.

The Venezuelan media has always been critical of the government, regardless of its party, because that's what a free press does: question and scrutinize. Many of these outlets were likewise subject to reprisals by the respective administrations, although never as severe as the ones under Chávez and Maduro.

@WMrapids: One of the very links that you provided in a different discussion (Venezuela media guide), to prove a different point, describes the same outlets that you're now labeling as "pro-opposition" or "opposition leaning" as independent, including Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo. It's understandable that you might have complaints against La Patilla, whose biases have already been acknowledged in the list for quite some time now, but it seems that you're putting in the same bag outlets that are award winning, longstanding and investigative. I strongly advise you to restore the descriptions last stable version, especially when no examples of partiality have been provided, and to explain more specifically the concerns that you might have with other outlets. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, a neutral point off view is one of the five pillars of the encyclopedia. Prior to my edits, none of the news outlets that had opposition ties listed had their partisanship described. However, NoonIcarus and the others who created this page arbitrarily state "By consensus across the Wikipedia community, state sources of Venezuela are unreliable. Independent sources operating in the country and in neighboring nations, several using citizen journalism, are seen as more reliable for Venezuela-specific reports." This is a far cry from what BBC Monitoring describes "Objective, non-partisan media sources are hard to find inside the country".

If this article is truly designed to promote reliability, then it should provide the reader the context on sources in a similar manner to WP:RSP, not just say "state sources bad, non-state sources good". Such wording is partisan itself and just feeds into the polarization even more. For the case of this essay, the average Wikipedia reader is not going to be reading this article; it will typically be an editing user. If the reader were a semi-decent user, they would know that per WP:PARTISAN, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Maybe we can place the WP:PARTISAN link in the article for users who fear describing the partisanship of sources?

We don't have to hold the hands of users and be afraid to provide important context for them regarding the bias of sources. The designations of partisanship are vital for users as it provides proper context in case there are extraordinary claims by sources (such as the descriptions in WP:RSP). So, further personal calls directed at me to "restore" and delete information that reliable sources thought were contextually important will be recognized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would respectively and strongly advise those making such accusations to please see WP:NOTCENSORED: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. ... '[B]eing objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content".

In summary, in order to provide an actual resource for users to determine reliability, we have to provide context on the sources in an impartial manner so that users may know that some sources may be partial, whether they are "pro-government" or "pro-opposition". Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There has not been a single example on how sources like Efecto Cocuyo or El Pitazo are partisan sources. They have always used way more neutral titles than those by La Patilla, for instance, balanced content and, contrary to La Patilla as a news aggregator, they have a trajectory of fact checking and investigation, offering a lot more depth to their content. Sticking with a single definition or term of an article, even after you find contrasting definitions, is the textbook definition of cherry picking. It seems that you're extrapolating La Patilla's RfC and judging all of the listed sources in the same light, which is just plainly wrong.

By the way, regarding the article's introduction, you can read the summary and precedent of WP:TELESUR at WP:RS/P: Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. Telesur is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Saying that the volunteers chose description "arbitrarily" is insulting. If you disagree that state sources are unreliable, you're free to offer arguments on the contrary, and in the meantime you can try to contrast the existing information on the topic: Lechuginos, Lechuginos update, Con El Mazo Dando.

Pinging @Kingsif:, the creator of the page, and @ReyHahn:, the main contributors to the page. In the case of the former, given it has been long since its creation, it might be useful to have their input. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the last time I read the list, I find some of the accusations by WMrapids not only plainly false, but troubling. Nowhere does the list claim "state sources bad, non-state sources good"; they also seem to fail to have read the extensive discussions outside this page and this project which establish that state sources in Venezuela are, indeed, not to be trusted at all (WP:TELESUR, as pointed out). The way they think BBC Monitoring saying (per their quote) that "objective sources are hard to find" is any (let alone very) different from our (per their quote) "independent sources are seen as more reliable" suggests that they either struggle with some phrasings in English ("more" of course a comparative) or understand but don't like that it isn't hardline critical. I don't know why they seem to think that the list shies away from describing the biases and history of sources when the notes have been extensive; perhaps they have a personal reason. As an aside, their "argument" that all sources must be partisan just by existing, when that goes directly against the history of, e.g. in this case Efecto Cocuyo, is just a theoretical opinion. I note that NoonIcarus was very pleasant and, to promote discussion, asked WMrapids why they believed certain sources were politically partisan; the latter did not respond except with (effectively) 'because they do'. I find the premise of WMrapids (seemingly that the list should not be so critical of government sources) to be itself non-neutral. However, when the list is maintained at a stable version, invite them to bring the evidence they must have to discussion. Whether it be at the WikiProject (not here, a subpage, ideally) or at RSP. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if I appear harsh Kingsif, but if someone is going to "strongly advise", I will "strongly advise" in return, when appropriate. Valid concerns of Wikipedia users about a group of users arbitrarily defining WP:RS through WP:OR should not be described as "plainly false", "troubling" or a "personal reason", so as a fellow experienced user, please WP:Assume good faith. I could easily say that you three members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela have a "personal reason" for creating this list and you could even be directly affected by all of this. I could say that NoonIcarus was WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to "restore the descriptions last stable version". But I'm going to look past that.

  With that out of the way, the real issue with the list is this; it is purely WP:OR by a handful of users while WP:RSP is established by a review process and broad consensus. When this list was brought up in a separate talk page, I naturally took a look. What I found was "By consensus across the Wikipedia community, state sources of Venezuela are unreliable. Independent sources operating in the country ... are seen as more reliable for Venezuela-specific reports". Ok, but according to who? Maybe we could specify this in the introduction and reword it (include WP:TELESUR, etc?).

  Reviewing the list further, I saw "Bolivarian government supportive", "Run by partisan members to Chávez and Maduro", "pro-Maduro tabloid", "Pro-government opinionated", but hardly saw any mention of anything being mentioned as "opposition". So, I looked into the background of some sources and found the BBC Monitoring media analysis source and placed information into the list to provide context. Providing such details on WP:RSP is commonplace; for example, Al Jazeera's listing states "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. ... Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict" while for HuffPost, which is generally reliable, it is listed as "HuffPost (excluding politics)" This context is important, so it shouldn't be different with the Venezuelan list. I'm not sure why some users don't want opposition sources to be described as opposition sources, but they are what they are, according to a reliable source. And this list needs some more reliable sources.

  So please, let's look past the harshness and make the list better. That was my only intention. :) WMrapids (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, the last time I read the list, there were notes on every source. Additionally, as the list notes at the top, it is the consensus of users involved in the WikiProject Venezuela, it doesn't pretend to be anything more than that. If you can give examples of entries that are lacking context and why, and if you can explain why you think a WikiProject cannot give its own advice, let's discuss. Kingsif (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  And like I said, NoonIcarus brought up the list in a discussion, so if it can be accessed and used in arguments throughout Wikipedia, then every user becomes involved, not just WikiProject Venezuela. WMrapids (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Accusing someone of canvassing for pinging two users, specially when they're the main contributors to the essay, is rich. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll offer the description offered by the other BBC link you provided:

• Efecto Cocuyo - online, independent news outlet
• El Pitazo - online, independent news outlet

• I'll also add that concluding that an outlet is from the opposition when the sources refer to the director as such is WP:SYNTH. The source must directly describe the outlet as pro-opposition, or at least there must be examples of said stance, or otherwise the assertion is original research.

  Both El Pitazo and Efecto Cocuyo have offered negative or critical coverage of the opposition in the past several times:

• El Pitazo: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
• Efecto Cocuyo: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

--NoonIcarus (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR. BBC is a separate entity and reliable source. I'll take their word for it.

Also, why can't it be both independent and pro-opposition? There's no issue with that at all. WMrapids (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC Monitoring is a division of the BBC, is it not?

Independent and pro-opposition are contradictory to each other, as independent is related to editorial independent, as well as critical reporting, as it is the case with said sources. The term is further problematic as it can give the impression that these newspapers are affiliated with opposition political parties, which is simply not true. Here are other examples of outlets describing Efecto Cocuyo as independent: Human Rights Watch, Reuters, Americas Quarterly--NoonIcarus (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Independent can mean multiple things. It can be independently-funded, independently-ran, etc. It can support the opposition and still be independent on its own. So no, "pro-opposition" ≠ "not independent". WMrapids (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, BBC notes "Other similar opposition-leaning independent Venezuelan news websites that have sprung up in recent years include Caraota Digital (Digital Bean), offering "direct to the grain information" and El Pitazo (The Whistle Blast)". So yeah, they can be both, it doesn't have to be so black and white. WMrapids (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

More sources would probably use the terms at the same time if it was an accurate description.

If what we are looking after is to reflect the panorama of sources and mention the pro-opposition ones, the list already details Caraota Digital, DolarToday, Maduradas and even La Patilla. There isn't a need for a false balance on "both sides" or that only polarization exists. While I have the time, I'll also offer another statement when Efecto Cocuyo was founded, and whose picture is still present nowadays: Recent purchase and sale of media has resulted in the drastic change of editorial line and the loss of the independent character when it comes to informing. With the birth of Efecto Cocuyo, they seek to "enlighten" the country([16]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to ask, regarding one of the other last changes to the introduction: you mentioned that WP:GREL are recognized as the most reliable sources regarding Venezuelan topics. Is this meant to be interpreted as international outlets outside Venezuela, or excludes those that have not been subject to a RfC yet? Venezuelan investigations include access and in the ground reporting, and in many aspects, including malnutrition and homicides, they are definitely still the best sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

One last point for the moment, if I may: regarding the Caracas Chronicles article used to cast doubt in Bocaranda's professionalism: it is dated by 2009, way before Bocaranda gained popularity and the founding of the portal Runrun.es, and his radio talkshow "Los Runrunes de Nelson Bocaranda" is definitely different from the news outlet that Runrun.es is today. Again, when discussing reliability we should address the outlets, not journalists (and in this case, more importantly, with updated sources). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I provided some context regarding Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo, showing that they review their work more thoroughly than other sites, unlike La Patilla. This should help provide balance. WMrapids (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

While I appreciate the intent, the phrasing will still represent a false balance, because "pro-opposition" is not an accurate description. I'll recap the most important reasons:

• Several reliable sources simply describe outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo and Runrunes as independent
• Many examples have been offered showing critical coverage about the opposition, while no examples have been provided to show why they are pro-opposition
• Titles and phrasing used by these outlets are more impartial and professional than references with a lower ranking in the lists, such as Caraota Digital and Maduradas (the comparisons have not been made yet, but they can be done if needed and we can have an idea based on some of the articles already provided above).

All of this shows that it is not a majority point of view, as WP:WEIGHT states that it should for a mention with editorial voice. Considering the existing opposition, the best options are either to offer a response to these points that largely changes the situation, reach an agreement that meets this principle or to drop the stick. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: See this edit. If you personally listed "pro-government" sources as "unreliable" just for their partisanship, why do you prevent sources from being described as "pro-opposition"?

• "Several reliable sources simply describe outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo and Runrunes as independent"
  • Again, "pro-opposition" sources can be independent, so I think that is something you may not understand. Looking at independent media, it simply states "Independent media refers to any media, such as television, newspapers or Internet-based publications, that is free of influence by government or corporate interests". It doesn't say anything regarding bias or partisanship, which many independent media outlets have.
• "Many examples have been offered showing critical coverage about the opposition, while no examples have been provided to show why they are pro-opposition"
  • We don't need examples when WP:GREL sources have described these sources as "pro-opposition. Quit moving the goalposts.
• "All of this shows that it is not a majority point of view"
  • No one else has edited this article recently besides you and I, so if you believe you hold the "majority point of view", I have a policy for you to look at.

WMrapids (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Only 1 out of the 5 links that have been posted here [17][18][19][20][21] do not refer to the outlets as "opposition", and even less as both, "independent" and "opposition". When I was referring to "a majority point of view", I was referring to the references, per WP:WEIGHT. For a page to use editorial voice, it must reflect a point of view shared by a majority of sources, which is not the case here. WP:OWN can be proven false by just looking to the amount of changes you have made in the page, and the policy does not entitle you to apply every single change undisputed, but since you have cited it several times, it would be good to quote part of it: Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In the same vein, there's a guideline I can point out to too: WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I have counted at least four times now that I have shown how there are many sources that don't refer to the outlets as "opposition", yet you continue to hang stubbornly to this position, particularly with the BBC Monitoring link. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following options is suitable regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources?

• Option 1: Maintain status quo
• Option 2: WikiProject Venezuela cedes control of the article to the Wikipedia community
• Option 3: Future sanctions for users who cite the page similar to Wikipedia policy on the project
• Option 4: Delete page and refer to existing WP:RSP
• Option 5: Other proposal or a combination of proposals

Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

---

 Comment: I was brought to "WP:VENRS" after NoonIcarus directed me to the page. WP:VENRS was created by the users Kingsif, NoonIcarus and ReyHahn, all active members of WikiProject Venezuela. Upon reading WP:VENRS, it was apparent that original research was being presented as fact by the three users, who included WP:Puff amongst certain sources that have been described as supporting the Venezuelan opposition and labeled some sources "generally reliable" while casually mentioning that they republished WP:BLACKLIST content. This behavior could possibly raise WP:ADVOCACY concerns as well.

As a result of reviewing WP:VENRS, an updated edit providing more context was placed and Talk:La_Patilla#RfC:_Reliability_of_La_Patilla was opened out of concern to WP:BALANCE and WP:RS. The edits were reversed by NoonIcarus, who stated "you're pushing for a version that clearly does not have consensus", despite much of the article not receiving an inclusive consensus of the Wikipedia community. NoonIcarus would also ping their fellow article creators to provide "their input" in the dispute.

After presenting this background, the main concern is this; WP:VENRS has not been created by an inclusive WP:Consensus, the page is merely a WP:ADVICEPAGE/WP:ESSAY and yet it is being imposed by WikiProject Venezuela members as WP:POLICY throughout the project. Something striking about WP:ADVICEPAGE is this statement: "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope ... An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. Contents of WikiProject advice pages that contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace." Despite this, NoonIcarus (1234567891011121314151617) has arbitrarily used WP:VENRS through dozens of bold edits throughout the Wikipedia community, citing it similarly to WP:POLICY. It may not be known what has been removed or placed by these edits citing WP:VENRS throughout Wikipedia without an extensive review by users.

Looking through all of this, there are a few options:

• Option 1: Maintain status quo. Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela can edit the essay as they choose and users can impose its views throughout the project.
• Option 2: WikiProject Venezuela cedes control of the article to the Wikipedia community. In WP:ADVICEPAGE, it is stated "Some important site-wide topical guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and Wikipedia:Notability (books), originally began as advice pages written by WikiProjects. However, after being adopted by the community, they are no longer WikiProject advice pages and have the same status as any other guideline. When this happens, the WikiProject's participants cede any notion of control over the page, and everyone in the community participates equally in further development of the guidelines." This will give direct control of determining the reliability of Venezuela-related sources to the community.
• Option 3: Future sanctions for users who cite the page similar to Wikipedia policy on the project. A notice can be placed on the page advising users that they may be sanctioned for citing WP:VENRS as policy. Emphasis on the future with sanctions since users are now being made aware of the issue, but citing WP:VENRS in edit summaries blatantly violates WP:ADVICEPAGE, WP:OR and WP:RS.
• Option 4: Delete page and refer to existing WP:RSP. This may also be a solution because as WP:RSP was established through years of consensus by hundreds of editors, while WP:VENRS was created by three users who assumed ownership over the article without widespread consensus.
• Option 5: Other proposal or a combination of proposals. As always, we should be open to all ideas to improve the project, especially in respect to WP:5P.

In summary, this is not something that I wanted to do, (there is enough drama related to Peru-related articles) but I had to do. Recognizing that the reliability of certain Wikipedia articles was possibly in jeopardy, these concerns have been raised. This RfC opening is also in no way to disrespect Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela and all of its members. Through reviewing material regarding Venezuela, I have seen that this is a highly contentious subject, so I must respect the troubles you members navigate to edit related articles. There is no doubt that finding reliable sources related to Venezuela is an imperative task for Wikipedia, though it must be done in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully we can all collaborate to make more improvements in the future and please don't take my concerns personally.

Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Option X: non-neutral RFC: Any editor can write an essay. Any editor can link an essay. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell we're going to be sanctioning these people for writing an essay even if it is the most biased essay imaginable. Nor is there any chance of deleting the essay or even taking it over. Even including these options as if they are a thing that can happen makes this RFC very much non-neutral.

This doesn't mean that you have to listen to them when they cite it. You have the absolute right to say "that's just an essay". But there's basically no way we're going to actually do anything about this essay exactly because it is completely unenforceable and just some editors' opinion. Loki (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• "There isn't a snowball's chance in hell we're going to be sanctioning these people for writing an essay"
  • You're missing the point, especially my well-intentioned wording of "Future sanctions" for the misuse of WP:VENRS. NoonIcarus possibly didn't review the the content of WP:ADVICEPAGE, so I am not calling for any current sanctions against them.
• "Even including these options as if they are a thing that can happen makes this RFC very much non-neutral."
  • There is no intention to limit information being presented from others, if that is what you are referring to as "non-neutral". But the usage of WP:VENRS either needs oversight from the wider Wikipedia community or there needs to be some sort of disincentive against users who try to use it as policy. In no way is this an effort to limit the opinion of others. Again, I recognize that "finding reliable sources related to Venezuela is an imperative task for Wikipedia", so while I can agree with the effort of trying to list reliable sources, I disagree with the misuse of the list.

WMrapids (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Any editor can link an essay and it doesn't obligate you to WP:SATISFY them at all. Also, deleting this essay will not stop the underlying content dispute because it won't change the writers' opinion about these sources. You want WP:DRN or maybe WP:RSN. Loki (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: I see no reason for a Wikiproject to be enforcing its thoughts on reliable sources on the wider community. I don't like the look of the edit history (WP:OWN issues), there are issues with its reliablity, and it is being used as policy when it is not. If the Wikiproject wants their essay to be policy they can go to WP:RSN and get a wider community consensus there. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've just read some of the diffs, and this has only strengthened my opinion. NoonIcarus, a creator of the essay, has gone around and used it as policy, referring users to it and removing citations based on it. @NoonIcarus: Could you explain your side of the story here? I think it will be constructive for future !voters. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JML1148:, kindly thank you for the notification. I have provided content in the response below and I can refer to WP talk:VENRS#Latest changes as well about more recent changes. Many of WMRapids changes remain in the page, as it has happened in other cases, including a much needed description change of La Patilla and the inclusion of Monitor de Víctimas to the list. However, WMRapids has repeatedly sought to label at least six different outlets as "pro-opposition" as a result of a move discussion where the essay (and the mentioned sources before that) was cited, despite extensive arguments in the talk page of why this is inaccurate. The introduction seems to subject I have reverted the RfC about La Patilla, but it is pretty much ongoing (Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla). Regarding my changes, my rationale has been mostly based on WP:GUNREL, namely sources with user-generated content or that don't correct errors among other reasons. In normal cases I would point out to WP:RS/P directly, but given in many cases there aren't discussions for the reasons I provided, I have cited WP:VENRS to offer more context that the one that could provided only with an edit summary. Part of the introduction points out to editorial issues, and I'd be glad to address any related concerns or issues, but this RfC seems to want to take action in the essay as a whole as a result. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC:, per LokiTheLiar. This RfC suggests as options to either keep the essay as it is or for it to be limited, without an alternative to improve it. If the RfC opened a much needed discussion on the reliability of several sources, providing examples, it would have been much better. This noticeboard focuses in the discussion of particular sources, whose reliability has to be examined on a case to case basis. Several of the listed sources have very limited use in Wikipedia (such as Al Navío, El Cooperante or Cronica Uno) or have no use at all (including La Hojilla and Noticiero Digital), which would not be enough for an inclusion at WP:RSP. WP:VENRS allows the discussion of the sources to be more specific, and several WikiProjects have subpages to group sources based on reliability, including but not limited to WikiProject Africa, WikiProject AfroCine, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Film and WikiProject Korea. Any user unrelated to the WikiProject is free to offer feedback.

I hate to bring it up, but I also have to talk about WP:POINT and provide context to participants due to its strong connection to the RfC. This RfC takes place after WP:VENRS was cited in the Operation Gideon article move discussion on 4 June ([22]), a move which in turn was started less than two hours after the move discussion of the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article, one that I started, was closed on 24 May with an outcome opposed by WMRapids. The following day after WPVENRS was cited in the discussion, the editor sought to describe the sources outright as "pro-opposition", aligned with their response at the move discussion: Much of the "editorial voice" is from media opposed to Maduro (El Nacional, La Patilla, El Pitazo), so a potential for bias does exist. Interestingly enough, nearly all of the sources changed in WP:VENRS were the same cited in said discussion, and not only La Patilla (5 out of 6 Venezuelan, and out of 10 in total): El Nacional ([23][24]), El Pitazo ([25][26]), La Patilla ([27][28]), Tal Cual ([29][30]), Runrunes ([31][32]). Other main media outlets in the country, such as El Estímulo, El Universal, Prodavinci, VIVOplay and VPItv, have not been changed by WMRapids in the list. I don't think the editor means disruption, but the causes are self evident and the results would affect the arguments provided, as to the date that this RfC was opened said move request is pretty much still open, WP:VENRS can still be seen by other participants from there and can ultimately influence the outcome of the move discussion.

Let be clear about this: as any essay, it obviously does not mean it overrules the community's decisions in any way, WP:RS/P already has the highest weight in the page's description and input is really needed, so any participant here is welcome to participate at the page. Knowing which options do you have when writing article and having an idea of their reliability is needed in a country that already has a low freedom of the press index. Outlets that have been recently bought or changed their editorial line, such as El Universal, Globovisión and Últimas Noticias, have had their digital archives deleted, and many articles of the new online outlets have lost articles due to domain changes forced by blocks, losing forever information that is sometimes exclusive (WP:NOW WP:TIAD). To merely suggest sanctioning editors for its use would be very detrimental to Wikipedia's goal, which is to gather knowledge in a verifiable and neutral manner. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --WMrapids (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the ping. I agree that this is a strange RfC, and I still find that WMrapids' manner of discussion at the essay was itself non-neutral, but taking this as an opportunity for broader discussion, I would suggest WMrapids' Option 5 or something like it. I have generally trusted NoonIcarus' views on sources and so haven't concerned myself with his edits, but maybe I should have checked and guided him to be more gentle; otherwise, I've always advocated for a wider discussion of entries in the essay and this hasn't changed. Though, I can't say I have a lot of trust in users unfamiliar with the troubles and media environment in Venezuela to come to the best conclusions, is my only fear - e.g. because of economic crises even some official institution websites are hosted on free blogging services, which many uninformed users will probably immediately write off. So if an other proposal or combination of proposals can be made that see to more input, but informed input, I would like to see those proposals. (Also, to note, option 2 is a strange one - either it stays as a WikiProject advice essay, or it gets absorbed into RSP, surely?) Kingsif (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  • "I've always advocated for a wider discussion of entries in the essay and this hasn't changed"
    • This is true. You have encouraged a broader response, so thank you Kingsif. But it is difficult when we have WP:OWN edits from users who revert WP:GOODFAITH edits related to reliability concerns.
  • "option 2 is a strange one - either it stays as a WikiProject advice essay, or it gets absorbed into RSP, surely?"
    • We could always use the process used to create Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to move this page to something like "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (Venezuela)" or maybe create a sub-section on WP:RSP. Overall, your intention of creating a resource to guide users towards reliable Venezuela-related sources seems well, but maintaining the current situation of WP:VENRS that has WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues is untenable.

  WMrapids (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps one of those other proposals could be, simply, to bring every source in the essay to discussion? It could be a first step to resolve concerns with NPOV before a more effort-heavy move or development. Kingsif (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Or Option 4 should be altered slightly from deleting the page to a merge after discussion at WP:RSN. A draft RfC would have improved the quality of the options here. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  And since I'm probably the only person on this page who knows precisely what the process was for creating WP:MEDRS, since I helped start it, the answer to that is just ... NO ... not even close. The pages are not even remotely the same thing or trying to do the same thing, nor would that idea ever fly.

  WMrapids, while your intentions are good, you don't seem to have a good grasp on how to formulate an RFC, or how to use a page like this relative to how to use WP:RSN and WP:RSP. And you've started duplicate topics at the Reliable sources noticeboard. My suggestion for you at this point is to shut down this malformed RFC; the options given are not even all possibilities within Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines. And having now seen this, you would be well advised to slow down and understand better how Wikipedia works before launching any more proposals or RFCs in an area in to which you have recently ventured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 This essay seems to be primarily being used by a long-term POV pusher to justify their edits. There is no need for this when WP:RSP/WP:RSN exists. Number 57 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. It is normal and acceptable for WikiProjects to maintain reliable sources lists. There are numerous examples of other such lists, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, etc. These lists do not carry as much weight as WP:RSPSOURCES or WP:RSN, but they can be helpful to users. With that said, if there are suspected problems with a list, I think it is most productive to try to repair the list rather than delete it. Repair normally happens via talk page discussions at the list talk page or the WikiProject talk page, where editors discuss and achieve consensus. If there are concerns about bias, then I would suggest using WP:RSN to help involve unbiased editors in the discussion and to get something stronger than a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: There's no issue with the Wikiproject having the list. I think WMRapids' main concern here is that the essay may have WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues, as well as being used as policy when it is not. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: The comparison to Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources doesn't really stick; WP:VENRS relies on WP:OR, WP:PUFF and does not provide a balanced context on partisanship while the Korean page provides succinct descriptions with no regard to partisanship (though, the media atmosphere in Korea appears to be much less polarized than Venezuela).

  However, I do agree that we should repair the list instead of deleting it. This is a fairly detailed list on sources (despite the WP:OR and WP:PUFF issues) and it would be valuable for covering the controversial Venezuela-related content on the project, especially if we provided a more inclusive consensus platform for users. If we could create a community-based list with brief details and proper context about Venezuela-related sources, it could provide a lasting resource for future users who want to engage in Venezuelan articles. WMrapids (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Some thoughts:
  • I disagree with several assessments in this page, such as considering state media as "generally unreliable" just because it is state media, or considering the sensationalist yellow outlet Maduradas as more reliable than all state media.
  • That being said, there are many WikiProjects with specialized source guides and that is fine (including WP:NPPSG!). These can be good as advice, but should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, I will not abide by assessments in WP:VENRS when I think they do not apply to the content I'm writing, and if WP:VENRS is cited as an authoritative page in a dispute, I will bring it to a more appropriate forum (e.g. WP:RSN).
  • "Ceding control to the community" is not something that needs an RFC. There is no single user who owns this page. WikiProjects are not private clubs, and cannot bar editors from participating in editing and consensus building on this page. If some users are attempting to do that, then that is a behavioral issue that should be taken care of.
  • Sanctioning users for citing an essay would be bizarre. I don't think this is an option, and definitely not one that can be enacted by an RFC in this talk page.
  • Deleting a page is not an outcome that can be enacted as a result of this RFC either. It would need to go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
• These are my two cents. MarioGom (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  On your first thought, once again, Venezuelan state media has been blacklisted by Wikipedia since before this essay was written. And since a WikiProject essay cannot suggest a source that hasn't gone through community discussion (i.e. Maduradas) be blacklisted, it will be considered more reliable. As a point of information before you or someone spins off on those tangents. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Kingsif: I don't disagree with Venezuelan state media being blacklisted (deprecated?) But the users who have maintained this list appear to have a bias against anything related to the government while defending things related to the opposition. For instance, La Iguana was listed in "Generally unreliable sources" with the simple description of "Pro-government opinionated". Are they funded by the government? Is it state-run? No context here about why they would be unreliable other than they support the government. However, when Venezuela-related sources that are described by WP:GREL outlets as "pro-opposition" 123 and context regarding the editorial skills of such sources is provided, those edits are quickly reverted to remove any possible relation to the opposition. WMrapids (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  TeleSUR has been deprecated (not blacklisted), but that does not include all state media in Venezuela. Anyway, my point is not arguing about specific sources in this RFC, which would probably need separate discussions. Just that I don't think it should deleted even if I disagree with some of its current assessments. MarioGom (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment for 1 status quo, maybe 3 if things get out of control: It's tagged as an essay at the begin, they're allowed to write an essay and link to it as "see my argument here". So, independent from the discussion about the quality of this site, the status itself seems ok to keep. Now I see from the given links that this essay got by the user NoonIcarus used more like a rule when deleting pro-Maduro (loosely categorized by me) sources from this list, not like an an essay. That's part of a general strong tendency I see in these edits to just link rules and essays for edits that aren't clear, like I don't see in their dispute why this simple sentence should be coatrack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runrunes&diff=prev&oldid=1159106150 , while half the article has the side topic of censorship against the media. I think it's understandable WMRapids got frustrated about that. To change the status of this page wouldn't change that problem though, maybe it can be made even more clear it's an essay in the intro or just make the "not" a guideline bold. --Casra (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• If there is a dispute on applicability bring it up at RSN. I'm not sure if that's any different from status quo, but whatever. Someone can write this down somewhere if they really want to, on this essay, another essay, maybe even in this very discussion, gasp basically, anywhere they want. If there are chronic and intractable issues and the relevant noticeboards start getting sick of it, that's when you start with the sanctions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Alpha3031: Should I provide a notification to this discussion on WP:RSN or a separate RfC? I'm not very familiar with WP:RSN, so I want to make sure things are done properly. Also, making any edits to the essay was near impossible due to WP:OWN issues (see edit history). WMrapids (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Starting multiple RfCs on the same topic is generally not recommended, just create a new section and maybe use {{FYI}} if you want a visual signpost. I'm not sure it'll be needed though since RfCs normally run for quite a while specifically so that interested editors should eventually meander in and comment.(though of course if you do do it better to do it earlier than later). My "bring it up at RSN" was intended more towards if there was an issue with a specific use of a specific source at a specific place and the essay is cited (though you can do it even if the essay wasn't cited). Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Could do {{subst:Please see|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources}} at RSN. But informing RSN may not be necessary because the {{RFC}} tag above brings in uninvolved editors via a bot that posts on random subscribed user's user talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Here from RSN. I'm not going to give an opinion on the RFC, but just wanted to say that projects maintaining a list of reliable/unreliable sources for their topic area is quite normal. The only issue would be if they said something was reliable, or unreliable, and the wider community was in disagreement (e.g. after a discussion at WP:RSN). As projects can't overrule more centralised discussions, but as long as that's not the case it usually quite helpful that projects maintain such lists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• The options laid out on the RFC are not a neutral presentation; of course WikiProjects can maintain lists of reliable sources. Also per AD in the post just above this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think that any of the specific proposals above quite capture my response, so I'll refrain from a bold !vote while hoping the closer will read this comment fully. Wikiprojects often create these sorts of lists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is one such list, for example, and the new page patrol tries to maintain a big compilation list at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide. All of these are essay-level in-and-of-themselves, and even WP:RSP is merely an explanatory supplement. The real power and utility in these is that they tend to reflect some sort of WikiProject/community discussion, rather than simply being one's own opinion. It might be wise to try to actually see if these contradict greater community consensus (I'm seeing different treatment of VoA here than at WP:RSP, for example). But if these seem to generally vibe with the community's general assessment of sources, and the issues are that the characterization of a limited number of specific sources is contested, then indiviudal discussions are likely the way forward.
  Other options, like sanctioning people citing an essay or deleting the page, seem out-of-line. We tend to not sanction editors for merely citing an essay in their arguments (what is the point of an essay if not to be referenced). Our deletion policy notes that, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, so deletion looks out of the question. Option 1 doesn't seem like an honest depiction of the status quo (surely, as an essay, this doesn't currently have binding power in the same way that WP:RS does), and Option 2 seems to also make the mistake of treating this as if it were WP:PAG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment This essay is not wikipedia policy, and nobody should treat it like it is. It is just an opinion supported by a small number of English-speaking pro-opposition Venezuelans. I wouldn't want anyone sanctioned for citing it, and I've got no problem with people seeing it, but it must be made clear that it absolutely can not be used to end an argument on sourcing, and adds no weight to the argument of the person who cites it.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? First this is English Wikipedia of course the participants speak English, secondly many of the users in WP:WikiProject Venezuela also demonstrate a hard work on Spanish Wikipedia, thirdly the whole point of this essay is to demonstrate the reliability of Venezuelan Spanish sources which often includes a closer perspective of the topics as seen by locals. this allows avoid US or other countries biases, or any kind of partisanship (as long as the sources reliability can be demonstrated).--ReyHahn (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. This is a non-neutrally framed RfC with bizarre options, as other editors have already noted. Option 1 is fine if "maintain status quo" means recognise that this is an essay and that it can be collectively improved based on the contributions of as wide a community as possible. Option 2 doesn't make any sense, as the community already has control. Option 3 is totally unacceptable and against the whole spirit of WP. Option 4 is silly and undoes a huge amount of hard work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC or option 5 or comment thanks for the notification, I could not write until now. I am not sure how to classify my opinion on this. I guess many users here have addressed the problems I have with this RfC including: nothing here deserves a removal as an essay, concerns of WP:POINT-like actions by the User:WMrapids, dismissal of other projects holding similar source guides, and seemingly biased options, including option 3, targeting specific sanction on users. That said I will propose an alternative option: let us accept that it is an essay (not enforcing anybody) but still work on a system to better improve the accuracy of the information here so we can more quickly gain consensus on Venezuelan topics. The best way to do this is to choose specific details in this page (maybe a single source, addition, removal or formatting issue) and open a formal discussion until we can move to the next topic, something similar to what WP:RSN has. Maybe the creation of a WP:WikiProject Venezuela/Noticeboard for this would be convenient for this. WP:WikiProject Venezuela also needs to be promoted and be taking more seriously, this essay is almost as important as Wikiproject itself, as long no enough activity on this page and the project, the harder it is for Wikipedia to highlight the important issues on Venezuelan articles, solve them and move on without revisiting them over and over.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: VENRS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As it can be seen above, an RfC regarding this essay has been started. Pinging all contributors to the page until now: @Kingsif, ReyHahn, Novem Linguae, John of Reading, Ira Leviton, Buidhe, Stephenamills, Wilfredor, and MarioGom: NoonIcarus (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am busy this weekend so I will contribute in due time, but maybe a message in the Wikiproject page will also be welcomed.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have also left a notification at the Wikiproject's page, per your request. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

:NoonIcarus, please review WP:CANVASS as you are pinging previous users you have directly worked beside while constructing this controversial essay. WMrapids (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: Please take a look at the page's statistics before making these suggestions: I have notified every single contributor to the page, without any distinctions, including editors with which I have had editorial differences in the past, and I have likewise left an invitation in the WikiProject's talk page to participate ([33]. Please be mindful also of WP:KETTLE, have you yourself have been subject to WP:CANVASS allegations in a currently open move discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Those were editors who participated in a similar move proposal, not editors that I directly collaborated with in building a controversial article. WMrapids (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This is increasingly frustrating and exhausting, but I have to respond because these are strong accusations and you have sticked a note in the RfC:

Out of the 9 notifications, Kingsif and ReyHahn are main contributors, but the remaining 7 have only made a single edit each, which is easily verifiable in the edit history.

Novem Linguae made two edits placing a category:[34][35] John of Reading fixed a typo: [36], Ira Leviton fixed a reference: [37], Buidhe fixed a note: [38], Stephenamills fixed another typo: [39], Wilfredor gave the description to El Universal: [40], and MarioGom modified Voice of America's description: [41].

Canvassing happens when the notifications are expected to influence the outcome in one's favor, but given how little these editors have contributed as a whole your assertion is clearly misleading. I would like to kindly ask you to strike your comment as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are the precedents, but this ping looks fair game. For what it's worth, I think I've been in disagreement with NoonIcarus at most encounters I remember related to Venezuela. So I'm pretty sure I was not pinged to strengthen their position. MarioGom (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't canvassing. NoonIcarus is just pinging most people that may be interested here. This has had relatively low participation, and bringing more people in is probably a good idea. As NoonIcarus has wrote, most of these people have made only minor edits. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Striking my comment above.--WMrapids (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

La Iguana

A quick search at Venezuela's main fact checkers will quickly prove that La Iguana has repeatedly published misleading or false information, without making any corrections: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54], including the repost of information from deprecated sources, such as RT and Sputnik. I could go on to talk at lengths and explain each one, but a more important thing to point out is that La Iguana usually amplifies government rhetoric, which includes taking part of the Alex Saab support campaign and its disinformation: [55][56][57].

While we're at it, I'll point out that several of these fact checks confirm many of the conclusions of the list regarding reliability. Aporrea, Con el Mazo Dando, Lechuguinos, Venezolana de Televisión, Últimas Noticias, Venezuela News, Alba Ciudad and Misión Verdad, as well as Telesur, HispanTV and government ministries, have all been held responsible of the same issues. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Could you place these as sources in the list?--WMrapids (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: Gladly,  Done. This page has usually relied on the discussions rather than the references for its descriptions, but I see that references have become more prevalent lately. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Links to the discussions on the talk pages might be adequate too as I see a few examples of that. More citations would avoid future questions or edits that might take away time from this project. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Before I forget and while we're at it, here's a description of Venezolana de Televisión by the BBC: The government's main TV mouthpiece is Venezolana de Television (VTV), which carries Mr Maduro's speeches and reports on the activities of his ministers. Its coverage routinely ignores the opposition. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Source description dispute

@LokiTheLiar, NoonIcarus, JML1148, Kingsif, SandyGeorgia, Number 57, Novem Linguae, MarioGom, Casra, ActivelyDisinterested, Red-tailed hawk, Boynamedsue, Bobfrombrockley, and ReyHahn: While you are all here (What a lucky break! Now I have a captive audience!), could you please provide input on the source description dispute?

How should we describe the disputed sources?

• Option 1: Describe sources as "pro-opposition"
• Option 2: Describe sources as "independent"
• Option 3: Describe sources as both "independent" and "pro-opposition"

Before I am accused of canvassing again, you were all involved in the recent RfC discussion, so please feel free to take a look. I want to leave this list better than how I found it! :) WMrapids (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 4: Case by case: I think this question, again, is horribly malformed. If you want descriptions to be accurate and reflective, you can't decide to uniformly label them all the same; even where they are similar there will be nuance.

Things to consider when deciding case-by-case: are the sources both independent and pro-opposition? Do those things guides their editing policies? And remember, while "pro-opposition" in terms of Venezuelan media carries certain connotations, the same phrase can easily draw a different understanding from editors unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics – without even acknowledging that it's unfairly weighted due to making such sources seem like the equivalent opposite of "pro-government" when this (in terms of propaganda, fact-checking, neutral reporting etc.) is simply not the case. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is going to go case by case. I expect very few "independent", as most sources have a political point of view. I can't think of many English sources on politics that I would describe as "independent".Boynamedsue (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's extremely difficult to find neutral sources online, and Venezuela is even harder from what I can tell. There's a distinction between "pro-opposition", meaning unequivocally supporting the opposition and rarely criticising them, and "independent", meaning they aren't supportive of the government but not necessarily always supporting the opposition. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif, Boynamedsue, and JML1148: Just wanted to point out that these are the specific sources disputed. I'm not talking about a blanket description, this is about specific sources that NoonIcarus is marking as "disputed" if they are described as "pro-opposition". I provided more "nuance" by describing Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo as "less biased and more rigorous", though this wasn't good enough for NoonIcarus. I explained various times that independent media can also have a political bias; BBC even uses the phrase "opposition-leaning independent Venezuelan news websites", so I don't see the issue.--WMrapids (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Giving single-phrase options for multiple sources is just a bad idea. They all need appropriate nuance. And as we can see in one comment above, a user has mistook "independent" for "neutral", a common misconception in the US that you do say you are trying to avoid.

In any case, I think a preface to these discussions should be that editorial independence and political bias are discussed in terms of reliability, specific to information on Venezuela, where these things may have an influence on how likely the sources are to fact-check. And that should probably be included in any description; there's your example: Efecto Cocuyo is reliable for fact-checking across the board. Perhaps more pertinent are the cases where an independent but government-leaning newspaper may decline to fact-check claims made by the government but is otherwise reliably accurate. That's what matters when it comes to using them as a source. Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 4: Case by case per Kingsif, and as I have stated in the main RfC. The description of each outlet should be unique, and I confident that there are better qualifiers that only "pro-opposition", "independent" or both at the same time. See also the main discussion regarding the issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Latest changes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: describing bias is something that we also do at WP:RSP, but note that POV or bias should not be the basis of a reliability assessment. A mere pro-government or anti-government bias is not a proxy of reliability (and this page seems to rely on that assumption to some degree). MarioGom (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this. Every outlet has a bias even if they are independent. I lean towards Option 3 because of balance concerns and, like you say, WP:RSP does the same thing. It is important to provide all of the context to editors who may use this list as a resource. It is the same for readers too; provide the whole picture and let them decide because we are not here to be gatekeepers on their perception of sources. WMrapids (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the context, but I'd lean towards Option 1. I think we should avoid describing a source as "independent" when what we mean is that it's anti-Maduro. That's leaning into WP:PUFFERY territory IMO. Loki (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of WP:PUFF present, 1234 though not surprisingly, the usual three users disagreed 1 or placed the WP:PUFF wording essentially since this page's creation.12 WMrapids (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll comment on this since it has been put forward several times. The first version of the essay (created nearly four years ago), was written with a more personal and essay-ish tone, and it was arguably more useful as a compilation of the most prevalent Venezuelan sources, before evaluating its reliability. Over time, it has expanded and improved part of its more personal tone (see the last version since the proposed changes for comparison). I think it's safe to safe we didn't expect it to grow so much, and to illustrate this, I'll point out that there have been more edits in the page in the last 2 weeks than in the last 3 years before. In the same vein, I want to be clear that I don't oppose the improvement of the tone (and the diffs don't show issues comparable with the present at first).

The main issue with the question, which is related with the individualization of the assessment, is that the perception of La Patilla (RfC here) is being extended to other articles that are quite different from one another. I have provided examples where they are not called "pro-opposition", where they show editorial independence by criticizing the opposition (as well as covering the government's side of the story) and overall show more impartiality (see the discussion above). --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

From my review of the sources, the ones described as pro-opposition by WP:GREL sources appear to be pro-opposition (Efecto Cocuyo immediately considered Guaidó as president, come on). The sources even differentiate between pro-opposition, opposition-leaning, etc. Efecto Cocuyo is more reliable than La Patilla, which had direct links to Guaidó and is very biased. The way Efecto Cocuyo is currently listed according to the sources is accurate; it appears pro-opposition but fairly reliable due to its rigorous editorial practices. All of this context should not be an issue. WMrapids (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 4: Case by case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The options listed above are faulty (not what we do in any case for evaluating reliability); see my previous response. Case by case, accounting for nuance, measuring reliability the way it is always done is the obvious answer.

And please remember to focus on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.--WMrapids (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4, Comments (Summoned by bot): I would think case by case. With the intent shown of making improvements, I would not label the sources unless a particular source claims one way or the other. or has been labeled by other sources. As best as possible, use the sources to show neutrality and let the reader decide. Just my opinion but it is likely not a lone horse. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment While I'm at it: unidadvenezuela.org, voluntadpopular.com and Guaidó's National Communication Center are examples of opposition sources in Venezuela, not media outlets that have independent staff and have been critical of the opposition in the past. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Caraota Digital

Hi @Bobfrombrockley:. I wanted to reach back and comment that Caraota Digital was originally placed in a lower section due to some of its sensationalistic articles, and overall for having less editorial oversight than other outlets. I can try looking out for examples later, if you wish. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but I don't think we can just call it "yellow press" without sources for that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Bolivarian Communication and Information System

I wanted to quickly comment that the Bolivarian Communication and Information System is currently added to the list not only because it is a state source, but also because the related outlets usually share the same news articles with essentially no changes, copying the neutrality and reliability issues of the original. This is also pretty common in social media, where official accounts ranging from ministries and embassies are used to retweet and spread an official narrative, including Twitter hashtag trends. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS/N

A discussion about WP:VENRS has been started at the WP:RS/N (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS). NoonIcarus (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Archived version: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS. Boud (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction

I want to delve into this more deeply into this once I have more time and energy because the issue has simply become exhausting, but I'll comment on this edit ([58]) real quick now that I have reviewed the source: the same introduction of the publication says that: "What was, a few years ago, a scene of polarization between heavily biased anti-Chavez and pro-Chavez media, reflecting a divided society, is now one of, direct or indirect, government-control of most of the public discourse", which is a lot more accurate than the proposed change.

The quoted text says Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society [...] On the other hand, a number of outlets are owned by individuals linked to the traditional economic elite, which remains closely connected to the two former ruling parties. [...] The few independent media challenging Maduro’s administration that still survive, most of them being online, suffer from blockages, shortage of paper, and/or administrative constraints. All of this suggests this is being used in a past tense and distinguishes online outlets from the historical opposition. Moreover, this was a publication from 2016, seven years ago, just when the new generation of online outlets was starting.

As such, this is not an accurate way of describing the current online media landscape in Venezuela, which is the main topic of this essay. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: Considering the current discussions and since this is the latest active dispute, I wanted to give you the heads up and notify you about this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: I saw when striking my edit. There is a lot going on between the ANI, RfCs and La Patilla. I appreciate the notification, though I think a larger audience beyond this talk page (which has limited participation) is necessary. WMrapids (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of these sites launched prior to the publication in mid-2016 (Tal Cual in 2000, Prodavinci in 2009, Armando.Info, La Patilla and Runrunes in 2010, El Pitazo in 2014, Efecto Cocuyo in 2015), so the argument that this is outdated or talking about the past is moot.

The inclusion of IMS as a source for the government's control of the media sphere in Venezuela is okay as well.

We should place both excerpts into the article. WMrapids (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

My comment was related to WP:RSAGE: if by 2016 the sources already mentions the control of the government over the media, imagine what it can say 7 years later, when the situation has definitely not improved. If a mention of the historic polarization is wishes that's alright, but it must be differentiated from the current situation (just like the source already does). --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Political stance sections

@WMrapids: Hi. I think that the discussion regarding outlets can be centralized here, taking into account that the criteria would be different from the one at the essay. Among the disputed outlets (Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Pitazo, Tal Cual and El Nacional (Venezuela)), El Nacional is the only one that belongs to the "older" media generations, along with Tal Cual. As such, the reputation and description as critical of the government is a lot more grounded, as it is explained in the source from the section above and feuds among Chávez and the newspaper were common. If I recall correctly El Nacional was supportive of Chávez before his election, but sources are needed for that and the onus would be on me to provide them.

As for the rest, and in general, I think it might be easier, more specific and clearer to provided positions regarding specific policies or events. I'm not sure how difficult it might be talking about media outlets instead of, say, NGOs, but it allow for more coverage. For the time being, I wanted to ask if you considered the label "critical of the government" to be an acceptable alternative to "opposition" in case it is decided to be kept. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Recently in this edit, I placed that "criticism" does not equal "opposition". This seems like a play on semantics on how to describe sources; you also suggested that an "opposition" outlet could also not be independent, though both are possible simultaneously. So, when we have a source that describes a media outlet as "opposition", "opposition-leaning", etc., it would be WP:OR to describe the outlet as "critical" or something similar because they are obviously referring to the "Venezuelan opposition". Of course an "opposition" outlet would be "critical", but being designated as part of the "opposition" suggests more political involvement than simple criticism.

In summary, per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, the sources are described as "opposition" and "independent" while also possibly being "critical" towards the government (which, again, the latter is assumed through WP:OR and not verified by sources). Due to the verifiability provided by reliable sources that such outlets are both in opposition to the government and independent, the wording should be: XXXX is an independent opposition outlet. WMrapids (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to come back to this later. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Changing the wording with a similar meaning is common practice in articles, particularly if you look towards compromises with editors or when there are issues regarding copyright. In fact, "critical of the government" was the term used in the stable version of the Tal Cual article.

My main contention with the description is that it is not an adjective used by the majority of sources. It does not represent a majority point of view (per WP:WEIGHT, and by extention WP:RS and WP:VERIFY as well). This is the main issue that I pointed out when I commented on the description as "independent": it is not that it is mutually exclusive term, it is that the term is used instead of "opposition". If I didn't mentioned it before, allow me to rephrase it. If "independent opposition" is an adequate description, then why isn't it used by more sources?

I could go on about this for a while, but it's probably more representative showing the own sources used in each article (including only the ones in English):

• Efecto Cocuyo: Efecto Cocuyo is an independent media platform that delivers critical reporting and hard-hitting investigations (IJNet), Efecto Cocuyo (in Spanish, “firefly effect”), an independent Venezuelan news site launched in 2015 (Global Investigative Journalism Network), Now Efecto Cocuyo, or “firefly effect”, is a news outlet financed through a local incubator and crowdfunding, run by investigative journalist Luz Mely Reyes (Financial Times)
• Runrunes: Bocaranda and his son, Nelson E. Bocaranda, took “Runrunes” online, turning the radio show into a digital platform for breaking news and investigative reporting (NiemanReports), Bocaranda also recently reported on his website, Runrunes, that he was the victim of a cyber attack (LatAm Journalism Review by the Knight Center)
• El Pitazo: Venezuelan digital news sites, including El Pitazo (Caracas Chronicles), Venezuelan news site El Pitazo (Knight Center), Independent news sites Armando.info and El Pitazo (Knight Center)
• El Nacional: This nation’s largest independent newspaper — El Nacional (Washington Post), Venezuela’s biggest independent daily, El Nacional (Committee to Protect Journalists)

The only possible exceptions are Tal Cual, which is currently a stub and whose article already used "critical of the government" in the original version, and El Nacional, whose historical position needs more depth, has I mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, "opposition" and "independent" are two different things that you are attempting to conflate into a false dichotomy. The descriptions of "independent" or "opposition" are totally unrelated since editorial independence has nothing to do with political positioning. The Guardian is independent and is described as "centre-left". So it's not just one or the other; these outlets can be described as both "opposition" and "independent" per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. WMrapids (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point again, and I'm sorry if it is because I have not explained it well enough. The issue is not that most sources use the term "independent": it is that they, in the majority of cases, do not use "opposition" at all. Please let me know your thoughts regarding my original ideas, as I think there can be an useful solution to work from there. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources describing these sources as "independent" are usually describing it in the context that the sources are facing conflict with the government, which would warrant the "independent" description. However, when focusing on political positioning, these sources are described as "pro-opposition", "opposition-leaning", etc. WMrapids (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: Alright, I can finally come back at this. I can answer again to the last points, but to avoid going in circles over the same issues I will focus in the proposals I first offered: over these weeks, when I had the chance, I looked after editorial articles of the newspapers regarding specific events: La Salida (the 2014 protests), the 2017 referendum, the 2018 presidential election and Guaidó's "National Salvation Agreement", just to mention some. I did not have luck with any. I was, however, able to find more information about El Nacional just as I expected, specifically about the 90s and 2002. As such, I have restored the articles last stable versions, removing the tags in the process, but included some changes, such as including Efecto Cocuyo's interview to Guaidó and the new references to El Nacional's article. Please let me know if you have proposals of your own to continue working on this. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: I’ll agree with keeping the “stable” version for now, though we still have not concluded what needs to be done here. As always, there needs to be more users involved and I don’t want to rush this. In a few weeks if there is still limited involvement, would you agree to opening a noticeboard discussion? I’m not trying to rush anything, but we should conclude these months-long discussions so we can move forward on to more constructive editing. WMrapids (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I have become wary and tired of RfCs overall lately, but if the operaning wording is carefully chosen and uninvolved feedback can be received, it would definitely be helpful. We might want to hope La Patilla's discussion to be closed if needed, and maybe Operation Gideon's too if it helps. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: We should try to finish this dispute since it is arising across multiple articles. Looking at Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Biased_sources, it says "A source can be biased without compromising its independence. When a source strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent." While some sources say that a source is independent, it can also contain bias. Like biased sources where their bias is not related to reliability, independence is not related to bias. There's no issue with saying that a source has a bias and is independent. So, what is currently your main concern with describing a source as both "independent" and "opposition"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMrapids (talk • contribs)

@WMrapids: Hi. I did not receive the ping, I think that messages must be signed first, but thank you regardless.

Two things are being conflated here: that a source is allegedly biased or that it is allegedly from the opposition. Some references have used the "opposition" description in passing, but virtually none that discuss bias have been provided, and there haven't been any arguments of why they should be considered biased sources.

Quite the opposite: at #La Patilla update, I contrasted Efecto Cocuyo's editorial line with La Patilla's, pointing out to their inclusion of the government's point of view as an example of their impartiality. Several sources have a similar editorial stance in this regard.

I hope this helps to clarify any questions. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Apologies for the unsigned comment. You are actually making things too complicated; sources plainly describe these outlets as "opposition", "pro-opposition", "opposition-leaning", etc. This means they are aligned with the Venezuelan opposition, which is the opposition of the current Venezuelan government, which is a bias against the government. So instead of making things less clear, can you share you opinions on Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Biased_sources saying "A source can be biased without compromising its independence. When a source strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent"? Your main argument seems to be that an outlet cannot be independent and biased, though what was previously mentioned shows that the two are unrelated, making your argument moot.

So is NPOV your remaining concern? We can ask about it at the NPOV noticeboard. WMrapids (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Alba Ciudad

This list fortunately presents little of concern, but this little gem should keep Alba Ciudad where it is now on the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Shameful. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Contrast with Tal Cual in next section, #Sample of Ultimas Noticias contrasted with Tal Cual for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sample of Ultimas Noticias contrasted with Tal Cual for reliability

See sample here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

My queries

Barely glancing at the list for the first time, starting my queries here (not comprehensive, work in progress). There are some newer sources I am not familiar with. No hurry to respond; just parking them here as I encounter them ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ultimas Noticias

... has always been a tabloid.

• How does it come to be in the second category here (Additional considerations apply) instead of the third (Generally unreliable)?
• Is there a sample for the statement, "It may be reliable for non-politics, particularly non-news"?
• This statement is begging for a source: "Before Hanson's purchase, it was a leading non-partisan news source in Venezuela that covered protests and campaigned for press freedom; earlier articles are seen as reliable sources."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I will also try to respond to the queries outlet by outlet, when I have the chance, if that's alright.

Ultimas Noticias' description is based mostly in its 2019 brief discussion, now archived (Wikipedia talk:VENRS/Archive 1#Últimas Noticias), which is summarized in its entry. From what I gather, Últimas Noticias investigation team would grow and improve a lot more in the early 2010s. Besides the investigation on Bassil Da Costa's killing (which I should mention, I understand helped to dismiss the murder charges against Leopoldo López and would be erased from the newspaper's archive after its sale), it's also worth mentioning the newspaper's 2011 investigation on Derwick Associates, which led to an inquiry in the National Assembly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all of that; it helps me understand why it is where it is. I wonder then if it's necessary to repeat some general BLP info somewhere on this page about not using the sources in the second category for BLP sourcing? I only ended up engaging Ultimas Noticias via BLP issues, and haven't looked beyond that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Maduradas

How does this source come to be in the second category here (Additional considerations apply) instead of the third (Generally unreliable)? Samples? How is it more reliable than, for example, PanAm Post? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There are a few mentions of Maduradas in the discussions about Lechuginos (first one) and DollarToday. Maduradas is usually reliable for day-to-day reporting, but its evident bias at times, some sensationalist titles and sometimes yellow press articles demands Maduradas to be categorized under Additional considerations. I personally think this is a category where PanAm Post should be too, specially after its most troublesome editors left (Orlando Avendaño, Emmanuel Rincón and Vanessa Vallejo) and founded El American, but that's another matter entirely that needs the opening of an RfC at the respective noticeboard.

We can take today's main page as a sample for the outlet's reliability:

• Significant number of businessmen "are interested" in investing in the Special Economic Zones announced by Maduro.
• Delsa Solórzano denounces death threats against her by alleged ELN members (+Communiqué)
• 3-year-old Venezuelan girl dies in Chicago: she got sick on migrant relocation trip
• Communist Party of Venezuela condemns the "arbitrary" intervention of the TSJ and evaluates legal actions (+Communiqué)
• Witnesses summoned to testify in case that could lead to Trump's fourth indictment
• Venezuela accumulates inflation of 121.3 % through July, according to BCV figures

I think we can agree this content is uncontroversial and can be used for further verification. However, if there is proof of unreliable content and it is brought to discussion, a downgrade would definitely be needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, and since PanAm Post probably landed in the wrong spot via an RFC, I shouldn't use that as a basis of comparison. I am as yet unfamiliar with El American. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

El American

El American mostly has an alt-right editorial line and has headlines such as the following (which I'll also leave as examples for its current categorization):

• The Radical Socialist Roots of Fascism (16 August 2021)
• How Marxism Inspired the Over Sexualization of Children in Schools to Destroy American Society (23 November 2021)
• Disney’s ‘Not-at-All Secret Gay Agenda’ (7 April 2022)
• Why is Florida’s Battle Against Cultural Marxism Important for America? (9 May 2022)

It is bad. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Caracas Chronicles

How does this source come to be in the second category here (Additional considerations apply) instead of the third (Generally unreliable)? Samples? It's an opinion blog. It's best value was in the reader comments, as the readers kept the authors and editors honest and aptly pointed out many times where CC missed the boat, and CC shut down the comments, making it just a partisan blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Caracas Chronicles is more focused in analysis rather than opinions, and is more similar to Prodavinci in that regard. I still need to get more familiar with WP:EXPERTSPS, but Caracas Chronicles counts with authors such as Rafael Arráiz Lucca, historian and member of the Venezuelan Academy of Language (Articles). I can look for other examples if needed, and I don't think that referencing should be troublesome if there's attribution, but it's understandable if there are further concerns regarding reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Considering the answers to the two above already, a response here is probably not needed then, as long as we keep BLP restrictions in mind when using such sources. (As it was pointed out that I linked to Caracas Chronicles twice years ago, I will seek those out and probably remove them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry we edit conflicted and crossed in the mail. But on one other point, if the reliability of CC rests on Quico, it should also be remembered that he didn't write all articles there, and not all authors there were journalists or EXPERTSPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

First case, found a newer better source anyway, and second case, removed with explanation (it was useful for the translation, which became unnecessary contextually after the content was twice merged). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sure, that sounds alright. There are probably facts that can be referenced with Caracas Chronicles, but most definitely you would find other sources for that coverage at any rate. The same would apply to Últimas Noticias: there can be important investigations that they carried out, but their results would probably be reported by other outlets. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Except Caracas Chronicles is not a tabloid ... I don't like to use it as a source, but it's still head and shoulders above Ultimas Noticias. I recognize that Ultimas Noticias has scored a few good ones, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course. From what I understand, the Additional considerations apply category is mostly to distinguish its before and after purchase periods. It can be downgraded further, if it is considered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

El Universal

... needs to be divided into old and new. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Forgot to back at this. I added a description similar to the one in Últimas Noticias. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Vheadline

I have noticed that in the early years of Wikipedia and Venezuelan articles, Vheadline was used as a source and raised concerns several times due to bias and unreliability: Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 3#Chavez's speeches, Talk:Israel–Venezuela relations/Archive 1#Ref cleanup, Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 15#Income growth with the poorest sectors of society, Talk:Elliott Abrams#VHeadline, a credible source?, Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 26#Pathetic, User talk:CRGreathouse/Archive 1#Hugo Chavez.

There should be a review on the content referenced by the source. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you link an "About" page for Vheadline? I could not find one.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: I had to look into the web archives to find it: About. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well two things to be careful here with it, it's official stance "pro-governance" in the sense that they prefer a government to anarchy (not sure if I get what that means effectively) and the anonymity of the sources and editorial board makes it a very suspicious (are they even journalists?). Also it does not help that in most articles I have seen today are written like a personal blog.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Prodavinci

As an example of their excellent editorial process, I want to offer this Prodavinci article I just found where they correct El País, one of Spain's main newspapers, on a biographical fact: "Miguel Otero Silva no estuvo en esa guerra" NoonIcarus (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

La Patilla update

Now that the dust has fortunately settled about Venezuelan sources, I wanted to leave a comment here about La Patilla's coverage. I have noticed that in the case Los Rastrojos, when Guaidó had pictures taken with paramilitary members in Colombia, La Patilla's coverage was way more uncritical ([59][60][61][62][63][64]) than counterparts such as Efecto Cocuyo ([65][66][67][68][69]), which has included declarations from government officials.

I believe this should only confirm the current description provided to La Patilla, as well as demonstrated the quality of outlets, such as Efecto Cocuyo, in comparison. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Verifikado 2.0

@NoonIcarus, Kingsif, and Hipal: Looking at the previous discussion, it seems that nothing was truly determined on the reliability of Verifikado. Much of the support for Verifikado's reliability comes from opposition sources, which have themselves been questioned for their own reliability. I don't intend to open another RfC (I've done enough of those for now), though I will mentioned that this was proposed last year. Is there any way that we can determine the reliability of Verifikado from more independent sources? WMrapids (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for starting a conversation before reaching for an RfC. Do you have any specific examples that raise doubts about the source? Also I have more problems with the fact that their site seems to have been taken. Is it [70]? --ReyHahn (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote previously: Take a summary of past discussions to RSN. --Hipal (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we summarize what's the problem before going to RSN?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I also don't want to take this to an RfC (especially since this is a long-defunct website), but that seems to be where it was heading in the last discussion. WMrapids (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope you are not fixating too much on RfC. This is the first time that you have responded to the first question I made yesterday. Patience is key.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You should be less vague and say directly if there is any issue with La Patilla publishing content from Verifikado, and if so, why. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Opposition sources as in La Patilla, El Nacional and Efecto Cocuyo. Is that less vague? WMrapids (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: The dispute stems from this citation in the Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis article: Fact checking website Verifikado determined that the assertion is false [31% rise in the number of deaths between 2017 and 2018 was due to the 2017 sanctions, and that 40,000 people in Venezuela may have died as a result]; it points out that even the report admits "we will never know what the counterfactual data would have been" (i.e. what would have happened without the sanctions), and shows that the report minimizes the responsibility of Maduro's government in the deaths).

This is the single instance where Verfikado is used throughout Wikipedia  , and the fact checker is currently inactive, so if a discussion is started in RSN it would be way more useful to ask regarding this specific statement instead of a generic question about reliability. If you ask me, there's nothing controversial or debatable the statement because it is literally citing the original CEPR report itself (page 23, Again, we can never know what the counterfactual would have been, interestingly the second time that this is mentioned). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that the whole concern? Verifikado's conclusions are quite in line with other sources, and also for the reasons you mention, I am failing to understand why this would even be disputed. Maybe someone can better clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If they are indeed "in line with other sources", then we should use the other sources. WMrapids (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the issue; why do you think it unreliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, I also recall Verifikado being used at the Blackouts article; what happened there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Verifikado was removed from certain pages [71][72] by WMrapids right about the same time that this discussion started. On the grounds that it was unreliable and that another source was already cited.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids maybe you can explain what you mean by "possibly unreliable" as grounds for removing a source that is entirely in line with other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That is, what exactly is your basis for calling it unreliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It was tagged as unreliable, there were previous concerns in discussions and the website is no longer available. Verifikado was a small, non-notable website that existed for about three years at most? That makes it difficult to have third parties provide a review of such a website. Information that NoonIcarus provided for reliability on Verifikado were essentially puff pieces and opposition journalist back patting, nothing to support reliability.

Though it may not be directly related to reliability, the editor of Verifikado, Fernando Núñez-Noda, had a strong bias and was clearly opposition. Núñez-Noda is a Venezuelan living in Miami for "several years" who believed that it was "clear that there is no alternative to Guaidó". He described the Maduro government as a "dictatorship", that there were "millions of Venezuelans in the world, overwhelming opposition" and that "The good thing is that at least something auspicious and hopeful happened: Juan Guaidó and his interim government". Regarding the removal of Maduro, he would say that "the [armed forces] or parts of it that must decide between the illegality of a weakened and corrupted regime to its essence, and an alternative that takes Venezuela out of the deepest gap that has fallen in its history" and he asked his Twitter followers how Guaidó could remove Maduro from office.

As you have said, there are other sources available saying the same thing, so we could just use those sources. WMrapids (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted, backtrack, and remember the issue at hand: one of the cited statements at hand in the 2019 Venezuelan blackouts article is: A risk management consultant cited by El Nacional dismissed the statement by government officials and assured that the design of the hydroelectric plant system does not allow "attacks" of that type. He said, "These systems can not be attacked remotely. They are closed control systems designed for generating turbines to work synchronously," and that would be "like hacking a refrigerator or a blender.". The statement at Venezuelan presidential crisis has a similar vein: Experts and state-run Corpoelec (Corporación Eléctrica Nacional) sources attributed the electricity shortages to lack of maintenance, underinvestment, corruption and to a lack of technical expertise in the country resulting from a brain drain. Since this information is cited from El Nacional, there's the question again of what statement is supposedly unreliable and why.

The reasons provided so far are attacks on character and essentially ad hominem arguments, focusing only on Verifikado but not why the specific statements should be questioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about that. Restoring, but I can recall that the blackout statements were essentially citing other sources too. So, again, there should be more specific concerns besides from "being cited by 'opposition' outlets". --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: I can tell you what I know of it, and maybe that can help; it must be said that being cited by other outlets is usually an indication of reliability, and your personal questioning of those other outlets' reliability is nothing to discredit that. It may well be various outlets with similar alignments using each other as agreement, but that's not inherently non-notable, just a bias we have to be aware of. Okay, so: VerifiKado was set up around 2019, in Florida/registered in Florida, as an investigative journalism site to fact check Maduro propaganda claims for the Venezuelan diaspora who were not living through the situation. With the website down, it might have been hard to check the credentials of the people doing this - but we do know that the director of VerifiKado was Fernando Núñez-Noda, who is/was a journalist for El Nacional, HuffPost, Univision, so in terms of expertise, he has it. It has worked with recognised NGOs,[73] and has been cited (twice) in a book by Juan Rodulfo (very legitimate author, known for Politics explained for Millennials). So that's what I know. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

How do you know about Verifikado's background in Florida? Do you have a source? You also cite a Caracas Chronicles article (which users have had issues with in the past) which says "CFZ launched with support from fact-checking organization VerifiKado and NGOs Fundaredes and ElMedioEresTu", but it says nothing about Verifikado working directly with the NGOs. And finally, with all due respect, the Rodulfo book looks like a bargain bin find that was randomly published in Nueva Esparta (Politics explained for Millennials has a whopping 2 stars on Amazon as well).

Do you have anything else? WMrapids (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anything else? I said I can tell you what I know. That is what I have offered. That is all I will offer. I am not going to get into further debate, especially since your response is an attempt to start an argument with a bunch of "I don't like it". How do you know about Verifikado's background in Florida? Do you have a source? I know it like I know The Guardian was founded in Manchester - I just do, I probably read it somewhere or someone I trust told me. I reply to this point to address your source question, in that it's a fallacy to request and you seem to be holding this outlet/any Venezuelan outlets you dislike in general to a higher standard than you should. Much like RS/perennial discussions, there is no requirement for sources to be presented when users are saying why or why not they have a certain opinion on reliability and usability of different outlets. Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Who wrote this essay? + Concerns

@Boynamedsue: In reply to your assertion, that this essay/list is "written largely by Noonicarus", I double-checked. Turns out page data indicates that although NoonIcarus has >50% of the edits, of the added text, 48% is attributed to WMrapids and 31% is NoonIcarus.
I was staring to reply at WP:AN/I, but I am trying to limit how much is added to it. I agree with you that way too few editors are involved in this essay/list. What's worse, I notice sources being declared unreliable with no evidence and no sources that agree with the claim. It seems to be MERE EDITOR OPINION. Sources should be discussed at WP:RS/N before being added here, not unilaterally declared "unreliable" by a single editor's beliefs. If no one disagrees, that doesn't mean the opinion has a consensus of editors--especially when so few see the page.
It is not even a little surprising to me that WMrapids posted all those RfC's with options like

• Option 2: WikiProject Venezuela cedes control of the article to the Wikipedia community
• Option 3: Future sanctions for users who cite the page similar to Wikipedia policy on the project
• Option 4: Delete page and refer to existing WP:RSP

If I were active in 2023, I would have been supportive of the efforts to address valid concerns about this list. I had seen it years ago and was just as concerned then about how every source I had seen that was critical of Juan Guaido was simultaneously banned and put in this list. I didn't even try to edit it.
And even though I assert that source quality should be discussed at WP:RS/N rather than the edit-wars in this essay, I do not support those WP:RfCs declaring a countless array of sources mostly reliable and/or mostly unreliable, as I chimed in at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Where_do_the_RfC_options_come_from?_Who_decided_these_were_the_official_four?_They're_bad. That's partly how so many sources that give a different view end up on the unreliable list here. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the standard for adding sources to these WikiProject reliable sources lists is lower than for WP:RSPSOURCES, and that RSN discussions are not required. These WikiProject reliable sources lists are just a documentation of local consensus, with most discussions of them occurring on WikiProject reliable source list talk pages (i.e. here). With that said, feel free to get some specific discussions going here to fix any sources that look to be inaccurately categorized, and feel free to notify other pages with something like subst:Please see in order to get some increased participation here.

In general I support the idea of categorizing sources into reliable, no consensus, unreliable. This is super useful for things like CiteHighlighter scripts, giving a wide array of editors the ability to see at a glance if a source is usually trustworthy, if it needs some scrutiny before deciding whether or not to use it, or if it is usually untrustworthy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: From previous discussions, Novem Linguae seems to explain things correctly. The bar is quite low for WikiProject essays/lists and while some of the sources placed were discussed, many were added arbitrarily. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I got from the former RfCs is that if we truly want to know how appropriate a source is for including in an article and if there is a significant dispute about it, then users should take the discussion to WP:RSN for each individual source. This is not the page for community-wide determinations. I think the main issue that occurred was that NoonIcarus was using the essay as policy to remove hundreds of citations, which was inappropriate.

Overall, this list could be helpful with more input from other users and is useful as a stepping stone for sourcing on Venezuelan topics, but we must remember that context matters and that if a dispute were to arise about the validity of a source specifically within an article, then WP:RSN would be more appropriate. WMrapids (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You're free to start individual discussions on the sources if you disagree with any of the descriptions. Besides, this list always uses the description in WP:RS/P when there is one. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation of foreign sources

After the use of this article by El Carabobeño (FBI investiga alianza del Tren de Aragua y la Mara Salvatrucha en Nueva York), which cites  New York Post (RSP entry) and all of the previous discussions about some citations of  Breitbart (RSP entry), I feel that at least there should be a comment regarding the use of foreign sources (specifically American ones) or about international news.

I have the feeling that some Venezuelan outlets are not as knowledgeable about the track record of these sources as an American audience or as Wikipedia editors. The best solution to this arguably is using common sense, evaluating articles on a case to case basis, and always examining which is the original author for the information. This probably shouldn't weight on the reporting inside Venezuela. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)